Daniel Dennett on the Evolution of the Mind, Consciousness and AI
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 мар 2017
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
How come there are conscious minds?
How do language and culture evolve?
Should we still teach children things which computers can do better?
Will our smart electronic devices rob us of our intelligence?
Will human intelligence and AI co-evolve?
These are some of the intriguing questions that Daniel Dennett, one of the most influential and provocative thinkers of modern times, sought to answer when he came to the Intelligence Squared stage to discuss his lifetime’s work on the evolution of the human mind. Dennett’s cross-disciplinary approach - encompassing neuroscience, evolutionary biology and artificial intelligence - has been widely acclaimed and helped redefine the role of the philosopher for our age.
In this exclusive event, Dennett explored the major themes of his forthcoming book, 'From Bacteria to Bach and Back', including how our minds came into existence, how our brains work, and how ideas are culturally transmitted. He exploded many of the notions we take for granted about how we think - such as the idea of the individual - offering instead a bold new explanation of human consciousness which views it largely as a product of cultural evolution built up over millennia.
Sharing the stage with Dennett were key figures from the next generation of scientists, AI experts, philosophers and artists, with whom he will engage on what it means to be human.
I do wish the moderator had allowed the panelists to speak more. I'm sure if I had counted minutes spoken by each person the moderator would have spoken the most, and I do not think that is appropriate.
Yep. He's one of those type people that you can tell very quickly he really, really likes hearing his own voice way more than others.
Who is he ? I actually thought he was pretty helpful at gluing everything coherently. So many moderators seem often so clueless about the topic they moderate.
yea, should have had him on the TV. Wouldn't that have been nice.
Yeah I’m 10 minutes in and I’m done with the video😑
He hurts this video.
I'd like to see 4 hours of just Dennett and Blaise. With no moderator.
I would like to see James Tour and Dennett; I think Dennett would be afraid.
The best videos are always low in view count. Most people flock to aliens and masons. Thanks for the upload guys.
I was thinking about the same thing at first. That only 2700 views? We are doomed as a species. But then I realized 2 things. First it has only been up for 5 days so low view count is forgivable for now. Secondly, the best thing about evolution is, that not everybody has to evolve. Those who refuse to, will eventually disappear. So I'm not worried. As long as there is just 1 view, we have a chance :)
But i kinda enjoy this fact !
there is also this very controversial theory that the publishing date (1 month ago) plays a factor. some would even go as far as saying it's the main factor... :-)
also: i read "Deep Space Angels" answer after I hit the button :-P
To make my viewing selections I seldom use the unreliable view count scale. I use a bathroom scale. The heavier the video the better.
The same way you find the best books hidden away in old book stores
Thank you for providing such great content!
I think atheist Santa was getting creeped out by the moderator in his face.
Sheesh, this gabby moderator ruined the event. Constantly interrupting the panel. Unwatchable.
Your comment almost made me not watch it but I glad I decided to anyway. Yes, it's a little annoying when he talks over people from time to time but he has quite a difficult job to weave together the thoughts of five physical panelists, one on video link and numerous audience questions in a way that keeps it interesting and succinct and on time. I think he did a pretty good job overall.
The whole event was poorly conceived. Too many panelists and I agree with Richard Dawkins that moderators are almost always a negative. Dennett makes it watchable though-in spite of the format. The Google engineer was really interesting, too.
@M C I wish that were true.
Me thinks comemtators (think C. Rose) have evolved in self importance to the point where they imagine themselves important directors in a performance. Sadly, the nature of TV & advertising - the difference between college & the real world.. With so many intellectuals (apt to prolix) on the panel, they have to feel as equally knowledgeable of the subject matter as their guest(s). At least he doesn’t say before each question: we’re almost out of time or in summary quickly or as briefly as possible or in 20 words or less or must stop you there or hold that thought [go to commercial break], .
Seeking to understand the consciousness of the mind without understand the nature of ideas as far as we possibly can, is akin to trying to understand complex telecommunications and its associate devices without knowing what or understand electromagnet energy and its role in such activities. We may have stumbled on both these great phenomenon and now continue to evolve in our quest to greater insight of such matters.
You should get conscious first, then, know yourself, and follow your minds and your heart ❤️ based on truth!
I wonder why the moderator has such a smug look on his face, when Daniel Dennett is speaking. He smiles with an attitude like "look everybody, isn't he just an idiot?"
wonderful event. would be greater with all the speakers mentioned in the description.
