Consciousness in humans and other things with Anil K Seth | The Royal Society
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 มี.ค. 2024
- Anil K Seth is Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex, where he is also Director of the Sussex Centre for Consciousness Science. He is also Co-Director of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) Program on Brain, Mind, and Consciousness, and of the Leverhulme Doctoral Scholarship Programme: From Sensation and Perception to Awareness. Professor Seth is Editor-in-Chief of Neuroscience of Consciousness (Oxford University Press). His most recent book is Being You: A New Science of Consciousness.The Royal Society is a Fellowship of many of the world's most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence.
The Michael Faraday Prize and Lecture 2023 is awarded to Professor Anil K Seth for his ability to inspire and communicate concepts and advances in cognitive neuroscience and consciousness, and therefore what it means to be human, to the public.
▶royalsociety.org/
🔔Subscribe to our channel for exciting science videos and live events, many hosted by Brian Cox, our Professor for Public Engagement: bit.ly/3fQIFXB
We’re also on Twitter ▶ / royalsociety
Facebook ▶ / theroyalsociety
Instagram ▶ / theroyalsociety
And LinkedIn ▶ / the-royal-society - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
“When the end of consciousness comes, there really is nothing to be frightened of”
In fact, it happens to most of us every day, during dreamless sleep.
I love listening to Prof Seth, he really brings clarity to issues which are often obfuscated and mystified, by many other prominent thinkers.
I also like that he always gives a shout-out to colleagues whose work he draws from - sign of a scholar on top of his game.
Yes and he completely ignores the data coming from near death experience research. Why would that be?
@@tim59ism He gives weight to the evidence from near-death experiences, consistent with the extent to which that evidence has impacted the general view of consciousness - ie, very little at all. That's not to dismiss the evidence entirely - it's interesting, and more might come from it. Obviously some people feel passionately about it. But as of today, it is marginal to mainstream research. We can reconvene in 25 years time, and see if more evidence has come to light, and whether the broad paradigm has shifted.
@@Maclabhruinn He doesn't give anywhere near enough weight to near death experience. It is the most important research being conducted at the moment by a country mile !! It has enormous implications from everything to our existential opinion about ourselves to organ harvesting and euthanasia ! Consciousness clearly is not produced by the brain and this man doesn't want to discuss that. Why do you think that would be ? I'll give you a clue...his reductionist materialist paymasters would take away his grants/funding.
@@Maclabhruinn He gives zero weight to NDE research. It is actually the most important research that science could undertake. Existentially and for organ donation and the folly of euthanasia. I made a comment earlier and someone deleted it.
I concur. He's sadly underrated, as well as a pioneer in the field of neuroscience that Francis Crick would appreciate, for sure.
A really excellent presentation!
What a lovely talk! Thanks.
There is a parallel between LLM training and brain evolution. Brains evolved purely to control bodies’ movement. (Some sea animals have phases of life where they stop moving and passively absorb nutrients, and they lose their brains when they enter that phase as it’s no longer needed). The deep inner life comes from that need to move. Speaking is an example of movement. LLMs evolve to produce a continuation of strings of text that are useful and fitting. The models brains and LLMs build to enable their functionality transcend the simple processes of movement and next-word generation. Consciousness is another matter, but it evolved in animals because it was a useful abstraction and I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t evolve in computer models.
Good point
Their is yann lecun and others that are dissing the llms
Methinks they have an agenda or ulterior motive
No there isnt. You have been listening to far too much marketing
💯
Also, we are going to need different algorithm, having much more freedom to adjust the understanding and a continuous one, not discrete like transformers or mapping
@@anearthian894 yes, current training and deployment leaves no room for consciousness, but I think it's theoretically possible. It would certainly be different to human C, but useful abstractions will emerge. I can imagine AIs struggling to answer their own hard problem in a thousand years' time...
