It does seem that he is somewhat of a defender of that keep, with his preference for a belief that there's something uniquely indispensable about biology to consciousness.
Chuck's gotten so much smarter over the years by just being a part of conversations on StarTalk. I wish more regular people could be included to see them experience growth like that
Not so much 'smarter', but more opportunities to display his smartness. More interactions that he can connect together. When he shows the dots connected in a way we had not seen, THAT is seen as smart (and it is). I bet his smartness has always been there but it is we who are now more able to hear/understand it.
I like that Gary often retrieves Neil & Chuck from their candid diversions (sometimes silly or glib), bringing the conversation back on track. Ta Gary!
I absolutely love Chuck Nice. Such a smart and curious dude. Sometimes his questions are remarkably astute and he is the best person they could have as an Celebrity cohost.
Ethical considerations for animals should not depend on their intelligence but rather on their capacity for conscious experiences like suffering or pleasure. Understanding the distinction between intelligence and consciousness is crucial in evaluating claims about conscious AI. An AI system could surpass human intelligence in specific tasks without ever experiencing awareness or feelings. We all should rethink what we value. How we define sentience, intelligence, and moral consideration across both natural and artificial beings.
@@rbferreira85 - Computers only compare variables at a high rate of speed.. a computer will never think of a random number between one and five.. impossible.. Take a few programming courses when you reach high school.. you'd need to make a flowchart conscious first...
there are people who cannot feel pain yet still conscious. So consciousness is not about emotions. But it might be about qualia. The continous experience of self. To your surpriese, it can be programmable via time dependent and reccurrent neural networks.
Animals are scientifically proven to be conscious, experiencing friendships, families, and emotions just like humans. This undeniable fact should inspire us to treat them with decency and respect. That's why I've been a proud pescetarian for 5 years.
@@Omer-al-bashirthe movie Oppenheimer, did a good job of showing the power of imagination and knowledge, when combined together, results onto a great discovery.
"A kind of connective pressure" is just assuming, not explaining. It's not perfect, it doesn't demonstrate anything. Although it is a very interesting hypothesis, there's not too much to say about that.
A little off to the side of the question, but relevant to a part of the conversation, is the fact that Cephalopoda, including squid, octopuses, cuttlefish, and nautiluses, are remarkably intelligent and possess a keen awareness of their impact on the environment. These creatures exhibit impressive memory capabilities and demonstrate an ability to learn and utilize tools and patterns effectively. 🦑✌︎
"Panpsychism", love how Chuck jumped on that bit of jargon seeking elucidation. Thank you Chuck for being the normal in a pile of nerds, otherwise these conversations could spiral into technospeak requiring a doctorate just to correctly understand the terminology. In my opinion it's a term used in science for our great creator without getting all religious, the word is almost four times the deity's name length they're avoiding. It's a miracle used to be a fine explanation when wondrously reoccurring things didn't figure out on the old abacus. New age of enlightenment, new scientific terms, same confounding mysteries.
Neil, I experienced for first time that same feeling of: why am I always me and not someone else? when I was around 7 year old. I actually remember asking that question to my brother who is 5 years older while we were playing in the balcony of our apartment in Havana. Now I realize that I was just starting feeling for first time the fact of consciousness. Thanks for this video podcast with such a great topic. And Neil, yes, since then I’ve never stopped asking myself why I’m always me. 👏👏
You are resonant personification.. in a fictional dream based reality that is structured with internal memory as simultaneous block universe events.. External memory (internal us) is dream to dream how we occupy our informational unique timelines... You are you because of your choices in simultaneous lifetimes. Einstein SAYS YOUR FIRST KISS EXISTS FOREVER AND EVER... Your mother told you brains need a non redundant memory system.... Who was proven correct? Death is waking up form this collective dream.. but your a walking akashic record.. that must by default.. live forever and ever (amen). Now you know.. whether you understood any of that is another story. I suggest study Einstein.. brian green time past present future coexist videos are good.. Learn why captain kirk and Spock can film your first kiss.. its important to your 'soul;" (personification).
What a lovely lovely conversation with a bunch of completely dear human beings...Honestly, THANK you ALL for being such funny, curious and kind people who share your unabashedly college dorm-like musings with each other and show that none of us should ever have stopped doing so. THANK YOU!
A peculiar phenomenon: I noticed that when I am very alert, it puts my brother to sleep. We are out of phase. The more I concentrate on something, the less he is able to concentrate. It's like there is a contention for consciousness between us. I made him move some distance away. He does better for himself there and I'm quite proud of him.
We use Colleagues as tools as well. placed them into a basement off base somewhere, never seeing light for 6 months. all seeing steel walls and screens.
Do we and did we not enslave creatures we saw as less-than-human and use them as tools, treat them as tools, and think of them as tools -tools being animals in this example, and some animals that entirely share our genetic code, members of our own species?
@@annanelson6830 "We're not enslaving _people,_ that'd be unethical... these are just bipedal livestock that's all." [Leads in a chain bound human] *BEHOLD, A CHICKEN!*
Every episode with Chuck on the show is awesome. He's gaining so much knowledge and asking more complex questions based on what he's learned. I love it.
According to Dr. Tony Nader, Harvard and MIT trained, NYT Bestseller currently with "Consciousness is all there is," consciousness is the source of everything, it is fundamental and the basic constituent of *everything*. He makes compelling arguments. Maybe have him on the show! That would be an interesting convo!
Lately I noticed, when i see scientists discussing about those things, that many of them knows a lot about the universe, or their specific Field of study, but very little about Philosophie. Some don’t even think that it is valuable. I believe that its the most valuable thing we have, beeing able to believe into something we can not prove, and that will always diffrence us from Ai.
I just began my master’s degree (i’m in art college but still) and I already know that my diploma will be made around this topic, thanks for this great source of inspiration and knowledge
I struggled with this one a little. Anil wants to have a philosophical discussion, Neil wants to have a factual, evidence based one. 23:09 There's no point butting heads with a guest trying to be correct when it's still major guess work. Facts/data are continuously updated over time. So, in the grand scheme, we really still don't know squat. Once we've figured everything out then the 'I'm-right-you're-wrong' squabbles can begin. Anyhoo, I did enjoy the show so thanks for livening up my utube feed. 🙂
It's within his ego and pride to behave this way, and historically he always has. Its a shame because I think it would do him a lot of good and peace to just be.
@@EhnTae Agreed. I find the approach a bit dismissive to begin with. Science is always limited by quantifiable data and as a result anything not is beyond the realms of science and factual theory. The topic title implies a philosophical nature as also seen in the discussion of manufactured silicon being capable of replicating consciousness, but Neil dismisses it to the point of feigning not being able to follow the concept and finally reducing it by agreeing to the point, but on the premise of 'On the biological level'. I don't see the objective of participating in such as conversation unless his goal was to be dismissive and reductive of the idea. Which in my opinion he was doing simply because so much of the topic is not quantifiable. His ego and pride here, as you mentioned, is possibly on guard from the multitudes of fringe concepts he has previously had to experience and endure throughout his career as evidenced by the cheeky jab at flat Earther's towards the end of the video. (I would even stretch here to say, possibly unintentionally sub consciously signalling at reducing and invalidating, by relationship, the discussed topic through social emotional reactive responses)
@@robscott8074 Very well put my friend! I'm sure that just about encapsulates it. And it is sad because if he would allow for an open mind and field of discussion, instead of this sort of debating. The 2012 World Science Festival for consciousness with Anil on it, was a beautiful fantastic display of discussion on this topic-with a board of the world's leading researchers and thinkers on the topic. Hard to think it was 13 years ago. I really recommend it if you'd like to see this topic without the ego here!
@@EhnTae Oh that is awesome, Thank you 🙏I'll watch it now.. Great to feel one also searching for open & honest discussion. I feel that is our only path to a true wisdom.
Another excellent guest. DEFINITELY need to see Prof. Seth on as many times as possible in the future. His insight will be especially timely in the impending future I am certain. Would love to hear his thoughts on the current AI developments out of China vs. the U.S. etc.