I was there! :)
Commentator ... QUIT TALKING !!! ... You're rude & annoying
Jealous!
I would love to hear more from the Google guy but i cant start to disern his name from the moderator introduction, would be nice if it were avaible in the video description.
@iqsquared
Blaise Agüera y Arcas
ty!
thanks
Consciousness has no model of its own, elusive and mysterious function, a magic, so to speak
Thanks for the video.
I like how they completely ignored the questioners mention of psychedelics.
Quenz it’s funny isn’t how we have conscious altering substances which we can use to explore consciousness, yet the majority of people still have no idea what psychedelics are.. We’re getting there.. evolution takes time, but we will get there.
Like religion psychedelics can lead to extreme pontificating. Usually this involves like religion some fake humility and occasionally narcissism. There's always the Joe Rogan podcast
the speaker is so annoying and bad.
I understand only myself, and taking responsibility about my actions, and if someone else, does something which you are not aware of, then is their duties to take responsibility for that !
I wanted to listen to each one of the guest and not just answer questions.
I thought that this is not going to a healthy communication, instead of we help each other for a better understanding, but I still have a respect to u sir
I know what consciousness is. It's just how neural network works. You see one particular thought or concept, and that is activation of one particular group of neurons, they are connected with different neurons, closely associated with one that is activated, and so your thought is flowing to this connected neurons, that is how association and thought process work.
the moderator is horrible. half an hour in and he still hasn't spoken to three of his guests. he's enjoying himself too much. it just goes to show that a scientist or professor should not be pardoned from having manners.
A highest respect to all of you, sorry have a good morning thank you
The question is that, what is more important to you, your knowledge and information, or your names and your identity !
Thank you; you can conceal or reveal what one knows, conscience gives that it's definition with respect to moral competence. Neuroscience guides us into the broader aspect of Darwinian Natural selection, similar to machine learning, evolution is clever than we are. Quite interesting, conscience agents building AI modules, thank you very much.
As a magician and a dancer, I can say that my enjoyment of dance and magic has increased the more I understand.
What a wonderful discussion! What a wonderful panel! Such a joy in watching intelligent people without falling into BS and also bringing key ideas and not just truisms. Of course, that means that one and a half hour goes fast and seems like not enough. And that just proves the first point.
Abundance of information I just heard.
Can someone give me a rundown on what dennets opinions on consciousness is. From what i heard it seems like he thinks humans behave around the idea that we are concieuss because it's a usefull behavior to have, not that we really have it, but we only report that we have inner experiences and consciousness.
This does not seem like its the case though when he discusses such things as suffering and ethics
Stupid Idiot His basic synthesis is that the real you is a little like the hardware in a PC..... We all mostly have the same hardware and we all are capable of more or less the same things mentally.
Then on top of this hardware we run an operating system ... It reports to itself the information its getting from the hardware. To the operating system we see things not as they are....but in a much simpler format.
So for example if I say to you *kids learn that all balls roll* ..well you'll form an image...to try imagine those words.. To run some movie on the operating system that explains thw sentence. Now my guess, and its a guess mind you, is that the ball you pictured well its a kids ball... Its red,greed or blue (I'd say red)
But whatever it looks like its not in fact the actual information.
The operating system or conscious awareness is an 'after the fact' operation. Its not you informing your brain...its your brain pushing an image onto the OS so that you 'get it'. This is rather important if the information is conceptual like that kid with the red ball. That kid doesn't exist right? But now you and I and anyone reading this has a working image.
That OS also goes a little haywire when you go to sleep. Your brain still works, you still breath, and hear and smell and can feel...etc. But the OS is no longer available. So words or the radio or baxkground conversations might end up getting incorporated into dreams.
So you just think you are aware of the world around you, but you aren't, its an illusion. You can even trick yourself into seeing or hearing things that never happened. The OS isn't as advanced as your brain... So it makes lots and lots of mistakes. But its advantage is that it can fill stuff in for you. It pastes over the craxks very expertly. It can even inform you of things that you then create an app for and stick on the desktop.
So some folks have a 'fear of spiders' app... My wife has a 'fear of worms' app and my guess is its been 20 years since she seen an actual worm... Its not a valid or usable app. Its also only running on the OS...its not part of her brain...she wasn't born with it.. Instead she runs a 'fear' program every time she sees or hears about or thinks about worms.... Worms that arent even there!
