a computer? the computer can be reduced to simple fundamental Boolean logic gates. Brain can't be reduced to simple logic gates. But it can reduce to electron going crazy. As we know, electrons are irreducible. Where we go from here? Are we just atoms and molecules? I doubt it badly.
Personally speaking, I think of my brain more like a kitchen appliance, like a widly unreliable blender from Ali Express, filled with incomprehensible features. Slime mould is a useful model for how mere molecular structures can calculate. Chalmers supervisor was Douglas Hoffstadter?!!! My all time favourite thinker - Godel, Escher, Bach remains my favourite book - this was another fun chat
Very interesting video, but it was hard to watch given how much you interrupted/cut off Dr. Chalmers. Just a suggestion: Don't cut off the people you're interviewing mid sentence, it must be endlessly frustrating for them.
Yeah, as much as I enjoy listening to Dr. Keating speak, I do wish he would let his guests just expound on their ideas a bit more with less lengthy interruptions
Good interview but I think there's something wrong with your recording Brian, you kept talking over the end of the guests sentences and at first I thought you were interrupting him but it seems like maybe a timing issue with your recording? It doesn't detract that much from the interview but it's a little distracting
The interruptions are crazy?! Brian’s not letting Chalmers finish any of his sentences. Is it a syncing or editing issue to save time? It has a pretty disconcerting effect. If it’s really Brian interrupting his guests I’d hope he realizes how impatient/strange it looks.
Our brain simulates and translate reallity to a language we can understand, but we cant and we will never see the real world. So, for me its a simulation made by my brain, using the information of the real word.
Colors, smells and sounds arent real. Is there sound if there is no one to hear a tree falling? There is not sound! There are preassure waves in the air, yes, but that is not sound. Sound is the language our brain uses to shape that information in something that has meaning to us. Is that meaning sonething we learn? Probably, in most cases
That's a good way to put it. The question now is just how much of the "real world" do we have access to via our simulator and if the answer is not all of it then how do we break out and access the rest of it?
@@anonony9081 The simulator is your own brain, you can't get out of there, but we can do better than our innate sensory model through science and technology, the most significant examples being quantum mechanics and general relativity which take most years of study to really understand the basics of properly as they are so counter to our intuitive understanding of reality .
A bit puzzled at the apparent overestimates of the amount of computing required for simulated life experiences. Surely, although challenging, all that’s needed is 1. Microwired filaments to our neurons. 2. An understanding of brain function at a physical level so that the signals from the filaments simulated sensory input. 3. Methods to sustain the body while the simulation is in progress. (Of course this is more likely for people who want to outlive their bodies where an electronic continuation of themselves is stored in Iceland or someplace cool.) The point is, for every person, it’s no necessary to run a simulation of the universe but only send signals to each mind that convince that conscious entity that he is alive in some place at some time. That’s much more economical. In such a setup, what we sense no is probably a simulation. I’ll buy D.C’s book to see if that option is covered.
We've heard of manifesting and how state of mind changes your outlook on reality. Perhaps the quantum observer effect is real in the sense that when light reflecting off our environment is applied to our eyeball, the bias the neurons have result in a change in how we perceive our environment. In the case of PTSD, the incoming sensory information is contorted through biased(programmed) channels to then feed back into the environment as a shifted image. I don't really know where I'm going with this but maybe it's sort of like realizing how little control over our reality we really have, if any at all. We're kind of in this soup where we're just a more complex organism that has these emergent properties we call experience but what ultimately amounts to being a slave to our environmental influence.
It’s one thing to trigger the sense of, say, a pinprick to a finger with a thin wire. Yet what are the points within a brain that generates the sense of thirst? I’ve no way to describe its location, symptoms but no bodily location, not even the clarity linked from fire and ice to hot and cold. People can go mad from extreme thirst. Is that effect stimulating multiple points? The wiring diagram for the mind is absolutely tied to the whole body and making a plan for that will be some damn achievement! Yet no simulation will work without knowing the full body/mind schematic first.
This conversation has been stuck in my mind for the past several days. I enjoyed the discussion about God/Creator of the "sim", and that you guys agreed that "worship" seems fishy, but "awe" seems reasonable. I'd suggest the next question, and the key issue, be "gratitude". If God is Good, then my own gratitude or lack of it for the Good is going to impact my own actions and mental state the most. I'm sure Brian also understands what I am getting at as in דַּיֵּנוּ . I am not Jewish, but have attended more Passover dinners than many Jews have.
I think we can agree that robots could be pretty complex--I mean, for example, we could rather easily build a robot who could cry out, "Ouch," when the robot touches a hot stove. We could also have the robot withdraw its hand with a quick jerk and cry out at the same time. Actually, building such a robot would be quite easy these days. But here's a question I'd like to pose: given we have such a complex robot, what hardware or software we would add to make the robot not only act like its in pain but actually FEEL pain? And how would we test whether or not the robot is actually feeling pain and not merely acting as if it does? Would we be able to say, based on the complexity of the robot, that the robot must be conscious? At what point of complexity does mere acting turn into actual subjective experience? How many units of complexity would we need? The traffic network of the US seems rather complex to me--is it complex enough to be conscious? I believe, but can't actual prove, that mice are conscious as they seem to exhibit pain. But how complex are mice? Or, bees? Or, worms?
This was great. I think the more we dig, the more we'll come realize something about the universe values perspective. And it exists on levels we cannot fathom. We aren't the only scale it resides, and somehow individual perspectives have meaning to all of this.
"that quantum gravity will have some non computable element" If indeed spacetime is the formative foundation of the universe and we allow for determinism there is a point within the matrix in which two outcomes are equally probable and randomness will occur. IOW I don't think Sabina's superdeterminism is possible. However, if there is a foundation below quantum mechanics then it is plausible.
