I only made it about 12 minutes in to this interview the multiple mmhmms and yeah and oks to every point Dr Wolfram tried to make we're very distracting. Learn to let people speak and how not to talk over them. He was very gracious guest but I know from experience how painful it is to try to explain something complicated especially something spanning multiple disciplines and have someone constantly making comments that don't contribute anything to the discourse. Even if he didn't show it it's as distracting for the speaker as it is for the audience.
29:40 "in our brains we have, you know, 100 billion neurons and they're firing every millisecond or something, and that's a certain amount of computation. if we look at almost any system in the natural world that has a bunch of molecules in it, there's vastly more computation going on in that system with a bunch of molecules than there is in our brains. but yet we say the computation that's going on in our brains, that's really meaningful to us. the computation that's going on with these molecules bouncing around, well, that's just physics. and it isn't... so it's not aligned with kind of our way of thinking about things and in the end, you know, we have this inner experience of what we're thinking and that's... and and each of us has that separate inner experience"
I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics. It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist objectively as a mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini
I don't quite follow all of your logic, but nevertheless, I am curious what you mean by "indivisible non-physical element". I don't know how to conceive outside of the physical and I don't know what the concepts of "indivisible" and "element" would mean outside the context of the physical. I'm not disagreeing btw. Just curious and trying to understand. I realise it is difficult or impossible to explain.
1:11:06 Computational Irreducibility and Free Will; Will We give AI Free Will? - Humans are lazy, following AI suggestions could lead to reverting to the mean: AI as the ultimate Sheepdog shepherding Humanity, as human sheep are just lazy. Well: what’s wrong with a bit of shepherding? As long there are greener pastures ahead? There‘ll be room for some Psalm 23 comfort / consolation coming with it? - Maybe we get stuck on some local optimum, instead of discovering the next hillside, but maybe there will still be a way down the road? 23 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.
Like, leave a comment, and subscribe for more similar content 👍
I only made it about 12 minutes in to this interview the multiple mmhmms and yeah and oks to every point Dr Wolfram tried to make we're very distracting. Learn to let people speak and how not to talk over them. He was very gracious guest but I know from experience how painful it is to try to explain something complicated especially something spanning multiple disciplines and have someone constantly making comments that don't contribute anything to the discourse. Even if he didn't show it it's as distracting for the speaker as it is for the audience.
@nathan_sweet Thanks for your observation. I appreciate it!
I feel honored and inspired to listen to this man speak.
@@tamarag.wellswells3868 Glad you liked it.
Love how Dr. Wolfram is tackling the big questions of our time.
@@Matoos21 👍
Wolfram’s clarity on complex topics is impressive , loved this episode!
@@stevejohn423 Glad you liked it! 👍
Dr. Wolfram's approach to quantum mechanics is revolutionary.
@@kilinr2419 👍
What an honor to see Dr. Wolfram, such a brilliant mind!
@@sherlockthomas9805 Glad you liked it 👍
This is an incredible interview.
@@ezabelfernendas8732 Thank you
Thanks for the content!!!
@@johnhozy625 Glad you liked it
This podcast really makes you think about the future of AI and consciousness.
@@thompsonj8935 Glad you liked it 👍
I think he deserves Nobel 🏆
@@ottofrank3445 Definitely!
This was truly one of the most insightful podcasts I've listened to in a long time.
@@peter-nl3je Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!
What a brilliant episode!
@@bellafotor9088 Thank you!
Love hearing Stephen Wolfram talk.
@@zeetravelzvlogs7146 Glad you liked it
This conversation is the future of science and computation!
@@lovegame8016 Glad you liked it
🎉Brilliant and mind blown ! Great interview!
@@wwkk4964 Thank you
@HrvojeKukina Thank you! It was a very thoughtful and beautifully diverse question set.
@wwkk4964 Thanks! Glad you liked it!
A brilliant conversation with a brilliant man.
@@cecilkulick3288 👍
Everyone acknowledges he is genuis
@@brendawilliams8062 👍
Interesting podcast!
@@taninol9559 Thanks!
Fantastic podcast!
@@abeo9316 Thanks!
A must listen for anyone curious about the intersection of AI and quantum theory.
@@tysoncowlishaw2011 Thank you!
Really appreciate the video!
@@isabellamosan4756 Thanks!
Such an engaging podcast!
@@mildredaf1868 Thank you!
Amazing podcast, keep it up!
@@shantybabble7153 Thank you! Glad you liked it 👍
Great explanation!
@@alexanderria3790 Glad you liked it 👍
Quantum entanglement explained in a totally new way!
@@charlielocke9605 👍
took me a while to realize that this dude is an absolute rockstar
@@drmedwuast 🙂👍
He is loving it
@@brendawilliams8062 👍
I feel like I’ll understand 5% of this but still watch it 👍
@@jacintaloop5376 👍
29:40 "in our brains we have, you know, 100 billion neurons and they're firing every millisecond or something, and that's a certain amount of computation.
if we look at almost any system in the natural world that has a bunch of molecules in it, there's vastly more computation going on in that system with a bunch of molecules than there is in our brains. but yet we say the computation that's going on in our brains, that's really meaningful to us. the computation that's going on with these molecules bouncing around, well, that's just physics. and it isn't... so it's not aligned with kind of our way of thinking about things and in the end, you know, we have this inner experience of what we're thinking and that's... and and each of us has that separate inner experience"
33:35 inter-concept space is yuge
👍👍
I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics.
It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).
Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds.
Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct.
Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams)
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Clarifications
The brain itself doesn't exist objectively as a mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain.
Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
Conclusions
My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness.
An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.
Marco Biagini
@@marcobiagini1878 Thank you for your comment and such an in-depth explanation!
I don't quite follow all of your logic, but nevertheless, I am curious what you mean by "indivisible non-physical element". I don't know how to conceive outside of the physical and I don't know what the concepts of "indivisible" and "element" would mean outside the context of the physical.
I'm not disagreeing btw. Just curious and trying to understand. I realise it is difficult or impossible to explain.
pleas stop the "I see"s and the "mhm"s it becomes so hard to listen to Stephen s talk
@@calin2k Got it! 👍
1:11:06 Computational Irreducibility and Free Will; Will We give AI Free Will? - Humans are lazy, following AI suggestions could lead to reverting to the mean: AI as the ultimate Sheepdog shepherding Humanity, as human sheep are just lazy.
Well: what’s wrong with a bit of shepherding? As long there are greener pastures ahead? There‘ll be room for some Psalm 23 comfort / consolation coming with it? - Maybe we get stuck on some local optimum, instead of discovering the next hillside, but maybe there will still be a way down the road?
23 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.
Mmhmm
Got it 👍
Incredible episode!
@@minahiltaper6132 Thank you!