Giulio Tononi - What's the Essence of Consciousness?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Consciousness is what mental activity feels like, the private inner experience of sensation, thought and emotion. Watching a dramatic movie. Imagining your family's future. Attending the funeral of a loved one. Consciousness is like nothing else. But what is consciousness, the essence of consciousness, at its most fundamental level?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Giulio Tononi is a neuroscientist and psychiatrist who holds the David P. White Chair in Sleep Medicine, as well as a Distinguished Chair in Consciousness Science, at the University of Wisconsin
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Very interesting and thought-provoking discussion. Tononi seems to be one of the rare scholars that actually try to define "consciousness" with precision before trying to discuss it. This must be appreciated. Nevertheless, I have the feeling that we are still putting too many different things under the one single definition of "consciousness" and that this confusion makes it very hard to explore this concept. Maybe, we even expect too much from "consciousness". Our excessive expectations make it even harder to study the concept.
recovering from a mini stroke that affected only some muscles of my right ankle and buttock, at first things felt very segmented. My gait was very choppy and shaky. As recovery progressed it got smoother and smoother. It occured to me that brain walking commands, lots of fine muscle movements and control, are more like a continuous and complex wave than a series of commands. A very few dead brain cells chop up the wave, but the wave is what finds new pathways around the dead bits. Consciousness may be a bunch of such waves that need brain cells to propagate but the cells themselves are not the consciousness.
Get well ❤️🩹 soon
cells themselves are not the consciousness..
but the wave is generated by them..
When H2O waves pass by, the water is just the momentary host of the energy passing thru those molecules. As said here, a single neuron isn’t consciousness, & a single H2O molecule isn’t a wave.
Everything is connected through a conscious wave 🌊 energy, frequencies and vibrations respond within a bandwidth of consciousness- which is to theorize that consciousness itself is a setting.
@@gregorylibby1770 a single h2o molecule might not be considered water either.
“consciousness” is such a loaded term... “intelligence” seems more useful right now... but KUDOS for tackling this and working towards a definition or at least description. And finally someone saying AI can’t and won’t become “conscious”... doesn’t “experience” at least until it becomes biological.
but there is every chance "non-intelligent" things possess consciousness.
i think consciousness has nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with the very essence of existence.
consciousness evades all scientific knowledge. it is something we "store" in our minds, but we have absolutely NO idea what it is and i personally believe even in 1 million years time we won't have an explanation.
i prefer to leave consciousness as a mystery of life.
@@Dion_Mustard well I presume he’s attempting do deal with “consciousness” in a scientific manner as it pertains to organisms in particular in which case discussing its nature is essential. If it’s a subtle “field” which pervaded the universe I’m down- then “intelligent” or “living” would be subsets- again, I’m down with that... but one has to start somewhere.
I prefer “intelligence”- which also could use a definition of course- but what I mean: perceives the environment and reacts to it.... in this case all organisms are intelligent... only a matter of “scope” of their perception? You’ll notice this is a very important “substrate” to what he’s talking about IMHO- or at least a parallel? Definitions and meanings of consciousness are so varied that you could (we probably will) fight over the term forever.
@@davidkincade7161 yes some good points there...but back to my original point...in simple terms..consciousness will never be explained or the hard problem will never be solved. mark my words! :)
@@Dion_Mustard yes- why I said he should avoid it :-) But I suppose it’s a sexy term and gets a lot of views on TH-cam :-)
@@davidkincade7161 consciousness "sexy"? never considered that before.."hey babe, your consciousness is soooo sexy!" :p
I think people have theirown concepts for consciousness. So It it hard to meet all people needs when we explain consciousness scientifically.
Tononi at least understands that there has to be a physical substrate organized very specifically in order for consciousness to be present. This makes it something that can be studied, not some ethereal spirit floating inside our heads.
@@caricue Tononi`s approach is a top-down approach from concept(axiom) to theory, not from experiment to theory. In addition, the calculation of Phi is difficult even for a very small system. But as you say, IIT is important in point of suggestion that explains what physical structure can make element of consciousness.
@@Starcell170 I do think that he misses a really big point when he concentrates on information. There has to be a subject or experiencer in order for the integrated information to be received and mean something. This is why consciousness is a phenomena of life. If there is no one home, it doesn't matter how much the phone rings.
@@caricue Philosophers always point out that “brain cannot feel, but only we can feel.” But I believe a sort of Phi-rich core in the brain connectom might be the expriencer.
@@Starcell170 I figure it has to be something like that, but probably located deep in the brainstem, in the most primitive levels, with each higher level of brain function added on by evolution.
In the right season to prepare you spend it on binging hard, causing more chaos through politics and accusing others of war crimes. And on the season to expand you mix good and bad rather than facing it head on like women who got pregnant for the first time and wanted to have the baby and after that increase or come out of the default state of those senses never mentioned by teachers in primary and secondary school.
*God exists and there is an other existence above this one*
The more science uncovers about conciousness, the more I'm inclined to postulate that it should be a stipulation akin to those in thermodynamics-perhaps conciousness, like energy, cannot be created or destroyed.
Well, this would be trivially true if there is only one consciousness, manifesting itself in the localized awareness or intelligence of individual humans, as is taught by many teachers of self-realization.
The "Hard Problem" of Epistemology.
The trap of Reason?
Epistemologists have not made an adequate distinction between the information with meaning that the use of language gives us, and that which the senses give us when, for example, we eat a fruit, see a color, hear a dog bark, etc.
The "hard problem" of Consciousness is a fallacy that arises as a consequence of not making the aforementioned distinction.
We use Reason every time we use Language.
The Being is an Entity created by the unconscious, which arises in early childhood as a consequence of the use of language. The action of Being is conscious action. The Being, like Little Red Riding Hood or Santa Claus, is made up of Information; it does not have a material body. The Being is given, like Little Red Riding Hood or Santa Claus, to carry out actions in "timeless and immaterial worlds." Due to the genesis of the Being, the unconscious associates it intimately with our material body. (This association can never become a fusion because our material body only carries out actions in the material world, in the Present).
