@@Sabxine thats not bullshit. Kolmogrov complexity is precisely about that. If you have a string of length n you can encode it in a maximum of logn bits. Computational complexity is where its more difficult. Like can we reduce an np problem to a p problem? i think so yet that is still an open problem(p vs np)
The science needs time to explain these things to the detail where you'd be pleased with the explanation. Perhaps, in our lifetime, this will never happen. But we do have enough currently to sort of guess the trajectory of where we're going.
There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained. How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now. -- Ramana Maharshi
Mind and brain are the same we are just playing with words. As to thinking it is the same as to speaking out loud but what happens we hear it in the Brain or mind and this is the ILLUSION as to when one speaks in the mind we are also using our vocal chords but very subtle and it is heard in the braining still using our EARS like vibration type of thing.
If neurological impulses are what ultimately give us qualia (be some mechanism we dont know yet) how are the mind/brain any different? I’ve seen a lot of software/hardware metaphors but that doesnt seem to apply if its the brain doing EVERYTHING
5:32 Robert "You're saying you can't explain it in terms of neurons" Marvin " No, I'm saying you can explain it in terms of neurons" There is a recognised psychological condition by which the brain tries to reject facts which oppose the brain's beliefs. Robert desperately wants a spiritual answer.
I have a hunch that guys like Minsky are probably right about the eventual understanding of the emergence of consciousness from physical processes, however this does not rule out things like God and sin. These things are also necessary parts of the whole system.
The problem of mind is not a matter of scale or complexity. It's a matter of observation. It's the fact that the mind is subjectively observing itself and it's environment, and that science is unwilling to examine subjective experience. Science can only deal with objective reality, and will never be fit to address the mind as a quantifiable reality.
When you have a scientific theory which you use to make some assertions about objective reality you can always test it and see if it matches your subjective perception.
The moon has been there for thousands of years, and yet we only knew the earth is a sphere for a few hundred years. All the “lazy” philosophers never bothered to ask the right person “the question”. Laziness indeed.
I may well be wrong but is Minsky saying that he believes basically that consciousness is a construct that we use to describe the highest result of the emergence of matter into physical complexity which can be symbolically pictured in numbers that a computer can assemble ? I don't understand though if that is the case ,why he doesn't seem to think that same basic ideal based on ascension can go on, just like numbers into infinites and then transit into something on the scale so small that on our level it doesn't seem to exist. To us....something invisible and eternal. Seems like if you take his logic to it's final step that would be the case.
Well, the track record for knowing what it is to be " like brick", and not to be "brick", isn't terribly impressive either. Humanity may have to settle for an empathic compromise. Even when the android is invited to an afternoon tea.
Minsky doesn't get the mind body problem. Even if we knew all the processes in seeing color, we still couldn't prove that my red isn't your green. If a scientist knew everything about seeing color but had never actually seen color, she would learn something the first time she saw color. This I believe is the crux of the problem.
I agree. I think Marvin Minsky was very stubborn. Although he was a great computer scientist, he was extremely incompetent when it came down to these issues.
Color is perception. Perception is based on the wiring of the brain learned through experience which is different for everyone because everyone has different experiences and genetics etc. It is only interacting with a group you will understand what people mean by "green" as their incoming perception is green when green photons hit their eye, however, their wiring may be very different. Your comment then is like comparing apples and oranges as being the same fruit. You can also think of it as like two computer programs doing the exact same thing as you perceive it but both were written in different programming languages and have different algorithms. It then does not follow to compare them line by line as that would be pointless. When I think I'm smarter than a genius, I stop myself and think maybe I don't understand the problem well enough. This has helped me not look like a jack ass.
You may be mistaken. Whether we "experience" color differently is irrelevant to human endevors as longs as we process the information in a way that produces identical responses. Proof doesn't matter. Explaining how we "experience" color doesn't matter - what matters is consensus. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_(computer_science) As long as there is consensus that we need to stop at the traffic light with wavelength of 680 nanometers, whether you experience red like I experience vanilla ice cream is immaterial. This is covered in distributed systems theory. The goal of the system is consensus for the purpose of avoiding Byzantine failure modes in the distributed system that is society. Have a look at the Black Box concept of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box There is an infinite set of unique black boxes which produce the same output for the same given input. That is to say - they are indistinguishable form the "outside" even though none of them are identical on the inside. Color is just information measured by your eyes and interpreted by your brain.
