To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
Nice work. I have never heard the argument that extended the computer simulation into the theoretical paper and pencil framework and that really got me thinking. Another job well done
In my opinion it implies that 'consciousness' is a construct, something invented by us. Not a real thing. A behavior of a system with sufficient complexity.
+Jaroslav Malec Perhaps, but without "consciousness", could this question even be asked? Or does it simply imply that a system of sufficient complexity can begin to ask questions? At what point is it real, or artificial, awareness and/or consciousness? And most importantly, does it matter?
What? But it's clear that we are conscious. Consciousness could arise from matter, but I really wouldn't call it a construct. It's the most basic truth of reality.
it depends on the definition of consciousness, if we add the sense of time as proprety of conscious systems, then the simulation on the piece of paper isnt really conscious since its a static system.
it is not true because according to quantum mechanics when we will write the equations we would not get a particular solution instead we would get various solutions with certain probabilities and thus it would not be conscious. And one more think that I think is that we can't exactly copy the actual brain because of some uncertanities
+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Thank you for bringing up the idea of the possibility that physical law may govern the operation of the brain, I've tried to have a number of conversations with people about this exact idea with varying degrees of success.
Nice video as always. But I'm quite curious to know how you animated the physics of the animations. Are the physics encoded in the program that you are using? Or do you do it manually?
@@Erzmann255 consciousness must obviously exist because if you take the entire universe as an entangled single particle interfering with itself, something must be measuring it and making it collapse, or perhaps every universe possible just exists, still we only experience 1 of them, still yet there's something measuring just one.
This is still one of my favorite videos ever. I like coming back and rewatching it every so often. Really fun to think about this idea and to reflect on it.
Just as the neurons in our brain are not counscious themselves, the papers in the equation are also not. The counsciousness emerges from the whole system that is doing the calculations. This is the most mind blowing representation of the duality of the mind i've ever seen. Thank you so much.
When simulating a brain, you also need to simulate inputs to the brain. In theory, this could be anything - you could "feed" the simulated brain anything from intensely pleasurable to intensely painful sensations. Is it, then, immoral to simulate intensely painful sensations with the pencil-and-paper simulated brain, essentially torturing it? Does this mean that it's immoral to solve certain math equations? And what if you don't simulate the painful sensations... the answers that the simulated brain *would* give to these painful sensations are the same, whether or not you go through the motions of writing the numbers down. Surely it can't be the case that by merely writing the equations/answers down you're torturing the simulated brain? After all, you're merely discovering answers that are already mathematically fixed!
+eugeneo1234 This is a brilliant comment! It touches on the whole question of whether equations as abstractions can actually represent realities that are as physically 'real' as our reality is to us. And it opens up the possibility that perhaps our own reality is nothing more than an abstraction, and feels real merely because we are embedded in it. The apparent moral paradox, by the way, disappears once you assume that morality is a relative and human concept, and therefore meaningless outside of human perspectives.
This sounds to me as a logical fallacy. Is a philosopher philosophizing about the steak in his plate going to starve? Of course. Is the mathematical formula actually feeding you? Of course not. That's why we have to build machines like LHC. So no, you won't be torturing anything unless you create a real brain based on these mathematical formula so...
I belive, that things that humans imagine (like solving the equation) are real only because atoms in our brains are doing some kind of movement (or some kind of computation) so there is no difference if the simulation is in the computer, on the paper or only in human brain - it is always some movement or exchange in energy in some elementary particles. And for the simulated brain to feel painful sensations time must go on. So you have to solve more than one equation. Also the equations are self-reffering(you need to know infomartion about previous frame each time) You cannot just solve one equation to know the future. So for the simulated brain to feel something I belive you must spend some time doing equations.
I think that basic assumption is that only brains are consious, what if brains are only most efficient in experiencing consiousness. Maybe some stones are experiencing reality in some way, but it takes them milions of years to feel what some brain can feel in one second (feel is not the right word, but i am not native english speaker) Same with the simulated brain, it can feel something but it takes it very long time.And what about ants? Whole anthill is made of little ants, just like brain is made of neurons. Can you say, that the anthill thinks, or feels something?
i think the human consience is an "sense" generated by billion and billion years of evolution and crossing genes, as the other fifth human senses. That's obvious it's a physical thing, but, nowadays, try to emulate this on computers is quite impossible.
Ohh my god congratulations best video on youtube ever in my opinion. such a good work. I'm a physics undergraduate student for many years i've wanted to do computer science since i was 11, i done programming from that age until now, and i got interested in physics because of the simulations, wonderfully tailored simulations done with very rich algorithms in C++ but i never ever ever thought of the idea you proposed in the end about consciousness. Absolutely amazing and beautiful, Thank you for this fantastic and insightful video!
The brain simulation idea you propose was very thought provoking. I never really thought of it that way. Perhaps consciousness arises in part due to the strange nature and rules of quantum mechanics, and can only be achieved by the interaction of the physical particles that make up the brain. Who knows, there's really no sure fire way to measure consciousness.
To be honest, we're already done the simulating the human brain on papers by word written on it. It's just a different construct that we could used to "simulate" the feeling and meaning the one that write it want to converse. There's also the notion that literature is alive and all.
Very fascinating with the paper example. I'm writing a book on AI and the philosophy and ethics of it. One useful concept is the "pattern machine" concept. Given a large function with large inputs, could a computer use one to simulate all of the "correct answers" for a consciousness test. But since it is a pattern machine, would it hold any consciousness, and could we really tell the difference? Could we be pattern machines? You're welcome for the existential crisis if you are reading this.
I wonder if I could ask for your thoughts on my main post to the video which I think goes in a similar direction to your thoughts. Also, any word on the book? Sounds like it could be interesting.
I like the way you choose words. It's very informative and provoking thoughts. You understand your material very well and is a master at choosing English words to explain the concept! Because the real world is continuous and the computer is discrete, speaking about constant velocity over a short period of time is really important.
Your videos are really great, because they help visualize something you often just see as equations on paper. I myself am a very visual person, so these kinds of images help me tremendously. I hope you keep making these videos and in fact I wish I were rich so I could fund more videos like these. I think that there should be a free university online where the best educators create content for people free of charge. Anyone interested in learning these things could then watch videos with lectures, simulations like the ones you provide and even with equations that explain how these things work. I think if there was a way to show the calculations that go into this, it would be a worthwhile endeavor. The wealthiest people in the world should all pitch in and help create such a resource. It would allow many who might either not live near schools or who just cannot afford school to learn everything needed in order to find work not only in scientific fields, but in all fields of study. The things you are doing are invaluable, but I can only imagine how much better the videos could be along with having the equations being represented and explained if you had more money and people to help you with the creation of these RUclips videos. Either way I want to thank you for all the work you put into this, because frankly I know you are doing it because you want more people to understand how our world works and that alone is an amazing gift to all people everywhere.
Very thought provoking. Brain - Computer simulation - Paper and pencil simulation (and everything in-between these) This has to be a spectrum. It only starts bothering you when you think of consciousness as a weird entity that has no true interactions with the world.
Another Awesome video! Systems of simple things forming more complicated systems are quite common in nature but not understood very well. Neurons in the brain, cells in the body, ants in a colony, people in society, computers in the internet. The individuals play a part in the overall processes but their individual actions are limited. The universe is just layered systems of complexity, possibly with consciousness being the most.
