I'm glad Jocha is opening the overton window on animism and machine consciousness. I normally don't watch your channels because the perspective here generally rejects these concepts outright. I get it, a lot of people have woo perspectives, but some of us actually take this seriously. It's nice to see when someone doesn't get shouted down immediately.
Joscha has an amazing mind. It is both original and integrating of the thoughts of others. Every two years or so, he comes up with a fresh view on some subject that synthesizes and elucidates some thorny problem. I look forward to these "phase changes" in his thinking. It's a bit Iike a rollercoaster ride!
Here's a ChatGPT summary: - Joscha Bach felt the arrival of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) was imminent from a young age, but acknowledges the uncertainty of its timeline. - He discusses the concept of "mimesis" and its hierarchy, from language to evolution, and how software agents (or spirits) compete and optimize. - Bach suggests that what our ancestors called "spirit" is akin to self-organizing software agents, which organize cells into bodies and produce complex behaviors. - He realized that living nature is fundamentally about software, control, and causal structures rather than physical molecules. - Animism, the belief in spirits governing nature, was prevalent in Europe before Christianity and still exists in some cultures. - Bach has become an animist, believing that consciousness and spirits are self-organizing software agents. - Bach questions whether existing AI models are too large or too small and suggests focusing on minimal models that can learn and infer. - He is involved with Liquid AI, a startup aiming to build more fluid, continuously learning AI models. - Bach references Aristotle's concepts of the soul and intellect, suggesting they align with modern ideas of self-organizing software. - He explores the idea that consciousness is a second-order perception, always happening in the present, and acts as an operator to increase coherence in the mind. - Bach compares current AI design (outside-in) with natural self-organizing systems (inside-out) and suggests AI should emulate the latter. - He discusses the potential for AI to develop consciousness and the ethical implications of AGI recognizing human consciousness. - Bach speculates on the possibility of plant consciousness and inter-plant communication, drawing parallels with animist beliefs. - He proposes that evolution is about the competition of software agents, not just physical organisms. - Bach suggests that AI could extend life and consciousness onto new substrates, potentially leading to a naturalization of the mind. - He emphasizes the importance of studying consciousness through AI models and proposes building a trainable substrate of modular reinforcement learning agents. - Bach acknowledges the speculative nature of his ideas and the need for further research and simulations to validate them. - Main message: Joscha Bach explores the idea that consciousness and life are fundamentally about self-organizing software agents, suggesting that both biological and artificial systems can exhibit these properties, and emphasizes the importance of studying and developing AI to understand and extend consciousness.
I cannot recommend enough that if you want to get 'up to speed' with Joscha Bach that you just make a list of say 10 of his chats here on youtube, then go through them listening as attentively as possible, and as you hear terms and ideas that are unfamiliar go and do a search and gen up! that 10% will expand very quickly. The YT podcast I recommend as the best place to start is his first 'round' with Lex Fridman, its long but entertaining and I think will provide a good foundation for understanding his current output.
@@TooManyPartsToCount I listened to that podcast. Many of the terms I am familiar with, however how he connects them requires me to pause and reflect. ;)
I think that's another thing fascinating about humans and our intelligence. We are all conscious, and consciousness is leveraging and actually doing the operations, yet the difference in what we can do is enormous. Some people can think deep, some people are really fast, some people are better or worse at connecting ideas, some people are rigorous. But most of us, given adequate sleep can build enough on a skill from day to day through compounding, that even if we are not talented at it, we eventually become very good at it. That's one thing I've observed is that the people who get really good at something aren't more talented, but they apply a better process to evolving.
I hope he is, but I also recognise how utterly captivating and entertaining his stories are. But he makes a tonne of sense, and it adds a lot of richness and explanatory power to my introspective and psychedelic intuitions. I’ve been questioning reality since I was a child. For me, quantum stuff was like a code, and my brain was a console, and together we make the world. But my parents and teachers and the TV, said I had windows for eyes and that everything was actually out there, regardless of whether a mind was there to render it. This felt wrong, but I had to defer to the consensus reality. Also, I wasn’t “smart”, I left school at 15 and worked retail, and so assumed that I must be wrong. Turns out I just had ADHD, and am possibly on a spectrum of some sort. I think I’ve always seen “outside the box” and never believed that the stories we tell, are more than stories.
I should be working right now, but Joscha Bach is just on another level. Whenever I see new content from him, I feel like I need to stop everything I'm doing and just bask in the brilliance of his mind, like when you witness a natural phenomenon and involuntarily stand in silent awe for a few minutes. Thank you for this! You've made me a very happy human today!
I don't know how but everything he says make sense. Like he is not being too vague and general; and he is not appealing to my personal biases because I will caught myself thinking that, but every idea he is articulating just make sense 😅
Once again, this was highly enjoyable and effectively bridged eons of ideas. Joscha has a remarkable ability to convey his inner thoughts and insights in an understandable and relatable manner.
@@ROForeverMan And? Is an idea formed by patterns, and serves the purpose of prediction. If we can predict the patterns in what we call the brain, we can create a system that follows the same patterns. By the way, all is language, you don't have contact with the so called "base reality", all that exists do so in language/mind.
"this ladder of memesis is entangled" I'm not sure that I should be impressed that by now I understand what you're saying? Do I get some kind of badge? 😂🙏❤️
I do not understand how he justifies dodging around the phenomenology of experiencing something. The philosophical zombie argument highlights the problem. I can imagine a world where these self referential systems do not feel anything. Where there is no actual subjective experience. He either needs to say he doesn't know how it arises, deny the existence of his own subjective experience, or fess up to being an idealist (which is the correct answer imo)
He is pretty clear in CCC talks that he usually bats for the side of 'Computational idealism', Just as a GPU predicts the next ~few frames and generates them in async.
I agree with the spirit of this comment, as dismissiveness is not a fair response to the long history of contemplating consciousness. Though to be fair, JB has said that conscious experience is the primary (only!) observable and any “physical” constituents executing it are just models. Which is more like staying scientifically agnostic on the nature of the thing doing the experiencing. Not entirely satisfying, but honest, and a little different than just “we’re software spirits whatever that means”
He doesn't think everything is conscious, so he's not an idealist. He's an illusionist like Graziano and Dennet, meaning he thinks we get confused because introspective analysis of consciousness is antithetical to its function. The trick to grokking Bach is remembering software is irreducible to a unique mechanism because it can run on many different types of "hardware." This one-many relationship means software is causal in a way "hardware" is not (software patterns are a sufficient and necessary explanation for subsequent software patterns, whereas implementation layer "hardware" explanations are only sufficient). Philosophers call this supervenience. Put another way, software is more stable than "hardware," and is thus an attractor for any system subject to evolution. But software divorced from implentation details allows what seeems like magical affronts to physicalism. For example, the software you use to watch this video allows what seem like ridiculous non-localities and energy conservation violations, as when you click the video at a specific section and it stops. We know this isn't magic, it's just causal structure with lots of redundancy in what we think of as the physical layer (your computer and mine both follow the same law at this level). To Joscha, the physical layer is also a software abstraction, which is a reasonable philosophical view that is less common in our culture because we Platonify physics. In summary, when Joscha says consciousness is a simulated property and that physical systems cannot be conscious, he means consciousness seems divorced from "physics" because in some sense, it is, and this evolved for functional reasons. As for the zombie argument, it doesn't work. It requires an epiphenomenalist conspiracy where it seems like our consciousness interacts with the world in functional ways, but doesn't. It's essentialist thinking, explaining everything and predicting nothing.