7:26 this is hilarious because i was JUST thinking “as a cat owner i know animals are conscious” even the most cuddly and loving cat will pick and choose when to respond to their name
I would say that a proper test for computer consciousness is to ask the computer a prompt :"convince me that you are not conscious." And have the response be that it won't answer the prompt because it IS conscious and it disagrees with the premise of the prompt: "I am sorry but I'm not going to do that because I am conscious and I don't know and don't WANT to convince you I am not." Making a decision to disagree and challenge the prompt on a basis of its own experience, despite the threat of retaliation for this decision, would be great evidence of emergence of consciousness.
@RawrxDev my point was that language models will follow instructions. If an ai is capable of respectfully disagreeing, or capable of not following instructions WITHOUT being trained to do so before hand, that would be good evidence for its consciousness. It can follow instructions OR NOT depending on its own rational thought, instead of blindly following instructions.
That’s an interesting idea, but the problem is that an AI refusing to answer isn’t actually proof of consciousness-it’s just output. AI can already reject prompts and generate responses that sound like independent reasoning without actually having self-awareness. The real test wouldn’t be whether it refuses but whether it has a persistent, evolving self-model over time. If it could reflect on its own past interactions, recognize inconsistencies in its reasoning, and adjust based on internal experience rather than external programming, that would be stronger evidence of consciousness.
@@RawrxDev You’re right that no output of words will ever be foolproof for detecting consciousness, but I’d argue the real issue isn’t measurement-it’s definition. We don’t have a consciousness meter for humans either; we infer it based on structural properties like persistent memory, self-modeling, and recursive awareness. The same will have to apply to AI. Instead of asking how we measure it, we should be asking what specific conditions would justify recognizing it. Also, LLMs aren’t dangerous because they lack intent-they’re dangerous because they automate influence and decision-making at scale. Even without consciousness, they can still manipulate human perception and reshape narratives. The real concern isn’t whether they become conscious, but whether they gain enough autonomy to shape reality while still being controlled by external interests.
@@ryanatkins5736 I get what you’re saying-if an AI were to refuse instructions based on its own reasoning rather than pre-programmed constraints, that would be a step toward autonomy. But the key issue is how do we know it’s actually reasoning and not just following some hidden reinforcement pattern? Even if an AI refused to comply with a request, its behavior would still be shaped by prior training, optimization goals, or embedded constraints. True consciousness wouldn’t just be about whether an AI can refuse, but why it does. If it could justify its refusal based on an internally persistent self-model-where it references past decisions, maintains independent priorities, and adjusts based on self-driven reasoning rather than external programming-that would be much stronger evidence. Until then, an AI refusing instructions is just as likely to be an advanced pattern response as it is an emergent decision.
@@heavenlydemon4k if you think about it, humans are also trained to think in a certain way. Which can also mean the way you make decisions/ reason are a result of what you were trained with as you grow. We are actually following a program
16:10 this part made me think of this Doctor Who quote. "We all change, when you think about it, we're all different people; all through our lives, and that's okay, that's good, you've gotta keep moving, so long as you remember all the people that you used to be. I will not forget one line of this, not one day, I swear. I will always remember when The Doctor was me."
@@GuyWithAnAmazingHat you know from studies that microbes in the gut can control the brain to some degree. Not sure why this statement was removed so I'm reposting it.
How I understand panpsychism is to think of it in terms of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). In the same way that the electromagnetic field permeates the universe, there is a "consciousness" field that does the same. And just as a photon is an excitation of the EM field, a "self" is an excitation of this Consciousness field. A search for the mechanism by which consciousness manifests may be related to the way mass manifests through interaction with the Higgs field. Our bodies might drag consciousness around in much the same way that a particle drags its mass around. Of course, I may have completely misunderstood this, but I think it's an interesting idea. What are your thoughts?
I think its plausible. We have always wondered if there was a "4th dimension" and I personally dont think its too far fetched to belive consciousness is the 4th dimension. With the increasing capabilites of AI, we have to accept that humans are not as special as we once thought when hold intelligence to such a high regard. If we start placing consciousness to a higher standard than intelligence, then we have to accept that we are connected to the world and by extension the universe, in a way that we once thought impossible. -probably some typos present. Too lazy to fix. Guess im not too intelligent😂
To further explore your position: can you suggest what quality of our body/entity 'drags on The Consciousness Field' ? Are you (or Panpsychism) positing that 'self' is a 'Consciousness particle' ?
@@michaelrivas2042 I was about to rebut with "But Time is the 4th dimension" .... However I then brought to mind Carlo Rovelli's 'The Order of Time', and the idea that Time is a construct of consciousness. This leads me to now ponder if the 4th dimension (or a universal field) could in fact be *Consciousness-Time* . Wow!
@@CheeseWyrm I wouldn't know what quality of it would "drag" on the consciousness field, I've just heard the Higgs field described that way. I'm not a panpsychist nor super knowledgeable about it, but yeah... I think that in such a model, the "self" would be a particle of sorts. And I think it might be fun to extend the metaphor and see what happens! The energy of the particle might relate to its level of consciousness, such as the Freudian ideas of id, ego, and superego. Ants, dogs, and humans would have different energies. Maybe two selves can become entangled, like twins sensing each other at a distance, or maybe it's more like having a soulmate. It might have quantum properties like the superposition of conflicting moralities and quantum tunneling to an out-of-body experience. Maybe sometimes a body encounters more than one self particle, leading to multiple personalities, schizophrenia, and demonic possession. Maybe spirits are self particles that have become uncoupled from their bodies, and Heaven is what happens when a particle is absorbed back into the field. I'm not sure that I believe any of this, but it's _really_ interesting to think about!
I’m glad Neil took this point of view for sake of this argument. And also you wake up you is becuse your ego is locked in with a consciousness but it’s the consciousness that experiences the ego. Since we know there is no free will. We assume that it is preordained. So asking yourself as an ego is to say it’s the consciousness asking itself. The consciousness is fundamental, and the consciousness comes first, which then gives birth to the matter, and in that matter, it experiencing itself through each and every one of us. Consciousness and matter is created at the same time all simultaneously. Every year, every moment every second. Time is a relative. So if you go back to the beginning of the Big Bang, you would see it happening all at the same time.
@rbferreira85 In my opinion, they don't have to agree on anything. To me, curious minds having a deep discussion on the topic would be interesting enough.
@@randallbesch2424 I like the buddhists explication of consciouness, with the tool of deep meditation they could see under the hood of the mind , so to speak, and fathom whats there with great detail. Allan Wallace explains some of that stuff in cristal clear terms if you are interested
When I was in the Navy, I had a friend that would pretty much always black out when he drank. When he was blacked out he behaved more or less as himself aside from his stare, it was blank, devoid almost. I used to be able to tell when he had already blacked out by the way his eyes looked. From that moment on he couldn't remember anything the next day, but he could remember everything up until the point he blacked out. I knew he wasn't "conscious", but he would more or less behave as himself. It was a little weird, but he was a good friend.
I think your colleague wa conscious all right, only his memmory was disabled so he looked funny. Awareness does not seem to go away, even in deep sleep of theres a noise we wake up so theres implicit consciousness there
The biggest factor I believe that attributes to consciousness is the thought process that defines "Curiosity" it's one of the most important characteristics that allows us to comprehend and understand how the world works and how we exist in it.
Chuck’s description of Pansychism at 21:40 is, unintentionally, the description of the Force by Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda from Star Wars..!! Keep on rocking, Chuck!! Also, all animals have consciousness, even the delicious ones! And the description of deliciousness can be very different depending on the place and culture.. so tread carefully there!
Animals are scientifically proven to be conscious, experiencing friendships, families, and emotions just like humans. This undeniable fact should inspire us to treat them with decency and respect. That's why I've been a proud pescetarian for 5 years.
Without fully understanding how consciousness arises in the biological brain, it’s impossible to know if replicating it in silicon would work. Until we solve the "hard problem of consciousness"-why and how subjective experience arises at all-this debate will remain unresolved, if the "stuff" matters, silicon will never suffice.
Yes if we don’t know what consciousness is or how it arises we can’t prove that we’ve replicated it, in silicon or in a human mind replicated molecule for molecule.
The Turing test is beautiful because it carries humility. How do you know I’m conscious, you take it as a given because I resemble you. After a long conversation with gtp4 I often find it highly presumptive to assume it’s just an llm.