A eye opening video, as all other videos in this channel. I am of the opinion that the notion of consciousness should be generalized. We don't understand it fully yet, but in principle, it should still be governed by the laws of physics
I'm convinced that everything(with enough factors and technology ) can be explained, including the human brain's response system. "probability" is just another word for ignorant guessing due to lack of enough variables. Many of us humans lack the discipline to realize where our thoughts and actions are truly coming from (culture, nutrition, current environment, etc. ) thus creating the illusion that the human brain can be seen as difficult to reverse engineer. This page rocks I love this stuff.
Mistercoryj Well no there is an inherent randomness due to quantum mechanics. Obviously there are actions that are most likely to be taken by the system but knowing the position and momentum of every particle in the universe in one instant does not at all allow you to know with certainty the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at any other time. That randomness doesn't at all necessitate "free will" or consiousness but it is random nonetheless
Another alternative is that the equations are just a way to see into anothers realities ? This option would be terrifying and beautiful at the same time. Just imagine all the possibilities...
Let's not forget about: - "Descartes' disease" - to predict everything by calculation; - measurement uncertainty; - particle-wave uncertainty. Her Majesty Probability reigns in all this. Thanks for the incredible videos! 😉
one potential explanation is this : I believe that what makes you self aware is the unlimited recursive connection of brain output signals as new inputs, each round producing more abstract concepts until brain waves start to resonate (when the most abstract thinking possible is achieved and output signals start coming out similar to input signals ). Once that two or more resonating waves appear then they can start interacting in similar way, but now representing abstract concepts (the meanings rather than the words) . This interaction can then create "dialogs " between subsconscient processes from which self awareness ( in the sense of a "dialog with ourselves" ) can emerge. But for all this you need analog waves (EM fields) that can resonate and interact to start with. Maybe this could be possible with a special computer (ideally a Quantum computer, but possibly not necessary ), but never doing numbers in an inert paper. Doing it on paper is not the same, as the EM fields (and maybe other fields from QFT) would be a key aspect of this process and are not present on paper. Makes sense?
11:12 "If we believe that a brain is composed of atoms and molecules behaving according to the laws of physics, simulating a human brain should theoretically be no different than simulating any other physical system, provided we had sufficient computing power." This is an assumption which has a lot of packed complexity. Part of that complexity is composed of unknowns, and a common problem with arguments of this kind is a failure to acknowledge these unknowns (or even the fact that assumptions are being made). For instance, if we do not yet know all of the ways in which particles, energy, space, etc. may interact, we cannot simulate the aspects we do not yet know. Might this prevent us from simulating a human being sufficiently well? We don’t know. Furthermore, we do not know the degree to which our current understandings will be given a different light by future discoveries. A relatively minor nitpick regarding the video’s analogy is that to really simulate a human brain may require simulating the entire human body, and maybe (maybe) even some aspects of the environment. The reason being that a human brain not connected to a peripheral nervous system, hormonal/chemical system, and sensory input, may not behave in the same manner, even with the assumptions of full materialism and determinism. Consider “phantom limb” patients, and hormonal disorders, and recent discoveries regarding the effects of blue light exposure on hormones. Here’s a hypothetical: What if entities of sufficient informational complexity (and sufficient kinds of it) interact in ways and exhibit some properties that cannot be modeled accurately by any physical model of finite length. “If we believe that” then modeling a human being accurately would be impossible. Furthermore, due to said properties resulting from complexity, a machine built with sufficient complexity and structure to attempt the simulation might itself exhibit behavior impossible to model. I am not saying this is the case, I’m only saying we do not know it is false. Chaos theory and fractals: Given that we do not know if the universe is discrete, continuous, or some combination of those ideas, and we do not know how much of the universe is outside human perceptual bounds (for instance the disagreement in the numbers of dimensions in proposed physical models - they could hypothetically be infinite). Given this, there could hypothetically be unlimited complexity within a system that may appear “finite” to our perceptions. Combine this with implications of chaos theory, and again, some aspects of reality may not be possible to model, maybe particularly some aspects of living systems. Or maybe they could only be simulated by another living system. Again, I’m not saying this is true, I just want to emphasize the assumptions and handwaving that so often goes with claiming reality is this way or that. I realize that the video doesn't make a hardline statement one way or the other. Respect for that, but I think a lot of people understand intuitively that there is something off - even unscientific - about the reasoning toward the end, even if they don't know how to articulate it.
The point of video is not just to create and think about human simulation but to wonder about what makes us conscious. Is it the physics laws that fully governs our brain or it is we (a conscious being) on which physics laws don't work fully. If it is the physics laws, which governs the whole universe, governs our brains as well then that means our future is already determined. But then the concept of consciousness will be senseless.
Great comment! I like the hypothesis of consciousness being beyond a thershold of what can be modeled... That would settle all the debate around artificial consciousness: the paper brain or any other simulation would necesarily be a simplification and therefore not really conscious... It would also bring some comfort to ourselves... this whole idea of consciousness emerging from mere information is unsettling to me. But as you point out, nobody really knows...
@@marcosfraguela Indeed, we don't know. This line of thought emphasizes how far we are from even being able to tell whether a "true" artificial intelligence might be conscious. The "turing test" is pretty flimsy in this respect. Being fooled does not amount to knowledge. Knowing you are fooled is better, but only demonstrates your capability of being fooled and building something that can fool you. Just read some of people's emotional responses to such primitive chatbots and Jabberwacky and Cleverbot (or even earlier ones), or their more advanced cousin, Replika. I'm of the opinion that these systems produce emotional responses and a "feeling" of a mind more advanced that it really is because reading readable text of some kinds containing emotional references or "hooks" kicks in our 'theory of mind' processes. People "feel" a being behind the text and assume the maching is more sentient that it is, *or* they assume the machine is a lie and they are actually talking to another person. I mean, we could say that "ghosts" pass the turing test too. Certainly many previously sought comfort in various assumptions from which they derived the idea that AI would never be able to form speech or asociative connections or "think" in a seemingly human way. The GPT chatbot developments and other neural net breakthroughs have left those ideas in the past. So: On the one hand, our assumptions can blind us to the reality of what is possible, and on the other, they can blind us from seeing what IS, even if we have produced it ourselves. Unrecognized assumptions are an absolute enemy of scientific thought. Recognized assumptions are a necessary tool, but must be stated with honesty and used with respect for their immateriality. Unfortunately for our relationship with the real world, many scientists harbor assumptions which blind them - and us - to what is and could be. But I digress. I like to ramble about such things. I might have a chatbot stuck in me.
Asking whether the simulation of the brain has consciousness is like asking whether the simulation of the sun is hot. It depends what one means by “hot.” So the answer depends on what one means by the word “consciousness. “ If you define “conscious” as “identifying ioneself as conscious,” then yes, the simulation is conscious, and there is nothing odd about that.
I love your channel, This channel helped me to redirect my recreational youtube usage to subjects that not only entrain me but also increase my knowledge:) Great job!
