Bach is just very confident in his field and is good with expressing his ideas with words.Penrose won the Nobel prize in physics this year so I guess his awareness is top tier
When it comes to AI and consciousness, I think Bach has much deeper understanding of these concepts. But Penrose is the goat when it comes to physics. Also I like the humility that Penrose expresses when he’s talking, even though his ideas are quite bold.
Bach is saying that most AI that we know of and use will be machine based learning or a series of algorithms intertwined with our daily activities. The way amazon predicts shopping habits to the way social media predicts feeds of interest. In 50 years most of these engines will be able to predict our individual activities with up to 90% accuracy
The question about how concepts are represented in the brain: There are neurons called "mirror cells" that fire the same way when an animal takes action as when the animal sees another animal take that action. This seems to be a rudimentary form of modeling. I wonder if concepts are represented in the brain in a similar fashion; cells (in groups) that fire when the concept is in the minds eye.
The sheer number of neurons is stunning, but a single neuron behaves somewhat simply. It reaches and wiggles in the dark to find friends and is fed when it fires. What a wondrous thing to try to perceive, the wildly varied state of each individual brain, how any complex stimuli is perceived and just how that feeds into our communities of neurons being fed or not, and the universe of chemistry and physics and computation inside us all. Joscha's so quick, and he gives us this curt framework to think about things and appreciate the expansive complexity, I absolutely love it! He talks about text compression being about making predictions. If you know the "rules", you cn stll ndrstnd txt. If you know everything, you don't need to do any work, so information is a system about that which we don't already know. Observe everything, find the structure in it, and then you only need to encode the changes in that structure. This concept, to me, lends itself to the idea of these communities of neurons and how "concepts" live in our brains and are perceived in our minds.
To understand consciousness, one has to start from Human. We think we know ourselves. This study was started by Mohammad(sa), 1400 years ago, taken up by Rumi, 800 years ago. Today, we are trying to see if we can program it into machines, to make machines conscious. Consciousness is above sensation to make it a reality or it won't be able to sustain itself, the way we, human can. Consciousness starts with hardware, not software.
Why these people think that Science Can Answer Life's Ultimate Questions. It can not. Science faces an insurmountable limitation - nonreductivity - as pointed out by several scientists. For instance - “...definitions can be given only with the help of other concepts, and so one will finally have to rely on some concepts that are taken as they are, unanalyzed and undefined” (Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 114)
@Ali Kazemi - Its possible that science will have difficulty answering some questions, but that doesn't mean we should just make-up stuff; especially when stuff we make-up may be imposed on others..
The only leap of faith necessary is faith in the senses. To pretend that it's anything else is wishful thinking, that every so persistent extension of the survival instinct.
to everyone who think science can explain everything ask yourself "why does something exists rather than nothing?" the correct answer is existence is illogical & hence unscientific.
The music can also be seen as a sort of vibration pattern and we all know that in QED or String theory vibrations are what make particles. So certain type of vibration might be pleasant to someone intrinsically or unpleasant. In any way as Joscha said that thing changes through the time as our conscious NeoCortex can make any patterns more pleasant or less pleasant. So what does that mean? That females singing or some stupid instruments are more pleasant then others? No. Quite opposite that is something that actually have sociological correlation and some have psychological correlation. For example people like female voices at least males females singing as dunno sometime 20000 years ago and more lets say 200000 years ago mothers ware singing to children to put them to sleep. So yeah that is my answer to that. And all music is stupid irrelevant especially as in difference of the old ages people started trying to copyright it and that is not something that shouldn't be allowed. Any music pattern that you can make I can make too. And if I want I will. The main point is that no one can forbid someone to make some music pattern because other person copyrighted similar pattern. Also music is irrelevant totally unimportant if you disagree just go and read old fairy tales.
@@Daniel-oj7bx Well mostly correct and I agree in general but then again we should look that from other angle and that is that each of us has some music patterns or sounds that relax them and that is something that does have meaning psychologically some of the things like female singing have even more anthropologically significance for all humans.
Joscha Bach MiT - You should feel lucky to be in the presence of Sir Roger Penrose. Bach, You will be forgotten in the annals of history. Sir Roger Penrose is immortal.
@@McKinleyMorann are you one of those people who doesn't think comparison is possible? oranges are usually orange in colour, apples usually green or red, there you are, a comparison 😀
They are all nervous as fuck in front of Bach, his awareness is next level. These guys are all very smart, but Bach looks so comfortable.
Bach is just very confident in his field and is good with expressing his ideas with words.Penrose won the Nobel prize in physics this year so I guess his awareness is top tier
Bull.
When it comes to AI and consciousness, I think Bach has much deeper understanding of these concepts. But Penrose is the goat when it comes to physics. Also I like the humility that Penrose expresses when he’s talking, even though his ideas are quite bold.
You can learn a lot about their corporal language indeed.
Bach is saying that most AI that we know of and use will be machine based learning or a series of algorithms intertwined with our daily activities. The way amazon predicts shopping habits to the way social media predicts feeds of interest. In 50 years most of these engines will be able to predict our individual activities with up to 90% accuracy
except it is 5 years
@@ャンティオカ BasedMoneyGod?