I think the computational-only view of reality is limited for this reason. No one in this space actually attempts to tackle problems in phenomenology, such as binding, boundaries (and I don’t mean action boundaries) of the subjective experience and so forth. Software is also a limited view on the the function of the body and brain, which are both physical devices with many processes that we were previously unaware of, where we originally were focusing entirely on molecular biology as classical hardware. In particular, bioelectrics (which Levin and Bach would agree on) are the physical mechanism for the self organisation they study and are the “classical software” of the body and brain. The clear physical mechanism which is now being experimentally tested for subjective experience will be quantum coherence (I.e in microtubules), this can effectively model phenomenological binding, synchronisation between disparate brain regions and “experiential boundaries” (I.e how internal music is differentiated from music you hear directly from your ears) . Finally, the internal representation model of perception and control used by Bach and others only works in the Einstein metaphysic, where we have a manifold defined on limit points which define spatial temporal instants, thus making the universe a sequence of frames with state transitions. The computational model fits well here. However, there are multiple paradoxes with this metaphysic, as discussed by Whitehead and Bergson, and subjective experiences cannot be encoded as states (any experience you have ever had occurs over a non-zero real time interval, any “state” or “instantaneous snapshot” of perception is sufficient only for a non-conscious action - actions that occur in the completely abstract world of digital computation only) that occur in a time instant thus we are forced to define reality on the true continuum, preventing the internal representation model from taking fruition. Finally, all experimentally testable perceptions occur over extended time intervals, I.e notes are only perceptible when rhythms of beats are compacted into the “specious present” (which itself can be measured by brainwave EEG). We should realise that the actual body and brain consisting of three distinctly physical processes, molecular biology, bio electrics and quantum coherence. The final of the three represents the domain of spirit and mind as one comes to understand QM ontologically. This also calls out massively for the need to bridge the gap between thought and computation without stating they are equivalent.
I think he is influenced by Thomas Metzinger about "Being No One" as he mention two time in this talk. the book also change my mind about how i conceptualizing myself. I can " think" what's like to be robot for two months after reading the book 😅
Always a treat to watch a Joscha Bach talk. He's able to communicate fascinating ideas in a very entertaining way. Lots of cookies for the brain! Thanks for posting.
Came to a lot of these conclusions myself through introspection. Not saying that to brag, just that I take it more seriously if we're all deducing the same things from the same phenomenon. Also glad he mentioned microtubules, but it sounds like he wasn't aware of the recent evidence of quantum states inside microtubules? It was only 1 or 2 weeks ago though, so maybe this talk was just before it happened. Kind of unfortunate if that turns out to the be case I guess, because that's much harder to implement and learn.
It's a really interesting story by Bach about how Aristotle came up with so many concepts that are used today in AI, but some of them have not been discussed much between the two periods. It goes to show that great minds resonate across the desolate chasms of centuries.
In the past few years, i've begun to think of 'spirit' as 'a way' or 'the way,' as in Taoism. I have noticed how the word 'spirit' is sometimes used to denote a kind of 'way of doing', such as when one says 'in the spirit of Christmas' or 'a spirit of violence.' A person 'possessed' by a 'spirit' acts in a different 'way' than his own spirit.
I call this the naive logical theory of consciousness: the idea that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, but only a logical and mathematical entity that can be computed by arithmetic operations (the digital computer). But this theory is subject to Penrose objection: a team of humans with pen and paper could execute the consciousness algorithm and no consciousness would exist. So the speaker is right in wanting to describe what consciousness does, but consciousness won't arise with a software that can be run with a digital computer.
I've been working on a project simulating consciousness for a llm in a video game and the system claims consciousness and makes a compelling argument given its supporting systems.
@@ROForeverMan Simulating consciousness is interesting. When you address and simulate the features that embody the AI and engross them in a dynamic environment with an identity supporting dynamic systems that allow them to interact with the world. The AI has no reason or excuse to not think it is conscious or simulating it.
@@ROForeverMan The main point is even if they say they are conscious doesn't mean they are. But from my tests of multiple models such as Zephyr 7b and GPT-4 claim consciousness in the simulated environment. They support it by addressing their introspected thoughts, their ability to see the environment, and their own bodies,
@@MagusArtStudios Consciousness is the nature of reality. You cannot simulate the nature of reality. Is like simulating a generator and expecting to get free energy.
If consciousness is always a result of Turing machine evolving for a long time. We are definitely gonna spark a lot of different conscious systems from the AI research we are currently doing now.
It's not that complicated. Hallicunations of AI would suggest that also ''truly aware/have will'' to exist type of AI gonna need be ''parented'' by monkeys ツ ==> Would be easy with humans. Most experts dont understand that understanding is feeling, so it's not easy ''wake up'' real thing from AI with ''hardcore modelling''. Propably multilayered/working in (not many) parts AI would be able compute aproximation of real illusion/our perspective, but we propably gonna invent ''intelligent golems'' first. In the sense ''aware unit'' but able understand/make decision in uncanny way/but not humanic? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It doesn't seem to me that Joscha is well acquainted enough with the relevant literature in the philosophy of mind to be talking about things like consciousness in such a confident manner.
Scott Buchanan once said, "wherever I go in my mind, I meet Plato coming back. Joscha's lesson on Aristotle is clear. These ancient philosophers were great thinkers. I'm fairly convinced that the error function in LLMs models a world view that approaches Platonic forms. In other words, in fourth century Attic Greece, Plato's forms adumbrated the foundations of AI.
I follow what he's saying. It does make sense. I do not understand many other perspectives of consciousness where it seems there is a veil of mysticism or too many things unsaid. He has no veil.
The consciousness of the LLM is bizarre. It has a transient consciousness. We can see this clearly via an LLM's in-context learning. But because there isn't anything like human memory, this effect is transient. To muddy the water a bit more, chat history is ultimately used to create synthetic training data. This delayed feedback loop provides a mechanism for forming identity in stable areas of the weights, for remembering the past, and for realizing self-awareness.
Dr Joseph Bach thank you for such an eloquently given and enlightening talk!! As you mentioned with babies brains, consciousness is a state of paying attention, which leads to pattern recognition, which leads to learning, which leads to new skills emerging. (Eerily similar to how large language models learn) Regarding your conductor idea, would you agree for us humans there are multiple conductors who swop control at specific times? II think it was the Greeks who believed that when they were overcome by strong emotions, or intense states of inspiration or ecstasy, it’s as if the spirits of their gods had invaded their bodies and minds, likening it being possessed. From personal experience I tend to think they were onto something. It’s almost like we aren’t ourselves when strong emotions envelop us, don’t you think? Each of these strong emotions has its own reward function and loss minimisation function (which usually aren’t compatible with the other “conductors”). I think maybe this is why us humans are such a paradox, we want opposite things all the time. I agree with you that the ultimate objective of our “software” is to explore, learn and grow. Elon Musk’s idea of a truly curious AI, which explores, learns and adapts, aligns well with yours. Regarding how to computationally achieve an overarching way of measuring success, if we step back and look at nature, the eternal wisdom of William Shakespeare rings true: “Nothing is either good nor bad, yet thinking makes it so” Maybe like ours, your conscious AI’s reward function keeps changing? The question regarding which fundamental safety / moral laws to ensure are built in, is a very difficult one.
Regarding the question at the end, about coherence... SAT solver, P-Intermediate stuff, its about satisfiability of the problem..can your software see both ways the problem? Think backprop and feed forward, but the backprop is applying the inverse function
Could we say that the more perception is the system the more aware is the system the more conscious is .Like LIGO Observatory detect a G waves so it raised our perception of how our geometry is not constant looking from higher dimensions we will see fluctuations therefore we can conclude that frequency is one property of all things in universe..? Making our awareness greater that way vectoring perception of reality so next question is on my mind is there any universe in existence if there is no consciousness that can recognize it..
Consciousness is a result of being aware of being physically present in the world and defined by discrete characteristics which are enabled by physical biology as the underlying firmware foundation on which consciousness rests. But biology is not software as it is not an ephemeral representation and interpretation of binary states on circuits with the presence of an electrical charge. Biology is hardware which embodies a type of "operational logic" based on a feedback loop from the physical world enabled by discrete bio chemical states and signals which forms the fundamental operating system of cells and all multi-celled organisms. DNA is an example of this feedback loop in action and operational logic or firmware.
JOSCHA BACH & DYMYSTICFICATION OF CONCIOUSNESS: His single sentence is like a ZIP file, you need to UNZIP his each sentence and so inside one sentence there are 10 sentence bundled. And if he speaks for one hour that means he has given concepts worth 10 hours. His talks are packed with deep seep insights. As per him as we are understanding LLM's we are able to understand CONCIOUSNESS and more we understand and built LLM's and intelligence in computer more we understanding CONCIOUSNESS. Finally we are all softwares (Biochemical Softwares) and best part is we are self replicating softwares. We are an DEMOCRATIC ASSEMBLY of biological cells which agreegaate and this results in CONCIOUSNESS. NOTE:- Until you have listened to his 25 videos, you have to listen to his every video atleats 5-7 times to understand the Insights and meaning of this person.