Is the OS useful? Well yes it is... We use it to form social constructs we can all agree on.
Does it have any implications? Well sure... It also means free will is an illusion. We really aren't deciding things. We are reacting to data long after it's been run and sometimes seconds after our brain has already started to react.
Remember if Dennett is right then one test would be to see if we can detect someone making their mind up BEFORE they confirm they made their mind up. If we can tell them.the decision they will make before they make it and they then make that decision...that's not magic... Its that they are believing they are acting freely and aren't.
Seemingly this is the case. Its possible to predict (using technology) what folks will decide before they do. Showing them the result of the prediction doesn't stop them from taking an action though.
It also means we might be able to augment the desktop with preprogrammed apps. Or even speed it up.
The desktop also slows us down a lot. Unfortunately we have large brains, that in itself slows down our reactions and thought process. Heaping an OS we call consciousness on top of that doesn't help. But if we know how it works, well we may be able to optimise it.
The Driver and the Vehicle. at 1:19 min. good stuff
Intelligences is a different thing than consciousness. The first can be defined as the ability to solve problems, AI has advanced a lot by this definition. Consciousness is the ability to feel things, the confusion arises in the fact that most mammals, and some other vertebrates use feeling to solve problems, so consciousness and intelligence, are, in some cases, the same thing. AI has no consciousness at all, but can solve problems. I doubt consciousness will emerge at some point in machines, they have better ways to process information than mammalian brains. Please let me know if you disagree, I want to listen to other view points.
Is there a difference between consciousness and simulated consciousness? If consciousness is a part of the brain, and AI continues to improve, eventually AI will be able to understand how consciousness works or comes about (however you word it). At this point, AI would be able to simulate this effect. It might be difficult to consider it, but imagine a child growing up with the AI. Unless they were told otherwise, they'd assume the AI was conscious.
Voltaire Gaming My dog shows affective reactions to my actions, but his brain can not feel love. A machine that understands human emotions because it was trained to recognize them, but does not experience them, does not possess them. I doubt that consciousness emerges on its own because the abstraction made to convert the biological processes of the brain to computable concepts is not 100% accurate. For example, computational creativity, unlike human creativity, aims to segment creative capacities at different levels and converts the phenomenon of artistic creativity into a linear and exponential process.
Both are just new words with extremely vague definition (so vague that every scientist researching it has their own), so it's futile trying to see what tells them apart. Maybe nothing at all, they are the same thing badly worded by us.
I think your dog feels an emotion that we have close derivative of, and we call love.
I think dennett is p zombie thats why he thinks consciousness doesnt exist
When was this recorded?
Random Person 20 Feb 17
I don’t want to compete, I just want to communicate
This moderator was dreadful.
I just cannot fathom why so many of these great panel videos always have these kinds of moderators--ones who can never understand the ideas, constantly dumb things down, and then introduce mindless irrelevancies.
He's like a bird unable to concentrate (and appreciate when the most interesting things are being said, and shut up). Looks like a distracted bird too.
Watched it all 1:30:17
the moderator reminds me of martin short in looks and mannerisms
46:05 is so magnificent; we had that hundred of thousand years trying to deluse ourselves in conceiving idea of God, then up until now idea of our substantive personality; all that is utterly false illusions, we must break free from to get away from all these mess humanity has caught itself in... in inflating our non existent personas with value, it's so ugly and archaic... causing all the wars, manipulations and etc...
And we replace those god illusions with “nationality” and “skin color” and so on imbued with illusory value so we can justify our frustration with our limitations in life and get angry and go to war again
@28:00 language's role in human progress
Yes exactly
If you kill someone in your dream was the action a conscious act ?
If you kill someone and you were hypnotised is that a conscious act ?
If someone is heavily drugged or drunk and he kills someone is that person conscious or not?
Consciousness is a complex organisation of facts and feeling which either a synthetic or organic organisms in the form of a brain or synthetic processor is involved in a balancing process between doing an action and accepting the responsibility of that action.
It says a lot about our culture that Dan Denett is considered one of the greatest contemporary philosophers.
Indeed. Much as it says a lot about the 18th century that Hume was celebrated in his day.
is good or bad? your statement is very ambiguous
@@elenabalyberdina2393 bad
I don't think the google guy understood Dennett's comment regarding the Darwinian nature of neural nets. I don't think Dennett was implying that entire nets are iterated on in a competition driven lifecycle. What he was implying was that the Darwinian evolution is a partially brute force exercise. In that same way, ANNs are also brute force in a similar nature. Alas, there is no free lunch.
