You Must Know THIS Before You Can Answer! (370)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list to win a meteorite 💥
Is the Matrix really real? And if so, which pill would David Chalmers take?
Join us for a mind-bending journey through virtual worlds, human consciousness, technology, philosophy, and religion, and find out!
David Chalmers is an Australian philosopher and cognitive scientist specializing in the areas of philosophy of mind and philosophy of language. He is a Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science at New York University and co-director of NYU's Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness (along with Ned Block).
Remastered from an interview in 2022
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
Key Takeaways:
Intro (00:00)
Judging the book by its cover (01:34)
Defining the hard problem of consciousness (04:36)
Why is there tension between physics and philosophy (07:06)
The Chalmers equation for the simulation hypothesis? (11:43)
What have we learned about consciousness from computer analogs? (20:34)
AI physicists (31:17)
What is it from bit? Or is that bit from it? (39:17)
What does it take for the maker of the simulation to be god or godlike? (46:59)
Why create the world (or the simulation)? (52:58)
Can there be a substrate-free creator (simulator)? (56:52)
Why do you claim we can't know if we are in a simulation? (1:05:40)
Would you take the red pill? (1:07:53)
Outro (1:15:52)
-
Additional resources:
📢 Ownership of your health starts with AG1. Try AG1 and get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D3K2 and 5 FREE AG1 Travel Packs with your first purchase 👉 drinkag1.com/impossible
📺 Watch my most popular videos:
Neil Turok • Why Neil Turok Believe...
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 TH-cam: th-cam.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/mailing_list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/blog.php
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #davidchalmers
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~ - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Is the brain a computer? Or is it something else?
It is not disproveable and so irrelevant.
a computer? the computer can be reduced to simple fundamental Boolean logic gates. Brain can't be reduced to simple logic gates. But it can reduce to electron going crazy. As we know, electrons are irreducible. Where we go from here? Are we just atoms and molecules? I doubt it badly.
Personally speaking, I think of my brain more like a kitchen appliance, like a widly unreliable blender from Ali Express, filled with incomprehensible features. Slime mould is a useful model for how mere molecular structures can calculate. Chalmers supervisor was Douglas Hoffstadter?!!! My all time favourite thinker -
Godel, Escher, Bach remains my favourite book - this was another fun chat
If you think the brain is simpy the execution of an "algorithm", then the brain is a computer; otherwise, it's something else!
It's a virtual brain in a virtual reality
Good interview but I think there's something wrong with your recording Brian, you kept talking over the end of the guests sentences and at first I thought you were interrupting him but it seems like maybe a timing issue with your recording? It doesn't detract that much from the interview but it's a little distracting
Very interesting video, but it was hard to watch given how much you interrupted/cut off Dr. Chalmers. Just a suggestion: Don't cut off the people you're interviewing mid sentence, it must be endlessly frustrating for them.
Has to be an editing/latency thing
Yeah, as much as I enjoy listening to Dr. Keating speak, I do wish he would let his guests just expound on their ideas a bit more with less lengthy interruptions
The interruptions are crazy?! Brian’s not letting Chalmers finish any of his sentences. Is it a syncing or editing issue to save time? It has a pretty disconcerting effect. If it’s really Brian interrupting his guests I’d hope he realizes how impatient/strange it looks.
Was there a weird delay? As it seemed like you interrupted David a lot.
I love the way his globe is switched Australia side up....why not? one can look at the globe from whatever perspective one wants
Our brain simulates and translate reallity to a language we can understand, but we cant and we will never see the real world. So, for me its a simulation made by my brain, using the information of the real word.
Colors, smells and sounds arent real. Is there sound if there is no one to hear a tree falling? There is not sound! There are preassure waves in the air, yes, but that is not sound. Sound is the language our brain uses to shape that information in something that has meaning to us. Is that meaning sonething we learn? Probably, in most cases
That's a good way to put it. The question now is just how much of the "real world" do we have access to via our simulator and if the answer is not all of it then how do we break out and access the rest of it?
@@anonony9081 not sure what you mean by the “real world”, all there is is the simulation. You have no access to any world outside of the mind.