If you only simulate microbes when they are seen and use probability to determine how large groups of microbes behave and also, only show the stars of the milky way and the moons of Jupiter once they’ve looked at (and keep track) then you could have a convincing simulation within a simulation within a simulation probably many times out before anyone would ever notice because the data from the pre realties could be compressed and selectively expressed
How do we know what’s new or not on this channel? How do I know I’m not listening to something I already listened to three years ago? EDIT: Yes, it was definitely a repost. 😢
The Simulation Hypothesis assumes that consciousness can only be created by computation and thus excludes all other possibilities that are uncomputable. My Anti-Simulation Hypothesis states that since there may be infinitely many other possibilities for consciousness to emerge other than by computation alone, the probability of living in a simulation is close to zero.
@@travisfitzwater8093 No, that's not it. We don't know how consciousness comes about. Perhaps the Schroderdinger equation also plays a role here (also something we fundamentally do not yet understand). You first need to know how exactly consciousness is created. In terms of intelligence, I think computers can catch up with us.
Bodies are simulated. Consciousness is not. Individuation and forgetfulness (that is the ability to hide data from a particular individuation) are what is not “simulated”
In Plato’s REPUBLIC, he says that it is the job of the philosopher to go back into the CAVE and pull people, living in shadows, to come out into the light to see the reality!! (The Allegory of the Cave , The Divided Line, The Allegory of the Sun) 🧐🧐 18:52 . Great discussion Brian and David. Thank you both for the great challenges of the mind and consciousness. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 1:16:42
People who know, beyond the printed page or intellectual blather, for certain that reality and individuality is a dream, the hard problem is, where did it come from? Where did CONSCIOUSNESS come from!? That is a question with no answers. That is the hard question of consciousness. You’re asking the hard question of materialism. The answer is, it isnt hard and hard is simply a value imagined through the experimental thoughts of a thinking master consciousness. Why do we think? Why are we aware? Why do we diet and fast and blah blah blah? That is a very easy question to answer. We are a dream of a dream that dreams. Dreams and ideas and fantasies are a 2ndary realities from our brain interface and base reality is the one. It’s so silly. If you’re brave and an adult in a safe place with safe stuff, take the plunge. If you’re more timid, write your dreams down and know that dreams are navigable through intuition because they exist within the interface (these brains we have) but through the dream state we can access anything and everything and back to the beginning when we learn how. I promise. I promise I’m right.
Don’t worry guys, you are in a dream; characters in a story. Keep measuring, if that gives your life purpose. Alternatively, enjoy the sense of physical individuality and the knowledge that you have been gifted with that so that you can assist the dream move forward.
How about "reality 2.25"? Sort of similar to reality 2.0 only with a few slight revisions. Better, but only a little. This is why I am not a marketeer.
I always enquire to my own reasoning .....’What were Scientists and Philosophers talking about before each of the great “Discoveries”!? An example of course being ‘Gravity’!? And What percentage had to change their reasoning!? Because the same situations are endemic in Comprehension identity’s today, it is still ‘being’ Apparent !?
Worship is merely applying credit where credit is due. Since no physical thing can ever make or direct itself, the credit goes to a non physical supernatural cause.
Wolfram recently was mocking people who think the universe/we are in a simulation. When will AI be conscious? At about the same time that the number 1 is aware of the number 2.
It's an inaccuracy to say Philosophy is the love of wisdom. For one, the prefix Philo- is more accurately translated to mean 'leaning, bent, attracted towards', sharing that sense with a cognate Sanskrit prefix: Abhi-. Secondly, Sophia is often translated into English as wisdom. That's not at all correct. Wisdom is a state of seeing (perhaps more in the global sense), and the Germanic root 'wis' is similar to Latin 'Vid/Vis-' (mod. Eng Video/Visual), and Greek 'id' from which we get idea, identity etc. Looking at other Greek words similar to Sophia (Sophos, Saphes) shows Sophia to carry a sense of 'clarity' ie, to make something clear, evident. Philosophy is really seeking clarity, not wisdom.
We have no reason to think that a silicon computer can have a private conscious inner life like you and I have. Whatever you do inside that silicon computer, whatever chips you design, as long as it is made of silicon and does not metabolize, we have no reason to think it has a conscious inner life of its own, and if you think it does, you have the same reason to think that a rock has a conscious inner life of its own, or your table, or every leg of your table, or every molecule of your table, where do you stop? -Bernardo Kastrup.
Claiming metabolism as a necessary component of consciousness is just making up random bullshit and dismissively equating our current information processing tech with rocks is plain dumb. I'm not a fan of Kastrup but this quote makes his ideas seem even worse than they actually are.
That's the mistake materialists make, thinking that configurations of matter somehow magically create consciousnes, in the brain, let alone in silicon chips.@@jyjjy7
@@sherylbusch5853 For human like consciousness I guess pain would be a necessary component but defining consciousness as specifically what we experience seems missing the point. The traditional metaphor is that asking if a machine is conscious is like asking if a submarine swims... It is the wrong kind of question and goal. You *could* try to make a submarine that "swims" as similarly as possible to a fish or whatever, but you shouldn't.
@@jyjjy7 That’s a good point. I also suspect there is suffering at the cellular level which drives action. It’s just an intuitive thought, but I could be blowing smoke.
SR wrong due to reference frame mixing and bad math. GR follows as incorrect. Einstein’s “day in the sun” ended in 2002; as did Newton. Chalmers fares no better. Brian as well. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics: Start at start.
If we create true AI who replace us then they might want to simulate their "ancestors" to understand what led to their existence, and if it could have gone any different ways. Was their existence inevitable, a random path taken, or highly unlikely. They would run the simulation many times, making changes. If people had gotten really into Large Language Models would the right path still be found, or would it have taken us down a dead-end street?