Fantastic video and great animation! The Oxford university mathematics professor Roger Penrose has a really interesting book on this topic of consciousness and brain simulation called shadows of the mind - highly recommend! He argues that metal processing is somehow non algorithmic, due to the fact that humans can in some sense step outside of the logical constraints of this kind of computing (he talks in particular about Godel's theorem and how a turning machine would approach this as opposed to a human). Thanks for another great video, I highly look forward to them! I'm a second year physicist and many of the topics you cover are relevant and help me to visualise and get a better intuition for things so thanks! 😊👍
Ok it’s been a year since I watched this and this video genuinely changed my life. It made me realize that my entire metaphysical view of reality was incoherent. Thanks for the upload!
"Finding answers to questions such as these is possible, but it's not by solving equations the way it was taught in classrooms" It is solved exactly the way it is taught in classrooms. These simulations represent the locations and velocities of objects as variables in a differential equation.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky My friend is a physics major, and I remember helping them write a gravity simulation in cobol, so I always assumed that was the way they taught it in class. Their curriculum included things like euler's method and rk4 as well as reviewing differential equations used for calculation. I'm a CS major though so I never experienced taking those classes first hand. But I was still familiar with the concept since I used to develop games and 2d physics engines.
To me, a reasoning to believe artifical consciousness is possible is this: - if you measure all activity of just 1 neuron and then substitute it by an artificial one with the same functionality and I/O weights, is the brain still conscious and equally capable ? Obviously yes. - Repeat until n-1. Each step should maintain consciousness, as we are only substituting 1 neuron each time and preserving all data. - Substitute the last neuron. Fort he same reason It should be still conscious. And now you have a. 100% artificial brain -
It would not be the paper being conscious, no more than each brain cell is. it's not the media being conscious. it's the way the cells interact that create conscience. it's the formula, the results, the information contained in what is written down having conscience.
The amazing thing about theoretical physicists that I always admire : They see nothing unusual in that a coin has an equal probability of head or tail when tossed up - but they fail to notice that each time they toss the coin it follows the same law before it lands. I mean of all possible random outcomes our universe has so much clean and ordered physical laws set that natural creation of these would be equal like you opened a jar of dust from the second floor and it landed into iPhone which wold be a natural iPhone creation with all its software already there. It is still possible - they would argue - if we have a multiverse with infinite possibilities then in some infinity the dust landed this way. So actually we have some jar of dust that landed into iPhone in an some multiverse approximation and in that iPhone we will live until there is enough power in the battery. That theory looks more acceptable to a theoretical physicists than say that iPhone was created by engineers - which is actually equally probable scenario even by their own standards. But it's better to assume that all that logic of the laws that surrounds us is just came out of jar of dust by itself and our brain - the humanity our intelligence is reigning here because we're the best smartest species in the universe.
When the objects in the simulation break, there's no energy transfer relevant to the structures depicted on the screen through to the embedded space. That's why your screen doesn't make a sound when the objects crash or suck your room in when a black hole is simulated..and why a piece of paper can think. These kinds of arguments conflate systems which enact relationships with systems which represent/approximate aspects of them.. it's another map vs. territory problem -- or physics as a body of knowledge vs. physics as the world we live in.
I love these videos! Have recommended this channel on several occasions. Small hint: I need to significantly lower the treble or turn on a strong "de-esser". I find that the treble is particularly strong in at least some of your recent videos.
This interesting question proposed about the brain has come up before of course and simple materialist assumptions will usually lead to the conclusion that the brain and consciousness are no different than simulation on computer or paper and therefore of no greater consequence. We reason thusly. But many have not yet considered the questions raised by and claims made by Immanuel Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason". Kant raised a question as to the validity and supposed pure pedigree of Reason, which we use to check everything for validity, yet have no way to check Reason itself. He raised the suspicion that Reason may be a complex and imperfect biological function that imposes it's imperfect assessment on the world with the feeling that it is perfect, that feeling also being biological. Sensory data, and later processing on that data from memory, filters out that which does not comport with the biological picture of Reason, and what's not filtered out is just that which will make sense. If such a suspicion upon Reason seems silly consider that feeling when seeing/learning about the double slit experiment. That is the feeling of "doesn't make sense"....the bell is not rung, unlike for instance with Newtonian mechanics which does ring the bell of Reason. At the end of Critique of Pure Reason Kant had not found a way to double check Reason but suggested others continue to try. A pure materialist explanation of conscious may never overcome that lack of a pedigree for Reason but only be an explanation that Reason can produce. It was due to the suspicion placed on Reason by Kant that led Friedrich Nietzsche to suspect that pure unreasonable chaos underlies it all and Reason is just an evolutionary adaptation of humans (and to a lesser degree some other animals) to survive the chaos, having been denied the tools of horns and claws and fangs which serve other animals fairly well. Nietzsche also noted that while we humans tend to associate Reason with Truth, in fact Reason is a necessary part of deception and humans actually use Truth and Deception as needed. Even today many Reasonable people seem unaware how much fraud is going on 24-7.
Hey, i don't know if you realized, but your playlists have most of your videos in them regardless of what their title makes you think they'd contain. Also, your videos are really intuitive, really nice work.
+Maxflay3r, I created the playlists for my RUclips home page. Each row of the RUclips home page shows the first several videos in the playlist that I selected for that row. I therefore named each playlist accordingly for the home page. And thanks for the compliment about my videos. Thanks.
The problem is who wrote or think about this calculation at first, not the fact that it was written on a piece of paper , because when he stop writing the flow will stop too, so the paper could not reproduce another simulation by it self. in the other hand if we take (computer) as a calculator by it self, and gave it all the data (emotions-feelings-), and the computer produced an exact simulation of the brain, it will be considered as simulation of a mind in the past, because the human mind is changing while he interact with the environment, so we need to keep updating the computer every time, unless the computer started developing the data by it self and answer all the questions perfectly as the simulated person, it will be considered as perfect simulator to a human brain, but if the computer started to giving not wrong but different answer, then we can start thinking if we could call it an AI.
It's awesome that you put the idea of increment of time, maybe that's why it would not be conscious, because the increment of time will never be small enough. It would be as conscious as a dissected brain, as a pictures of slices of a brain. That is unless the brain itself works with small increments of time.
It scares me, and at the same time, doesn't surprise me, that the comments on this video prove that most people simply don't get it. I would have to write a 250 page essay to explain the concepts that the creator of this video presented in nicely concise terms. Stop, *think*, then stop and think *a lot more*, so that you *actually* understand what is being said in this video. Some of you get it (there is hope yet). I hope the others can step back for a moment to let it sink in... Good stuff.
I have wondered these same questions for years ie what is consciousness and even pondered the question of consciousness in simulated beings or physical systems of a large scale which emulate a brain.. These questions remind me (along with plenty of other things) that we're an infantile intelligent species, only very recently developing more advanced culture and science and still running the hardware of an animal. Modern society is a hack of an ape brain (albeit a very good one), not meant explicitly for the purposes we now use it for. It is no wonder warfare, incompetence, and a near total lack of ethics and logical long term thinking are the standard. What little logic and ethics we have as a species though has the potential to set us apart from nature's apathetic brutality and has great potential, but for now we are scarcely better than animals in this regard. Maybe this is a silly idea to be reminded of by this video, these questions of consciousness may never be answered for all i know, but I suspect that we just don't have the intelligence at the present time to thoroughly address this question, I could be wrong though.