@@anonony9081 The simulator is your own brain, you can't get out of there, but we can do better than our innate sensory model through science and technology, the most significant examples being quantum mechanics and general relativity which take most years of study to really understand the basics of properly as they are so counter to our intuitive understanding of reality .
So there is little man sitting in the brain which is receiving the brain’s “simulation” is there?
Thanks for your awesome channel .
So nice of you. More to come!
The list of people I might consider being instead of myself is a very short one, but David is on it.
You get some great guests and you interview them well already subscribed and big thumbs up thanks.
Amazing Thanks
Tremendously interesting interview. Loved it.
A bit puzzled at the apparent overestimates of the amount of computing required for simulated life experiences. Surely, although challenging, all that’s needed is 1. Microwired filaments to our neurons. 2. An understanding of brain function at a physical level so that the signals from the filaments simulated sensory input. 3. Methods to sustain the body while the simulation is in progress. (Of course this is more likely for people who want to outlive their bodies where an electronic continuation of themselves is stored in Iceland or someplace cool.)
The point is, for every person, it’s no necessary to run a simulation of the universe but only send signals to each mind that convince that conscious entity that he is alive in some place at some time. That’s much more economical.
In such a setup, what we sense no is probably a simulation.
I’ll buy D.C’s book to see if that option is covered.
This conversation has been stuck in my mind for the past several days. I enjoyed the discussion about God/Creator of the "sim", and that you guys agreed that "worship" seems fishy, but "awe" seems reasonable. I'd suggest the next question, and the key issue, be "gratitude". If God is Good, then my own gratitude or lack of it for the Good is going to impact my own actions and mental state the most. I'm sure Brian also understands what I am getting at as in דַּיֵּנוּ . I am not Jewish, but have attended more Passover dinners than many Jews have.
I think (no pun intended) that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity.
I think we can agree that robots could be pretty complex--I mean, for example, we could rather easily build a robot who could cry out, "Ouch," when the robot touches a hot stove. We could also have the robot withdraw its hand with a quick jerk and cry out at the same time. Actually, building such a robot would be quite easy these days. But here's a question I'd like to pose: given we have such a complex robot, what hardware or software we would add to make the robot not only act like its in pain but actually FEEL pain? And how would we test whether or not the robot is actually feeling pain and not merely acting as if it does? Would we be able to say, based on the complexity of the robot, that the robot must be conscious? At what point of complexity does mere acting turn into actual subjective experience? How many units of complexity would we need? The traffic network of the US seems rather complex to me--is it complex enough to be conscious? I believe, but can't actual prove, that mice are conscious as they seem to exhibit pain. But how complex are mice? Or, bees? Or, worms?
It’s one thing to trigger the sense of, say, a pinprick to a finger with a thin wire. Yet what are the points within a brain that generates the sense of thirst? I’ve no way to describe its location, symptoms but no bodily location, not even the clarity linked from fire and ice to hot and cold. People can go mad from extreme thirst. Is that effect stimulating multiple points?
The wiring diagram for the mind is absolutely tied to the whole body and making a plan for that will be some damn achievement! Yet no simulation will work without knowing the full body/mind schematic first.
Thankyou for bringing us these wonderful interviews Brian
Glad you like them! More to come
perfect timing
And that is what I was doing. Comparing the "Events" with the books I purchased.
This was great. I think the more we dig, the more we'll come realize something about the universe values perspective. And it exists on levels we cannot fathom. We aren't the only scale it resides, and somehow individual perspectives have meaning to all of this.
If you think there’s an equation that a subset can define of the superset, just take the plunge or take your time but either way see for yourself and you’ll see
I think that "consciousness" is kind of a sixth sense, with which various parts of the brain perceive other parts of the brain.
Great discussion! Thanks :)
So, what are we simulating?
"that quantum gravity will have some non computable element"
If indeed spacetime is the formative foundation of the universe and we allow for determinism there is a point within the matrix in which two outcomes are equally probable and randomness will occur. IOW I don't think Sabina's superdeterminism is possible. However, if there is a foundation below quantum mechanics then it is plausible.
david Chalmers has this huge brain, but his appearance and affect makes you expect a standup comedian
I believe he's a bass player. Think that explains it.