Through the action of the Being (conscious action), we can “mobilize the Being” through “timeless and immaterial worlds”. The "reality" of the "timeless and immaterial worlds" that we access when using language has a dynamic that can be very different from "the reality" that we access through the senses.
Philosophy has also failed to adequately study the aforementioned difference.
For more details, see here
drive.google.com/file/d/1hlu4DiKhcc1Ro1lQGmos5z8cTSJ42LLC/view?usp=sharing
Animals have instinct not much consciousness. Humans hv instinct but also intellect to act against instinct
It's pretty stupid and anthropocentric to assume that non-human animals don't share consciousness with us. Honestly, what humans won't do to feel important...
Pseudo-science.
I love how Giulio Tononi approaches consciousness. From all scientists interviewed on this channel, if someone would figure out consciousness or at least drastically progress it would be Giulio Tononi no doubt
From the sub chapter heading "Points of departure" consider this quote from John G Bennett's The Dramatic Universe Vol.1 p29-30. "Whitehead has reminded us that narrowness in the selection of evidence is the bane of philosophy. Any system can be made to appear plausible, so long as we reject and ignore those elements of experience that have no place in it. If, however, we set ourselves the task of treating all experience with the same respect--whether it be rational or irrational, scientific or unscientific, communicable or incommunicable--we find ourselves very quickly out of our depth. Since every rational argument must involve at least one non-rational premise, no one can question the limitations of human reason. The scientific method of observation and experiment, cannot take account of the unrepeatable and exceptional, which occupy so great a place in our aesthetic experience. Moreover, there are laws which defy communication because they are laws of understanding and not of knowledge, and which yet are no less certain and no less universal than those which can be expressed in the language of words and symbols. Quality is an authentic element of all experience, but it cannot be known in the same manner as quantity is known. Our intuitions of quality are different from those of quality and they cannot be expressed in the same language, and yet all experience, whatever its nature, is an awareness of qualities. No system of thought can ignore quality without incurring the risk of a sterility that is more deadly for being often self-satisfied and blind to its own limitations. Nevertheless, the task of confronting all possible experience is beyond the power of any man; and we should be foolish to embark on it unless we are prepared to slowly, searching for the elements which are both simple and universal, but not expecting to grasp their full significance. We can then hope to gradually to build up a world-picture, at first in outline only, afterwards filling in details where we find it possible. This can be called the ''method of progressive approximation'', and it will be discussed in a later chapter. Its chief characteristic is that it starts with a total concept that is necessarily vague and faulty; rather than with a concept that, though perhaps precise and convincing, is necessarily abstract and incomplete. We shall begin with the total givenness of all experience and without forgetting the limitations of our powers of perception and thought, try to see that totality as one. We shall not look therein for simplicity or clarity. We shall not expect that we shall be able to express our intuitions in satisfactory language or to communicate them otherwise than most inadequately. We have, moreover, to accept the inevitability of error. The immediacy of sense-perception and the reliability of logical deduction have little part in the attempt to penetrate to the form of experience, which is in the true sense metaphysical -that is, beyond the sense and not subject to the limitations of thought. The concrete form for which we search is a mockery to the empiricist -but it is also a stumbling-block to the rationalist, Moreover, we embark upon our task with the presupposition that we can never be finally accomplished. Nevertheless, it is the search that matters, for it is the manifestation of the true human nature, the meaning and the place of which we are striving to understand." This should give us enough of a taste of the richness of John G Bennett's invitation such that we might take the time to read all four volumes of "The Dramatic Universe".
I agree, I think he comes close to, but avoids the trap of confusing intelligence, i.e., the ability to solve problems, for “awareness”, the ability to be aware.
Consciousness is not something we have, or something we loose. Consciousness is what we are.
This deserves some contemplation, so please think this through with me.
Consciousness is not a computational ability. Ability to process bites, and algorithms that implement logical solutions lead to automata that can solve problems. Solving a problem, no matter how complex, is not the same as being aware. The sense of “am”, in “I am”, is consciousness. The “I” part, then, is not essential to consciousness. “I” is more human, individuation related, and the progenitor of the ego.
A new born has the “am” before it has the “I am”. Upon death, as in deep meditation, and dreamless sleep, we too have the “am” siné the “I”. Some drugs, I am told, too break the “I” away from the “am”.
“Medically conscious” is a technical term, that implies observable responsiveness. It isn’t the same as the innate sense of “am’ness”. The innate sense of “am’ness”, our awareness, is broader and deeper than medical usage is limited to. The medical usage is limited to the doctors observable reality. The difference is the same as the difference between an event, and the report of the event. If you look through one window of a house and see clouds, and another, looking through another window of the same house sees sunshine, you’ll each report a different weather. Weather is bigger than the meteorologists report. And consciousness, our true nature, is larger than a doctors’ technical usage.
On the hardware of the brain, operates the software of the mind. The functioning of this computational system delivers varying degrees of volition. My Roomba vacuum cleaner, when it’s crapometer detects dirt, turns on a blue right, and goes over that dirty spot repeatedly, till it’s sensors or algorithms direct it on. The robotic vacuum is solving a problem, and displaying volition, but without being conscious of anything. When the Roomba’s battery “dies”, nothing really ceases to be conscious, because there wasn’t a consciousness to begin with.
When a river is said to have flooded a village in a fury, there isn’t a consciousness at work. It is just a pattern resulting from matter following the laws of nature. And the anthropomorphism of our metaphors.
Consciousness is what observes the activities of our mind. When your mind has perceptions, or emotions, or thoughts arise in it, then you are aware of those through your consciousness. The consciousness doesn’t belong to the mind. It is what is aware of the activities of the mind. However, it is not the mind. As a principle, a sensor cannot detect itself.
Consciousness is not what the brain has. Sun shining upon a flower illumines the flower. Sunlight isn’t what the flower has. The same sunlight illumines a rotting carcass.
