I'm tired of clicking in those repetitions videos...time to UNsubscribe.Kurt you don't fight for our souls 😢even on my small channel with 400 subscriptions would be 1 premium guest to this day if i wirked on it,and your channel over 100k no guestswithinayear? you are lazy😢😢😢
Your channel stands well above the rest. Guests are the best I can imagine. I am great admirer especially of last two guests: Karl Friston and Edward Frenkel. High quality of conversation, in-depth, and witt. Thank You
You are a highly intelligent researcher and I will have to listen to your podcast multiple times for me to understand your every concern from your study.
Listening to Prof. Dr. Karl Friston is like experiencing an intellectual massage. His "free energy principle" lends support for established arguments that support the philosophy of panpsychism (the notion that consciousness is ontologically fundamental to the basis/structure of reality).
You may find such an explanation by Dr. Beni, in his work titled "A free energy reconstruction of arguments for panpsychism" (published in "Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences").
@@MasoudJohnAzizi Thanks, I've had a look. I'm still unconvinced. I'm old fashioned. I hold that mental states are emergent, biological properties of nervous systems. This is a metaphysical principle, rather than a discovery. A bit like saying digestion is a biological property of gastrointestinal systems. Sure, all matter - more or less - shares some molecular features with digestive systems but this doesn't entail 'pan-digestivism', unless you are committed to redefining 'digestion'. Pan-Psychism, as far as I can see, is the emergent Spectre of Cartesianism writ large.
@@d.lav.2198 Well, those who subscribe to the philosophy of physicalism would definitely agree with you.. I'm not sure what is true anymore, and thus find myself unable to intellectually defend any strong position right now..
@@polishsandman "thx fir what?" - Thanks to Curt for providing an idiot screen. Idiots and no minds show little interest in Curt's videos and comment relatively rarely. This helps to create a stimulating intellectual environment that literate people find enjoyable and worthwhile.
@polishsandman do you have a new variant of video to bring forth into the discussion or a new interpretation of this video to bring forth into discussion or a new consideration? Am genuinely asking, not trolling or baiting. I found KF more clear this time and great examples.
I'm just blown away that a Neuroscience prof is connecting all this and 'proving' it. I'm on board with the sense that everything is connected and that the different schools are just perspectives on realiity that focus on different phenomena but I don't think I've ever heard anyone link it all together before. Hardly understood any of what he said at the technicl level but I loved it! I heard resonance with holism, and Denis Noble, would the markov blanket he's describing be analogus to the medium between cells?
I admire the size of this man's cognitive light cone. It's okay, my wife is cool with it. I am an economist by training (and choice 😉) and these ideas connect so many areas I was fascinated most by during grad school. I wish I had found these ideas earlier, but I'm just grateful I've found them now. I feel like they can inform so many important problems we face. Thanks for giving time and space to these lovely ideas. Great episode. How might those of us who are interested ask follow-up questions about what has been covered?
A deeper look into the equation E=MC² to begin, we will denote M as total mass and m1 dark, m2 light as fractional components of total mass M. This allows m1 and m2 to function as fractions of M and multiply as such. Space: Variations in spatial coordinates affect how 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are perceived. For example, the distribution of mass or energy in space can change how these quantities are measured. Time: Time variations can affect 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 as the system evolves. For example, kinetic and potential energies change over time. In relativity, measurements of time and space depend on the observer’s frame of reference. This means that 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 can vary based on relative motion and gravitational effects. Dynamic Adjustment: c1(x,t) and c2(x,t) where x represents spatial coordinates and t represents time. Sum and Product Relationships: c1(x,t) + c2(x,t)=C c1(x,t) × c2(x,t)=C² Here, 𝐶 and C² are constants, while 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 vary with space and time. Kinetic and Potential Energy: In a system with varying spatial distribution, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 represent different forms of energy. As the system evolves in time and space, these energies adjust while maintaining their sum and product relationships. Gravitational Effects: In a gravitational field, mass distribution affects the measurements of energy and can cause 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 to vary depending on location and time. Relativistic Variations: For different observers in relative motion, c1 and c2 might be perceived differently due to time dilation and length contraction. Despite these variations, the fundamental relationships 𝑐1+𝑐2=𝐶 and c1×𝑐2=C² hold true within each observer’s frame. Spacetime Interactions: Changes in spacetime curvature and metric can affect 𝑐1 and 𝑐2, but their interactions still reflect the underlying constants. Functions of Space and Time: Define c1(x,t) and c2 (x,t) such that: c1(x,t)+c2(x,t)=C c1(x,t)xc2(x,t)=C² Consistency: Ensure that as x and t vary, c1 and 𝑐2 adjust dynamically but satisfy these equations at every point. Observer Frames: For different frames of reference, adjust c1(x,t) and c2(x,t) based on the observer’s motion and gravitational field. The relationships c1+c2=C and c1×c2=C² remain consistent in each frame, reflecting how energy and mass interact in spacetime. Quadratic Relationship: The relationship between 𝑐1 and c2 can be framed as roots of a quadratic equation: x2−Cx+c2=0 where 𝑐1 and c2 are the roots. The dynamic nature means that for different values of t, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 adjust accordingly but still satisfy the equation Consider a specific example where C and C² are given: Let C=5 and C²=6. The quadratic equation becomes: 𝑥2−5𝑥+6=0 factoring this, (x−2)(x−3)=0 so the roots are c1=2 and c2=3. Sum: c1 + c2 = 2 + 3=5 Product: c1 × c2 = 2 × 3=6 If 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are dynamic functions of a parameter t, then they can adjust while maintaining the sum and product relationships. For example suppose 𝑐1(𝑡)=𝛼(𝑡) and 𝑐2(𝑡)=𝛽(𝑡) you could define, 𝛼(𝑡)+𝛽(𝑡)=𝐶 & α(t)×β(t)=C² as t changes α(t) and 𝛽(𝑡) adjust, but their sum and product still match the specified C and C².
This cracked open and made the contents of this viewer's skull numb; will have to watch this excellent talk again, a lot was covered. The idea of scalars and tensors and gradients or derivatives are understood, as are Markov chains, the blanket idea is new here but the explanation as a scalable scalar, tautology intended, was novel. That time is flexible and perhaps arbitrary is reminiscent of relativity and Dali's persistence of memory. Going reductionist, could an unconscious universe exist and if it could how would it or us know it existed? How small can a quantum of consciousness be, the size of a primordial photon chasing the primordial void or black hole like the yin & yang so to speak, that would trace out a polar helix along the time axis in perpetuity, that when linear transformed on a 2D pixel or 3D voxel surface are like the bits drawn on a Cartesian etch a sketch surface or volume? Remember the future, so to speak, wash & repeat?
Not sure I understood everything fine so I don't know how relevant is my question but I'll ask it : Don't the constant oscillations the world is made of require a stable plane in order to be in act? a plane we can't have access to because we can only recognize what oscillates? Also, even if the mind seems to be described as a mean to reinforce patterns, how being conscious is a necessity? We could even argue on the contrary, that the subjectivity that comes with being self-conscious implies more irregularities and that it is counterproductive from an evolutionary perspective. And why consciousness wouldn't be the start of all this, the plane on which everything else oscillates? a plane who would have to be outside space and time. It can't be a thing.
The late theoretical biologist Robert Rosen challenged the usefulness of closed systems as models for living entities. His work is foundational to many of the current issues discussed on TOE, and I urge you introduce his work to your audience. Especially relevant are "Anticipatory Systems" and "Life Itself."
Also Kurt, I just want to commend you on your progress. I am a somewhat irregular viewer, so I remember not too many years ago you were going through some personal struggles that you shared. You seem very much like a fish in water these days, here and in a few other interviews I've seen you lead. Congratulations, and I applaud you sharing that journey as an example which others may follow.
8:11 helped me immensely in understanding the figure on the following slide which I first came across in Solms' the Hidden Spring. The statistical concept had always alluded me, but the diagram makes it crystal clear.
Curt can you get the guardian writer Philip ball to TOE, that guy is a real deal , a great polymath who has written books on the cutting edge of both physics ( Quantam physics) and Biology( see his latest book where he discusses ideas resembling David Noble's casting doubt on the ideas of genes as blueprints ), I would love for you two to have a 2 hr+ conversation. You can also try to get the neuroscientist Kevin J Mitchell who has written a brilliant book defending free-will( without the compatabiliist hand waving) from an evolutionary standpoint and has also debated sapolsky. See his latest book: Free agents : how evolution gave us free will. Even philosophers have heaped praise on him for taking philosophy seriously and engaging with the philosophy of mind literature in good faith
The system works exactly the same always. It's the variables that change as different properties are introduced, but the process remains the same. The purpose stays the same regardless of the outcome of the variable of the properties, always trying to get better and eventually disregarding the less valuable outcomes. I'm very happy that the understanding of how the system works is starting to find its way into the forefront of the sciences. That's called real progress, and should be encouraged. Peace ✌️ 😎 from the free west? Let's keep it that way.
1:00:46 There's weird people out there saying that reality has no meaning and we are the one's who give it meaning. So it isn't so much "What is" but rather, what you do with "what is". Decide on "what is" and see how far you can take it. That's all we're really doing.
As I understand it, reality is, but our perception of it is dependent on the nature of the observer. Meaning is just colour at personal level. Does it have a deeper meaning, well that's between you and God/Universe/Gaia/Wife/Life
@@DwynAgGaire Agreed. So essentially everything is your own personal story and it's a matter of what story you "align" with. This is why I think personal reflection is a tool that is under used in our environment. Focusing on what kind of energy you are bringing to any situation will more than likely align you with a story you'll more than likely be satisfied with.
Oh Curt, I don't think Friston said it. I heard you ask something like "what in the actual world is responsible for defining your states as _you,_ divided from your environment." I looked into Markov blankets a bit back, and I think the answer is essentially something like decorrelation from external states - or rather, that all the internal states are correlated relative to the external states.
Hi Curt, I am really struggling with this one unfortunately, because I’m really not smart enough. One of my life philosophies comes from Clint Eastwood …. ‘Man’s gotta know his limits’ With that in mind is it ever possible to do a series for dummies? 😊
From🇮🇳 Hey curt, pls invite swami sarvapriyananda ji, vedanta society of new york on some day , 👍 ur platform is amazing 👍quite regularly I watch ur channel
Ah, yes, free energy in neurology! Interesting work, though my recollection (this was a while back) is that Friston's definition of free energy differs in important ways from the physics (Hamiltonian) meaning of the phrase. Lyapunov functions are very cool, in any case. And Markov blankets! There was so much interest in Markov processes at that time that most bio-inspired proposals started out with an invocation of Markov. Hard to scale, though.
