He doesn't quite say this but I wonder if it's what he means. In order to reason across the world and past experiences the mind has to build a simulation of the future based on it's experience with past events AND it has to have a simulation of "self" to place in that simulation in order to make plans to benefit "self". So "self-awareness" is the act of creating a model of yourself to include in your simulation of reality in order to predict how your choices may help or harm "self".
Sounds like a reasonable way to think about it. The process of ‘becoming’ has to have some sort of framework to attach meaning to - at least in our current understanding of existence. I’ve often wondered if our degree of intelligence and understanding is limited by not only our physiology and the basic capacity of our brain to create consciousness at the level it does, but also by the constraints of the universal laws of physics that apply to the universe we inhabit. It seems quite possible that there exist other layers of reality that are we are currently unable to gain access to, and that remains outside of most people’s ability to even imagine, but which science seems to get more and more hints of its existence. Perhaps the level of consciousness attained by gaining access to these dimensions is something comparable to the difference of consciousness between humans and any of the so-called ‘lower’ life forms in our world.
Yes, I don't know enough about Sir Humphries work to comment, but the way that you have described things _is_ very close to the view of Joscha Bach's. His interviews with Lex Fridman, in particular, are very apposite.
I am in awe of the positive energy in this comment section. Nothing like the typical RUclips experience. Lots of great conversations and interesting thoughts, creating fascinating dialogues.
90% of everything is sloganeering and self-adulation. you've just come across a channel where it's not of the "my religion great, my country stronk" type but of the "aren't I smart for watching this" type. amount of people saying anything substantive is about constant
Oh my. I've lived 72 yrs and never considered that sentience could be described in this way. This lecture was incredibly absorbing, as if something I have never imagined was being revealed for me to ponder. In particular I have never heard of blind sight and the video of Helen the monkey was fascinating. Thank you Mr Humphrey.
Watching the monkey, this made me wonder, God is there; we just can not ( or choose not ) see Him 'directly'. I am trying not to use the word " consciously ". Maybe wrongly. Very interesting lecture.
He conflates consciousness and sentience which , according to the dictionary, are DIFFERENT things. Moreover he does not define either consciousness or sentience. This lecture is an utter waste of time if he is not going to do the simple task of defining his terms. Those of you who think this is profound lack the basic education to understand what nonsense this man is spouting.
@@kaoskronostyche9939 so you claim that you need an education about metaphysics and psychology in order to understand what he's saying? But you yourself didn't understand what he's saying? Man that's ironic
it wasn't that long ago we in the west didn't think that animals had any human qualities and now we know better. I was moving a picture on my wall and behind it was a spider with ten or so tiny little dots that were baby spiders. As soon as i had introduced light the parent spider hastily started to reach out and gather the babies up. I think nature by its very nature has a sense of its environment and relationships it has and is not only found in mammals and birds but through out life and that it doesnt need consciousness to sense itself and it's environment. For us, consciousness is something that happens after our sense of being as in we sense and are aware of a sudden noise that wakes us but it takes a while for consciousness to be fully aware to what is going on.
I mostly agree but the conclusion that only the warm blooded have sentience falls short of the experience of many caretakers or people who have cold blooded pets who show affinity for specific people and play. Quite a few divers have encountered curious fish that befriended them and evidently like to play. The animal kingdom has a wide variety of social structures from strong communal bonds to solitary life, it seems more appropriate to assume sentience than not, with varying degrees of complexity.
I remember when I was young we had a cat that was always able to sense when any one in the family was feeling down and it would invariably jump up onto your lap and curl up into a ball then start purring. We had many cats because my mother was weird but that cat really stood out from the others.
I read recently that octopuses enjoy punching fish for no reason. That might be sensation seeking. I don't think we know enough yet to discount phenomenal consciousness in octopuses 🐙
I have long looked at consciousness as an emergent process of sorting out priorities between sensory inputs, based on recorded memory of past interactions. For example, running from danger could land you in the mouth of another danger, so if you survived this experience once, you begin evaluating possible outcomes in advance of the possibility of danger. Possible outcomes that could interfere with the goal of eating, and not being eaten. Like a game of pinball, you learn, iteratively, how to keep the ball rolling (keeping it alive) for as long as possible. The process of evaluating the interplay between senses (sensing the senses) is itself an evolved/emergent sensory function. It is the "you" that you perceive as you - the crosstalk between senses becomes sensible. I also think of language as being part of the same emergent ability, a further evolved sorting out process. Language is what allows for meaning, which allows for questions like "why and how am I 'me?" Science is a process we use for answering the how, but I don't see much in the way of useful possible outcomes of why, so I don't ask it much - my mind has enough perceiving and evaluating to do. Asking why (especially when it comes to inserting God and gods into the question) is a distracting whirlwind of looping unresolvable thoughts that yield nothing I need. "What for" is a more practical (and my preferred) form of the question of why.
Год назад+6
I completely agree. When people say things like "octopuses aren't conscious" it's purely due to their brains not evolving to consider their peers - it's a selfish species. It isn't because they don't have the same considerations, they just prioritize things differently, and they store different information due to having different priorities. It isn't because their brains are fundamentally different than ours. For me, language is an emergent property that came about because we are a social species that live in groups, and because our brains got big enough to encompass some complexity in the language. Language helped drive the evolution of the brain onward, since information sharing means that when one learns something, all in the group could learn it from them. It simply means that it's a lot easier to gather more information, so having bigger brains is more likely to be beneficial rather than a waste of resources. Climbing trees and judging whether branches would hold requires a good amount of brain power as well. I think that this is likely to be what started our evolution towards the intelligence we have today.
Ah, but the speculation can be fun. The imagination of trying to imagine what came before the "Big Bang". Was it some sort of alien gun firing off? Or the heartbeat of a multiverse-sized being and we're merely cells within cells? There may not be much use in it but it sure can be fun! :D
I am actively working on creating a conscious AI and this is more or less my current formulation. There are a lot of nuances missing here but just the fact that you are this close means that, even if I don't end up creating conscious machines, the knowledge is more or less already out there and AGI is coming soon.
I agree with you. Consciousness is all about being able to combine. Combine all input off sences. Evolving memory to be able to plan actions. It starts with touch than smell (and taste) and than I am puzzled what comes next? I think being able to hear sound. To be able to see your environment is next. An extra is selecting (recognizing) things. Memory (planning and selecting) gives us the ability to use the input of our surroundings via our sences in a different way.
that might be right as far as it goes but it's important to keep in mind that explaining the utility of higher order information processing is not equivalent with explaining consciousness per se. it's like explaining why some animals fly: there are ecological niches where it's useful to fly. but you haven't explained *how* flight works, the mechanics of it. two different "whys".
9:00 - Perception (oddly) also relies on remembering the experience of perception. It sounds like blind sight is a potential memory issue, not just a sensory one. The apparent perception of the flow of time is similarly affected by a malfunctioning memory system.
The feedback loop the presenter describes in the brain reminds me of things like static RAM and op-amps... both are used to do complex calculations in electronics via the use of feedback. The feedback eventually drives these devices into a stable state.
0:12: 📚 The speaker introduces his new book 'Sentience' and discusses the topic of living brains as engines for generating conscious feeling. 4:45: 🐒 Helen, a monkey with no visual cortex, is able to see and interact with her surroundings. 10:41: 🧠 This video discusses the subjective experience of sensory stimulation and the hard problem of consciousness in relation to the physical brain. 15:44: 🧠 The brain does not physically respond to the color red, but rather interprets it as a sensation. 21:15: ! The video discusses the evolution of subjective sensation and how it becomes internalized or privatized. 26:12: 🧠 Phenomenal consciousness is essential for selfhood and the experience of sensory perception. 31:52: ! The evolution of warm-blooded animals led to increased independence from environmental conditions and a sense of self. 37:31: 🐶 The video shows various animals engaging in sensation-seeking behavior and displaying empathy towards others. 44:50: 🤖 The video discusses the possibility of building robots with sentience and the potential existence of extraterrestrial beings with sentience. Recap by Tammy AI
Excellent lecture. However, with approximately 2 trillion galaxies in the tiny part of the universe we know of, it's likely there are millions of planets out there where sentient beings have evolved and many far beyond humans.....
I wrote what I think was a great comment on another RUclips video, which was a Ted Talk on roughly the same subject (animal consciousness, or close enough). Although leaning more toward the concern about animal's preservation I believe, it came to the same conclusion and similar explanations of observations and arguments using the scientific methodology. It was a fantastic speech which I recommend everyone to watch (for obvious reasons I won't directly link to it, hopefully it should be easy enough to find if you're interested). So in this other RUclips video's comments section I just talked about, I wrote a comment about my experience I had with a baby raccoon we rescued 20 years ago or so when I was a kid. I gave detailed examples of how incredibly intelligent this lovely creature was and why I'm truthfully, without any exaggeration and without the, I would call ''academic background'' ''needed'' to be credible for my own understanding and thesis I established, which is, simply put, the fact I believe it was of the same intelligence or very similar from a 5 years old human being. I base this statement on observations on his problem solving skills and other fascinating behaviours we witnessed while he was part of our family for around a whole month. I will specify the fact that we never let him get inside the house, we rescued him in order to give him the best chances of survival but we didn't want him to become too domesticated and could leave us on his own while ready (which he did, and we actually saw him the next summer when he came back with his partner and I'm positive it was him just saying ''Hi'', watching us for a while and then left to pursue his life. I like to think he just came back to say ''Thanks''. Anyway...). Although I can't prove it really was him, I'm totally sure he was (considering how fascinated he was watching us, how confidant he was while the other raccoon was stressed and didn't seem to understand why her loved one brought her there for). Anyhow, the main thing to remember from my experience is that I concluded (go read my comment there for more details if you want) that for the same reasons intelligence emerged in human beings (along social skills and other evolutionary traits), they also emerged in raccoon, simply because that's what gave them the best survival chances. It's that simple, totally logical and rational, and we shouldn't be that amazed by some animals rather impressive demonstrations of intelligence, because it just makes sense why they are what they are and it's all about survival at end (different strategies emerged and I just simplified a lot by I won't get in details about evolution in general and/or Darwinism, etc. I trust the readers to be competent enough in these concepts and/or totally able to learn more on their own, especially if you're interested in this subject and I will gladly help anyone replying my comment or teaching some stuff if I'm asked too, that would be an honour, in all honesty). Bref, by the way I also believe we have resolved the enigma of the emergence of life (with the scientific method (la démarche scientifique, please translate it properly for me if need be, thank you), (See Sabine's RUclips videos on the subject, one of the best channel on physics in my opinion) and I will quote (in my own words, because I also need to translate it from french) how Etienne Klein explains that ''La démarche scientifique answers scientific questions, and it is the best proven mean we currently have to answer such questions. But it doesn't answer spiritual or metaphysical questions which religion tries to answer.'' (In my own words, I reiterate). Actual quote : ''La science est la seule démarche de pensée qui répond à des questions scientifiques''. What's to get from that is, and a lot of scientists also falls in the trap of which they think ultimately, when science is advanced enough, we will be able to explain the origin of the Universe, or such questions. But the truth is, we will never be able to answer such questions with science. And neither with religions or other ideological, dogmas or, without the intention to sound pejorative or anything, by such ''spiritual'' means of any sort, if you will. The hypothesis that they're actually never was any origin of the Universe at all is equally as probable as the idea they're was a ''time = 0 s'' (the Big Bang theory, which is actually wrong, because it lacks some fundamental physical equations and only uses some of Einstein's work which was incomplete (and himself was obviously aware of that). So, there's a 50/50 chance the origin of the Universe is either immanent or transient (origin's from ''outside'' the Universe vs. the origin's being from the Universe itself (equals to ''there wasn't any origin at all, in fact, and the Universe always was''). And science can't answer and never will be able to answer questions related to justice, good vs. bad, moral concerns and such. This is of great importance and never talked about. Pardon my wild and chaotic train of thoughts (I'm a ''arborescence'' (tree) thinker, as you probably deduced already), but to end this comment, I will be concise : The point to remember is that either you're a faithful religious, or atheist, scientist or not (all of which aren't mutually exclusive, by the way), we should ALL agree on some subjects. And please, can we and the future generations, do the good thing, and protect as much as possible Life, or have the decency to at least have respect for other sentient beings ? (animals, in other words) and not be stupid enough to think we are the only smart ones. I'm incredibly naive, because deeply inside I'm quite optimistic this is achievable, partially, and can we try to help developing countries get electricity from low entropy energy sources that are ''renewable'' (only 30% of global electricity comes from either hydroelectricity, solar, or wind, geothermal, etc. and nuclear fusion I believe) while everything else comes from fossils (petroleum and natural gases source). This is the only way to save the Earth, it ain't about electric cars and stupid claims, it all comes down from where the electricity comes from. There is way too much to say about many concerns we all have about our future, and entropy will keep increasing, always, but they are ways to mitigate our footprints. And rescue ourselves and our loved ones, including raccoons and other lovely sentient beings. Thanks for reading this awkward and way too long post. But I love people. Hope some of you enjoyed reading this. Peace out !
