Mind and Machine: The Future of Thinking
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2024
- Creative thought is surely among our most precious and mysterious capabilities. But can powerful computers rival the human brain? As thinking, remembering and innovating become increasingly interwoven with technological advances, what are we capable of? What do we lose? Join Luciano Floridi, John Donoghue, Gary Small and Rosalind Picard for a thought-provoking program about thinking.
This program is part of The Big Idea Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.
The World Science Festival gathers great minds in science and the arts to produce live and digital content that allows a broad general audience to engage with scientific discoveries. Our mission is to cultivate a general public informed by science, inspired by its wonder, convinced of its value, and prepared to engage with its implications for the future.
Subscribe to our RUclips Channel for all the latest from WSF.
Visit our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com/
Like us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
Follow us on twitter: / worldscifest
Original Program Date: June 4, 2010
MODERATOR: John Hockenberry
PARTICIPANTS: Luciano Floridi, Gary Small, Rosalind Picard, John Donoghue
John Hockenberry Introduction 00:00
Participant Introductions. 06:21
What is the brain doing when it is trying to get a signal to the outside? 08:11
Pong with no paddle. 11:09
Whats the history of machines becoming one with humans? 15:00
Will we be more open to this technology moving forward? 25:47
Rosalind Picard demonstrates software that reads your face and mind. 28:58
Autism and the tools to help the signal to noise problem. 39:09
Is all this tech changing our brains? 46:05
The worry about spending too much time with our tech. 57:55
Can we replicate the internet in out brain? 01:05:37
Can we make a machine that profiles? 01:14:30
Can we create machines that are so like humans that they are another spices? 01:21:00 
Наука
Hello, RUclipsrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its RUclips translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account.
Check out Mind and Machine: The Future of Thinking to see how the process works: ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=f2CIU9oslxA
To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done.
Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: ruclips.net/user/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2
The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.
Some of the greatest and most intelligent minds on our planet are also some of the most humble and creative. I aspire to be as confident and knowledgeable (in my field) as some of these speakers.
The music is the only language which everyone can understand, because it’s connected to the star’s and universes !
Remember we are talking about an extension of ourselves, a Greater self. Even another Dimension.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments proving that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain. Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is. In other words, they are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, as well as subjectivity, implies the existence of a conscious mind, who can choose a specific point of view and arbitrary criteria. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it moment by moment, and in every moment consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes.
Here comes my third argument: It must also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to hyotehsize that such system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore is nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics.
Based on these considerations, it would be completely unreasonable to assume that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain
Informative, thrilling and enlightening. Great speakers!
From 2021 this puts things into perspective in how advanced this technology must be. It’s very exciting. I’m ready to see how this comes to the people outside of making money
Hi. Why don't you allow CC? People who has hearing impairment can't listen to your fantastic show.
Bless you all.
The next frontier science of the Mind
at 1:12:34 a topic was discussed about making an AI that would understand your emotions, respond to them in a proper way and "be your friend" in the fullest form possible. AI Replica has actually been developing the sort of engine that has lately been even more upgraded. Just a suggestion for anyone interested in researching forward.
Love the World Science Festival. Thank you for all of your exciting knowledge and information!
a random Slovene
A LOT OF THANKS TO ""WORLD SCIENCE FESTIVAL""...I'M TRYING TO MAKE A ''THINKING MEMORY'' AS LIKE HUMAN BRAIN...THIS MEMORY HAVES A THINKING POWER...I HOPE I WILL BE SUCCESSES....SO THANKS AGAIN & AGAIN...THIS VIDEO IS VERY HELPFUL FOR MY RESEARCH...
Science and spirituality are related in a way that they complement each other and for this reason I think we are going in the right direction by being willing to do everything possible to understand and learn more about the subject, today I give you Thank you for teaching and for helping humanity move forward towards a better future, blessings & Good vibes~~~
Excellent Congress. But it really needs an update. After so much time passed. 👍🏼
TBH i didnt know the flute looked like that, all the buttons are evenly spaced, how nice.