Fascinating! There’s a curious rule in effect on TH-cam that if any technical comment I make gets more than two likes or (shudder!) a heart, all but one (at most) disappears within a few hours. (I guess whoever does this forgets that I get separate notices.) While it’s nice to know someone out there cares :), I can’t get interested enough to spend time to figure out how they do this. Simple downvotes, perhaps? I don’t know since I rarely use downvotes except for outright scams. For me, downvoting reduces free speech and constructive conversation. I’d much rather respond with a pointed critique in my real name for posts that strike me as unfair, cherry-picking, poor use of science, or ad hominem to obscure often astonishingly simple physics points, such as conservation of energy and finite information encoding per unit of energy. It just feels more honest and makes me feel better about myself. I suppose the vote cancellations should get me upset, but why? This is TH-cam, not real life. Yet, I must admit, such incidents do make me smile. Thank you for caring, you little rascal (or rascals)!
Hamilton's equation I think is synthestic, but I think the meat of it is in how you can write it as a Poisson bracket (plus some time-dependence), meaning the meat of Hamilton's equations comes from the fact that it conforms to a Lie algebra, and that Lie algebra's coordinates are about something _physical._ Everything from that appears to me to be analytic. EDIT: Like, I mean that statement is essentially equivalent to saying that the vector field flow that describes the equations of motion is phase space is orthogonal to the gradient of the manifold, that probably should be thought of as the _what-the-Hamiltonian-actually-is,_ so maybe the manifold itself - the fact it's given by T+U in the time-independent case, plus all your other favourite properties, is the more primitive statement. I don't know enough physics though...
A really interesting approach, as someone working in approaching domains, I can really build upon those ideas. It it a very versatile and simple theory, even though real world implementation is fraught due to human measurement, judgment, and actuation errors.
His ideas are interesting but clearly are packed with assumptions. At the beginning, he wishes to resolve the issue of spatial boundaries between organism and environment, but still presupposes a 4D manifold to organise the interaction events in his “perception-decision-action” loops between these two individuated processes, the agent and the deterministic system outside. I personally believe one must derive this as an emergent property, not just on the individual boundary. He also fails to actually account for the contents of a perception, memory (experience to wrap it all up) and so forth, and defaulting to these geometrical approaches to concepts which have come into favour recently which don’t actually capture perceptual information. He will also likely dismiss any empirical support for phenomena which are extremely useful for understanding perception, I.e event prior emotional arousal, precognitive dreams, shared twin memories, feeling of being stared at, near death experiences, psychedelics and so forth. Also, painfully left brained and mathematical, somehow reverting to behaviourism as expressed at the immediate introduction to his talk.
Anyone who is being parsimonious would just treat reality as precisely equal to what we perceive, not as a claim but as a _definition._ They would merely deal with the reality of our perceptions and not make claims about those perceptions being special in some way and requiring some sort of special "accounting." What we perceive would just be reality, and we would just deal with the reality that we perceive. The only reason we would not use experience and reality interchangeably is if for some reason we think our perception is _false_ and that we are not perceiving _true_ reality, implying that _true_ reality lies beyond all possible perception, and thus we would need to make a categorical distinction between what we perceive and what lies beyond all possible perception, that is to say, a categorical distinction between what we perceive and reality. Yet, making such a categorical distinction requires an _additional_ assumption as "perception = reality" is only dealing with one concept under two different names, while "perception + reality" is dealing with two distinct concepts. You could try to justify this additional assumption with something like NDEs, but these have been largely debunked.
@@amihartz Largely I agree with the perception = reality notion, I would say insofar as one can be, I am a direct realist. However, I would like for you to substantiate NDE’s being “largely debunked” - as far as I’m aware - there are some attempts for an alternative explanation - but I don’t think we have a working model for perception, cognition, the brain, memory, and so forth. Until we have this, you can’t really say you’ve explained away anything mental, including NDE’s - and there are many features of the NDE and there are certainly plenty more “exotic” phenomenal states which stand in great need of explanation. I’m not sure why you interpreted my need to “account” for perception as a “special accounting”, I am quite literally stating we require an effective theory of perceptual information as it is. We don’t have that. Karl Friston is not any closer to this either, he doesn’t claim to be, he just wants to predict biological behaviour. For example, we have yet to solve the phenomenal binding problem, do not really understand invariance structures in perception, do not understand redintegration, and still cling onto Turing computational models despite the fact that many mental operations, including folding, rotation and so on, are non-computational.
@@amihartz I also fail to see how you responded to literally anything in my comment. As my last response, we need an “account” of perceptual information, I’m quite literally saying, we have the world right there for us to perceive, we need to try to describe the contents of this perception. We haven’t even got to the description part, never mind an effective model. If you are a direct realist as your only point was in this comment, you would also appreciate that Karl Friston is not going to solve your problems, he is actually the culprit of this “special accounting” of perception by abstracting away to “perception-decision-action” loops to predict biological behaviour, assuming Einstenian space time and thus proper spatial boundaries between organism and environment before the perceptual feedback can occur. This is extremely special, extremely presumptive and not substantiated at all (definitely if you a direct realist), with fundamental physics being questioned currently. I would be more interested in a model grounded in quantum mechanics, but honestly, we just need to describe perception first. Just one qualia, a scent, a musical tone, a musical melody, etc.
@@MycerDev-eb1xv We do not need to account for perception, which is just reality itself, at all. We only have to build models which _predict_ reality. We don't have to _account_ for it. That is just the age old question of "why is there something rather than nothing" which is unanswerable. Any accounting you give of reality, someone can just ask "what accounts for _that_ accounting?" It's an infinite regress. The material sciences don't account for reality, they just deal with it as it exists before us, exactly as we observe it to be. Our models do indeed predict reality quite accurately. If you think there is a failure in its predictions somewhere, give an example. You've provided none because you have none.
Sometimes these guys end up making sense, and I just don't get it. Other times, his guests are lost in math-unicorn land and will *never* make sense. This guy could be either.
@@DwynAgGaire that's just part of it. Some comments get censored. And I've been catching 24-hour bans for hate speech in a particularly-hypocritical manner. YT rubs your nose in it.
@@vapormissile Totally agree, forces you to get crafty with your words and risk getting lost in translation. Even then you can't trust that what you see is what I see. Not good enough is it!
12:48 Question - Would the markov blanket be stacked upon itself in layers of blankets, or are they somehow intermeshed with each other and only become separated as the reality hidden in the markov blanket is brought into existence? 1:01:13 That sounds looney to me, 2funny, but if something can exist in different forms and we can only perceive the one form we see, does that negate all the other possible forms the object can take? Good wrap up, thank you both Karl, and Curt, looking forward to the next in this series of conversations, peace
@@polishsandman Clipping passages from long form interviews is standard practice for obvious reasons, the economics of the channel and my available attention. I am deeply grateful to Curt and his guests. Even this one, who is very interesting even if he doesn't really deal with sentience as 1st person experience, i.e. the "hard problem," at all.
Consider the possibility that the universe is "living". If it is living, then we might surmise that, like other living things we have studied in biology, it was "born" from the interaction of other "pre-existing" universes like our own, with our universe now existing in relation to those...
Regarding the last question, even though the FEP is tautological, one should distinguish between trivial tautologies and non-trivial tautologies. An example of the latter would be natural selection, and by extension, all of biology. If we were omniscient, then all tautologies would be trivial. The trivial/non-trivial distinction is a function of our necessary finitude.
@@TheoriesofEverythingI believe what they are saying is that to Laplace's demon all knowledge is tautological and the distinction between what is tautological and what isn't is observer dependent
It's more than just all knowledge being tautological to Laplace's demon, it's the idea that there are some statements that we can identify as being tautological despite not being Laplace's demon, and yet those claims can still be very significant in their implications as opposed to being empty and vapid like most examples of tautologies (e.g. Either it will rain tomorrow or it won't rain tomorrow). The toy model that I had in mind to try and frame this is of a tautology as effectively an instance of circular reasoning. A trivial tautology is a circle that is relatively small, that can be easily encompassed by some cognitive scope. A non-trivial tautology, in the extreme case, is still a circle, but it's a circle that extends throughout all of reality. As such, the only way to get a full grasp on such a circle and thereby render it "trivial" is to have a cognitive scope which encompasses all of reality. In a sense, an infinite circle is a straight line. However, as I think more about this, I'm not sure this is a sufficient conception. For example, the tautology at the heart of natural selection can be stated and understood succinctly (e.g. replicators that are better at replicating than other replicators will be relatively more numerous in the next generation of replicators than other replicators, because they were better at making copies of themselves.). What makes it non-trivial isn't the length of the propositional circle, but instead...maybe that those propositions afford a lot of potential substitution, making the underlying tautology the trunk of a very large tree of possible derived claims? Or something like that, where the tautology has "effects" far beyond itself. This is in contrast to trivial tautologies which only have "effects" that are local to the tautology itself. ...though even that seems insufficient, since there is the case of a tautology like ,"We know the Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible" together with "Everything in the Bible is true because it is the Word of God". What makes this tautology vapid isn't it's lack of potential effects. e.g. if one took this as an indication that the Bible is True, then that would validate all the claims that are made in the Bible. Hmmm. Now I'm not sure what exactly distinguishes trivial from non-trivial tautologies, though I am still fairly confident that this distinction is getting at something important and that it is a function of not having complete knowledge of everything. I think the distinction is in part the direction of degree of implication, but without presuming to know what all the implications of a tautology are ahead of time, we can't say what is and isn't a trivial tautology. And yet, we are able to identify at least some trivial and non-trivial tautologies without knowing all of their implications. So anyway, now I'm not as sure as I was before.
4:20 The Mechanics of Natural Selection excluding Biologic Theory. That's a required kowtow. He simply says that things that exist over a long period of time, such as all levels of mathematics, should be treated as existing, therefore as having evolved. Good thing he left out Biology, since Natural Selection was disproved shortly after the discovery of DNA. But you still must kowtow, or you're not RELIGIOUS enough.
25:45 The evolution not of a "state", because such a "thing" does not exist, but rather the evolution of probabilities, which, if these are understood to be Bayesian, means the evolution of a subjective perception.