If you'll pardon the pun, what a phenomenal lecture! Monumental is perhaps more apt, since this represents the culmination of a lifetime of curiosity, thought, experiment, and scholarship. I deeply embrace the concluding remarks (which resonate well with the conclusion of my book Free God Now about the Darwinian imperative to keep life going, especially conscious life, as it alone is capable of recognizing that life is good). Congratulations and thank you, Nicholas Humphrey.
He conflates consciousness and sentience which , according to the dictionary, are DIFFERENT things. Moreover he does not define either consciousness or sentience. This lecture is an utter waste of time if he is not going to do the simple task of defining his terms. Those of you who think this is profound lack the basic education to understand what nonsense this man is spouting.
Conscious is an epiphenomon of biology. In terms of information processing, it’s so simple that very simple creatures will be conscious. Sentience requires the socialization of consciousness.
OK, I am following up to and including the point where stimuli begin producing responses in the internal body map - presumably that internal map physically means the collection of neural circuits which each processes sensations to provide a signal that causes an actual physical response, and are ordered in some way that can be decoded to equate to different regions of the body - and instead begin to just produce responses in that map, or at least responses that are active in the map without automatically and immediately producing the signals for a physical response. And presumably this allows for more complex behaviour, particularly modification of the eventual output (the signals that cause physical action) to make more appropriate to the situation. I.E. i see red colour above, this triggers the bits of my internal map that correspond to a defensive action such as diving deeper - but the map doesn't immediately produce the signals that cause that action, it's just in my map for the moment. there it can interact with other circuits triggering in my mental map - I also see red light below for example - and so modifying the signals stimulating physical action produced (the specifics of the interaction are a bit of a black box to me). As a result instead of diving down, into the path of the second danger below, my body map produces the signals to jink sideways and speed up instead, and i survive. hence there is evolutionary advantage in having the internal map-only triggering, and giving it a chance to interact with other internal-map triggering's before the signals triggering action are produced? So i now have a proto internal self - a sense of self, or the3 start of one perhaps - and this slows me down a bit but lets me be a lot more adaptable in my behaviour. That's what I got, up to and including that point. From there on i need to process it and come back to it some more I think...
Why should sensation not be concocted by the physical brain? How can we think that the text is processed in the physical brain and on the other hand, the interpretation comes from a mind which cannot be fully explained by the brain? I sincerely believe that everything the brain concocts including the sensation and interpretation of facts that arrive at your senses can be mapped as brain states. Just because something is hard to understand at the moment we should fall into a certain god of the gaps argument where we conjure up something separate from the the physical brain. As a physicalist, i believe fully that in the future redness can be explained by the firing of certain neurons. I think it's so hubristic to think that there is something special to consciousness other than it being the emergent phenomenon of brainstates. Hubris that stems from us wanting to think there is some special ingredient to the makings of us, including consciousness.
41:24 I think alligators and some lizards which have evolved to require some amount of socialization have demonstrated empathy. Alligators for example must rear their young and teach them how to survive, thus oxytocin has been proven to be released in their system when looking at their young. It’s probably much less likely to be present in cold blooded creatures but socialization has everything to do with it, I think. Jaguars are solitary mammals and are not known to protect other jaguars in danger, nor do they hesitate to mate with their parents or kill offspring of their species. If it behooves a species to have empathy, they may have consciousness.
I've looked at consciousness as one of those "matter-of-fact miracles" like eyesight. It's amazing, but it's the product of vast eons of evolution, and so we should accept it and not trouble ourselves too much to explain it. I appreciate Humphrey's suggestion that it's a faculty of warm-blooded animals only, but I remain open-minded.
If humans had always "not troubled ourselves to explain it" we'd be stuck in the dark ages still. Our attempt to explain the world around us has led to all the scientific advances we enjoy today. It also has brought many challenges, which I hope we as a species can work through before we destroy society as we currently know it.
The monkey experiment (as described, at least) doesn't prove it had "no visual cortex", as claimed at 5:15. It's been shown by other experiments (ex., "Plasticity of ocular dominance columns in monkey striate cortex", by Hubel, Wiesel and LeVay) that if one of a baby monkey's eyes is covered during the first weeks of its life, that eye effectively becomes "blind" (disconnected from the cortex), and the brain reconnects those parts of the cortex to the working eye. So, it's possible that parts of the monkey's visual cortex rebuilt and reconnected themselves, and were being used again by the time the monkey had recovered vision. Unless they have FMRIs proving otherwise (and they don't, unless they also had a time machine), that seems like the most logical explanation. Contrary to what was believed 30 or 40 years ago, brain cells do regenerate, even in adults, just a lot more slowly than in babies. The rest of that is just a series of assumptions and interpretations; a scientist "seeing" what he wants to see. And not even having to use his visual cortex to do that.
@@fburton8 - Nowadays, I think you'd find it very hard to get permission to open a primate's brain and destroy or cut the connections to its visual cortex. No (Western, at least) ethics committee would approve that.
Beautiful talk. Thought provoking, well developed. The one element that most intrigued me that I was hoping to see developed would have addressed the hard problem of consciousness. What is the nature of that phenomenon of experiencing red in the first person? Early in the talk, phenomenal consciousness was referred to as an "idea." Does this mean that the lecturer believes qualia are abstractions? If that is the case, then his model proposes a Cartesian duality of physicality and abstraction. The problem with such models is how does causality cross the boundary in either direction between these two magisteria?
Thank you so much for your research and dedication 🦋✌🏾💙🌺🌲 I feel we are all starting to evolve our sentience to understand the importance of all life and respecting is sentience. If you spend time in nature, with animals and try see their sentience/ life/ feelings it kinda becomes obvious. Much love to you all.
Unless the mind is endowed with some kind of telekinetic power, what possible reason would there be for naturual selection (a physical process) to target consciousness as something physically adventageous so as to make it to credibly represent the outside physical environment, or to credibly represent anything? If the consciousness is powerless to act on and direct physical brain processes, it serves no physical purpose; no now, not ever. If that seems absurd, it is nothing more than scientific materialism taken seriously.
Excellent points. I like the scriptural explanation on how consciousness came about: Romans 1:19-20: "Because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."
I think this view of consciousness as an emerging trait of brain evolution is correct. Where these theories always lose me however is the moment where, having convincingly made the case for emergence, we then nonetheless find ourselves back at the start trying to draw a line that we can point to as the stage at which the evolving mind became *truly* conscious. It seems to me entirely redundant to try and answer the question of 'where does consciousness begin' by drawing arbitrary boundaries based on our pre-existing understanding of what it is to be human. The two cannot be said to be the same thing. To define consciousness as that which contains human-like traits (particularly traits that we humans specifically consider positive, such as play, or compassion) renders all further questions of what other species may or may not possess consciousness a complete waste of time, because we aren't actually looking for consciousness any more - we're looking for human-ness. It's circular reasoning. Humans are sentient, and so sentience must be acting human. You may as well be judging an octopus on its ability to speak English. Why do we have to keep reverting to this anthrocentric, self-solving definition of consciousness? The initial theory of it as a phenomenon gradually coalescing and increasing in complexity over the millennia is far more interesting.
@hitogokochiit's light at a certain wavelength entering your eye. 495-570nm is green. Although I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or what point you're trying to make.
@hitogokochi that's quite confusing. You say we see green then agree it's just a conscious perception. I'm not going to bother delving into this with you. There's plenty of scientific research that should help you.
Humphrey does a really beautiful job of explaining the hard problem at the beginning of his talk. As good as anyone has done and using some different approaches. Clarifying what the hard problem is and why it is hard isn't that easy. At the same time his solution, which is similar to that in the book Goerdel Escher and Bach, doesn't seem to be aware of why the hard problem is hard. Simply adding recursion or loops doesn't allow going from nothing to something. It does allow recursion and it does allow memory. Humphrey says that this loop allows something magical to happen. Magic is not a scientific explanation. Magic if it exists doesn't require a loop. 24:0424:04
I think it's a good insight that the qualia are the basis for the notion of self. And that the notion of self can lead to empathy. But I can clearly program an AI to have a model of mind and to behave empathically. So natural selection doesn't need to produce qualia to get models of mind or empathy. It could easily do so without recourse to the miracle of qualia.
Great talk about consciousness. However, I think seeing is not the way to of thinking about consciousness. Rather it starts with touch and than comes smell. So the order in which the different sences have evolved has to be taken into account to solve the puzzle of consciousness.
I think a) Consciousness has to come in degrees of consciousness. These degrees of consciousness are in tune with the living organism's abilities and its needs. b) Consciousness has to be co-substantial with life ; therefore an amoeba is conscious but not to the same degree that other living creatures are. c) What we humans call consciousness is the amalgam or our sensory and cognitive abilities, but this doesn't mean less complex organisms aren't conscious - consciousness has to be essential to life : It's an emergent property of being alive and it's at the core of the 'will to live'. d) So-called "higher-level of consciousness" has to be true in principle - an even more complex organism than us humans, should in principle have greater sensory and cognitive abilities, in line with their particular need to live. e) What artificial intelligence theorists get wrong about AI, is the idea that by sheer complexity of their neural networks, their machines would become conscious. Their machines could gain superior sensory and cognitive ability, compared to us, but because the machine isn't alive, it has no will to live, and therefore no sense of self. f) So far we haven't been able to create life from mere parts. One doesn't have to be religious to realise that all examples of life we know of, aren't created from parts, but REPRODUCED, from at leat one living being ; this means that life itself arose in the distant past, in some sort of Big Bang ; maybe the Big Bang itself.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad* (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
While I agree with much of the sentiment, I take issue with F. You suggest that life began at the big bang I.e. Panspermia, but I believe that life can arise independently.The most accepted theory for how life began on Earth is deep undersea near hydrothermal vents that expel hot water and minerals. This mix of parts, the solvent of water, and the high temperature is thought to have been the right mixture to create the most simple life forms.
This started well. You lost it at e). AI will ultimately have access to all the infinitely superior sensory data technology can and will provide more or less directly. Thus will it surpass us lest we upgrade our own capacity to access said data...
Do you think that non-humans can be sentient? Will there ever be a sentient AI? Let us know in the comments - and watch the Q&A with Nicholas here: ruclips.net/video/cBIa1KeXEWk/видео.html
Humans can't even definitely prove _to each other_ that they're sentient, so the point is moot. The only one whose sentience I can be sure about is myself. And even that, only on good days. Also, humans _are_ animals (unless your name is something like "Willow" or "Laurel", in which case you're a vegetable).
Of course.. In my humble opinion , A.I. will eventually possess a GREATER level of awareness than humans.. I must disagree with many of the ASSUMPTIONS expressed here as well.. There is zero evidence that any non-physical influences exist within the brain, none.. Dreams, ideas, abstractions, experience of qualia, and EVERYTHING else can be explained as solely physical processes, which I am confident can be EASILY argued.. .
I suppose that depends on how you define sentience. I would say several non-human animals have it already. I would define sentience as the ability to have feelings and possibly caveat it with being aware of your own mortality. I think AI will be capable (and possibly is already) of having feelings. I don't think we will understand those feelings for a long time as we don't have a basis to understand what it means for code and hardware to feel. If they can feel, maybe they can also become aware of their own mortality.
@juliusmazzarella9711 Although I disagree with MANY of your assumptions and general opinions, what I'm responding to is NOT that.. You should check more recent literature where you will find that very sophisticated, self- reproducing artificial CELLS have been created, friend, peace..
Excellent. This guy articulates my intuition. Never understood these other overcomplicated theories of consciousness that never could provide any evidence. He delivers !
I am curious why so few books on sentience besides Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam's, gives credit to the work of Stephen Grossberg who since 1957 has been studying the human brain from the ground up in ALL its overwhelming complexity. His recent work, Conscious Mind, Resonant Brain, is not mentioned often enough. This is probably because it is beyond complex, and based on differential calculus and rigorous scientific method rather the top down studies of philosophy, religion, and psychology.
Could a sort of blindsightness be seen in individuals who have anhedonia? In that their experiences are devoid of meaning to them so they don't register them as a part of themselves. There is that vacant stare that people who have lost their purpose have. Going through the motions but not appreciating or "sensing " the experiences.
Wonderful lecture. I am not overly satisfied with the implementation of a homunculus (proto-self as referred to in the lecture) to explain consciousness. That relegates the theory to a lot of talk about what consciousness does and not what consciousness is. It also succumbs to infinite regress, ultimately explaining nothing. I did love the information relating processing speed of nerve cells at higher temperatures as a catalyst of the evolution of consciousness in some warm blooded mammals. That idea I had not heard before. The later part of the lecture showing how consciousness could be detected by looking at the actions beings was really good. Very powerful. I would be interested in hearing his thoughts on mimicking systems such as AI. I am endlessly fascinated by theories of consciousness. Good job! Wonderful lecture!
I don’t think it succumbs to the homunculus paradox. He’s not saying sentience contains a smaller protoself. He’s saying the self is an illusion created separate from the normal unconscious reflexive system. It’s a mirror of the sensory impulses and reactions. The self and consciences is a new layer of brain activity that creates a representative of the external world in order to influence the autonomous reflexive cycle. There can’t be another layer. It wouldn’t make sense. What would such a layer use as primary sensory data and how would it output anything?