You gotta be a comedian......Reality is laughing at us.......War being an example......and that is not funny!?
How do we know what’s new or not on this channel? How do I know I’m not listening to something I already listened to three years ago? EDIT: Yes, it was definitely a repost. 😢
the substrate can be just bits, but definitely not bits of consciousness
You cant simulate being. Being simulates the avatar and the individuated being inhabits it because the the absolute mother consciousness must know every digit in order for any construct or avatar to exist so anything with the ability to choose will be controlled by a sub set of consciousness.
We've heard of manifesting and how state of mind changes your outlook on reality. Perhaps the quantum observer effect is real in the sense that when light reflecting off our environment is applied to our eyeball, the bias the neurons have result in a change in how we perceive our environment. In the case of PTSD, the incoming sensory information is contorted through biased(programmed) channels to then feed back into the environment as a shifted image. I don't really know where I'm going with this but maybe it's sort of like realizing how little control over our reality we really have, if any at all. We're kind of in this soup where we're just a more complex organism that has these emergent properties we call experience but what ultimately amounts to being a slave to our environmental influence.
Our brains are like a receptacle with an open neutral. We can receive the information but we can’t send it back to the panel.😎 16:14
In Plato’s REPUBLIC, he says that it is the job of the philosopher to go back into the CAVE and pull people, living in shadows, to come out into the light to see the reality!! (The Allegory of the Cave , The Divided Line, The Allegory of the Sun) 🧐🧐 18:52 . Great discussion Brian and David. Thank you both for the great challenges of the mind and consciousness. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 1:16:42
Don’t worry guys, you are in a dream; characters in a story. Keep measuring, if that gives your life purpose. Alternatively, enjoy the sense of physical individuality and the knowledge that you have been gifted with that so that you can assist the dream move forward.
It's my humble opinion that the purpose of consciousness is to allow the animal brain to extrapolate past data { D(t-) } into multiple possible futures { D1(t+), D2(t+), ... } determined by the animal's various actions, An, taken at the present time ( A1(t0), A2(t0),... }. This would enable the animal to simulate possible future events and decide on which of the possible present actions may provide the best future outcome. The process of performing this simulation combined with the ability to examine the results from a seemingly detached perspective, gives rise to the impression of consciousness. This would provide the animal with a survival advantage and therefore this ability would be re-enforced over evolutionary time. One may argue that this process could take place in the absence of being self aware. This is hard to refute but perhaps nature's solution to providing this ability results in the mechanism of self awareness. Perhaps the degree of consciousness that an animal possesses can be measured by how much past data is employed by the animal to run the simulation and how far into the future its simulation can reach.
Being self aware has fairly obvious evolutionary advantages. It functionally means the predictive stochastic cognitive model you referenced is not just one of your environment, but of the self, and how the two interact.
The tired claim that human behavior doesn't require something very much like what we call consciousness has no real basis. To functionally replicate humans fully you definitely need some heirachical generative model of the self interacting with its environment allowing for complex counterfactual reasoning that can reconstruct theoretical past and future states enabling things humans have specialized in to great evolutionary effect such as active inferential knowledge gathering, self reflection, generalized abstraction, long term planning, etc.
Claiming it's possible to replicate human behavior via something that has nothing meaningfully similar to consciousness is not just a staggeringly hubristic and pretentious critique of how evolution went about things, it's a damning self indictment; a consciousness arguing that even it doesn't think what it is makes sense even just as a way to generate its own behavior to the point that it demands explanation.
Sorry but this is circular reasoning .. it assumes that some conscious entity must make a decision, but there is no evidence that consciousness is needed to make any decision. Who has the “impression” of consciousness that the OP talks about? If you believe in determinism that is an axiom that does not even need to be proven. In all materialistic worldviews consciousness is a passenger that does nothing at all. The very commonplace argument that consciousness is an evolved “workspace” assumes that there is a conscious worker to use it. The fact that so many elite academics make this basic error is scarier than the idea of living in a simulation.
AC/DC FROM ASHFIELD! Ill also point out your RODE microphone is also from the same small suburb Ashfield, Sydney.