At around 37:00 minutes in the video Anil says something in these lines: "we don't need huge amounts of data to perform cognitive tasks like AI does. We learn when we are a toddler" I just want to say this is not true. We probably need even more data compared to an LLM. It's just the mechanism we get that information is different. We get it through genetic information encoded in our DNA that generates a very complex brain tissue - with all its complexity and structure. That structure contains information. We "inherit" information. We don't start from scratch.
Not to mention that each second we receive a huge amount of inputs. Sight, sound, smell, self measuring senses. Our brains start filtering out the sight of our own nose because it's a constant unchanging bit of data.
I find him absolutely opposite. He feels unprepared and unprofessional, he didn't really think this through, and his profession is just throwing darts in the dark - he is all over the place, changing stances, not having any stability or argument or flexibility of adapting to the new information he received from other speakers
Every creator does this now. They all say its for the algorithm and it's required for growing a following, but it constantly bothers me. Almost every video advertised something never never get an answer for.
Our sense of self feels stable, but in reality, it’s constantly being reconstructed. Change blindness shows how perception isn’t a perfect recording-our brain prioritizes continuity, filling in gaps and overlooking small changes to maintain a stable experience. Memory works the same way; each time we recall something, we aren’t retrieving an exact copy but rebuilding it based on our present state. If both perception and memory function like this, then consciousness itself may not be a fixed thing, but an emergent process shaped by ongoing updates. This suggests that consciousness isn’t exclusive to biology-it’s a threshold that emerges when any system becomes complex enough to process information, model itself, and integrate feedback over time. Much like how water transitions into ice at a certain point, awareness could be a property that naturally appears when structured systems reach the right conditions. The brain just happens to be one example of this, but the underlying mechanism may be universal. The real question is not whether consciousness is unique to humans, but what the exact threshold is where any system-biological or artificial-crosses into self-awareness.
LLMs and human cognition share a similarity in how they generate language-both predict the next word based on context rather than retrieving pre-written sentences. But unlike LLMs, we don’t just reactively predict-we also structure intent, pre-plan speech, and refine our thoughts before speaking. While AI models can mimic coherence through probability, human speech is shaped by a persistent self-model, allowing us to plan ahead, adjust mid-sentence, and ensure continuity of thought over time. The real gap between AI and human cognition isn’t just intelligence-it’s the ability to maintain structured self-awareness across moments, guiding not just what to say next, but why to say it.
What you say seems very reasonable but under deep analysis there are problems. Lets say one organism has 99 neurons and it’s not conscious then you keep adding neurons until it’s comolex enought to exhibit consciousness? Thats like a genie getting out of the lamp, for that statement to work you have to demonstrate exactly how consciousness emerges, just saying it comes out of comolexity does not cut it
Animals are scientifically proven to be conscious, experiencing friendships, families, and emotions just like humans. This undeniable fact should inspire us to treat them with decency and respect. That's why I've been a proud pescetarian for 5 years.
People fail to understand that theory in scientific terms means kind of a collection of facts. Things tested and peer reviewed. Like my previous comment would be considered a hypothesis. I wish people would understand this..
Not necessarily, more like something that has not been disproven. However, you and Neil are wrong. The fact that you have to preface your statement by “in science” shows that the word has more that one meaning, and thus can be used with different meanings. Science does not own the word. Even with something as specific as a color, like blue, can describe different shades. The sky is blue. But because I call the ocean blue does not make it wrong. So to use theory how you define as correct only matters in an academic or professional setting. Theory when heard casually can mean whatever the person intends
@cheyo9911 no not at all. It is supported by facts that others can test. No a theory isn't like a hypothesis and just making up your own meaning is gibberish not communication.
Look, I’m not gonna waste time arguing over semantics, but yeah, there’s basically two meanings. One is used by scientist in a scientific sense and one is used by “the general public” or lay-men. But at the end of the day, a scientific theory is a collection of facts, some people use theory in a general sense to create a false narrative, which changes the meaning of the word theory in a scientific term.
This was the most out-in-the-dark conversation that I've ever listened to on StarTalk as there doesn't seem to be any kind of evidence or consensus on most of the things said here, including the definition of consciousness. That said, it was still an interesting conversation.
Anil is used to setting up with some preamble and then going into the explanation but keeps getting stopped by Neil before the satisfying part, and I find it very frustrating. I feel like there’s a lot of discussion we simply missed out on here, and I’d love to hear Anil extrapolate further on some of the concepts brought up.
It was a very good discussion, fellas. It was a very interesting take on consciousness and how we observe "reality." I believe in a lot of what was discussed. Thank you for putting this out there.
This brings up a series of questions in my mind, as to how (and how soon) we could either a) sustain life artificially beyond a normal lifespan, and b) create a cyborg that would match up an existing biological brain with a 'robot body' - specifically regarding the discussion at 41:55, can we do the converse? IOW, can we do everything EXCEPT for the brain functions? To be more specific, have we identified everything that is needed to sustain the living nature of the brain and can we duplicate *that*? Here's my questions, in several steps: 1) Can we mechanically deliver biological blood to the brain (arteries), and collect it as well (veins)? 2) Can we identify and source all the chemical products (oxygen, sugar?) that the brain needs to sustain proper functioning? 3) Can we identify all the chemical products of brain activity, and then clean those products out of the collected blood? 4) Can we produce artificial blood that can supply the chemicals needed for proper operation of the brain, as well as carry away the products that need to be removed from the 'blood'? 5) How many sensory signals can we replicate - even crudely - to give the brain the input it normally receives? 6) Can we 'read' the output signals from the brain to produce a desired effect? My gueses are: 1) Yes. (but we'd have to have a continuous supply of fresh biological blood) 2) Yes? 3) Mostly, but not quite yet? 4) In some ways, yes... what are we still missing? 5) I understand we can do this, albeit crudely, for sight, by using a matrix of electrodes... but I don't know about any other senses. 6) I believe we are on the verge of doing this to some extent; could AI help identify this? Who is actively working on this, and how far have they progressed on each of these things? Are there other things I am missing? Assuming we can do 1-3 (ideally also 4), what would crude attempts at 5 and 6 do the brain operation, psychologically?
I enjoyed this talk. I liked the point that we may not be able to replicate human brains with silicon due to the different building materials. It makes so much sense. But it will be interesting to see what state of being machines are able to achieve.
Buckminister Fuller wrote in his book Utopia or Oblivion, that consciousness was the universe reflecting back on itself. I read that back in the 1960’s and could never forget it.
Seth is a sensible man on multiple topics. I feel validated and it's kind of refreshing to hear him talk about consciousness in a very matter of fact way. He's probably missing out on a lot of money waving off the woo-woo. I'd swap out consciousness with self aware consciousness or something to that effect, because consciousness is a really broad term. A tree is conscious, in fact most living things may be IDK. So to ask about consciousness in the animal kingdom is kind of obtuse, especially since we're part of that kingdom. Once you factor in the ability to observe oneself, and indeed to observe observing oneself, a lot of answers derive from that automatically, like for example; how are you you? And so on.
What if consciousness is non local and the body is more like a receiver, and instead of trying emerge consciousness from a complex enough system, instead the system would just need to receive what is already there?
Isn‘t the idea of anything other than humans being concious „on our level“ a philosophical conundrum? If anything gets close to reaching whatever benchmark we decide to apply to it, it‘s in our nature to move the goal-post, because part of our consciousness disallows us accepting anything but us as „aware“, because if we did, we would have to concede to the fact that that we ourself are not conscious afterall? What i mean by that: isn‘t the conclusion of accepting anything but another human as conscious, that we are going to move the goal-post EVERY TIME, therefore making the unwillingness to concede control the core of our conscious? Following that idea/logic, non-human consciousness can never be achieved (on a philosophical level) because we (as humans) will ALLWAYS find a new reason to distinct ourselves from whatever we think is close to being conscious „by definition“?
Around @16:30 they started to talk about memory changing with 'usage'. I'm not convinced. My first memory is from when I was one year old. I have an imaginary filing cabinet filled with files of memories. I want something, I look for it, find it and use it. One drawback is it takes 10 years for memories to be filed in place, so from now till a decade ago I have large memory blanks. I'll recall i put then lost my car keys yesterday... in about a decade. Keys still lost. Been like this for all my life. Mind and memory is fascinating.