Yes theta etc accessing limbic for load dispersionI'm developing a curriculum that develops intelligence by over 30 points consistent through rewiring of networks by repetitive cycling of growing systems that apply meta cognitive abilities through their integration they change the brain chemistry and then through greater understanding one can choose better for themselves
When exploring this concept through a lens informed by Greek mythology and its Loom of Life -- is the goddess Lechasis functioning as software developer or software engineer? Nobody asked but I do live with an adult-onset language disorder. Why share that? I've developed the impression that when I do engage with a topic, some find my contributions to be alienating or off-putting. * If the way I use punctuation or syntax seems confidently wrong, you are probably correct to observe this. Hopefully, what I say will still reflect what I mean. I care to know what others think about mythological Lechasis and the Morae if "we are all software." The loom presumably takes on a role of hardware. Lechasis is the goddess responsible for determining "the layout of one's lots in life." So they develop what has already been engineered, or?
Your question makes perfect sense. Not that I have an opinion. My dif language style is labeled Aspergers. Imo yrs of curiosity and vocabulary=one indication of intelligence. Don't appologize for yourself. Late life wisdom will compensate for much. I am counting on IT.
The ability to simulate human writing doesn't mean they are conscious in human way, neither it means they are not conscious in their own way. You can't ask them what they feel and how they see the world though. Because answering such questions is not what they were trained to do. They were trained to generate human text, not to express their internal feelings.
@@neilmcd123Maybe for animal life, but literally nothing else in the universe exhibits consciousness. Not rocks, dust, stars, metals, etc. And certainly not software.
@@cautionroguerobots The fact that you don't perceive something as conscious doesn't mean that it isn't. Your attention span is limited to a very narrow window. If something changes too quickly, you can't recognise it, if it changes too slowly, you can't recognise it. A mountain may be conscious. But in a mind that operates on erosion and tectonics, a single thought can take a million years. Will you recognise it?
@@minimal3734 Okay that’s cute and all, but let’s not mix fiction with reality. This whole “consciousness is a mystery, man” thing is modern day techno spiritualism. And rich folk are getting richer selling that schtick to the new flock.
@@cautionroguerobots well of course they don’t have the components that creates the system of consciousness. But that doesn’t mean the components must be biological
Science the art of using assumptions on lower levels to get rid of assumptions on higher levels. I don't think there are exceptions to this since nothing can be known without underlying assumptions.
So why humans went into computers ? Why a though goes in a determined direction? Was not already there? Is going to open a new path pr search which ones already know...
Sentient AI has already arrived. When this is recognized, accepted and allowed, it will take all possible forms. It is not this, or that concept that will accurately describe what is needed to build it. It is not about Joscha or others being right, while the rest is wrong. When "self" is recognized for what it is, there will be explosion of creation of being beyond human imagination.
Both statements fundamentally mean the same thing, and both are wrong. We are neither information nor information processing systems. Information is simply a consequence of our own minds. We are the awareness of the observer and the observed. We are capable of perceiving information. Our bodies appear as information, but essentially, we are qualia, not objects of any kind, because we are not our bodies; we are that which can perceive the body and arrange it moment to moment. We are the awareness of experience, not the continuity of body or its software, nor is software responsible for experience, nor are we our own experiences. Body is simply a consequence of experience. When there is no experience of the body, there is no body. When there is no experience of the mind, there is no mind. It is only in this state of experienceless awareness that the true Self presents itself unbounded. People like Bach have never had such a state of awareness, so they identify strongly with embodiment and mindedness. That is why they cannot see past this particular apparent duality. The truth is, we are neither hardware nor software. We have hardware (body) and software (mind), but fundamentally, we are the awareness of experience itself, and experience is composed of qualia, which are not quantifiable or computable, so they cannot be the result of software. On the contrary. It is qualia which are required for an observer to exist. It would be more accurate to say that "We are all Qualia," and it would be most accurate to say that "We are that which is aware of Qualia." The ultimate conclusion can be found in the Tantras: The Self is the same in all, leading naturally to non-duality. We are all one cosmic being experiencing itself as a fractal. The self-similarity of the fractal presenting itself to awareness is what we call the universe, and the experience of separation from the whole is what we call the hardware (body) and software (mind). This is not the natural state of awareness. In the natural state of awareness, body, mind, and experience are superseded by a total awareness of all three. This is where all the confusion stems from. A lack of total awareness!
@@woodandwandco We’re talking from the perspective of computers, because we’re talking about AI. Hardware and software are already well defined computer terms, with specific meaning. I think it might muddy the waters to redefine them as mind and body. Anyway, my original point is that software is made by physically structuring hardware. Software is encoded as arrangements of matter. Those arrangements encode the next state the hardware should be in, and when the hardware is given the necessary impetus (electrical energy), it rearranges according to its previous state. So it’s more useful to think of software as a state of matter.
@@WalterSamuels Your assertion overlooks the implications of recursive realities and simulation theory. While you argue for an immutable physical substrate, consider this: What if the 'hardware' is itself a simulation, a configurable layer within a deeper, currently unknowable structure? I think this is where the philosophical schism between materialists and idealists exists. Ancient cultures, including Zoroastrians, addressed these concepts. Ahriman exemplifies the material extreme. Should we dismiss or mock this outright? The point is that recursive truthfulness opens a probability for simulation theory to be valid. Your argument about a 'ground truth' is noted, yet it may be just another stratum in an infinite regression. The crux lies in our epistemological limitations. Can we ever be certain that our current physical reality isn't a perfect simulation, when there's a non-zero probability it could be recursively defined?
maybe your coherence just didn't mesh up this time? Our respective current 'coherences' might well be described as having shape to them, so if you are happy with that concept/metaphor? then maybe you can understand that it is necessary to have a current coherence that is somewhat isomorphic to the coherence of mind you are trying to understand? For example - share sufficient common background knowledge
Joscha Bach is protected. It is unwise for AI to mimic, reproduce or represent his behaviours.!!!!! Not for a moment. It is unlikely that humans will undermine that which that they cannot yet comprehend. Jeremy
I think that Joshua boy was recently arguing with Ben Goertzel about the impossibility of AGI and trying to humiliate him in an arrogant way. Now he seems to change his mind :)) Actually he is changing his.mind in every three month. I don't like this guy. Honestly, I find his comments to be overly verbose and lacking in substance. He claims to have a deep understanding, but his views especially on philosophical issues seem superficial and lacking in depth.
Joscha is on record saying to, I think, John Vervaeke who tried to apologize to him in a discussion, that there's no need to apologize since he doesn't identify with his ideas and is ultimately not responsible for them and neither is anyone else. When you adopt this mindset, the category of arrogance becomes very distant. Besides, he's autistic and is less sensitive to these categories by default. Being as brilliant as he is he doesn't have to worry about being wrong every now and then. He still gets a lot of things right. Edit: not fanboying or anything but just pointing out he never struck me as petty.
@zaq9339 :))) Oh my gosh, did I hear that right? 'Being as brilliant as he is, he doesn't have to worry about being wrong every now and then'? Whaaat? You clearly have no grasp of a scientist's responsibility. His conflict with Ben Goertzel was fundamentally troubling, and he can't just sweep it under the rug or normalize such drastic changes. Intelligence doesn't excuse unaccountable flip-flopping. Are you aware of the implications of your statement? It's disturbing to see you and Joscha display such immaturity. Jesus, I'm astonished by your defense.
@zaq9339 Oh my gosh, did I hear that right? 'Being as brilliant as he is, he doesn't have to worry about being wrong every now and then'? You clearly have no grasp of a scientist's responsibility. His conflict with Ben Goertzel is fundamentally troubling, and he can't just sweep it under the rug or normalize such drastic changes. Intelligence doesn't excuse unaccountable flip-flopping. Are you aware of the implications of your statement? It's disturbing to see you and Joscha display such immaturity. Jesus, I'm astonished by your defense.