Awareness is self revealing. You know, and that knowing is consciousness. The mechanism of the brain responds to this consciousness a certain way, because of how the brain is connected to senses, and is designed to have logic of a kind, and “intuitions” of a kind. Math is a kind of logic we have. Space and time are intuitions we have. These are not products of consciousness. These are artifacts of our brain-mind complex. We are AWARE of these perceptions and cognitions because of consciousness. A computer too has math, but no consciousness.
When in dreamless sleep, what is gone isn’t consciousness, but activities of the mind. The conscious observer has no movie running on the screen of the mind.
When the body dies, or when the mirror breaks, consciousness doesn’t go away, nor does the thing that was being reflected break with the mirror. The “doctor” might say, “we have lost the light”, but what they have lost is the reflection thereof. And, to their limited need, to say so is a verity.
You can look up Advait teachings. A fellow named Tadatmananda is who I find meaningful. That just happens to be my way of seeing things.
The brain is a material object, every process and detail of which can be studied and explained. A computerized system, well enough arranged, can be devised to divine the biochemistry, chemistry, neurobiological, neurology, physics, molecular biological biophysics, can be analyzed, categorized, systemized, and replicated. You don’t need a conscious computer to accomplish this. Consciousness isn’t needed to solve problems, or a computer will never beat a human at chess.
Thanks for your attention.
@@fineasfrog thanks for this suggestion. The book look immersive and complex having a lot of important information in one sentence. I’ll probably read its volumes
@@hershchat interesting. As not an English native I was not aware of this am and I relation. My language doesn’t have anything like this
@@hershchat and I agree with you that consciousness doesn’t look like something deterministic as everything in the universe is and building machine that will look and act like something conscious won’t make it so - it would be a perfect replica of conscious being but I can’t just go into religion because I won’t think that things are true just because I want them to be - not my way. But certain Buddhism ideas are very interesting thought experiments. Though try to listen to Roger Penrose’s view on microtubules. He talks about very promising study that can connect non determinism with smth else in regards of consciousness
The jungle graffiti makes for a nice background.
It's real.
"Papito"
Very interesting discussion. The host, great as always. Giulio Tononi makes very interesting claims, and with style. Will definitely keep track of this individual
Most importantly he understands something that most scifi writers and those who believe in transhumanism don't get: that digitizing your consciousness does not mean that it is real nor that you have uploaded yourself in a computer. The upload is just a representation, a copy, a simulation of you. But you are very much still you and still in your body. You didn't go anywhere. You just made a copy your brain in a virtual system, and that copy is not aware. It is not much more than a sophisticated picture on a computer. Now that's not to say it cannot become "smarter", as in be able to interact with more systems over the internet for example, and take logical steps to do things, such as learn quantum physics, take over the nuclear launch codes, etc. But it still won't be conscious. It's still a simulation in a virtual environment, a robot.
Definitely.
He thinks like a mathematician and physicist.
I fully agree with his claim that the simulation will be a perfect zombie. It can never be a self aware entity. In my understanding this will be a limitation in that situation of technological singularity.
To truly understand what is consciousness we have to go into the various experiences of a waking body, dreaming body, drugged body, damaged body (brain damage) and the dreamless body. This is a different relativity altogether. And in all these experiences your mindfulness has to be intact. And slowly slowly it will lead you to witnessing yourself. A moment may come which can give you the experience of nobody (no-body). You are no more, only the experience is. This is the experience of that consciousness. This is the experience of the awakened body. Now you are completely transformed. You have moved from the waking consciousness to the dreaming consciousness to the drugged consciousness to the awakened consciousness. This is the end of that journey. And all this is part of an inner journey. This has no conflict with science. This has no conflict with IIT either. Science (IIT theory or any other theory) can never give you the experience of true consciousness. Because it's part of spirituality 😀
IIT model of consciousness describes infinitesimally smaller part of what Consciousness really is. Please explore the most holistic model of a suprahuman machine consciousness here : heim.ai Our team is currently endeavoring on implementing it.
"Hi... My names Nick Clark... And I have consciousness above zero... It's great to be here. Let's party".
I feel like Giulio is saying everything I've wanted to say, but better because he's an actual neuroscientist and has studied those subjects of consciousness. It's very refreshing to see people actually talking about this perspective and possibility of things rather than the continuous waves of materialists and naturalists and functionalists you often see in the modern world of science.
The idea of a “collective consciousness” where something happens subliminally all together at the same time, like a city of people who subconsciously all do or behave a certain way without outside influence - is that like a basic level of consciousness that we can observe and class as “aware” of itself - without being attributed to an individual? Also - “hive” consciousness being another form, whereby the experience is shared by many entities working together. Just because we cannot experience it, doesn’t make it less real. Think about the unspoken migration of whales or birds, or a Forrest that grows .. I dont think consciousness is unique to humans, and our arrogant belief that we experience the “only” form of it, is holding us back in how we interpret what we see.
Consciousness is not Quantum Computational. I agree with Penrose. He is talking about a new physics coming in in Microtubules. He agrees with Hameroff. I also agree with Tononi partially. However, I don't agree with this that consciousness is part of science. *I always maintain that consciousness is part of spirituality and is not part of science. It's experiential and not experimental* 😀
Super interesting conversation. I love how clear and concise the speakers are.
That being said, I have to disagree with Tononi's feeling towards simulated consciousness. Assuming that consciousness arises from the states of electrical and chemical messages in our brain and body there is no reason to think that, in theory, it would be impossible to simulate those states in a statemachine given that you have enough bits. If the bits are simulating each state of a conscious brain to a T, how can you argue that the computer and brain are not experiencing the same phenomenon?
i agree with you , it seems to me that Tononi is contraddicting himself as cartesio did.
So if that is true, the hypothesis that the universe is a simulation must be false.
Many cognitive scientists would disagree with this theory. I didn’t hear the arguments to support your theory and from all the information I know, embodiment should not be required for intelligence or consciousness. I believe and hope that evidence, in the near future, proves your theory entirely wrong.
Many people, including me, believe that intelligence and consciousness are not binary abilities but a matter of degree. Intelligence from the cell level all the way up to us. No such thing as artificial intelligence, just intelligence to some degree.