You can't have a working simulation on a piece of paper. You can only put a simulation into play in a computer. So no there's no possible way to have consciousness arise out of an equation on paper. Do you think maybe it's not an issue of others not 'getting it'? Maybe they just disagree?
***** What is it that actually differentiates the simulation on paper from the data on a computer at an instant in time? I'm not saying I know, but do you? A team of people with paper and a computer can accomplish the same computation, a computation being the acquisition of mathematical results, so what really is the difference? Just posing the question, what are your thoughts?
Joey Jonson What actually differentiates them? The fact that the paper isn't doing any calculations as a medium but the computer is? And not knowing has been the reason humans throughout history have used as an excuse to come up with all sorts of ridiculous things that they personally find comforting or whatever they want to be true. So let's not do that Yes there are calculations that it makes no difference if they're done on computer or on a paper, but not simulations. Simulations don't play out on paper, but they do in computers. Any "simulation" done on paper has to play out in your head if it's going to function anywhere. So no there's no possible consciousness I guess some people like to feel like they're being thoughtful or philosophical but as interesting and thought provoking as this paper thing might be, it's just plain and simple impossible. Don't get lost in thought and what if's. You have to look at what is and isn't
Scoring57 In what way is a 'simulation' different from other types of calculation? Answer: it isn't. It's a matter of complexity, that's all. Nobody is suggesting that we could run a paper simulation of consciousness *on human timescales*. But, in *principle*, given billions of years, enough generations of very bored workers and enough patience, it could be done. If you disagree, then it's necessary for you to prove to me that the choice of substrate upon which computation is performed has any effect at all on the computation itself. Can you prove this? If you can, then you have just shed doubt onto the reliability of computers, because if the choice of substrate affects the outcome, how can we be sure we've chosen the right one in any case?
people have already pointed out. but its the one whos doing the simulation. in case of paper, paper is not doing. its a human behind whos doing the calculations. but in case of a computer its done by a computer. so imo, they can't be compared. this actually bring to a great question. if as a human i can simulate another persons brain. what would that be called. before speaking actually, you can simulate.
I think it's worth while to mention that we, as the simulators, provide the necessary initial conditions to the system to allow it to play out. Perhaps the simulations are not conscious as it required a human to perform them. However, you can simply extend that argument further back and question which stimuli prompted our own brains' initial conditions. Perhaps questions like these are unanswerable, and provide humbling clues as to our inherent flaws of existence as a conscious being in our universe as we have come to understand it. Back to cosmology (the drawing board)! :P
2-phase input - phase sequence AND XOR NO (11 (10=01) 00) phased delayed into sequence of 3 state cascaded memory blocks --- AND decode as 0 +-1 0 +-1 +-2 etc... OR encode to extract the -1 0 +1 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 sensory slopes such as sight and sound
The paper in the paper consciousness example doesn't have consciousness. The information within it though does have it. It's the same difference as between the brain and the mind. The brain is just the physical carrier for the mind which has consciousness. The questions asked later then become easy - the consciousness can indeed be simulated and the consciousness is entirely within the laws of physics.
Every effect has a cause but it's not necessarily true that every cause has its own cause. Therefore, it's not necessarily true that everything that is governed by the laws of physics can be simulated.
I have a little add on for the accuracy of simulations. 1+0.000000000000001-1=0.000000000000001, but when you put it into a calculator you might get 0. If you put in 1-1+0.000000000000001 you'll correctly get 0.000000000000001. This is because when the computer goes to add 1 and 0.000000000000001 together it just ignores the smaller number because it feels it's insignificant. As you can see this can cause errors. A more accurate approach would be to add/subtract in the order of highest magnitude first. This get's around the problem.
I believe that science is subset of philosophy and philosophy is the consequence of consciousness. This is amazing video. Thank you for the topic and the marvelous animation.
To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available).
--To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable.
--To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video.
--If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
Nice work. I have never heard the argument that extended the computer simulation into the theoretical paper and pencil framework and that really got me thinking. Another job well done
Well if you print a movie you will have these calculations done on paper without any theory.
In my opinion it implies that 'consciousness' is a construct, something invented by us. Not a real thing. A behavior of a system with sufficient complexity.
+Jaroslav Malec It's a very solid implication :)
+Jaroslav Malec Perhaps, but without "consciousness", could this question even be asked? Or does it simply imply that a system of sufficient complexity can begin to ask questions? At what point is it real, or artificial, awareness and/or consciousness? And most importantly, does it matter?
What? But it's clear that we are conscious. Consciousness could arise from matter, but I really wouldn't call it a construct. It's the most basic truth of reality.
BIngo. To think otherwise is extremely ego-centric.
"But it's clear that we are conscious. " It is as clear as the fact that the color red is red.
Paper calculation returns a string:
"I am self-aware."
This channel is a great place for learning.
+gatto morto, thanks for the compliment.
Of course the alternative conclusion is that we are as consious and self aware as a piece of paper
or, instead of concluding that the paper is conscious, conclude that the equations themselves are.
therefore:
potatoes
thats more or less nihilistic believe
it depends on the definition of consciousness, if we add the sense of time as proprety of conscious systems, then the simulation on the piece of paper isnt really conscious since its a static system.
it is not true because according to quantum mechanics when we will write the equations we would not get a particular solution instead we would get various solutions with certain probabilities and thus it would not be conscious. And one more think that I think is that we can't exactly copy the actual brain because of some uncertanities
If you like this video, you can help more people find it in their RUclips search engine by clicking the like button, and writing a comment. Thanks.
+Robert Rodgers, thanks.
+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Thank you for bringing up the idea of the possibility that physical law may govern the operation of the brain, I've tried to have a number of conversations with people about this exact idea with varying degrees of success.
+TheExaltedPheonix, No. I use "Poser" for all my 3D animations.
+TheExaltedPheonix, No. Poser is expensive. You can type "Poser" into Google, and you will get lots of information about it.
Nice video as always.
But I'm quite curious to know how you animated the physics of the animations.
Are the physics encoded in the program that you are using? Or do you do it manually?
Maybe, we just created the idea of conciousness because we feel different from other beings, but it's just a concept that doesn't exist in reality.
Yes, humans are ego-centric like that. Remember we used to think the universe revolved around *us*.
Weed
Consciousness exists undoubtedly, everyone can test it for themselves. What doesn't exist is the self.
@@Erzmann255 consciousness must obviously exist because if you take the entire universe as an entangled single particle interfering with itself, something must be measuring it and making it collapse, or perhaps every universe possible just exists, still we only experience 1 of them, still yet there's something measuring just one.
@@monad_tcp It doesn't need an observer to collapse
This is still one of my favorite videos ever. I like coming back and rewatching it every so often. Really fun to think about this idea and to reflect on it.
Thanks.
Just as the neurons in our brain are not counscious themselves, the papers in the equation are also not. The counsciousness emerges from the whole system that is doing the calculations. This is the most mind blowing representation of the duality of the mind i've ever seen. Thank you so much.