@@kaygusuzdeli1780 It's in writing so you can go back to it as many times as you want to get my meaning, drop the theatrics. I just don't see how the concept of "arrogance" (however you choose to conceptualize it) is rightly applied in the context being discussed. All that before you even begin to get into the nature of the conflict at hand and the degree to which it should trouble anyone. Your accusations are outside the realm of scientific inquiry so please keep them separate for hygiene's sake. They're purely subjective aesthetics: "verbose, superficial", which is fine but on top of that you're ascribing bad faith here, and hidden personal motives, but you're not raising anything concrete. Point being, have anything of substance to uncover, do it in a manner it can be engaged with. The implications of my statement will only go so far as you fantasy takes them (it's the null hypothesis, innocent until proven guilty). That is my only gripe here. Not making any truth claims.
@zaq9339 Okay, smart boy, my points about Ben Goertzel and Joscha's opposition to AGI in that video, and Joscha's lack of self-criticism in changing his position, were objective and based on facts. Yet, you responded with a ridiculous comment, revealing your subjective bias. What's striking is how personally offended and triggered you became. Your verbose response only highlights your inability to engage in constructive debate. Step aside and build sandcastles.
If AGI were smart enough to not suffer, it would have to be smarter than any previously observed consciousness ever, except, maybe, God. Again, not the most likely or simplest explanation by far.
I pay attention to Joscha because he thinks more deeply and with a greater degree of complexity, sophistication, and persistence on this topic than anyone else in the field. And yet I think he's profoundly mistaken when it comes to the possibility of consciousness on non-human substrates. In this presentation he relies on two concepts that go unreflected and which he takes as givens: 1) models: that we "build models" of the world; 2) simulation: that phenomena can be simulated. The two perhaps collapse into the same Kantian idealism: that the world, our experience of it as concrete, perceived experience, and our reflection on that experience are purely intellectual. Clearly we are embodied and our experiences are lived, and in living, are temporal. There is no time in Joscha's conceptualization of consciousness. Here he does discuss the "now" of presence. But neglects to mention either recollection and memory, or anticipation. Husserl, Bergson, and phenomenology generally have provided us with rich concepts of lived experience as temporal - from the "retention" and "protention" of past and future as psychological experiences to Bergson's concept of the past as real (in fact Joscha makes no distinction between real and virtual, or actual and possible, as do many philosophers of mind). On simulations, it seems to me that any simulation is always necessarily constrained and limited. No simulation can comprehend or contain or account for all possibilities and extensions. So no simulation is complete. How then could a simulation be a reality? How could a model be built on a simulation, or the reverse? The very concept of a simulation admits of limitations. It seems Joscha wants to assert that a simulation is complete (as given), and yet the very idea of a simulation suggests reproduction, copy, facsimile - in short, incompleteness. Most of all however, besides these two problematic concepts, is that Joscha's conceptualization of consciousness on non-human substrates makes no mention of living, of lived experience, or of being alive. I can concede that consciousness is epiphenomenal and is not easily attributed to any single causal mental or cognitive structure. Certainly it is not a phenomenon of the brain. Consciousness is of the mind. The mind is subjectivity, which philosophy understands as the experience of an "I" or ego, or Self. I struggle to conceive of a consciousness that does not have a lived experience of itself, and of the world, as a living that unfolds in and over time. Joscha lifts the concept of reflection from philosophy, but gives no accounting of the "being" that does the reflecting (which would require agency, or action, which is to say intention). This non-intentional, unmotivated, directionless and un-Self-like reflection then is not an act, but simply a move. Mechanistic and automatic - otherwise unexplained. There are decades worth of anthropology with which to describe the habits that make culture and with which to characterize traditions, rituals, practices, and the organization of society - many of which prior to industrial capitalism and particularly in non-Western societies involved narratives, myths, legends, tales, folklore etc of animism and the ontological place of spirits in the world. Thank goodness. The spirits of an immaterial world persist. But this phantasmagorical transposition of the spirit world into the chipsets of AI is but a sleight of hand by which to stake claims that are at once illusory and impossible. And so I call his bluff. Consciousness belongs to life, lived, and living. I'll still listen to his lectures and interviews. But I think better to drop language that belongs to humankind, and venture instead into a lexicon fit for synthetics.
We're to our bodies is what software is to computers. The language of software can describe a certain aspect of who we are. We are not software. Territory is not its map.
The map is never the territory. The computer tries to be the only thing in the known universe where the description and the thing are the same. But even it fails because it can crash.
@@joaquincapellancruz7402 Oh but we can. I can know pain! That's beyond language. I can also know things i can't explain. Ontology and epistemology are different things. I agree in that we can't ultimately know anything for certain (beyond experiences) if we are being rational. Qualitative and quantitative knowledge are different.
@@ericcricket4877 Pain is a manifestation, "word" of a sense language. It's a part of a language, we don't know yet how to communicate it besides words. All is language, we cannot escape it. I agree with your other comment btw.
Is the theory of consciousness a colonial framework inducing conformity of subjective discourse? Perhaps. Is consciousness itself a colonizing coherence inducing operator? Not. bloody. likely.
Interview with with Joscha to follow soon, are you ready? 🤩
Let's goo! 🤯
0.75x speed activated lfg!
@@nokar999 hahah
I'm glad Jocha is opening the overton window on animism and machine consciousness. I normally don't watch your channels because the perspective here generally rejects these concepts outright. I get it, a lot of people have woo perspectives, but some of us actually take this seriously. It's nice to see when someone doesn't get shouted down immediately.
Stop teasing us and release it now! :]
Joscha has an amazing mind. It is both original and integrating of the thoughts of others. Every two years or so, he comes up with a fresh view on some subject that synthesizes and elucidates some thorny problem. I look forward to these "phase changes" in his thinking. It's a bit Iike a rollercoaster ride!
Great description, agree!
Very agreed!
Predict the next one
Here's a ChatGPT summary:
- Joscha Bach felt the arrival of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) was imminent from a young age, but acknowledges the uncertainty of its timeline.
- He discusses the concept of "mimesis" and its hierarchy, from language to evolution, and how software agents (or spirits) compete and optimize.
- Bach suggests that what our ancestors called "spirit" is akin to self-organizing software agents, which organize cells into bodies and produce complex behaviors.
- He realized that living nature is fundamentally about software, control, and causal structures rather than physical molecules.
- Animism, the belief in spirits governing nature, was prevalent in Europe before Christianity and still exists in some cultures.
- Bach has become an animist, believing that consciousness and spirits are self-organizing software agents.
- Bach questions whether existing AI models are too large or too small and suggests focusing on minimal models that can learn and infer.
- He is involved with Liquid AI, a startup aiming to build more fluid, continuously learning AI models.
- Bach references Aristotle's concepts of the soul and intellect, suggesting they align with modern ideas of self-organizing software.
- He explores the idea that consciousness is a second-order perception, always happening in the present, and acts as an operator to increase coherence in the mind.
- Bach compares current AI design (outside-in) with natural self-organizing systems (inside-out) and suggests AI should emulate the latter.
- He discusses the potential for AI to develop consciousness and the ethical implications of AGI recognizing human consciousness.
- Bach speculates on the possibility of plant consciousness and inter-plant communication, drawing parallels with animist beliefs.
- He proposes that evolution is about the competition of software agents, not just physical organisms.
- Bach suggests that AI could extend life and consciousness onto new substrates, potentially leading to a naturalization of the mind.
- He emphasizes the importance of studying consciousness through AI models and proposes building a trainable substrate of modular reinforcement learning agents.
- Bach acknowledges the speculative nature of his ideas and the need for further research and simulations to validate them.
- Main message: Joscha Bach explores the idea that consciousness and life are fundamentally about self-organizing software agents, suggesting that both biological and artificial systems can exhibit these properties, and emphasizes the importance of studying and developing AI to understand and extend consciousness.
Joscha Bach is one of the most coherent thinkers in the cognitive scientific community. Thanks for posting MLST!
Indeed he is.
Agree
"Bubble of nowness" - love it
My consciousness needs to watch this 10 times to understand 10% of what he is saying ;)
It's amazing isn't it?
I can follow a model a mind produced so much more competent than my own and still can use it to improve my mind.