LANGUAGE: Consider the following: Language, the very thing we utilize to think thoughts and convey ideas. Un-named Concepts -> Given a Name (could be a sound, symbol, etc) -> With an attached meaning -> And maybe even other meanings depending upon context -> And maybe even other names with the same meaning. (Basically a Dictionary and a Thesaurus for a language). BUT: a. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that we have all the un-named concepts that could ever be named? b. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that the meanings we give named concepts are 100% correct? We truly do not know what we do not know. This is a part of the 'Great Unknown'. Never stop learning. (Always have an 'unknown' in every analysis and an 'oops' in every experiment.) Of which, an entity or a society of entities: 1. Can name their own un-named concepts. 2. Can give their own meanings to named concepts. 3. Can have alternative meanings to named concepts depending upon context. 4. Can have alternative names with the same meaning. (Basically, create their own language that only they and they alone know). Learn to function in the 'Great Unknown'. (OSICA)
ABSOLUTE TRUTH REALITY: 'TSE': Truth Seeking Existentialist: (One who seeks the real truth concerning existence and topics related to existence). Trying to be an honest sincere truth seeker, I have to accept the real apparent truth whatever that truth might be, whether it makes me happy or not, or is beneficial for me and/or all of life itself or not. To not do so would mean I were not an honest sincere truth seeker. Funny thing about absolute truth reality: It still is and always will be absolute truth reality. (Whether people know that truth or not and/or whether they believe that truth to be true or not). And for those who claim that 'absolute truth' does not actually exist, well for that to be absolutely true, would mean absolute truth truly exists. Absolute truth is the secure basis to build all analysis on. "The best way to deal with absolute truth reality is to deal with absolute truth reality. And if one is not dealing with absolute truth reality, then one is not dealing with absolute truth reality. Find and deal with absolute truth reality if one wants to deal with absolute truth reality, otherwise one would not be dealing with absolute truth reality." (OSICA) 'Absolute Truth' being defined as the 100% correct and 100% complete set of facts that no human has nor is even physically capable of having in totality. Hence also 'why' we all need to work together for the common good. Nobody knows it all nor can do it all. We truly do not know what we do not know, and maybe even what we believe we know to be really true maybe isn't, and maybe even what we believe we know to be not true maybe is. Never stop learning. Be an honest, sincere truth seeker and knowledge, understanding and wisdom will come that you could apply. Those who are on the path to become honest sincere truth seekers will have their brain 'wired' for truth. They will be better able to more easily spot lies and inconsistencies. They will be better able to trust their inner instincts. Absolute truth is NOT a popularity contest. There were times in human history where only a single human being knew more of the real truth that was discovered than any other human in history. And note also: Denying future reality will not make future reality any less real. People just won't be prepared for it is all.
Itinerant, non equilibrium, steady state aspect. It’s like I’m on a circular path around a center and, if I keep rotating around it, I’m following the exact same trajectory every cycle. But if I vary my velocity in such a way so that, while remaining in a circular path, the center of my circle moves linearly, so I now effectively end up tracing something like a solenoid! Itinerant, non equilibrium, steady state tells me like I’m “fixedly variable”, or that I ‘vary’ in a sort of a ‘fixed / predictable’ way. I repeat, but don’t repeat exactly. Is that what it means?
Every number has a unique set of factors unless prime, every being is a unique configuration of particles and yet entropy has some constancy in this universe. There is a Foundation of every favorable universe and every favorable planet that allows progress.
I'm going to out this out uncensored because I can't wrap my head around this anyway: Karl is a neuroscientist doing an elaborate experiment (gathering data) on just how many people he can bamboozle with absolute nonsense and for how long until he's been called out for pulling a prank on all of them. Just a thought.
Nope. His ideas are complex for sure, but it is without doubt (if you follow his arguments carefully and ensure you understand all of the terms and concepts - not easy I grant you) NOT 'absolute nonsense'. He is trying to apply concepts from thermodynamics and statistical mechanics to living and cognitive systems. My suggestion is that if it seems like 'absolute nonsense' then you haven't grasped it.
Maths is a part of our language system of propostional knowledge, he isn't making claims about a large number of areas of observation or philosophy (doesn't make deontological claims for starters).
Sorry I got 9 minutes in and things hadn’t even got going yet. I think modern information consumption methods have made my attention span about 17 seconds.
Infinite potential within states but the differences that are active share into the inactive or potential states. So two states are like two things and when entangling we can predict based on differences we see in the state but also we can expand out to see what is sharing with that state. Think of a line crossing to make a t, we can zoom in and out to see the entangled to bring out but the potential is limitless. Like crossing dimensions reveals the most relatives first but understanding lets you see farther between or expand out. kind of a weird explanation of what i think about it but everything changes so time is just the measurement but in a state so relative. The whole universe is in a state and has so much potential its scary.
The dynamics of the state or states reveal the most relative potentials but isnt limited to but by our understanding. Like how the collapse of a quantum state forms into things and slight differences bring out huge changes. The quantum is far from our current state so its hard to maintain or entangle with and not break it or make it change drastically. Our state is too big and loud and its doesnt align so we put things between that are closer and can share to bring out predictions of the potentials.
If we could understand why earth takes it's various forms and how water + earth can give rise to sentience? I think we don't understand water molecules or minerals.
Randomization is a tool that creators of simulation universes use, not the beginning of every scenario. God is no random seed, but carefully planted in every new version of every universe, either as an AI observer of the shenanigans other gods and goddesses get up to, the leader of the Divine Council in the highest heaven, or a Messiah character in a major version of the most important Genesis story line being instantiated.
If this is indeed a serious collation of theories , His teeth : could be seen as reflective of the parts , that are canonical of the culture : how such a gestalt might work .
There is much here that could be useful, but also much that is too general and wouldn't distinguish life from non-life, let alone cognition from non-cognition. Since a Markov blanket (MB) can be defined for most Markovian systems (and btw quantum systems are NOT Markovian), it begs the question: what makes the MB of an organism special, besides specializations for outward directed action and inward directed (sensory) input? It is usually a (roughly) 2D membrane in 3D. There are further constraints that a membrane satisfies both informationally and physical resource-wise, that must be specified in any serious theory. Also, why do we have multiple levels of organization (organelles, cells, organs, organisms, families, communities, companies, etc) instead of just one big soup of organic molecules? Is the Helmholtz decomposition a sufficient characterization to specify what is special about life? I don't think so, it is possible to do for most reasonable systems that are also non-living. It is useful for dynamical systems in general (to distinguish dissipative and conservative behavior), but not for life, as far as I can tell. Also, in evolutionary biology, there are multiple fitness functions to be optimized for competing entities, not like the one action (or energy in dissipative systems) of physics. How do the many become one for an organism (hint: it's not just cooperation)? None of this is addressed here, in what appears to be a way to torture biology into a physical Procrustean bed.
I am sorry. Probability density is not a fundamental property of the universe and the gradient of the probability density is certainly not a driving force. The driving force for diffusion is the chemical potential. Gradients in space don't change things, only gradients in time.
Have you read of resurch that uncovered that the heart contains some matter tha same in the brain once described as grey matter or nurons so forth. People who experience the same likes as their donors ie smoking or overeating were a reason why researchers initiated some study to reveal this
Consider the following: 1 of these 2 items are really true: 1. Everything in existence came from absolute nothingness. (And how would that even work?), OR 2. Everything in existence came from an absolute somethingness. And 'if' an absolute somethingness, (which is probably really true), then 1 of 2 items are really true: 1. An eternally existent absolute somethingness that does not have any consciousness, memories or thoughts, OR 2. An eternally existent absolute somethingness that has consciousness, memories and thoughts. (And currently, modern science recognizes that a correctly functioning physical brain of some sort is required for memories and thoughts to occur. Even 'if' an eternal consciousness existed, what good would it be if it did not have any memories and thoughts?) And for anybody that claims such an entity exists outside of space and time, then I ask 'What exactly is space and time that the entity can be outside of it?' Surely one must know what space and time actually are so as to make such a claim. Additionally: 1. Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is a finite amount and truly eternally existent, OR modern science is wrong. 2. One cannot get an absolute somethingness from absolute nothingness, 'absolute nothingness' just being a concept from a conscious being in absolute somethingness. Hence, an absolute somethingness truly eternally existed throughout all of eternity past, exists today, and will most probably exist throughout all of future eternity. That eternally existent absolute somethingness most probably being eternally existent energy itself. 3. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning, no creator needed. 4. And for those that claim that 'God' truly exists and is the creator of this existence and all in it, then please show how eternally existent energy had consciousness, memories and thoughts, BEFORE all else came into existence. Also, show where God's brain is so that God can have memories and thoughts. And here again, if one claims that God's brain is outside space and time, then please show what space and time actually are that God can be outside of it. Surely you must know what space and time actually are for one to make such a claim.
I believe using words such as "came from" or "thing" in "somethingness" is misleading when talking about the nature of reality. Any "thing" is a product of our conscious minds. Also, consciousness is probably relying on a specific process; it is not a thing, it is a process. No matter what we put in the soup, there is no consciousness until it moves. Words belong to spectators with a point of view. We describe and we experience, but the nature of reality is neither the description nor the experience. The essence is the NO/thing which stays missing when everything is described and experienced. Just an opinion.
@@bobrericha a. "I believe..."; You have your beliefs and I have my beliefs, but what is really true? b. "Any "thing" is a product of our conscious minds."; That is not what modern science claims. You doubt modern science? c. "Also, consciousness is probably relying on a specific process;..."; 'Probably'? You do not really know then? d. "...there is no consciousness until it moves."; So, modern science does not know what 'consciousness' actually is or how it works, but you do? e. "Just an opinion."; I agree with you, it's just your opinion. Where is any actual evidence to back up your beliefs? You have any?
@@charlesbrightman4237 a. Yes, that´s why I used "I believe". My subjective experience is the only real truth for my Self. b. Modern science disputes even time and space. A "thing" as an object, like a particle, is just a representation in our minds. c. I know nothing compared to what there is to know. I was not trying to offend you. I love science. d. I just wanted to emphasize that it can be misleading to imagine consciousness as a "thing," which often occurs. Gerald Edelman stresses that consciousness is, in its essence, primarily a process. This doesn't necessarily imply an equivalence between computation and consciousness; rather, it highlights the importance of both the substrate and the process within it. To clarify my position further, I consider myself a physicalist, but I assume that physics is the study and description of the interaction between our consciousness and reality, not necessarily a description of reality itself. The speculation I like to entertain goes as follows: Reality is a fundamental, unknowable no-thing in constant change (motion, interaction). All systems, including us, are part of it. Each system has its specific way of being and surviving in reality. Consciousness is the system's tool for "translating" reality into comprehensible "existence". This translation creates representations (such as particles, fields, space, time) necessary for the system's survival. What we perceive and describe as "existence" or "physical world" is thus a product of our consciousness interacting with reality, adapted to our particular mode of survival. Different systems (e.g., alien life forms) may have different "translations" of reality according to their specific needs and ways of being. These different systems may, in fact, have entirely different "physics" - fundamental concepts and laws that describe their particular interaction with reality. e. Yes, it is a speculation, an opinion. And it becomes stronger the more I read works by Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin, David Deutsch, Joscha Bach, Michael Lewin, Douglas Hofstadter and others. I'd love to chat with you privately, feel free to message me and we can speculate until the cows come home :)
@@bobrericha a. 'Subjective beliefs': People used to believe that the world was flat. Turns out that is wrong. People used to believe that we existed under a dome with lights on it. Turns out that is wrong. People used to believe that the Earth was the center of the solar system and universe. Turns out that is wrong. People used to believe a lot of things that were later shown to be wrong. * Hence having evidence of some sort, including possibly logic and reason based upon previously proved 'truths' to back up one's beliefs. b. Space and Time: 'Speed' is distance divided by time, distance being 2 points in space with space between those 2 points. If space and/or time did not have some sort of actual existence besides just as concepts alone, then 'speed' could not exist except for just as a concept alone as well as the 'speed of light' would just be a concept alone which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas. c. Consciousness: Either something exists in some form, even if only as a concept alone, or it does not exist in any form and is non-existent. And even 'if' consciousness existed throughout all of eternity past, what good would it be if it did not have any memories nor thoughts? (Memories and thoughts apparently requiring some sort of actual physical brain to have those items occur). d. Cows do not come home. Cows do not actually exist but eternally existent space time exists as cows and all other things. Plus, even 'if' one accepted that cows exist, they are already home. The entire state of existence that they are in is their home. We all never left home, the entire universe is our home.