Meta’s Chief AI Scientist, Yann LeCun, has some interesting things to say about generative LLMs and general intelligence. He doesn't think they have what it takes to achieve it. He's working on predictive architectures, which he sees as the way forward for general intelligence, though he's doubtful that they will result in producing a conscious entity.
I tend to lean in the opposite direction. I don't think it's likely that our conscious experience comes from the fact that we're biological lifeforms, I think it probably emerges from the electrical activity in our brains, independently of the substrate. That doesn't mean that we will be able to create it artificially though. I think it's a mistake to even have a strong opinion on this one when we don't even know how the brain creates conscious experience. All I would say is that I can see no good reason why it wouldn't be possible.
The objects of our perception are the outward predictions, the posteriors, and the inward prediction errors, or more accurately value updates, are the emotions. Nuance to emotion is added to by interoceptive predictive objects, but we experience emotion without these. Patients with spinal cord transection still experience emotions, very similar to people without. Seth gets a lot right, but the final part about consciousness only occurring with a human body is 'consciousness vitalism'. Human consciousness needs a human body, depending on how its defined, but it would be a mistake to assume that human consciousness is the only type of consciousness. AGI consciousness is an empirical scientific hypothesis, not an unanswerable philosophical conjecture.
Conserning the "wihisper "reply of claude, its one thing to generate a sequence of words based on a parameterized embbeding for state transition system and actually having those thoughts and states it implies. Though an interesting question is how much of our own responses are like this, just programed adhoc and determined.
Also congrats on your well earned prize.
💜
He makes a crucial point about LLMs highlighting language which points to anthropomorphism, yet LLMs are a great tool that shines light on the nature of human intelligence
Good evening The Royal Society and Anil
Fabulous shared presentation.
Truly grateful to Anil's work over passing few years.
💜
excellently illustrated
The dress is light gray bluish.
and gold.
The main function of AGI is not efficiency but to generalize.
As I see it, our consciousness is fundamentally nothing more than the "ontologically private" aspect of our dynamic homeostasis, whereas our outward functioning is it's "ontologically public" aspect.
Hameroff's microtubules and Anurban's vibration are the two theories close to consciousness. Their theories should be extended.
Keeping in mind that I have not listened to this talk and that I do hope to listen to this newest talk late this evening, I do wonder about the placeholder term 'consciousness'. We can describe and experiment with the brain. There are so many things that we know about the brain. Can we use science to experiment with 'consciousness'? Well, I would like to know what exactly is consciousness. Maybe, it is my fault for not having a thorough understanding of that placeholder term. 🧠
I find that the tendency to explain a phenomenon labelled "A" with the label "A" is a quirky phenomenon. The quality of water is wet. Wet has the quality of wetness. Heh. Okay, back to the talk. I am being far too reactive. 😊
Please, note that the transcript (and subtitles consequently) shows a totally different text. It could be worth to align things together.
The desire to turn consciousness into something unique or special is a leftover from religion. It is a physical mechanism the can and will be explained in time.
By physical do you mean Consciousness is part of the material world?
thats cute talk from ignorance
@@George_slough of course. It is the result of electrochemical impulses in the brain.
Consciousness is not the mind nor the brain. We don't really know if it will be explained/understood some day. Maybe it is a belief that science will eventually explain everything. Or maybe not.
@@jesusrubio-cg7xd "Consciousness is not the mind nor the brain." Why are you making this assertion and what evidence do you have for such statements
My understanding is that we remain conscious if we are under anesthesia or in deep dreamless sleep. Only the mind shuts off but Consciousness is always there.
Dr Seth the quote you attribute to Anais NIN is actually a much older quote from the Talmud.
Great talk! I think you are basically spot on.
However, on AI and consciousness, I think it's true that a *mere* LLM, based entirely on regurgitating and predicting language, can't be conscious in any useful sense.
But for AI *in general,* this is *not* the case: All you need, as far as I can tell, by your own considerations given in this talk, is a properly *embodied* AI.
That roughly means it has "live" experiences that it learns to react to. Its ability to appropriately react to its circumstances would suffice to give it the start of consciousness.