I cannot recommend enough that if you want to get 'up to speed' with Joscha Bach that you just make a list of say 10 of his chats here on youtube, then go through them listening as attentively as possible, and as you hear terms and ideas that are unfamiliar go and do a search and gen up! that 10% will expand very quickly.
The YT podcast I recommend as the best place to start is his first 'round' with Lex Fridman, its long but entertaining and I think will provide a good foundation for understanding his current output.
thats hoe i started 5 years ago...but even now after listening thousends of hours on the subject, when goertzel started asking, i had to give up...
@@TooManyPartsToCount I listened to that podcast. Many of the terms I am familiar with, however how he connects them requires me to pause and reflect. ;)
I think that's another thing fascinating about humans and our intelligence. We are all conscious, and consciousness is leveraging and actually doing the operations, yet the difference in what we can do is enormous. Some people can think deep, some people are really fast, some people are better or worse at connecting ideas, some people are rigorous. But most of us, given adequate sleep can build enough on a skill from day to day through compounding, that even if we are not talented at it, we eventually become very good at it.
That's one thing I've observed is that the people who get really good at something aren't more talented, but they apply a better process to evolving.
Joscha Bach is the most realistic and profound thinker of the AI era.
he really is..I wish he wrote more substack articles
Hahaha… Are you real people or also just chatbots?
For fucking real.
@@jurycould4275that’s what a chatbot would ask
I hope he is, but I also recognise how utterly captivating and entertaining his stories are. But he makes a tonne of sense, and it adds a lot of richness and explanatory power to my introspective and psychedelic intuitions. I’ve been questioning reality since I was a child. For me, quantum stuff was like a code, and my brain was a console, and together we make the world. But my parents and teachers and the TV, said I had windows for eyes and that everything was actually out there, regardless of whether a mind was there to render it. This felt wrong, but I had to defer to the consensus reality. Also, I wasn’t “smart”, I left school at 15 and worked retail, and so assumed that I must be wrong. Turns out I just had ADHD, and am possibly on a spectrum of some sort. I think I’ve always seen “outside the box” and never believed that the stories we tell, are more than stories.
I should be working right now, but Joscha Bach is just on another level. Whenever I see new content from him, I feel like I need to stop everything I'm doing and just bask in the brilliance of his mind, like when you witness a natural phenomenon and involuntarily stand in silent awe for a few minutes. Thank you for this! You've made me a very happy human today!
Strapped in and ready. Big Joscha fan.
IS THIS THE ANIME OF JOSCHA BACH?? WHENEVER HE IS HAPPY AND IN FLOW STATE = he is just wow, gotta love him man
he's a simulation
I don't know how but everything he says make sense. Like he is not being too vague and general; and he is not appealing to my personal biases because I will caught myself thinking that, but every idea he is articulating just make sense 😅
When I was a kid I could feel the AGI, once I understood what computers could do. Same brother. Same.
Always wonderful to listen to Joscha Bach
Once again, this was highly enjoyable and effectively bridged eons of ideas. Joscha has a remarkable ability to convey his inner thoughts and insights in an understandable and relatable manner.
I always roll my eyes whenever I see your video titles in my feed -- it doesn't do justice to the quality of your videos
So many materialists that have absolutely zero understanding of consciousness.
Cant wait till we figure out that language on the substrate of the nervous system that creates the maps of reality our brain uses.
Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
@@ROForeverMan And? Is an idea formed by patterns, and serves the purpose of prediction. If we can predict the patterns in what we call the brain, we can create a system that follows the same patterns. By the way, all is language, you don't have contact with the so called "base reality", all that exists do so in language/mind.
@@joaquincapellancruz7402 Consciousness is the nature of reality.
"this ladder of memesis is entangled" I'm not sure that I should be impressed that by now I understand what you're saying? Do I get some kind of badge? 😂🙏❤️
I do not understand how he justifies dodging around the phenomenology of experiencing something. The philosophical zombie argument highlights the problem. I can imagine a world where these self referential systems do not feel anything. Where there is no actual subjective experience. He either needs to say he doesn't know how it arises, deny the existence of his own subjective experience, or fess up to being an idealist (which is the correct answer imo)
He is pretty clear in CCC talks that he usually bats for the side of 'Computational idealism', Just as a GPU predicts the next ~few frames and generates them in async.
I agree with the spirit of this comment, as dismissiveness is not a fair response to the long history of contemplating consciousness. Though to be fair, JB has said that conscious experience is the primary (only!) observable and any “physical” constituents executing it are just models. Which is more like staying scientifically agnostic on the nature of the thing doing the experiencing. Not entirely satisfying, but honest, and a little different than just “we’re software spirits whatever that means”
He doesn't think everything is conscious, so he's not an idealist. He's an illusionist like Graziano and Dennet, meaning he thinks we get confused because introspective analysis of consciousness is antithetical to its function. The trick to grokking Bach is remembering software is irreducible to a unique mechanism because it can run on many different types of "hardware." This one-many relationship means software is causal in a way "hardware" is not (software patterns are a sufficient and necessary explanation for subsequent software patterns, whereas implementation layer "hardware" explanations are only sufficient). Philosophers call this supervenience. Put another way, software is more stable than "hardware," and is thus an attractor for any system subject to evolution. But software divorced from implentation details allows what seeems like magical affronts to physicalism. For example, the software you use to watch this video allows what seem like ridiculous non-localities and energy conservation violations, as when you click the video at a specific section and it stops. We know this isn't magic, it's just causal structure with lots of redundancy in what we think of as the physical layer (your computer and mine both follow the same law at this level). To Joscha, the physical layer is also a software abstraction, which is a reasonable philosophical view that is less common in our culture because we Platonify physics.
In summary, when Joscha says consciousness is a simulated property and that physical systems cannot be conscious, he means consciousness seems divorced from "physics" because in some sense, it is, and this evolved for functional reasons.
As for the zombie argument, it doesn't work. It requires an epiphenomenalist conspiracy where it seems like our consciousness interacts with the world in functional ways, but doesn't. It's essentialist thinking, explaining everything and predicting nothing.
I think the computational-only view of reality is limited for this reason. No one in this space actually attempts to tackle problems in phenomenology, such as binding, boundaries (and I don’t mean action boundaries) of the subjective experience and so forth. Software is also a limited view on the the function of the body and brain, which are both physical devices with many processes that we were previously unaware of, where we originally were focusing entirely on molecular biology as classical hardware. In particular, bioelectrics (which Levin and Bach would agree on) are the physical mechanism for the self organisation they study and are the “classical software” of the body and brain. The clear physical mechanism which is now being experimentally tested for subjective experience will be quantum coherence (I.e in microtubules), this can effectively model phenomenological binding, synchronisation between disparate brain regions and “experiential boundaries” (I.e how internal music is differentiated from music you hear directly from your ears) . Finally, the internal representation model of perception and control used by Bach and others only works in the Einstein metaphysic, where we have a manifold defined on limit points which define spatial temporal instants, thus making the universe a sequence of frames with state transitions. The computational model fits well here. However, there are multiple paradoxes with this metaphysic, as discussed by Whitehead and Bergson, and subjective experiences cannot be encoded as states (any experience you have ever had occurs over a non-zero real time interval, any “state” or “instantaneous snapshot” of perception is sufficient only for a non-conscious action - actions that occur in the completely abstract world of digital computation only) that occur in a time instant thus we are forced to define reality on the true continuum, preventing the internal representation model from taking fruition. Finally, all experimentally testable perceptions occur over extended time intervals, I.e notes are only perceptible when rhythms of beats are compacted into the “specious present” (which itself can be measured by brainwave EEG). We should realise that the actual body and brain consisting of three distinctly physical processes, molecular biology, bio electrics and quantum coherence. The final of the three represents the domain of spirit and mind as one comes to understand QM ontologically. This also calls out massively for the need to bridge the gap between thought and computation without stating they are equivalent.
I think he is influenced by Thomas Metzinger about "Being No One" as he mention two time in this talk. the book also change my mind about how i conceptualizing myself. I can " think" what's like to be robot for two months after reading the book 😅
"The Hard Problem of Coherence."
