Everything in the brain is an abstraction | Andrew Huberman and Lex Fridman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Andrew Huberman: Neuro...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Eight Sleep: www.eightsleep... and use code LEX to get $200 off
- SEMrush: www.semrush.co... to get a free month of Guru
- Cash App: cash.app/ and use code LexPodcast to get $10
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
CONNECT:
- Subscribe to this RUclips channel
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridmanpage
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
The 0s and 1s in computers which Lex mentions is also an abstraction. At the fundamental level there is just physical voltage being manipulated and even that itself is an abstraction. We can stare down at the bottommost level and claim that quantum physics explains the actual physical behavior but physicists will very kindly tell you that even the quantum physical model of wave functions and probability is also a well constructed model or ... you guessed it.. an abstraction.
“The map is not the territory.”
🤯
Alfred Korzybski - Science and Sanity 1933
Woah bruh
These 2 are exceptional humans🧠🍄🪐
I’m not a Chomsky fan, but he’s right about neuralink and the problem of consciousness. You’ll never explain it with neural networks and brain circuitry alone. Rupert Sheldrake is much closer with his ideas around panpsychism. I think we’ll discover soon enough that whatever we are in the final analysis is not reducible to the brain. The brain isn’t where consciousness lives
I have dreams where my projections brains are made of saltpeter and fireworks,
vedic literature shows the rules of matter are a subset of the rules of consciousness; yet scientists are lost in the minutia conflating consciousness with cognition. Sentient Beings of silicon or mercury or light have different cognition, same consciousness.
What data would ever suggest that the brain is not where consciousness lives? Considering that brain damage can shut consciousness off, and medicines that act on the brain can be used to disconnect your consciousness as well. These simple experiments and anecdotes give us a pretty finite picture of where consciousness lives, and that’s the brain. I know many wish this wasn’t true, but it is extremely likely with what we know so far. I believe that when we can model the brain with enough resolution, in simulation and/or in practice, we will be able to create consciousness in something that is not human, and even teach it to communicate its own experience of consciousness to us. Especially if we can enhance the circuitry to become more aware of its own processes somehow.
@Chad Dysvick yes, antennas vibrate in response to a frequency passing through it
We cannot have an overall understanding to a phenomena while being imbedded in it. It’s like trying to tune up a car while driving it.
@@2ndAveScents I would say you're still trying to think about it from the perspective of the old paradigm. For one, the idea whether consciousness resides in the brain or does not reside in the brain is probably a false dichotomy--meaning it's probably not 'either or,' but 'both and.' I'm not saying the brain has nothing to do with consciousness. What I'm saying is that consciousness can't be wholly reducible to brain neural networks or neural circuitry. If that were the case then we'd be closer to knowing something about it. You ask what evidence I could point to and I would, again, point to the work of Rupert Sheldrake and his ideas around morphic resonance and panpsychism. Another point, one thing is clear form Lex' podcast: he has interrogated a multitude of people who would know, if anyone did know, and none of them know, even the slightest detail, about consciousness.
The brain can easily recreate a perfect image of anything you care to imagine that appears as an actual 3D scene. We do so each night during dreaming, but it also occurs during various other altered states of consciousness. I do not think this is a byproduct of vision either. I think it is instrumental in vision perhaps even the essence of our visual system. The fact that AI cannot do this well says a lot about its current stage of development too.
I think once after death our soul leaves our brain and is freed by those chains called our "senses" and also released of the prison of our brain, then we will be able to truly perceive the world in its true nature.
This line of thought always makes me wonder- if everything we perceive is due to neurological processes, will it ever be possible for us to observe the world in it's true nature?
I think it would be very difficult to even prove there is a "true nature" to things. I feel like every observation needs some sort of context to be understood, otherwise the observation is basically meaningless noise. The closest thing to "the world's true nature", at least to me, feels like math. When you really get into it, math starts to feel more like a context that's formed without a clear observation, but we can make observations of other things and apply the context of math to those things.
Elon Musk said something along the lines of the universe is just a bunch of data being moved around and following different protocols. The world in its “true” nature would sort of lose beauty and meaning to us humans.
@@Spookyhoobster That is an interesting point. However, the moment we mingle our observations with fundamental mathematic logic, we only use math to confirm the "biases" of our perception.
What can math reveal about reality without our input as context? I feel like we typically apply math as a tool to analyze our observations- right?
@@Nick97107 I'm not a mathematician, so I can't answer anything with a high degree of confidence.
- What can math reveal about reality without our input as context?
