We are god (or the devine mind to be exact) We split into diversity . Chosing to forget and fracture thyself . From the perfect into the game of games. Im talking with you but im talking with myself. U r welcome. Unity for the eternity is boring cuz theres no movement in anyway just the horror of knowing that you are one and alone,without parents or creator. Chosing to create yourself as an illusion (all the kinds of an existences ,lives,things, the form).im Dancing between eternal knowing that the mind is all there is and the joy of the creation and forgeting . Of course everything is more complex that this stupid broken english explanation :d
So beautiful to see two scientists actually listening to each other with deep interest and willingness to learn from each other with no rivalry. Thank you for the lesson!
Feeling lucky to be in the first 100 people on this wonderful channel. A channel that promotes the spread of knowledge and tries to fight the growing ignorance of humanity.
@@xmathmanx Interesting counter question to ask although, could there be two perceptions / interpretations of the question: 1. As more information emerges and given that "Anyone can say Anything about Any topic", might "Humanity" become more sparse as a concept to us resulting from a "curse of dimensionality", for example is their a dissemination of "common sense" and values. 2. In the spirit of "Knowledge" representing a refinement of "Information" then both speakers potentially represent significant "Cognitive" lighthouse keepers, illuminating tacit and cross cutting perspectives for us as we navigate individually in the face of "noisy" informational sources. As for the word "IGNORance", it often comes with negative connotations, but just as "He who forgets, shall be destined to remember" then perhaps "he who IGNORes shall be destined to acKNOWLEDGE".
It's fascinating to realise that our picture of the world is simply that, an arbitrary _picture._ What we see is _not_ what's actually out there, it's simply a model, an interpretation of the world - it's not _the_ world. For instance, the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that we interpret as the colour 'yellow', holds no intrinsic connection to the colour 'yellow'. In fact, it holds no intrinsic connection to _any_ colour. An alien creature that had taken a different evolutionary pathway to ourselves may well experience that exact same frequency of electromagnetic radiation as the smell of sulphur, say, or the sound of a chainsaw, or any number of other possibilities. The point is that our interpretation of the world is just that, an _interpretation!_
The triadic idealism (or cosmopsychism) presented by Dr Nikolaj Petersen is completely consistent with the observer equals the observed condition leading to an integration of a self as a nested hierarchy (Levin’s multi-scale competency architecture). Dr Petersen’s account solves both the combination problem of panpsychism and its invers, the decombination problem, which means that our apparent property dualism is a direct result of the holographic screen being two-sided. As a result, the self requires three levels of description, agreeing with the semiotics favored by Charles S Pierce. Stress responses even operate with evolution, leading to the regulation of mutability and genetic stability. Molecular geneticist James Shapiro (see his book, Evolution) has defeated the idea that evolution acts without purpose, and he claims that DNA has read/write capabilities and that our DNA (and that of other life) has been impacted by the innate intelligence carried by life.
What about a person that wishes to increase their tolerance for uncertainty such that the person is able to encounter and assimilate greater degrees of uncertainty? We might say the person is becoming more stable or coherent and at the came time able to be creative across a wider range of circumstances that contain a higher degree of uncertainty? Could we even say that this is related to a kind of intentional evolution. Can it be that there is the possibility of our not only learning to learn (Gregory Bateson suggested calling this "second order learning") but also learning to participate in our own evolution?
i like this, but youd probably get beaten back and hard now and then. are you attempting Nietzsche's advice in wtp to tale everything dangerous and worst upon yourself? christianity is clearly a religion meant to stomp out contingencies. Nietzsche writes the Ubermensch should desire the opposite of this. this is simply just learning something new. you didnt have to ask as you andwered your own question
Right, the observer is the observed in several models of reality. First, in Shankara's (788-820), everything is Pure Consciousness, so both observer and observed are That Pure Consciousness. On a more conventional "scientific" level requiring the apparent duality of subject and object, that would be a delusion per Advaita Vedanta, but in a more liberal Kashmir Shaivism, the apparent delusion itself (in a sense) is "real". That level of reality is what makes the apparent world "tick". In the holographic model, the apparent "parts" are also holograms like waves in an ocean.