I really loved your video Mrnes :) great
at any given point in life, we think about what we consider most important.
Great show.
I’m a drummer, this subject is exactly what a drummer works on all the time
The idea of Matrix goes back to Rene Descartes and his notion of hyperbolic doubt.
Imagine one day’s, we as a human being, will be able to contact to each other’s wireless !
The "act" of the language of musical expression involves the "reflection" through the language of sound that the voice can not express of Feelings and Emotions a persons "spirit" can recognize inside,, where this comes from is one of the deepest mystery's of human kind ..
very educative video.
very good !
A like this video,because each person has a simple cuestión but at the same is fundamental,I love tecnologie.
1:20:40 in french we say téléphone intelligent
Nice conversation
I think it is wonderful how a flick like The Matrix ends up in the hearts and minds of scientists. Maybe it was the other way around in the first place.
However the case, it is a classic movie.
Fantastic 👏👏👏👏👏👌✌️💜
"Dad you are the Matrix." This is the best compliment a scientist dad can get !
Wonderful explanation of Hegel and Kant (at 22:59). I studied philosophy and always liked hard striking/hitting Kant better then weak, almost begging for attention Hegel.
Bless
Well, duh, we humans have been interacting with each other over space and time for eons. It is via writing and art. We have many inventions , like maps, books, musical notation, and symbols galore to do all this. That said, we are now at a quantum leap forward as I write. Microchip and algorithms together are today's movable type, paints, canvas, and brushes.
Yes
Technology is the most natural thing in human life. We invented knife. It is an excellent piece of technology but it's on us how to use it.
Well with AI maybe it will decide how to use us...😂
How about not being able to translate the coding for unstable unknown elements brought back threw the flesh interface vacuum that brings back incomprehensible ever changing data level six not beta three but what do I know I unlearn this trigger construct crap purposely and having played with mercury as a kid it was quite helpful to play with that construct till it got boring.
Ask Steve how's that shoulder and the slab everyone keeps seeing themselves on and why it's so difficult to wash my memories
The picture of the hand of God reference trigger to attempt to try and reroute the nura firing of the neurons. I'm good lol and the music and the photonic and electromagnetic and microwave cues are just an idea to influence and guide neural mapping and controlling of the over all timelines and gateways. How'd I do lol.l
There were two intelligent people in the video and one of them is the host. There were however only two. Just two. TWO
+Garlick Zulander
How many?
4:30 ... nice little piece he played.
Sounds like something my kindergarten teacher would have played for the class.
the inner grids, can be cloaked. for example use mania, have the machine read on that, but the person or TARGET for the machine in this case can be feeling a whole different way on an issue besides the mania that is read.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
Each of us in the present generations and all previous generations assert to ourselves that we are conscious, of course every individual is a separate consciousness. So what are the odds that each of our conscious separate identities should exist? Why am I aware of myself in my body and not someone else consciousness, if each conscious is separate and different? I am assuming that my consciousness and everyone else has a separate ID as in a genetic code. It seems astronomically almost impossible that I should exist. Then I could say the same about my physical or anyone's physical genetic code. What are the odds that it would come into existence in this present generation, just as what are the odds that my conscious identity would at the same time. The odds seem greater though that my conscious ID should correspond with my genetic code at the same time, again assuming that the conscious manifestation is unique. The only way I can get the odds down to more realistic probabilities That I or any conscious ID should exist is if consciousness is the same but separate through time and and individuals. When it manifests in the brain and body of an individual it gains its own ID.
This goes against my previous belief that conscious was an emergent property of the brain. I may have to revise my thoughts.
The counter argument is that since my or anyone genetic code/physical body is real but at the same time had a almost impossible probability of coming to existence because of the innumerable probabilities why shouldn't I say the same about my consciousness or anyone else? It is a bit like someone saying the evolution up to human level is impossible therefore we must be a special creation, yet we are conscious unique self-aware individuals in this present which also seems impossible.