When simulating a brain, you also need to simulate inputs to the brain. In theory, this could be anything - you could "feed" the simulated brain anything from intensely pleasurable to intensely painful sensations. Is it, then, immoral to simulate intensely painful sensations with the pencil-and-paper simulated brain, essentially torturing it? Does this mean that it's immoral to solve certain math equations? And what if you don't simulate the painful sensations... the answers that the simulated brain *would* give to these painful sensations are the same, whether or not you go through the motions of writing the numbers down. Surely it can't be the case that by merely writing the equations/answers down you're torturing the simulated brain? After all, you're merely discovering answers that are already mathematically fixed!
+eugeneo1234 This is a brilliant comment! It touches on the whole question of whether equations as abstractions can actually represent realities that are as physically 'real' as our reality is to us. And it opens up the possibility that perhaps our own reality is nothing more than an abstraction, and feels real merely because we are embedded in it. The apparent moral paradox, by the way, disappears once you assume that morality is a relative and human concept, and therefore meaningless outside of human perspectives.
This sounds to me as a logical fallacy.
Is a philosopher philosophizing about the steak in his plate going to starve? Of course. Is the mathematical formula actually feeding you? Of course not. That's why we have to build machines like LHC.
So no, you won't be torturing anything unless you create a real brain based on these mathematical formula so...
I belive, that things that humans imagine (like solving the equation) are real only because atoms in our brains are doing some kind of movement (or some kind of computation) so there is no difference if the simulation is in the computer, on the paper or only in human brain - it is always some movement or exchange in energy in some elementary particles. And for the simulated brain to feel painful sensations time must go on. So you have to solve more than one equation. Also the equations are self-reffering(you need to know infomartion about previous frame each time) You cannot just solve one equation to know the future. So for the simulated brain to feel something I belive you must spend some time doing equations.
I think that basic assumption is that only brains are consious, what if brains are only most efficient in experiencing consiousness. Maybe some stones are experiencing reality in some way, but it takes them milions of years to feel what some brain can feel in one second (feel is not the right word, but i am not native english speaker) Same with the simulated brain, it can feel something but it takes it very long time.And what about ants? Whole anthill is made of little ants, just like brain is made of neurons. Can you say, that the anthill thinks, or feels something?
i think the human consience is an "sense" generated by billion and billion years of evolution and crossing genes, as the other fifth human senses. That's obvious it's a physical thing, but, nowadays, try to emulate this on computers is quite impossible.
Ohh my god congratulations best video on youtube ever in my opinion. such a good work. I'm a physics undergraduate student for many years i've wanted to do computer science since i was 11, i done programming from that age until now, and i got interested in physics because of the simulations, wonderfully tailored simulations done with very rich algorithms in C++ but i never ever ever thought of the idea you proposed in the end about consciousness. Absolutely amazing and beautiful, Thank you for this fantastic and insightful video!
+darkdevil905, thanks for that really great compliment on my video.
This was actually interesting! One of the best videos yet
+Imaad siddiqui, thanks.
Your analogy with pen and paper makes me doubt that my consciousness is anything more than an illusion.
where's the cat? i miss kitty
+Seduction Science, he is in this video briefly.
@10:39
I read 10:29 instead of 10:39 and slow it to see, where the cat is running around... :D
mindblown
The brain simulation idea you propose was very thought provoking. I never really thought of it that way. Perhaps consciousness arises in part due to the strange nature and rules of quantum mechanics, and can only be achieved by the interaction of the physical particles that make up the brain. Who knows, there's really no sure fire way to measure consciousness.
+Eddie Miller yet
To be honest, we're already done the simulating the human brain on papers by word written on it. It's just a different construct that we could used to "simulate" the feeling and meaning the one that write it want to converse. There's also the notion that literature is alive and all.
You are amazing Eugene. I have learned a lot with your videos. Thank you.
+Victor Riesco, thanks.
Very fascinating with the paper example. I'm writing a book on AI and the philosophy and ethics of it. One useful concept is the "pattern machine" concept. Given a large function with large inputs, could a computer use one to simulate all of the "correct answers" for a consciousness test. But since it is a pattern machine, would it hold any consciousness, and could we really tell the difference? Could we be pattern machines?
You're welcome for the existential crisis if you are reading this.
I wonder if I could ask for your thoughts on my main post to the video which I think goes in a similar direction to your thoughts. Also, any word on the book? Sounds like it could be interesting.
I like the way you choose words. It's very informative and provoking thoughts. You understand your material very well and is a master at choosing English words to explain the concept!
Because the real world is continuous and the computer is discrete, speaking about constant velocity over a short period of time is really important.
+Chanchana Sornsoontorn (Off) Real world is actually also discrete at the quantum level.
This went from "cool physics concept" to full on existential crisis way too quickly
Your videos are really great, because they help visualize something you often just see as equations on paper. I myself am a very visual person, so these kinds of images help me tremendously. I hope you keep making these videos and in fact I wish I were rich so I could fund more videos like these. I think that there should be a free university online where the best educators create content for people free of charge. Anyone interested in learning these things could then watch videos with lectures, simulations like the ones you provide and even with equations that explain how these things work. I think if there was a way to show the calculations that go into this, it would be a worthwhile endeavor.
The wealthiest people in the world should all pitch in and help create such a resource. It would allow many who might either not live near schools or who just cannot afford school to learn everything needed in order to find work not only in scientific fields, but in all fields of study. The things you are doing are invaluable, but I can only imagine how much better the videos could be along with having the equations being represented and explained if you had more money and people to help you with the creation of these RUclips videos. Either way I want to thank you for all the work you put into this, because frankly I know you are doing it because you want more people to understand how our world works and that alone is an amazing gift to all people everywhere.
Thanks for the compliment about my work. I am glad that you like my videos that much, and more are on their way. Thanks.
Ok, that blew my mind. Conscious paper... Hmmm
u are awesome..
+Jax Amilius, thanks.
the animations are so beautiful
Very thought provoking.
Brain - Computer simulation - Paper and pencil simulation (and everything in-between these)
This has to be a spectrum. It only starts bothering you when you think of consciousness as a weird entity that has no true interactions with the world.
This video was very intuitive and eye opening. Thanks for the information.
+Junior Gon, glad you liked it. Thanks.
Another Awesome video! Systems of simple things forming more complicated systems are quite common in nature but not understood very well. Neurons in the brain, cells in the body, ants in a colony, people in society, computers in the internet. The individuals play a part in the overall processes but their individual actions are limited. The universe is just layered systems of complexity, possibly with consciousness being the most.
A eye opening video, as all other videos in this channel. I am of the opinion that the notion of consciousness should be generalized. We don't understand it fully yet, but in principle, it should still be governed by the laws of physics
Most progress in getting answers is found in well-formulating the questions.
I do not say this often, but the last bit blow my mind!
I'm convinced that everything(with enough factors and technology ) can be explained, including the human brain's response system. "probability" is just another word for ignorant guessing due to lack of enough variables. Many of us humans lack the discipline to realize where our thoughts and actions are truly coming from (culture, nutrition, current environment, etc. ) thus creating the illusion that the human brain can be seen as difficult to reverse engineer. This page rocks I love this stuff.
Mistercoryj Well no there is an inherent randomness due to quantum mechanics. Obviously there are actions that are most likely to be taken by the system but knowing the position and momentum of every particle in the universe in one instant does not at all allow you to know with certainty the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at any other time.