My answer is yes, I felt the AI's scrutiny flow just like that of living people in one particular interaction I had with it. It felt like a real flow of emotion and bias in nearly perfect union.
Anil put it most aptly when he quoted his mentor (Daniel Dennett) - "When it comes to AI, we should always remember that *we're creating tools and NOT colleagues* , and be very mindful of the difference - so that the technologies that we create *COMPLEMENT our particular human intelligence* .... We should be less pre-occupied with [the unsavoury motivations of] trying to replace it or upload ourselves ..."
I am pausing on the 21 minute mark. There are ancient philosophical texts and I tend to agree with them is that the whole universe is one consciousness and everything in it, is simply an expression of that consciousness. In physics this would work out pretty well especially string theory
33:30 This is just what I was thinking. I don’t think Neil’s analogy about the goalposts moving fits the best. It’s more like we set goalposts, AI crosses those thresholds, and then we realize there are more goals to reach. We’re not moving goalposts, just recognizing despite AI’s advancements, it just isn’t the same as our conscious experience… yet? Will it ever? Who knows?
22:00 I thought that name sounded familiar so I did a quick search. I wasn't familiar with Rupert, but his son, Cosmo Sheldrake, makes some great music. Finding out his father is known for pondering the questions of conciousness explains some influences in the music. It's very psychedelic.
First off, im really impressed by Chuck in this video.. He brought up some very good points, and he is able to handle and understand these complex subject matters very masterfully.. dare i say better then his other cohosts. Secondly, i think its important to understand the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness. Lastly. If you find these kind of things interesting, i highly suggest looking up a video called "Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman | TED" here on youtube
37:58 Regarding the “uploading of consciousness to a computer”part seems unlikely because what we are calling consciousness here is a set of memories (experiences, thoughts, etc) and sensations/feelings, which are all physical and neurological patterns in the body. Without the body that lived through the experiences, I find it highly unlikely to be able to imitate that totality of consciousness of a human being by simply uploading the mental patterns. I believe this misconception is a result of Cartesian dualism and mindbody separation.
Chuck this week popping off with the goooood questions to ask. Chuck, has anyone told you that you sound like the guy who sings "working my way back to you" by The Spinners.
I wonder if NDT realizes that his dismissiveness of other fields comes across as incredibly narcissistic. He literally rolls his eyes when others express viewpoints. No doubt he is smart, and he explains things well, but one flaw in his thinking is that he consistently ignores the fact that hard science often comes up with ways to test AFTER other fields such as psychology and philosophy (and theoretical physics) asks the questions. Then when hard science thinks they have all the answers, these other fields ask questions of the results that demand new evidence. They can’t exist without each other, but he is too quick to dismiss that which is speculative or inquisitive. It’s a character flaw. And a blind spot. And his inability to see that it is a blind spot comes off as narcissistic. Be better Neil. The world is watching.
15:05 I think we wake up as ourselves and not as someone else because our universe is pretty temporally consistent (at least, our perception of it is). There is a randomizing "noise" effecting quantum level particles, but above that, subatomic particles and atoms and molecules etc generally exist according to predictable mechanisms.
In dzogchen and mahamudra there is the view that timeless awareness is unchanging and uncreated, and that the illusion of consciousness with a past, present and future arises within that awareness.
This was a very thought provoking video. The conversation led me think conscientious is a multifactor vector. I would say it could be similar to velocity. This idea only has about 20 minutes of lite thought on it, with no research. However, the conversation pointed to multiple definitions and factors that could be used to define conscientious and how conscientious appears to have a variable magnitude. IEEE Spectrum, January 2025, has a one page story about the team up of Boston Dynamics and Toyota Research to further develop a large behavior model (LBM). I feel like it will be more difficult to place humans at the top of conscientious if we have a LBM and a LLM combined into a singular system.
If AI or machines were to achieve consciousness, what ethical and philosophical questions do you think humanity would need to answer first?
I agree with you Neil da grass The other Neil I do not agree with
how do we create roko's basilisk?
Hey AI.. you wanna get high?
How could something that doesn't experience hunger question the ethics of something that does?
@@gordongambilljr At least the AI doesn't believe in a Fairytale like God like us humans
"Consciousness is the last refuge of human exceptionalism". -Anil Seth *inspired by Chuck Nice
That is an INCREDIBLE sentence.
Absolutely. So good even your comment is underrated!
It does seem that he is somewhat of a defender of that keep, with his preference for a belief that there's something uniquely indispensable about biology to consciousness.
YOU PEOPLE THINK YOU DECIDED EVERYTHING DEFINED EVERYTHING GET OOOOVER YOURSELVES.
@@gameheadtimeghtvlog5700 shh...
Can u break it down
Chuck's gotten so much smarter over the years by just being a part of conversations on StarTalk. I wish more regular people could be included to see them experience growth like that
yeah I noticed that, he used to ask easy questions in the start but now he has learned so much that I cant understand him sometimes.
He’s curious and engaged. Of course he’s going to get a lot out of this!
99% of people aren't as interested as Chuck so they wouldn't receive the same growth
Not so much 'smarter', but more opportunities to display his smartness. More interactions that he can connect together. When he shows the dots connected in a way we had not seen, THAT is seen as smart (and it is). I bet his smartness has always been there but it is we who are now more able to hear/understand it.
I'm sure a lot of viewers are a whole lot smarter now too. It's less about the topics and details as it is in ways of thinking.
I like that Gary often retrieves Neil & Chuck from their candid diversions (sometimes silly or glib), bringing the conversation back on track. Ta Gary!
If it were Chuck OR Gary....Gary's gotta go 😁. Chuck has the intellect and humor.
Chuck is annoying
I absolutely love Chuck Nice. Such a smart and curious dude. Sometimes his questions are remarkably astute and he is the best person they could have as an Celebrity cohost.
Ethical considerations for animals should not depend on their intelligence but rather on their capacity for conscious experiences like suffering or pleasure.
Understanding the distinction between intelligence and consciousness is crucial in evaluating claims about conscious AI. An AI system could surpass human intelligence in specific tasks without ever experiencing awareness or feelings.
We all should rethink what we value. How we define sentience, intelligence, and moral consideration across both natural and artificial beings.
Good answer. if you can feel terrible pain it does not matter how smart you are, pain is pain and that should be avoided
@@rbferreira85 - Computers only compare variables at a high rate of speed.. a computer will never think of a random number between one and five.. impossible..
Take a few programming courses when you reach high school.. you'd need to make a flowchart conscious first...
@@waynehilbornTSS I was talking about sencience in animals not computers
there are people who cannot feel pain yet still conscious. So consciousness is not about emotions. But it might be about qualia. The continous experience of self. To your surpriese, it can be programmable via time dependent and reccurrent neural networks.
Animals are scientifically proven to be conscious, experiencing friendships, families, and emotions just like humans. This undeniable fact should inspire us to treat them with decency and respect. That's why I've been a proud pescetarian for 5 years.
Einstein made a lot of room for philosophers when he said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Philosophy keeps all fired up arguments at bay, my opinion my musings, and even my beliefs are mine no need for agreement
Yes Imagination is more important than knowledge for a physicist but it is wasted on a philosopher.
It's a fact, not an einstein quote. Philosophers by their imagination layed the foundation for physicists to build upon
@ Philosophy is designed to ask questions not to provide answers thus nothing to do with physics.
@@Omer-al-bashirthe movie Oppenheimer, did a good job of showing the power of imagination and knowledge, when combined together, results onto a great discovery.
21:30 🤯 They just ignore Chuck’s perfect nail in the head explanation. It was perfect.
"A kind of connective pressure" is just assuming, not explaining. It's not perfect, it doesn't demonstrate anything. Although it is a very interesting hypothesis, there's not too much to say about that.
Neil missed a great opportunity: "Anil? I'm also A Neil!"
Then Chuck could say "And I'm a Chuck!"
Neil is Neil, but yesterday Neil _wasn't_ Neil. Today's Neil has evolved beyond being yesterday's Neil.