Simulated beings can be conscious because beings arent physical to begin with. But because absolute consciousness is the thing which imagines our reality and the realities we create one generation down, anything with an interface can be a perspective and a visage of subdivided consciousness. By the way, what I’m saying is 100% true. But it cant be proven because the realities get smaller on the way down. Not the decider, but the decisions. We can easily create a place that is as believable as this and only render particles and planetary moons when they’re looked at. And we could do this very well and if we slow the process down we can do it even more convincingly. But 7 generations in compared to where we are now might be noticeable. But it doesn’t matter because all of these iterations of reality will automatically be inhabited by iterations of consciousness and all present a challenge and are all of value to the monad…. Get it???? I do. I’m not making it up. It’s actually true. And it’s why you’re all so darn confounded. But in the end we are all as one confounded because the system which hosts consciousness itself cannot be known from within. It just is and must have always been. Or who knows. Maybe a glorgottied will sneeze and we’ll cease to be!! No. There is only one thing. You cannot die but you can forget and that is like oblivion i suppose. Ah shut up.
It seems thoughtless to not consider that even one unknown makes the other error margins useless. It is that most of existence, including thought, is at question and a true unknown. Considering it very likely that free will doesn't exist, it is something that we could really use as a step to the next logical question which is, "then what is this algorithm and what is running it? What am I, that is riding this might-as-well be a simulation, into the dust of fate. It feels as though consciousness is a dimension above the simple program that we find ourselves in. The algorithm/organism that wè live within and exist as a result of, has somehow made an ESCAPE! ! Consciousness But this may be only part of the simulation as well,,, so no gain.
What about general relativity? It’s no longer just a theory. It’s actually an observation. That considered it is the actual state of the universe. Now considering the fact that gravity drops off exponentially outside of a galaxy that means the effects of gravity on time and distance drop off exponentially so time flies by and a yardstick is very long relative to where we are under the effects of gravity. This means all of our measures of time and distance are way off.
Interesting philosophical discussions, especially on ethics in application to religion, but, like any, it has to have practical implications. From a simulation theory point of view, it does not matter if we live in a simulation. We (in the form of our consciousness experiencing the human body) have an interface to understand this level of reality and can use it to gain an understanding of the deeper level using this reality as an interface, going as deep as we can. But ignoring subjective experiences in this exploration from a modern philosophical and scientific point of view is a gap. Understanding and incorporating ideas from Andrew R. Gallimore (DMTx and others), Donald Hoffman (source of consciousness external to the brain), Stuart Hameroff, and Roger Penrose (microtubule quantum functions) are essential. Without forgetting the reality of the issues on lower levels, starting from caring about basic needs for everyone. Any abstract discussion about the simulation of reality breaks off in shatters when facing thirst, hunger, lack of shelter, and sanitary needs.
A real simulation would look like a dream. Notice in dreams if you look closely at something it starts to change. Dreams are always based on a small fraction of what you know. How is wakeful life like a simulation? Like a dream?
Take a stabilized singularity. Think of it as a lenses, a gravitational lenses. That lenses sees the universe as a set of gravitational inferemetric patterns. Manipulate those patterns and whatever those patterns are coupled to (Wolfgang Pauli) will react to that manipulation. Add 100's of thousands of years of experience and the manipulation would be sooo smooth. Go figure. Add in time loop characteristics and the "Story" will become so real.
I hear Chalmers saying that he's uncertain of being uncertain. I believe, mind you he has great arguments, that he'd be better off saying that he's certain he's uncertain (maybe he is actually saying the aforementioned). Forwardly, if you're certain of being uncertain....Chalmers' next book title is, "Nebulosity", but I'm certain I'm uncertain. Ey, Chalmers does exhaust THE arguments. I'm certain I'm uncertain. I appreciate the achitecting and mindplay, but according to the main of the argument, the Abrahamic Gods are real. How can you construct a world if everything is a block, including non-blocks?
The question "are we in a simulation" is the same as the question "is AI conscious". In the former, we are the AI, in the latter we are creating the simulation.
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement, Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality. Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge, Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge. Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
Do you think God didn't figure out letting your reputation attract the most ambitious grad students to do all the dirty work was the best way to get things done?
God is a multiversal creator. He left universes for his more precocious children to make their own heavens or hells, just dropping by to add a vowel once in a while, or hand out the occasional tongue lashing
"Reality plus" sounds like a name of sophisticated new expensive VR headset.😂😂 the more the suffering and pain the more real this world feels the more happines the more unreal this world feels. Only suffering and pain makes you feel alive and great happines is too good to belive like a dream. Pain and suffering demands to be felt unlike happines which is optional. Happiness Is A State Of Mind, That Has Nothing To Do With The External World.” - Lord Krishna · Both of this state are not permanent. Only consiousness is permanent.
You think your brain is special? Try to imagine what a soul with billions of years of experience can accomplish once freed of the handicap of a human body
I HATE the simulation theory! It boils down to a couple of goofballs that thinks just because you MUST breakdown the universe into units you can measure by, that it MUST mean that we're in a simulation because the universe seems to be broken down into these magical "units." The universe doesn't know the units exist, because we humans have implied them and applied them to it. Then the theory spread like wildfire to reporters like Chalmers and friends and gained legs. It's the dumbest theory EVER, and it's one that people in the future (and now) will look back on and laugh at.
Subjective experience is objective experience divided many many many times. When you step behind your brain and behind whichever other interfaces are between you and the center, you see everything thing at once. We made us in our image. dan dennit, unless he really has no soul is just a polyp, or a skin tag of consciousness that clings to the ‘material’ world. I guess so he can cheat on his wife without feeling bad even though god doesn’t really care.
