Does Consciousness Have Meaning? | Episode 703 | Closer To Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 окт 2020
- How has "inner experience" radically emerged from cosmic dust? Is consciousness only an accident of biology? Or does consciousness have deeper meaning? Featuring interviews with Ned Block, Marvin Minsky, Alva Noë, Jaron Lanier, and Colin McGinn.
Season 7, Episode 3 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Consciousness #Meaning
The "lifelong desire to believe in god, or something like god" is very much how I feel. It's naive to assume what's out there and put a face on it, but given how magical consciousness is in the face of otherwise (apparently) inanimate matter, it's also naive to assume there isn't some greater "aliveness" or something like that.
Is it truth's duty to make you feel better about reality?
@@patmoran5339 I don't think the existence of a deity makes me feel better about reality, it's more that I want to be able to understand whether there is something out there, it's about relieving curiosity more than anything else.
@@KokoRicky Oh.
@@patmoran5339 "The stream of human knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter." ~ English physicist, astronomer and mathematician, Sir James Jeans
@@Two_But_Not_Two Minds create machines but I don't know what a "non-mechanical" reality means. I also don't know how the term "accidental intruder" might refer to a mind. I tend think more in terms of a "universal constructor" when characterized the human mind.
Minsky’s hands have escaped the suitcase of consciousness
Funny.
🤣🤣🤣
I bet he studied his own body language and compared it to what he was thinking and saying
The irony here is that Minsky probably wasn't even conscious that he was flailing his arms around while he was talking.
Marvin Minsky has invented a new form of sign language here!
Another great episode, Thanks Robert!!! 👍👍👏👏
This is relieving after the interview with Dennet!
I assume you mean it allows re immersion in fantasies of immaterial souls or divine purpose?
rubiks6 what was relieving about this, and what was it you didn’t enjoy about Dennett?
@@JAYDUBYAH29 No nothing like that. I'm not a dualist or religious or anything like that. I just don't think you can get subjective experience from Dennet's materialism. I find his views frustrating because I agree with him on much besides.
Jaron!!! The guests on this series never ceases to delight!
Jaron is great, always a pleasure to listen to him
I loved the last few sentences. He sums up his conflict.
A great book when it comes to this topic: ''The Stairway to Consciousness: The Birth of Self-Awareness from Unconscious Archetypes by Dr Thomas Stark''
Please tell me a little more, the essence of the story.
Don't bother, I Googled...
"Imagine a zombie universe, a universe without consciousness. If consciousness were irrelevant to the operations of the universe, there would be no such thing as consciousness. After all, what would be the point? What sufficient reason could be offered for it? Nature doesn’t generate anything that has no function. Yet consciousness - the most important fact of our life that defines who we are and how we relate to the world - is, according to science, nothing but an accident, a product of random chance, a bizarre mutation, an epiphenomenon, an illusion, an emergent property. It serves no purpose, it has no causal efficacy. It is totally irrelevant to the workings of inert, lifeless, mindless atoms under the control of the inert, lifeless, mindless laws of physics. The ideology of materialism is deadly to the concept of consciousness."
Materialism is no ideology, it is ramous, it loves reason and logic, it eschews magic and I, just an ordinary person the pollsters should consult, to get the average persons average opinion, to save themselves much effort,
know why and how the being-conscious-process evolved into being.
Me ancestors, umpteen thousand years ago, operated entirely on instinct.
I mean to say specifically, they were not conscious.
They had no need to be conscious,
in their simple circumstance instinct was enough.
They had no extraordinarily materially and socially complex civilization to navigate, like we do.
I think that we would not thrive, as we have,
if the world was still running on instinct only,
not zombies, apes.
That intoduction alone was the best thing i heard in my life,so damn inspiring that it took me on a trip
Guy with long hair has the best clearest thoughts of all of them.
Search him up on youtube. Jaron Lanier. He's a fascinating guy.
Very nice thinking, the more I think the more I get confused, there is paradox for everything, even for consciousness, the more we come closer to truth , the further we get away from it.
Lucky to me my consciousnesss still watching about more about consciousness to feel how greater this piece of thing I ave got to experience
"it's a complicated thing this consciousness", taps on the guest's knee 😂 that was a funny and unusual interaction from RLK!
The same comment for you, Robert. There are so many levels of consciousness and types of experience that I doubt you have even scratched the surface. Trying to understand consciousness is like trying to point your finger back at itself. Good luck with that.
People invented thousand names for rain, but it's always just a form of rain.
Best explanation of consciousness, imagine all our brains could produce when we're not thinking at anything in particular is a white noise.
Consciousness is the fabric of existence. You are that consciousness, that is why and how the mind(s) are aware of the world.
One of your best.
Most interesting hand movements from minsky. Very much uncorrelated to his words.