John Newman well these days entire neural nets along with a.I. algorithems do use Darwinian processes as a selection process.
The evolutionary programming model and genetic algorithm model is back in action it seems.
Maybe not when this was recorded though.
Someone subtitle this video ,please!
Is the moderator being paid by the word or something?
Good
Who is the guy in web-conference? I've already seen him
Blaise Agüera y Arcas
19.50 'You can come up with a pretty good story'. You're sure can, Dan. No better man!
Can Consciousness programmable ?
Even the songs poem
The hole in the doughnut is defined entirely by the substance of the doughnut and by nothing else! The 'relationship' between two objects is defined by the objects and by nothing else! If you want to know what consciousness is - look at its 'content'. That's what it is. That's all of what it is!
I feel all in this world are connected to me
The movie 2001 said it better than this whole panel:Interviewer: In talking to the computer one gets the sense that he is capable of emotional responses. For example, when I asked him about his abilities, I sensed a certain pride in his answer about his accuracy and perfection. Do you believe that HAL has genuine emotions? Astronaut: Well, he acts like he has genuine emotions. Um, of course he's programmed that way to make it easier for us to talk to him. But as to whether he has real feelings is something I don't think anyone can truthfully answer.
writing a dissertation on this q now
Love the topic, but the moderator ruined it.
This would be best hosted by Art Garfunkel himself
Consciousness time function experience
For me it’s like normal.
it's not a panel, it's multiple conversations stick together. Good content, bad format.
Don’t want to argue with you sir
Isn’t consciousness pure awareness?
Where is that in the fossil record?
How can a neuroscientist who has done research for 15 years still be asking the question - what part in the brain is consciousness? I’m a neuroscientists and that is an absolutely nonsense question. There is no consciousness module in the brain. Consciousness is an emergent property of millions of synaptic firings happening at every moment we are alive.
Where does the consciousness of organisms without a brain come from?
Is reacting to stimuli, having a life force etc. not being conscious? Else you would be limiting what consciousness means, which would imply there's something else that underpins consciousness.
@@bhuvanc4992 You have to define consciousness very carefully. If you extend it to potentially encompass all biological processes we encounter in nature then you could very well ask "does my liver have its own consciousness?".
Ever heard of rhetorical questions?
Consciousness is a Cognetive balance of knowledge and wisdom....ethical,moral and justice and common sense
19:59 slight reference to Elon Musk?
but ofc, therre are* illusions as well, like psychotronically induced brain signatures of vision sound as well as haptics.
hale xp well also drugs... And they go back a little further.
Its pretty easy in fact to hijack someone's awareness... To lock their desktop and run your own apps on it...
Or worse to trap lots of people in a botnet.
We call those botnets religion, political ideology and culture.
If you solve all the easy problems, how do you get any closer to empirically reaching the hard problem of 'experience'? This is not to say solving all the easy problems to better understand our cognition and brain functions, and their effects on phenomenal conscious experience, is not an important area of research. But this doesn't get us towards the hard problem. Denying it exists beyond brain functions as an trick of the brain, an illusion, doesn't get past the problem we still 'experience' this illusion. This is so different to all physical phenomena that we can understand through structure, mass, relations, dispositions, right down to quantum particles. Yet, this experience seems completely detached from this scientific understanding. There is a problem here. How does the physical processes in the brain produce experience? How does the brain produce the colour red, hearing music and other experiences? All we have is a correlation between brain functions and experience, but we are left with an explanatory gap.
Well, I just tested my peripheral color vision, and it was ok.
But I don't think they explained sentience. I assume it has to do with evolution.
I think that a robotic lifeform would lack uncounted things from natural evolution that produced a natural lifeform. But what exactly is it that makes us have a sense of being the person we are? That is not simply an illusion. An illusion to whom?
The talos principle, as it's called in a modern game, is that a person is just a type of machine, so what makes us different? Well, that is what I would like to find out from watching these videos. I don't think a man-made AI could match nature. But how does any cumulative effect of 'wanting to live' translate into a sense of self that we have?
Dennet seems to just talk about how what we perceive is an illusion. And he says we have the top-down designer behavior, but what about sentience? Is it the case that animals have a type of sentience which human culture changed or amplified? If so, how did that sentience start?