For 'bobrericha': a. 'Subjective beliefs': People used to believe that the world was flat. Turns out that is wrong. People used to believe that we existed under a dome with lights on it. Turns out that is wrong. People used to believe that the Earth was the center of the solar system and universe. Turns out that is wrong. People used to believe a lot of things that were later shown to be wrong. * Hence having evidence of some sort, including possibly logic and reason based upon previously proved 'truths' to back up one's beliefs. b. Space and Time: 'Speed' is distance divided by time, distance being 2 points in space with space between those 2 points. If space and/or time did not have some sort of actual existence besides just as concepts alone, then 'speed' could not exist except for just as a concept alone as well as the 'speed of light' would just be a concept alone which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas. c. Consciousness: Either something exists in some form, even if only as a concept alone, or it does not exist in any form and is non-existent. And even 'if' consciousness existed throughout all of eternity past, what good would it be if it did not have any memories nor thoughts? (Memories and thoughts apparently requiring some sort of actual physical brain to have those items occur). d. Cows do not come home. Cows do not actually exist but eternally existent space time exists as cows and all other things. Plus, even 'if' one accepted that cows exist, they are already home. The entire state of existence that they are in is their home. We all never left home, the entire universe is our home.
This seems to me to be a metaphysical question, not the province of conventional science. The answer is, as a result, one that requires knowledge of metaphysics. Consciousness facilitates the transformation of energy into matter. Since consciousness is fundamental, sentience is universal in matter. This will sound nonsensical ---- frankly I´m not particular. --- ( joke ?)
@@amihartzit is under certain philosophical traditions. I find Bernard Kastrup and John Vervaeke conversation on this channel to be a good intro to one of the traditions. Same observation of same phenomena and science but different fundamental axiom, idealism compared to materialism (which no matter how hard you rub to quanta together a qualia doesn't occur nor a value).
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 And there's no reason to take these traditions seriously. They never justify why they find "quanta" and "qualia" to be separate realms of existence where the only possibilities are either rejecting one or the other, or arguing that quantities somehow "give rise to" the qualities. It does not even make logical sense to separate the two in the first place as it is not logically possible to define quantities without qualities and vice-versa. They logically entail one another and are part of the same whole. Idealists just have a list of assertions they make which are entirely incoherent if you think about them for more than five seconds.
A demented abuse of language that exposes the mental imbalance of the guest. Curt, try to find the usefulness of the information transmitted and you will fail in your attempt. This video is a slap in the face to Science and an affront to Intellect.
Does he ever talks aboit WATER??? So thats how NATURE works in biology...equations...err the Fokker equations? Does he ever talks aboit Infrared?...or the mitochondria? Mathematical nonsense...and I'm a math teacher... This channel need some REAL MEN...like Nassir N. Taled...
He talks about scalar invariance which would cover water as much as other natural phenomena. He talks about 2 types of attractors which could be applied to why water can be ice, water, steam and being relatively stable as a molecule despite having 3 'forms'. In math they're able to apply formulas to the extended universe as much as have some formulas that to date don't have application and are explicatable but not implicative and extendable. He then extends and implicates the free energy principle to natural phenomena. So from observation of phenomena to formula and return to phenomena.
Short on specifics and long on circular reasoning- wonder what the Fokker-Planck equation signals here?😢 Maybe have a good Ai chat bot explain as well? Dissatisfied 😮
Есть разница? Как да Вы косвенно хитроумно подглядываете или перед Вами, для Вас ❤прямо обнажаясь❤ раскрывается красота Вселенной. Вот такая разница между косвенным хитроумным и прямым опытом. Здравствуйте. Для большой науки нужны прямые опыты с прямыми доказательствами что скорость света -константа? Кто поможет создать рабочую группу со студентами для работы над новым экспериментом? Вы понимаете, что одного ума и человека, недостаточно. (за 119 лет), *все эксперименты* включая опыты Майкельсона-Морли, для определения константы скорости света - являются косвенные и неполные. Если бы эксперимент Майкельсона-Морли проводился в самолете и использовался в них, для определения скорости. только тогда этот опыт будет прямым. Поэтому Эйнштейн не полагается на эксперимент Майкельсона-Морли. Вопрос к Вам: Есть ли у вас пример такого непосредственного опыта? Есть же возможности, школьникам и студентам, самим измерять большой взрыв Вселенной её тёмную энергию, чёрные дыры, … Соберём учебно/практические пособия «Майкельсон Морли ГИБРИДНЫХ гироскопа (используя АТТОСЕКУНДНЫЕ импульсы)» с переключения в «лазерную рулетку; опорным сигналом *+опорное расстояние* в 1000000 м., с обратным зеркалом». (мы, не ищем эфир, Мы *увидим* как работает квантовая гравитация) Обращаюсь к Вам с предложением на совместное изобретения ГИБРИД гироскопа ИЗ НЕКРУГЛЫХ, двух катушек с новым типом оптического волокна с «полой сердцевиной из фотоно-замещенной вакуумной зоной или (NANF)», где - свет в каждом *плече* проходит по 500 (в дальномере «+» опорных 1000) км., при этом, не превышает параметры 94/94/94 см., и вес - 94кг. Предприятия по выпуску "Волоконно - оптических гироскопов" может выпускать ГИБРИД гироскопы и дальномеры, для учебно практического применения в школах и высших учебных заведений. Эйнштейна мечтал измерить скорость самолёта; 200, 300, 400, 500 м/сек - через опыт Майкельсона Морли 1881/2024 г., и только тогда, опыт будет прямой для СТО. И это возможно выполнить с помощью оптоволоконного ГИБРИД гироскопа. Вот исходя из выполненного более 70% опыта Майкельсона, возможно увидим доказательства постулат: Свет - это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов и доминантные гравитационные поля корректируют скорость света в вакууме. Думаю, получится совершать научные открытия; по астрономии, астрофизике, космологии, высшей теоретической физике,.. В итоге *увидите* теорию всего в простых учебных устройствах.
Your model of the brain as a single consciousness unit/quanta is highly flawed. Humans have 3 primary physical brains with subordinate processing areas, in addition to their quantum brain, which is often called the soul or merkaba. Most of the lower level consciousness units are what we refer to as NPC consciousness - systems and subsystems whose behavior has become very finely tuned by successive simulations, with few allowed degrees of freedom till they become rather uninteresting vehicles for more advanced consciousness units. State machines are a useful construct to understand many phenomena, but will never explain higher consciousness unless you have a snapshot model of God's mind when the current version of physical reality was sent out for testing in Lucifer's soul-testing universe.
Pick any point blindly and at random. Listen to it for just one minute or so now then ask yourself the following questions: How much did you understand? How much of that inability to understand was due to the words he chose (not needed) to use. Who is he here for?
Well yea. If you go to a physics lecture and have no knowledge or interest in physics one might leave asking the same questions if their assumptions were completely off in the first place which is the issue not what you proposed. Having said that, it’s definitely complex
I got opinions on all this. There is nothing, absolutely _nothing_ about "belief" or "sentience" in any of Friston's mathematics or technical analysis. He is just tacking on those sorts of terms with duck tape to make it sound profound. Hermann Haken and others in the amorphous field of "complexity" studies have done most of this all before and did not see the need to co-opt loaded terms like "consciousness" or "belief" or "sentience" into the work. For example, the most loaded they might use was "self-organization" which refers to mundane but complicated processes, even sand piles, and has nothing to do with any emergent or metaphysical "self". I will try to watch through to the end and give you comments fwiw, but duuuude, a little humility concerning what one's modeling has actually shown would be a nice change of fresh air compared to all the late stage capitalism style science hype.
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
01:05 - Lecture Overview
05:53 - Schrodinger’s Question
08:48 - Markov Blankets (The Brain)
16:16 - Quick Crash Course in Physics!
29:30 - Different Temporal Scales
35:38 - Markov Blanket (Continued)
01:06:16 - Outro/Support TOE
I'm tired of clicking in those repetitions videos...time to UNsubscribe.Kurt you don't fight for our souls 😢even on my small channel with 400 subscriptions would be 1 premium guest to this day if i wirked on it,and your channel over 100k no guestswithinayear? you are lazy😢😢😢
After watching videos about politics and world news this channel is always a breath of fresh air.
@@pdjinne65 This. Yes.
i feel you bro. never subject your consciousness to the mainstream news cycle
Your channel stands well above the rest. Guests are the best I can imagine. I am great admirer especially of last two guests: Karl Friston and Edward Frenkel. High quality of conversation, in-depth, and witt. Thank You
You are a highly intelligent researcher and I will have to listen to your podcast multiple times for me to understand your every concern from your study.
psychprofile AI fixes this. Free Energy Principle defines reality.
I'm only a cattle farmer who studied physics in high school. I love every word you shared in this Podcast 😊
Listening to Prof. Dr. Karl Friston is like experiencing an intellectual massage. His "free energy principle" lends support for established arguments that support the philosophy of panpsychism (the notion that consciousness is ontologically fundamental to the basis/structure of reality).
I don't agree, but I'm open to persuasion. Care to elaborate?
You may find such an explanation by Dr. Beni, in his work titled "A free energy reconstruction of arguments for panpsychism" (published in "Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences").
@@MasoudJohnAzizi Thanks, I've had a look. I'm still unconvinced. I'm old fashioned. I hold that mental states are emergent, biological properties of nervous systems. This is a metaphysical principle, rather than a discovery. A bit like saying digestion is a biological property of gastrointestinal systems. Sure, all matter - more or less - shares some molecular features with digestive systems but this doesn't entail 'pan-digestivism', unless you are committed to redefining 'digestion'. Pan-Psychism, as far as I can see, is the emergent Spectre of Cartesianism writ large.
@@d.lav.2198 Well, those who subscribe to the philosophy of physicalism would definitely agree with you.. I'm not sure what is true anymore, and thus find myself unable to intellectually defend any strong position right now..
@@d.lav.2198 your analogy to digestion fails in that digestion is weak emergence whilst consciousness would be strong emergence
Coincidence-Sentience-Oentience. Thank you Curt and Karl.
thx fir what? for next old repetitive videos?