OMG so true 🤔🤔
@@-JSLAK lol That's funny
how this channel can only have 250K follower, to me this fact said a lot about the state of the world
Marvin Minsky hand waves while explaining hand waiving. LOL
I hope you find your answers Dr. Kuhn. I think the more we learn about the nature of the universe and reality itself, the closer we will come to understanding consciousness. The brain should look outward, not inward. If the universe had not created the mind, the mind would not have been able to question it's existence in the universe.
If I remember correctly, those hands play great piano.
Is consciousness only an accident of biology? In my limited opinion, it is NOT an accident. I think consciousness came about in simple lifeforms as a need to survive. I still think consciousness is fairly simple. It just has a few complex aspects. Thank you CTT.
minsky died in 2016
good stuff robert tricky questions indeed
lead on my man take us with you
"If there is meaning to be found in consciousness, the mechanisms of consciousness should provide clues." I like that. But how many pieces of the puzzle (clues) are missing?
No one will know that until we have figured out the whole thing.
@@User-jr7vf Exactly. And it might not be a simple 100 piece puzzle but a puzzle with 5,000 pieces!
The brain is the most complex object in the universe, there's more neurons and snyapes than there are stars in a galaxy,so makes y'all think that consciousness has any significance beyond the brain.
@@jrhendry3163 Thanks. I agree with you 100%
John Brzykcy Why would assume any “pieces f the puzzle (clues) are missing” ? Are you just referring to what we haven’t yet discovered about the mechanisms of those “pieces (clues)” ?
Mr Kuhn please bring bernardo kastrup on your program .....he is brilliant
I've been listening to Bernardo Kastrup too. I might buy one of his books.
damn. these are soooo good
Rodolfo Llinãs, in his "i of the vortex", makes several excellent points. That the brain evolved as a comfort finder is one. In an apex position, comfort and coherence are the same thing: this is how the brain became a coherence detector.
This explains our "semantic landscape" and why meaning is place; why you are *where* you are and, anyone in your place would be exactly you and, i trust you like my own soul.
Consciousness is when I suddenly realized I had been conscious previously ?????
Great semantics !
Ned gets it. You get to the part where he's gonna mention the hard problem then go to the computer scientist. I know there's a prevailing "there is no hard problem" dogma floating around but, i'm old school so i miss it.
A better question is does meaning have meaning or is it just thoughts we're attracted to. Consciousness is fine without interpretation.
Consciousness gives meaning to everything.
Meaning dwells in language only.
We have language and many argue
it's thanks to language that we are conscious.
This whole comment section seems to believe that they are in possession of the key to this boundless mystery. Can we all at least agree on this? Whatever consciousness is, it's a pretty fascinating little trick that the universe does, eh?
Not only in this video, but generally viewers on this channel like to play 'gods' by pretending they know the answer to the puzzle under discussion and everyone else is wrong. Apparently, they are unable to learn humbleness from the experts in the series.
True.
My problem with the comments are the scoffers, frivolity manchild, and athiests.
They're distasteful, ingenuine, clueless.
@@rubiks6 you are not separate from the universe. You are what the universe is doing right now. Therefore the universe is conscious. And you are exactly the type of person that my original comment was referring to
@@rubiks6 shut up doosh
Here is how.
We can share why something is true because we know is true, and
we can also share why something is not true because we know it can't be true.
I like the interview setting of a room absolutely PACKED to the brim with chairs
OMG my favorite channel of all time! What took you so long to find me honey? ❤️
Consciousness is flow of energy
Could consciousness come about from different activites in mind, which themselves are produced by physical processes in brain? The brain physically contains operations which when work in conjunction bring about consciousness?
To be aware one must have a mind. To have a mind one must be in Consciousness.
To be a fish one must be able to swim. To swim a fish must be in water.
It does now
Kuhn = consciousnesses. Consciousnesses = Kuhn
In spiritology, consciousness is life energy. Life is full of meanings therefore consciousness as life has meaning in many ways.
How could consciousness be an illusion when consciousness is the mechanism through which we perceive illusion?
Exactly .
It's not material or biological, rocks doesn't move on their own and animals show no interest in arts.
On point. It strange just yesterday I was writing this : It's ironic how we seem to depend on such a "subjective illusion" as a "reliable" observation tool.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Yours or mine, perhaps some special authority is relevant also?
Does consciousness have meaning? If I say no, how long (in microseconds) can I maintain this answer?
This is the greatest RUclips comment section of all time.
This is what happens when a channel doesn't blow up and then the comments get flooded with 12 year old's.
yes i do
What is consciousness but the operator of our fear mechanism? (Our personal protection system.) Would this conversation even have been considered before we had a developed civilisation full of resources?