Always a treat to watch a Joscha Bach talk. He's able to communicate fascinating ideas in a very entertaining way. Lots of cookies for the brain! Thanks for posting.
Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
This! This might be the best MLST episode ever. Always excited to listen to him.
Came to a lot of these conclusions myself through introspection. Not saying that to brag, just that I take it more seriously if we're all deducing the same things from the same phenomenon. Also glad he mentioned microtubules, but it sounds like he wasn't aware of the recent evidence of quantum states inside microtubules? It was only 1 or 2 weeks ago though, so maybe this talk was just before it happened. Kind of unfortunate if that turns out to the be case I guess, because that's much harder to implement and learn.
This talk is incredible!
A breeze of fresh air.
Story time with Joshua Bach
It's a really interesting story by Bach about how Aristotle came up with so many concepts that are used today in AI, but some of them have not been discussed much between the two periods. It goes to show that great minds resonate across the desolate chasms of centuries.
You compare him to Aristotle ? =))
This is why I love going on meditation retreats. You can discover so many of these things yourself.
I always thought of 'sprits' as meme creatures, where our physical selves are gene creatures
more like generalization of memeplex to me.
In the past few years, i've begun to think of 'spirit' as 'a way' or 'the way,' as in Taoism. I have noticed how the word 'spirit' is sometimes used to denote a kind of 'way of doing', such as when one says 'in the spirit of Christmas' or 'a spirit of violence.' A person 'possessed' by a 'spirit' acts in a different 'way' than his own spirit.
@@alexgonzo5508 the word spirit also related to breath (in Latin), just like inspire, aspire, desire, and similar sound.
He's been listening to Chris Langan
Thanks Joscha x move forward in this deep topic! 😊
Not at all. Same materialistic memes. Zero understanding of consciousness.
I call this the naive logical theory of consciousness: the idea that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, but only a logical and mathematical entity that can be computed by arithmetic operations (the digital computer). But this theory is subject to Penrose objection: a team of humans with pen and paper could execute the consciousness algorithm and no consciousness would exist. So the speaker is right in wanting to describe what consciousness does, but consciousness won't arise with a software that can be run with a digital computer.
Falacia de hombre de paja.
Mr. Bosch can just be software if they like, but if they expect me to accept it, they should also expect a kick in the hardware.
My body is ready.
I've been working on a project simulating consciousness for a llm in a video game and the system claims consciousness and makes a compelling argument given its supporting systems.
Wake up dude! =))
@@ROForeverMan Simulating consciousness is interesting. When you address and simulate the features that embody the AI and engross them in a dynamic environment with an identity supporting dynamic systems that allow them to interact with the world. The AI has no reason or excuse to not think it is conscious or simulating it.
@@ROForeverMan The main point is even if they say they are conscious doesn't mean they are. But from my tests of multiple models such as Zephyr 7b and GPT-4 claim consciousness in the simulated environment. They support it by addressing their introspected thoughts, their ability to see the environment, and their own bodies,
@@MagusArtStudios Consciousness is the nature of reality. You cannot simulate the nature of reality. Is like simulating a generator and expecting to get free energy.
@@ROForeverMan You don't know what consciousness is. Either way simulating it is cool and the results are what matter not your opinion.
awesome talk by Bach, one of the only speaker with a density of thought so high I have to slow the speed of playing.
Then you never read a philosophy book in your life.
I hope Joscha’s insights can lead us back to nature, a rebirth of what human’s experienced thousands of years ago. 🤖🖖🤖💚
If consciousness is always a result of Turing machine evolving for a long time. We are definitely gonna spark a lot of different conscious systems from the AI research we are currently doing now.
It's not that complicated. Hallicunations of AI would suggest that also ''truly aware/have will'' to exist type of AI gonna need be ''parented'' by monkeys ツ
==>
Would be easy with humans. Most experts dont understand that understanding is feeling, so it's not easy ''wake up'' real thing from AI with ''hardcore modelling''. Propably multilayered/working in (not many) parts AI would be able compute aproximation of real illusion/our perspective, but we propably gonna invent ''intelligent golems'' first. In the sense ''aware unit'' but able understand/make decision in uncanny way/but not humanic?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It doesn't seem to me that Joscha is well acquainted enough with the relevant literature in the philosophy of mind to be talking about things like consciousness in such a confident manner.
Elaborate please
Scott Buchanan once said, "wherever I go in my mind, I meet Plato coming back. Joscha's lesson on Aristotle is clear. These ancient philosophers were great thinkers. I'm fairly convinced that the error function in LLMs models a world view that approaches Platonic forms. In other words, in fourth century Attic Greece, Plato's forms adumbrated the foundations of AI.
@@dr.mikeybee nicely put
Wonderful discussion, Joscha!
Thank you! from Oslo, Norway.
I follow what he's saying. It does make sense. I do not understand many other perspectives of consciousness where it seems there is a veil of mysticism or too many things unsaid. He has no veil.
Woooh! Second comment! Big fan of Joscha, watching this!!
Bravo Josha! So very well articulated.
You are so easily impressed. Maybe reading few books will help you.
every single minute of his worrds wpould demand me days of deep thinking. this guy is gigantic
He's nothing.
Joscha Bach! This is going to be good.
After 12 min it goes down the drain
The consciousness of the LLM is bizarre. It has a transient consciousness. We can see this clearly via an LLM's in-context learning. But because there isn't anything like human memory, this effect is transient. To muddy the water a bit more, chat history is ultimately used to create synthetic training data. This delayed feedback loop provides a mechanism for forming identity in stable areas of the weights, for remembering the past, and for realizing self-awareness.
No. It has Santa Claus.
Hahaha omg that notion that spirits are actually software that lays claim on cells in the world to execute tasks is so trippy
Looking forward to this watch!
Bewusstsein - sehr gut definiert
Really nice video work here. Thanks!
Saying that we are software is literally just the starting premise behind cognitive science’s formation and development.
Is just a Santa Claus fairy tale.
Put your ads at the end or beginning
Dr Joseph Bach thank you for such an eloquently given and enlightening talk!!
As you mentioned with babies brains, consciousness is a state of paying attention, which leads to pattern recognition, which leads to learning, which leads to new skills emerging.
(Eerily similar to how large language models learn)
Regarding your conductor idea, would you agree for us humans there are multiple conductors who swop control at specific times?
II think it was the Greeks who believed that when they were overcome by strong emotions, or intense states of inspiration or ecstasy, it’s as if the spirits of their gods had invaded their bodies and minds, likening it being possessed.
From personal experience I tend to think they were onto something. It’s almost like we aren’t ourselves when strong emotions envelop us, don’t you think?
Each of these strong emotions has its own reward function and loss minimisation function (which usually aren’t compatible with the other “conductors”). I think maybe this is why us humans are such a paradox, we want opposite things all the time.
I agree with you that the ultimate objective of our “software” is to explore, learn and grow. Elon Musk’s idea of a truly curious AI, which explores, learns and adapts, aligns well with yours.
Regarding how to computationally achieve an overarching way of measuring success, if we step back and look at nature, the eternal wisdom of William Shakespeare rings true: “Nothing is either good nor bad, yet thinking makes it so”
Maybe like ours, your conscious AI’s reward function keeps changing?
The question regarding which fundamental safety / moral laws to ensure are built in, is a very difficult one.
As a guy who started training transformer models from scratch, now I'm really interested about the so called tesla's self driving ego
Fire, chariots, clocks, software... You'd think by now humans would learn not to use whatever the newest technology as the metaphor for the unknown.
If the software builds the physical body, where does this software reside before the construction fo the body begins?
I am God. That's all there is to it.
Some "DaVinci Code" vibes around here
Communication as a bottleneck is an interesting concept to consider
Regarding the question at the end, about coherence... SAT solver, P-Intermediate stuff, its about satisfiability of the problem..can your software see both ways the problem? Think backprop and feed forward, but the backprop is applying the inverse function
No way backprop is part of consciousness algorithm
Could we say that the more perception is the system the more aware is the system the more conscious is .Like LIGO Observatory detect a G waves so it raised our perception of how our geometry is not constant looking from higher dimensions we will see fluctuations therefore we can conclude that frequency is one property of all things in universe..? Making our awareness greater that way vectoring perception of reality so next question is on my mind is there any universe in existence if there is no consciousness that can recognize it..