Entertainment is well-designed training. Make it a game, and the gods can get you to eat ze bugs with virtue signaling joy, imagining you are freeing hive mind-captured souls to incarnate more consciously next time 😂
I think I really like Dr. Keating the Jewish evangelist 😊. More please. Perhaps a 2nd channel where you and your guest discuss only philosophical issues.
The amount of times you flat out cut off your guest mid sentence was shocking. You invited him onto the show, let Chalmers bloody speak! Even if it doesn't fit into your formula or time stamp, we clicked on the video to listen to him. Please don't cut him off in the next video you do with him, thanks.
Sadly none of these closed minded simulation theory guys is willing to take 10g of Psilocybe Cubensis. Because then they would KNOW not guess random unprove-able things..
You cant simulate being. Being simulates the avatar and the individuated being inhabits it because the the absolute mother consciousness must know every digit in order for any construct or avatar to exist so anything with the ability to choose will be controlled by a sub set of consciousness.
If you think there’s an equation that a subset can define of the superset, just take the plunge or take your time but either way see for yourself and you’ll see
If you want to get into the philosophy of belief and realism in physics we need first to divorce ourselves from the idea that there was a discrete god, discrete plan and a discrete religion in the past. There is alot of "one true scotsman"ship going on in modern religion and this view of religion is an emergent property of emperial ideas. Judaism for instance is not a thing now and was not a thing in the first century, certainly not a thing during the maccabean results. Religion had proponents who tried to dogmatize ideas, but it also had thinkers, like philo of alexander who tried to change ideas. Paul was such a person, Zabbatoi Zevi was another. So once we get away from the idea of a uniform, univocal creator being, we need to dig into why the prophets and saints disappeared, and when we look at Judaism we see the work of Mamoinides is probably the last big nail and his role in moving mysticism in Judaism backwards and piety practices forward, in christianity we have Iraneus who begins the process of cloistering mysticism which eventually results in orthodoxy and suppresses heresies, including gnosticism. But that did not reflect the reality of the past, ancient people looked and saw agency in everything, in Ezekials vision he sees a woman crying to Tammuz (Dumuzid), the ancient dying and rising god of Bad-Tibera (which at time he was only about 20 miles from). And so how do we separate the tendency to imagine agency from the creative aspect of belief, things like the Apkallu sages of Enki and the like, and like Ezekial lying on the banks of a canal. And here we need to dive into mysticism and all that entails, most of which was never meant to be expressed. The similarity here is in quantum mechanics, in which a particle in-motion can explore all posibilities most are never to be expressed. And so we can make a comparison, but the philosophical problem we can put back on consciousness is whether that consciousness can have a universal manifestation. Angela puca makes a good point about magickal devices, even if people dont believe in the the magic they experiental state is affected by such devices, in other the local environment bears heavily on what we imagine, just like Bad-Tibera wears on Ezekials vision of his Adonai. In fact, its seems to me that our consciousness has difficulty bearing on non-locality, that we originate to be obsessed with the observed and our attention fades with familiarity. So that our expression is always interpretive, we integrate our believes and we express ourselves and we reflect on others consciousness. I remember the first time I came out of surgery, I looked up and the clock on the wall was flying around the room, it did not make sense to me that my eyes where going around in circles and then as the sedatives were off my eyes settled and i began to put together reality. The ego speaks to us even in our weakest moments. And so a conscious universe from this perspective will always be local, which is a contradiction or it will not be real, meaning that it will be endless possibilities playing out in a timeless state in which occasionally one real event pops out. To create a computer for a universe you would need more information then in the universe, but to create a conscious universe you would need more information than there is in a computed universe. This kicks the can for universal complexity down the road.
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
Is the brain a computer? Or is it something else?
It is not disproveable and so irrelevant.
a computer? the computer can be reduced to simple fundamental Boolean logic gates. Brain can't be reduced to simple logic gates. But it can reduce to electron going crazy. As we know, electrons are irreducible. Where we go from here? Are we just atoms and molecules? I doubt it badly.
Personally speaking, I think of my brain more like a kitchen appliance, like a widly unreliable blender from Ali Express, filled with incomprehensible features. Slime mould is a useful model for how mere molecular structures can calculate. Chalmers supervisor was Douglas Hoffstadter?!!! My all time favourite thinker -
Godel, Escher, Bach remains my favourite book - this was another fun chat
If you think the brain is simpy the execution of an "algorithm", then the brain is a computer; otherwise, it's something else!
It's a virtual brain in a virtual reality
Very interesting video, but it was hard to watch given how much you interrupted/cut off Dr. Chalmers. Just a suggestion: Don't cut off the people you're interviewing mid sentence, it must be endlessly frustrating for them.
Has to be an editing/latency thing
Yeah, as much as I enjoy listening to Dr. Keating speak, I do wish he would let his guests just expound on their ideas a bit more with less lengthy interruptions
Good interview but I think there's something wrong with your recording Brian, you kept talking over the end of the guests sentences and at first I thought you were interrupting him but it seems like maybe a timing issue with your recording? It doesn't detract that much from the interview but it's a little distracting
Was there a weird delay? As it seemed like you interrupted David a lot.
The interruptions are crazy?! Brian’s not letting Chalmers finish any of his sentences. Is it a syncing or editing issue to save time? It has a pretty disconcerting effect. If it’s really Brian interrupting his guests I’d hope he realizes how impatient/strange it looks.
I love the way his globe is switched Australia side up....why not? one can look at the globe from whatever perspective one wants
Our brain simulates and translate reallity to a language we can understand, but we cant and we will never see the real world. So, for me its a simulation made by my brain, using the information of the real word.
Colors, smells and sounds arent real. Is there sound if there is no one to hear a tree falling? There is not sound! There are preassure waves in the air, yes, but that is not sound. Sound is the language our brain uses to shape that information in something that has meaning to us. Is that meaning sonething we learn? Probably, in most cases
That's a good way to put it. The question now is just how much of the "real world" do we have access to via our simulator and if the answer is not all of it then how do we break out and access the rest of it?