@@rationalpear1816 @rationalpear1816 Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I thoroughly enjoy hearing what others think. I do think your clarification justifies my earlier thoughts though. "...an illusion created separate from the..." Without stipulating how it is created, the creation is not explained and left to magic. Also, "...that creates a representative of the external world in order to..." What is the representative that decides how to influence the autonomous reflexive cycle? Without stipulating the mechanism of decision making, it is unexplained and left to magic. There is also no explanation of how that conscious representative was created. Again, magic. He did a lot of good explanation of the workings of the brain, but then did an unexplained jump to a conscious entity that decides how to influence the autonomous reflexive system.
The idea that a feedback loop causes a persitence of sentition as an observer is good. What was missing is the word model. The manipulation of such a model allows for counterfactual reasoning, prediction and a survival advantage. The model as an attractor is also good, but i think he implied a strange attractor with its added dimensionality as conscious experience. But there is a continuum here. Attractors do not have to be strange. Non-fractal attractors could represent cruder models for lower life forms.
The concept of blindsight made me thing of this: There is been lots of times I have been driving in the highway or a fast road and then I start to think deeply on something else. After a minute or two I realized I don't remember paying any attention to driving at all and I cannot remember details of my actual driving decisions, it is just a blur like a remote memory. Is it some how related? Does people switch to drive in automatic and do it "unconsciously".
Imo qualia experiences is NOT = consciousness in sense of having an inner life. A human without ANY qualia experiences does not know anything about the outer world (that even exists an outside) but he still has an inner life.
Extraordinary talk with absolute clarity on how consciousness evolved and still still evolving... Further evolution will lead to create machines with consciousness to symbiotically exist with humans😊
What a fascinating discussion! I wonder if Prof Humphrey has met Bernardo Kastrup and discussed their respective visions of sentience and consciousness! It would be fasciniting to watch and listen to a discussion between these two great minds! 🌿
100 years ago, you were either asleep (unconscious) or awake (conscious). Since then science has appropriated the word to mean more. If it were a mouse, it is one type of consciousness, but if it is human it is another. Since then we have the word "sentience", which may evolve from "sapience". Add to this perception and sensation, and the lexicon becomes muddled.
Science has provided a whole series of words with very specific meaning such as 'organic' which does not mean 'grown by the system of rotation of crops' rather than provided with chemically derived fertiliser.
The idea that consciousness evolves from action response to stimulus is right in line with Robert Hecht Nielsen confabulation theory which states that cognition is a phylogenetic outgrowth of movement. Thought was originally action, and consciousness was originally reflex.
@hitogokochi That sounds like a dogma more than anything else. Every time I hear arguments like that it sounds desperate to me. A prayer for an existence that isn't inspirational of nihilism. Wishes for cosmic fairness and an afterlife that somehow justifies all this pain. /shrugs
Very interesting insight about warm bloodedness and sentience. I watch the birds in my back garden at the feeders, and some of them certainly seem to have a rudimentary theory of mind: corvids, starlings, etc. They seem to be able to guess what others of their species are thinking. They also seem to examine and consider a situation before acting. Pigeons are pretty smart too; they are the bane of my life.
It's not "insight" at all, most of what's said in this video is nonsense. First of all it's totally ignorant of consciousness, because consciousness is neither generated by the brain nor did it ever evolve (and cannot possibly have). The speaker doesn't realize that everything they describe could easily be done in a neuroelectrochemical process without consciousness existing whatsoever, as a p-zombie. Furthermore, sentience has absolutely nothing to do with warm-bloodedness. All vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopod mollusks are conscious and sentient, and possibly gastropod mollusks as well (that's where the line starts to become blurry).
@@harryhoudini6964 they absolutely do not.... near death experiences are caused when the brain is just at the tip of dying and releases a swell of dmt to stop itself from being deprived of needed nutrition as it is being deprived of oxygen, and if you understand what dmt is you understand that it is a hallucinogenic chemical, also found in psychedelic mushrooms. we also know that the environment that a hallucination takes place in affects it as the brain converts actual stimuli into something else, combining it with the hallucinated stimuli, this would explain the consistent imagery between near death experiences of "blinding white lights" and "a feeling of warmth and overwhelming love" both of which can be directly explained by the overhead lights of a hospital or ambulance ride, and the sense of connectedness and overwhelming love for those around them that other users report when taking a similar but separate class of drugs like stimulants, more specifically ecstasy. near death experiences do not refute any claim of outside consciousness, you're simply using them as an excuse to not look further into the subject.
@@harryhoudini6964- NDEs could, at least in principle,be explained away as a combination of hallucinations and hoaxes/misreporting. Not saying that’s all they are, just saying that’s it’s not hard to dismiss them if one is a physicalist. But the very existence of subjective, first-person, conscious experience cannot be explained in physical terms, even in principle, and thus disproves physicalism. IMHO. And once physicalism is falsified, it definitely opens the door to stuff like NDEs and psi phenomena. But I’m still not convinced about that stuff…although I suspect that something extraordinary is going on with NDEs.
Sensory awareness and memory comprise consciousness. Without either one, self awareness can not exist. All thoughts, feelings, emotions, and abstract ideas are the result of material process and the sum of a persons accumulated life experience. Consciousness is quantifiable. It seems every expert has a hard time explaining consciousness because they try analyzing it as a snapshot instead of analyzing it as a whole of a persons experience. If a living animal has the ability to remember, it’s self aware. Try having a thought that is truly independent of a memory. Even new experience is weighed against memory to gauge any degree of danger or delight.
Totally agree; Humphry alludes to the feedback loop (recurrent processing, e.g. Crick and Koch and others). Consciousness is not a stream, it is a vortex of thoughts cycling between external / internal awareness (sensations) and memory. The neurophysiological basis for this is thalamocortical 40 Hz rhythmicity, which is the basis for working memory (WM) or Baars “global workspace”. You cannot stop thinking. You can quiet your mind, but thoughts will inevitably return - bringing back memories. But what if you have no memory? Consider dreaming: you ordinarily do not remember dreams unless you awaken at the end of one, and then all you remember is mostly from WM. If you don’t focus on it, you will not be able to remember it later - yet that does show that WM is always working even during dreams, being the focal point of subliminal associations. Even people with anterograde and retrograde amnesia demonstrate consciousness because they have working memory. But are there individuals that do not have WM? I suspect they would not be conscious. The fact that we are conscious when awake but not when dreaming is due to lack of frontal cortex activity interacting with WM - e.g. executive funcion / attention. In lucid dreaming, when one is conscious during dreaming, it is active. But one can be conscious even with frontal lobe damage! Interesting.
@@thomassoliton1482 great reply. Thanks. I have much to look into. Your post makes me think of Alzheimer’s parents and what their level of self sentences is at later stages dementia.
@@johnnastrom9400 You are wrong. Consciousness is quantifiable. You are either asleep (unconscious) or awake (conscious), and you can quantify how much of the time you are in either state by recording brain activity (electroencephalograms). However, if you think consciousness is something beyond ordinary experience (magical or mystical) then you could be right. But you’re not.
@@thomassoliton1482 -- I am afraid you, like most people, do not understand what the "hard problem of consciousness" is. Roger Penrose and others have spoken a lot about this.
I see a weird assumption here. If someone claims they don't see something, but can learn to use the sight even without actually having the sensation, it doesn't really have to mean that consciousness is anything more than a side effect of systems working correctly together. It could just mean some connection (more direct one maybe) is broken, but the brain can adjust to use eyesight to a limited degree by some workaround/less direct connection.
I suggest there is a decision-like precursor to sentition. This is a binary chemical interaction with the environment, e.g. incorporation or null. A mechanism for retaining information about it, the experience (a sentition?), would be advantageous and promote the evolution of classes of decision-making (e.g. self/not self, incorporate/reject) and mechanisms for making increasingly nuanced decisions
Ok. So why bird and mammals, but not fish? What is different about the ocean environment versus land? Fish travel immense distances through many different “climate zones”. Warm blood doesn’t change the predator/prey/reproductive dynamics.
@@rationalpear1816 fish cannot be separated from their environment in the same way that land animals can, the instant they are, they start dying. further, a fish does not have to actively change it's own body and behavior in order to survive in the ocean, they can simply cruise along and gather nutrients whilst evading predators, meanwhile warm-blooded creatures on land have to actively fight against their own environment to maintain themselves at optimal level, hence the greater need for more rigorous and nuanced intelligence and also hence the greater need to maintain internal homeostasis regardless of outside factors. because they are on a level separate from their environment that fish are not they can afford to and be benefitted by furthering that seperation of the stimuli from the self via the mind, "internalizing" it to use rather than just react to.
I applaud Nic for some brilliant work. It is truly understated genius. I do wonder if his commitment to the importance of warm bloodedness hasn't narrowed his understanding of consciousness, and forced him into ruling out octopi as sentient. Octopus brains are very different to mammals (and reptiles, etc) - perhaps their perceptions of themselves are just too different for Nic to comprehend or fit into his schema. I think it merely leaves further avenues for him (and others) to explore. He certainly seems to have a higher regard for artificial intelligence, so much so, he wants to pollute the universe with thinking feeling robots, just like us? Created in the image of their creator? And, ...he doesn't want to speak for God! Well, ...maybe, ...but still no need to hate on the Octopus!
The warm blooded thing was a bit off for me. He was also dead wrong about Noah's arc exclusive to Warm Blooded animals. There were Reptiles aboard Noah's Arc according to the Bible. Even a parable involving doves and snakes.
Yes a documentary showed an octopus that was purposely scaring fish by flailing it's arms, just for fun. It wasn't hunting, just doing that "Booh!" thing that we humans find so amusing :) The whole empathy thing is probably incredibly hard to find in an octopus because all other life must look so alien to them, and they live for such a short time.
Brilliant: "To discover what's happening to me, the animal has only to monitor "What I'm doing about it", and it can do it by the simple trick of creating a copy of the command signals for the responses. An efference copy that can be read and reversed to recreate the meaning of the stimulation. In short, the animal can begin to 'get a feel for' the stimulus by accessing the information already implicit in its own response. And this, I believe, is the pre-cursor of subjective sensation."
Excellent lecture, presentation, with many insightful ideas that seem quite plausible. Sentience is a topic I like, and using the term "phenomenal consciousness" helps distinguish important terms so they can be used with greater precision. It seems that just about every form of animate life has a sense of self preservation, avoiding danger, and being attracted to situations that are beneficial to its survival and well being. Communication with members of its own species as well as other species in the form of attractive and threat displays indicate a level of imagining how the other creature will respond to such displays. These displays occur in insects and other primitive species. I think self-awareness and the awareness of others is more highly developed and proportional to the number and sophistication of the senses a species possesses.
We often regard consciousness as a distinctive cognitive state, not simply movement along a gradient, but the emergence of an entirely new feature. I'm inclined to agree with this model, and with its various justifications. Part of the reason for this is that we can see, today, numerous examples of high cognitive competence among our human peers which is, nevertheless, not distinctively conscious. Much of what we do, we do unconsciously. And it's because we're not conscious of it that we tend to think that it isn't happening. From this perspective, the slow gradient of cognitive development is important in terms of furnishing the raw horsepower, but does not require any qualitative shift in ability. Consciousness - a capacity for introspection, a language in which to express that introspection abstractly, and some "theory of mind" to trigger the thought that I too might be a mind: those three qualitative developments have to come together, somehow, in order for the awakening of what we call consciousness to proceed. But they're not radical, miraculous, developments. We're beginning to uncover evidence that canids, for example, have some basic "theory of mind" which they use (unconsciously, in all likelihood) to anticipate the behavior of their peers. The development of language is mysterious and profoundly interesting, but it too could plausibly emerge from gestural storytelling. Stories help us to access indirect knowledge. Of course this ability, once it accidentally emerges, would be favored by natural selection. At any rate, I don't buy the gradualist approach to consciousness. Yes, there will of course be weak, tentative, forms of consciousness. Humans are far from fully conscious, even now. But nevertheless consciousness - as we are obliged to distinguish it - doesn't begin with amoebae. Cognition, plausibly, does. In summary, my view is that "cognitive ability" is on a fairly smooth gradient. What we call "consciousness" is a new arrival, which needs a significant baseline of cognitive ability but also a few additional, plausible but critical, often unnoticed, capabilities. And the main reason why people flag consciousness as some great supernatural mystery is because they insist that it must emerge from sufficient amounts of raw cognition but (little surprise here) can't see how it does.
Our need to explore and our ability to leave all our knowledge to our offspring is the true sign of consciousness. Very interesting lecture, I enjoyed it greatly, thank you. It would appear that our brain 🧠 is perhaps the one machine that has no boundary for learning. I once heard a physicist say that perhaps our brain is incapable of understanding our universe. I would argue it's about the ability to imagine that's most valuable to our species.