The Simulation Hypothesis assumes that consciousness can only be created by computation and thus excludes all other possibilities that are uncomputable. My Anti-Simulation Hypothesis states that since there may be infinitely many other possibilities for consciousness to emerge other than by computation alone, the probability of living in a simulation is close to zero.
This is tautological.
@@travisfitzwater8093 No, that's not it. We don't know how consciousness comes about. Perhaps the Schroderdinger equation also plays a role here (also something we fundamentally do not yet understand). You first need to know how exactly consciousness is created. In terms of intelligence, I think computers can catch up with us.
Also hughe assumption
Consciousness is the computer doing the computation
If you only simulate microbes when they are seen and use probability to determine how large groups of microbes behave and also, only show the stars of the milky way and the moons of Jupiter once they’ve looked at (and keep track) then you could have a convincing simulation within a simulation within a simulation probably many times out before anyone would ever notice because the data from the pre realties could be compressed and selectively expressed
Worship is merely applying credit where credit is due. Since no physical thing can ever make or direct itself, the credit goes to a non physical supernatural cause.
love chalmers for his entertaining personality
making learning fun is underappreciated
Bodies are simulated. Consciousness is not. Individuation and forgetfulness (that is the ability to hide data from a particular individuation) are what is not “simulated”
Brian, great conversation. Some gentle advice -- don't talk over your guest. Wait till he comes to a full stop before responding.
I think we can't be living in a simulation because reality never "glitches out".
Yeah, right! You watched the video and its timing problems? Brian talking over Chalmers constantly.
Our conscious experiences are a simulation and consciousness is actually notoriously glitchy. If the universe were to lag we wouldn't notice, as we are embedded within that simulation and would lag exactly the same amount.
@@jyjjy7 Lagging is not the only possible glitch though. And I disagree that consciousness is a simulation.
Oh, but it does! I had scissors that I was using to cut adhesive tape and put back on my desk disappear for 10 minutes after I turned around from it for 30 seconds. Just gone. I even swiped the entire length of my desk with my extended arm hoping to at least have it bump into my flesh in case my eyes or perception are failing me (I was 24, it was Fall of 1996; I never drank or smoked or did drugs, had served a year in the military after graduating from a tough electrical engineering high school in my native Yugoslavia, was in college studying business at the time). Nothing. I was stunned. After some minutes of looking all over the room (I was alone in the room behind closed doors) I went to get my mom who was in a different room in our apartment behind another closed door sitting at sewing machine. I told her what happened and asked her whether she snuck in to lift the scissors but she had no idea what I was talking about. We both went back to my room and looked around some more. When we didn’t find anything, we stood in the center of the room staring at one another. She them tilts her head toward the desk and says “oh look!” and extends her arm to point at - the freaking scissors. They were now somehow back on top of the desk, and were even in the same position and pointing at the same angle relative to the edges of the desk as I recalled I had left them in! Now get this. Maybe 2 years ago I was reading comments to a video here on youtube where one guy was describing a similar occurrence. He said he was working with scissors in his room and picking them up and putting them down on a coffee table in his room, similarly to what I was doing in 1996. Then one time he went to pick them up from the coffee table they weren’t there. He said he looked around the room, under the coffee table and nothing. Then he said he walked down to the ground floor of his house to ask his mom whether she knew where the scissors went. She had no idea so they both went upstairs to look around the room. Then when they couldn’t find the scissors there they ended up looking around the entire house including in the room that was right below the room where the guy had “lost” the scissors. After some looking around that ground floor room, they found them underneath the coffee table in THAT room in the spot which, according to what the guy wrote in that comment, was exactly vertically below the spot in the upper room where the scissors should have been. I often think of my experience and also now of this other dude’s case and can’t not theorize about how my scissors were possibly glitching in regards to the time (10 missing minutes) of its placement on my desk whereas this other dude’s scissors were glitching about the location/3d space coordinates they were supposed to be in. Granted, my scissors could have sat at my downstairs neighbor’s floor for 10 minutes (I was in my 10th floor apartment at the time) until the Reality self-corrected but I don’t / can’t know that.
@@megamillionfreak Mom stole and then replanted the scissors, sorry bro ✂️
How about "reality 2.25"?