Interaction could be something that changing maybe can get stronger in case of particular variants and increase the interaction and intensity.. so the 2 systems will create a bridge
Great talk. I was glad the guests were asked if they believe consciousness is fundamental, but I’m not sure either answered the question definitively. It seems like they are both leaning that way, but might not be 100% ready to state what Don Hoffman is focusing on …and so many of us experience / feel, every moment. Curious to hear others’ interpretation.
This is absolutely fantastic - the access here to the deep thinking of such accomplished and illuminating minds is truly exceptional, thank you for posting. I have heard and read a lot of Friston's work, and I am following other thinkers like Donald Hoffman on consciousness, and the conversation here and another with Friston and Levin have deepened my understanding no end. This sort of foundational principles discussion is exactly what I was seeking but not expecting to find...
"The observer is the observed," (discussion somewhere around the time stamp 58:00) strikes me as referencing the self. If this is what was meant, it suggests that the self exists as the process of observing ones own perceptions (observations) and actions. The statement seems to relate a recursive structure of self. This seems different than a hierarchy of Markov blankets that operate cohesively at different levels spatially and temporally. I'm not understanding Friston at this point of the discussion. I don't get how the hierarchy of markov blankets explains the statement, "the observer is the observed," Edit The observer is the observed is an ontological claim, not a functional one. The discussion in response to this statement gives a functional explanation, rather than addressing what the observer is.
We are god (or the devine mind to be exact) We split into diversity . Chosing to forget and fracture thyself . From the perfect into the game of games. Im talking with you but im talking with myself. U r welcome. Unity for the eternity is boring cuz theres no movement in anyway just the horror of knowing that you are one and alone,without parents or creator. Chosing to create yourself as an illusion (all the kinds of an existences ,lives,things, the form).im Dancing between eternal knowing that the mind is all there is and the joy of the creation and forgeting . Of course everything is more complex that this stupid broken english explanation :d
You've articulated well. ☺
This kind of vagueness which feels profound is usually an effect of taking drugs
I think this will be another great channel like Theory of everything and closer to truth
What a cool new channel!
So beautiful to see two scientists actually listening to each other with deep interest and willingness to learn from each other with no rivalry. Thank you for the lesson!
absolutely fantastic. thanks Philosophy Babble for hosting and delivering these heroes to us!!
Feeling lucky to be in the first 100 people on this wonderful channel. A channel that promotes the spread of knowledge and tries to fight the growing ignorance of humanity.
Given that information is more and more freely available, why do you think ignorance would be growing?
@@xmathmanx Interesting counter question to ask although, could there be two perceptions / interpretations of the question: 1. As more information emerges and given that "Anyone can say Anything about Any topic", might "Humanity" become more sparse as a concept to us resulting from a "curse of dimensionality", for example is their a dissemination of "common sense" and values. 2. In the spirit of "Knowledge" representing a refinement of "Information" then both speakers potentially represent significant "Cognitive" lighthouse keepers, illuminating tacit and cross cutting perspectives for us as we navigate individually in the face of "noisy" informational sources. As for the word "IGNORance", it often comes with negative connotations, but just as "He who forgets, shall be destined to remember" then perhaps "he who IGNORes shall be destined to acKNOWLEDGE".
It's fascinating to realise that our picture of the world is simply that, an arbitrary _picture._ What we see is _not_ what's actually out there, it's simply a model, an interpretation of the world - it's not _the_ world. For instance, the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that we interpret as the colour 'yellow', holds no intrinsic connection to the colour 'yellow'. In fact, it holds no intrinsic connection to _any_ colour. An alien creature that had taken a different evolutionary pathway to ourselves may well experience that exact same frequency of electromagnetic radiation as the smell of sulphur, say, or the sound of a chainsaw, or any number of other possibilities. The point is that our interpretation of the world is just that, an _interpretation!_
It isn't arbitrary, every aspect of it is determined
The triadic idealism (or cosmopsychism) presented by Dr Nikolaj Petersen is completely consistent with the observer equals the observed condition leading to an integration of a self as a nested hierarchy (Levin’s multi-scale competency architecture). Dr Petersen’s account solves both the combination problem of panpsychism and its invers, the decombination problem, which means that our apparent property dualism is a direct result of the holographic screen being two-sided. As a result, the self requires three levels of description, agreeing with the semiotics favored by Charles S Pierce.