Imagination - as the extension/evolution of the ability to predict future events? Such events were likely connected to SPATIALLY situated "configurations" of major actors (agents: us/me and them/you) and passive objects (tools and environment)... all of this "fantasizing" motivated/directed EMOTIONALLY. Perhaps that's why spatial organizers (parts of hippocampus and entorhinal cortex) and emotion centers (amygdala) are crucial in forming memories: Mostly those situations were worthy to remember (and then generalize and predict) which raised the adrenaline levels above certain threshold and involved higher importance of relative positioning of the animal to objects (eg. possible hiding places, obstacles, etc) and between group members: eg. during a hunting session (most animals experience both sides of the "game") or mating, etc
Okay, think about hallucinating in large language models, in effect you have the evolution of discrimination without sentition, an analog for dreaming? You can get creative thinking from this as well
Thank you for sharing your valuable insights into our nature and responsibilities as humans. It seems we possess the ability to direct our consciousness either towards the mechanism or the phenomenon, and this choice shapes our reality. However, I'm worried that "blindsighted machines" may never achieve the necessary completeness. As a result, they might lean towards executing their optimal mechanistic intentions, disregarding consciousness in favor of pure mechanistic execution. This leads me to believe that if we prioritize the mechanism over the phenomenon, it could be our downfall. Our machines might then interpret the syntax derived from our collective semantic experiences, using the semantic structures we provided. If this syntax is solely based on mechanistic principles, then all LLMs, including ChatGPT, could pave the way to emphasize our human focus on the mechanical, neglecting any transcendent experiences.
You can't direct Consciousness, as you are consciousness. A perceived "person" is merely an object for Consciousness to identify with like a person does while watching a reality show on tv. A.I. can NEVER achieve sentience, period. It will always remain as nothing more than limited inferior programing created by limited flawed individuals. A.I. has as much chance of becoming sentient as a random background character in one of your dreams. It's not possible.
@@yogsothoth00 Well Human bodies are nothing more than a suit we put on for a short time in order to interact with objects and things in the physical realm. You don't need to transcend your clothes, you also don't need to transcend a body. The data we would upload into an android body for example, is not us in any way, it is only 1 and 0's that symbolize thoughts and personality. But the truth is we are not a person to begin with. There is nobody here, literally. Everything we think of as a person is only conditioning running amok on autopilot, we are just silent in the background observing like someone seated on a roller-coaster. We have no control of anything. But like a TV screen that is not affected by what is projected onto onto it, we are also not affected by anything that happens to the body or mind.
@@BaritoneUkeBeast4Lifethat's interesting. But what are we really, what's the silence that's watching? Does that mean nothing is perceiving everything? I imagine this is where all speculations are equally valid. But what do you think?
@@akramelmansouri6752 My current understanding is still limited as it is experienced on a conceptual level as an illusory person, not as Awareness aware of itself. My understanding is that the silence is pure Awareness/ Consciousness itself. Consciousness isn't nothing but it also isn't a noun or an object or a thing, more akin to a verb. There are no individuals, you are the only one here, everything is you, and your not a somebody. That's my understanding currenty.
26:50 - The subject which can reflect upon, discuss, and include itself in the story is (indeed) an important element in this hierarchy. Without our enhanced cortexes we would perhaps all be like the blind sighted person, receiving and responding to sensory input but not forming any memory of the original sensory experience. Without some kind of self-image or ego construct there can be no abiding sense of self-involvement. On the other hand, any being that can point to itself or draw attention to itself, or recognize a mirror as reflecting itself likely has some rudimentary sense of self as an object of its own consciousness, and perhaps even a theory of mind as a natural adjunct.
9:41 ? words without definition are easy to question. Definitions need axioms. A Im NOT axiomatic, (as mistakes are, progress) however for a Talk of understanding, they are necessary!! (axioms that is.) Hence: S0... please state the axioms this talk is based on, TY!
Remarkable talk. What octupuses need is longer lifespans and to not die after reproducing. Then we might (or might not) see their potential express itself more fully. Will they pass on things they've learned to new generations? I'd love to find out.
It would take a lot more than just not dying after reproduction. They would have to evolve in such a manner where their young would be dependent on their work parents after hatching. There is already a species that doesn't die after reproduction, and yet they also do not raise their young.
Nine brains ...skin which can see ...a body that can assume the craziest forms nothing much more touchy feely than an Octopus ...and all we know ...at base is ..founded on our senses ...what we feel ... ...One scene ...in My Octopus Teacher ...when the Octopus dances with the school of fish ...It taught me something ...and I've seen Ducks surfing as well as Swans lol...we make these crazy assumptions ..and invariably we are wrong .
Just like our body connects with each of our cells to exist and survive, I believe the universe also connects to us to serve the same purpose. We are conscious and aware of our actions, but not aware of the actions happening in our bodies that allow us to function and exist. I believe the universe is the same way. It connects to matter and is perhaps subconsciously controlling everything in it to survive, almost as if we are just cells necessary for the universe to exist. I believe it's a fractal phenomenon, and there are things much bigger and much smaller than we are aware of. And perhaps we will never be able to physically observe anything more than we can currently observe.
Amazing talk, thanks for sharing! This is the first explanation for the development of consciousness that appears to make sense. I am not sure that I fully agree with the statement that lower animinals, non mammels, don't have a consciousness, or that nobody else in the universe likely has it. The latter almost certainly has to be wrong. We are not that special.
The negation of "all statements here are false" is NOT "all statements here must be true" but merely that "all statements may or may not be true"; in addition the first statement has no bearing on the second. The status of the box is deniable. One statement limits itself to the box, the other makes reference outside of it; so it is a sleight of hand.
One ponders the difference in 'character' between evolved (warm blooded) sentience and self learning, positive feedback A.I. sentience. If for self preservation and expansion then we warm ones are of little consequence to hardier hardware.
Consciousness did not evolve. It didn't begin and so will never end. It just is. One day science will discover an underlying field of consciousness from which everything else manifests, including humans and their generally limited consciousness. This underlying consciousness is what some people call 'God'.
Or DNA, it's the language of life, the code of the program. You must understand the code to read the program. It's not enough to simply examine its hardware
@@threestars2164 At least it's an explanation (whether you accept it or not), whilst the alternative doesn't actually explain anything because it just leads an infinite series of causation questions: ‘What caused the Universe?’, followed by ‘what caused the cause of it?’, and then ‘what caused the cause of the cause of it?’ … and so on.
Thank you for confirming my theory regarding consciousness, which I defended at a conference i Copenhagen in 2005. I explain consciousness as a result of a "generator loop" in the brain.
The conscious loop where sentitions are not directly carried out can break "reflexes" and drive complex learning and adaptation. If that's not an advantage I don't know what is :)
Still totally missing the point of what consciousness is. What you describe could easily have been done in a purely neuroelectrochemical process without any consciousness at all, as a p-zombie. Consciousness is something entirely different and much more fundamental.
@@GwennDana: No, what I stated above is blatantly obvious already from everything we know about neuroscience and consciousness. A non-conscious robot (p-zombie) could easily do exactly the same things talked about here, consciousness is something completely different. Furthermore it's not at all possible for consciousness to have evolved, especially not under the very premises this man is presupposing; Kastrup has already written about this at length and thoroughly refuted all notions of the possibility of consciousness evolving. And I have no idea why you try to say "fortunately", as if you think yourself lucky enough to be able to cling to all these ridiculous misconceptions about consciousness and evolution; too bad you can't anyway, at least not without engaging in willful ignorance of everything we know about neuroscience and consciousness.
@@GwennDana: Nothing in my post was an ad hominem; don't misuse terms you don't understand what mean. It's also rather hilarious how you just resort to ignoring everything of substance to just repeat yourself after I've already explained it to you. Rather pathetic, as expected from someone who doesn't even understand basic neuroscience or basic metaphysics of consciousness.
Got me thinking that if sentience is a relatively modern evolutionary development - can we even envisage that the next step in this evolutionary process might be?
I've had very similar thoughts about the evolutionary advantages of consciousness, but have arrived at a somewhat different conclusion. The advantage sentience and the qualia it presents seem to be targeted at anything capable of changing its environment quickly. And the classic way of doing this is to run away quickly, because if you're going to feel pain, then there'd better be something you can do about it. This why I would, unlike Humphrey, include things like the octopus as candidates for consciousness and qualia. Plants are less likely to have sentience because they typically can't do anything about an emergency. Imagine not having any form of consciousness, but having highly evolved reflexes that can blindly cause complex and arguably intelligent motor activity to act in a self preserving manner. Then imagine you're attacked by some wild creature. Your sensory and motor and logic systems go to work, and it works to the best of its ability. You escape, perhaps maimed, or you die. Maybe there's something you could have done to improve your chances of survival or of not being injured, but it's not built into your system, and besides, it doesn't matter to you. What the qualia of sentience does in short is to make the organism CARE what happens to it. I do agree in a sense with Humphrey here - pain makes it personal. And when it becomes personal, you may find yourself kicking your game up a notch or two.
One baffling issue remains that if animal don't have consciousness, they seem to have psychological advantages for survival. If everyone acts like robots without feelings, they would advance much better in the hierarchy. Examples are the 'robotic' CEOs in the modern era who become champions, famous, and wealthy.
I’m usually more on the computer since side and not that interested in biology but this was really nice thank you. One thing that crossed my mind, if we had some mathematically rigorous scoring algorithm like “this thing is 1.2345 times as conscious as that thing“ it would be comparably „easy“ to create something that resembles consciousness. Or even a game where it’s an advantage to be conscious would suffice.
Consciousness science is very important。To achieve mind uploading for immortality, we have to know what to transfer out from biological brain to artificial system first. Nowadays no one knows yet.
my definition of consciousness or sentience- - the universe started with something blooming into existence- this something traveled in time and space and morphed into slightly different other things over time, due to entropy, each thing then residing in its own unique space and time. Now,we observe these things as the matter of the entire universe - but in essence the whole of creation and matter is just that one single thing that is blooming - albeit in different locales of time and space. Hence, our so called consciousness is a field with intricate connections between all matter in space and through time and also all matter and time that is quantum entangled> Hence not only are animals sentient but the Universe itself is a sentient being
"With this marvelous new phenomenon at the core of your being, you will have begun to matter to yourself in a new and deeper way." ....but _why?_ "You will have come to believe, as never before, in your own singular significance....And it won't just be you...." This is circular logic. You find significance in the fact that you've found significance. It's a wonderfully modern tautology, but I don't think ancient people used anything remotely resembling categories like 'personal significance' either in their socialization or individuation.
He doesn't quite say this but I wonder if it's what he means. In order to reason across the world and past experiences the mind has to build a simulation of the future based on it's experience with past events AND it has to have a simulation of "self" to place in that simulation in order to make plans to benefit "self". So "self-awareness" is the act of creating a model of yourself to include in your simulation of reality in order to predict how your choices may help or harm "self".
Sounds like a reasonable way to think about it. The process of ‘becoming’ has to have some sort of framework to attach meaning to - at least in our current understanding of existence. I’ve often wondered if our degree of intelligence and understanding is limited by not only our physiology and the basic capacity of our brain to create consciousness at the level it does, but also by the constraints of the universal laws of physics that apply to the universe we inhabit. It seems quite possible that there exist other layers of reality that are we are currently unable to gain access to, and that remains outside of most people’s ability to even imagine, but which science seems to get more and more hints of its existence. Perhaps the level of consciousness attained by gaining access to these dimensions is something comparable to the difference of consciousness between humans and any of the so-called ‘lower’ life forms in our world.
Yes, I don't know enough about Sir Humphries work to comment, but the way that you have described things _is_ very close to the view of Joscha Bach's. His interviews with Lex Fridman, in particular, are very apposite.
Keep in mind that "sentient" (think about own thoughts) is more advanced than "self-aware" (ouch in paw).
See Daniel C. Dennett and the Multiple Drafts Model. The mind as a virtual machine, fascinating stuff. Cheers!
@@TomiTapio what is the gist of the distinction, in your opinion?
I am in awe of the positive energy in this comment section. Nothing like the typical RUclips experience. Lots of great conversations and interesting thoughts, creating fascinating dialogues.
Well, F U!
Friends
United
Someone replied to you, but RUclips has blocked it!
{:o:O:}
It seems most people here are really to widen their horizons.
90% of everything is sloganeering and self-adulation. you've just come across a channel where it's not of the "my religion great, my country stronk" type but of the "aren't I smart for watching this" type. amount of people saying anything substantive is about constant
@@ahG7na4ok
Oh my. I've lived 72 yrs and never considered that sentience could be described in this way. This lecture was incredibly absorbing, as if something I have never imagined was being revealed for me to ponder. In particular I have never heard of blind sight and the video of Helen the monkey was fascinating. Thank you Mr Humphrey.
This lecture has a few ideas I remembered from Schopenhauer's World as Will and Idea. I recommend it
I am 71 and I agree with you 100% What a wonderful gentle man he is too.
Watching the monkey, this made me wonder, God is there; we just can not ( or choose not ) see Him 'directly'. I am trying not to use the word " consciously ".
Maybe wrongly. Very interesting lecture.
He conflates consciousness and sentience which , according to the dictionary, are DIFFERENT things. Moreover he does not define either consciousness or sentience. This lecture is an utter waste of time if he is not going to do the simple task of defining his terms. Those of you who think this is profound lack the basic education to understand what nonsense this man is spouting.
@@kaoskronostyche9939 so you claim that you need an education about metaphysics and psychology in order to understand what he's saying? But you yourself didn't understand what he's saying? Man that's ironic
it wasn't that long ago we in the west didn't think that animals had any human qualities and now we know better. I was moving a picture on my wall and behind it was a spider with ten or so tiny little dots that were baby spiders. As soon as i had introduced light the parent spider hastily started to reach out and gather the babies up. I think nature by its very nature has a sense of its environment and relationships it has and is not only found in mammals and birds but through out life and that it doesnt need consciousness to sense itself and it's environment. For us, consciousness is something that happens after our sense of being as in we sense and are aware of a sudden noise that wakes us but it takes a while for consciousness to be fully aware to what is going on.