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. When someone claims that consocoiusness is a property of the brain, they are impliticly 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 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 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. 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
Here is a problem: if you don't know what your consciousness is, then you don't really know anything because that all comes through consciousness. What you know about your dog, for example, all depends on what you know about your own consciousness. What we don't know is how we make consciousness. We know what it is.
Question nothing. Be accepted
The only conclusion that can be made from this discussion, is that no one has the feintest idea what consciousness is! Lol
Peter Perfect well, we mightnhave some.idea.if the moderator had decided to shut up for.more than 30 seconds. He even interrupted the Google guy after 20 seconds, who hadn't opened his mouth for half an hour.
Disastrous choice of.moderator. it was frustrating for all I'm sure.
indeed
When you are doing everything based on true and honesty, then is not your fault if the other, do the opposite !
You will think everything , think that u r crazy , first time that is happening to me
I contest Dennett's claim about absence of peripheral colour vision. Since watching this talk I have noted dozens of occasions where I have noticed something coloured entering my peripheral vision and been able to name the colour accurately before looking directly at it.
Surely this will have been investigated rigorously. If there are no cones in the periphery, maybe rods can participate to some extent? I don't think my experience can be explained solely by my being at the extreme of colour acuity (scoring 100% on colour sorting tests, and being measured as having excellent colour discrimination ability in the laboratory setting, the highest of all the subjects tested).
fburton8 it has been investigated.... Dennett is right. Its not a given point where you completely lose color... Its a gradient ...it relies on the amount if light too. It also affects ability to determine size, shape, distance, speed and direction ...
What you are noticing there is your own ability to cover one eye and still perceive depth.
A better example would be this >
Hello everyone.
*Blessings.* 💙💛💚💜
Not enough time......
I suggest editing this video to remove a lot of the moderator's restatements and reframing. The result would be shorter and considerably more tolerable. lacking that, just advance past each of his frequent interruptions.
On Dennet's trillions of options, sure there is an objective infinite choice world out there. But who can hold more than a few ideas in her head. And what role does bounded rationality play? And , as we know through observation, the root of all choice is a kernel of non choice.
Then is it that the “blade runner methodology “ will solve the “agent crisis “ ..... ? .., I think not.. maybe it our perceived mortality that defines our consciousness.. just think of “HAL”. In 2001 space odyssey....will I dream?...
.Where is the buddhist World of the inner self not a word about eastern meditative thought.
Intro way way way way way>.............way too long. Get on with it
Pharaoh said that for president 2020 on yt check it out.
If one doesn't know how consciousness works and give an example of such, why pretend to be an expert on a panel. Is there one university course teaching energy perception or a meditation leading to the attainment of emptiness ? No. Have any of these guys been taught meditation based subjects or esoteric arts that give rise to understanding consciousness. No,
the moderator reminds me of Tony Blair
Christ this moderator is shocking
The moderator spends an enormous amount of time talking, "...be(ing) clear..." and otherwise restating things the various speakers say, as if the various speakers are not clear, or as if the audience wasn't bright enough to understand the speaker. The editing also is poor. One of the "examples" of art that is discussed is barely shown.
Look at that creature at the beginning of the clip! Is that a fucking goblin or something?!?
The moderator is stuck in a power struggle... Primate Consciousness lol.
IQ and other traits cannot be evenly distributed based on evolution either, something Dennett will never really deal with.