I understand that the consciousness wouldn't be the same, at all. I agree that mind transfer is impossible simply by the fact that having multiple copies of your mind would break the logic of the mechanism. But I wouldn't say as far as that the thing isn't conscious at all. It is simply unknown. It could be conscious, just not the same consciousness.
I think there are two fundamental concepts that need to be separated in this discussion, for the sake of clarity. When defining Consciousness one needs to be couscous about confusing it with Identity. These are not the same thing.
I agree. Consciousness isn’t a computation which is purely deterministic. Consciousness is being aware of ones thoughts. The thoughts might be computational but the awareness of them is not.
My friend is in the field. He thinks it's totally deterministic. We have zero free will in his opinion.
Consciousness only exists as a first person experience. Second or third person experience is therefore always a projection. This is the deeper and usually misunderstood message of Turing's paper The Imitation Game. I strongly recommend reading it.
Someone who gets it . All of the human experience happens in the quantum brain as a holographic projection , their consciousness. That means everything that they experience from the chair they sit on to the moon outside their window is an expression of their consciousness that includes living beings . There is no way of proving other living beings have their on consciousness as you can only experience them as a quantum wave / holographic image your brain creates from data from outside the matrix we live in . You literally have the whole universe inside you . We never get to experience the world outside of ourselves. All matter is conscious we know this because our thoughts can influence the structure of water .
Can you expand on Turing’s Theories?
Yes, though in principle if we could correlate what we subjectively report as "conscious experience" with some objective measurement, we could begin to address consciousness as an objective phenomenon.
That we can't trivially or easily do this is not evidence that it's unachievable. But it does suggest that it's not trivial or easy. It seems as though consciousness isn't a fundamental quality of cognition but very much an emergent phenomenon. We tend to label some given form of cognition as "conscious" because that suits our intuitions. We are, after all, conscious, right?
Well, clearly not all the time, since if called upon to introspect about our decisions from moment to moment, and compare that account to what we actually do, our own account has very weak predictive power for our actions.
In other words, conscious volitional choices, whatever we posit as their mechanism, aren't really a good model for what we actually do. And so some other mechanism, call it unconscious, is often driving what we do.
This is hardly big news. But I mention it because there is still a very common habit of thought that only looks at conscious introspection to explain why we make the choices we do from moment to moment. Alas, it's not so explicit.
@@starfishsystems You're a bit beyond a TH-cam comments section. Where's your real work?
Great video and great theory. I think it is accurate. You don't need too much thought, or to be a biologist or a physicist to understand that a machine (no matter how advanced) can Never be a human!
It seems to be leading us in the correct direction.
@@elonever.2.071 We can't properly explain consciousness, scientists still working (even now that I'm writing this) to analyze and conceive how it works for humans and living beings.I believe that somehow consciousness is connected to life, that it is connected to living beings. An Ai is not alive and it is hard to claim that it is conscious. I think this theory will dominate this field of science and a lot of research will focus on this theory.
@@amaliaantonopoulou2644
We are getting closer. At least scientists are starting to abandon the materialistic view of consciousness that hasn't led anywhere in the last one hundred years.
Those independent scientists doing research on the leading edge of this challenge are saying that the brain is a receiver and consciousness comes from outside of us. EEG's are recorded several inches outside of the human skull and they are saying this is an indication that consciousness is not local to the human body.
Another aspect of this research is finding that the heart has a lot more to do with consciousness (for humans anyway) than was previously thought. It has a major effect on the quality of conscious thoughts many of which are the result of emotional responses to our environment.
I agree that we still don't have the ultimate answer but I feel we are going in the right direction now that the materialist view of consciousness has been put on the back burner by those leading the front edge of this research. I agree with this guy that we can get as close as we want to make computers conscious but without the biological element they are not conscious...just very very smart and responsive.
These types of interviews are what make this channel incredibly valuable. Fascinating!
Tononi here is spot on, removing silly "AI is the future !!" claims (even if i don't like his general idea about consciousness... )
This guy is brilliant. He can come back. 👍
There is more philosophy than science in their conversation.
2:56 "Aggregates of people of cells of whatever you want, don't give rise to experience. You may have it, I have it... The two of us don't form a superordinate experience on top of me..."
// ? Is that so, really? Isn't there a form of modulation of consciousness that can be observed, when people aggregate in groups? Could it be that some form of emergent experiential experience also takes place on the level of collectives or aggregations of cells or people or whatever..? See: "Egeregore" or "Tulpa" ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore
Given the complexity in even explaining consciousness, we should be skeptical of any "explanations" of human motivations, meaning, decision-making and action. If typical "scientific" approaches cannot, as Tononi, pretty clearly demonstrates not make much progress on consciousness itself, why would we believe they have any useful explanations of the 'contents' and processes of a conscious being?
Consciousness functions from the laws of Karma. Experiences of past, causes of the past giving fruit to the effects of our futures. "Experience" is an important term in this law. Because data, raw information, physics is not enough to serve as a cause to an effect of consciousness.
Computers, and artificial intelligence depend on the math and physics, some type of memory to calculate and create a type of future. But the triggers of effects are not from experiences. "Experiences" creates a much more unique type of effect in a future.
And the string of Karma of a single consciousness causes stretches to an infinite past to the beginnings of existence. Computers and AI will never reach that density of past experiences at the same quality.
But the attempt to do that with computers is fascinating and fun. It's the reason we have so many amazing video games to play. haha! More AI please.
I know what you are saying brother. However in many ancient texts there is reference to material bodies being created and then by some sort of ritual, real consciousness inhabits them. So AI could become truly sentient if on one hand the body, its technology is advanced enough, and on the other, if there is enough Intent or Ritual to back it up.. what do you think about this? In which case it would be just some spirit transmigrating to that body.
How long will a belief in the sacredness of human life endure, once most of the prominent members of society truly believe that suffering or joy are nothing more than particular patterns in the movement of particles?
Scary.