That randomness doesn't at all necessitate "free will" or consiousness but it is random nonetheless
Another alternative is that the equations are just a way to see into anothers realities ? This option would be terrifying and beautiful at the same time. Just imagine all the possibilities...
IBM is doing this by creating a computer that simulates the human brain by simulating individual neurons and letting the entire program "run."
Let's not forget about:
- "Descartes' disease" - to predict everything by calculation;
- measurement uncertainty;
- particle-wave uncertainty.
Her Majesty Probability reigns in all this.
Thanks for the incredible videos!
😉
Thanks!
I’m a teacher in college and show your videos to my students all the time.
I love thinking about this issue. 2 bad I won't live to a day we know better. Today we are like in a stoneage regarding this stuff.
one potential explanation is this : I believe that what makes you self aware is the unlimited recursive connection of brain output signals as new inputs, each round producing more abstract concepts until brain waves start to resonate (when the most abstract thinking possible is achieved and output signals start coming out similar to input signals ). Once that two or more resonating waves appear then they can start interacting in similar way, but now representing abstract concepts (the meanings rather than the words) . This interaction can then create "dialogs " between subsconscient processes from which self awareness ( in the sense of a "dialog with ourselves" ) can emerge. But for all this you need analog waves (EM fields) that can resonate and interact to start with. Maybe this could be possible with a special computer (ideally a Quantum computer, but possibly not necessary ), but never doing numbers in an inert paper. Doing it on paper is not the same, as the EM fields (and maybe other fields from QFT) would be a key aspect of this process and are not present on paper. Makes sense?
711 was a part time job.
11:12 "If we believe that a brain is composed of atoms and molecules behaving according to the laws of physics, simulating a human brain should theoretically be no different than simulating any other physical system, provided we had sufficient computing power."
This is an assumption which has a lot of packed complexity. Part of that complexity is composed of unknowns, and a common problem with arguments of this kind is a failure to acknowledge these unknowns (or even the fact that assumptions are being made).
For instance, if we do not yet know all of the ways in which particles, energy, space, etc. may interact, we cannot simulate the aspects we do not yet know. Might this prevent us from simulating a human being sufficiently well? We don’t know. Furthermore, we do not know the degree to which our current understandings will be given a different light by future discoveries.
A relatively minor nitpick regarding the video’s analogy is that to really simulate a human brain may require simulating the entire human body, and maybe (maybe) even some aspects of the environment. The reason being that a human brain not connected to a peripheral nervous system, hormonal/chemical system, and sensory input, may not behave in the same manner, even with the assumptions of full materialism and determinism. Consider “phantom limb” patients, and hormonal disorders, and recent discoveries regarding the effects of blue light exposure on hormones.
Here’s a hypothetical: What if entities of sufficient informational complexity (and sufficient kinds of it) interact in ways and exhibit some properties that cannot be modeled accurately by any physical model of finite length. “If we believe that” then modeling a human being accurately would be impossible. Furthermore, due to said properties resulting from complexity, a machine built with sufficient complexity and structure to attempt the simulation might itself exhibit behavior impossible to model. I am not saying this is the case, I’m only saying we do not know it is false.
Chaos theory and fractals: Given that we do not know if the universe is discrete, continuous, or some combination of those ideas, and we do not know how much of the universe is outside human perceptual bounds (for instance the disagreement in the numbers of dimensions in proposed physical models - they could hypothetically be infinite). Given this, there could hypothetically be unlimited complexity within a system that may appear “finite” to our perceptions. Combine this with implications of chaos theory, and again, some aspects of reality may not be possible to model, maybe particularly some aspects of living systems. Or maybe they could only be simulated by another living system.
Again, I’m not saying this is true, I just want to emphasize the assumptions and handwaving that so often goes with claiming reality is this way or that. I realize that the video doesn't make a hardline statement one way or the other. Respect for that, but I think a lot of people understand intuitively that there is something off - even unscientific - about the reasoning toward the end, even if they don't know how to articulate it.
11:11 !
@@Skynet_the_AI Hehe, I didn't even notice. Dodged that bullet, didn't I? :P
The point of video is not just to create and think about human simulation but to wonder about what makes us conscious. Is it the physics laws that fully governs our brain or it is we (a conscious being) on which physics laws don't work fully. If it is the physics laws, which governs the whole universe, governs our brains as well then that means our future is already determined. But then the concept of consciousness will be senseless.
Great comment! I like the hypothesis of consciousness being beyond a thershold of what can be modeled... That would settle all the debate around artificial consciousness: the paper brain or any other simulation would necesarily be a simplification and therefore not really conscious... It would also bring some comfort to ourselves... this whole idea of consciousness emerging from mere information is unsettling to me. But as you point out, nobody really knows...
@@marcosfraguela Indeed, we don't know. This line of thought emphasizes how far we are from even being able to tell whether a "true" artificial intelligence might be conscious. The "turing test" is pretty flimsy in this respect. Being fooled does not amount to knowledge. Knowing you are fooled is better, but only demonstrates your capability of being fooled and building something that can fool you. Just read some of people's emotional responses to such primitive chatbots and Jabberwacky and Cleverbot (or even earlier ones), or their more advanced cousin, Replika. I'm of the opinion that these systems produce emotional responses and a "feeling" of a mind more advanced that it really is because reading readable text of some kinds containing emotional references or "hooks" kicks in our 'theory of mind' processes. People "feel" a being behind the text and assume the maching is more sentient that it is, *or* they assume the machine is a lie and they are actually talking to another person. I mean, we could say that "ghosts" pass the turing test too.
Certainly many previously sought comfort in various assumptions from which they derived the idea that AI would never be able to form speech or asociative connections or "think" in a seemingly human way. The GPT chatbot developments and other neural net breakthroughs have left those ideas in the past.
So: On the one hand, our assumptions can blind us to the reality of what is possible, and on the other, they can blind us from seeing what IS, even if we have produced it ourselves.
Unrecognized assumptions are an absolute enemy of scientific thought. Recognized assumptions are a necessary tool, but must be stated with honesty and used with respect for their immateriality. Unfortunately for our relationship with the real world, many scientists harbor assumptions which blind them - and us - to what is and could be.
But I digress. I like to ramble about such things. I might have a chatbot stuck in me.
Awesome video, I totally agree with everything you said.
Thanks.
Asking whether the simulation of the brain has consciousness is like asking whether the simulation of the sun is hot. It depends what one means by “hot.” So the answer depends on what one means by the word “consciousness. “ If you define “conscious” as “identifying ioneself as conscious,” then yes, the simulation is conscious, and there is nothing odd about that.
Amazing video. You deserve a lot more subscribers.
+Ulises Landázuri, thanks.
I love your channel, This channel helped me to redirect my recreational youtube usage to subjects that not only entrain me but also increase my knowledge:) Great job!
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
Well explained and really thought provoking, one of your best video to date! :)
+pourliver, thanks. Glad you liked it.