Indeed nothing is better seeing my beloved HAVING SINCERE CONVERSATIONS. NOW WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF SINCERE CONVERSATIONS? AND WHY IS VITAL TO UNDERSTAND AND WHY WAS GIVEN FROM THY LIVES WAS DESIRED 1ST. CAME WITH SINCERE CONVERSATIONS. REMEMBER SINCERE CONVERSATIONS WILL BE GIVEN SINCERE ANSWERS. IS WHERE CONVERSATIONS CAN TAKE ROOT. THEN THE ROOT WILL BE WATERED TO BECOME A WELL ROOTED TREE. NO ONE CAN UPROOT. WHY? Remember thy feet! To some will say the head, the chest, and stomach. But I TELL THEE! REMEMBER THY FEET! WHY? IS THY FEET RESTING UPON THE DRY GROUNDS BELOVED? Remember true hosts and Heirs and our beautiful sisters Feet resting upon the FOOTSTOOL OF GOD OF THE LIVING AND THE CHILD FROM THE EAST. FOR ALL DRY GROUNDS NOR THE WORLD IS GOD'S FOOTSTOOL. WILL BE GIVEN YET TO COME. IS LIKE WHAT IS AN AIM THAT CAN BE BLOWN AWAY? REMEMBER BEFORE MOVING FORWARD ASK THY INTENT, THY BASED, THY FOUNDATION, AND WHERE YOUR HEART WILL BE ALSO BELOVED. LIKEWISE BEFORE WRITING A BOOK. To all who have an ear let them hear. Is like utterance before leaves our MOUTHS has a TRUE foundation and an Aim. No one can UPROOT NOR SHAKEN but here to stay for good. Freely give and truly give. In plain view. Unlike many rather be in secrecy not to be seen by the people for the people. Who HIDES? HIDES belongs. How to know who is in front of thee? You may know them by THEIR FRUITS. Remember beloved thy lives was desired 1ST. And came with sincere conversations beloved. No one can enter in but a Child. Hosts and Heirs and our beautiful sisters knows? What is SOOTHING TO HEAR AND FOOD TO BRING FORTH. Language is given and language is understood Indeed. Is like what is old nor wise beloved? But a CHILD. Is like what do you expect from a FATHER looking at a Child beloved? Nothing is wasted but increased. Remember thy feet my HOSTS AND HEIRS AND OUR BEAUTIFUL SISTERS upon all DRY GROUNDS nor the world. Keep the sincere conversations going! Is like walking on water upon the SEA OF GLASS. SINCERE CONVERSATIONS WILL BE always welcome beloved. Come as you are? With thy sincere conversations. Remember the true owner and all the HOSTS ARE WASHER OF FEET OF NEIGHBORS AND WIPING TEARS FROM THEIR EYES. HUMBLE TO LOVE OUR BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORS GIVEN FROM OUR GOD OF THE LIVING. LIKEWISE HUMBLE TO BOUND GIANTS BY THEIR HANDS AND FEET. IF WAS COMMANDED FROM A MOUTH ABOVE ALL MOUTHS. Is like what is time? From whom and why was given. To our beautiful sisters. Remember thy TRUE HOSTS will washed thy feet and will wiped thy tears from thy eyes. To our HOSTS are commanded to look at one another. Who is worth respecting, honoring, loving, and giving my life for a friend kind of LOVE. WHO ARE WORTH MORE THAN ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. WHY? WHO ELSE WILL GLORIFY? GOD OF THE LIVING MADE JUST FOR THEE ALL. IS LIKE WHO ELSE WILL GLORIFY? AND YET TO COME. WHO WILL BE GIVEN TO MOVE FORWARD? BELOVED IF YE CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WOLVES DRESS IN SHEEP CLOTHING. INDEED ARE AMONG. THESE SAME MINDS WILL STEAL AND TO BLEND IN. FROM US BUT NOT OF US. COME AS A CHILD. SALVATION WILL BE GIVEN. KNOW THY PLACE AND POSITIONS WITH REPENTANCE AND KNOW THY PLACE AND POSITIONS IN FRONT OF OUR GOD OF THE LIVING AND THE CHILD FROM THE EAST. TIP OF TIME THE CHILD FROM THE EAST AND ALL GOD'S TRUE OWN RESTING UPON. FOUNDATION BEFORE ALL FOUNDATION WAS LAID UPON ALL DRY GROUNDS NOR THE WORLD. PRESERVED.
Even robot 🤖 will need to get educated, on the way that humans does!
How anyone can take Dennett seriously on this subject, I have no idea. He strikes me as one of those intellectuals who made some ridiculous claims a long time ago (i.e. "consciousness is an illusion") and now that his view has been sufficiently demolished, he digs in his heels even deeper in an effort to avoid looking like a fool.
The "hard problem" is to describe why it *feels like* something when the dynamics of the nervous system bubble up. Why is there a unitary experiential component, and why does it *feel* like something, rather than nothing at all? If Dennett does not think that's a question worth asking, we can easily and very confidently ignore him - it is a worthless position.
Pollen Applebee . Your opinion of Mr.D aside, may I offer a silly light hearted response to your question regarding the "feeling" of consciousness that he regards as an illusion. I agree with him because I can't find a better explanation of consciousness, aka, reality.
The guy in the mirror that I shaved everyday asked me if I was conscious. We simultaneously lathers up. We stared at each other.