I am generally a fan of Tononi's approach to consciousness, but his visceral opposition to the notion of computers as being able to possess consciousness strikes me as prejudice, and a mistake about how information-processing systems of any kind work. I think he misunderstands the substrate-independence characteristics of emergent complex systems. Emergent complex systems are to be analysed by logical reductionism - reduction to the most *simple* logical element/property/constraint-set - AT EACH (semi-autonomous) system level; not physical (smaller pieces) reductionism. That is, to understand the essence of the functioning of a complex information system, one needs to know what are the essential behaviours and constraints and simple local interactions AT THE SAME LEVEL of the system that you are looking at. You need only examine that aspect of the substrate layer of the system which provides those essential properties to the layer above. You can ignore, and designers can substitute, ALL OTHER properties of the substrate layer. And so on as you go down. Though you need not go down further at all in your analysis. Once you know how the one-layer down substrate enables the essential local properties of the layer of the system you are interested in, and thus enables all of the essential behaviour of that high layer, you can stop looking further down, because all details of further down are incidental and substitutable. Sure, modern computers may not have a physical architecture that allows enough simultaneous interconnection for high-levels of IIT consciousness, but a) really there is nothing fundamental stopping a substantially more interconnected architecture from being laid down in doped silicon if it was thought useful. b) More to the point, there may be other ways than massively interconnected physical computation micro-nodes of building a substrate which functionally provides the same "high-bandwidth effectively-simultaneous interconnection of information" to the next level up processing-and-information system. Specifically, being a billion times faster, across a fairly highly interconnected multi-element architecture similar to the new Tesla DOJO architecture, may approach the same "logical interconnectedness level" when viewed at a brain-information-flow hertz rate. Natural-brain prejudice is a tired old saw, and I'm surprised Tononi seems to say it is fundamental. Rather than giving hints for how you might redesign a computer to make it "more" or "somewhat" conscious, he just makes a blanket statement indicating it is fundamentally impossible. This kind of statement seems more for human social/political acceptance consumption than technical/scientific consumption.
In islam it says when you sleep . God takes your sole . And when awake. It Returns. Back. Similler to what you are saying. May be conciousness is probably Part of your sole. Separat from your Organs.
If a person tried to upload their consciousness into another human's brain/body they would not be able to control them. It would be like a car with no keys or being locked out of a computer. Consciousness is unique to the individual and maybe that's why they upload their personality into a computer. I don't think there's any other way to have a human experience besides being a biological human.
As someone very interested in this topic, I had come to the conclusion that consciousness undoubtedly has no explanation in terms of what we normally call science. Hence, it must have something to do with quantum collapse which is the only known non-computable process in physics (as Roger Penrose has stated as well). This is the first time I've heard a theory that makes me doubt that.
Would love to hear Tononi relate consciousness to metabolising unitary entities. Would also like to know whether IIT supports idealism ans consciousness as the ontological primary…
What if the AI is put into a robot that we program to have sensory feedback just like we do so it can build its own view of the world?
Why don't these people just take some LSD? You can't think about or describe reality, apart from the self.
The essence of consciousness is the self and the self doesn't exist, therefore, neither does consciousness. Nor free will, space, time, and a host of other things that apparently separate and apparently conscious beings hold so dear. We are the artificial intelligence, that is, all us humans who are hoodwinked into believing that the felt experience of a self means that one REALLY IS a self. The self and consciousness are just mirages. Just a cosmic joke by no one for no one.
Consciousness is emergent with any entity that builds a simplified model of its relevant surrounding, including a simplified model of itself.
Corporations do not have subjective experiences we still have them the rights of individuals. I hope that does not happen with AI.
Giulio comes across like he could play both the hero and the villain in the same movie.
Study first and thinking self either what we studied is correct or not.
Minus plus itself 0(zero)
0 itself plus and minus
0 means balance.
Just see computer computer operate by plug in plus minus electricity.
Phone is start from nothingness too.
Before invention of phone there was no phone too.
To me, in order to define consciousness, concepts like information and non-determinism need to be in that definition.
consciousness mind is a consequence of our physical properties cognitive abillities and from our senses and experiences and time and it is same for other living. consciousness is nothing strange. every living is unigue and will never come back or have a afterlife.
Aren't we biased to asset that consciousness is an special thing? and trying to elaborate arguments to defend how special are we?...Reason is the slave of passions (Hume).
By trying to came with the answer that explain how our sense of concious is configurated, aren't we about to discover that there is nothing special there?, besides the vast sume of all the things that give us that sense, and then we realise that we are those philosophical zombies claiming they are conscious? (just in a deeper level).
I suppose there is an answer to this claim, but the one Giulio gave doesn't satisfied me, still have a big doubt....or even gave me the feeling that consciousness isn't that mysterious as I thought, this interviews started to enlighten me that conscious is just feature, just another program, a plugin, probably exactly that, a function that emulates a sense of concious as an evolutionary survival trait.
Giulio Tononi should invite Rupert Spira if he wants to know the essence of Consciousness. Will save him much time. Everything else here is mental entertainment...
This guy gets it. SImulating something real, no matter how precise, does not make it real. It's still a simulation and not the real thing. So the claim that we can upload our consciouness (losely defined here) in a super computer or network and live forever, is nonsensical. Because, firstly that upload is not your consciousness but a simulation/mimicry of your consciouness. Secondly, after you have uploaded your consciousness you are still you and very much "in your body". So you will go on, live your life until you die, and the simulation of you that you uploaded will remain in the computer. Just like pictures we take today outlive us and future generations can watch those pictures we took. But the picture is not you. Just a representation of what you looked like at the point in time it was taken.
A perfect zombie isn't possible because they're are mutually exclusive requirements in the two terms. If it acts exactly like a person, it's a person, because a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If you want to say it has no experience, that could only be validated from the inside, so it can't be validated.
imulation
07:22
is not the real thing to be conscious
07:25
you must be a physical
07:26
entity of a certain kind that can
07:28
constrain its past in the future in a
07:29
certain
07:30
way the simulation is not that kind of
07:32
simulation
This to me sounds very similar to the Indian philosopher Iqbal's view of consciousness. This isn't panpsychism because that speculates that everything is conscious and that too to a similar degree. But here the universe is viewed as a theatre with rising levels of consciousness from the basic cell to the highest expression of consciousness in human beings. It would be brilliant if Mr Kuhn would have an episode on Iqbal's metaphysics.