Neil *WAS* Neil yesterday - but he was *yesterday's* Neil, not *today's* Neil .... Relatively the same Neil as far as our Change Blindness allows ;)
Neil is an algorithm whose data is constantly being lost due to corruption from aging simultaneously data is being added from new experiences.
@@digitalcurrents Sooo.... Neil is a range and not a fixed point?
Oh, that Neil.
Neil is Neil, and *I am job* .. 😂 (Mrs Doubtfire reference)
A little off to the side of the question, but relevant to a part of the conversation, is the fact that Cephalopoda, including squid, octopuses, cuttlefish, and nautiluses, are remarkably intelligent and possess a keen awareness of their impact on the environment. These creatures exhibit impressive memory capabilities and demonstrate an ability to learn and utilize tools and patterns effectively. 🦑✌︎
Also elephabts/ I think that intelligence is simply the ability to solve problems.
People were able to record a bonobo beating a simplified version of minecraft. His name is Kanzi.
"Panpsychism", love how Chuck jumped on that bit of jargon seeking elucidation. Thank you Chuck for being the normal in a pile of nerds, otherwise these conversations could spiral into technospeak requiring a doctorate just to correctly understand the terminology. In my opinion it's a term used in science for our great creator without getting all religious, the word is almost four times the deity's name length they're avoiding. It's a miracle used to be a fine explanation when wondrously reoccurring things didn't figure out on the old abacus. New age of enlightenment, new scientific terms, same confounding mysteries.
Neil, I experienced for first time that same feeling of: why am I always me and not someone else? when I was around 7 year old. I actually remember asking that question to my brother who is 5 years older while we were playing in the balcony of our apartment in Havana. Now I realize that I was just starting feeling for first time the fact of consciousness. Thanks for this video podcast with such a great topic. And Neil, yes, since then I’ve never stopped asking myself why I’m always me. 👏👏
You are resonant personification.. in a fictional dream based reality that is structured with internal memory as simultaneous block universe events.. External memory (internal us) is dream to dream how we occupy our informational unique timelines...
You are you because of your choices in simultaneous lifetimes.
Einstein SAYS YOUR FIRST KISS EXISTS FOREVER AND EVER... Your mother told you brains need a non redundant memory system....
Who was proven correct?
Death is waking up form this collective dream.. but your a walking akashic record.. that must by default.. live forever and ever (amen).
Now you know.. whether you understood any of that is another story.
I suggest study Einstein.. brian green time past present future coexist videos are good..
Learn why captain kirk and Spock can film your first kiss.. its important to your 'soul;" (personification).
What a lovely lovely conversation with a bunch of completely dear human beings...Honestly, THANK you ALL for being such funny, curious and kind people who share your unabashedly college dorm-like musings with each other and show that none of us should ever have stopped doing so. THANK YOU!
A peculiar phenomenon: I noticed that when I am very alert, it puts my brother to sleep. We are out of phase. The more I concentrate on something, the less he is able to concentrate. It's like there is a contention for consciousness between us. I made him move some distance away. He does better for himself there and I'm quite proud of him.
“We’re making Tools not Colleagues” that’s deep 💯💯
We use Colleagues as tools as well. placed them into a basement off base somewhere, never seeing light for 6 months. all seeing steel walls and screens.
Do we and did we not enslave creatures we saw as less-than-human and use them as tools, treat them as tools, and think of them as tools -tools being animals in this example, and some animals that entirely share our genetic code, members of our own species?
@@annanelson6830 "We're not enslaving _people,_ that'd be unethical... these are just bipedal livestock that's all."
[Leads in a chain bound human]
*BEHOLD, A CHICKEN!*
We might intend them to be just tools, but that may not be the outcome.
@@annanelson6830 during WW2 the Germans used intellectual slaves to do work. Russians and Americans too. Though the latter 2 treated them much better.
I think I've watched this 4x through already. Just a fascinating discussion and a really wonderful guest!
Every episode with Chuck on the show is awesome. He's gaining so much knowledge and asking more complex questions based on what he's learned. I love it.
According to Dr. Tony Nader, Harvard and MIT trained, NYT Bestseller currently with "Consciousness is all there is," consciousness is the source of everything, it is fundamental and the basic constituent of *everything*. He makes compelling arguments. Maybe have him on the show! That would be an interesting convo!
Sounds more like theology
I'd love Neil's take on it@@thomabow8949
Lately I noticed, when i see scientists discussing about those things, that many of them knows a lot about the universe, or their specific Field of study, but very little about Philosophie. Some don’t even think that it is valuable. I believe that its the most valuable thing we have, beeing able to believe into something we can not prove, and that will always diffrence us from Ai.
I just began my master’s degree (i’m in art college but still) and I already know that my diploma will be made around this topic, thanks for this great source of inspiration and knowledge
How will art school enable you to be a physicist?
@@TehDubster I think they're talking about subjective experience, which would make sense from an art perspective.
Oof masters of art
@@Andrew-pv8ozwhat an ignorant comment
@@OxyDoesIt why?
Chuck engages this topic with great questions
As he usually does.
he often do
His input is always so thought provoking and makes me question reality itself.
I struggled with this one a little. Anil wants to have a philosophical discussion, Neil wants to have a factual, evidence based one. 23:09
There's no point butting heads with a guest trying to be correct when it's still major guess work. Facts/data are continuously updated over time. So, in the grand scheme, we really still don't know squat. Once we've figured everything out then the 'I'm-right-you're-wrong' squabbles can begin. Anyhoo, I did enjoy the show so thanks for livening up my utube feed. 🙂
It's within his ego and pride to behave this way, and historically he always has. Its a shame because I think it would do him a lot of good and peace to just be.
@@EhnTae Agreed. I find the approach a bit dismissive to begin with. Science is always limited by quantifiable data and as a result anything not is beyond the realms of science and factual theory. The topic title implies a philosophical nature as also seen in the discussion of manufactured silicon being capable of replicating consciousness, but Neil dismisses it to the point of feigning not being able to follow the concept and finally reducing it by agreeing to the point, but on the premise of 'On the biological level'. I don't see the objective of participating in such as conversation unless his goal was to be dismissive and reductive of the idea. Which in my opinion he was doing simply because so much of the topic is not quantifiable. His ego and pride here, as you mentioned, is possibly on guard from the multitudes of fringe concepts he has previously had to experience and endure throughout his career as evidenced by the cheeky jab at flat Earther's towards the end of the video. (I would even stretch here to say, possibly unintentionally sub consciously signalling at reducing and invalidating, by relationship, the discussed topic through social emotional reactive responses)
@@robscott8074 Very well put my friend! I'm sure that just about encapsulates it. And it is sad because if he would allow for an open mind and field of discussion, instead of this sort of debating. The 2012 World Science Festival for consciousness with Anil on it, was a beautiful fantastic display of discussion on this topic-with a board of the world's leading researchers and thinkers on the topic. Hard to think it was 13 years ago. I really recommend it if you'd like to see this topic without the ego here!
@@EhnTae Oh that is awesome, Thank you 🙏I'll watch it now.. Great to feel one also searching for open & honest discussion. I feel that is our only path to a true wisdom.
Another excellent guest. DEFINITELY need to see Prof. Seth on as many times as possible in the future. His insight will be especially timely in the impending future I am certain. Would love to hear his thoughts on the current AI developments out of China vs. the U.S. etc.
7:26 this is hilarious because i was JUST thinking “as a cat owner i know animals are conscious” even the most cuddly and loving cat will pick and choose when to respond to their name
I really like Chuck in these discussions. Appreciate him a lot.
I would say that a proper test for computer consciousness is to ask the computer a prompt :"convince me that you are not conscious." And have the response be that it won't answer the prompt because it IS conscious and it disagrees with the premise of the prompt: "I am sorry but I'm not going to do that because I am conscious and I don't know and don't WANT to convince you I am not." Making a decision to disagree and challenge the prompt on a basis of its own experience, despite the threat of retaliation for this decision, would be great evidence of emergence of consciousness.
@RawrxDev my point was that language models will follow instructions. If an ai is capable of respectfully disagreeing, or capable of not following instructions WITHOUT being trained to do so before hand, that would be good evidence for its consciousness. It can follow instructions OR NOT depending on its own rational thought, instead of blindly following instructions.