We became friends, and then one day he said ," You know you're just an illusion don't you?" I wanted to smash the mirror. All mirrors. All reflections. The next day I told him how I felt. He felt the same way. We agreed to tolerate the unreality of our reality and not smash mirrors.
We are still friends. We make no allusions about illusions. We think we're real. And that's all that counts to us.
So may I suggest you go to the mirror and ask"you" if you are conscious and real. I'll bet you and "you" agree it sure feels like it.
Maybe you will laugh together.
Thank you for the story. I will say that I find your agreement with Dennett rather puzzling - you believe him because you can't find a better explanation? The fact that you can't find a better explanation does mean you have to agree with Dennett, because then you have to accept all of his obvious flaws. The best position would be to say "I don't know, and neither does anyone else" and leave it at that for now. Suspend your judgement, you are not forced to accept anything.
As to your story, it is cute, but it does not feel like anything to be a reflection in a mirror. The self may be "illusory" in the sense that we are each combinations of smaller individual components, but that is beside the point. The question still remains (and Dennett doesn't answer it in the slightest): why is their feeling at all, and what is its nature? Since such feelings seem to have been shaped by evolution, we can assume all of our waking experience has likewise been shaped. The question becomes: if the content/meaning of our experience is simply that which has been refined by evolution, how much can we trust it to show us the true nature of reality when the very thing we are studying (the mind) is absent from our study of it (the natural world)?
Pollen Applebee Dennett's hypothesis of mind or awareness as basically an 'after the fact' operating system... As an application run on the brain.... is, basically, the current synthesis used, observed and utilised by neuroscientists and data scientists in a.I., robotics and machine learning in general..... I'm not sure how it has been 'demolished'... Its the currently accepted consensus supported by demonstration.
Dennett and most neuroscientists are in fact interested in 'feeling' since its an internal stimulus that is rather useful in robotics. Well in a limited capacity... But mostly as an area to avoid. Now Dennett is not a computer scientist..but he has covered why a mind would have emotive response, biologists have too. Data scientists try to understand that so that they can avoid it showing up. We don't want a feeling machine... We want unfeeling machines that will just do as they are told. Also we know for a fact that 'feeling' is something we can change.... That's been known a long time, hence drugs.
The idea of a mindful machine that has feelings and an awareness of those might have some applications... But right now there are far bigger fish to fry than someone creating an app that would argue its not in the mood for working today.
Maybe you could elaborate on how you see his ideas as demolished?
You strike me as someone who does not understand what Dennett is saying and is not willing to look deeper, and therefore presumes that a world famous philosopher of mind is in fact an idiot, along with many other very smart people who find his ideas compelling.
@@johnhausmann2391if a world famous philosopher tries to convince you that what you're experiencing right now is an illusion, then there is no reason to look "deeper". Smart people don't always have smart ideas.
Can human identify what's reality and what's illusion? If everything is illusion. No
The supreme court.
No what am I get by fooling others .
Consciousness is clearly emergent so you'll never find the consciousness-part of the brain. We are virtual. Ghosts in the machine (aka brain).
A seal is not programmed to balance a basket ball on the tip of its nose, much less to somersault or roll over with the ball still balanced on the nose. There are many such examples of capacity beyond design. Our capacity to acquire ever increasing knowledge, is similar. We learned to falsify theories, to arrive at the correct knowledge, based on observation and verification, enabling and empowering us to discover how the universe is 'fine tuned' and how science shows universal consciousness (which blessed us with intelligence, intuition etc.,for us to pursue knowledge), and intelligent design.
Dan Dennet fails to understand how science works and how quantum fields (verified and observed by Cashmere effect) connect everything in the universe as one entity.
Dan disappoints me again, with his misunderstanding of consciousness as 'illusion', resulting in his adamant 'atheistic' view and fail to see 'divine purpose'.
Man and God compliment each other. Science leads us to this conclusion(John Hagelin).
Dan believes 'evolution is cleverer than you are', yet deny it has a mind.
Naimul Haq well if a seal is not programmed to balance a ball.... Then an artificial intelligence is also not programmed to recognise a dog in an image right? Instead both are trained.
If 'machines can't do consciousness cos quantum' is your argument then in the next 10 years you'll find out two things. 1. You misunderstood what and how quantum mechanics works and 2. You misunderstood how conscious awareness works.