I'd say 90% is an underestimate IMO
They can manage to invite such personalities but can't get three separate mics ffs.
://
all the $ was spent in the chairs xD
Difference between pleasure and pain
At every point in time and space
bruh!! That's deep yooo!!
Both are necessary for Survival.
The question about how concepts are represented in the brain: There are neurons called "mirror cells" that fire the same way when an animal takes action as when the animal sees another animal take that action. This seems to be a rudimentary form of modeling. I wonder if concepts are represented in the brain in a similar fashion; cells (in groups) that fire when the concept is in the minds eye.
The sheer number of neurons is stunning, but a single neuron behaves somewhat simply. It reaches and wiggles in the dark to find friends and is fed when it fires. What a wondrous thing to try to perceive, the wildly varied state of each individual brain, how any complex stimuli is perceived and just how that feeds into our communities of neurons being fed or not, and the universe of chemistry and physics and computation inside us all. Joscha's so quick, and he gives us this curt framework to think about things and appreciate the expansive complexity, I absolutely love it!
He talks about text compression being about making predictions. If you know the "rules", you cn stll ndrstnd txt. If you know everything, you don't need to do any work, so information is a system about that which we don't already know. Observe everything, find the structure in it, and then you only need to encode the changes in that structure. This concept, to me, lends itself to the idea of these communities of neurons and how "concepts" live in our brains and are perceived in our minds.
12:35 I'll need like another 15 years to understand what the fuck that question was even about
To understand consciousness, one has to start from Human. We think we know ourselves. This study was started by Mohammad(sa), 1400 years ago, taken up by Rumi, 800 years ago. Today, we are trying to see if we can program it into machines, to make machines conscious. Consciousness is above sensation to make it a reality or it won't be able to sustain itself, the way we, human can. Consciousness starts with hardware, not software.
Mister Bach so annoyed because he figured all this out years ago hehe
Nah.
what is going on with there questions XD
2
The handy question peroperativly object because scissors molecularly prevent worth a enthusiastic aquarius. ubiquitous, sad valley
Why these people think that Science Can Answer Life's Ultimate Questions. It can not. Science faces an insurmountable limitation - nonreductivity - as pointed out by several scientists. For instance - “...definitions can be given only with the help of other concepts, and so one will finally have to rely on some concepts that are taken as they are, unanalyzed and undefined” (Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 114)
There's nothing undefined in nature, absolutely everything is understandable (cf principle of sufficient reason).
@Ali Kazemi - Its possible that science will have difficulty answering some questions, but that doesn't mean we should just make-up stuff; especially when stuff we make-up may be imposed on others..
@@marktomasetti8642 exactly, making up stuff is moving in the wrong direction.
The only leap of faith necessary is faith in the senses. To pretend that it's anything else is wishful thinking, that every so persistent extension of the survival instinct.
to everyone who think science can explain everything ask yourself "why does something exists rather than nothing?"
the correct answer is existence is illogical & hence unscientific.
The music can also be seen as a sort of vibration pattern and we all know that in QED or String theory vibrations are what make particles. So certain type of vibration might be pleasant to someone intrinsically or unpleasant. In any way as Joscha said that thing changes through the time as our conscious NeoCortex can make any patterns more pleasant or less pleasant. So what does that mean? That females singing or some stupid instruments are more pleasant then others? No. Quite opposite that is something that actually have sociological correlation and some have psychological correlation. For example people like female voices at least males females singing as dunno sometime 20000 years ago and more lets say 200000 years ago mothers ware singing to children to put them to sleep. So yeah that is my answer to that. And all music is stupid irrelevant especially as in difference of the old ages people started trying to copyright it and that is not something that shouldn't be allowed. Any music pattern that you can make I can make too. And if I want I will. The main point is that no one can forbid someone to make some music pattern because other person copyrighted similar pattern.
Also music is irrelevant totally unimportant if you disagree just go and read old fairy tales.
What do you think of other copyright restrictions e.g. patents?
well i think music and art in genreal have no real meaning .. they don´t distribute anything to elevate the human condition
@@Daniel-oj7bx Well mostly correct and I agree in general but then again we should look that from other angle and that is that each of us has some music patterns or sounds that relax them and that is something that does have meaning psychologically some of the things like female singing have even more anthropologically significance for all humans.
Joscha Bach MiT - You should feel lucky to be in the presence of Sir Roger Penrose.
Bach, You will be forgotten in the annals of history. Sir Roger Penrose is immortal.
Why did you said that?
lol, Penrose is a great physicist but does not have the depth of Bach, you are wrong
@kaizaki Arata Lol jesus. Talking about comparing apples and oranges. Is it a competition?
@@xmathmanx Penrose is 88. Is it a competition? Two of the stupidest comments ever seen under a mega-nerd video
@@McKinleyMorann are you one of those people who doesn't think comparison is possible? oranges are usually orange in colour, apples usually green or red, there you are, a comparison 😀