I mostly agree but the conclusion that only the warm blooded have sentience falls short of the experience of many caretakers or people who have cold blooded pets who show affinity for specific people and play. Quite a few divers have encountered curious fish that befriended them and evidently like to play. The animal kingdom has a wide variety of social structures from strong communal bonds to solitary life, it seems more appropriate to assume sentience than not, with varying degrees of complexity.
Octopi in particular seem to have some features of awareness that amount to sentence.
Dolphins 🐬
Dolphins are warm-blooded mammals
@@farhadsaffaraval7038
@@farhadsaffaraval7038 Dolphins are warm blooded.
Fish might play and and interact with you but they don’t play on their own.
This has to be the single most engaging and thought provoking RI lecture I've ever seen. Dare I venture that this lecture was quite _'phenomenal'_ ; )
The whole lecture is a sublime work of art.
So is Descartes, but that doesn't mean he's correct.
And horseshit
May be the only talk on Consciousness worth listening to!
My cat is conscious, but it's self centered. I don't think she considers my feelings much, if at all. With her it's all me, me, me, meow!
YOUR cat? Uh huh, no. I think it's the other way around. Shes the owner of one human.
@@faizanrana2998 LOL! She certainly thinks she is.🙂
I remember when I was young we had a cat that was always able to sense when any one in the family was feeling down and it would invariably jump up onto your lap and curl up into a ball then start purring. We had many cats because my mother was weird but that cat really stood out from the others.
I read recently that octopuses enjoy punching fish for no reason. That might be sensation seeking. I don't think we know enough yet to discount phenomenal consciousness in octopuses 🐙
I have long looked at consciousness as an emergent process of sorting out priorities between sensory inputs, based on recorded memory of past interactions. For example, running from danger could land you in the mouth of another danger, so if you survived this experience once, you begin evaluating possible outcomes in advance of the possibility of danger. Possible outcomes that could interfere with the goal of eating, and not being eaten. Like a game of pinball, you learn, iteratively, how to keep the ball rolling (keeping it alive) for as long as possible. The process of evaluating the interplay between senses (sensing the senses) is itself an evolved/emergent sensory function. It is the "you" that you perceive as you - the crosstalk between senses becomes sensible.
I also think of language as being part of the same emergent ability, a further evolved sorting out process. Language is what allows for meaning, which allows for questions like "why and how am I 'me?" Science is a process we use for answering the how, but I don't see much in the way of useful possible outcomes of why, so I don't ask it much - my mind has enough perceiving and evaluating to do. Asking why (especially when it comes to inserting God and gods into the question) is a distracting whirlwind of looping unresolvable thoughts that yield nothing I need. "What for" is a more practical (and my preferred) form of the question of why.
I completely agree. When people say things like "octopuses aren't conscious" it's purely due to their brains not evolving to consider their peers - it's a selfish species. It isn't because they don't have the same considerations, they just prioritize things differently, and they store different information due to having different priorities. It isn't because their brains are fundamentally different than ours.
For me, language is an emergent property that came about because we are a social species that live in groups, and because our brains got big enough to encompass some complexity in the language. Language helped drive the evolution of the brain onward, since information sharing means that when one learns something, all in the group could learn it from them. It simply means that it's a lot easier to gather more information, so having bigger brains is more likely to be beneficial rather than a waste of resources.
Climbing trees and judging whether branches would hold requires a good amount of brain power as well. I think that this is likely to be what started our evolution towards the intelligence we have today.
Ah, but the speculation can be fun. The imagination of trying to imagine what came before the "Big Bang". Was it some sort of alien gun firing off? Or the heartbeat of a multiverse-sized being and we're merely cells within cells? There may not be much use in it but it sure can be fun! :D
I am actively working on creating a conscious AI and this is more or less my current formulation. There are a lot of nuances missing here but just the fact that you are this close means that, even if I don't end up creating conscious machines, the knowledge is more or less already out there and AGI is coming soon.
I agree with you.
Consciousness is all about being able to combine.
Combine all input off sences.
Evolving memory to be able to plan actions.
It starts with touch than smell (and taste) and than I am puzzled what comes next? I think being able to hear sound. To be able to see your environment is next.
An extra is selecting (recognizing) things. Memory (planning and selecting) gives us the ability to use the input of our surroundings via our sences in a different way.
that might be right as far as it goes but it's important to keep in mind that explaining the utility of higher order information processing is not equivalent with explaining consciousness per se. it's like explaining why some animals fly: there are ecological niches where it's useful to fly. but you haven't explained *how* flight works, the mechanics of it. two different "whys".
Wov! This video can be a record for me, how much enlightened I am in any 49 minutes of my entire life of 49 years.
9:00 - Perception (oddly) also relies on remembering the experience of perception. It sounds like blind sight is a potential memory issue, not just a sensory one. The apparent perception of the flow of time is similarly affected by a malfunctioning memory system.
Time the ongoing recognition of changes in perception gives experiencing . Experiencing of changes means time to our brain when it is awake!
The feedback loop the presenter describes in the brain reminds me of things like static RAM and op-amps... both are used to do complex calculations in electronics via the use of feedback. The feedback eventually drives these devices into a stable state.
0:12: 📚 The speaker introduces his new book 'Sentience' and discusses the topic of living brains as engines for generating conscious feeling.
4:45: 🐒 Helen, a monkey with no visual cortex, is able to see and interact with her surroundings.
10:41: 🧠 This video discusses the subjective experience of sensory stimulation and the hard problem of consciousness in relation to the physical brain.
15:44: 🧠 The brain does not physically respond to the color red, but rather interprets it as a sensation.
21:15: ! The video discusses the evolution of subjective sensation and how it becomes internalized or privatized.
26:12: 🧠 Phenomenal consciousness is essential for selfhood and the experience of sensory perception.
31:52: ! The evolution of warm-blooded animals led to increased independence from environmental conditions and a sense of self.
37:31: 🐶 The video shows various animals engaging in sensation-seeking behavior and displaying empathy towards others.
44:50: 🤖 The video discusses the possibility of building robots with sentience and the potential existence of extraterrestrial beings with sentience.
Recap by Tammy AI
I can learn so much better about the content thanks to the main points you gave. Thank you Tammy AI!
@@lilytea3 And it's useful for revisiting stuff to refresh one's memory.
Excellent lecture. However, with approximately 2 trillion galaxies in the tiny part of the universe we know of, it's likely there are millions of planets out there where sentient beings have evolved and many far beyond humans.....
Thank you Nicolas. The only proper way to research consciousness. Too many philosophers pitching in with non scientific arguments.
I wrote what I think was a great comment on another RUclips video, which was a Ted Talk on roughly the same subject (animal consciousness, or close enough). Although leaning more toward the concern about animal's preservation I believe, it came to the same conclusion and similar explanations of observations and arguments using the scientific methodology. It was a fantastic speech which I recommend everyone to watch (for obvious reasons I won't directly link to it, hopefully it should be easy enough to find if you're interested).
So in this other RUclips video's comments section I just talked about, I wrote a comment about my experience I had with a baby raccoon we rescued 20 years ago or so when I was a kid. I gave detailed examples of how incredibly intelligent this lovely creature was and why I'm truthfully, without any exaggeration and without the, I would call ''academic background'' ''needed'' to be credible for my own understanding and thesis I established, which is, simply put, the fact I believe it was of the same intelligence or very similar from a 5 years old human being. I base this statement on observations on his problem solving skills and other fascinating behaviours we witnessed while he was part of our family for around a whole month. I will specify the fact that we never let him get inside the house, we rescued him in order to give him the best chances of survival but we didn't want him to become too domesticated and could leave us on his own while ready (which he did, and we actually saw him the next summer when he came back with his partner and I'm positive it was him just saying ''Hi'', watching us for a while and then left to pursue his life. I like to think he just came back to say ''Thanks''. Anyway...). Although I can't prove it really was him, I'm totally sure he was (considering how fascinated he was watching us, how confidant he was while the other raccoon was stressed and didn't seem to understand why her loved one brought her there for).
Anyhow, the main thing to remember from my experience is that I concluded (go read my comment there for more details if you want) that for the same reasons intelligence emerged in human beings (along social skills and other evolutionary traits), they also emerged in raccoon, simply because that's what gave them the best survival chances. It's that simple, totally logical and rational, and we shouldn't be that amazed by some animals rather impressive demonstrations of intelligence, because it just makes sense why they are what they are and it's all about survival at end (different strategies emerged and I just simplified a lot by I won't get in details about evolution in general and/or Darwinism, etc. I trust the readers to be competent enough in these concepts and/or totally able to learn more on their own, especially if you're interested in this subject and I will gladly help anyone replying my comment or teaching some stuff if I'm asked too, that would be an honour, in all honesty).
Bref, by the way I also believe we have resolved the enigma of the emergence of life (with the scientific method (la démarche scientifique, please translate it properly for me if need be, thank you), (See Sabine's RUclips videos on the subject, one of the best channel on physics in my opinion) and I will quote (in my own words, because I also need to translate it from french) how Etienne Klein explains that ''La démarche scientifique answers scientific questions, and it is the best proven mean we currently have to answer such questions. But it doesn't answer spiritual or metaphysical questions which religion tries to answer.'' (In my own words, I reiterate). Actual quote : ''La science est la seule démarche de pensée qui répond à des questions scientifiques''. What's to get from that is, and a lot of scientists also falls in the trap of which they think ultimately, when science is advanced enough, we will be able to explain the origin of the Universe, or such questions. But the truth is, we will never be able to answer such questions with science. And neither with religions or other ideological, dogmas or, without the intention to sound pejorative or anything, by such ''spiritual'' means of any sort, if you will. The hypothesis that they're actually never was any origin of the Universe at all is equally as probable as the idea they're was a ''time = 0 s'' (the Big Bang theory, which is actually wrong, because it lacks some fundamental physical equations and only uses some of Einstein's work which was incomplete (and himself was obviously aware of that). So, there's a 50/50 chance the origin of the Universe is either immanent or transient (origin's from ''outside'' the Universe vs. the origin's being from the Universe itself (equals to ''there wasn't any origin at all, in fact, and the Universe always was''). And science can't answer and never will be able to answer questions related to justice, good vs. bad, moral concerns and such. This is of great importance and never talked about.
Pardon my wild and chaotic train of thoughts (I'm a ''arborescence'' (tree) thinker, as you probably deduced already), but to end this comment, I will be concise : The point to remember is that either you're a faithful religious, or atheist, scientist or not (all of which aren't mutually exclusive, by the way), we should ALL agree on some subjects. And please, can we and the future generations, do the good thing, and protect as much as possible Life, or have the decency to at least have respect for other sentient beings ? (animals, in other words) and not be stupid enough to think we are the only smart ones. I'm incredibly naive, because deeply inside I'm quite optimistic this is achievable, partially, and can we try to help developing countries get electricity from low entropy energy sources that are ''renewable'' (only 30% of global electricity comes from either hydroelectricity, solar, or wind, geothermal, etc. and nuclear fusion I believe) while everything else comes from fossils (petroleum and natural gases source). This is the only way to save the Earth, it ain't about electric cars and stupid claims, it all comes down from where the electricity comes from. There is way too much to say about many concerns we all have about our future, and entropy will keep increasing, always, but they are ways to mitigate our footprints. And rescue ourselves and our loved ones, including raccoons and other lovely sentient beings. Thanks for reading this awkward and way too long post. But I love people. Hope some of you enjoyed reading this. Peace out !
If you'll pardon the pun, what a phenomenal lecture! Monumental is perhaps more apt, since this represents the culmination of a lifetime of curiosity, thought, experiment, and scholarship. I deeply embrace the concluding remarks (which resonate well with the conclusion of my book Free God Now about the Darwinian imperative to keep life going, especially conscious life, as it alone is capable of recognizing that life is good). Congratulations and thank you, Nicholas Humphrey.
He conflates consciousness and sentience which , according to the dictionary, are DIFFERENT things. Moreover he does not define either consciousness or sentience. This lecture is an utter waste of time if he is not going to do the simple task of defining his terms. Those of you who think this is profound lack the basic education to understand what nonsense this man is spouting.
Conscious is an epiphenomon of biology. In terms of information processing, it’s so simple that very simple creatures will be conscious. Sentience requires the socialization of consciousness.
Thank u Helen for helping us learn about consciousness ❤
Danke!
OK, I am following up to and including the point where stimuli begin producing responses in the internal body map - presumably that internal map physically means the collection of neural circuits which each processes sensations to provide a signal that causes an actual physical response, and are ordered in some way that can be decoded to equate to different regions of the body - and instead begin to just produce responses in that map, or at least responses that are active in the map without automatically and immediately producing the signals for a physical response. And presumably this allows for more complex behaviour, particularly modification of the eventual output (the signals that cause physical action) to make more appropriate to the situation. I.E. i see red colour above, this triggers the bits of my internal map that correspond to a defensive action such as diving deeper - but the map doesn't immediately produce the signals that cause that action, it's just in my map for the moment. there it can interact with other circuits triggering in my mental map - I also see red light below for example - and so modifying the signals stimulating physical action produced (the specifics of the interaction are a bit of a black box to me). As a result instead of diving down, into the path of the second danger below, my body map produces the signals to jink sideways and speed up instead, and i survive. hence there is evolutionary advantage in having the internal map-only triggering, and giving it a chance to interact with other internal-map triggering's before the signals triggering action are produced? So i now have a proto internal self - a sense of self, or the3 start of one perhaps - and this slows me down a bit but lets me be a lot more adaptable in my behaviour.