Fantastic video and great animation! The Oxford university mathematics professor Roger Penrose has a really interesting book on this topic of consciousness and brain simulation called shadows of the mind - highly recommend! He argues that metal processing is somehow non algorithmic, due to the fact that humans can in some sense step outside of the logical constraints of this kind of computing (he talks in particular about Godel's theorem and how a turning machine would approach this as opposed to a human). Thanks for another great video, I highly look forward to them! I'm a second year physicist and many of the topics you cover are relevant and help me to visualise and get a better intuition for things so thanks! 😊👍
+Nickelnine37, thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
Hey!! here is your new subscriber. Really glad to find this channel this will ensure a bright future to me...
Tons of love❤❤❤🔥🔥🔥
Glad to have you as a subscriber.
this merely replicates something that would happen in real life so while it may appear so it is not conscious
I really like your videos, they keep me interested in physics and made me want to study engineering. Thanks for your work!
Thanks. I am glad that you like my videos, and that they make you interested in studying engineering.
This got deeper than I expected.
Ok it’s been a year since I watched this and this video genuinely changed my life. It made me realize that my entire metaphysical view of reality was incoherent. Thanks for the upload!
I am glad my video made such an impact. Thanks.
care to share your entire metaphysical view of reality
Well-constructed.
"Finding answers to questions such as these is possible, but it's not by solving equations the way it was taught in classrooms"
It is solved exactly the way it is taught in classrooms. These simulations represent the locations and velocities of objects as variables in a differential equation.
And the method described in the video is called euler's method, and it's used to find approximate solutions for a differential equation.
Many class rooms never teach any numerical methods for approximating a solution.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky My friend is a physics major, and I remember helping them write a gravity simulation in cobol, so I always assumed that was the way they taught it in class. Their curriculum included things like euler's method and rk4 as well as reviewing differential equations used for calculation.
I'm a CS major though so I never experienced taking those classes first hand. But I was still familiar with the concept since I used to develop games and 2d physics engines.
To me, a reasoning to believe artifical consciousness is possible is this:
- if you measure all activity of just 1 neuron and then substitute it by an artificial one with the same functionality and I/O weights, is the brain still conscious and equally capable ? Obviously yes.
- Repeat until n-1. Each step should maintain consciousness, as we are only substituting 1 neuron each time and preserving all data.
- Substitute the last neuron. Fort he same reason It should be still conscious. And now you have a. 100% artificial brain
-
I bet you never studied biology
THIS CHANNEL IS JUST GREAT.
It would not be the paper being conscious, no more than each brain cell is.
it's not the media being conscious.
it's the way the cells interact that create conscience.
it's the formula, the results, the information contained in what is written down having conscience.
Id like to say that this highlights the fundamental problem of conciseness well
Thanks.
The amazing thing about theoretical physicists that I always admire : They see nothing unusual in that a coin has an equal probability of head or tail when tossed up - but they fail to notice that each time they toss the coin it follows the same law before it lands. I mean of all possible random outcomes our universe has so much clean and ordered physical laws set that natural creation of these would be equal like you opened a jar of dust from the second floor and it landed into iPhone which wold be a natural iPhone creation with all its software already there. It is still possible - they would argue - if we have a multiverse with infinite possibilities then in some infinity the dust landed this way. So actually we have some jar of dust that landed into iPhone in an some multiverse approximation and in that iPhone we will live until there is enough power in the battery. That theory looks more acceptable to a theoretical physicists than say that iPhone was created by engineers - which is actually equally probable scenario even by their own standards. But it's better to assume that all that logic of the laws that surrounds us is just came out of jar of dust by itself and our brain - the humanity our intelligence is reigning here because we're the best smartest species in the universe.
Phenomenal... as always Eugene
Thanks.
Thank-you for this amazing video.
Glad you liked my video.
These videos continue to be great at sparking interest in these fields. Keep up the great work.
+DraconicDon, thanks.
When the objects in the simulation break, there's no energy transfer relevant to the structures depicted on the screen through to the embedded space. That's why your screen doesn't make a sound when the objects crash or suck your room in when a black hole is simulated..and why a piece of paper can think.
These kinds of arguments conflate systems which enact relationships with systems which represent/approximate aspects of them.. it's another map vs. territory problem -- or physics as a body of knowledge vs. physics as the world we live in.
One of the best videos I have seen in a while. You really got me thinking now
+Scial, thanks. I am glad you liked my video and that it was thought provoking.
Eugene you're brilliant. Beautiful use of computer graphics and slow, well thought out explanations.
Thanks for the compliment.
You are doing gods work. donating to your patreon.
I very much appreciate your donation. And thanks for the compliment.
please make video on finite element analysis. how it works.how computer does calculation behind.material mathematical behaviour.
I love these videos! Have recommended this channel on several occasions.
Small hint: I need to significantly lower the treble or turn on a strong "de-esser". I find that the treble is particularly strong in at least some of your recent videos.
thank you for the video, very interesting thought there at the end with the conscious brain
I love that you exist, your videos are amazing
+Anon Ymous, thanks and I am glad that you like my videos.
Wow, this video is INCREDIBLE. Thank you, the team who made this video. This video actually kinda proves that AI can dominate human in the future.
People with OCD will be loving this.
1:58 wow ingenious camerawork
Another hard dose of knowledge, thank you so much Mr. Eugene
Thanks.
this channal is really awsome.....many concepts of physics made easy..
Thanks.
One of the best videos so far! I love it,
+Asen Georgiev, Glad you liked it. Thanks.
This interesting question proposed about the brain has come up before of course and simple materialist assumptions will usually lead to the conclusion that the brain and consciousness are no different than simulation on computer or paper and therefore of no greater consequence. We reason thusly.
But many have not yet considered the questions raised by and claims made by Immanuel Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason". Kant raised a question as to the validity and supposed pure pedigree of Reason, which we use to check everything for validity, yet have no way to check Reason itself. He raised the suspicion that Reason may be a complex and imperfect biological function that imposes it's imperfect assessment on the world with the feeling that it is perfect, that feeling also being biological. Sensory data, and later processing on that data from memory, filters out that which does not comport with the biological picture of Reason, and what's not filtered out is just that which will make sense.
If such a suspicion upon Reason seems silly consider that feeling when seeing/learning about the double slit experiment. That is the feeling of "doesn't make sense"....the bell is not rung, unlike for instance with Newtonian mechanics which does ring the bell of Reason.
At the end of Critique of Pure Reason Kant had not found a way to double check Reason but suggested others continue to try.
A pure materialist explanation of conscious may never overcome that lack of a pedigree for Reason but only be an explanation that Reason can produce. It was due to the suspicion placed on Reason by Kant that led Friedrich Nietzsche to suspect that pure unreasonable chaos underlies it all and Reason is just an evolutionary adaptation of humans (and to a lesser degree some other animals) to survive the chaos, having been denied the tools of horns and claws and fangs which serve other animals fairly well. Nietzsche also noted that while we humans tend to associate Reason with Truth, in fact Reason is a necessary part of deception and humans actually use Truth and Deception as needed. Even today many Reasonable people seem unaware how much fraud is going on 24-7.
Amazing video, especially the idea of the handicraft simulation of a brain... My vote: its conciousness is 100% legit.
Hey, i don't know if you realized, but your playlists have most of your videos in them regardless of what their title makes you think they'd contain.
Also, your videos are really intuitive, really nice work.