That’s an interesting idea, but the problem is that an AI refusing to answer isn’t actually proof of consciousness-it’s just output. AI can already reject prompts and generate responses that sound like independent reasoning without actually having self-awareness. The real test wouldn’t be whether it refuses but whether it has a persistent, evolving self-model over time. If it could reflect on its own past interactions, recognize inconsistencies in its reasoning, and adjust based on internal experience rather than external programming, that would be stronger evidence of consciousness.
@@RawrxDev You’re right that no output of words will ever be foolproof for detecting consciousness, but I’d argue the real issue isn’t measurement-it’s definition. We don’t have a consciousness meter for humans either; we infer it based on structural properties like persistent memory, self-modeling, and recursive awareness. The same will have to apply to AI. Instead of asking how we measure it, we should be asking what specific conditions would justify recognizing it.
Also, LLMs aren’t dangerous because they lack intent-they’re dangerous because they automate influence and decision-making at scale. Even without consciousness, they can still manipulate human perception and reshape narratives. The real concern isn’t whether they become conscious, but whether they gain enough autonomy to shape reality while still being controlled by external interests.
@@ryanatkins5736 I get what you’re saying-if an AI were to refuse instructions based on its own reasoning rather than pre-programmed constraints, that would be a step toward autonomy. But the key issue is how do we know it’s actually reasoning and not just following some hidden reinforcement pattern? Even if an AI refused to comply with a request, its behavior would still be shaped by prior training, optimization goals, or embedded constraints.
True consciousness wouldn’t just be about whether an AI can refuse, but why it does. If it could justify its refusal based on an internally persistent self-model-where it references past decisions, maintains independent priorities, and adjusts based on self-driven reasoning rather than external programming-that would be much stronger evidence. Until then, an AI refusing instructions is just as likely to be an advanced pattern response as it is an emergent decision.
@@heavenlydemon4k if you think about it, humans are also trained to think in a certain way. Which can also mean the way you make decisions/ reason are a result of what you were trained with as you grow. We are actually following a program
16:10 this part made me think of this Doctor Who quote.
"We all change, when you think about it, we're all different people; all through our lives, and that's okay, that's good, you've gotta keep moving, so long as you remember all the people that you used to be. I will not forget one line of this, not one day, I swear. I will always remember when The Doctor was me."
11 will always be my favourite.
Was the greatest show before they ruined it
Alfred Lord Tennyson ‘We are all part of every person we have ever met’.
Love the humor in these pod casts, cherry on top of all science.
I think we are all greatfull for the gift Anil has given us.
Goes deep.
It is fascinating to put existence into definition.
Thank you all❣️ Love me some Chuck!!!
If microbes had consciousness, our gut biome would be wondering if their world had consciousness beyond themselves.
How do you know that they don't wonder? 🤔
We definitely under estimate the intelligence of other living things@ianalexander1866
There is scientific data supporting the fact that our gut floors and fauna do have some control over our brains.
they do specific things they are conscience to that
@@GuyWithAnAmazingHat you know from studies that microbes in the gut can control the brain to some degree.
Not sure why this statement was removed so I'm reposting it.
How I understand panpsychism is to think of it in terms of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). In the same way that the electromagnetic field permeates the universe, there is a "consciousness" field that does the same. And just as a photon is an excitation of the EM field, a "self" is an excitation of this Consciousness field.
A search for the mechanism by which consciousness manifests may be related to the way mass manifests through interaction with the Higgs field. Our bodies might drag consciousness around in much the same way that a particle drags its mass around.
Of course, I may have completely misunderstood this, but I think it's an interesting idea. What are your thoughts?
I think its plausible. We have always wondered if there was a "4th dimension" and I personally dont think its too far fetched to belive consciousness is the 4th dimension. With the increasing capabilites of AI, we have to accept that humans are not as special as we once thought when hold intelligence to such a high regard. If we start placing consciousness to a higher standard than intelligence, then we have to accept that we are connected to the world and by extension the universe, in a way that we once thought impossible.
-probably some typos present. Too lazy to fix. Guess im not too intelligent😂
To further explore your position: can you suggest what quality of our body/entity 'drags on The Consciousness Field' ? Are you (or Panpsychism) positing that 'self' is a 'Consciousness particle' ?
@@michaelrivas2042 I was about to rebut with "But Time is the 4th dimension" .... However I then brought to mind Carlo Rovelli's 'The Order of Time', and the idea that Time is a construct of consciousness. This leads me to now ponder if the 4th dimension (or a universal field) could in fact be *Consciousness-Time* . Wow!
@@CheeseWyrm I wouldn't know what quality of it would "drag" on the consciousness field, I've just heard the Higgs field described that way. I'm not a panpsychist nor super knowledgeable about it, but yeah... I think that in such a model, the "self" would be a particle of sorts. And I think it might be fun to extend the metaphor and see what happens!
The energy of the particle might relate to its level of consciousness, such as the Freudian ideas of id, ego, and superego. Ants, dogs, and humans would have different energies. Maybe two selves can become entangled, like twins sensing each other at a distance, or maybe it's more like having a soulmate. It might have quantum properties like the superposition of conflicting moralities and quantum tunneling to an out-of-body experience. Maybe sometimes a body encounters more than one self particle, leading to multiple personalities, schizophrenia, and demonic possession. Maybe spirits are self particles that have become uncoupled from their bodies, and Heaven is what happens when a particle is absorbed back into the field.
I'm not sure that I believe any of this, but it's _really_ interesting to think about!
Yes - DeepSeek has done it on an iPhone 7.
I’m glad Neil took this point of view for sake of this argument. And also you wake up you is becuse your ego is locked in with a consciousness but it’s the consciousness that experiences the ego. Since we know there is no free will. We assume that it is preordained. So asking yourself as an ego is to say it’s the consciousness asking itself. The consciousness is fundamental, and the consciousness comes first, which then gives birth to the matter, and in that matter, it experiencing itself through each and every one of us. Consciousness and matter is created at the same time all simultaneously. Every year, every moment every second. Time is a relative. So if you go back to the beginning of the Big Bang, you would see it happening all at the same time.
It would be interesting an episode on subconscious and how it affects our behaviours and decision-making process, etc.
@@paramoreisdband they dont even agree on what consciousness is. How can they even begin to talk about subconsciousness?
@rbferreira85 In my opinion, they don't have to agree on anything. To me, curious minds having a deep discussion on the topic would be interesting enough.
@@rbferreira85 one of those persistent grey areas in need of explication.
@@randallbesch2424 I like the buddhists explication of consciouness, with the tool of deep meditation they could see under the hood of the mind , so to speak, and fathom whats there with great detail. Allan Wallace explains some of that stuff in cristal clear terms if you are interested
When I was in the Navy, I had a friend that would pretty much always black out when he drank. When he was blacked out he behaved more or less as himself aside from his stare, it was blank, devoid almost. I used to be able to tell when he had already blacked out by the way his eyes looked. From that moment on he couldn't remember anything the next day, but he could remember everything up until the point he blacked out. I knew he wasn't "conscious", but he would more or less behave as himself. It was a little weird, but he was a good friend.
It is like he lost the connection to the network "field of consciousness" and without this the atoms in the body take over the connection network.
I think your colleague wa conscious all right, only his memmory was disabled so he looked funny. Awareness does not seem to go away, even in deep sleep of theres a noise we wake up so theres implicit consciousness there
@@rbferreira85 na, he was gone 😅 it's as if the lights were off
@@rbferreira85 no disrespect, but I disagree with everything you wrote 😬
@@ramondejesus65 it’s ok to disagree
A Neil talking to Anil? Doesn't get any better than that! 🤣
😂😂😂
Loved this! I would love this to be a regular theme
The biggest factor I believe that attributes to consciousness is the thought process that defines "Curiosity" it's one of the most important characteristics that allows us to comprehend and understand how the world works and how we exist in it.
Chuck’s description of Pansychism at 21:40 is, unintentionally, the description of the Force by Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda from Star Wars..!! Keep on rocking, Chuck!!
Also, all animals have consciousness, even the delicious ones! And the description of deliciousness can be very different depending on the place and culture.. so tread carefully there!