I am no expert but try to understand and up to this point I only see that seeing ourselves as biological machines with computer brains is a perfect view but consciousness is not required for it. At best it's a emergent, powerless side effect. I thought for a while the placebo effect proved "the passenger in the backseat" indeed had an influence: sugar pills not only raising your blood sugar but also exerting other physical changes But now I read that these changes are mostly immaterial (like feeling less pain) or if not so caused by conditioning. The universe and so we too always evolve deterministic and so there is no free will. Our brains have already made a choice split seconds before we are aware of it. So defending dualism makes you seem like a fool. Yet in our daily lives and or justice system nothing changes. We keep the view that we are all free and responsible. ( Your honor, I really don't know why this brain is done all these horrible things but please, don't punish it because it is I, the innocent answering machine that will suffer then)
Yes he can. Pain is a vivid belief which evolution manifested because it's so useful for making us care deeply about damage. i.e. It's an illusion but not in the sense of it being a _delusion_ but in the sense of it being a _misconstrual._ i.e. Not what it _seems_ to be.
can a hardliner materislistic have enough information related to the metaphysical and the intents to make it affirmative is what drives current society into paranoia. they should not be with spiritualist and vise versa. This is like making water mix with oils. Here we have a teacher of dialectical materialism trying to discredit a gnosis view frustrating two both parties. For society's own good, scientist should teacher other scientist but not every necessitated to be a scientists!
“Nothing’s irreducible. It’s just that we’re not smart enough to reduce it.” Roger that.
to infinity and ...beyond?
bullshit. check Kolmogorov complexity
Or the other way around: reduction is an approximation that works well, but fundamentally nothing is reducible
Sounds like "turtles all the way down" to me?
@@Sabxine thats not bullshit. Kolmogrov complexity is precisely about that. If you have a string of length n you can encode it in a maximum of logn bits. Computational complexity is where its more difficult. Like can we reduce an np problem to a p problem? i think so yet that is still an open problem(p vs np)
He has a point. I like his practical approach to the "problem".
The science needs time to explain these things to the detail where you'd be pleased with the explanation. Perhaps, in our lifetime, this will never happen. But we do have enough currently to sort of guess the trajectory of where we're going.
As a CS he should know that there are problems without a solution, proven to be non solvable, like the halting problem for example.
Dualism sounds more intellectual than admitting that we still have to join some dots.
There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained. How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now. -- Ramana Maharshi
Energy interacting with energy causes things to occur.
is it just me or the sound is almost inaudible to everyone?
wisdom
Mind and brain are the same we are just playing with words. As to thinking it is the same as to speaking out loud but what happens we hear it in the Brain or mind and this is the ILLUSION as to when one speaks in the mind we are also using our vocal chords but very subtle and it is heard in the braining still using our EARS like vibration type of thing.
minsky is deep.
If neurological impulses are what ultimately give us qualia (be some mechanism we dont know yet) how are the mind/brain any different? I’ve seen a lot of software/hardware metaphors but that doesnt seem to apply if its the brain doing EVERYTHING
He is so awesome
Can mental activity come from energy? Could thought and emotion and other mental activity be derived from energy?
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is interviews are like game of rock paper 📃 scissors ✂ paper being mind matter is scissors ✂ maths being rock
5:32
Robert "You're saying you can't explain it in terms of neurons"
Marvin " No, I'm saying you can explain it in terms of neurons"
There is a recognised psychological condition by which the brain tries to reject
facts which oppose the brain's beliefs.
Robert desperately wants a spiritual answer.
Can oxygen bridge the gap from physical / brain to mental / mind?
I have a hunch that guys like Minsky are probably right about the eventual understanding of the emergence of consciousness from physical processes, however this does not rule out things like God and sin. These things are also necessary parts of the whole system.
+SeanMauer I see how they're possible components of the universe, but why necessary?
He is brilliant but his hands movement distract me so much lol
Good riddance
The problem of mind is not a matter of scale or complexity. It's a matter of observation. It's the fact that the mind is subjectively observing itself and it's environment, and that science is unwilling to examine subjective experience. Science can only deal with objective reality, and will never be fit to address the mind as a quantifiable reality.
When you have a scientific theory which you use to make some assertions about objective reality you can always test it and see if it matches your subjective perception.
The moon has been there for thousands of years, and yet we only knew the earth is a sphere for a few hundred years. All the “lazy” philosophers never bothered to ask the right person “the question”. Laziness indeed.
The mind-body problem is a cultural artifact.
It's racist and sexist
No body, no mind. No problem.
I think the inverse. I think to posit that all existence can be comprehended by the human mind is arrogant.
Then you're making a very arrogant claim: That no human mind exists that can comprehend facts and concepts.