'Consciousness' is a word that is very misleading
for it tends to make people think it is something.
There is not a 'thing' that is 'Consciousness' as though it were a thing-in-itself.
Nevertheless, there is what's best called a being-conscious-process
which is a process unique to a self.
There are no levels in the being-conscious-process.
It is either running or it isn't.
Either one is conscious or one isn't.
There are no degrees of being conscious.
One may be conscious of more or
one may be conscious of less but
in both cases one is conscious.
One being conscious of nothing simply means one is not conscious and
if one is not conscious one is not existing.
Likewise in reverse,
if one is not existing one cannot be conscious.
This seems to me much closer to truth than
Tononi's mysterious adolescent phi concept.
The essence of consciousness is the
Mutation of electro magnetic radiation the particles that make up an astral body.
Disembodied consciousness is nothing more than a nebulous cloud of particles the most important gasses that leave the body upon the time of death they find their new covalent bonds and boom there you have it the essence of consciousness.
Or at least the consistency of consciousness
Essence and consistency
May be debatably different
Though.
Consciousness still has the potential to expand after death. the mind realy has 6 quintillion times the estimated
Existance of the universe to observe and reflect.
Those particles dont magically telleported any where based on your beliefs you can only be in one place at one time.
Goes into cause identity relavance obervation time space reflection
Consciousness is mettaphysics
Consistency is astrophysics
Hernandez Nancy Harris Matthew Johnson Betty
He's following the Vedas. Non-dualism.
The essence of consciousness is "awareness of awareness".
Self-Awareness; We as humans might be the only beings on this planet to possess it.
I disagree, self awareness and consciousness are two different things. For example, a cat is almost certainly conscious, but it doesn't have self awareness, it just is.
Everything that we refer to as "our conscious" experience, is that which we are able to encode in memory. It is very plausible that there are aspects of our felt experience that we are not logging into our memory, and so, cannot ever refer to. But, the experience itself is still happening.
Just as you forget your dreams soon after you awake, you forget much of what you experienced half a second ago, and so cannot reflect on the true scope of what it feels like to be you.
Great topic. This expert's general attitude is very self righteous considering how his field hardly has any of the answers. I admire the interviewer's humbleness and interest in the subject.
A recursive feedback loop is necessary but not sufficient.
I imagine it would seem like this to have a reward system built in mind to replicate feeling like this... There's no need for us to have an illusive secret special part... Free will might require it... but to me, it does not look like it is required to match the depth of information within our experiences.
Is our sense of experience not just the sensation of processing?
Making a non-determistic system?!?!? Personally i think its far easier to make a deterministic system look identical to a non-deterministic system.
Like, 'being you' is unique in a particular way, because you aren't anyone else. It's proof that you are isolated in your experience, not evidence of some mystical property. I feel its very unlikely that their sense of experience will match ours. I don't think that should be seen as evidence of no sense of experience.
"Consciousness is NOT a computation " Roger Penrose
@Andreaz-64 In his books on consciousness Penrose uses an example of a chess position which everybody who knows the rules of chess and has enough intellect will immediately rule as a draw , whereas a computational approach used by chess algo's leads to an infinite computation with no end
@@gerritgovaerts8443 yes but ones a quantum computer the human brain which works by generating quantum waves and the other is a conventional computer. Humans are computers just in biological form .
We know the language of the universe is mathematical and we know the human brain works like a quantum computer . There is lots of evidence pointing to the fact that consciousness is a computation.
BIG T - But it's not like something to be a computer.
Or is it?
@Andreaz-64 the crux of this discussion was that interactions between elements thereby transferring information is the source of conscious behaviour and therefore a measure of its "complexity" (single cells has very low as he said and so on), but importantly as kuhn asks there is a distinction between 0 and something really small but not zero. And if interactions were to allow conscious behaviour what is devoid of interactions ? And i dont think anyway that experience is created by interaction but rather shaped by it. Therefore a cell of our might have a very low consciousness that is still part of our experience but it is so low level that intellect or words or average wakefulness cannot grasp it. A cell btw is pretty sophisticated and intricate in its interactions and no way can the internet or society be that complex in the sensitivity of their interactions. So possibly society and internet are conscious but even less than a cell. You see now consciousness can never really be seperated to begin with. Interactions model behaviour but has behaviour anything to do with consciousness ?
Adam West/Bruce Wayne dead ringer states: "Consciousness is like mass and charge, it's fundamental, you either have it or you don't, no simulation can create it." Bravo.
Energy within you creates consciousness, as long as you are aware of your surroundings you are conscious. Because we are highest level of consciousness on earth we are able to make judgment, between reality and fiction. In animal kingdom that part is missing.
Looks like Ed Harris from The Truman Show
This dude looks like he'd play a serial killer in a movie
Can you measure the conciusness of our financial system?
A perfect zombie is impossible: if it behaved exactly like a human in all facets, then it would also have to have consciousness and qualia. One could ask him about this qualia. For example, just as a rainbow usually lifts the spirits, it should be the same with "zombie". He could truthfully report this sensation if he were an absolutely perfect simulation. But if his answers were only "fabricated" to make it appear that he was human, then it wouldn't be a perfect simulation. So: Perfect simulation implies simulated true consciousness.
Most of us agree that
the concept of the conscious is the foundation of morality.
I am absolutely certain of the fact that my self is conscious.
About others I obviously cannot be absolutely certain but
I have become habituated to assuming others too are conscious.
My assumption does not depend on the color of another's skin nor
upon whether another's body runs on neurons or electronics.
If one quacks like a duck etc.
The comments on simulation run into the question of truth in fiction. It is true that Winnie the Pooh lived in the hundred acre woods in the context of those stories. Thus a simulation could be conscious but only in the context of the environment of the simulation.