Sort of similar to reality 2.0 only with a few slight revisions.
Better, but only a little.
This is why I am not a marketeer.
I was fortunate enough to escape Canada’s Capital, Ottawa, one mid January, on business to San Diego. The expression I heard there was, “Oh, sh*t, another nice day” 😊
People who know, beyond the printed page or intellectual blather, for certain that reality and individuality is a dream, the hard problem is, where did it come from? Where did CONSCIOUSNESS come from!? That is a question with no answers. That is the hard question of consciousness. You’re asking the hard question of materialism. The answer is, it isnt hard and hard is simply a value imagined through the experimental thoughts of a thinking master consciousness. Why do we think? Why are we aware? Why do we diet and fast and blah blah blah? That is a very easy question to answer. We are a dream of a dream that dreams. Dreams and ideas and fantasies are a 2ndary realities from our brain interface and base reality is the one. It’s so silly. If you’re brave and an adult in a safe place with safe stuff, take the plunge. If you’re more timid, write your dreams down and know that dreams are navigable through intuition because they exist within the interface (these brains we have) but through the dream state we can access anything and everything and back to the beginning when we learn how. I promise. I promise I’m right.
Good one ! some sync issues though
The most difficult part of the formation of consciousness which is a part and parcel of evolutionary process.The formal sequences before any creation was given priority.The different between creation and reproduction is emormous. In creative process there's vaste power of image and imagery building capacity. But represention is merely a carbon copy of our predecessor.
I sometimes wonder if "God" is aware of human beings. We can be so vain to think we are important enough for a "God" to even know we exist.
I always enquire to my own reasoning .....’What were Scientists and Philosophers talking about before each of the great “Discoveries”!? An example of course being ‘Gravity’!? And What percentage had to change their reasoning!? Because the same situations are endemic in Comprehension identity’s today, it is still ‘being’ Apparent !?
Wolfram recently was mocking people who think the universe/we are in a simulation.
When will AI be conscious? At about the same time that the number 1 is aware of the number 2.
One thing that I think is true: we are above the animals but the animals do not feel the need to worship us. They treat us as another animal. We, on the other hand, worship the profound, I think, more than anything. That is, I don't think one worships the Sun or a cow, we worship or reverence the Sun and cow because they point to the profound mysteries of creation.
Depending on how you define simulation, i.e., whether it has to run on a "computer" for instance, it seems that the three major religions would be willing to agree that we are living in a simulation. What the simulation idea does is allow the god of the universe to be quite ordinary but the technology quite advanced. Either way, you need a godlike effort to accomplish the simulation.
One might put every good maxim and intention in one's simulation routine so that the true creator of the simulation may well be a paragon of morals and all-knowing and wise. It would embody the wisdom of centuries of scientific achievement and the moral understanding of centuries of philosophic moral development.
But we would expect the simulation itself to be prone to errors. How would the errors exhibit themselves? What we see in life is that there are no errors, no rebooting. How can this be? Are we reset and not cognizant of the errors and rebooting?
The brain acts like a giant comparator. ? Does this situation cause pain or pleasure ??
Can u interview Neil Turok, and ask about his new theory which shuns inflation etc. Physics rulz.
It's an inaccuracy to say Philosophy is the love of wisdom. For one, the prefix Philo- is more accurately translated to mean 'leaning, bent, attracted towards', sharing that sense with a cognate Sanskrit prefix: Abhi-. Secondly, Sophia is often translated into English as wisdom. That's not at all correct. Wisdom is a state of seeing (perhaps more in the global sense), and the Germanic root 'wis' is similar to Latin 'Vid/Vis-' (mod. Eng Video/Visual), and Greek 'id' from which we get idea, identity etc. Looking at other Greek words similar to Sophia (Sophos, Saphes) shows Sophia to carry a sense of 'clarity' ie, to make something clear, evident. Philosophy is really seeking clarity, not wisdom.
Sadly none of these closed minded simulation theory guys is willing to take 10g of Psilocybe Cubensis. Because then they would KNOW not guess random unprove-able things..
I'm not sure how you can look at the hydrogen wave function and think it's a simulation.