@@anonony9081 not sure what you mean by the “real world”, all there is is the simulation. You have no access to any world outside of the mind.
@@anonony9081 The simulator is your own brain, you can't get out of there, but we can do better than our innate sensory model through science and technology, the most significant examples being quantum mechanics and general relativity which take most years of study to really understand the basics of properly as they are so counter to our intuitive understanding of reality .
So there is little man sitting in the brain which is receiving the brain’s “simulation” is there?
The list of people I might consider being instead of myself is a very short one, but David is on it.
A bit puzzled at the apparent overestimates of the amount of computing required for simulated life experiences. Surely, although challenging, all that’s needed is 1. Microwired filaments to our neurons. 2. An understanding of brain function at a physical level so that the signals from the filaments simulated sensory input. 3. Methods to sustain the body while the simulation is in progress. (Of course this is more likely for people who want to outlive their bodies where an electronic continuation of themselves is stored in Iceland or someplace cool.)
The point is, for every person, it’s no necessary to run a simulation of the universe but only send signals to each mind that convince that conscious entity that he is alive in some place at some time. That’s much more economical.
In such a setup, what we sense no is probably a simulation.
I’ll buy D.C’s book to see if that option is covered.
Thanks for your awesome channel .
So nice of you. More to come!
We've heard of manifesting and how state of mind changes your outlook on reality. Perhaps the quantum observer effect is real in the sense that when light reflecting off our environment is applied to our eyeball, the bias the neurons have result in a change in how we perceive our environment. In the case of PTSD, the incoming sensory information is contorted through biased(programmed) channels to then feed back into the environment as a shifted image. I don't really know where I'm going with this but maybe it's sort of like realizing how little control over our reality we really have, if any at all. We're kind of in this soup where we're just a more complex organism that has these emergent properties we call experience but what ultimately amounts to being a slave to our environmental influence.
It’s one thing to trigger the sense of, say, a pinprick to a finger with a thin wire. Yet what are the points within a brain that generates the sense of thirst? I’ve no way to describe its location, symptoms but no bodily location, not even the clarity linked from fire and ice to hot and cold. People can go mad from extreme thirst. Is that effect stimulating multiple points?
The wiring diagram for the mind is absolutely tied to the whole body and making a plan for that will be some damn achievement! Yet no simulation will work without knowing the full body/mind schematic first.
This conversation has been stuck in my mind for the past several days. I enjoyed the discussion about God/Creator of the "sim", and that you guys agreed that "worship" seems fishy, but "awe" seems reasonable. I'd suggest the next question, and the key issue, be "gratitude". If God is Good, then my own gratitude or lack of it for the Good is going to impact my own actions and mental state the most. I'm sure Brian also understands what I am getting at as in דַּיֵּנוּ . I am not Jewish, but have attended more Passover dinners than many Jews have.
So, what are we simulating?
I think (no pun intended) that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity.
I think we can agree that robots could be pretty complex--I mean, for example, we could rather easily build a robot who could cry out, "Ouch," when the robot touches a hot stove. We could also have the robot withdraw its hand with a quick jerk and cry out at the same time. Actually, building such a robot would be quite easy these days. But here's a question I'd like to pose: given we have such a complex robot, what hardware or software we would add to make the robot not only act like its in pain but actually FEEL pain? And how would we test whether or not the robot is actually feeling pain and not merely acting as if it does? Would we be able to say, based on the complexity of the robot, that the robot must be conscious? At what point of complexity does mere acting turn into actual subjective experience? How many units of complexity would we need? The traffic network of the US seems rather complex to me--is it complex enough to be conscious? I believe, but can't actual prove, that mice are conscious as they seem to exhibit pain. But how complex are mice? Or, bees? Or, worms?
the substrate can be just bits, but definitely not bits of consciousness
This was great. I think the more we dig, the more we'll come realize something about the universe values perspective. And it exists on levels we cannot fathom. We aren't the only scale it resides, and somehow individual perspectives have meaning to all of this.
I think that "consciousness" is kind of a sixth sense, with which various parts of the brain perceive other parts of the brain.
"that quantum gravity will have some non computable element"
If indeed spacetime is the formative foundation of the universe and we allow for determinism there is a point within the matrix in which two outcomes are equally probable and randomness will occur. IOW I don't think Sabina's superdeterminism is possible. However, if there is a foundation below quantum mechanics then it is plausible.
If you only simulate microbes when they are seen and use probability to determine how large groups of microbes behave and also, only show the stars of the milky way and the moons of Jupiter once they’ve looked at (and keep track) then you could have a convincing simulation within a simulation within a simulation probably many times out before anyone would ever notice because the data from the pre realties could be compressed and selectively expressed
How do we know what’s new or not on this channel? How do I know I’m not listening to something I already listened to three years ago? EDIT: Yes, it was definitely a repost. 😢
The Simulation Hypothesis assumes that consciousness can only be created by computation and thus excludes all other possibilities that are uncomputable. My Anti-Simulation Hypothesis states that since there may be infinitely many other possibilities for consciousness to emerge other than by computation alone, the probability of living in a simulation is close to zero.
This is tautological.
@@travisfitzwater8093 No, that's not it. We don't know how consciousness comes about. Perhaps the Schroderdinger equation also plays a role here (also something we fundamentally do not yet understand). You first need to know how exactly consciousness is created. In terms of intelligence, I think computers can catch up with us.
Also hughe assumption
Consciousness is the computer doing the computation
Tremendously interesting interview. Loved it.
