"And one way of communicating just how computationally powerful this is - is to look at syndromes where binding partially breaks down, whether Simultanagnosia, where someone with simultanagnosia can literally only see one object at once, or motion blindness (technically Cerebral Akinetopsia) where someone cannot apprehend dynamic motion" brillant
Very interesting. Unsure how this can square with reductive physicalism though, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't acknowledge unitary, holistic structures as causally potent in their own right. All the causal work is being done by micro-constituents. And if this is the case, the "whole" vanishes and there is no binding unity, and thus, under such a framework, the binding problem remains.
If we do zoom in one day with instrumentation precise enough and all we see is irrelevant noise, then that is when I will be willing to accept the simulation hypothesis.
No. The binding was intrinsic to the system before cognition was ever a goal. Cytoskeletal structures compute using a nested frequency system that IS fractally based. This fractal architecture evolved by adding to according to the primitive formalism. "Binding" therefore is just the nature of the ask/answer in that it places the query at the center. The "discrete" theory is wrong. There is no problem. Note this video is 2014. So old according to neurobiology research, it can't possibly contribute to the state of the art. Anirban Bandyopadhyay's current whole-brain protein clocking map is bound computationally.
Alan, the conjecture that what naive neuroscanning calls phenomenal binding via synchrony - a mere restatement of the binding problem, not a solution - is really binding via superposition is indeed _extremely_ far-fetched. Decoherence means the effective lifetime of neuronal "cat states" in the CNS is femtoseconds or less. But nonetheless, this is a conjecture to be (dis)confirmed by experiment, i.e. molecular matter-wave interferometry, not appeals to philosophical intuition. I say a bit more on the intrinsic nature argument and phenomenal binding e.g. here: www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-Philip-Goffs-Galileo-s-error-Does-this-book-teach-us-something-new-about-consciousness/answer/David-Pearce-18
@@scfu Indeed. Was just elaborating on the whole 'woo' element you referenced in the barren comments section of this video: ruclips.net/video/PTMzD8DHYqE/видео.html
My heart sinks too when anyone mentions "quantum" and "consciousness" in the same sentence. So I don't blame you for stopping the video! But I think the question to ask anyone with a theory of consiousness is brutally simple: www.quora.com/If-consciousness-is-fundamental-what-predictions-does-it-make/answer/David-Pearce-18
@@DavidPearce1 Hi, David. I have translated your article on non-materialist physicalism into Russian. ruclips.net/video/Z8CUpu91Uyw/видео.html hope you are not against the popularization of your works in other languages :)
Yes! You've got it! The "mystical" experience infers only an aspect of mystery. All mysteries can be solved and all realities fall into the realm of being governed by physics. There is no "supernatural", just as there is no "non-physical" aside from emotion, which we are not yet equipped to investigate. That is the level of play we are aspiring to right now. Join the Remnants of Tomorrow group on Facebook or tune into Soul Mechanics here on RUclips and assist in our evolutionary endeavor!
The soft bass note at the end of the video is a very appropriate qualia describing this astonishing problem
"And one way of communicating just how computationally powerful this is - is to look at syndromes where binding partially breaks down, whether Simultanagnosia, where someone with simultanagnosia can literally only see one object at once, or motion blindness (technically Cerebral Akinetopsia) where someone cannot apprehend dynamic motion" brillant
These are great! Pearce for me unites (binds, if you will) several of the domains most germane to getting to the delights of existence.
The binding problem. So few contents on RUclips about this problem. Thank you
@ 5:35. Eric Schwitzgebel
Thank you very much
Very interesting. Unsure how this can square with reductive physicalism though, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't acknowledge unitary, holistic structures as causally potent in their own right. All the causal work is being done by micro-constituents. And if this is the case, the "whole" vanishes and there is no binding unity, and thus, under such a framework, the binding problem remains.
If we do zoom in one day with instrumentation precise enough and all we see is irrelevant noise, then that is when I will be willing to accept the simulation hypothesis.
No. The binding was intrinsic to the system before cognition was ever a goal. Cytoskeletal structures compute using a nested frequency system that IS fractally based. This fractal architecture evolved by adding to according to the primitive formalism.
"Binding" therefore is just the nature of the ask/answer in that it places the query at the center.
The "discrete" theory is wrong. There is no problem.
Note this video is 2014. So old according to neurobiology research, it can't possibly contribute to the state of the art.
Anirban Bandyopadhyay's current whole-brain protein clocking map is bound computationally.
Wow!
Thanks for the heads-up on the whole-brain protein clocking map. I had no idea.
Huh?
Alan, the conjecture that what naive neuroscanning calls phenomenal binding via synchrony - a mere restatement of the binding problem, not a solution - is really binding via superposition is indeed _extremely_ far-fetched. Decoherence means the effective lifetime of neuronal "cat states" in the CNS is femtoseconds or less. But nonetheless, this is a conjecture to be (dis)confirmed by experiment, i.e. molecular matter-wave interferometry, not appeals to philosophical intuition.
I say a bit more on the intrinsic nature argument and phenomenal binding e.g. here:
www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-Philip-Goffs-Galileo-s-error-Does-this-book-teach-us-something-new-about-consciousness/answer/David-Pearce-18
Haha this guy uses such a colourful language :-)
Ps population of the US isn't 235 million, he was out 100million but what does that matter to a synchronic reductionist ??
At 2:00 I stopped the video at the mention of "quantum". That is all for now.
the word 'quantum' is mixed up in a lot of woo isn't it?
Though just a mention of quantum as part of a hypothesis doesn't automatically make it woo.
You missed out on a good talk. It pays to be open minded.
@@scfu Indeed. Was just elaborating on the whole 'woo' element you referenced in the barren comments section of this video: ruclips.net/video/PTMzD8DHYqE/видео.html
My heart sinks too when anyone mentions "quantum" and "consciousness" in the same sentence. So I don't blame you for stopping the video! But I think the question to ask anyone with a theory of consiousness is brutally simple:
www.quora.com/If-consciousness-is-fundamental-what-predictions-does-it-make/answer/David-Pearce-18
@@DavidPearce1 Hi, David. I have translated your article on non-materialist physicalism into Russian. ruclips.net/video/Z8CUpu91Uyw/видео.html
hope you are not against the popularization of your works in other languages :)
Yes! You've got it! The "mystical" experience infers only an aspect of mystery. All mysteries can be solved and all realities fall into the realm of being governed by physics. There is no "supernatural", just as there is no "non-physical" aside from emotion, which we are not yet equipped to investigate. That is the level of play we are aspiring to right now. Join the Remnants of Tomorrow group on Facebook or tune into Soul Mechanics here on RUclips and assist in our evolutionary endeavor!
Gary Busey