Robert goes to Jaron Lanier while introducing him as an artist while his description clearly indicates Jaron is a computer scientist. These interviews are great, particularly the ones with scientists and philosophers, however Robert's oscillation between science, philosophy and religion promotes the idea that he's more lost than searching when it comes to consciousness. I am referring to his lengthy interviews with religious figures in relation to consciousness quest. Robert confuses his own personal existential crisis with the quest to understand the consciousness. The former is primarily emotional issue while the latter is fundamental human curiosity.
Conciousness may well demand explanation but as I see the problem is we can only hope to explain conciousness via the medium of conciousness.so in a way conciousness would be explaining itself.
Without light no seeing. Without air no sound.
Without Consciousness no knowing!
The topic as the headline seems more akin to what Hannah Arendt notes in her book The Human Condition in her prologue about the 1957 and the two decades earlier Russian version. Of an irony that can have several reasons including possible reactance to the Freudian hypothesis of the "return to the womb" or merely it expressed differently and in error coupled with humanity's own failures at organizing itself effectively! For if not your consciousness what else is speaking, thinking and expressing itself? Or the grand escapism!
The subconscious appears to be more non-physical with some kind of connection to external, while the conscious more likely connects physically to something internal.
To understand human consciousness we must start to understand the brain functions and the basic "consciousness" in much much simpler organisms.
You are assuming simpler organisms are conscious.
Why?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL There is of course a seamless evolution, and thus a seamless level of consciousness/perception among the species - even the existing ones. It's impossible to define where the line goes, where a specific species only has intuitiv sensory perception or whether it's conscious by definition.
@@staffankarlsson1428 Do you know that much complex behavior can be accomplished by reactivity and even more by unconscious instinct?
Creditable NDE cases and altered states provide statistical significant evidence on hypothesis that consciousness is not local.
I think you meant credible. How could NDE be credible?
@@patmoran5339 Clinically proved and recorded dead. I only recommend those cases for research. There will be on going NDE cases so by statistical methods, researchers already found out some common characteristics.
@@scivanpoon Maybe you should start a seance business. Oh wait, religions have already done that. Religion is big business and I would imagine this would be difficult to survive in business.
This reminds me of Wittgenstein and his book Philosophical Investigations and his view of mind; that meaning is derived from the use of ordinary language - his idea simply is that the dualist view of mind and body is wrong - 'I think therefore I am' (Descartes)... his view is that to be able to think and to experience sensations one needs to have a language that is derived from the the external. Basically, consciousness is not an from the inner but from the external - this was radical idea that attacks many great thinkers over the ages. But taking this idea further you can move in the direction that Penrose and others are approaching that maybe the mind which has normative reason is external and perhaps singular in nature - keep pulling that thread.
Meaning happens only as an activity of consciousness. Asking if consciousness has meaning is a bit odd though. Sort of like asking if color has green, or maybe if taste is insightful.
I agree, I think the 'meaning' being discussed in the video is really the meaning you might feel from becoming aware of your own existence - 'I am here, why am I here, I was not here before why now'. Self consciousness not consciousness
@@SamuelJFord perhaps. i think for lawrence, and many other of his metaphysical ilk, consciousness itself is seen as somehow implying something immaterial, divine, etc... having "meaning" in that sense.
the irony to me is that actually meaning in the high sense is only discovered in the existentially honest context of recognizing our true place in the universe as mortal biological organisms who will one day die and who's fleeting existence simply is what it is.
all the wonder, magic, beauty and love, all the contemplative rapture is so precious and sublime and awe inspiring precisely because of the bittersweet truth that it is ephemeral and has no currency outside of our limited individual existence and human cultural constructs.
I think our brains have evolved to the point that we're able to perceive, & describe our 🌎. The univ has made us aware if itself & how it functions. We had nothing to do w it. It comes from something outside of ourselves that our brains have been wired to recognize!
My sentiment exactly, there's nothing mystical about consciousness , it's just result of evolution and complexity.
@@jrhendry3163 you are so wrong. You don't seem to be able (as do many others) to use simple observation(awareness) and add a simple 2 + 2. Our Creator wanted us to be close to Him and He made a system so simple that the least among us could "get it". We humans with our faulty thinking have managed to take something simple and complicated it. If God is everywhere and knows ALL our minds and hearts , what better tool than consciousness. It's like in our oneness with God we are one with His mind (consciousness).We cannot ever understand consciousness because our finite selves cannot possibly understand the infinite mind of God. We are ALL one with God. God says " IAM that I AM ". Is it any wonder that when we look inside ourselves we say " I AM ". We are eternal beings that ,as children of God, never "die" - we just keep changing forms. If anyone cannot see this then they are totally blind and lost - but not forever. God wants ALL of His children to be home with Him and so He has made sure that we ALL get as many chances (or lives) as it takes to get it done. Call it whatever you will but it doesn't change the fact that " This is the way and the life ".