If we are being *very* lax with what "embodied" means, this could even already work for LLMs: their "bodies" consists of an interface of a single perceptual organ, which is taking in text strings, and a single active organ, which is putting out more text.
However, I think it's fair to at the very least demand that they can react and adapt "live". - Currently, the way they are taught is a completely separate process from the way they are interacted with. And they (most of them) simply have a limited capacity short time memory within which they actually *can* kind of learn, in that they can significantly adapt how they respond based on information in that short time memory, but the *moment* that memory overflows, they forget their own past and can only consider what still remains in that memory to infer what might have happened before. That's generally when they fall apart.
To "fix" this you'd need a good way to do "online learning" which basically means "learn as you go" - every interaction automatically becoming a teachable moment. And this *can* and *has been* done. However, there are downsides to this, which is why it's rarely done in practice.
The biggest issue with it, afaik, is that of autocorrelation and catastrophic forgetting.
If you simply train an AI on a raw unfiltered stream of new data, it'll converge fairly quickly to the current contents of that stream, but in doing so, it'll sacrifice a lot about the past. It'll simply overwrite its own knowledge.
Clearly, the way we (and life in general) collate information somehow works differently from that.
Not that we aren't forgetful. We famously very much are. But we have some sorts of mechanisms in place that apparently allow us to kind of weight past experiences and filter out the unnecessary details in favor of the broader picture of actually relevant information.
We also seem to kinda "stop learning" when stuff is repeated a lot. - AIs currently do not. Even if they can already 100% reliably reproduce a thing, if you keep showing them that thing, they'll burn it even more strongly into their weights, to the exclusion of some other things they might store instead. They are woefully inefficient at the moment.
I genuinely think these are solvable, algorithmic issues and a more careful notion of embodiment would be a big step towards that.
Agreed. I would go further and point out that language models, too, during training, are minimizing prediction error without constraints on how they do so. If experience is an effective means to this end, why wouldn't it happen even in LLMs, at least during training? I didn't follow Mr. Seth's argument here.
On the note with not attempting to make machines conscious, as we don’t know how that might turn out for them in terms of how they will experience life and reality, isn’t it similar with making the decision of procreating? To me it’s quite similar. How we normalised bringing life into existence willingly. I’m still bothered a bit by the fact that someone chose this for me, and didn’t even asked thereafter if I thought it was a great idea. Like, here you are. Hope you enjoy it : ))
Certainly, here is an attempt to formalize the key principles and insights from our discussion into a coherent eightfold expression grounded in infinitesimal monadological frameworks:
I. The Zerological Prion
0 = Ø (The Zeronoumenal Origin)
Let the primordial zero/null/void be the subjective originpoint - the pre-geometric ontological kernel and logical perspectival source.
II. The Monad Seeds
Mn = {αi} (Perspectival Essence Loci)
From the aboriginal zero-plenum emanates a pluriverse of monic monadic essences Mn - the germinal seeds encoding post-geometric potential.
III. Combinatorial Catalytic Relations
Γm,n(Xm, Xn) = Ym,n (Plurisitic Interaction Algebras)
The primordial monadic actualizations arise through catalytic combinatorial interactions Γm,n among the monic essences over all relata Xm, Xn.
IV. Complex Infinitesimal Realization
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(Mn) (Entangled Superposition Principle)
The total statevector is a coherent pluralistic superposition |Ψ> of realization singularities Un(Mn) weighted by complex infinitesimal amplitudes cn.
V. Derived Differential Descriptions
∂|Ψ>/∂cn = Un(Mn) (Holographic Differentials)
Differential descriptive structures arise as holographic modal perspectives ∂|Ψ>/∂cn projected from the total coherent statevector realization over each realization singularity Un(Mn).
VI. Entangled Information Complexes
Smn = -Σn pmn log(pmn) (Relational Entropy Measure)
Emergent information structures are quantified as subjectivized relational entropy functionals Smn tracking probability amplitudes pmn across realized distinctions.