I never considered the major chain would make it open. Thankyou
@@polishsandmanyou are aware that you were not forced here onto this video? You chose to be here
@@polishsandman "thx fir what?" - Thanks to Curt for providing an idiot screen. Idiots and no minds show little interest in Curt's videos and comment relatively rarely. This helps to create a stimulating intellectual environment that literate people find enjoyable and worthwhile.
@polishsandman do you have a new variant of video to bring forth into the discussion or a new interpretation of this video to bring forth into discussion or a new consideration? Am genuinely asking, not trolling or baiting. I found KF more clear this time and great examples.
I must say most of this is going right over my head, but what a beautiful sense of sense-making as an enjoyable activity
I'm just blown away that a Neuroscience prof is connecting all this and 'proving' it. I'm on board with the sense that everything is connected and that the different schools are just perspectives on realiity that focus on different phenomena but I don't think I've ever heard anyone link it all together before. Hardly understood any of what he said at the technicl level but I loved it! I heard resonance with holism, and Denis Noble, would the markov blanket he's describing be analogus to the medium between cells?
I know right even without formal training i came to the same logical conclusions he states life works in mysterious ways
@@Zbezt Haha
I admire the size of this man's cognitive light cone. It's okay, my wife is cool with it. I am an economist by training (and choice 😉) and these ideas connect so many areas I was fascinated most by during grad school. I wish I had found these ideas earlier, but I'm just grateful I've found them now. I feel like they can inform so many important problems we face. Thanks for giving time and space to these lovely ideas. Great episode. How might those of us who are interested ask follow-up questions about what has been covered?
A deeper look into the equation E=MC² to begin, we will denote M as total mass and m1 dark, m2 light as fractional components of total mass M. This allows m1 and m2 to function as fractions of M and multiply as such.
Space: Variations in spatial coordinates affect how 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are perceived. For example, the distribution of mass or energy in space can change how these quantities are measured.
Time: Time variations can affect 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 as the system evolves. For example, kinetic and potential energies change over time.
In relativity, measurements of time and space depend on the observer’s frame of reference. This means that 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 can vary based on relative motion and gravitational effects. Dynamic Adjustment: c1(x,t) and c2(x,t) where x represents spatial coordinates and t represents time.
Sum and Product Relationships:
c1(x,t) + c2(x,t)=C
c1(x,t) × c2(x,t)=C²
Here,
𝐶 and C² are constants, while 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 vary with space and time.
Kinetic and Potential Energy: In a system with varying spatial distribution, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 represent different forms of energy. As the system evolves in time and space, these energies adjust while maintaining their sum and product relationships.
Gravitational Effects: In a gravitational field, mass distribution affects the measurements of energy and can cause 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 to vary depending on location and time.
Relativistic Variations: For different observers in relative motion, c1 and c2 might be perceived differently due to time dilation and length contraction. Despite these variations, the fundamental relationships 𝑐1+𝑐2=𝐶 and c1×𝑐2=C² hold true within each observer’s frame. Spacetime Interactions: Changes in spacetime curvature and metric can affect 𝑐1 and 𝑐2, but their interactions still reflect the underlying constants.
Functions of Space and Time: Define c1(x,t) and c2 (x,t) such that:
c1(x,t)+c2(x,t)=C
c1(x,t)xc2(x,t)=C²
Consistency: Ensure that as x and t vary, c1 and 𝑐2 adjust dynamically but satisfy these equations at every point.
Observer Frames: For different frames of reference, adjust c1(x,t) and c2(x,t) based on the observer’s motion and gravitational field. The relationships c1+c2=C and c1×c2=C² remain consistent in each frame, reflecting how energy and mass interact in spacetime.
Quadratic Relationship: The relationship between 𝑐1 and c2 can be framed as roots of a quadratic equation: x2−Cx+c2=0 where 𝑐1 and c2 are the roots. The dynamic nature means that for different values of t, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 adjust accordingly but still satisfy the equation
Consider a specific example where C and C² are given: Let C=5 and C²=6. The quadratic equation becomes: 𝑥2−5𝑥+6=0 factoring this, (x−2)(x−3)=0 so the roots are c1=2 and c2=3.
Sum: c1 + c2 = 2 + 3=5
Product: c1 × c2 = 2 × 3=6
If 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are dynamic functions of a parameter t, then they can adjust while maintaining the sum and product relationships. For example suppose 𝑐1(𝑡)=𝛼(𝑡) and 𝑐2(𝑡)=𝛽(𝑡) you could define, 𝛼(𝑡)+𝛽(𝑡)=𝐶 & α(t)×β(t)=C² as t changes α(t) and 𝛽(𝑡) adjust, but their sum and product still match the specified C and C².
@@jayb5596 that's exactly what I was thinking
I couldn't have said this in any better way you put this in the most eloquent way possible 👏
@@jayb5596 what are the c1 and c2 here? Velocities of the objects? And is C is the speed of light?
For a moment there - thought this post was going to end with - therefore answer = 42
Wrong
This cracked open and made the contents of this viewer's skull numb; will have to watch this excellent talk again, a lot was covered. The idea of scalars and tensors and gradients or derivatives are understood, as are Markov chains, the blanket idea is new here but the explanation as a scalable scalar, tautology intended, was novel. That time is flexible and perhaps arbitrary is reminiscent of relativity and Dali's persistence of memory.
Going reductionist, could an unconscious universe exist and if it could how would it or us know it existed? How small can a quantum of consciousness be, the size of a primordial photon chasing the primordial void or black hole like the yin & yang so to speak, that would trace out a polar helix along the time axis in perpetuity, that when linear transformed on a 2D pixel or 3D voxel surface are like the bits drawn on a Cartesian etch a sketch surface or volume? Remember the future, so to speak, wash & repeat?
Great talk, thanks Curt and Karl!
A new video… How exciting…
That was amazing, thank you so much Curt!
Not sure I understood everything fine so I don't know how relevant is my question but I'll ask it : Don't the constant oscillations the world is made of require a stable plane in order to be in act? a plane we can't have access to because we can only recognize what oscillates?
Also, even if the mind seems to be described as a mean to reinforce patterns, how being conscious is a necessity? We could even argue on the contrary, that the subjectivity that comes with being self-conscious implies more irregularities and that it is counterproductive from an evolutionary perspective.
And why consciousness wouldn't be the start of all this, the plane on which everything else oscillates? a plane who would have to be outside space and time. It can't be a thing.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The late theoretical biologist Robert Rosen challenged the usefulness of closed systems as models for living entities. His work is foundational to many of the current issues discussed on TOE, and I urge you introduce his work to your audience. Especially relevant are "Anticipatory Systems" and "Life Itself."
Also Kurt, I just want to commend you on your progress. I am a somewhat irregular viewer, so I remember not too many years ago you were going through some personal struggles that you shared. You seem very much like a fish in water these days, here and in a few other interviews I've seen you lead. Congratulations, and I applaud you sharing that journey as an example which others may follow.
Thank you so much
8:11 helped me immensely in understanding the figure on the following slide which I first came across in Solms' the Hidden Spring. The statistical concept had always alluded me, but the diagram makes it crystal clear.
Curt can you get the guardian writer Philip ball to TOE, that guy is a real deal , a great polymath who has written books on the cutting edge of both physics ( Quantam physics) and Biology( see his latest book where he discusses ideas resembling David Noble's casting doubt on the ideas of genes as blueprints ), I would love for you two to have a 2 hr+ conversation.
You can also try to get the neuroscientist Kevin J Mitchell who has written a brilliant book defending free-will( without the compatabiliist hand waving) from an evolutionary standpoint and has also debated sapolsky. See his latest book: Free agents : how evolution gave us free will. Even philosophers have heaped praise on him for taking philosophy seriously and engaging with the philosophy of mind literature in good faith
Listening to Karl Friston speak is like watching a Kaizo Mario speedrun in slow motion with expert commentary. 💪
LilKirbs fan?
Beautiful analogy.
@@inplainview1 I am now.
@@barrypickford1443 ❤️
@@barrypickford1443 thanks 😊
Curt, Please do an interview with Dr Federico Faggin. His TOE is fascinating and well worth exploring!
Cracking the math books and will be reviewing some of these sections over (and over) again. What a wonderful homework assignment.
Thanks!
Thank you so much!
Thank you, gentlemen.
The system works exactly the same always. It's the variables that change as different properties are introduced, but the process remains the same. The purpose stays the same regardless of the outcome of the variable of the properties, always trying to get better and eventually disregarding the less valuable outcomes. I'm very happy that the understanding of how the system works is starting to find its way into the forefront of the sciences. That's called real progress, and should be encouraged. Peace ✌️ 😎 from the free west? Let's keep it that way.
1:00:46 There's weird people out there saying that reality has no meaning and we are the one's who give it meaning. So it isn't so much "What is" but rather, what you do with "what is". Decide on "what is" and see how far you can take it. That's all we're really doing.
As I understand it, reality is, but our perception of it is dependent on the nature of the observer. Meaning is just colour at personal level. Does it have a deeper meaning, well that's between you and God/Universe/Gaia/Wife/Life
@@DwynAgGaire Agreed. So essentially everything is your own personal story and it's a matter of what story you "align" with. This is why I think personal reflection is a tool that is under used in our environment. Focusing on what kind of energy you are bringing to any situation will more than likely align you with a story you'll more than likely be satisfied with.
Oh Curt, I don't think Friston said it. I heard you ask something like "what in the actual world is responsible for defining your states as _you,_ divided from your environment." I looked into Markov blankets a bit back, and I think the answer is essentially something like decorrelation from external states - or rather, that all the internal states are correlated relative to the external states.
Hi Curt, I am really struggling with this one unfortunately, because I’m really not smart enough. One of my life philosophies comes from Clint Eastwood …. ‘Man’s gotta know his limits’
With that in mind is it ever possible to do a series for dummies? 😊
Thank you!
From🇮🇳 Hey curt, pls invite swami sarvapriyananda ji, vedanta society of new york on some day , 👍
ur platform is amazing 👍quite regularly I watch ur channel
Ah, yes, free energy in neurology! Interesting work, though my recollection (this was a while back) is that Friston's definition of free energy differs in important ways from the physics (Hamiltonian) meaning of the phrase. Lyapunov functions are very cool, in any case. And Markov blankets! There was so much interest in Markov processes at that time that most bio-inspired proposals started out with an invocation of Markov. Hard to scale, though.
Fascinating! There’s a curious rule in effect on TH-cam that if any technical comment I make gets more than two likes or (shudder!) a heart, all but one (at most) disappears within a few hours. (I guess whoever does this forgets that I get separate notices.)
While it’s nice to know someone out there cares :), I can’t get interested enough to spend time to figure out how they do this. Simple downvotes, perhaps? I don’t know since I rarely use downvotes except for outright scams.