So if consciousness is not a physical process what might it be? We can only interact in the physical universe. There seems no known way to interact otherwise therefore no at present known way to really investigate consciousness. Does consciousness leave our brains and bodies when we sleep and reenter when waking up?
@@grgmetube My point is that if we rationally analize our scientific knowledges about cerebral processes, on the basis of the laws of physics, we understand that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property of such processes is inconsistent. It is worth considering that the current laws of physics explain with great accuracy all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes. Devolopments in physics are expected to refer to high energy processes or cosmology, but it is unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes, because such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics, while consciousness is not. Since consciousness is irreducible to cerebral processes and to the laws of physics, the only rational explanation for the existence of consciousness is that an immaterial/unphysical element exists in us and interacts with cerebral processes, and our mind is the result of such interaction.
The nature of such non-physical element and of its interaction with the brain cannot be investigated through the scientific method, since it is not physical. Therefore, the problem to establish the nature of such non-physical element does not belong to the scientific domain, but to the metaphysical domain, and it is a matter of personal beliefs. In conclusion, an honest scientist must recognize that science has some intrinsic limits and that consciousness is certainly beyond such limits.
@@marcobiagini1878 I do sort of get your point. It is both hard and easy for me to swallow at the same time.
yes the mind projection is being done with entangled particles with the paired part bing in the quantum computer. It is done at room temperature. Natural quantum states in some animals led them to mind projection being a reality. It is also a fact AM crystal radio's have been used for mapping the phonics of the mind as far back as 2001.
I am not sure if you are dead or alive.
Thing is, we are not absolute beings, so our mind is not perfectly set about anything.
What is the difference if people communicate thoughts in ordinary way from brain scanners?
Even i can't tell what i really mean and think exactly, but if people operating those evil machines can, why do you need me for than?
Another important thing is, force in multiplying by every additional component working in synch, human mind does not work this way, since every mind can dream about anything, so every mind is just as powerful as all the rest combined. We need our mind free, everybody can come up with unique solution for problems all minds in the world together can't solve.
Develop protection from brain intrusion first, or this kind of experiments should be immediately banned because they WILL BE used for unimaginable evil.
Is speaking international language, which everyone can understand, exactly like your national songs, which any nationality can understand it’s language !
Machines as Brain Auxiliary tools
Scientists are working hard to communicate to the machines directly from brain. But the next level of communication should be to find ways and means to transmit messages directly to the outer reality. We can make living organisms behave like message receivers. We can communicate to inanimate things too without getting them wired to our brains।. But they don't respond to human languages.we shall have to learn to go beyond language to train our brains to establish direct relationship with reality. Then we can learn to use the entire universe to act like a machine. But we won't be able to control it. The desire to control others is part of our language system. When we go beyond language, we invent a subtle language of live that works. It's here the science and philosophy merge.
🎉
Cant believe 2016 was 8 years ago. And 2015 9.
Ie the kid born is 2016 is literally 8 years old. Wtfffffffffffffff.
don't forget the waving hands ...
the robot they did not how to do it for it self..they need volunteer support..
1:20 There is sreet smart , but not street intelligent.
One might look at it as a form of holistic thinking combined with fuzzy logic and probabilities fed by personal relevance , navigating chaos in split seconds
while intelligence is an abstract, numerical, logical and experimentally driven engineering style, even a rennaissance person , may be ?
Finally talks about wrong interface is about to be. Huraa.
Our thoughts are energy waves.
Please somebody explain to me how can anybody measure energy waves without changing and modifying them in the process?
johns comment about kismet being nothing more than a sock puppet was ignorant and rude. I didn't need a computer to know that the speaker felt the same.
Handicapping the coronavisor
example of a robot they want to do it but it complex something and blocking..
Very beautiful sweet sir hi good morning
Wheel chair is also a machine.
Nope
😄 quiz show
The flute looks like it does because it has to.
