My understanding of IIT isn't much more than what I have gleaned from this lecture. I could very well have it wrong. If I am correct, then IIT is a theory of physics. This point seemed reiterated throughout the lecture. Physics explains behavior. Richard Feynman made a key distinction about this idea in the first of his famous four lectures on physics. He gave three models of gravitation as "explained" by physics. He cited Kepler's law that a planet orbiting the sun sweeps out equal areas of arc in equal times. He gave the Newtonian formulation that is the classical equation of gravity involving the mass of each object, their distance apart, and the gravitation constant that students of physics are taught. The third model I no longer remember but the specifics are unimportant. He then goes on to show that all three models were equivalent. Each could be derived from the other. The next thing he said was what's on point here. All of these models tell us how bodies (masses) behave under the influence of gravity. But, none of them tell us what gravity is. Could it be some wind like force acting on all bodies? No. That would have a directional bias. Even Einstein's notion of the "bending" of space-time was found lacking. What really does that mean, anyway? The distinction that is very critical about our understanding of consciousness is this distinction between behavior and ontology, ontology being the study of the nature or essence of something - what it is. After following the lecturer's chain of causality of perception, say vision - what is the red that I experience that filled one of the lecturer's slides at one point during the presentation? What is that first person experience of red, or pain, or wind in one's face? This is what the the philosopher David Chalmers characterized as, "The hard Problem Of Consciousness." Chalmers distinguished this from the easy problem of consciousness, which deals with all the correlates or causal connections that may (underscore "may") give rise to conscious experience. I am quite confident that Chalmers would say that everything discussed in this lecture addresses only his easy problem of consciousness. IIT and all other theories of consciousness still suffer this explanatory gap. This is not to say that the science presented here isn't impressive. It is. But, we still lack a complete explanation of consciousness.
He is a little too enthusiastic about IIT and equations. IIT and its equations have not been validated regarding its accurate description of consciousness. If he wants equations, Karl Friston will give him equations. Although I respect what the presenter and what he has to say, I have the strong impression that he doesn't understand rigorous philosophy of science. He seems too eager to embrace the efficacy of mathematics in consciousness, and that is coming from a mathematician.
This is a common misperception. In Karl Friston's own words: "Our work on the free energy principle [is] ... an account of sentient BEHAVIOR [and] ... not in itself a theory of consciousness." th-cam.com/video/qwR71kjBn6g/w-d-xo.html Behavior can be double dissociated from consciousness. They are not the same: You can be conscious, yet paralyzed, and there are many example of behavior in the absence of consciousness. So, IIT is truly unique in offering equations that translate neural activity to sentience (conscious experience/qualia) ITSELF. This having said, it is fair - even prudent - to be skeptical about the efficacy of mathematics for understanding consciousness. The counter argument is that mathematics is already employed successfully in the study of conscious experience (psychophysics). This precedence suggests that there is no fundamental barrier for using mathematics to describe conscious experience. Moreover, mathematics is efficacious in all the rest of science. Why should consciousness be different?
@@astonishinghypothesis My comment, "If he wants equations, Karl Friston will give him equations," wasn't intended to imply, "equations for consciousness," but equations regarding the brain (active inference, free energy, etc.). I'm not arguing to ban mathematics from brain/consciousness applications. I simply expressed an opinion that I thought Professor Maier seemed to embrace IIT mathematics to the point of irational exuberance.
@@Prodigious147 Yes, as a mathematician, I use the computer to build models of various areas of mathematics such as complexity theory, nonlinear dynamics, and chaos theory, and run simulations to experiment with the model parameters.
How would an older person who always hated math, develop the math skills needed to understand IIT (& quantum physics & nonlinear optronics) at an intuitive level despite limited neuroplasticity?
I was dead ,drown,for an hour.Became a bottom dweller only not in the lake.All part of the controlled hallucination,still breathing ..air...is it ..air....feels like water..sometimes😂.
Isn't seeing things when the eyes are closed the evocation of memory thus seeing the evoked memory - image. I say Hmm to NCC, and should I dream about a pink elephant I won't try to analyse my most recent days activities to understand why I dreamt of a pink elephant. I wish I had time to listen, read and understand this video.
good grief. If you are really saying ,switching on things in a certain way ,gives you the colour red ? Well lets switch on a similar set of switches in a computer and let it experience the colour red. Better still , lets print out the code , the moment the computer experiences red, so we can claim the code on the paper is experiencing red.