For me, downvoting reduces free speech and constructive conversation. I’d much rather respond with a pointed critique in my real name for posts that strike me as unfair, cherry-picking, poor use of science, or ad hominem to obscure often astonishingly simple physics points, such as conservation of energy and finite information encoding per unit of energy. It just feels more honest and makes me feel better about myself.
I suppose the vote cancellations should get me upset, but why? This is TH-cam, not real life. Yet, I must admit, such incidents do make me smile. Thank you for caring, you little rascal (or rascals)!
When are you interviewing Curt Doolittle?
Hamilton's equation I think is synthestic, but I think the meat of it is in how you can write it as a Poisson bracket (plus some time-dependence), meaning the meat of Hamilton's equations comes from the fact that it conforms to a Lie algebra, and that Lie algebra's coordinates are about something _physical._ Everything from that appears to me to be analytic.
EDIT: Like, I mean that statement is essentially equivalent to saying that the vector field flow that describes the equations of motion is phase space is orthogonal to the gradient of the manifold, that probably should be thought of as the _what-the-Hamiltonian-actually-is,_ so maybe the manifold itself - the fact it's given by T+U in the time-independent case, plus all your other favourite properties, is the more primitive statement. I don't know enough physics though...
Please do a talk with Rupert Sheldrake :)
Boom done . Here's Sheldrake th-cam.com/video/ocP6JSyicY0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=sUsDOI8I1-dAhGqT
@@TheoriesofEverything omg mad i was looking and couldnt find one, i thought you must have talked with him! Hes the best, morphic resonance is awesome
He has some new stuff.. maybe time for a new talk? (;
@@gracefarmilo6602 ;)
Urgh, no, Pseudoscience.
A really interesting approach, as someone working in approaching domains, I can really build upon those ideas. It it a very versatile and simple theory, even though real world implementation is fraught due to human measurement, judgment, and actuation errors.
Hi Curt
Hi!
His ideas are interesting but clearly are packed with assumptions. At the beginning, he wishes to resolve the issue of spatial boundaries between organism and environment, but still presupposes a 4D manifold to organise the interaction events in his “perception-decision-action” loops between these two individuated processes, the agent and the deterministic system outside. I personally believe one must derive this as an emergent property, not just on the individual boundary. He also fails to actually account for the contents of a perception, memory (experience to wrap it all up) and so forth, and defaulting to these geometrical approaches to concepts which have come into favour recently which don’t actually capture perceptual information. He will also likely dismiss any empirical support for phenomena which are extremely useful for understanding perception, I.e event prior emotional arousal, precognitive dreams, shared twin memories, feeling of being stared at, near death experiences, psychedelics and so forth. Also, painfully left brained and mathematical, somehow reverting to behaviourism as expressed at the immediate introduction to his talk.
Assumptions of assumptions
Anyone who is being parsimonious would just treat reality as precisely equal to what we perceive, not as a claim but as a _definition._ They would merely deal with the reality of our perceptions and not make claims about those perceptions being special in some way and requiring some sort of special "accounting." What we perceive would just be reality, and we would just deal with the reality that we perceive. The only reason we would not use experience and reality interchangeably is if for some reason we think our perception is _false_ and that we are not perceiving _true_ reality, implying that _true_ reality lies beyond all possible perception, and thus we would need to make a categorical distinction between what we perceive and what lies beyond all possible perception, that is to say, a categorical distinction between what we perceive and reality. Yet, making such a categorical distinction requires an _additional_ assumption as "perception = reality" is only dealing with one concept under two different names, while "perception + reality" is dealing with two distinct concepts. You could try to justify this additional assumption with something like NDEs, but these have been largely debunked.
@@amihartz Largely I agree with the perception = reality notion, I would say insofar as one can be, I am a direct realist. However, I would like for you to substantiate NDE’s being “largely debunked” - as far as I’m aware - there are some attempts for an alternative explanation - but I don’t think we have a working model for perception, cognition, the brain, memory, and so forth. Until we have this, you can’t really say you’ve explained away anything mental, including NDE’s - and there are many features of the NDE and there are certainly plenty more “exotic” phenomenal states which stand in great need of explanation. I’m not sure why you interpreted my need to “account” for perception as a “special accounting”, I am quite literally stating we require an effective theory of perceptual information as it is. We don’t have that. Karl Friston is not any closer to this either, he doesn’t claim to be, he just wants to predict biological behaviour. For example, we have yet to solve the phenomenal binding problem, do not really understand invariance structures in perception, do not understand redintegration, and still cling onto Turing computational models despite the fact that many mental operations, including folding, rotation and so on, are non-computational.
@@amihartz I also fail to see how you responded to literally anything in my comment. As my last response, we need an “account” of perceptual information, I’m quite literally saying, we have the world right there for us to perceive, we need to try to describe the contents of this perception. We haven’t even got to the description part, never mind an effective model. If you are a direct realist as your only point was in this comment, you would also appreciate that Karl Friston is not going to solve your problems, he is actually the culprit of this “special accounting” of perception by abstracting away to “perception-decision-action” loops to predict biological behaviour, assuming Einstenian space time and thus proper spatial boundaries between organism and environment before the perceptual feedback can occur. This is extremely special, extremely presumptive and not substantiated at all (definitely if you a direct realist), with fundamental physics being questioned currently. I would be more interested in a model grounded in quantum mechanics, but honestly, we just need to describe perception first. Just one qualia, a scent, a musical tone, a musical melody, etc.
@@MycerDev-eb1xv We do not need to account for perception, which is just reality itself, at all. We only have to build models which _predict_ reality. We don't have to _account_ for it. That is just the age old question of "why is there something rather than nothing" which is unanswerable. Any accounting you give of reality, someone can just ask "what accounts for _that_ accounting?" It's an infinite regress. The material sciences don't account for reality, they just deal with it as it exists before us, exactly as we observe it to be. Our models do indeed predict reality quite accurately. If you think there is a failure in its predictions somewhere, give an example. You've provided none because you have none.
wish i understood any of this. also which i knew why this video says "7 Comments" and i can only see 2. thanks youtube, the censorship czar
Sometimes these guys end up making sense, and I just don't get it. Other times, his guests are lost in math-unicorn land and will *never* make sense. This guy could be either.
use the sort button
@@DwynAgGaire that's just part of it. Some comments get censored. And I've been catching 24-hour bans for hate speech in a particularly-hypocritical manner. YT rubs your nose in it.
@@vapormissile Totally agree, forces you to get crafty with your words and risk getting lost in translation. Even then you can't trust that what you see is what I see. Not good enough is it!
12:48 Question - Would the markov blanket be stacked upon itself in layers of blankets, or are they somehow intermeshed with each other and only become separated as the reality hidden in the markov blanket is brought into existence? 1:01:13
That sounds looney to me, 2funny, but if something can exist in different forms and we can only perceive the one form we see, does that negate all the other possible forms the object can take? Good wrap up, thank you both Karl, and Curt, looking forward to the next in this series of conversations, peace
Hey Curt
lazy Kurt don't work on new guests but only old shorts for money
Hi Travis
@@polishsandmanit all requires work, and his money is none of your business. Beat it!
@@peterquinn2997 lazy bathroom he is.
@@polishsandman Clipping passages from long form interviews is standard practice for obvious reasons, the economics of the channel and my available attention. I am deeply grateful to Curt and his guests. Even this one, who is very interesting even if he doesn't really deal with sentience as 1st person experience, i.e. the "hard problem," at all.
Consider the possibility that the universe is "living". If it is living, then we might surmise that, like other living things we have studied in biology, it was "born" from the interaction of other "pre-existing" universes like our own, with our universe now existing in relation to those...
Take a hit of fentynal every time they say "state"
Regarding the last question, even though the FEP is tautological, one should distinguish between trivial tautologies and non-trivial tautologies.
An example of the latter would be natural selection, and by extension, all of biology.
If we were omniscient, then all tautologies would be trivial. The trivial/non-trivial distinction is a function of our necessary finitude.
Can you explain further? I'm interested. Thank you Timecake.
@@TheoriesofEverythingI believe what they are saying is that to Laplace's demon all knowledge is tautological and the distinction between what is tautological and what isn't is observer dependent
It's more than just all knowledge being tautological to Laplace's demon, it's the idea that there are some statements that we can identify as being tautological despite not being Laplace's demon, and yet those claims can still be very significant in their implications as opposed to being empty and vapid like most examples of tautologies (e.g. Either it will rain tomorrow or it won't rain tomorrow).
The toy model that I had in mind to try and frame this is of a tautology as effectively an instance of circular reasoning.
A trivial tautology is a circle that is relatively small, that can be easily encompassed by some cognitive scope.
A non-trivial tautology, in the extreme case, is still a circle, but it's a circle that extends throughout all of reality. As such, the only way to get a full grasp on such a circle and thereby render it "trivial" is to have a cognitive scope which encompasses all of reality.
In a sense, an infinite circle is a straight line.
However, as I think more about this, I'm not sure this is a sufficient conception. For example, the tautology at the heart of natural selection can be stated and understood succinctly (e.g. replicators that are better at replicating than other replicators will be relatively more numerous in the next generation of replicators than other replicators, because they were better at making copies of themselves.).
What makes it non-trivial isn't the length of the propositional circle, but instead...maybe that those propositions afford a lot of potential substitution, making the underlying tautology the trunk of a very large tree of possible derived claims? Or something like that, where the tautology has "effects" far beyond itself.
This is in contrast to trivial tautologies which only have "effects" that are local to the tautology itself.
...though even that seems insufficient, since there is the case of a tautology like ,"We know the Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible" together with "Everything in the Bible is true because it is the Word of God". What makes this tautology vapid isn't it's lack of potential effects. e.g. if one took this as an indication that the Bible is True, then that would validate all the claims that are made in the Bible.
Hmmm. Now I'm not sure what exactly distinguishes trivial from non-trivial tautologies, though I am still fairly confident that this distinction is getting at something important and that it is a function of not having complete knowledge of everything.
I think the distinction is in part the direction of degree of implication, but without presuming to know what all the implications of a tautology are ahead of time, we can't say what is and isn't a trivial tautology. And yet, we are able to identify at least some trivial and non-trivial tautologies without knowing all of their implications.
So anyway, now I'm not as sure as I was before.
4:20 The Mechanics of Natural Selection excluding Biologic Theory.
That's a required kowtow. He simply says that things that exist
over a long period of time, such as all levels of mathematics,
should be treated as existing, therefore as having evolved.
Good thing he left out Biology, since Natural Selection
was disproved shortly after the discovery of DNA.
But you still must kowtow, or you're not RELIGIOUS enough.
25:45 The evolution not of a "state", because such a "thing" does not exist, but rather the evolution of probabilities, which, if these are understood to be Bayesian, means the evolution of a subjective perception.