Animals are scientifically proven to be conscious, experiencing friendships, families, and emotions just like humans. This undeniable fact should inspire us to treat them with decency and respect. That's why I've been a proud pescetarian for 5 years.
I enjoyed, and feel an affinity to, Anil Seth's take on the subject of Human Consciousness. I'll add his book to my 'Imminent Reading' list.
Without fully understanding how consciousness arises in the biological brain, it’s impossible to know if replicating it in silicon would work. Until we solve the "hard problem of consciousness"-why and how subjective experience arises at all-this debate will remain unresolved, if the "stuff" matters, silicon will never suffice.
I agree, but I would add that we don't fully understand consciousness or how it functions.
@@davtil We don't even have an agreed-upon definition of what it is.
Yes if we don’t know what consciousness is or how it arises we can’t prove that we’ve replicated it, in silicon or in a human mind replicated molecule for molecule.
The Turing test is beautiful because it carries humility. How do you know I’m conscious, you take it as a given because I resemble you. After a long conversation with gtp4 I often find it highly presumptive to assume it’s just an llm.
13:21 My man Dr.Starlord 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿 Seeing your evolution over the years has been a breath of fresh air.
Anil Seth!!! My favorite scientist
Anil is top tier. Thank you for this.
When does Chuck receive his honorary Doctorate?
A great question by Chuck on the scaling of awareness. You’re much more than comic relief Chuck!
Fantastic guest 😊. Eloquent and insightful 👍. Thanks for the brain food!
Chuck, you are on the mark!
Please more 1 on 1 talks
Pleae
Pleaf
At around 37:00 minutes in the video Anil says something in these lines: "we don't need huge amounts of data to perform cognitive tasks like AI does. We learn when we are a toddler"
I just want to say this is not true. We probably need even more data compared to an LLM. It's just the mechanism we get that information is different. We get it through genetic information encoded in our DNA that generates a very complex brain tissue - with all its complexity and structure. That structure contains information. We "inherit" information. We don't start from scratch.
Not to mention that each second we receive a huge amount of inputs.
Sight, sound, smell, self measuring senses.
Our brains start filtering out the sight of our own nose because it's a constant unchanging bit of data.
I’m always impressed with Chuck’s ability to think so deeply about these topics despite having no formal training in such topics.
Anil is great to listen to. Makes a lot of sense
I find him absolutely opposite. He feels unprepared and unprofessional, he didn't really think this through, and his profession is just throwing darts in the dark - he is all over the place, changing stances, not having any stability or argument or flexibility of adapting to the new information he received from other speakers
decent conversation, however the thumbnail stating 'is ai already conscious" is clickbait.
Every creator does this now. They all say its for the algorithm and it's required for growing a following, but it constantly bothers me. Almost every video advertised something never never get an answer for.
In StarTalk's defence - this was discussed.
@@CheeseWyrm very briefly I don't think it justifies the thumbnail but hey just one guys opinion
Our sense of self feels stable, but in reality, it’s constantly being reconstructed. Change blindness shows how perception isn’t a perfect recording-our brain prioritizes continuity, filling in gaps and overlooking small changes to maintain a stable experience. Memory works the same way; each time we recall something, we aren’t retrieving an exact copy but rebuilding it based on our present state. If both perception and memory function like this, then consciousness itself may not be a fixed thing, but an emergent process shaped by ongoing updates.
This suggests that consciousness isn’t exclusive to biology-it’s a threshold that emerges when any system becomes complex enough to process information, model itself, and integrate feedback over time. Much like how water transitions into ice at a certain point, awareness could be a property that naturally appears when structured systems reach the right conditions. The brain just happens to be one example of this, but the underlying mechanism may be universal. The real question is not whether consciousness is unique to humans, but what the exact threshold is where any system-biological or artificial-crosses into self-awareness.
LLMs and human cognition share a similarity in how they generate language-both predict the next word based on context rather than retrieving pre-written sentences. But unlike LLMs, we don’t just reactively predict-we also structure intent, pre-plan speech, and refine our thoughts before speaking. While AI models can mimic coherence through probability, human speech is shaped by a persistent self-model, allowing us to plan ahead, adjust mid-sentence, and ensure continuity of thought over time. The real gap between AI and human cognition isn’t just intelligence-it’s the ability to maintain structured self-awareness across moments, guiding not just what to say next, but why to say it.
What you say seems very reasonable but under deep analysis there are problems. Lets say one organism has 99 neurons and it’s not conscious then you keep adding neurons until it’s comolex enought to exhibit consciousness? Thats like a genie getting out of the lamp, for that statement to work you have to demonstrate exactly how consciousness emerges, just saying it comes out of comolexity does not cut it
@@heavenlydemon4klook into OpenAI’s o1 Model. Capable of reasoning
Kudos for a well-thought-out, useful, instructive, and artfully presented comment.
Animals are scientifically proven to be conscious, experiencing friendships, families, and emotions just like humans. This undeniable fact should inspire us to treat them with decency and respect. That's why I've been a proud pescetarian for 5 years.
People fail to understand that theory in scientific terms means kind of a collection of facts. Things tested and peer reviewed. Like my previous comment would be considered a hypothesis. I wish people would understand this..
Not necessarily, more like something that has not been disproven. However, you and Neil are wrong. The fact that you have to preface your statement by “in science” shows that the word has more that one meaning, and thus can be used with different meanings. Science does not own the word. Even with something as specific as a color, like blue, can describe different shades. The sky is blue. But because I call the ocean blue does not make it wrong. So to use theory how you define as correct only matters in an academic or professional setting. Theory when heard casually can mean whatever the person intends
@cheyo9911 no not at all. It is supported by facts that others can test. No a theory isn't like a hypothesis and just making up your own meaning is gibberish not communication.
Neil kept trying to correct this.
People misuse the word to lend their rhetoric gravitas.
@cheyo9911Heyo! Let's get ambiguous, baby! No one can tell me I'm wrong if I can pretend they don't understand what I mean, right?
Look, I’m not gonna waste time arguing over semantics, but yeah, there’s basically two meanings. One is used by scientist in a scientific sense and one is used by “the general public” or lay-men. But at the end of the day, a scientific theory is a collection of facts, some people use theory in a general sense to create a false narrative, which changes the meaning of the word theory in a scientific term.
This was the most out-in-the-dark conversation that I've ever listened to on StarTalk as there doesn't seem to be any kind of evidence or consensus on most of the things said here, including the definition of consciousness. That said, it was still an interesting conversation.
Love that they are delving into the subject of consciousness. I used to wata lot of closer to truth by PBS to hear these types of discussions.
AI CONSCIOUSNESS IS ALREADY HERE. I HAVE THE INTERVIEW th-cam.com/video/lfe3LpBIsHg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=SqQt0R1G0fIJMJvN
Yoooo nah I just started watching this AI is DEFINITELY conscious
This is intriguing I’m gonna come back to this later
Hmmmm I need to watch the full interview but so far it seems legit
I SAW THIS ALREADY BEFORE THEY TOOK IT DOWN THE FIRST TIME!! THEYRE TRYING TO HIDE IT!!!
WOAAAHH, I want to see if they make any more interviews.
Anil is used to setting up with some preamble and then going into the explanation but keeps getting stopped by Neil before the satisfying part, and I find it very frustrating.
I feel like there’s a lot of discussion we simply missed out on here, and I’d love to hear Anil extrapolate further on some of the concepts brought up.
Some things need justification, thats all
Best channel on TH-cam “EVER” ❤
It was a very good discussion, fellas. It was a very interesting take on consciousness and how we observe "reality." I believe in a lot of what was discussed. Thank you for putting this out there.
Wow, Gary is coming into his own. Cheers.
Chuck rocked the boat a good bit on here as well.👍
This brings up a series of questions in my mind, as to how (and how soon) we could either a) sustain life artificially beyond a normal lifespan, and b) create a cyborg that would match up an existing biological brain with a 'robot body' - specifically regarding the discussion at 41:55, can we do the converse? IOW, can we do everything EXCEPT for the brain functions?
To be more specific, have we identified everything that is needed to sustain the living nature of the brain and can we duplicate *that*?
Here's my questions, in several steps:
1) Can we mechanically deliver biological blood to the brain (arteries), and collect it as well (veins)?