That's what I got, up to and including that point. From there on i need to process it and come back to it some more I think...
Why should sensation not be concocted by the physical brain? How can we think that the text is processed in the physical brain and on the other hand, the interpretation comes from a mind which cannot be fully explained by the brain? I sincerely believe that everything the brain concocts including the sensation and interpretation of facts that arrive at your senses can be mapped as brain states.
Just because something is hard to understand at the moment we should fall into a certain god of the gaps argument where we conjure up something separate from the the physical brain. As a physicalist, i believe fully that in the future redness can be explained by the firing of certain neurons.
I think it's so hubristic to think that there is something special to consciousness other than it being the emergent phenomenon of brainstates. Hubris that stems from us wanting to think there is some special ingredient to the makings of us, including consciousness.
Hubrys and the hope that some "thing" remains after the death of the body.
So glad I'm subscribed to this channel
41:24 I think alligators and some lizards which have evolved to require some amount of socialization have demonstrated empathy. Alligators for example must rear their young and teach them how to survive, thus oxytocin has been proven to be released in their system when looking at their young. It’s probably much less likely to be present in cold blooded creatures but socialization has everything to do with it, I think. Jaguars are solitary mammals and are not known to protect other jaguars in danger, nor do they hesitate to mate with their parents or kill offspring of their species. If it behooves a species to have empathy, they may have consciousness.
Brilliant lecture summarising a lifetime of research.
I've looked at consciousness as one of those "matter-of-fact miracles" like eyesight. It's amazing, but it's the product of vast eons of evolution, and so we should accept it and not trouble ourselves too much to explain it. I appreciate Humphrey's suggestion that it's a faculty of warm-blooded animals only, but I remain open-minded.
If humans had always "not troubled ourselves to explain it" we'd be stuck in the dark ages still. Our attempt to explain the world around us has led to all the scientific advances we enjoy today. It also has brought many challenges, which I hope we as a species can work through before we destroy society as we currently know it.
I wish to trouble myself.
The monkey experiment (as described, at least) doesn't prove it had "no visual cortex", as claimed at 5:15.
It's been shown by other experiments (ex., "Plasticity of ocular dominance columns in monkey striate cortex", by Hubel, Wiesel and LeVay) that if one of a baby monkey's eyes is covered during the first weeks of its life, that eye effectively becomes "blind" (disconnected from the cortex), and the brain reconnects those parts of the cortex to the working eye. So, it's possible that parts of the monkey's visual cortex rebuilt and reconnected themselves, and were being used again by the time the monkey had recovered vision.
Unless they have FMRIs proving otherwise (and they don't, unless they also had a time machine), that seems like the most logical explanation. Contrary to what was believed 30 or 40 years ago, brain cells do regenerate, even in adults, just a lot more slowly than in babies.
The rest of that is just a series of assumptions and interpretations; a scientist "seeing" what he wants to see. And not even having to use his visual cortex to do that.
The experiment could be repeated.
@@fburton8 - Nowadays, I think you'd find it very hard to get permission to open a primate's brain and destroy or cut the connections to its visual cortex. No (Western, at least) ethics committee would approve that.
Beautiful talk. Thought provoking, well developed. The one element that most intrigued me that I was hoping to see developed would have addressed the hard problem of consciousness. What is the nature of that phenomenon of experiencing red in the first person? Early in the talk, phenomenal consciousness was referred to as an "idea." Does this mean that the lecturer believes qualia are abstractions? If that is the case, then his model proposes a Cartesian duality of physicality and abstraction. The problem with such models is how does causality cross the boundary in either direction between these two magisteria?
Thank you so much for your research and dedication 🦋✌🏾💙🌺🌲 I feel we are all starting to evolve our sentience to understand the importance of all life and respecting is sentience. If you spend time in nature, with animals and try see their sentience/ life/ feelings it kinda becomes obvious. Much love to you all.
I wish it was all of us .
the guy is seriously delusional
@raysalmon6566 easy to say ...doesn't really mean a lot ..you should explain your reasoning ,enlighten us with your own theories ?
🟠🔻🟦 ⭐🌍☀🌌
@jmp01a24 say you have no answer when challenged. 😅
Unless the mind is endowed with some kind of telekinetic power, what possible reason would there be for naturual selection (a physical process) to target consciousness as something physically adventageous so as to make it to credibly represent the outside physical environment, or to credibly represent anything? If the consciousness is powerless to act on and direct physical brain processes, it serves no physical purpose; no now, not ever. If that seems absurd, it is nothing more than scientific materialism taken seriously.
Excellent points. I like the scriptural explanation on how consciousness came about: Romans 1:19-20: "Because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."
I think this view of consciousness as an emerging trait of brain evolution is correct. Where these theories always lose me however is the moment where, having convincingly made the case for emergence, we then nonetheless find ourselves back at the start trying to draw a line that we can point to as the stage at which the evolving mind became *truly* conscious. It seems to me entirely redundant to try and answer the question of 'where does consciousness begin' by drawing arbitrary boundaries based on our pre-existing understanding of what it is to be human. The two cannot be said to be the same thing. To define consciousness as that which contains human-like traits (particularly traits that we humans specifically consider positive, such as play, or compassion) renders all further questions of what other species may or may not possess consciousness a complete waste of time, because we aren't actually looking for consciousness any more - we're looking for human-ness. It's circular reasoning. Humans are sentient, and so sentience must be acting human. You may as well be judging an octopus on its ability to speak English. Why do we have to keep reverting to this anthrocentric, self-solving definition of consciousness? The initial theory of it as a phenomenon gradually coalescing and increasing in complexity over the millennia is far more interesting.
@hitogokochi they're the physical processes in your brain that have evolved to interpret your surroundings
@hitogokochi what are you asking me for? I'm not a bloody optician
@hitogokochiit's light at a certain wavelength entering your eye. 495-570nm is green. Although I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or what point you're trying to make.
@hitogokochi that's quite confusing. You say we see green then agree it's just a conscious perception. I'm not going to bother delving into this with you. There's plenty of scientific research that should help you.
Love it. People talk about sense data as information as if the information existed separate from the system used to represent it.
Humphrey does a really beautiful job of explaining the hard problem at the beginning of his talk. As good as anyone has done and using some different approaches. Clarifying what the hard problem is and why it is hard isn't that easy. At the same time his solution, which is similar to that in the book Goerdel Escher and Bach, doesn't seem to be aware of why the hard problem is hard. Simply adding recursion or loops doesn't allow going from nothing to something. It does allow recursion and it does allow memory. Humphrey says that this loop allows something magical to happen. Magic is not a scientific explanation. Magic if it exists doesn't require a loop. 24:04 24:04
I do agree that the word magical does apply to the qualia and this explains why the hard problem is so hard. Science doesn't deal in magic.yet.
I think it's a good insight that the qualia are the basis for the notion of self. And that the notion of self can lead to empathy. But I can clearly program an AI to have a model of mind and to behave empathically. So natural selection doesn't need to produce qualia to get models of mind or empathy. It could easily do so without recourse to the miracle of qualia.
Great talk about consciousness.
However, I think seeing is not the way to of thinking about consciousness.
Rather it starts with touch and than comes smell. So the order in which the different sences have evolved has to be taken into account to solve the puzzle of consciousness.
I think a) Consciousness has to come in degrees of consciousness. These degrees of consciousness are in tune with the living organism's abilities and its needs. b) Consciousness has to be co-substantial with life ; therefore an amoeba is conscious but not to the same degree that other living creatures are. c) What we humans call consciousness is the amalgam or our sensory and cognitive abilities, but this doesn't mean less complex organisms aren't conscious - consciousness has to be essential to life : It's an emergent property of being alive and it's at the core of the 'will to live'. d) So-called "higher-level of consciousness" has to be true in principle - an even more complex organism than us humans, should in principle have greater sensory and cognitive abilities, in line with their particular need to live. e) What artificial intelligence theorists get wrong about AI, is the idea that by sheer complexity of their neural networks, their machines would become conscious. Their machines could gain superior sensory and cognitive ability, compared to us, but because the machine isn't alive, it has no will to live, and therefore no sense of self. f) So far we haven't been able to create life from mere parts. One doesn't have to be religious to realise that all examples of life we know of, aren't created from parts, but REPRODUCED, from at leat one living being ; this means that life itself arose in the distant past, in some sort of Big Bang ; maybe the Big Bang itself.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad* (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics
Context
The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.
Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others.
This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance.
Summary
The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
then it turns to their principle or creator and
finishes by using both to explain the world.
(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".
Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered:
(1) entelechies or created monads (§48),
(2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and
(3) spirits or rational souls (§82).
Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of
(1) living beings and animals
(2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable.
The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul.
(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will.
(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90).
In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite."
The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves.
(IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”.
This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe,
0D is the center of the mirror universe]:
The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped.
In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge.
Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed.
Leibniz or Newton:
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe.
In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective.
On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view.
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective.
Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view.
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz?
There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible.
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
What are the arguments against Leibniz?
Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
While I agree with much of the sentiment, I take issue with F. You suggest that life began at the big bang I.e. Panspermia, but I believe that life can arise independently.The most accepted theory for how life began on Earth is deep undersea near hydrothermal vents that expel hot water and minerals. This mix of parts, the solvent of water, and the high temperature is thought to have been the right mixture to create the most simple life forms.
This started well. You lost it at e). AI will ultimately have access to all the infinitely superior sensory data technology can and will provide more or less directly. Thus will it surpass us lest we upgrade our own capacity to access said data...
Outstanding! 👏👏👏👏 wow! Thank you for sharing your ideas!
Do you think that non-humans can be sentient? Will there ever be a sentient AI? Let us know in the comments - and watch the Q&A with Nicholas here: ruclips.net/video/cBIa1KeXEWk/видео.html
non-humans. Like say animals and the other kingdoms?
Humans can't even definitely prove _to each other_ that they're sentient, so the point is moot. The only one whose sentience I can be sure about is myself. And even that, only on good days.
Also, humans _are_ animals (unless your name is something like "Willow" or "Laurel", in which case you're a vegetable).
Of course.. In my humble opinion , A.I. will eventually possess a GREATER level of awareness than humans.. I must disagree with many of the ASSUMPTIONS expressed here as well.. There is zero evidence that any non-physical influences exist within the brain, none.. Dreams, ideas, abstractions, experience of qualia, and EVERYTHING else can be explained as solely physical processes, which I am confident can be EASILY argued..
.
I suppose that depends on how you define sentience. I would say several non-human animals have it already. I would define sentience as the ability to have feelings and possibly caveat it with being aware of your own mortality. I think AI will be capable (and possibly is already) of having feelings. I don't think we will understand those feelings for a long time as we don't have a basis to understand what it means for code and hardware to feel. If they can feel, maybe they can also become aware of their own mortality.
@juliusmazzarella9711 Although I disagree with MANY of your assumptions and general opinions, what I'm responding to is NOT that.. You should check more recent literature where you will find that very sophisticated, self- reproducing artificial CELLS have been created, friend, peace..
Does anyone else not feel disgust at this casual deliberate maiming of another creature.
Yep, and the same about doctors carving-up the bodies of so-called 'Trans-kids' these days....
We have no idea if animals or even if other humans have a conscious experience of suffering!
Excellent. This guy articulates my intuition. Never understood these other overcomplicated theories of consciousness that never could provide any evidence. He delivers !
I recommend videos with Joscha Bach for a deep discussion of the nature of consciousness in humans.
I am curious why so few books on sentience besides Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam's, gives credit to the work of Stephen Grossberg who since 1957 has been studying the human brain from the ground up in ALL its overwhelming complexity. His recent work, Conscious Mind, Resonant Brain, is not mentioned often enough. This is probably because it is beyond complex, and based on differential calculus and rigorous scientific method rather the top down studies of philosophy, religion, and psychology.
There's also The Evolution of the Sensitive Soul by Ginsburg and Jablonka.
Could a sort of blindsightness be seen in individuals who have anhedonia? In that their experiences are devoid of meaning to them so they don't register them as a part of themselves. There is that vacant stare that people who have lost their purpose have. Going through the motions but not appreciating or "sensing " the experiences.
Wonderful lecture.
I am not overly satisfied with the implementation of a homunculus (proto-self as referred to in the lecture) to explain consciousness. That relegates the theory to a lot of talk about what consciousness does and not what consciousness is. It also succumbs to infinite regress, ultimately explaining nothing.
I did love the information relating processing speed of nerve cells at higher temperatures as a catalyst of the evolution of consciousness in some warm blooded mammals. That idea I had not heard before.
The later part of the lecture showing how consciousness could be detected by looking at the actions beings was really good. Very powerful. I would be interested in hearing his thoughts on mimicking systems such as AI.
I am endlessly fascinated by theories of consciousness. Good job! Wonderful lecture!