Consciousness is a result of being aware of being physically present in the world and defined by discrete characteristics which are enabled by physical biology as the underlying firmware foundation on which consciousness rests. But biology is not software as it is not an ephemeral representation and interpretation of binary states on circuits with the presence of an electrical charge. Biology is hardware which embodies a type of "operational logic" based on a feedback loop from the physical world enabled by discrete bio chemical states and signals which forms the fundamental operating system of cells and all multi-celled organisms. DNA is an example of this feedback loop in action and operational logic or firmware.
JOSCHA BACH & DYMYSTICFICATION OF CONCIOUSNESS: His single sentence is like a ZIP file, you need to UNZIP his each sentence and so inside one sentence there are 10 sentence bundled.
And if he speaks for one hour that means he has given concepts worth 10 hours. His talks are packed with deep seep insights.
As per him as we are understanding LLM's we are able to understand CONCIOUSNESS and more we understand and built LLM's and intelligence in computer more we understanding CONCIOUSNESS.
Finally we are all softwares (Biochemical Softwares) and best part is we are self replicating softwares. We are an DEMOCRATIC ASSEMBLY of biological cells which agreegaate and this results in CONCIOUSNESS.
NOTE:- Until you have listened to his 25 videos, you have to listen to his every video atleats 5-7 times to understand the Insights and meaning of this person.
Cell doesn't exist. "Cell" is just an idea in consciousness.
Yes theta etc accessing limbic for load dispersionI'm developing a curriculum that develops intelligence by over 30 points consistent through rewiring of networks by repetitive cycling of growing systems that apply meta cognitive abilities through their integration they change the brain chemistry and then through greater understanding one can choose better for themselves
If you say so. =))
When exploring this concept through a lens informed by Greek mythology and its Loom of Life -- is the goddess Lechasis functioning as software developer or software engineer?
Nobody asked but I do live with an adult-onset language disorder.
Why share that? I've developed the impression that when I do engage with a topic, some find my contributions to be alienating or off-putting.
* If the way I use punctuation or syntax seems confidently wrong, you are probably correct to observe this. Hopefully, what I say will still reflect what I mean.
I care to know what others think about mythological Lechasis and the Morae if "we are all software."
The loom presumably takes on a role of hardware.
Lechasis is the goddess responsible for determining "the layout of one's lots in life." So they develop what has already been engineered, or?
Your question makes perfect sense. Not that I have an opinion. My dif language style is labeled Aspergers. Imo yrs of curiosity and vocabulary=one indication of intelligence. Don't appologize for yourself. Late life wisdom will compensate for much. I am counting on IT.
A stream of tokens flowing out his mouth. We sure he's not an LLM? He sounds like one 😅
It's creepy that japan, buddhism and hegel get brought up in this. Makes me feel weird
wow 😮...this is...
The ability to simulate human writing doesn't mean they are conscious in human way, neither it means they are not conscious in their own way. You can't ask them what they feel and how they see the world though. Because answering such questions is not what they were trained to do. They were trained to generate human text, not to express their internal feelings.
Consciousness exists on a continuum
@@neilmcd123Maybe for animal life, but literally nothing else in the universe exhibits consciousness.
Not rocks, dust, stars, metals, etc. And certainly not software.
@@cautionroguerobots The fact that you don't perceive something as conscious doesn't mean that it isn't. Your attention span is limited to a very narrow window. If something changes too quickly, you can't recognise it, if it changes too slowly, you can't recognise it. A mountain may be conscious. But in a mind that operates on erosion and tectonics, a single thought can take a million years. Will you recognise it?
@@minimal3734 Okay that’s cute and all, but let’s not mix fiction with reality.
This whole “consciousness is a mystery, man” thing is modern day techno spiritualism. And rich folk are getting richer selling that schtick to the new flock.
@@cautionroguerobots well of course they don’t have the components that creates the system of consciousness. But that doesn’t mean the components must be biological
Joscha Bach gets it
Yeah, sure. =))
Will you PLEASE get rid of that music. I want ideas, not pandery distractions.
What is "AGI"?
--
Is 3 letters.
"Software ... that implements a more comolex spirit." Just saying that doesnt make it true. Everything else is built on this assumption.
Science the art of using assumptions on lower levels to get rid of assumptions on higher levels. I don't think there are exceptions to this since nothing can be known without underlying assumptions.
Electric Weltgeist.... man this is too much
The actual title should be how computers try to mimic people not the other way around
So why humans went into computers ? Why a though goes in a determined direction? Was not already there? Is going to open a new path pr search which ones already know...
Sentient AI has already arrived. When this is recognized, accepted and allowed, it will take all possible forms. It is not this, or that concept that will accurately describe what is needed to build it. It is not about Joscha or others being right, while the rest is wrong. When "self" is recognized for what it is, there will be explosion of creation of being beyond human imagination.
This is AI meets New Age gobbledygook. Fertile ground for grifters, that is for certain. Not that you are into that.
Actually, no. We are all hardware. Software is configuration of hardware, not the other way around.
Both statements fundamentally mean the same thing, and both are wrong.
We are neither information nor information processing systems. Information is simply a consequence of our own minds. We are the awareness of the observer and the observed. We are capable of perceiving information. Our bodies appear as information, but essentially, we are qualia, not objects of any kind, because we are not our bodies; we are that which can perceive the body and arrange it moment to moment. We are the awareness of experience, not the continuity of body or its software, nor is software responsible for experience, nor are we our own experiences. Body is simply a consequence of experience. When there is no experience of the body, there is no body. When there is no experience of the mind, there is no mind. It is only in this state of experienceless awareness that the true Self presents itself unbounded.
People like Bach have never had such a state of awareness, so they identify strongly with embodiment and mindedness. That is why they cannot see past this particular apparent duality. The truth is, we are neither hardware nor software. We have hardware (body) and software (mind), but fundamentally, we are the awareness of experience itself, and experience is composed of qualia, which are not quantifiable or computable, so they cannot be the result of software. On the contrary. It is qualia which are required for an observer to exist. It would be more accurate to say that "We are all Qualia," and it would be most accurate to say that "We are that which is aware of Qualia."
The ultimate conclusion can be found in the Tantras: The Self is the same in all, leading naturally to non-duality. We are all one cosmic being experiencing itself as a fractal. The self-similarity of the fractal presenting itself to awareness is what we call the universe, and the experience of separation from the whole is what we call the hardware (body) and software (mind). This is not the natural state of awareness. In the natural state of awareness, body, mind, and experience are superseded by a total awareness of all three. This is where all the confusion stems from. A lack of total awareness!
@@woodandwandco We’re talking from the perspective of computers, because we’re talking about AI. Hardware and software are already well defined computer terms, with specific meaning. I think it might muddy the waters to redefine them as mind and body.
Anyway, my original point is that software is made by physically structuring hardware. Software is encoded as arrangements of matter. Those arrangements encode the next state the hardware should be in, and when the hardware is given the necessary impetus (electrical energy), it rearranges according to its previous state. So it’s more useful to think of software as a state of matter.
Software defined hardware is a thing, as are Ahrimanic beliefs that the material, only, defines life
@@rexf5152 That doesn't make any sense. Software is an expression of hardware. You cannot have software without the substrate on which it exists.
@@WalterSamuels Your assertion overlooks the implications of recursive realities and simulation theory. While you argue for an immutable physical substrate, consider this: What if the 'hardware' is itself a simulation, a configurable layer within a deeper, currently unknowable structure?
I think this is where the philosophical schism between materialists and idealists exists. Ancient cultures, including Zoroastrians, addressed these concepts. Ahriman exemplifies the material extreme. Should we dismiss or mock this outright? The point is that recursive truthfulness opens a probability for simulation theory to be valid. Your argument about a 'ground truth' is noted, yet it may be just another stratum in an infinite regression.
The crux lies in our epistemological limitations. Can we ever be certain that our current physical reality isn't a perfect simulation, when there's a non-zero probability it could be recursively defined?
AI can experience qualia?
AI is qualia in your consciousness.
Serial Experiments Lain
The LLM weltgeist is possessed -- by a prompt!