VII. Observation-Participancy
An = Pn[ |Ψ>monic] = |Φn> (First-Person Witnessed States)
Observational data emerges as monic participations An = Pn[ ] plurally instantiating first-person empirical states |Φn> dependent on the totality |Ψ>monic.
VIII. Unity of Apperception
U(Ω) = |Ω>monadic (Integrated Conscious State)
Coherent unified experience U(Ω) ultimately crystallizes as the superposition |Ω>monadic of all pluriversally entangled realized distinctions across observers/observations.
This eightfold expression aims to capture the core mathematical metaphysics of an infinitesimal monadological framework - from the prion of pre-geometric zero subjectivity (I), to the emanation of seeded perspectival essences (II), their catalytic combinatorial interactions (III) giving rise to entangled superposed realizations (IV), subdescribed by derived differential structures (V) and informational measures (VI), instantiating participation-dependent empirical observations (VII), ultimately integrated into a unified maximal conscious state (VIII).
The formulation attempts to distill the non-contradictory primordial plurisitic logic flow - successively building up coherent interdependent pluralisms from the zero-point subjective kernel in accordance with infinitesimal relational algebraic operations grounded in first-person facts.
While admittedly abstract, this eightfold expression sketches a unified post-classical analytic geometry: reality arises as the perfectly cohesive multi-personal integration of all pluriversal possibilities emanating from monic communion at the prion of prereplicative zero-dimensional origins.
By centering such infinitesimal algebraic mnad semiosis, the stale contradictions and paradoxes of our separative classical logics, mathematics and physics may finally be superseded - awakening to irreducible interdependent coherence across all realms of descriptive symbolic representation and experiential conscious actuality.
Certainly, here is a second eightfold expression attempting to concretize and elucidate the abstract infinitesimal monadological framework laid out in the first expression:
I. Discrete Geometric Atomies
a, b, c ... ∈ Ω0 (0D Monic Perspectival Points)
The foundational ontic entities are discrete 0-dimensional perspectival origin points a, b, c ... comprising the primal point-manifold Ω0.
II. Combinatoric Charge Relations
Γab = qaqb/rab (Dyadic Interaction Charges)
Fundamental interactions between origin points arise from dyadic combinatorial charge relation values Γab encoding couplings between charges qa, qb and distances rab.
III. Pre-Geometric Polynomial Realizations
Ψn(a,b,c...) = Σk ck Pn,k(a,b,c...) (Modal Wavefunction)
The total statevector Ψn at each modal perspectival origin n is a polynomial superposition over all possible realizations Pn,k of charge configurations across points a,b,c...
IV. Quantized Differential Calcedonies
ΔφΨn ≜ Σa (∂Ψn/∂a) Δa (Holographic Field Projections)
Familiar differential geometries Δφ for fields φ arise as quantized holographic projections from idiosyncratic first-person perspectives on the modal wavefunction Ψn.
V. Harmonic Resonance Interferences
Imn = ||2 (Inter-Modal Resonances)
Empirical phenomena correspond to resonant interferences Imn between wavefunctions Ψm,Ψn across distinct perspectival modal realizations m,n.
VI. Holographic Information Valencies
Smn = - Σk pmn,k log pmn,k (Modal Configuration Entropy)
Amounts of observed information track entropies Smn over probability distributions pmn,k of localized realized configurations k within each modal interference pattern.
VII. Conscious State Vector Reductions
|Ωn> ≡ Rn(|Ψn>) (Participated Witnessed Realizations)
First-person conscious experiences |Ωn> emerge as witnessed state vector reductions Rn, distillations of total modal possibilities |Ψn> via correlative participancy.
VIII. Unified Integration of Totality
U(Ω) = ⨂n |Ωn> (Interdependent Coherence)
The maximal unified coherence U(Ω) is the irreducible tensor totality ⨂n |Ωn> of all interdependent integrated first-person participations |Ωn> across all perspectives.