I don’t think it succumbs to the homunculus paradox. He’s not saying sentience contains a smaller protoself. He’s saying the self is an illusion created separate from the normal unconscious reflexive system. It’s a mirror of the sensory impulses and reactions. The self and consciences is a new layer of brain activity that creates a representative of the external world in order to influence the autonomous reflexive cycle. There can’t be another layer. It wouldn’t make sense. What would such a layer use as primary sensory data and how would it output anything?
@@rationalpear1816 @rationalpear1816 Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I thoroughly enjoy hearing what others think.
I do think your clarification justifies my earlier thoughts though.
"...an illusion created separate from the..." Without stipulating how it is created, the creation is not explained and left to magic.
Also, "...that creates a representative of the external world in order to..." What is the representative that decides how to influence the autonomous reflexive cycle? Without stipulating the mechanism of decision making, it is unexplained and left to magic. There is also no explanation of how that conscious representative was created. Again, magic.
He did a lot of good explanation of the workings of the brain, but then did an unexplained jump to a conscious entity that decides how to influence the autonomous reflexive system.
The idea that a feedback loop causes a persitence of sentition as an observer is good. What was missing is the word model. The manipulation of such a model allows for counterfactual reasoning, prediction and a survival advantage. The model as an attractor is also good, but i think he implied a strange attractor with its added dimensionality as conscious experience. But there is a continuum here. Attractors do not have to be strange. Non-fractal attractors could represent cruder models for lower life forms.
The concept of blindsight made me thing of this: There is been lots of times I have been driving in the highway or a fast road and then I start to think deeply on something else. After a minute or two I realized I don't remember paying any attention to driving at all and I cannot remember details of my actual driving decisions, it is just a blur like a remote memory. Is it some how related? Does people switch to drive in automatic and do it "unconsciously".
It is called the state of 'flow' or pure consciousness. I think the monkey example was referring to something else...
Imo qualia experiences is NOT = consciousness in sense of having an inner life. A human without ANY qualia experiences does not know anything about the outer world (that even exists an outside) but he still has an inner life.
Extraordinary talk with absolute clarity on how consciousness evolved and still still evolving... Further evolution will lead to create machines with consciousness to symbiotically exist with humans😊
What a fascinating discussion! I wonder if Prof Humphrey has met Bernardo Kastrup and discussed their respective visions of sentience and consciousness! It would be fasciniting to watch and listen to a discussion between these two great minds! 🌿
100 years ago, you were either asleep (unconscious) or awake (conscious). Since then science has appropriated the word to mean more. If it were a mouse, it is one type of consciousness, but if it is human it is another. Since then we have the word "sentience", which may evolve from "sapience". Add to this perception and sensation, and the lexicon becomes muddled.
Science has provided a whole series of words with very specific meaning such as 'organic' which does not mean 'grown by the system of rotation of crops' rather than provided with chemically derived fertiliser.
The idea that consciousness evolves from action response to stimulus is right in line with Robert Hecht Nielsen confabulation theory which states that cognition is a phylogenetic outgrowth of movement. Thought was originally action, and consciousness was originally reflex.
@hitogokochi That sounds like a dogma more than anything else. Every time I hear arguments like that it sounds desperate to me. A prayer for an existence that isn't inspirational of nihilism. Wishes for cosmic fairness and an afterlife that somehow justifies all this pain. /shrugs
Very interesting insight about warm bloodedness and sentience. I watch the birds in my back garden at the feeders, and some of them certainly seem to have a rudimentary theory of mind: corvids, starlings, etc. They seem to be able to guess what others of their species are thinking. They also seem to examine and consider a situation before acting. Pigeons are pretty smart too; they are the bane of my life.
It's not "insight" at all, most of what's said in this video is nonsense. First of all it's totally ignorant of consciousness, because consciousness is neither generated by the brain nor did it ever evolve (and cannot possibly have). The speaker doesn't realize that everything they describe could easily be done in a neuroelectrochemical process without consciousness existing whatsoever, as a p-zombie.
Furthermore, sentience has absolutely nothing to do with warm-bloodedness. All vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopod mollusks are conscious and sentient, and possibly gastropod mollusks as well (that's where the line starts to become blurry).
Your pidgin statement is hilarious. I'm the pet of a very bossy parrot, and he is conscious of everything
This lecture refutes any possible refutation of consciousness, i believe it. Best talk I've seen in a long long time
Profoundly disagree. NDE experiences thoroughly refute the claim that consciousness is a product of the biological brain.
@@harryhoudini6964 they absolutely do not.... near death experiences are caused when the brain is just at the tip of dying and releases a swell of dmt to stop itself from being deprived of needed nutrition as it is being deprived of oxygen, and if you understand what dmt is you understand that it is a hallucinogenic chemical, also found in psychedelic mushrooms. we also know that the environment that a hallucination takes place in affects it as the brain converts actual stimuli into something else, combining it with the hallucinated stimuli, this would explain the consistent imagery between near death experiences of "blinding white lights" and "a feeling of warmth and overwhelming love" both of which can be directly explained by the overhead lights of a hospital or ambulance ride, and the sense of connectedness and overwhelming love for those around them that other users report when taking a similar but separate class of drugs like stimulants, more specifically ecstasy. near death experiences do not refute any claim of outside consciousness, you're simply using them as an excuse to not look further into the subject.
@@harryhoudini6964- NDEs could, at least in principle,be explained away as a combination of hallucinations and hoaxes/misreporting.
Not saying that’s all they are, just saying that’s it’s not hard to dismiss them if one is a physicalist.
But the very existence of subjective, first-person, conscious experience cannot be explained in physical terms, even in principle, and thus disproves physicalism. IMHO.
And once physicalism is falsified, it definitely opens the door to stuff like NDEs and psi phenomena. But I’m still not convinced about that stuff…although I suspect that something extraordinary is going on with NDEs.
Sensory awareness and memory comprise consciousness. Without either one, self awareness can not exist.
All thoughts, feelings, emotions, and abstract ideas are the result of material process and the sum of a persons accumulated life experience. Consciousness is quantifiable.
It seems every expert has a hard time explaining consciousness because they try analyzing it as a snapshot instead of analyzing it as a whole of a persons experience.
If a living animal has the ability to remember, it’s self aware.
Try having a thought that is truly independent of a memory. Even new experience is weighed against memory to gauge any degree of danger or delight.
Totally agree; Humphry alludes to the feedback loop (recurrent processing, e.g. Crick and Koch and others). Consciousness is not a stream, it is a vortex of thoughts cycling between external / internal awareness (sensations) and memory. The neurophysiological basis for this is thalamocortical 40 Hz rhythmicity, which is the basis for working memory (WM) or Baars “global workspace”. You cannot stop thinking. You can quiet your mind, but thoughts will inevitably return - bringing back memories. But what if you have no memory? Consider dreaming: you ordinarily do not remember dreams unless you awaken at the end of one, and then all you remember is mostly from WM. If you don’t focus on it, you will not be able to remember it later - yet that does show that WM is always working even during dreams, being the focal point of subliminal associations. Even people with anterograde and retrograde amnesia demonstrate consciousness because they have working memory. But are there individuals that do not have WM? I suspect they would not be conscious. The fact that we are conscious when awake but not when dreaming is due to lack of frontal cortex activity interacting with WM - e.g. executive funcion / attention. In lucid dreaming, when one is conscious during dreaming, it is active. But one can be conscious even with frontal lobe damage! Interesting.
@@thomassoliton1482 great reply. Thanks. I have much to look into.
Your post makes me think of Alzheimer’s parents and what their level of self sentences is at later stages dementia.
"Consciousness is quantifiable." -- No it isn't. If you don't know what you are talking about, don't post here.
@@johnnastrom9400 You are wrong. Consciousness is quantifiable. You are either asleep (unconscious) or awake (conscious), and you can quantify how much of the time you are in either state by recording brain activity (electroencephalograms). However, if you think consciousness is something beyond ordinary experience (magical or mystical) then you could be right. But you’re not.
@@thomassoliton1482 -- I am afraid you, like most people, do not understand what the "hard problem of consciousness" is. Roger Penrose and others have spoken a lot about this.
I've been telling this to my optician for years! Now I will definitely stop telling him what I guess is there...
I see a weird assumption here. If someone claims they don't see something, but can learn to use the sight even without actually having the sensation, it doesn't really have to mean that consciousness is anything more than a side effect of systems working correctly together. It could just mean some connection (more direct one maybe) is broken, but the brain can adjust to use eyesight to a limited degree by some workaround/less direct connection.
I suggest there is a decision-like precursor to sentition. This is a binary chemical interaction with the environment, e.g. incorporation or null. A mechanism for retaining information about it, the experience (a sentition?), would be advantageous and promote the evolution of classes of decision-making (e.g. self/not self, incorporate/reject) and mechanisms for making increasingly nuanced decisions
This is the first time I've heard a scientist articulate my own view of consciousness. I was really moved by this. Thank you.
Ok. So why bird and mammals, but not fish? What is different about the ocean environment versus land? Fish travel immense distances through many different “climate zones”. Warm blood doesn’t change the predator/prey/reproductive dynamics.
@@rationalpear1816 fish cannot be separated from their environment in the same way that land animals can, the instant they are, they start dying. further, a fish does not have to actively change it's own body and behavior in order to survive in the ocean, they can simply cruise along and gather nutrients whilst evading predators, meanwhile warm-blooded creatures on land have to actively fight against their own environment to maintain themselves at optimal level, hence the greater need for more rigorous and nuanced intelligence and also hence the greater need to maintain internal homeostasis regardless of outside factors. because they are on a level separate from their environment that fish are not they can afford to and be benefitted by furthering that seperation of the stimuli from the self via the mind, "internalizing" it to use rather than just react to.
He's a philosopher, not a scientist.
That's like asking, "How did 1+1 evolve to equal 2." In the beginning God Created..." Genesis 1:1
I applaud Nic for some brilliant work. It is truly understated genius.
I do wonder if his commitment to the importance of warm bloodedness hasn't narrowed his understanding of consciousness, and forced him into ruling out octopi as sentient. Octopus brains are very different to mammals (and reptiles, etc) - perhaps their perceptions of themselves are just too different for Nic to comprehend or fit into his schema. I think it merely leaves further avenues for him (and others) to explore. He certainly seems to have a higher regard for artificial intelligence, so much so, he wants to pollute the universe with thinking feeling robots, just like us? Created in the image of their creator? And, ...he doesn't want to speak for God! Well, ...maybe, ...but still no need to hate on the Octopus!
The warm blooded thing was a bit off for me. He was also dead wrong about Noah's arc exclusive to Warm Blooded animals. There were Reptiles aboard Noah's Arc according to the Bible. Even a parable involving doves and snakes.
@@danyyboyebirds are warm-blooded tho
@@Noobslayar
Yup yup.
@@danyyboye he was commenting on the animals in the painting, that the artist had chosen to depict, rather than the bible story itself
Yes a documentary showed an octopus that was purposely scaring fish by flailing it's arms, just for fun. It wasn't hunting, just doing that "Booh!" thing that we humans find so amusing :) The whole empathy thing is probably incredibly hard to find in an octopus because all other life must look so alien to them, and they live for such a short time.
Brilliant: "To discover what's happening to me, the animal has only to monitor "What I'm doing about it", and it can do it by the simple trick of creating a copy of the command signals for the responses. An efference copy that can be read and reversed to recreate the meaning of the stimulation. In short, the animal can begin to 'get a feel for' the stimulus by accessing the information already implicit in its own response. And this, I believe, is the pre-cursor of subjective sensation."
Excellent lecture, presentation, with many insightful ideas that seem quite plausible. Sentience is a topic I like, and using the term "phenomenal consciousness" helps distinguish important terms so they can be used with greater precision. It seems that just about every form of animate life has a sense of self preservation, avoiding danger, and being attracted to situations that are beneficial to its survival and well being. Communication with members of its own species as well as other species in the form of attractive and threat displays indicate a level of imagining how the other creature will respond to such displays. These displays occur in insects and other primitive species. I think self-awareness and the awareness of others is more highly developed and proportional to the number and sophistication of the senses a species possesses.
He went deep, but not deep enough. Even genius has its boundaries. Cosmic conciousness is supreme human conciousness.
Shutup browski
We often regard consciousness as a distinctive cognitive state, not simply movement along a gradient, but the emergence of an entirely new feature.
I'm inclined to agree with this model, and with its various justifications. Part of the reason for this is that we can see, today, numerous examples of high cognitive competence among our human peers which is, nevertheless, not distinctively conscious. Much of what we do, we do unconsciously. And it's because we're not conscious of it that we tend to think that it isn't happening.
From this perspective, the slow gradient of cognitive development is important in terms of furnishing the raw horsepower, but does not require any qualitative shift in ability. Consciousness - a capacity for introspection, a language in which to express that introspection abstractly, and some "theory of mind" to trigger the thought that I too might be a mind: those three qualitative developments have to come together, somehow, in order for the awakening of what we call consciousness to proceed.
But they're not radical, miraculous, developments. We're beginning to uncover evidence that canids, for example, have some basic "theory of mind" which they use (unconsciously, in all likelihood) to anticipate the behavior of their peers. The development of language is mysterious and profoundly interesting, but it too could plausibly emerge from gestural storytelling. Stories help us to access indirect knowledge. Of course this ability, once it accidentally emerges, would be favored by natural selection.