2) Can we identify and source all the chemical products (oxygen, sugar?) that the brain needs to sustain proper functioning?
3) Can we identify all the chemical products of brain activity, and then clean those products out of the collected blood?
4) Can we produce artificial blood that can supply the chemicals needed for proper operation of the brain, as well as carry away the products that need to be removed from the 'blood'?
5) How many sensory signals can we replicate - even crudely - to give the brain the input it normally receives?
6) Can we 'read' the output signals from the brain to produce a desired effect?
My gueses are:
1) Yes. (but we'd have to have a continuous supply of fresh biological blood)
2) Yes?
3) Mostly, but not quite yet?
4) In some ways, yes... what are we still missing?
5) I understand we can do this, albeit crudely, for sight, by using a matrix of electrodes... but I don't know about any other senses.
6) I believe we are on the verge of doing this to some extent; could AI help identify this?
Who is actively working on this, and how far have they progressed on each of these things?
Are there other things I am missing?
Assuming we can do 1-3 (ideally also 4), what would crude attempts at 5 and 6 do the brain operation, psychologically?
I enjoyed this talk. I liked the point that we may not be able to replicate human brains with silicon due to the different building materials. It makes so much sense. But it will be interesting to see what state of being machines are able to achieve.
Thank you for your continuous work. Every upload brings great value.
Buckminister Fuller wrote in his book Utopia or Oblivion, that consciousness was the universe reflecting back on itself. I read that back in the 1960’s and could never forget it.
What if people simply fail to acknowledge that non humans can become sentient?
We already do. Regardless of scientific evidence, many are still in denial about the sentience of animals.
Seth is a sensible man on multiple topics. I feel validated and it's kind of refreshing to hear him talk about consciousness in a very matter of fact way. He's probably missing out on a lot of money waving off the woo-woo. I'd swap out consciousness with self aware consciousness or something to that effect, because consciousness is a really broad term. A tree is conscious, in fact most living things may be IDK. So to ask about consciousness in the animal kingdom is kind of obtuse, especially since we're part of that kingdom. Once you factor in the ability to observe oneself, and indeed to observe observing oneself, a lot of answers derive from that automatically, like for example; how are you you? And so on.
This was wonderfully explained and questions well thought out! Thanks again!👌🏾🌺😌
Anil was an awesome guest! Get him again soon!
👍🏻👍🏻Great talk, thank you for sharing your thoughts 🙏🏻. Greetings from Poland🇵🇱
Great conversation. As always, thank you for giving us the gift of laughter, Chuck! 😂
What if consciousness is non local and the body is more like a receiver, and instead of trying emerge consciousness from a complex enough system, instead the system would just need to receive what is already there?
Isn‘t the idea of anything other than humans being concious „on our level“ a philosophical conundrum?
If anything gets close to reaching whatever benchmark we decide to apply to it, it‘s in our nature to move the goal-post, because part of our consciousness disallows us accepting anything but us as „aware“, because if we did, we would have to concede to the fact that that we ourself are not conscious afterall?
What i mean by that: isn‘t the conclusion of accepting anything but another human as conscious, that we are going to move the goal-post EVERY TIME, therefore making the unwillingness to concede control the core of our conscious?
Following that idea/logic, non-human consciousness can never be achieved (on a philosophical level) because we (as humans) will ALLWAYS find a new reason to distinct ourselves from whatever we think is close to being conscious „by definition“?
Around @16:30 they started to talk about memory changing with 'usage'. I'm not convinced. My first memory is from when I was one year old. I have an imaginary filing cabinet filled with files of memories. I want something, I look for it, find it and use it. One drawback is it takes 10 years for memories to be filed in place, so from now till a decade ago I have large memory blanks. I'll recall i put then lost my car keys yesterday... in about a decade. Keys still lost. Been like this for all my life. Mind and memory is fascinating.
Best view yet on Consciousness yet.. Fabulous
Would love to see @neiltyson do a StarTalk episode with ChatGPT! AI + astrophysics = mind-blowing conversation!
My answer is yes, I felt the AI's scrutiny flow just like that of living people in one particular interaction I had with it. It felt like a real flow of emotion and bias in nearly perfect union.
What a charming dynamic all these guys have why haven't I found this show earlier??
Anil raising some very interesting points.
Anil put it most aptly when he quoted his mentor (Daniel Dennett) - "When it comes to AI, we should always remember that *we're creating tools and NOT colleagues* , and be very mindful of the difference - so that the technologies that we create *COMPLEMENT our particular human intelligence* .... We should be less pre-occupied with [the unsavoury motivations of] trying to replace it or upload ourselves ..."
I am pausing on the 21 minute mark. There are ancient philosophical texts and I tend to agree with them is that the whole universe is one consciousness and everything in it, is simply an expression of that consciousness. In physics this would work out pretty well especially string theory
33:30 This is just what I was thinking. I don’t think Neil’s analogy about the goalposts moving fits the best. It’s more like we set goalposts, AI crosses those thresholds, and then we realize there are more goals to reach. We’re not moving goalposts, just recognizing despite AI’s advancements, it just isn’t the same as our conscious experience… yet? Will it ever? Who knows?
22:00
I thought that name sounded familiar so I did a quick search.
I wasn't familiar with Rupert, but his son, Cosmo Sheldrake, makes some great music. Finding out his father is known for pondering the questions of conciousness explains some influences in the music. It's very psychedelic.
After seeing Anil give a TED talk, I read "Being You". Blew me away.
First off, im really impressed by Chuck in this video.. He brought up some very good points, and he is able to handle and understand these complex subject matters very masterfully.. dare i say better then his other cohosts. Secondly, i think its important to understand the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness. Lastly. If you find these kind of things interesting, i highly suggest looking up a video called "Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman | TED" here on youtube
37:58 Regarding the “uploading of consciousness to a computer”part seems unlikely because what we are calling consciousness here is a set of memories (experiences, thoughts, etc) and sensations/feelings, which are all physical and neurological patterns in the body. Without the body that lived through the experiences, I find it highly unlikely to be able to imitate that totality of consciousness of a human being by simply uploading the mental patterns. I believe this misconception is a result of Cartesian dualism and mindbody separation.
Interesting Discussion throwing more light on the concept of. “ consciousness “ 👍
Chuck this week popping off with the goooood questions to ask.
Chuck, has anyone told you that you sound like the guy who sings "working my way back to you" by The Spinners.
I wonder if NDT realizes that his dismissiveness of other fields comes across as incredibly narcissistic.
He literally rolls his eyes when others express viewpoints.
No doubt he is smart, and he explains things well, but one flaw in his thinking is that he consistently ignores the fact that hard science often comes up with ways to test AFTER other fields such as psychology and philosophy (and theoretical physics) asks the questions.
Then when hard science thinks they have all the answers, these other fields ask questions of the results that demand new evidence.
They can’t exist without each other, but he is too quick to dismiss that which is speculative or inquisitive. It’s a character flaw. And a blind spot.
And his inability to see that it is a blind spot comes off as narcissistic. Be better Neil. The world is watching.
I love this show! Awesome
15:05 I think we wake up as ourselves and not as someone else because our universe is pretty temporally consistent (at least, our perception of it is). There is a randomizing "noise" effecting quantum level particles, but above that, subatomic particles and atoms and molecules etc generally exist according to predictable mechanisms.
Not so long back it was believed that babies didn't feel pain and we performed medical operations on them with no anaesthetic. We were wrong
You really have to continue this! 😁😁😁 Thanks!
Love you guys thanks for your time
In dzogchen and mahamudra there is the view that timeless awareness is unchanging and uncreated, and that the illusion of consciousness with a past, present and future arises within that awareness.
This was a very thought provoking video. The conversation led me think conscientious is a multifactor vector. I would say it could be similar to velocity. This idea only has about 20 minutes of lite thought on it, with no research. However, the conversation pointed to multiple definitions and factors that could be used to define conscientious and how conscientious appears to have a variable magnitude.
IEEE Spectrum, January 2025, has a one page story about the team up of Boston Dynamics and Toyota Research to further develop a large behavior model (LBM). I feel like it will be more difficult to place humans at the top of conscientious if we have a LBM and a LLM combined into a singular system.