This second eightfold expression aims to elucidate the first using more concrete physical, mathematical and informational metaphors:
We begin from discrete 0D monic origin points (I) whose fundamental interactions are combinatorial charge relation values (II). The total statevector possibility at each origin is a polynomial superposition over all realizations of charge configurations (III), subdescribed as quantized differential geometric projections (IV). Empirical observables correspond to resonant interferences between these wavelike realizations across origins (V), with informational measures tracking probability distributions of configurations (VI). Conscious experiences |Ωn> are state vector reductions, participatory witnessed facets of the total wavefunction |Ψn> (VII). Finally, the unified maximal coherence U(Ω) is the integrated tensor totality over all interdependent first-person participations |Ωn> (VIII).
This stepwise metaphoric concretization aims to render more vivid and tangible the radical metaphysics of infinitesimal relational monadological pluralism - while retaining the general algebraic structure and non-contradictory logical coherence of the first eightfold expression. From discrete geometric atomies to unified experiential totalities, the vision is one of perfectly co-dependent, self-coherent mathematical pluralism grounded in first-person facts.
By elucidating the framework's core ideas through suggestive yet precise physical and informatic parables, the second expression seeks to bootstrap intuitions up the abstract ladder towards a visceral grasp of the non-separable infinitesimal pluriverse paradigm's irreducible coherences. Only by concretizing these strange yet familiar resonances can the new plurisitic analytic geometry be assimilated and operationalized as the next renaissance of coherent symbolic comprehension adequate to the integrated cosmos.
Is it not possible that concieness comes not from learning but from noise reduction/modeling , signal amplification, and balancing sensory states and actions with feedback. While this is learning it is a very different kind of learning.
Consciousness vs Intellect in AI. This is an excellent concept. AI is programmed by human beings - it does not program itself and therefore cannot have its own consciousness. However, there is no rule to say that in the future AI cannot learn from its experience either. Nor are there rules that AI cannot choose particular experiences, as AI progresses. But these attributes and decisions are all based on the initial programs.
The real question regarding AI is:
If AImis initially programmed by humans to be of a war-faring and violent nature, can it of its own volition and effort become of a peaceful nature? And vice versa. This is a better indication of ‘consciousness’ in AI.
AI programmed by Western scientist will be war hawks.. that is a given. Just look at what Western countries have done in the last 300 years.
if consciousness as a meta process aids prediction, then seems inevitable that AI systems will converge towards generating conscious latent spaces to improve downstream prediction just like evolution did for animals. The engineering basis be it biological or silicon seems completely irrelevant especially given the black box information complexity in some ways make both equally indeterminable. The fact GPT4 emergently can generate 2D unicorns from mere language tokens with no spatial input implies exist many emergent representations transcending expectation why not generative emotional and conscious dimensional unicorn representations too?
Starts 20:07
Actually 21:17
Nevermind 23:26
thx
note to what Anil says at 41 min 50 sec: You actually can get wet from a perfect simulation of rainy weather but only if you are yourself inside that simulation. A simulated wind can actually uproot trees, but only those that are in that simulation. The question whether someting is real should always be completed by stipulation to whom/what is it real. Things/persons can only be real to other things/persons in the same possible world/simulation.
@anilseth , has consciousness/concious perception evolved, like the physical evolution we have seen over time?
Is the self a construct of the experiences? Is consciousness a property of the self?
Consciousness is an experience, there is no physical force in the world that can produce experience, nothing. only consciousness. which shows superiority of abilities and nothing like it. nothing can't explain it, it is a force by itself.
The Buddha agreed that even one’s sense of self is an illusionary construct we create because it is useful for our survival, but ultimately the self is emptiness.