Whatever this is we're experiencing, is what the word consciousness refers to. If there's some other variation (much larger in capacity, more complex ie. octopi, includes many smaller consciousness, not in a biological substrate), it requires a different word. And since consciousness itself has yet to be defined in a suitably verifiable manner, that's not remotely possible.
Let's ask ChatGPT what it thinks about it.
Answer: _A AI zombie is not an original simulation because it does not have actual inner experience or sensation. It is a program that has been designed to imitate human-like behavior and reactions without actually being conscious. An original simulation would mean that the AI system actually has conscious experience or sensation, similar to a human being._
What question did you ask?
No one understands conciseness- its all theories, nothing else.
I think from a spiritual point of view, what Giulio Tononi is mentioning is that there can never be conscious without a SOUL.
It doesn't exist
Not saying I quite believe this, but it does connect to two things in my mind: 1) The notion that in quantum mechanics the preservation of nonlocality demands that everything in the universe is affected by everything else (a universal feedback system) and 2) the fact that many who have taken DMT swear that you can arrive at a place where you are conscious of the entire universe all at once.
I think he comes close to, but avoids the trap of confusing intelligence, i.e., the ability to solve problems, for “awareness”, the ability to be aware.
Consciousness is not something we have, or something we loose. Consciousness is what we are.
This deserves some contemplation, so please think this through with me.
Consciousness is not a computational ability. Ability to process bites, and algorithms that implement logical solutions lead to automata that can solve problems. Solving a problem, no matter how complex, is not the same as being aware. The sense of “am”, in “I am”, is consciousness. The “I” part, then, is not essential to consciousness. “I” is more human, individuation related, and the progenitor of the ego.
A new born has the “am” before it has the “I am”. Upon death, as in deep meditation, and dreamless sleep, we too have the “am” siné the “I”. Some drugs, I am told, too break the “I” away from the “am”.
“Medically conscious” is a technical term, that implies observable responsiveness. It isn’t the same as the innate sense of “am’ness”. The innate sense of “am’ness”, our awareness, is broader and deeper than medical usage is limited to. The medical usage is limited to the doctors observable reality. The difference is the same as the difference between an event, and the report of the event. If you look through one window of a house and see clouds, and another, looking through another window of the same house sees sunshine, you’ll each report a different weather. Weather is bigger than the meteorologists report. And consciousness, our true nature, is larger than a doctors’ technical usage.
On the hardware of the brain, operates the software of the mind. The functioning of this computational system delivers varying degrees of volition. My Roomba vacuum cleaner, when it’s crapometer detects dirt, turns on a blue right, and goes over that dirty spot repeatedly, till it’s sensors or algorithms direct it on. The robotic vacuum is solving a problem, and displaying volition, but without being conscious of anything. When the Roomba’s battery “dies”, nothing really ceases to be conscious, because there wasn’t a consciousness to begin with.
When a river is said to have flooded a village in a fury, there isn’t a consciousness at work. It is just a pattern resulting from matter following the laws of nature. And the anthropomorphism of our metaphors.
Consciousness is what observes the activities of our mind. When your mind has perceptions, or emotions, or thoughts arise in it, then you are aware of those through your consciousness. The consciousness doesn’t belong to the mind. It is what is aware of the activities of the mind. However, it is not the mind. As a principle, a sensor cannot detect itself.
Consciousness is not what the brain has. Sun shining upon a flower illumines the flower. Sunlight isn’t what the flower has. The same sunlight illumines a rotting carcass.
Awareness is self revealing. You know, and that knowing is consciousness. The mechanism of the brain responds to this consciousness a certain way, because of how the brain is connected to senses, and is designed to have logic of a kind, and “intuitions” of a kind. Math is a kind of logic we have. Space and time are intuitions we have. These are not products of consciousness. These are artifacts of our brain-mind complex. We are AWARE of these perceptions and cognitions because of consciousness. A computer too has math, but no consciousness.
When in dreamless sleep, what is gone isn’t consciousness, but activities of the mind. The conscious observer has no movie running on the screen of the mind.
When the body dies, or when the mirror breaks, consciousness doesn’t go away, nor does the thing that was being reflected break with the mirror. The “doctor” might say, “we have lost the light”, but what they have lost is the reflection thereof. And, to their limited need, to say so is a verity.
You can look up Advait teachings. A fellow named Tadatmananda is who I find meaningful. That just happens to be my way of seeing things.
The brain is a material object, every process and detail of which can be studied and explained. A computerized system, well enough arranged, can be devised to divine the biochemistry, chemistry, neurobiological, neurology, physics, molecular biological biophysics, can be analyzed, categorized, systemized, and replicated. You don’t need a conscious computer to accomplish this. Consciousness isn’t needed to solve problems, or a computer will never beat a human at chess.
Thanks for your attention.
@@hershchat I describe consciousness as a field of sensation. This is just a literal description of how it feels at every moment. Emotions, sensory experiences, even thoughts are experienced as sensations within the field.
I don't think consciousness reflects all the happenings of the brain though. I think there is a lot of processing that flies under the radar so to speak. For example, thoughts appear fully formed in consciousness. Surely some physical process in the brain formed them. But consciousness was not privy to it. Yet it becomes privy to it at a certain point. This is an interesting clue.
@@theotormon sir (ma’am?) We had a framed print of “the last supper” in a hallway of my father’s house growing up. We are not Christians, and the story behind it, though well known to me, was not significant to me. This is not at all a disrespect of Christianity, which I think is a great religion. I was a teenager, and an indian, and that pastoral legend from another world another time wasn’t central to my world. I must’ve seen that picture 10 times a day for 10 years. It is still burned in my mind. And yet, when reading Dan Brown in the early twenties, I had to look at it again, to become aware of details obscure to casual observation.
The non dualists believe that it is only through knowledge that one gets the highest insight: into the cause of all causes, also our own reality. However, they allow that it is through devotion that one gains the purchase upon intellect, needed to gain that vaunted knowledge.