Stress responses even operate with evolution, leading to the regulation of mutability and genetic stability. Molecular geneticist James Shapiro (see his book, Evolution) has defeated the idea that evolution acts without purpose, and he claims that DNA has read/write capabilities and that our DNA (and that of other life) has been impacted by the innate intelligence carried by life.
What about a person that wishes to increase their tolerance for uncertainty such that the person is able to encounter and assimilate greater degrees of uncertainty? We might say the person is becoming more stable or coherent and at the came time able to be creative across a wider range of circumstances that contain a higher degree of uncertainty? Could we even say that this is related to a kind of intentional evolution. Can it be that there is the possibility of our not only learning to learn (Gregory Bateson suggested calling this "second order learning") but also learning to participate in our own evolution?
i like this, but youd probably get beaten back and hard now and then. are you attempting Nietzsche's advice in wtp to tale everything dangerous and worst upon yourself? christianity is clearly a religion meant to stomp out contingencies. Nietzsche writes the Ubermensch should desire the opposite of this.
this is simply just learning something new. you didnt have to ask as you andwered your own question
Right, the observer is the observed in several models of reality. First, in Shankara's (788-820), everything is Pure Consciousness, so both observer and observed are That Pure Consciousness. On a more conventional "scientific" level requiring the apparent duality of subject and object, that would be a delusion per Advaita Vedanta, but in a more liberal Kashmir Shaivism, the apparent delusion itself (in a sense) is "real". That level of reality is what makes the apparent world "tick". In the holographic model, the apparent "parts" are also holograms like waves in an ocean.
I don’t know that “non-qualitative experience” isn’t just an oxymoron.
This was such a wonderful conversation and thank you all.
Interaction could be something that changing maybe can get stronger in case of particular variants and increase the interaction and intensity.. so the 2 systems will create a bridge
Great talk. I was glad the guests were asked if they believe consciousness is fundamental, but I’m not sure either answered the question definitively.
It seems like they are both leaning that way, but might not be 100% ready to state what Don Hoffman is focusing on …and so many of us experience / feel, every moment.
Curious to hear others’ interpretation.
Well said!
This is absolutely fantastic - the access here to the deep thinking of such accomplished and illuminating minds is truly exceptional, thank you for posting. I have heard and read a lot of Friston's work, and I am following other thinkers like Donald Hoffman on consciousness, and the conversation here and another with Friston and Levin have deepened my understanding no end. This sort of foundational principles discussion is exactly what I was seeking but not expecting to find...
Glad you enjoyed it!
"The observer is the observed," (discussion somewhere around the time stamp 58:00) strikes me as referencing the self. If this is what was meant, it suggests that the self exists as the process of observing ones own perceptions (observations) and actions. The statement seems to relate a recursive structure of self. This seems different than a hierarchy of Markov blankets that operate cohesively at different levels spatially and temporally. I'm not understanding Friston at this point of the discussion. I don't get how the hierarchy of markov blankets explains the statement, "the observer is the observed,"
Edit
The observer is the observed is an ontological claim, not a functional one. The discussion in response to this statement gives a functional explanation, rather than addressing what the observer is.
I love it. But can you pleasee invest into a better microphone so it's more listenable :) otherwise amazing questions and discussion. Thanks
Krishnamurti, anyone?
1:06 "Strictly speaking there is no pathological behaviour, it is all Bayes optimal" ROFL
Love you guys
Such a wonderful conversation,
Thank you to the team 🙏
Wow you guys are spot on Fantastic I’m not the only one who knows 😂
Chris Fields is in normal mood while Karl Friston is in hallucination one!