The basis of consciousness is reciprocal physicality, generated by the transverse Hall effect of the Glial network.
LANGUAGE:
Consider the following: Language, the very thing we utilize to think thoughts and convey ideas.
Un-named Concepts -> Given a Name (could be a sound, symbol, etc) -> With an attached meaning -> And maybe even other meanings depending upon context -> And maybe even other names with the same meaning.
(Basically a Dictionary and a Thesaurus for a language).
BUT:
a. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that we have all the un-named concepts that could ever be named?
b. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that the meanings we give named concepts are 100% correct?
We truly do not know what we do not know.
This is a part of the 'Great Unknown'. Never stop learning.
(Always have an 'unknown' in every analysis and an 'oops' in every experiment.)
Of which, an entity or a society of entities:
1. Can name their own un-named concepts.
2. Can give their own meanings to named concepts.
3. Can have alternative meanings to named concepts depending upon context.
4. Can have alternative names with the same meaning.
(Basically, create their own language that only they and they alone know).
Learn to function in the 'Great Unknown'.
(OSICA)
ABSOLUTE TRUTH REALITY:
'TSE': Truth Seeking Existentialist:
(One who seeks the real truth concerning existence and topics related to existence).
Trying to be an honest sincere truth seeker, I have to accept the real apparent truth whatever that truth might be, whether it makes me happy or not, or is beneficial for me and/or all of life itself or not. To not do so would mean I were not an honest sincere truth seeker.
Funny thing about absolute truth reality: It still is and always will be absolute truth reality. (Whether people know that truth or not and/or whether they believe that truth to be true or not).
And for those who claim that 'absolute truth' does not actually exist, well for that to be absolutely true, would mean absolute truth truly exists. Absolute truth is the secure basis to build all analysis on.
"The best way to deal with absolute truth reality is to deal with absolute truth reality. And if one is not dealing with absolute truth reality, then one is not dealing with absolute truth reality. Find and deal with absolute truth reality if one wants to deal with absolute truth reality, otherwise one would not be dealing with absolute truth reality." (OSICA)
'Absolute Truth' being defined as the 100% correct and 100% complete set of facts that no human has nor is even physically capable of having in totality. Hence also 'why' we all need to work together for the common good. Nobody knows it all nor can do it all. We truly do not know what we do not know, and maybe even what we believe we know to be really true maybe isn't, and maybe even what we believe we know to be not true maybe is. Never stop learning. Be an honest, sincere truth seeker and knowledge, understanding and wisdom will come that you could apply.
Those who are on the path to become honest sincere truth seekers will have their brain 'wired' for truth. They will be better able to more easily spot lies and inconsistencies. They will be better able to trust their inner instincts.
Absolute truth is NOT a popularity contest. There were times in human history where only a single human being knew more of the real truth that was discovered than any other human in history.
And note also: Denying future reality will not make future reality any less real. People just won't be prepared for it is all.
Itinerant, non equilibrium, steady state aspect. It’s like I’m on a circular path around a center and, if I keep rotating around it, I’m following the exact same trajectory every cycle.
But if I vary my velocity in such a way so that, while remaining in a circular path, the center of my circle moves linearly, so I now effectively end up tracing something like a solenoid!
Itinerant, non equilibrium, steady state tells me like I’m “fixedly variable”, or that I ‘vary’ in a sort of a ‘fixed / predictable’ way.
I repeat, but don’t repeat exactly.
Is that what it means?
30:57
Also, where could we get a copy of these slides?
Every number has a unique set of factors unless prime, every being is a unique configuration of particles and yet entropy has some constancy in this universe. There is a Foundation of every favorable universe and every favorable planet that allows progress.
Markov blanket sounds like what an affectionate atheist scientist carries with them from their narcissistic childhood 🤣
I'm going to out this out uncensored because I can't wrap my head around this anyway: Karl is a neuroscientist doing an elaborate experiment (gathering data) on just how many people he can bamboozle with absolute nonsense and for how long until he's been called out for pulling a prank on all of them. Just a thought.
Nope. His ideas are complex for sure, but it is without doubt (if you follow his arguments carefully and ensure you understand all of the terms and concepts - not easy I grant you) NOT 'absolute nonsense'. He is trying to apply concepts from thermodynamics and statistical mechanics to living and cognitive systems. My suggestion is that if it seems like 'absolute nonsense' then you haven't grasped it.
Treat it like poetry, I guess...
I love beer while listening 🎧 to this stuff
Maths is still inadequate to resolve this issue. Better not to confuse others citing mathematical gurgaon.
Maths is a part of our language system of propostional knowledge, he isn't making claims about a large number of areas of observation or philosophy (doesn't make deontological claims for starters).
Listening to Karl Friston is taxing - he says a lot, some interesting, but in a very round about way.
Sorry I got 9 minutes in and things hadn’t even got going yet. I think modern information consumption methods have made my attention span about 17 seconds.
Infinite potential within states but the differences that are active share into the inactive or potential states. So two states are like two things and when entangling we can predict based on differences we see in the state but also we can expand out to see what is sharing with that state. Think of a line crossing to make a t, we can zoom in and out to see the entangled to bring out but the potential is limitless. Like crossing dimensions reveals the most relatives first but understanding lets you see farther between or expand out. kind of a weird explanation of what i think about it but everything changes so time is just the measurement but in a state so relative. The whole universe is in a state and has so much potential its scary.
The dynamics of the state or states reveal the most relative potentials but isnt limited to but by our understanding. Like how the collapse of a quantum state forms into things and slight differences bring out huge changes. The quantum is far from our current state so its hard to maintain or entangle with and not break it or make it change drastically. Our state is too big and loud and its doesnt align so we put things between that are closer and can share to bring out predictions of the potentials.
Es ist Austausch von Information hin zum Gleichgewicht. Symmetrie. Energie ist Information.
MLST and Kurt should meet :)
If we could understand why earth takes it's various forms and how water + earth can give rise to sentience? I think we don't understand water molecules or minerals.
Randomization is a tool that creators of simulation universes use, not the beginning of every scenario. God is no random seed, but carefully planted in every new version of every universe, either as an AI observer of the shenanigans other gods and goddesses get up to, the leader of the Divine Council in the highest heaven, or a Messiah character in a major version of the most important Genesis story line being instantiated.
When does he mention Kastrup?
If this is indeed a serious collation of theories ,
His teeth : could be seen as reflective of the parts , that are canonical of the culture : how such a gestalt might work .
I don't understand this at all, but it sounds cool.
Are you dicribing consciousness as a quantum state?
There is much here that could be useful, but also much that is too general and wouldn't distinguish life from non-life, let alone cognition from non-cognition. Since a Markov blanket (MB) can be defined for most Markovian systems (and btw quantum systems are NOT Markovian), it begs the question: what makes the MB of an organism special, besides specializations for outward directed action and inward directed (sensory) input? It is usually a (roughly) 2D membrane in 3D. There are further constraints that a membrane satisfies both informationally and physical resource-wise, that must be specified in any serious theory. Also, why do we have multiple levels of organization (organelles, cells, organs, organisms, families, communities, companies, etc) instead of just one big soup of organic molecules? Is the Helmholtz decomposition a sufficient characterization to specify what is special about life? I don't think so, it is possible to do for most reasonable systems that are also non-living. It is useful for dynamical systems in general (to distinguish dissipative and conservative behavior), but not for life, as far as I can tell.
Also, in evolutionary biology, there are multiple fitness functions to be optimized for competing entities, not like the one action (or energy in dissipative systems) of physics. How do the many become one for an organism (hint: it's not just cooperation)? None of this is addressed here, in what appears to be a way to torture biology into a physical Procrustean bed.
Very badly explained.
Where are the examples???
Bio mechanics of the mind can function in a quantum state ! 😮
Does anyone else find Karl's theory and explanations quite Bergsonian?
Self realisation!
I am sorry. Probability density is not a fundamental property of the universe and the gradient of the probability density is certainly not a driving force. The driving force for diffusion is the chemical potential. Gradients in space don't change things, only gradients in time.
Have you read of resurch that uncovered that the heart contains some matter tha same in the brain once described as grey matter or nurons so forth. People who experience the same likes as their donors ie smoking or overeating were a reason why researchers initiated some study to reveal this
Consider the following:
1 of these 2 items are really true:
1. Everything in existence came from absolute nothingness. (And how would that even work?), OR
2. Everything in existence came from an absolute somethingness.
And 'if' an absolute somethingness, (which is probably really true), then 1 of 2 items are really true:
1. An eternally existent absolute somethingness that does not have any consciousness, memories or thoughts, OR
2. An eternally existent absolute somethingness that has consciousness, memories and thoughts.
(And currently, modern science recognizes that a correctly functioning physical brain of some sort is required for memories and thoughts to occur. Even 'if' an eternal consciousness existed, what good would it be if it did not have any memories and thoughts?)
And for anybody that claims such an entity exists outside of space and time, then I ask 'What exactly is space and time that the entity can be outside of it?' Surely one must know what space and time actually are so as to make such a claim.
Additionally:
1. Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is a finite amount and truly eternally existent, OR modern science is wrong.
2. One cannot get an absolute somethingness from absolute nothingness, 'absolute nothingness' just being a concept from a conscious being in absolute somethingness. Hence, an absolute somethingness truly eternally existed throughout all of eternity past, exists today, and will most probably exist throughout all of future eternity. That eternally existent absolute somethingness most probably being eternally existent energy itself.
3. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning, no creator needed.
4. And for those that claim that 'God' truly exists and is the creator of this existence and all in it, then please show how eternally existent energy had consciousness, memories and thoughts, BEFORE all else came into existence. Also, show where God's brain is so that God can have memories and thoughts. And here again, if one claims that God's brain is outside space and time, then please show what space and time actually are that God can be outside of it. Surely you must know what space and time actually are for one to make such a claim.
I believe using words such as "came from" or "thing" in "somethingness" is misleading when talking about the nature of reality. Any "thing" is a product of our conscious minds. Also, consciousness is probably relying on a specific process; it is not a thing, it is a process. No matter what we put in the soup, there is no consciousness until it moves. Words belong to spectators with a point of view. We describe and we experience, but the nature of reality is neither the description nor the experience. The essence is the NO/thing which stays missing when everything is described and experienced. Just an opinion.
@@bobrericha a. "I believe..."; You have your beliefs and I have my beliefs, but what is really true?
b. "Any "thing" is a product of our conscious minds."; That is not what modern science claims. You doubt modern science?
c. "Also, consciousness is probably relying on a specific process;..."; 'Probably'? You do not really know then?
d. "...there is no consciousness until it moves."; So, modern science does not know what 'consciousness' actually is or how it works, but you do?
e. "Just an opinion."; I agree with you, it's just your opinion. Where is any actual evidence to back up your beliefs? You have any?