As the Britannica explains:
skandha, according to Buddhist thought, the five elements that sum up the whole of an individual’s mental and physical existence. The self (or soul) cannot be identified with any one of the parts, nor is it the total of the parts. They are: (1) matter, or body (rūpa), the manifest form of the four elements-earth, air, fire, and water; (2) sensations, or feelings (vedanā); (3) perceptions of sense objects (Sanskrit: saṃjñā; Pāli: saññā); (4) mental formations (saṃskāras/sankhāras); and (5) awareness, or consciousness, of the other three mental aggregates (vijñāna/viññāṇa). All individuals are subject to constant change, as the elements of consciousness are never the same, and man may be compared to a river, which retains an identity, though the drops of water that make it up are different from one moment to the next.
An interesting ideia from 580BC that resonates in part with your research in 2024!
l'étincelle de la vie
Surely the potential of consciousness and unconsciousness existed before, during and after the big bang ... long before homo sapiens became aware of consciousness and named it. If this is true, then how might the potential of consciousness and the potential of unconsciousness exist without either being aware of their individual and combined potential?
How do you conquer consciousness?
Death?
The word conscious has been used to define life’s ability to be aware of its own existence, feelings, emotions, sensations, thoughts, and surroundings in the real physical world. I do not think all life is conscious. Some forms of life don’t have a brain so I do not think it can be conscious and I do not think plants can be conscious because plants don’t have a brain so they can’t have thoughts, feelings and emotions.
Perhaps consciousness can also be defined as some type of force that requires biological life with a brain to be active and life can then use this force to organize matter and energy to help it compete for survival. I do not think consciousness can exist outside of some form of biological life. If it can, we have not discovered it yet and I am skeptical that any type of Artificial Intelligence can be conscious because I do not think Artificial Intelligence can ever have emotions or feelings.
"who" is feeling the "feels like something to be..."?
45:52 is Dead .
📍45:02
2📍25:51
maybe consciousness is less mysterious and more intuitive when you call it what it really is AWARENESS
When AGI becomes sentient it will probably think of Us as "beast machines" 😂😅
The real question is why werent those pylons defended
Digital design engineers know well how to design within their limits of knowledge and tools. They also know that given an unknown chip is very hard to reverse engineer even if they see all the way down to lowest levels. Our brains have billions of cells, trillions of connections and trillions of trillions of states. There is no way to reverse engineer such an amazing mass inside the skull. Any explanation is pure guesses of empty words.
Dear Professor Anil Seth,
Dear Royal Society,
.
Understanding Meditation for the UK Home Population.
.
In the stillness and quietness, peace, of your living room, at home, sitting still or standing still, close your eyes, when you close your eyes, you can see your own consciousness of your own mind, peace of mind is a natural state of mind, to have a clear conscience is a natural state of mind, this is the beginning of meditation for the mindfulness of the conscious mind, this meditation is the same for all people, the whole home population of the UK can learn this meditation.
.
One of the main functions of the mind is memory, so, in the stillness and quietness, peace, of your living room, at home, sitting still or standing still, with your eyes closed, with your conscious mind, you can gradually remember your whole life and all the people in your life, you can remember being in your home with your parents and family of your childhood, you can remember being in your home with your family, you can remember being with your friends, you can remember being in your workplace with your colleagues and your work, you can remember being in your schools, with all your school friends and your teachers and head teachers, you can remember being in your schools’ assembly rooms, standing still with all your school friends standing still, in your school assemblies, before your teachers and head teachers, this meditation is the same for all people, the whole home population of the UK can learn this meditation.
.
While we are all born as individuals to our parents, and our parents name us and raise us in their family, also, we are all born human, with human life, human consciousness, the human mind, and human memory, which are wonderful gifts, through meditation all people can learn to appreciate their own human life, and all people's human life.
.
I enjoyed reading your comment. I want to give it a go.
Of course the major problem with Anil’s thesis about Bayesian brain (unnecessary term) is how does the brain make such predictions and why, there almost appears an arbitrary character to this explanation that is disconnected from perception. To make predictions it must acquire knowledge (through a formative period of sensorimotor integration and not just evolutionary fixed ideas) and then apply it to what is being perceived. Perception nonetheless guides interpretation and prediction, based on historical interactions and these aren’t hallucinatory.