Bodies are simulated. Consciousness is not. Individuation and forgetfulness (that is the ability to hide data from a particular individuation) are what is not “simulated”
In Plato’s REPUBLIC, he says that it is the job of the philosopher to go back into the CAVE and pull people, living in shadows, to come out into the light to see the reality!! (The Allegory of the Cave , The Divided Line, The Allegory of the Sun) 🧐🧐 18:52 . Great discussion Brian and David. Thank you both for the great challenges of the mind and consciousness. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 1:16:42
david Chalmers has this huge brain, but his appearance and affect makes you expect a standup comedian
I believe he's a bass player. Think that explains it.
You gotta be a comedian......Reality is laughing at us.......War being an example......and that is not funny!?
Is simulating emotion good enough? Are we just "simulating" emotion?
People who know, beyond the printed page or intellectual blather, for certain that reality and individuality is a dream, the hard problem is, where did it come from? Where did CONSCIOUSNESS come from!? That is a question with no answers. That is the hard question of consciousness. You’re asking the hard question of materialism. The answer is, it isnt hard and hard is simply a value imagined through the experimental thoughts of a thinking master consciousness. Why do we think? Why are we aware? Why do we diet and fast and blah blah blah? That is a very easy question to answer. We are a dream of a dream that dreams. Dreams and ideas and fantasies are a 2ndary realities from our brain interface and base reality is the one. It’s so silly. If you’re brave and an adult in a safe place with safe stuff, take the plunge. If you’re more timid, write your dreams down and know that dreams are navigable through intuition because they exist within the interface (these brains we have) but through the dream state we can access anything and everything and back to the beginning when we learn how. I promise. I promise I’m right.
Don’t worry guys, you are in a dream; characters in a story. Keep measuring, if that gives your life purpose. Alternatively, enjoy the sense of physical individuality and the knowledge that you have been gifted with that so that you can assist the dream move forward.
How about "reality 2.25"?
Sort of similar to reality 2.0 only with a few slight revisions.
Better, but only a little.
This is why I am not a marketeer.
I always enquire to my own reasoning .....’What were Scientists and Philosophers talking about before each of the great “Discoveries”!? An example of course being ‘Gravity’!? And What percentage had to change their reasoning!? Because the same situations are endemic in Comprehension identity’s today, it is still ‘being’ Apparent !?
Worship is merely applying credit where credit is due. Since no physical thing can ever make or direct itself, the credit goes to a non physical supernatural cause.
Wolfram recently was mocking people who think the universe/we are in a simulation.
When will AI be conscious? At about the same time that the number 1 is aware of the number 2.
It's an inaccuracy to say Philosophy is the love of wisdom. For one, the prefix Philo- is more accurately translated to mean 'leaning, bent, attracted towards', sharing that sense with a cognate Sanskrit prefix: Abhi-. Secondly, Sophia is often translated into English as wisdom. That's not at all correct. Wisdom is a state of seeing (perhaps more in the global sense), and the Germanic root 'wis' is similar to Latin 'Vid/Vis-' (mod. Eng Video/Visual), and Greek 'id' from which we get idea, identity etc. Looking at other Greek words similar to Sophia (Sophos, Saphes) shows Sophia to carry a sense of 'clarity' ie, to make something clear, evident. Philosophy is really seeking clarity, not wisdom.
The brain acts like a giant comparator. ? Does this situation cause pain or pleasure ??
We have no reason to think that a silicon computer can have a private conscious inner life like you and I have. Whatever you do inside that silicon computer, whatever chips you design, as long as it is made of silicon and does not metabolize, we have no reason to think it has a conscious inner life of its own, and if you think it does, you have the same reason to think that a rock has a conscious inner life of its own, or your table, or every leg of your table, or every molecule of your table, where do you stop? -Bernardo Kastrup.
Claiming metabolism as a necessary component of consciousness is just making up random bullshit and dismissively equating our current information processing tech with rocks is plain dumb. I'm not a fan of Kastrup but this quote makes his ideas seem even worse than they actually are.
That's the mistake materialists make, thinking that configurations of matter somehow magically create consciousnes, in the brain, let alone in silicon chips.@@jyjjy7
Maybe pain and suffering has to be part of consciousness? There is still something quite mysterious about biological vs silicon entities.
@@sherylbusch5853 For human like consciousness I guess pain would be a necessary component but defining consciousness as specifically what we experience seems missing the point. The traditional metaphor is that asking if a machine is conscious is like asking if a submarine swims... It is the wrong kind of question and goal. You *could* try to make a submarine that "swims" as similarly as possible to a fish or whatever, but you shouldn't.
@@jyjjy7 That’s a good point. I also suspect there is suffering at the cellular level which drives action. It’s just an intuitive thought, but I could be blowing smoke.
SR wrong due to reference frame mixing and bad math. GR follows as incorrect. Einstein’s “day in the sun” ended in 2002; as did Newton. Chalmers fares no better. Brian as well. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics: Start at start.
If we create true AI who replace us then they might want to simulate their "ancestors" to understand what led to their existence, and if it could have gone any different ways. Was their existence inevitable, a random path taken, or highly unlikely. They would run the simulation many times, making changes. If people had gotten really into Large Language Models would the right path still be found, or would it have taken us down a dead-end street?
The holo-deck from Star Trek ANG is a step nearer
I sometimes wonder if "God" is aware of human beings. We can be so vain to think we are important enough for a "God" to even know we exist.
Simulated beings can be conscious because beings arent physical to begin with. But because absolute consciousness is the thing which imagines our reality and the realities we create one generation down, anything with an interface can be a perspective and a visage of subdivided consciousness.