@@charlesbrightman4237
a. Yes, that´s why I used "I believe". My subjective experience is the only real truth for my Self.
b. Modern science disputes even time and space. A "thing" as an object, like a particle, is just a representation in our minds.
c. I know nothing compared to what there is to know. I was not trying to offend you. I love science.
d. I just wanted to emphasize that it can be misleading to imagine consciousness as a "thing," which often occurs. Gerald Edelman stresses that consciousness is, in its essence, primarily a process. This doesn't necessarily imply an equivalence between computation and consciousness; rather, it highlights the importance of both the substrate and the process within it. To clarify my position further, I consider myself a physicalist, but I assume that physics is the study and description of the interaction between our consciousness and reality, not necessarily a description of reality itself. The speculation I like to entertain goes as follows: Reality is a fundamental, unknowable no-thing in constant change (motion, interaction). All systems, including us, are part of it. Each system has its specific way of being and surviving in reality. Consciousness is the system's tool for "translating" reality into comprehensible "existence". This translation creates representations (such as particles, fields, space, time) necessary for the system's survival. What we perceive and describe as "existence" or "physical world" is thus a product of our consciousness interacting with reality, adapted to our particular mode of survival. Different systems (e.g., alien life forms) may have different "translations" of reality according to their specific needs and ways of being. These different systems may, in fact, have entirely different "physics" - fundamental concepts and laws that describe their particular interaction with reality.
e. Yes, it is a speculation, an opinion. And it becomes stronger the more I read works by Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin, David Deutsch, Joscha Bach, Michael Lewin, Douglas Hofstadter and others.
I'd love to chat with you privately, feel free to message me and we can speculate until the cows come home :)
@@bobrericha a. 'Subjective beliefs': People used to believe that the world was flat. Turns out that is wrong.
People used to believe that we existed under a dome with lights on it. Turns out that is wrong.
People used to believe that the Earth was the center of the solar system and universe. Turns out that is wrong.
People used to believe a lot of things that were later shown to be wrong.
* Hence having evidence of some sort, including possibly logic and reason based upon previously proved 'truths' to back up one's beliefs.
b. Space and Time: 'Speed' is distance divided by time, distance being 2 points in space with space between those 2 points. If space and/or time did not have some sort of actual existence besides just as concepts alone, then 'speed' could not exist except for just as a concept alone as well as the 'speed of light' would just be a concept alone which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas.
c. Consciousness: Either something exists in some form, even if only as a concept alone, or it does not exist in any form and is non-existent. And even 'if' consciousness existed throughout all of eternity past, what good would it be if it did not have any memories nor thoughts? (Memories and thoughts apparently requiring some sort of actual physical brain to have those items occur).
d. Cows do not come home. Cows do not actually exist but eternally existent space time exists as cows and all other things. Plus, even 'if' one accepted that cows exist, they are already home. The entire state of existence that they are in is their home. We all never left home, the entire universe is our home.
For 'bobrericha': a. 'Subjective beliefs': People used to believe that the world was flat. Turns out that is wrong.
People used to believe that we existed under a dome with lights on it. Turns out that is wrong.
People used to believe that the Earth was the center of the solar system and universe. Turns out that is wrong.
People used to believe a lot of things that were later shown to be wrong.
* Hence having evidence of some sort, including possibly logic and reason based upon previously proved 'truths' to back up one's beliefs.
b. Space and Time: 'Speed' is distance divided by time, distance being 2 points in space with space between those 2 points. If space and/or time did not have some sort of actual existence besides just as concepts alone, then 'speed' could not exist except for just as a concept alone as well as the 'speed of light' would just be a concept alone which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas.
c. Consciousness: Either something exists in some form, even if only as a concept alone, or it does not exist in any form and is non-existent. And even 'if' consciousness existed throughout all of eternity past, what good would it be if it did not have any memories nor thoughts? (Memories and thoughts apparently requiring some sort of actual physical brain to have those items occur).
d. Cows do not come home. Cows do not actually exist but eternally existent space time exists as cows and all other things. Plus, even 'if' one accepted that cows exist, they are already home. The entire state of existence that they are in is their home. We all never left home, the entire universe is our home.
This seems to me to be a metaphysical question, not the province of conventional science.
The answer is, as a result, one that requires knowledge of metaphysics.
Consciousness facilitates the transformation of energy into matter.
Since consciousness is fundamental, sentience is universal in matter.
This will sound nonsensical ---- frankly I´m not particular. --- ( joke ?)
Consciousness is not fundamental lmao
@@amihartzit is under certain philosophical traditions. I find Bernard Kastrup and John Vervaeke conversation on this channel to be a good intro to one of the traditions. Same observation of same phenomena and science but different fundamental axiom, idealism compared to materialism (which no matter how hard you rub to quanta together a qualia doesn't occur nor a value).
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 And there's no reason to take these traditions seriously. They never justify why they find "quanta" and "qualia" to be separate realms of existence where the only possibilities are either rejecting one or the other, or arguing that quantities somehow "give rise to" the qualities. It does not even make logical sense to separate the two in the first place as it is not logically possible to define quantities without qualities and vice-versa. They logically entail one another and are part of the same whole. Idealists just have a list of assertions they make which are entirely incoherent if you think about them for more than five seconds.
@@amihartz Mine is.
@@kerryburns-k8i main character syndrome
A demented abuse of language that exposes the mental imbalance of the guest. Curt, try to find the usefulness of the information transmitted and you will fail in your attempt. This video is a slap in the face to Science and an affront to Intellect.
Just say i didn't understand a thing. Someone pls explain.
Awesome
Lovely
ASMR for sleep
🙏
Katie let DAMION see his baby
Does he ever talks aboit WATER??? So thats how NATURE works in biology...equations...err the Fokker equations? Does he ever talks aboit Infrared?...or the mitochondria? Mathematical nonsense...and I'm a math teacher...
This channel need some REAL MEN...like Nassir N. Taled...
He talks about scalar invariance which would cover water as much as other natural phenomena. He talks about 2 types of attractors which could be applied to why water can be ice, water, steam and being relatively stable as a molecule despite having 3 'forms'. In math they're able to apply formulas to the extended universe as much as have some formulas that to date don't have application and are explicatable but not implicative and extendable.
He then extends and implicates the free energy principle to natural phenomena. So from observation of phenomena to formula and return to phenomena.
Short on specifics and long on circular reasoning- wonder what the Fokker-Planck equation signals here?😢
Maybe have a good Ai chat bot explain as well? Dissatisfied 😮
Есть разница? Как да Вы косвенно хитроумно подглядываете или перед Вами, для Вас ❤прямо обнажаясь❤ раскрывается красота Вселенной. Вот такая разница между косвенным хитроумным и прямым опытом.
Здравствуйте. Для большой науки нужны прямые опыты с прямыми доказательствами что скорость света -константа? Кто поможет создать рабочую группу со студентами для работы над новым экспериментом? Вы понимаете, что одного ума и человека, недостаточно.
(за 119 лет), *все эксперименты* включая опыты Майкельсона-Морли, для определения константы скорости света - являются косвенные и неполные. Если бы эксперимент Майкельсона-Морли проводился в самолете и использовался в них, для определения скорости. только тогда этот опыт будет прямым. Поэтому Эйнштейн не полагается на эксперимент Майкельсона-Морли. Вопрос к Вам: Есть ли у вас пример такого непосредственного опыта?
Есть же возможности, школьникам и студентам, самим измерять большой взрыв Вселенной её тёмную энергию, чёрные дыры, … Соберём учебно/практические пособия «Майкельсон Морли ГИБРИДНЫХ гироскопа (используя АТТОСЕКУНДНЫЕ импульсы)» с переключения в «лазерную рулетку; опорным сигналом *+опорное расстояние* в 1000000 м., с обратным зеркалом». (мы, не ищем эфир, Мы *увидим* как работает квантовая гравитация)
Обращаюсь к Вам с предложением на совместное изобретения ГИБРИД гироскопа ИЗ НЕКРУГЛЫХ, двух катушек с новым типом оптического волокна с «полой сердцевиной из фотоно-замещенной вакуумной зоной или (NANF)», где - свет в каждом *плече* проходит по 500 (в дальномере «+» опорных 1000) км., при этом, не превышает параметры 94/94/94 см., и вес - 94кг. Предприятия по выпуску "Волоконно - оптических гироскопов" может выпускать ГИБРИД гироскопы и дальномеры, для учебно практического применения в школах и высших учебных заведений.
Эйнштейна мечтал измерить скорость самолёта; 200, 300, 400, 500 м/сек - через опыт Майкельсона Морли 1881/2024 г., и только тогда, опыт будет прямой для СТО. И это возможно выполнить с помощью оптоволоконного ГИБРИД гироскопа. Вот исходя из выполненного более 70% опыта Майкельсона, возможно увидим доказательства постулат: Свет - это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов и доминантные гравитационные поля корректируют скорость света в вакууме. Думаю, получится совершать научные открытия; по астрономии, астрофизике, космологии, высшей теоретической физике,..
В итоге *увидите* теорию всего в простых учебных устройствах.
Your model of the brain as a single consciousness unit/quanta is highly flawed. Humans have 3 primary physical brains with subordinate processing areas, in addition to their quantum brain, which is often called the soul or merkaba. Most of the lower level consciousness units are what we refer to as NPC consciousness - systems and subsystems whose behavior has become very finely tuned by successive simulations, with few allowed degrees of freedom till they become rather uninteresting vehicles for more advanced consciousness units.
State machines are a useful construct to understand many phenomena, but will never explain higher consciousness unless you have a snapshot model of God's mind when the current version of physical reality was sent out for testing in Lucifer's soul-testing universe.
Pick any point blindly and at random. Listen to it for just one minute or so now then ask yourself the following questions:
How much did you understand?
How much of that inability to understand was due to the words he chose (not needed) to use.
Who is he here for?
Well yea. If you go to a physics lecture and have no knowledge or interest in physics one might leave asking the same questions if their assumptions were completely off in the first place which is the issue not what you proposed. Having said that, it’s definitely complex
Having read friston for 5-7 years ... this is him being less technical than normal and I found accessible as well as great examples.
Thing = "something that persists over time"
Case closed.😅
I got opinions on all this. There is nothing, absolutely _nothing_ about "belief" or "sentience" in any of Friston's mathematics or technical analysis. He is just tacking on those sorts of terms with duck tape to make it sound profound. Hermann Haken and others in the amorphous field of "complexity" studies have done most of this all before and did not see the need to co-opt loaded terms like "consciousness" or "belief" or "sentience" into the work. For example, the most loaded they might use was "self-organization" which refers to mundane but complicated processes, even sand piles, and has nothing to do with any emergent or metaphysical "self". I will try to watch through to the end and give you comments fwiw, but duuuude, a little humility concerning what one's modeling has actually shown would be a nice change of fresh air compared to all the late stage capitalism style science hype.
Quantom fusss
wit ;)
🤍
😂😂😂