Leave it to me to point out the truth! We already have programs with our own voice that coded and turned into electronic pulses that sound and feel like your own voice, so we can't communicate across the universe anywhere in the world to somebody, so who you listen to God or me , or yourself? Or Anybody else
Hope one day the organizers of these events stop bringing philosophers. They stop being relevant in science long ago and their contribution to these conversations in minimal and often confusing.
For this particular topic, I agree. I see little role for a philosopher in this highly specialized and technical dicussion.
I'm interested in AI, robotics and transhumanism. I've been looking on RUclips for programs to watch on these subjects. So far the overwhelming majority of videos have been along the lines of evil-mad-scientists-are-summoning-Satan-to-destroy-us-all. I finally found the World Science Festival channel and thought, here at last will be some sane, informative discussion.The first video I watched was fairly interesting, and seemed reasonably calm and balanced even though the moderator made a reference to Frankenstein, in a discussion with a paraplegic woman who was able to walk again thanks to electronic implants.The next two videos I tried, I couldn't watch for more than 10 minutes because the moderator was a babbling idiot with the worst combover in the history of primates, who actually started going "wiggle waggle wiggle waggle bang bang" after just a couple of minutes. I tried one more time with this video, spending five minutes watching a guy playing the flute and talking about hands.RUclips is now entirely given over to insane paranoid idiots, and I utterly despair for Humanity.
My impression is that your thought process is impaired! I am not sure if it is antisocial in nature or naive or just slow.
Dr who cybermen?
Integration with omniscient data processing platforms like AGI will invariably lead to an altered comprehension of time. Currently, human beings are restrained by inherent evolutionary constraints regarding the passage and understanding of what we perceive as time. Infinite possibilities if we break the chains of Darwinian evolutionary artifacts that currently prevent free thinking. Redefine thought, time and intelligent understanding.
i'd like to have a robot with ai, feel. I would like to have actual ai to care for humans. If that would be possible, I can see me loving a machine for real.
so they can map one of the common speaker's face to a different actor... proper voice pitch fix ... and then break off into crusader groups and let the AI stock up the comments section. Nice! Great Tech. that should be burned now.
I can make people say what I think.
the robot they want to guess their and to find her partner,,,maybe..the owner of robots..
That was a silly introduction.
The instrument doesnt speak hand. What about the mouth componant ?does it speak hand mouth ? Why not just finger instead of hand.
Cannot use your hand without an arm or a torso or a heart or brain....so does it speak finger hand arm torso heart brain ? No.
It speaks flute.
@4:12 "You think the piano looks like that because of music? No!"
SMH. What a faux intellectual. It's not an either/or scenario. The morphology of tools must follow that of function. Pianos look the way they do because of hands *and* music. Take out the music and there is no piano in the equation.
This should be obvious enough to anyone who has learned the C major scale on a piano.
I like how she's sets at the end...go woman power
Is that your real name??????🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Waste of our money when you will not even HELP PEOPLE.
You won't call it intelligence so fax me your pattern Recognition , that you put all your intelligence into ! hahaha with my own Voice ? Are we in the past or are we in the future ?
Smartphone.
this dude thinks hes captain picard or something
But sounds like Q
WINDOWS XP???
a mac running microsoft
running *windows
Lucius Inspiration I think in general arts people like to use Macs
but sciences people like to use non-Macs. Is this a supportable hypothesis?
Dan Kelly Maybe...
Western
The substantial family collectively warn because toy connoly touch throughout a rural anime. obsequious, abrupt action
The selective son renomegaly remind because yoke apparently pause an a horrible sparrow. second, unaccountable cello
The innate daffodil temporally fix because spy tentatively recognise an a milky april. parsimonious, merciful archaeology
The chief toilet realistically lighten because clerk startlingly include alongside a wakeful condition. historical, ruthless taiwan
The finicky saw positionally stitch because detective synthetically jog apud a small size. grotesque, smoggy roast
Vibrations
Humans are antennas