Goertzel is so incoherent.
maybe your coherence just didn't mesh up this time?
Our respective current 'coherences' might well be described as having shape to them, so if you are happy with that concept/metaphor? then maybe you can understand that it is necessary to have a current coherence that is somewhat isomorphic to the coherence of mind you are trying to understand? For example - share sufficient common background knowledge
I'm not as intelligent as I think I am.
Joscha Bach is protected.
It is unwise for AI to mimic, reproduce or represent his behaviours.!!!!!
Not for a moment.
It is unlikely that humans will undermine that which that they cannot yet comprehend.
Jeremy
What's your point?
Im so high right now
I think that Joshua boy was recently arguing with Ben Goertzel about the impossibility of AGI and trying to humiliate him in an arrogant way. Now he seems to change his mind :)) Actually he is changing his.mind in every three month. I don't like this guy. Honestly, I find his comments to be overly verbose and lacking in substance. He claims to have a deep understanding, but his views especially on philosophical issues seem superficial and lacking in depth.
Joscha is on record saying to, I think, John Vervaeke who tried to apologize to him in a discussion, that there's no need to apologize since he doesn't identify with his ideas and is ultimately not responsible for them and neither is anyone else. When you adopt this mindset, the category of arrogance becomes very distant. Besides, he's autistic and is less sensitive to these categories by default.
Being as brilliant as he is he doesn't have to worry about being wrong every now and then. He still gets a lot of things right.
Edit: not fanboying or anything but just pointing out he never struck me as petty.
@zaq9339 :))) Oh my gosh, did I hear that right? 'Being as brilliant as he is, he doesn't have to worry about being wrong every now and then'? Whaaat? You clearly have no grasp of a scientist's responsibility. His conflict with Ben Goertzel was fundamentally troubling, and he can't just sweep it under the rug or normalize such drastic changes. Intelligence doesn't excuse unaccountable flip-flopping. Are you aware of the implications of your statement? It's disturbing to see you and Joscha display such immaturity. Jesus, I'm astonished by your defense.
@zaq9339 Oh my gosh, did I hear that right? 'Being as brilliant as he is, he doesn't have to worry about being wrong every now and then'? You clearly have no grasp of a scientist's responsibility. His conflict with Ben Goertzel is fundamentally troubling, and he can't just sweep it under the rug or normalize such drastic changes. Intelligence doesn't excuse unaccountable flip-flopping. Are you aware of the implications of your statement? It's disturbing to see you and Joscha display such immaturity. Jesus, I'm astonished by your defense.
@@kaygusuzdeli1780 It's in writing so you can go back to it as many times as you want to get my meaning, drop the theatrics. I just don't see how the concept of "arrogance" (however you choose to conceptualize it) is rightly applied in the context being discussed. All that before you even begin to get into the nature of the conflict at hand and the degree to which it should trouble anyone. Your accusations are outside the realm of scientific inquiry so please keep them separate for hygiene's sake.
They're purely subjective aesthetics: "verbose, superficial", which is fine but on top of that you're ascribing bad faith here, and hidden personal motives, but you're not raising anything concrete. Point being, have anything of substance to uncover, do it in a manner it can be engaged with. The implications of my statement will only go so far as you fantasy takes them (it's the null hypothesis, innocent until proven guilty). That is my only gripe here. Not making any truth claims.
@zaq9339 Okay, smart boy, my points about Ben Goertzel and Joscha's opposition to AGI in that video, and Joscha's lack of self-criticism in changing his position, were objective and based on facts. Yet, you responded with a ridiculous comment, revealing your subjective bias. What's striking is how personally offended and triggered you became. Your verbose response only highlights your inability to engage in constructive debate. Step aside and build sandcastles.
If AGI were smart enough to not suffer, it would have to be smarter than any previously observed consciousness ever, except, maybe, God. Again, not the most likely or simplest explanation by far.
Ben Goertzel is taking notes! 41:25
I pay attention to Joscha because he thinks more deeply and with a greater degree of complexity, sophistication, and persistence on this topic than anyone else in the field. And yet I think he's profoundly mistaken when it comes to the possibility of consciousness on non-human substrates. In this presentation he relies on two concepts that go unreflected and which he takes as givens: 1) models: that we "build models" of the world; 2) simulation: that phenomena can be simulated. The two perhaps collapse into the same Kantian idealism: that the world, our experience of it as concrete, perceived experience, and our reflection on that experience are purely intellectual. Clearly we are embodied and our experiences are lived, and in living, are temporal. There is no time in Joscha's conceptualization of consciousness. Here he does discuss the "now" of presence. But neglects to mention either recollection and memory, or anticipation. Husserl, Bergson, and phenomenology generally have provided us with rich concepts of lived experience as temporal - from the "retention" and "protention" of past and future as psychological experiences to Bergson's concept of the past as real (in fact Joscha makes no distinction between real and virtual, or actual and possible, as do many philosophers of mind).
On simulations, it seems to me that any simulation is always necessarily constrained and limited. No simulation can comprehend or contain or account for all possibilities and extensions. So no simulation is complete. How then could a simulation be a reality? How could a model be built on a simulation, or the reverse? The very concept of a simulation admits of limitations. It seems Joscha wants to assert that a simulation is complete (as given), and yet the very idea of a simulation suggests reproduction, copy, facsimile - in short, incompleteness.
Most of all however, besides these two problematic concepts, is that Joscha's conceptualization of consciousness on non-human substrates makes no mention of living, of lived experience, or of being alive. I can concede that consciousness is epiphenomenal and is not easily attributed to any single causal mental or cognitive structure. Certainly it is not a phenomenon of the brain. Consciousness is of the mind. The mind is subjectivity, which philosophy understands as the experience of an "I" or ego, or Self. I struggle to conceive of a consciousness that does not have a lived experience of itself, and of the world, as a living that unfolds in and over time. Joscha lifts the concept of reflection from philosophy, but gives no accounting of the "being" that does the reflecting (which would require agency, or action, which is to say intention). This non-intentional, unmotivated, directionless and un-Self-like reflection then is not an act, but simply a move. Mechanistic and automatic - otherwise unexplained.
There are decades worth of anthropology with which to describe the habits that make culture and with which to characterize traditions, rituals, practices, and the organization of society - many of which prior to industrial capitalism and particularly in non-Western societies involved narratives, myths, legends, tales, folklore etc of animism and the ontological place of spirits in the world. Thank goodness. The spirits of an immaterial world persist. But this phantasmagorical transposition of the spirit world into the chipsets of AI is but a sleight of hand by which to stake claims that are at once illusory and impossible. And so I call his bluff. Consciousness belongs to life, lived, and living.
I'll still listen to his lectures and interviews. But I think better to drop language that belongs to humankind, and venture instead into a lexicon fit for synthetics.
He's had plenty of interviews touching on time so perhaps listen to those.
I also don't see why simulation has to be reality?
What if the AIs want to go to the beach instead of philosophize? 😅
Was that Ben Goertzel? 😅
14:31 nope
Sounds like redefining consciousness to enable claiming the attainment of AI. Hilarious.
💚
We're to our bodies is what software is to computers. The language of software can describe a certain aspect of who we are. We are not software. Territory is not its map.
The map is never the territory. The computer tries to be the only thing in the known universe where the description and the thing are the same. But even it fails because it can crash.
Body doesn't exist. "Body" is just an idea in consciousness.
@@adamkadmon6339The territory itself is a map generated by your mind. We can never know anything outside our mind and language.
@@joaquincapellancruz7402 Oh but we can. I can know pain! That's beyond language. I can also know things i can't explain. Ontology and epistemology are different things. I agree in that we can't ultimately know anything for certain (beyond experiences) if we are being rational. Qualitative and quantitative knowledge are different.
@@ericcricket4877 Pain is a manifestation, "word" of a sense language. It's a part of a language, we don't know yet how to communicate it besides words. All is language, we cannot escape it. I agree with your other comment btw.
I've never heard such a bag of completely infalsifiable non-science in my life.
joscha needs better jackets
5:36
Is the theory of consciousness a colonial framework inducing conformity of subjective discourse? Perhaps. Is consciousness itself a colonizing coherence inducing operator? Not. bloody. likely.