By the way, what I’m saying is 100% true. But it cant be proven because the realities get smaller on the way down. Not the decider, but the decisions. We can easily create a place that is as believable as this and only render particles and planetary moons when they’re looked at. And we could do this very well and if we slow the process down we can do it even more convincingly. But 7 generations in compared to where we are now might be noticeable. But it doesn’t matter because all of these iterations of reality will automatically be inhabited by iterations of consciousness and all present a challenge and are all of value to the monad…. Get it???? I do. I’m not making it up. It’s actually true. And it’s why you’re all so darn confounded. But in the end we are all as one confounded because the system which hosts consciousness itself cannot be known from within. It just is and must have always been. Or who knows. Maybe a glorgottied will sneeze and we’ll cease to be!! No. There is only one thing. You cannot die but you can forget and that is like oblivion i suppose. Ah shut up.
Can u interview Neil Turok, and ask about his new theory which shuns inflation etc. Physics rulz.
It seems thoughtless to not consider that even one unknown makes the other error margins useless. It is that most of existence, including thought, is at question and a true unknown. Considering it very likely that free will doesn't exist, it is something that we could really use as a step to the next logical question which is, "then what is this algorithm and what is running it? What am I, that is riding this might-as-well be a simulation, into the dust of fate. It feels as though consciousness is a dimension above the simple program that we find ourselves in. The algorithm/organism that wè live within and exist as a result of, has somehow made an ESCAPE! ! Consciousness
But this may be only part of the simulation as well,,, so no gain.
I'm not sure how you can look at the hydrogen wave function and think it's a simulation.
What about general relativity? It’s no longer just a theory. It’s actually an observation. That considered it is the actual state of the universe. Now considering the fact that gravity drops off exponentially outside of a galaxy that means the effects of gravity on time and distance drop off exponentially so time flies by and a yardstick is very long relative to where we are under the effects of gravity. This means all of our measures of time and distance are way off.
Can't wait to meet the simulator.
Interesting philosophical discussions, especially on ethics in application to religion, but, like any, it has to have practical implications.
From a simulation theory point of view, it does not matter if we live in a simulation. We (in the form of our consciousness experiencing the human body) have an interface to understand this level of reality and can use it to gain an understanding of the deeper level using this reality as an interface, going as deep as we can. But ignoring subjective experiences in this exploration from a modern philosophical and scientific point of view is a gap. Understanding and incorporating ideas from Andrew R. Gallimore (DMTx and others), Donald Hoffman (source of consciousness external to the brain), Stuart Hameroff, and Roger Penrose (microtubule quantum functions) are essential.
Without forgetting the reality of the issues on lower levels, starting from caring about basic needs for everyone. Any abstract discussion about the simulation of reality breaks off in shatters when facing thirst, hunger, lack of shelter, and sanitary needs.
A real simulation would look like a dream. Notice in dreams if you look closely at something it starts to change. Dreams are always based on a small fraction of what you know. How is wakeful life like a simulation? Like a dream?
Great discussion! Thanks :)
Maybe the lifetime of our universe is a split secont fore thoose outside our time.. and so on.. and on..
Take a stabilized singularity. Think of it as a lenses, a gravitational lenses. That lenses sees the universe as a set of gravitational inferemetric patterns. Manipulate those patterns and whatever those patterns are coupled to (Wolfgang Pauli) will react to that manipulation. Add 100's of thousands of years of experience and the manipulation would be sooo smooth. Go figure. Add in time loop characteristics and the "Story" will become so real.
Philosophy has always led science but the two are interdependent.
I hear Chalmers saying that he's uncertain of being uncertain. I believe, mind you he has great arguments, that he'd be better off saying that he's certain he's uncertain (maybe he is actually saying the aforementioned). Forwardly, if you're certain of being uncertain....Chalmers' next book title is, "Nebulosity", but I'm certain I'm uncertain. Ey, Chalmers does exhaust THE arguments. I'm certain I'm uncertain. I appreciate the achitecting and mindplay, but according to the main of the argument, the Abrahamic Gods are real. How can you construct a world if everything is a block, including non-blocks?
Who gains in this simulation.
The question "are we in a simulation" is the same as the question "is AI conscious". In the former, we are the AI, in the latter we are creating the simulation.
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality.
Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge,
Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge.
Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
love chalmers for his entertaining personality
making learning fun is underappreciated
Good one ! some sync issues though
Do you think God didn't figure out letting your reputation attract the most ambitious grad students to do all the dirty work was the best way to get things done?
God is a multiversal creator. He left universes for his more precocious children to make their own heavens or hells, just dropping by to add a vowel once in a while, or hand out the occasional tongue lashing
"Reality plus" sounds like a name of sophisticated new expensive VR headset.😂😂
the more the suffering and pain the more real this world feels the more happines the more unreal this world feels. Only suffering and pain makes you feel alive and great happines is too good to belive like a dream. Pain and suffering demands to be felt unlike happines which is optional. Happiness Is A State Of Mind, That Has Nothing To Do With The External World.” - Lord Krishna ·
Both of this state are not permanent. Only consiousness is permanent.
Consciousness is only a problem if you are trying to shoehorn it into a reductive singular world view.
You think your brain is special? Try to imagine what a soul with billions of years of experience can accomplish once freed of the handicap of a human body
I have a lot of unanswered questions about motion and gravity.
Why do you keep interrupting him and talking over him?
"REALITIES GONE WILD"
It sounds like religion. Who created the master simulator? Another simulator? Simulators all the way down? Or there is only one omni not simulator?
Regressus ad Infinitum...🙄🤗
I HATE the simulation theory! It boils down to a couple of goofballs that thinks just because you MUST breakdown the universe into units you can measure by, that it MUST mean that we're in a simulation because the universe seems to be broken down into these magical "units." The universe doesn't know the units exist, because we humans have implied them and applied them to it. Then the theory spread like wildfire to reporters like Chalmers and friends and gained legs. It's the dumbest theory EVER, and it's one that people in the future (and now) will look back on and laugh at.