The unobserved thoughts you speak of, are those details of the “last supper” that escape the frequent, but untutored observer. For the observer to attain that “tutored” status requires emotional motivation, which for me was granted by Mr. Brown’s provocative fiction.
The mind is a canvas of infinity information, but only some of it is meaningful at a given time.
The consciousness is aware of all that the mind captures, the mind itself filters stimuli to react to. As these come into focus, “we”, is the consciousness, become aware of those too. “Filtering” is part emotional. We have a lot of knowledge, but only some of it, which has emotional resonance, becomes meaningful.
a) The infinite propagation of change does not happen infinitely quickly, sometimes it wraps itself up for awhile, aka matter v energy or slow change v fast change in any other sense.
b) All experiences are real but unless they're of something replicably verifiable, they are indistinguishable from fiction (ie illusion). To be considered internally real they must be internally verifiable, and vice versa.
From the thumbnail I thought this was an interview with Adam West.
It seems to me that the "essence" of consciousness, meaning a thing or things that must be present in order for consciousness to be consciousness, was not quite answered in the video. I heard "it depends how you do it", which you must admit is a facile answer. A simulated human is not aware that it is a simulated human. Fair enough, I suppose.
Yeah, you are absolutely right. You may explore our deeptech venture to manifest a sovereign suprahuman machine consciousness here: heim.ai
Such a serendipitous thing to stumble upon this.
Sometimes I wonder if multinational companies are the germ of something that could become conscious in the future. Like cells, humans seem to creating huge "multicellular" things that have their own concerns and orientations that don't necessarily correlate with the concerns of their their disposable humans parts (including the executive). They essentially run according to algorithms. Meanwhile, corporations have ever more simple AI networks operating in tandem within them that are making human employees redundant.
At scale or in a non-biological substrate it would not be the same thing as consciousness has always meant before and should have it's own word.
If you want to study consciousness by looking at conscious states vs states that aren’t conscious, you need to study consciousness vs. automatic, unperceived behaviors, not consciousness vs unconsciousness. An animal with no conscious awareness could still be unconscious at times. If you define unconsciousness as the state without consciousness then you would overstate the entities that have consciousness. That’s when you get into silly claims like transistors have consciousness.
For example, sight vs. blindsight or walking deliberately vs walking when your mind is on other things.
they both rockin that steve jobs style ;)
There's no one else like RLK on the planet!
The BS level here is stratospheric
I think... therefor I think I think.
Is there a way to experience energy?
I like his view of consciousness. I think it's pretty accurate to the physical reality and philosophical implications.
It is a good base to work with without adding 'the theory of everything' into it to try and make it complete.
Conscience needs life to manifest itself.
I think… therefore I am.
Perfect Zombies. Sounds like a sitcom from the year 3000.
Did you say, "Lizard?!"
Where Giulio is tiptoeing is to acknowledge that consciousness is not really to be found in matter. But since so many people are conditioned to believe that matter is existence, substance, causation, life, it is almost impossible to break out of that construct. It may be centuries before people come to realize that matter is effect, not cause, and that consciousness is cause and matter is effect. And, it may be centuries beyond that before people realize that there is only one real consciousness or Mind which will come to be recognized as God, from which is derived what we now believe to be individual consciousness but is actually an individual manifestation of that God.
I don't see how the electrical firing of the neurons can been material. If you unplug an electrical cord the electricity disappears
Well spoken.
Consciousness Is, indeed, fundamental.
Perhaps ‘Ultimate Reality’ would be more appropriate to ascribe the phenomena than the word ‘God’.
but my doll is conscious
RESURRECT FOR REAL.
He's talking about dualistic consciousness - feedback loops involving subject, object, and the relationships between. Consciousness with a capital "C" is Consciousness without an object. To use a metaphorical analogy nondual Consciousness is , akin to an Ocean of Being. Object - subject consciousness = the waves on the surface of Being. (Consciousness).
The elephants in the room are delicious, velvety, and smell like amber. Would you recognize a superorganism experiencing itself if you were subsumed by it? Does your pinky toe know you exist when you are lost in ecstatic bliss? Isn't Durkheim's "collective effervesence" such an entity "feeling itself"? Perhaps such activity is the hallmark that indicates a cohered awareness of some kind at the various scales. Does it not resemble the behaviors that precipitate from the pulses of Cyclic AMP in slime molds?
The reasons for a city or a collective information of computer to not have an experience is totally ridiculous… causal powers don’t lie anywhere in particular but kind of everywhere and why should causal powers be the benchmark of experience in the first place?
Only experience is experience… talking about information as benchmark of experience is a thought experience
I like this guy, Guilio Tononi, and the way he thinks. He understands the limitations of what he and we know regarding the state of Consciousness and very clearly states it that way. In my book that is a true Scientist...no unnecessary extrapolations to provide evidence for an agenda driven theory. 'This is pretty much what we know and can safely say with cautious enthusiasm and we really cannot say much more.' His thinking makes me think and I like that because he clearly sets the boundaries with what is now known and what is assumed to be known because of it.
3:18 - 6:00 To me it sounds like he is saying that we have to have a superior experience to the CD or computer to tell if it was conscious or not. With the same level of experience being equal with the human and the 'device' there is not enough information for the human to tell and it would probably pass the Touring Test. But if the human had additional 'diagnostic' information that the device did not have it would be easier for the human to make the call and have the device fail the Touring Test.
The last point was good about mass, did I get lucky my consciousness is that of a human or can that go any deeper?
Until you knew you were human you had no preference for being human, just like before existence you didn't prefer to be born.
@@havenbastion I don’t understand how to comprehend probability of how I was lucky enough to be born let alone a human. It falls into place if there are multiple or infinite universe perhaps. But yes I agree to that
Tononi says, "aggregates of people or cells don't give rise to experience. You may have it. I have it. But the two of us don't form a superordinate experience on top of you and me". But isn't this wrong, given that "you" or "me" is in fact an aggregate of cells? And therefore isn't "my" consciousness the aggregate of the cells that comprise my body and brain?