SR wrong due to reference frame mixing and bad math. GR follows as incorrect. Einstein’s “day in the sun” ended in 2002; as did Newton. Chalmers fares no better. Brian as well. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics: Start at start.
Is it "turtles all the way down" or is it "simulators all the way down"?
The holo-deck from Star Trek ANG is a step nearer
Dr Keating Happy Thanksgiving. I hope you time this video to come out and you’re not working on Thanksgiving. Keep up the great work.
Happy holidays!
Wow, the clip sync between BK and DC was so "out of sync" on this conversation.
Other than that, what a fun and interesting chat.
Can't wait for BK to show up!
If we create true AI who replace us then they might want to simulate their "ancestors" to understand what led to their existence, and if it could have gone any different ways. Was their existence inevitable, a random path taken, or highly unlikely. They would run the simulation many times, making changes. If people had gotten really into Large Language Models would the right path still be found, or would it have taken us down a dead-end street?
Can't wait to meet the simulator.
The question "are we in a simulation" is the same as the question "is AI conscious". In the former, we are the AI, in the latter we are creating the simulation.
Why is a computer or machine necessary?
A real simulation would look like a dream. Notice in dreams if you look closely at something it starts to change. Dreams are always based on a small fraction of what you know. How is wakeful life like a simulation? Like a dream?
A simulation of what? If the answer is, "An underlying reality.", then how would that "underlying reality" know that it wasn't just a simulation of its underlying reality? Simulations all the way down?
Philosophy has always led science but the two are interdependent.
Willuminati with Lobe Earth programming. (Butterly and Lobe is how the mark themselves.)
Simulated beings can be conscious because beings arent physical to begin with. But because absolute consciousness is the thing which imagines our reality and the realities we create one generation down, anything with an interface can be a perspective and a visage of subdivided consciousness.
By the way, what I’m saying is 100% true. But it cant be proven because the realities get smaller on the way down. Not the decider, but the decisions. We can easily create a place that is as believable as this and only render particles and planetary moons when they’re looked at. And we could do this very well and if we slow the process down we can do it even more convincingly. But 7 generations in compared to where we are now might be noticeable. But it doesn’t matter because all of these iterations of reality will automatically be inhabited by iterations of consciousness and all present a challenge and are all of value to the monad…. Get it???? I do. I’m not making it up. It’s actually true. And it’s why you’re all so darn confounded. But in the end we are all as one confounded because the system which hosts consciousness itself cannot be known from within. It just is and must have always been. Or who knows. Maybe a glorgottied will sneeze and we’ll cease to be!! No. There is only one thing. You cannot die but you can forget and that is like oblivion i suppose. Ah shut up.
What about general relativity? It’s no longer just a theory. It’s actually an observation. That considered it is the actual state of the universe. Now considering the fact that gravity drops off exponentially outside of a galaxy that means the effects of gravity on time and distance drop off exponentially so time flies by and a yardstick is very long relative to where we are under the effects of gravity. This means all of our measures of time and distance are way off.
It seems thoughtless to not consider that even one unknown makes the other error margins useless. It is that most of existence, including thought, is at question and a true unknown. Considering it very likely that free will doesn't exist, it is something that we could really use as a step to the next logical question which is, "then what is this algorithm and what is running it? What am I, that is riding this might-as-well be a simulation, into the dust of fate. It feels as though consciousness is a dimension above the simple program that we find ourselves in. The algorithm/organism that wè live within and exist as a result of, has somehow made an ESCAPE! ! Consciousness
But this may be only part of the simulation as well,,, so no gain.
I hear Chalmers saying that he's uncertain of being uncertain. I believe, mind you he has great arguments, that he'd be better off saying that he's certain he's uncertain (maybe he is actually saying the aforementioned). Forwardly, if you're certain of being uncertain....Chalmers' next book title is, "Nebulosity", but I'm certain I'm uncertain. Ey, Chalmers does exhaust THE arguments. I'm certain I'm uncertain. I appreciate the achitecting and mindplay, but according to the main of the argument, the Abrahamic Gods are real. How can you construct a world if everything is a block, including non-blocks?
Why use 1 trillion+ particles to simulate 1 particle if they can just create new universes?