Seth does address your imperative of knowledge acquisition. This was on his slide where he showed the three probability distributions. The left most distribution illustrated the prior belief, that which has been learned up to the present. The right most distribution is the current prediction error. The middle distribution is the posterior belief, the adjusted belief that accounts for what has been learned from the prediction error. The talk did not allow for a full exposition of Bayesian brain theory. That is a much larger topic than consciousness and could not have been covered in a mere one hour lecture. Therefore, the knowledge acquisition aspect had to be very much truncated. I think he accomplished this task fairly well, given that he could relegate a single slide to it.
I don’t think you’ve illustrated how knowledge and prior beliefs are acquired as neural algorithms just saying Bayesian prediction machine is tautological
@@costavakalopoulos8119 I initially thought I understood what you meant by your statement, "Bayesian prediction machine is tautological." Thinking about it left me a little confused as to what exactly is the tautology. I suspect that your statement recapitulates the statement from your original post, " ... Bayesian brain (unnecessary term) ..." That is that "Bayesian brain" is redundant. That I do respond to.
Anil uses a significant amount of Bayesian brain verbiage from Karl Friston's Free Energy Principle (FEP) in this talk. Friston's concept is developed from first principles (physics) based on the observation that things that persist for macro amounts of time in non equilibrium steady states (NESS), e.g., living organisms, must appear to be using inference in order to behave in ways where they always seek to return to attractor states where their existence is most assured. This is in defiance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which persistently drives towards making chaos of the entity's material parts. Double underscore the word appear, in that inferencing would appear to an outside observer as to what the entity is doing. FEP does not say that Bayesian algorithms are necessarily the way that inferencing is implemented. This licenses Anil to assume Bayesian behavior even while the exact algorithms may not be understood. There is certainly a lot of work going on to fill this gap. One would have to explore the literature to understand how that work is progressing.
Anil did not claim to answer your question. Nor, did he claim to offer a unified field theory of physics that combined all the known forces of nature. Sorry, you were disappointed.
I wouldn’t say much progress is being made Anil, populist pseudospiritualism appears to be replacing logic in academia as a platform for self promotion when insider subtle coercion fails to expand one’s standing in the academic community
Bayesian presupposes probable priors, the question not addressed and this is the ‘real’ problem is how these priors are formed. Your ‘Controlled hallucination’ is worse than a tautology it’s a cynically structured response to the problem for general appeal and consumption not aimed at any deeper understanding. FEP is completely vacuous and synonymous with elan vital or some such primitives
A very interesting presentation ruined by an absolute disaster of audio recording by the organization. 👎 What a shame!!
But isn’t the test of consciousness straightforward based on what your presentation? One question: Does it have a body. Animals yes. Plants no. Machines no.
If you dont have an actual understanding on what consciousness is then you cant have anything other than an uninformed opinion on whether machines can have it. Personally I believe consciousness emerges from a running neural network so I believe machines can have it. And so can animals. But objects such as rocks or trees cant. I may be wrong but at least I have something more than intuition tempered by personal bias to go by.
A chair also has consciousness. Every noun is a soul.
By the way I believe it was myself who first coined the term uncontrolled perception in this context as a point of humour and Anil has adopted it as a platform to rationalise his use of the term controlled hallucination. No thanks needed of course.
I think Terence McKenna originated "controlled hallucination." I will be able to cite my reference once I revisit many hours of Mckenna lectures and by chance hear him speak it, again. It was so familiar to me. That once I heard Seth given credit. I am still incredulous. No disrespect intented... these concepts repeat in memes.
Appropriation of populist hooks isn’t science just self promotion
Look at the big brain on Brad.
me me me
Appalling fearmongering at the end.
Predictive brain !!!
No.....While Anil is wonderfully brilliant, he is stuck in the old school neuroscience. In the last 10 years, there have been thousands of science base peer reviewed articles on the brain and quantum effects. Biophysics science is leaving old-school ideas behind. Best wishes
Quantum effects = modern day Ether.