This really depends on what you mean by "reality" and "input". In a practical sense, math tells us where the planets are going to be, how to fly a plane, etc., and I would say it doesn't use "our input" as context, it uses the "input of the universe and physics" as context. It's like math is the "language" being used, physics is "the story" being told, and the results are "the meaning" of it all. I would really say it's more like our input is nowhere to be found, and we're just "following the story" because "knowing the meaing" benefits us as a species.
In a more metaphysical sense (like the nature of good and evil) I would say the problem isn't that math can't reveal things like this, but the "stories we tell" differs from person to person.
I feel like we typically apply math as a tool to analyze our observations right?
Typically, yes, mostly because practical application is just so useful. But there's plenty of math that does not have practical use, and it exists mostly to prove the nature of how Math works as a system in and of itself (sometimes stuff like that does end up having practical uses though). That's really advanced stuff though, and outside of my knowledge. I've only barely brushed up against it in the past.
@@Spookyhoobster Maybe I'm digging into semantics but you mentioned how math uses the universe and physics as input. While this is true, math in this regard is using "our observations" of of the universe as input. Our observations of black holes and the data we gather from observing colliding particles are our inputs for the math. Maybe there is more going on that our brains have not evolved to observe. It's my intuition that math cannot help us solve the unobservable.
To your second point I think there are simple applications of math that are completely abstract and not applied/purely practical. Geometry comes to mind as it present truths independent of our observations. Pi will be pi even if humans never existed to measure it.
Isnt all perception within the body? Although yes there is a thing we call a car that "drives" by because of the senses and energy vibrations etc light hitting our eyes. Yes there is a thing that is moving by "outside of your body" but your perception of that object is completely within the mind and body.
Amazing as usual 🙂
I really look like tom cruise but you see mo sizzlack
Lex is overclocking his brain. Always got his energy drink, always a pained expression as he fights the constraints of his mind. They've clearly both shaved their heads to help cool their brains. Must do the same.
I heard him say he’s looking for a partner/lover😂
Very interesting!
I go one way never change direction
You can use Voice To Skull tech to torture/interrupt ones true existence in their own mind... I know all about it. You can interrupt ones way of thinking by introducing a new audible voice or idea in ones head which is a new thought that the individual will have to stop and think about and dissect even though they didnt want to, or didn't sign up for it...
To even begin understanding conciousness(whatever that word means) you first have to surrender and accept that it cannot be out in a box and be specified or narrowly defined (even if it may be possible someday) basically don't try too hard and accept how formless it is. Yet despite how formless it is, it does have a like. Also, language is not absolute. Have a nice day.
The world we know is an abstraction.
Please do a segment on synesthesia, Richard Cytowic. Where any two or up to all of your 5 senses can co-mingle and fire in overlapping time sequences.
I have the color grapheme form. Most common. Example: when I see white lettering on black back grounds certain letters appear with pink and green tinges.
If I blink rapidly the pink and green in certain letters disappear which implies latency is in play with the perception. Thickness of the letters comes into play as well.
ruclips.net/video/rkRbebvoYqI/видео.html
@@bro4539 Sensory blending and overlap in time are a hoot, aren't they ? Most people who have it don't even know. It is not taught in school and I stumbled on it a decade ago by accident. Richard Feynman had it, could see colored lettering in his head. Cmon, Lex what do you say, give this subject a go. That poses a bigger question do you reach out to people or do they come to you, or a bit of both ?
Our dreams are in black and white, so actually can't reconstruct just about anything.
@@janmejaysingh7402 Totally disagree, I have been lucid dreaming and remembering them for years, sometimes flying and in vivid almost surreal color, maybe for you but not for me.
What if consciousness is not just neurons firing, for instance Nobel prize winner Penrose was talking about microtubules and non computability of consciousness
An abstraction of what?!
super low frequency. once you know the frequency you can transmit on that frequency; it's the basis for the idea behind a neural link...no wires required
DMT has this weird effect that not many people talk about. It makes inanimate objects appear animate and animate objects appear inanimate. case in point me a and a friend smoked DMT and he said I looked like Action Man with the Eagle eyes and he looked like Kryton from red Dwarf....!
Man this guy is too much
@@MustObeyTheRules wym
@@MapleSoryxX233 if you were thinking abstractly for a while already, then this doesn't actually go that deep and they avoided the difficult topic in this snip. Ultimately, everything (to us creatures) is a subjective appearance of reality - our experiences/perceptions are not of a true or fundamental reality. What the reality of reality is - is... well could be pure consciousness, yada yada... it takes some mental gymnastic work to land some conceptual understandings.
@@chedalot Yeah I understand all that. My comment was referring to more of the title of these videos really makes you think and see the mind run to conclusions.
When is he not amazing
"We're just abstractions" LB23Art
Please close the door behind Andrew Huberman... It's distracting