My understanding of IIT isn't much more than what I have gleaned from this lecture. I could very well have it wrong. If I am correct, then IIT is a theory of physics. This point seemed reiterated throughout the lecture. Physics explains behavior. Richard Feynman made a key distinction about this idea in the first of his famous four lectures on physics. He gave three models of gravitation as "explained" by physics. He cited Kepler's law that a planet orbiting the sun sweeps out equal areas of arc in equal times. He gave the Newtonian formulation that is the classical equation of gravity involving the mass of each object, their distance apart, and the gravitation constant that students of physics are taught. The third model I no longer remember but the specifics are unimportant. He then goes on to show that all three models were equivalent. Each could be derived from the other. The next thing he said was what's on point here. All of these models tell us how bodies (masses) behave under the influence of gravity. But, none of them tell us what gravity is. Could it be some wind like force acting on all bodies? No. That would have a directional bias. Even Einstein's notion of the "bending" of space-time was found lacking. What really does that mean, anyway? The distinction that is very critical about our understanding of consciousness is this distinction between behavior and ontology, ontology being the study of the nature or essence of something - what it is.
After following the lecturer's chain of causality of perception, say vision - what is the red that I experience that filled one of the lecturer's slides at one point during the presentation? What is that first person experience of red, or pain, or wind in one's face? This is what the the philosopher David Chalmers characterized as, "The hard Problem Of Consciousness." Chalmers distinguished this from the easy problem of consciousness, which deals with all the correlates or causal connections that may (underscore "may") give rise to conscious experience. I am quite confident that Chalmers would say that everything discussed in this lecture addresses only his easy problem of consciousness. IIT and all other theories of consciousness still suffer this explanatory gap. This is not to say that the science presented here isn't impressive. It is. But, we still lack a complete explanation of consciousness.
Absolutely amazing video!
Could you please tell me full name of the lecture ?
He is a little too enthusiastic about IIT and equations. IIT and its equations have not been validated regarding its accurate description of consciousness. If he wants equations, Karl Friston will give him equations.
Although I respect what the presenter and what he has to say, I have the strong impression that he doesn't understand rigorous philosophy of science. He seems too eager to embrace the efficacy of mathematics in consciousness, and that is coming from a mathematician.
This is a common misperception.
In Karl Friston's own words:
"Our work on the free energy principle [is] ... an account of sentient BEHAVIOR [and] ... not in itself a theory of consciousness."
th-cam.com/video/qwR71kjBn6g/w-d-xo.html
Behavior can be double dissociated from consciousness. They are not the same: You can be conscious, yet paralyzed, and there are many example of behavior in the absence of consciousness.
So, IIT is truly unique in offering equations that translate neural activity to sentience (conscious experience/qualia) ITSELF.
This having said, it is fair - even prudent - to be skeptical about the efficacy of mathematics for understanding consciousness. The counter argument is that mathematics is already employed successfully in the study of conscious experience (psychophysics). This precedence suggests that there is no fundamental barrier for using mathematics to describe conscious experience. Moreover, mathematics is efficacious in all the rest of science. Why should consciousness be different?
@@astonishinghypothesis My comment, "If he wants equations, Karl Friston will give him equations," wasn't intended to imply, "equations for consciousness," but equations regarding the brain (active inference, free energy, etc.).
I'm not arguing to ban mathematics from brain/consciousness applications. I simply expressed an opinion that I thought Professor Maier seemed to embrace IIT mathematics to the point of irational exuberance.
@@Prodigious147 It is a tool in science and many other fields, but mathematics is a research field within itself using science methodology.
@@Prodigious147 Logic is part of science and math. There is experimentation in math, especially computer modeling and algorithm construction.
@@Prodigious147 Yes, as a mathematician, I use the computer to build models of various areas of mathematics such as complexity theory, nonlinear dynamics, and chaos theory, and run simulations to experiment with the model parameters.
Looks very important to me, it reinforces what I thought should happen. Be interesting if it survives further experimentation.
How would an older person who always hated math, develop the math skills needed to understand IIT (& quantum physics & nonlinear optronics) at an intuitive level despite limited neuroplasticity?
I was dead ,drown,for an hour.Became a bottom dweller only not in the lake.All part of the controlled hallucination,still breathing ..air...is it ..air....feels like water..sometimes😂.
Isn't seeing things when the eyes are closed the evocation of memory thus seeing the evoked memory - image. I say Hmm to NCC, and should I dream about a pink elephant I won't try to analyse my most recent days activities to understand why I dreamt of a pink elephant. I wish I had time to listen, read and understand this video.
good grief. If you are really saying ,switching on things in a certain way ,gives you the colour red ? Well lets switch on a similar set of switches in a computer and let it experience the colour red. Better still , lets print out the code , the moment the computer experiences red, so we can claim the code on the paper is experiencing red.
presenter said , neural activity is a cousnciousness, then how he explane ( reincarnation)
according to me , consciousness creat brain activity
Conscience isn't the universe is
They discuss the influence on consciousness NOT consciousness itself.
Matter never creates consciousness. Consciousness always creates matter.
They are one and the same.
What's a matter, something's a matter..
Proof?