I may well be wrong but is Minsky saying that he believes basically that consciousness is a construct that we use to describe the highest result of the emergence of matter into physical complexity which can be symbolically pictured in numbers that a computer can assemble ? I don't understand though if that is the case ,why he doesn't seem to think that same basic ideal based on ascension can go on, just like numbers into infinites and then transit into something on the scale so small that on our level it doesn't seem to exist. To us....something invisible and eternal. Seems like if you take his logic to it's final step that would be the case.
0:32 how 4s silence can tell a lot
To say the mind body problem can be solved is not a solution.
Well, the track record for knowing what it is to be " like brick", and not to be "brick", isn't terribly impressive either.
Humanity may have to settle for an empathic compromise.
Even when the android is invited to an afternoon tea.
ALL AUDIO OF CLOSER TO TRUTH IS BAD
Minsky doesn't get the mind body problem. Even if we knew all the processes in seeing color, we still couldn't prove that my red isn't your green. If a scientist knew everything about seeing color but had never actually seen color, she would learn something the first time she saw color. This I believe is the crux of the problem.
I agree. I think Marvin Minsky was very stubborn. Although he was a great computer scientist, he was extremely incompetent when it came down to these issues.
Color is perception. Perception is based on the wiring of the brain learned through experience which is different for everyone because everyone has different experiences and genetics etc. It is only interacting with a group you will understand what people mean by "green" as their incoming perception is green when green photons hit their eye, however, their wiring may be very different. Your comment then is like comparing apples and oranges as being the same fruit. You can also think of it as like two computer programs doing the exact same thing as you perceive it but both were written in different programming languages and have different algorithms. It then does not follow to compare them line by line as that would be pointless. When I think I'm smarter than a genius, I stop myself and think maybe I don't understand the problem well enough. This has helped me not look like a jack ass.
You may be mistaken. Whether we "experience" color differently is irrelevant to human endevors as longs as we process the information in a way that produces identical responses.
Proof doesn't matter. Explaining how we "experience" color doesn't matter - what matters is consensus. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_(computer_science)
As long as there is consensus that we need to stop at the traffic light with wavelength of 680 nanometers, whether you experience red like I experience vanilla ice cream is immaterial.
This is covered in distributed systems theory. The goal of the system is consensus for the purpose of avoiding Byzantine failure modes in the distributed system that is society.
Have a look at the Black Box concept of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
There is an infinite set of unique black boxes which produce the same output for the same given input. That is to say - they are indistinguishable form the "outside" even though none of them are identical on the inside. Color is just information measured by your eyes and interpreted by your brain.
I am no expert but try to understand and up to this point I only see that seeing ourselves as biological machines with computer brains is a perfect view but consciousness is not required for it. At best it's a emergent, powerless side effect. I thought for a while the placebo effect proved "the passenger in the backseat" indeed had an influence: sugar pills not only raising your blood sugar but also exerting other physical changes But now I read that these changes are mostly immaterial (like feeling less pain) or if not so caused by conditioning. The universe and so we too always evolve deterministic and so there is no free will. Our brains have already made a choice split seconds before we are aware of it. So defending dualism makes you seem like a fool. Yet in our daily lives and or justice system nothing changes. We keep the view that we are all free and responsible. ( Your honor, I really don't know why this brain is done all these horrible things but please, don't punish it because it is I, the innocent answering machine that will suffer then)
@@jasonsebring3983 explain then, why my city wires that transmit so much interconnected pulses of electricity, don't have a consciousness then.
Yeah Marvin, but there are some 'bits' that feel like pain. You don't explain that.
Yes he can. Pain is a vivid belief which evolution manifested because it's so useful for making us care deeply about damage. i.e. It's an illusion but not in the sense of it being a _delusion_ but in the sense of it being a _misconstrual._ i.e. Not what it _seems_ to be.
wtf is this low sound?
dw fixed it lool
How is this obvious fact still controversial?
"the mind-body problem is Laziness" eh? Let's get Protestantism on it then
can a hardliner materislistic have enough information related to the metaphysical and the intents to make it affirmative is what drives current society into paranoia. they should not be with spiritualist and vise versa. This is like making water mix with oils. Here we have a teacher of dialectical materialism trying to discredit a gnosis view frustrating two both parties. For society's own good, scientist should teacher other scientist but not every necessitated to be a scientists!
Balony
There's another problem: do you want to solve it? Skinner already has. We are no better than dogs and worms.
We should all aspire to be as good as dogs. Worms, meh.
Sounds like he is advocating “faith” in science.
Complete bs. He has no clue.
More like Marvin Gay