Subjective experience is objective experience divided many many many times. When you step behind your brain and behind whichever other interfaces are between you and the center, you see everything thing at once. We made us in our image. dan dennit, unless he really has no soul is just a polyp, or a skin tag of consciousness that clings to the ‘material’ world. I guess so he can cheat on his wife without feeling bad even though god doesn’t really care.
46:36 yeah lets not create a cult with this.🤣
Entertainment is well-designed training. Make it a game, and the gods can get you to eat ze bugs with virtue signaling joy, imagining you are freeing hive mind-captured souls to incarnate more consciously next time 😂
1 + 1 = 3 simple.
This whole idea of a simulation is semantics restating what the goat herders were saying thousands of years ago.
Probably an emulation, maybe a simulation. Anything's possible.
The universe is not made of bits per say. It’s made up of powers and forces otherwise known as gods in ancient times.
Ahh come on lads we are all living in einstines theory
Some jump stinemetz
NO! :))
There are too many occasions where Keating talks over his guest - that's just rude. And too many rambling questions.
I think I really like Dr. Keating the Jewish evangelist 😊. More please. Perhaps a 2nd channel where you and your guest discuss only philosophical issues.
If qm can be proved then your vocabulary needs updating
The hard problem is how to find a new way to traduce Stephen Hawking.
The Bible wasn't created by Bronze Age wanderers 3000 years ago, it was created only a few hundred years BCE.
“The Bible Came from Arabia “, Kamal Salibi,1985, plus his 3 other bible study books for facts not fantasies.
Interrupted constantly to inject your religion and attempt to proselytize. Gross.
Creation requires things like power ability intelligence and wisdom, everything that the Scriptures of the goat herders talked about.
not high level iq
Yeah we are NPC's and the real players are the ones that can drop out of the simulation to find that they are stuck in the same situation
+2.8 would have been so much more alpha relevant.
What real difference does this make, in all honesty??? None. Lives real or simulated go on as normal. Get over it.
We need to send simulation theory and many worlds to the dust bin of physics history. Leave space for hidden variables
The amount of times you flat out cut off your guest mid sentence was shocking. You invited him onto the show, let Chalmers bloody speak! Even if it doesn't fit into your formula or time stamp, we clicked on the video to listen to him. Please don't cut him off in the next video you do with him, thanks.
❤Thanks 🦋🌏🌍🌎🕊🦉🦘
Sadly none of these closed minded simulation theory guys is willing to take 10g of Psilocybe Cubensis. Because then they would KNOW not guess random unprove-able things..
oh SHITTTT he broke out the Einstein doll! O M F G! (there now you can say people lose their shit when you bust out the Einstein doll) 😅
Keating talking over Chalmers wtf?
You get some great guests and you interview them well already subscribed and big thumbs up thanks.
Amazing Thanks
You cant simulate being. Being simulates the avatar and the individuated being inhabits it because the the absolute mother consciousness must know every digit in order for any construct or avatar to exist so anything with the ability to choose will be controlled by a sub set of consciousness.
If you think there’s an equation that a subset can define of the superset, just take the plunge or take your time but either way see for yourself and you’ll see
NOOOO!!! - if you we are in a simulation, who is simulating it and what are the odds he is not simulated too - this is so stupid and circular.
Why does the simulation hyypothesis get so much attention? It's just a fun untestable theory...
If you want to get into the philosophy of belief and realism in physics we need first to divorce ourselves from the idea that there was a discrete god, discrete plan and a discrete religion in the past. There is alot of "one true scotsman"ship going on in modern religion and this view of religion is an emergent property of emperial ideas. Judaism for instance is not a thing now and was not a thing in the first century, certainly not a thing during the maccabean results. Religion had proponents who tried to dogmatize ideas, but it also had thinkers, like philo of alexander who tried to change ideas. Paul was such a person, Zabbatoi Zevi was another.
So once we get away from the idea of a uniform, univocal creator being, we need to dig into why the prophets and saints disappeared, and when we look at Judaism we see the work of Mamoinides is probably the last big nail and his role in moving mysticism in Judaism backwards and piety practices forward, in christianity we have Iraneus who begins the process of cloistering mysticism which eventually results in orthodoxy and suppresses heresies, including gnosticism.
But that did not reflect the reality of the past, ancient people looked and saw agency in everything, in Ezekials vision he sees a woman crying to Tammuz (Dumuzid), the ancient dying and rising god of Bad-Tibera (which at time he was only about 20 miles from). And so how do we separate the tendency to imagine agency from the creative aspect of belief, things like the Apkallu sages of Enki and the like, and like Ezekial lying on the banks of a canal. And here we need to dive into mysticism and all that entails, most of which was never meant to be expressed.
The similarity here is in quantum mechanics, in which a particle in-motion can explore all posibilities most are never to be expressed. And so we can make a comparison, but the philosophical problem we can put back on consciousness is whether that consciousness can have a universal manifestation. Angela puca makes a good point about magickal devices, even if people dont believe in the the magic they experiental state is affected by such devices, in other the local environment bears heavily on what we imagine, just like Bad-Tibera wears on Ezekials vision of his Adonai. In fact, its seems to me that our consciousness has difficulty bearing on non-locality, that we originate to be obsessed with the observed and our attention fades with familiarity. So that our expression is always interpretive, we integrate our believes and we express ourselves and we reflect on others consciousness.
I remember the first time I came out of surgery, I looked up and the clock on the wall was flying around the room, it did not make sense to me that my eyes where going around in circles and then as the sedatives were off my eyes settled and i began to put together reality. The ego speaks to us even in our weakest moments. And so a conscious universe from this perspective will always be local, which is a contradiction or it will not be real, meaning that it will be endless possibilities playing out in a timeless state in which occasionally one real event pops out. To create a computer for a universe you would need more information then in the universe, but to create a conscious universe you would need more information than there is in a computed universe. This kicks the can for universal complexity down the road.