+Maxflay3r, I created the playlists for my RUclips home page. Each row of the RUclips home page shows the first several videos in the playlist that I selected for that row. I therefore named each playlist accordingly for the home page. And thanks for the compliment about my videos. Thanks.
The problem is who wrote or think about this calculation at first, not the fact that it was written on a piece of paper , because when he stop writing the flow will stop too, so the paper could not reproduce another simulation by it self. in the other hand if we take (computer) as a calculator by it self, and gave it all the data (emotions-feelings-), and the computer produced an exact simulation of the brain, it will be considered as simulation of a mind in the past, because the human mind is changing while he interact with the environment, so we need to keep updating the computer every time, unless the computer started developing the data by it self and answer all the questions perfectly as the simulated person, it will be considered as perfect simulator to a human brain, but if the computer started to giving not wrong but different answer, then we can start thinking if we could call it an AI.
Another great video!
Thanks for sharing :-)
+Humberto Martins Ferreira Junior, thanks. I am glad you liked my video.
It's awesome that you put the idea of increment of time, maybe that's why it would not be conscious, because the increment of time will never be small enough. It would be as conscious as a dissected brain, as a pictures of slices of a brain.
That is unless the brain itself works with small increments of time.
It scares me, and at the same time, doesn't surprise me, that the comments on this video prove that most people simply don't get it. I would have to write a 250 page essay to explain the concepts that the creator of this video presented in nicely concise terms. Stop, *think*, then stop and think *a lot more*, so that you *actually* understand what is being said in this video. Some of you get it (there is hope yet). I hope the others can step back for a moment to let it sink in... Good stuff.
I have wondered these same questions for years ie what is consciousness and even pondered the question of consciousness in simulated beings or physical systems of a large scale which emulate a brain.. These questions remind me (along with plenty of other things) that we're an infantile intelligent species, only very recently developing more advanced culture and science and still running the hardware of an animal. Modern society is a hack of an ape brain (albeit a very good one), not meant explicitly for the purposes we now use it for. It is no wonder warfare, incompetence, and a near total lack of ethics and logical long term thinking are the standard. What little logic and ethics we have as a species though has the potential to set us apart from nature's apathetic brutality and has great potential, but for now we are scarcely better than animals in this regard. Maybe this is a silly idea to be reminded of by this video, these questions of consciousness may never be answered for all i know, but I suspect that we just don't have the intelligence at the present time to thoroughly address this question, I could be wrong though.
You can't have a working simulation on a piece of paper. You can only put a simulation into play in a computer. So no there's no possible way to have consciousness arise out of an equation on paper. Do you think maybe it's not an issue of others not 'getting it'? Maybe they just disagree?
*****
What is it that actually differentiates the simulation on paper from the data on a computer at an instant in time? I'm not saying I know, but do you? A team of people with paper and a computer can accomplish the same computation, a computation being the acquisition of mathematical results, so what really is the difference? Just posing the question, what are your thoughts?
Joey Jonson
What actually differentiates them? The fact that the paper isn't doing any calculations as a medium but the computer is?
And not knowing has been the reason humans throughout history have used as an excuse to come up with all sorts of ridiculous things that they personally find comforting or whatever they want to be true. So let's not do that
Yes there are calculations that it makes no difference if they're done on computer or on a paper, but not simulations. Simulations don't play out on paper, but they do in computers. Any "simulation" done on paper has to play out in your head if it's going to function anywhere. So no there's no possible consciousness
I guess some people like to feel like they're being thoughtful or philosophical but as interesting and thought provoking as this paper thing might be, it's just plain and simple impossible. Don't get lost in thought and what if's. You have to look at what is and isn't
Scoring57 In what way is a 'simulation' different from other types of calculation? Answer: it isn't. It's a matter of complexity, that's all. Nobody is suggesting that we could run a paper simulation of consciousness *on human timescales*. But, in *principle*, given billions of years, enough generations of very bored workers and enough patience, it could be done. If you disagree, then it's necessary for you to prove to me that the choice of substrate upon which computation is performed has any effect at all on the computation itself. Can you prove this? If you can, then you have just shed doubt onto the reliability of computers, because if the choice of substrate affects the outcome, how can we be sure we've chosen the right one in any case?
people have already pointed out.
but its the one whos doing the simulation. in case of paper, paper is not doing. its a human behind whos doing the calculations.
but in case of a computer its done by a computer.
so imo, they can't be compared.
this actually bring to a great question. if as a human i can simulate another persons brain. what would that be called. before speaking actually, you can simulate.
thanks for the sharing
Thanks.
The great content and animation are only made better by the splendid Hungarian Rhapsody in the background. Awesome video.
+Carrot, thanks. Glad you liked my video and my choice of music.
I think this is one of your best videos to date, Eugene. I'll be sure to share it with my friends.
+TheBlundert4ker, thanks. I am glad you liked my video, and thanks for sharing it with your friends.
You rock. All of your videos are well explained and easy to understand.
+Niyoko Yuliawan, thanks for the compliment about my videos.
Kurt Friedrich Gödel. All mathematical systems are incomplete. Only the creator is perfectly perfect.
I think it's worth while to mention that we, as the simulators, provide the necessary initial conditions to the system to allow it to play out. Perhaps the simulations are not conscious as it required a human to perform them. However, you can simply extend that argument further back and question which stimuli prompted our own brains' initial conditions. Perhaps questions like these are unanswerable, and provide humbling clues as to our inherent flaws of existence as a conscious being in our universe as we have come to understand it. Back to cosmology (the drawing board)! :P
2-phase input - phase sequence AND XOR NO (11 (10=01) 00) phased delayed into sequence of 3 state cascaded memory blocks --- AND decode as 0 +-1 0 +-1 +-2 etc... OR encode to extract the -1 0 +1 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 sensory slopes such as sight and sound
This video is Soooooo satisfying.....
The paper in the paper consciousness example doesn't have consciousness. The information within it though does have it. It's the same difference as between the brain and the mind. The brain is just the physical carrier for the mind which has consciousness. The questions asked later then become easy - the consciousness can indeed be simulated and the consciousness is entirely within the laws of physics.
Yeah why not? That drawn brain is also conscious. No doubt.
Every effect has a cause but it's not necessarily true that every cause has its own cause. Therefore, it's not necessarily true that everything that is governed by the laws of physics can be simulated.
I have nerver been so thankful for a mindfuck... This channel is awesome
I am in love with physics because of this channel.
Glad my videos made you love physics. Thanks.
I have a little add on for the accuracy of simulations.
1+0.000000000000001-1=0.000000000000001, but when you put it into a calculator you might get 0. If you put in 1-1+0.000000000000001 you'll correctly get 0.000000000000001. This is because when the computer goes to add 1 and 0.000000000000001 together it just ignores the smaller number because it feels it's insignificant. As you can see this can cause errors. A more accurate approach would be to add/subtract in the order of highest magnitude first. This get's around the problem.
+Laff700, thanks. That is a good point.
Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky You're welcome. I realized it when it started causing issues in my physics simulation.
Lol'd at the Xanax Tower 5:35.
I believe that science is subset of philosophy and philosophy is the consequence of consciousness. This is amazing video. Thank you for the topic and the marvelous animation.
Thanks for the compliment. I am glad you liked my video.