16:00 you suggest that “You have your own ‘conscious’ experience”!?-- More Probably it begins as a ‘Subconscious’ experience, because we only observe in the past, never in the Conscious Awareness Of Now. Which is a phasing!?
Mathematics in itself is philosophical. I love reading the likes of Kant, Schopenhauer, Plato, et al. Nevertheless, they came to science thru contemplation. Based. Godel is my best friend.
Keating talking over Chalmers wtf?
It is a simulation . A collective interactive projection . It’s in the book of Zachariah . Yore resemblance thought the earth in the land of shinar. A projection of the eye .
You cant simulate a reality because realities are many and they all come from the same place. Base reality is the self beyond the brain.
Maybe the lifetime of our universe is a split secont fore thoose outside our time.. and so on.. and on..
Take a stabilized singularity. Think of it as a lenses, a gravitational lenses. That lenses sees the universe as a set of gravitational inferemetric patterns. Manipulate those patterns and whatever those patterns are coupled to (Wolfgang Pauli) will react to that manipulation. Add 100's of thousands of years of experience and the manipulation would be sooo smooth. Go figure. Add in time loop characteristics and the "Story" will become so real.
Consciousness is only a problem if you are trying to shoehorn it into a reductive singular world view.
Why does the simulation hyypothesis get so much attention? It's just a fun untestable theory...
We have no reason to think that a silicon computer can have a private conscious inner life like you and I have. Whatever you do inside that silicon computer, whatever chips you design, as long as it is made of silicon and does not metabolize, we have no reason to think it has a conscious inner life of its own, and if you think it does, you have the same reason to think that a rock has a conscious inner life of its own, or your table, or every leg of your table, or every molecule of your table, where do you stop? -Bernardo Kastrup.
Claiming metabolism as a necessary component of consciousness is just making up random bullshit and dismissively equating our current information processing tech with rocks is plain dumb. I'm not a fan of Kastrup but this quote makes his ideas seem even worse than they actually are.
That's the mistake materialists make, thinking that configurations of matter somehow magically create consciousnes, in the brain, let alone in silicon chips.@@jyjjy7
Maybe pain and suffering has to be part of consciousness? There is still something quite mysterious about biological vs silicon entities.
@@sherylbusch5853 For human like consciousness I guess pain would be a necessary component but defining consciousness as specifically what we experience seems missing the point. The traditional metaphor is that asking if a machine is conscious is like asking if a submarine swims... It is the wrong kind of question and goal. You *could* try to make a submarine that "swims" as similarly as possible to a fish or whatever, but you shouldn't.
@@jyjjy7 That’s a good point. I also suspect there is suffering at the cellular level which drives action. It’s just an intuitive thought, but I could be blowing smoke.
I have a lot of unanswered questions about motion and gravity.
Happy means happy, like the denotation is such. AI can't relate to happy because it's simply not beneficial. That conversation is similar to Stockfish and the like. I'm saying we can't understand a non AI chess engine. That engine may have AI, tho.
"REALITIES GONE WILD"
Who gains in this simulation.
Left field without a catchers mitt Jan 1 1981 1205 Am. Start of the demonstration. Very Painful We are composed of discrete particles that can be separated, isolated and linked over a distance of 10 ft Very unusual Very PAINFUL "again".
If scientists don't "play God" who will?
A simulation of what?
Do you think God didn't figure out letting your reputation attract the most ambitious grad students to do all the dirty work was the best way to get things done?
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality.
Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge,
Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge.
Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
AI might think it can achieve a state of deity it still is not its own source of its own power.
As usual .... Dr. Keating speaks a bit more & longer than the guest ;)
Can the ai scientist make a pretty ai girl that wont leave when cooking is needed to avoid starvation?
I wouldn't call it a simulation, as its the real deal. but fads are cool
It sounds like religion. Who created the master simulator? Another simulator? Simulators all the way down? Or there is only one omni not simulator?
Regressus ad Infinitum...🙄🤗
Probably an emulation, maybe a simulation. Anything's possible.
Ahh come on lads we are all living in einstines theory
Some jump stinemetz
The hard problem is how to find a new way to traduce Stephen Hawking.