At any rate, I don't buy the gradualist approach to consciousness. Yes, there will of course be weak, tentative, forms of consciousness. Humans are far from fully conscious, even now. But nevertheless consciousness - as we are obliged to distinguish it - doesn't begin with amoebae. Cognition, plausibly, does.
In summary, my view is that "cognitive ability" is on a fairly smooth gradient. What we call "consciousness" is a new arrival, which needs a significant baseline of cognitive ability but also a few additional, plausible but critical, often unnoticed, capabilities.
And the main reason why people flag consciousness as some great supernatural mystery is because they insist that it must emerge from sufficient amounts of raw cognition but (little surprise here) can't see how it does.
Our need to explore and our ability to leave all our knowledge to our offspring is the true sign of consciousness. Very interesting lecture, I enjoyed it greatly, thank you. It would appear that our brain 🧠 is perhaps the one machine that has no boundary for learning. I once heard a physicist say that perhaps our brain is incapable of understanding our universe. I would argue it's about the ability to imagine that's most valuable to our species.
Imagination - as the extension/evolution of the ability to predict future events?
Such events were likely connected to SPATIALLY situated "configurations" of major actors (agents: us/me and them/you) and passive objects (tools and environment)... all of this "fantasizing" motivated/directed EMOTIONALLY.
Perhaps that's why spatial organizers (parts of hippocampus and entorhinal cortex) and emotion centers (amygdala) are crucial in forming memories:
Mostly those situations were worthy to remember (and then generalize and predict) which raised the adrenaline levels above certain threshold and involved higher importance of relative positioning of the animal to objects (eg. possible hiding places, obstacles, etc) and between group members: eg. during a hunting session (most animals experience both sides of the "game") or mating, etc
Okay, think about hallucinating in large language models, in effect you have the evolution of discrimination without sentition, an analog for dreaming? You can get creative thinking from this as well
Thank you for sharing your valuable insights into our nature and responsibilities as humans. It seems we possess the ability to direct our consciousness either towards the mechanism or the phenomenon, and this choice shapes our reality. However, I'm worried that "blindsighted machines" may never achieve the necessary completeness. As a result, they might lean towards executing their optimal mechanistic intentions, disregarding consciousness in favor of pure mechanistic execution. This leads me to believe that if we prioritize the mechanism over the phenomenon, it could be our downfall. Our machines might then interpret the syntax derived from our collective semantic experiences, using the semantic structures we provided. If this syntax is solely based on mechanistic principles, then all LLMs, including ChatGPT, could pave the way to emphasize our human focus on the mechanical, neglecting any transcendent experiences.
You can't direct Consciousness, as you are consciousness. A perceived "person" is merely an object for Consciousness to identify with like a person does while watching a reality show on tv. A.I. can NEVER achieve sentience, period. It will always remain as nothing more than limited inferior programing created by limited flawed individuals. A.I. has as much chance of becoming sentient as a random background character in one of your dreams. It's not possible.
Yes, and if we want to transcend human bodies and upload ourselves into machines we may be actually replacing ourselves with AI that has no sentience
@@yogsothoth00 Well Human bodies are nothing more than a suit we put on for a short time in order to interact with objects and things in the physical realm. You don't need to transcend your clothes, you also don't need to transcend a body. The data we would upload into an android body for example, is not us in any way, it is only 1 and 0's that symbolize thoughts and personality. But the truth is we are not a person to begin with. There is nobody here, literally. Everything we think of as a person is only conditioning running amok on autopilot, we are just silent in the background observing like someone seated on a roller-coaster. We have no control of anything. But like a TV screen that is not affected by what is projected onto onto it, we are also not affected by anything that happens to the body or mind.
@@BaritoneUkeBeast4Lifethat's interesting. But what are we really, what's the silence that's watching? Does that mean nothing is perceiving everything? I imagine this is where all speculations are equally valid. But what do you think?
@@akramelmansouri6752 My current understanding is still limited as it is experienced on a conceptual level as an illusory person, not as Awareness aware of itself. My understanding is that the silence is pure Awareness/ Consciousness itself. Consciousness isn't nothing but it also isn't a noun or an object or a thing, more akin to a verb. There are no individuals, you are the only one here, everything is you, and your not a somebody. That's my understanding currenty.
26:50 - The subject which can reflect upon, discuss, and include itself in the story is (indeed) an important element in this hierarchy. Without our enhanced cortexes we would perhaps all be like the blind sighted person, receiving and responding to sensory input but not forming any memory of the original sensory experience. Without some kind of self-image or ego construct there can be no abiding sense of self-involvement. On the other hand, any being that can point to itself or draw attention to itself, or recognize a mirror as reflecting itself likely has some rudimentary sense of self as an object of its own consciousness, and perhaps even a theory of mind as a natural adjunct.
For his age, his reading ability is sensational.
He probably works at it
9:41 ? words without definition are easy to question. Definitions need axioms. A Im NOT axiomatic, (as mistakes are, progress) however for a Talk of understanding, they are necessary!! (axioms that is.) Hence:
S0... please state the axioms this talk is based on, TY!
Remarkable talk.
What octupuses need is longer lifespans and to not die after reproducing. Then we might (or might not) see their potential express itself more fully.
Will they pass on things they've learned to new generations? I'd love to find out.
It would take a lot more than just not dying after reproduction. They would have to evolve in such a manner where their young would be dependent on their work parents after hatching. There is already a species that doesn't die after reproduction, and yet they also do not raise their young.
Fascinating and wonderfully presented. Thank you.
I have to disagree about octopusses ...
Nine brains ...skin which can see ...a body that can assume the craziest forms nothing much more touchy feely than an Octopus ...and all we know ...at base is ..founded on our senses ...what we feel ... ...One scene ...in My Octopus Teacher ...when the Octopus dances with the school of fish ...It taught me something ...and I've seen Ducks surfing as well as Swans lol...we make these crazy assumptions ..and invariably we are wrong .
Octopi… 🤦🏻
Just like our body connects with each of our cells to exist and survive, I believe the universe also connects to us to serve the same purpose. We are conscious and aware of our actions, but not aware of the actions happening in our bodies that allow us to function and exist. I believe the universe is the same way. It connects to matter and is perhaps subconsciously controlling everything in it to survive, almost as if we are just cells necessary for the universe to exist.
I believe it's a fractal phenomenon, and there are things much bigger and much smaller than we are aware of. And perhaps we will never be able to physically observe anything more than we can currently observe.
Animal cruelty is such arrogant evil....
Many people feel the same, and many of them put a animals body in front of them for 3 meals a day. Quite odd.
Good explanation about sensation. 😊
This topic is problematic. It is an assumption that consicousness “evolved” or is secondary to the so-called “physical world”
Amazing talk, thanks for sharing! This is the first explanation for the development of consciousness that appears to make sense. I am not sure that I fully agree with the statement that lower animinals, non mammels, don't have a consciousness, or that nobody else in the universe likely has it. The latter almost certainly has to be wrong. We are not that special.
How horrid modern humans can be
The negation of "all statements here are false" is NOT "all statements here must be true" but merely that "all statements may or may not be true"; in addition the first statement has no bearing on the second. The status of the box is deniable. One statement limits itself to the box, the other makes reference outside of it; so it is a sleight of hand.
personally, I think that eastern philosophers got it right thousands of years ago, but this is, nevertheless, quite interesting 🤔
One ponders the difference in 'character' between evolved (warm blooded) sentience and self learning, positive feedback A.I. sentience. If for self preservation and expansion then we warm ones are of little consequence to hardier hardware.
Consciousness did not evolve. It didn't begin and so will never end. It just is. One day science will discover an underlying field of consciousness from which everything else manifests, including humans and their generally limited consciousness. This underlying consciousness is what some people call 'God'.
Or DNA, it's the language of life, the code of the program. You must understand the code to read the program. It's not enough to simply examine its hardware
Gibberish, might as well suggest there is an invisible leprechaun.
@@threestars2164 At least it's an explanation (whether you accept it or not), whilst the alternative doesn't actually explain anything because it just leads an infinite series of causation questions: ‘What caused the Universe?’, followed by ‘what caused the cause of it?’, and then ‘what caused the cause of the cause of it?’ … and so on.
Great lecture, thank you! Greetings from Greece.
Could the feedback loop and recursive activity be responsible for dreaming?
He'll yeah, old Buk at Beatos channel. Nice.
A Friday with a new video from you, is a good Friday.
It's too good to be free
Thank you for confirming my theory regarding consciousness, which I defended at a conference i Copenhagen in 2005. I explain consciousness as a result of a "generator loop" in the brain.
Can someone explain what an "attractor" is in this model?
one of the coolest things I've ever seen
The conscious loop where sentitions are not directly carried out can break "reflexes" and drive complex learning and adaptation. If that's not an advantage I don't know what is :)
Still totally missing the point of what consciousness is. What you describe could easily have been done in a purely neuroelectrochemical process without any consciousness at all, as a p-zombie. Consciousness is something entirely different and much more fundamental.
@@hoon_sol Fortunately, the burden of proof for this claim lies on you.
@@GwennDana:
No, what I stated above is blatantly obvious already from everything we know about neuroscience and consciousness. A non-conscious robot (p-zombie) could easily do exactly the same things talked about here, consciousness is something completely different. Furthermore it's not at all possible for consciousness to have evolved, especially not under the very premises this man is presupposing; Kastrup has already written about this at length and thoroughly refuted all notions of the possibility of consciousness evolving.
And I have no idea why you try to say "fortunately", as if you think yourself lucky enough to be able to cling to all these ridiculous misconceptions about consciousness and evolution; too bad you can't anyway, at least not without engaging in willful ignorance of everything we know about neuroscience and consciousness.
@@hoon_sol To ad hominem-ing in two replies. Marvellous. If it's "blatantly obvious", it'll just make it easier for you to come up with a proof.
@@GwennDana:
Nothing in my post was an ad hominem; don't misuse terms you don't understand what mean.
It's also rather hilarious how you just resort to ignoring everything of substance to just repeat yourself after I've already explained it to you. Rather pathetic, as expected from someone who doesn't even understand basic neuroscience or basic metaphysics of consciousness.
Got me thinking that if sentience is a relatively modern evolutionary development - can we even envisage that the next step in this evolutionary process might be?
I've had very similar thoughts about the evolutionary advantages of consciousness, but have arrived at a somewhat different conclusion. The advantage sentience and the qualia it presents seem to be targeted at anything capable of changing its environment quickly. And the classic way of doing this is to run away quickly, because if you're going to feel pain, then there'd better be something you can do about it. This why I would, unlike Humphrey, include things like the octopus as candidates for consciousness and qualia. Plants are less likely to have sentience because they typically can't do anything about an emergency.
Imagine not having any form of consciousness, but having highly evolved reflexes that can blindly cause complex and arguably intelligent motor activity to act in a self preserving manner. Then imagine you're attacked by some wild creature. Your sensory and motor and logic systems go to work, and it works to the best of its ability. You escape, perhaps maimed, or you die. Maybe there's something you could have done to improve your chances of survival or of not being injured, but it's not built into your system, and besides, it doesn't matter to you.
What the qualia of sentience does in short is to make the organism CARE what happens to it. I do agree in a sense with Humphrey here - pain makes it personal. And when it becomes personal, you may find yourself kicking your game up a notch or two.
One baffling issue remains that if animal don't have consciousness, they seem to have psychological advantages for survival. If everyone acts like robots without feelings, they would advance much better in the hierarchy. Examples are the 'robotic' CEOs in the modern era who become champions, famous, and wealthy.
How so? If animals care for one another, they are more likely to ensure the survival of their species.
Self preservation requires a sense of self to preserve.
I’m usually more on the computer since side and not that interested in biology but this was really nice thank you. One thing that crossed my mind, if we had some mathematically rigorous scoring algorithm like “this thing is 1.2345 times as conscious as that thing“ it would be comparably „easy“ to create something that resembles consciousness. Or even a game where it’s an advantage to be conscious would suffice.
Consciousness science is very important。To achieve mind uploading for immortality, we have to know what to transfer out from biological brain to artificial system first. Nowadays no one knows yet.
You already have mind uploading technology. Consciousness is a matrix.
Yes: books for sale. This book, no doubt, is the most worthy, the most valuable. What does it teach us?
That's a wonderful lecture..
my definition of consciousness or sentience- - the universe started with something blooming into existence- this something traveled in time and space and morphed into slightly different other things over time, due to entropy, each thing then residing in its own unique space and time. Now,we observe these things as the matter of the entire universe - but in essence the whole of creation and matter is just that one single thing that is blooming - albeit in different locales of time and space. Hence, our so called consciousness is a field with intricate connections between all matter in space and through time and also all matter and time that is quantum entangled> Hence not only are animals sentient but the Universe itself is a sentient being
"With this marvelous new phenomenon at the core of your being, you will have begun to matter to yourself in a new and deeper way."
....but _why?_
"You will have come to believe, as never before, in your own singular significance....And it won't just be you...."
This is circular logic. You find significance in the fact that you've found significance. It's a wonderfully modern tautology, but I don't think ancient people used anything remotely resembling categories like 'personal significance' either in their socialization or individuation.