Cos most data scientists are in fact generally physicists and they tend to have a good grasp of quantum physics and ML engineers and nuero scientists tend to understand emergent systems rather well...and they don't seem to see the magical correlation you see yet have more information and capacity to use it. Odd that isn't it?
Are you really so sure they are all so stupid and blind? Might it be the case you think you know more than you do?
Just reading that comment told me your basic understanding of machine learning, neuroscience, quantum mechanics and almost everting you mentioned was pretty much non-existant. Yet to you professors of philosophy with 50 years experience , directors of googles a.I. and clearly the entre world's bank of particle physicists are wrong.
And that's based on your absense of knowledge. Its certainly not based on experience or training or knowledge that's for sure.
Don't you think this is perhaps a little bit misplaced and also rather arrogant of you? They can't all be wrong...right? When was the last time scientists threw their hands up, couldn't apply a thing and said ..."ohh we got it all wrong...it must be God!"
Your problem I think is fear. With good reason I'd imagine. There's not a lot of areas that science turns its hand to that suddenly and inexplicably fails miserably now is there? Now you see the worlds data scientists, engineers and neuroscientists teaming up with biologists and philosophers and a shudder runs up your back. Cos these guys will undoubtedly crack it. Plus in China Dennett wouldn't even be on the stage.... They wouldn't need him to explain basic emergent systems to the audience. China is also the current leader in a.I. not the UK or US. So if I were you I'd look for some other interpretation of your God before they reach that finish line...
Just saying. Cis you might find yourself in a rather short period of time arguing with an app on your own phone.
Now as someone working in this industry (CS), and as a total estimate based on experience... I'd give you a few years to get that reinterpretation going.
Google might not be interested in conscious machines... But plenty of others certainly are...and they have truckloads of cash.
It is alright to be optimistic, but predicting what will happen 10 years from now, doesn't depend on a truckload of cash, which would have enabled us to discover how everything in the universe is fine tuned (Standard Model), of which we have no clue, and may never have one.
Yesterday I was watching a video about water having memory, how water can communicate and even reacts to your thought, almost as if it is conscious.
You seem to be bothered, that I am a theist. I think most atheists in the west reject the absurd stories of OT and NT of the bible and so embrace atheism, almost as a fashion.
Naimul Haq well we'll both find out right... As in said its an estimate, based on experience.... But in fairness that's 30 years in technology and the last five in data science... So its not a prophecy of the future.... It's a prediction based on experience.
Water has no memory...thats just nonsnse to get younto buy homepatic sugar pills. I'm seeing a pattern of you targeting utter woowoo. My guess is the day before you were looking at UFOs and a day before it was the loch ness monster.
What's up here? If its absolutely proven youbhave issues with it... But if its magic and woowoo you swear its real?
I'm getting a feeling there's a problem here. There's a difference between fiction and reality ... You realise this yes?
Just so that if a room full of doctors ever tells you you need an operation, and the guy driving a cab home disagrees... Well they are not equal opinions right?
Dan and perhaps you believe in a bag of magic tricks, as for me I believe science shows me 'universal consciousness and intelligent design'.
As for homeopathic medicine, I have seen people who suffered heart attack, in 1989, still lead a normal life, without bypass or stenting (growing lateral blood vessels). I am sure you didn't know that the entire family of queen Elizabeth depends on homeopathic medicine to treat all disease that does not need surgery.
Naimul Haq No, Dan and perhaps I know the magic tricks can be demonstrated.... And at that point all requirement for unsubstantiated belief in anything walks out the door. This is why you don't 'believe' water freezes.... You don't need to, it'll freeze regardless of how you feel about it.
Hence this trick of your basic inability to even count folks passing a ball >
ruclips.net/video/Ahg6qcgoay4/видео.html
But fear not cos you are making up for this failure of basic awareness by pasting in total rubbish as a substitute.
I think at this stage we need to start testing folks at 18 to decide who deserves a vote. We can't afford this century to leave it to relying on the choice of morons...
40 minutos, y a la pobre mujer no le han permitido ni un pio.
De-esser
next gen hippie must become aboslutely profit for atheist scientists fund of human body experimental
Oil
The lovely bra commercially confess because periodical inexplicably ignore like a rampant purpose. noisy, highfalutin art
This is ridiculous. You must see evolution of intelligence and awareness based on Human Ascent. Or visit humanascent.net and get your own copy. Let us all put a stop to all the nonsense published on evolution and intelligence.