Ok, so you are saying free will, in itself has meaning, I hadn’t thought about it like that 👍
We would all love to continu evolving after death and our hope is that conciousness is something special, that never dies. In reality, when you take a step back and view this objectivly, the odds dont seem to be in our favor. Just take away speach and you ve got a human being that responds to its environment just like any other animal.
Life's sweet mysteries!!! Will we ever know? There is definitely something "explainable" about everything,especially our existence, but it is just information to evaluate and assess which is more believable or convincing. The fact is, we don't know!!!
Meaning implies cause and effect. But, consciousness is pure awareness. It has no cause or effect. So, the question is inexplicable.
It's an ill formed question.
My take is that what we call consciousness is the outcome of a two-layer process: the lower level process which we are hardly aware of it is what keeps us alive and functioning by responding to our environment. I would think all animals have it; the upper level process is of an analytical nature which adds the ability to reflect on our environment including ourselves not just react to it. Consciousness is in fact a cognitive loop: "I think therefore I am".
the brain processes what could be referenced to or what is thought to be information but what about the absence of information what is that in nature?
This is why we call things "abstract". Abstractions are things that when you really think about it are completely illusory and intangible. most "information" is paradoxically always an abstraction because, information only exists in the mind where it seems to be relevant. Take: the sky is blue. for example. This information we both would agree is true and just from hearing someone say that sentence. You can picture a blue sky with some clouds floating around in your minds eye. The point at which the paradox comes in is that the sky doesn't know it's "blue" and the sky doesn't know it's even a "sky". This information is an abstraction as all information is. Even the words and language describing "the blue sky" are arbitrary to reality. In a different reality I could have said: " Da bloopy doop poop." and that could just as easily would mean "the sky is blue." and you'd get the same image in your mind.
Can consciousness exist without something to be conscious of.
18:50 Name of the music please.
I’m looking for a word to use, other than accident
Our reactions, feelings, habits, etc...are not isolated to the brain. They include inputs and outputs from all of our body...notably the heart. Yet, we reduce consciousness to the brain. It is both physical/material AND not located exclusively in the brain.
Jesús, your channel is great, but you up load so fast... I can’t keep up 🙁
You always have the option to watch later, right? That's one of the advantages of the Internet over TV.
Excellent..... thanks 🙏.
Consciousness IS meaning-giver
Indeed! No being-conscious-process... no meaning whatsoever.
Consciousness itself might be complex and complicated because it emanates from the immaterial realm. However, its manifestation in the material world is quite simple and easy to understand. Two levels could be distinguished: medium consciousness in humans and lower consciousness in everything below humans.
In living beings especially humans, consciousness evinces six operational frequencies namely: wakefulness, awareness, alertness, imagination, intuition and dreaming. The last frequency is operational when we sleep.
A question for materialists: What is the evolutionary purpose of subjective experience if p-zombies are just as good at survival as conscious humans?
From a purely materialistic viewpoint, consciousness could be an illusion that gives the ability of strong social bonds to a species, thus giving the species (as a whole) a long-term survival advantage.
I wrote that but I'm not convinced of it.
18:40 10:49 if you wanted a tool how would this tool be given
It doesn't have meaning, but you can certainly give it meaning.
Consciousness doesn't have meaning? Really? Try having meaning without it?
@@danzigvssartre You misunderstand..... I mean, consciousness itself doesnt have meaning. But it can certain give meaning to things!
@@Corteum To be conscious is to have meaning.
@@danzigvssartre What you're talking about is the self identity or ego-personality, not consciousness. Consciousness is more fundamental than language. It's the purely subjective quality of being aware [and of being aware of _things_ ; objects, sensations, sounds, or thoughts, beliefs, emotions, _meanings_ , or physical (or other) sensations.
On the other hand, ego-self identity requires meaning because it's made of meanings and word associations based on [your] names, dates, places, word associations, etc.
@@Corteum Even mystics who have an experience of universal oneness, devoid of thought or ego, still acknowledge a sense of self (perhaps Jung’s notion of Self with a capital “S”). This is pure metaphysics, but I’m inclined the feel that awareness always comes with some degree of self awareness. As far as I’m concerned, self awareness definitely can’t be reduced to some linguistic illusion created by the mind.
Like I say, consciousness is nothing but an integration of mental abilities. Mental abilities are Observation, Comprehension, Imagination, Curiosity and etc. Each of mental abilities is an integration of interfaces between Mind and Body, heart, brain and etc.
Life events can be explained (analyzed) by mental abilities. A toddler is eating ice cream while sleeping on a chair, his hand won’t let go the cone. That is how mental abilities work together. Practically, improve mental abilities will improve consciousness, vice versa.
This definition of consciousness fits for materialism and immaterialism and It links physical and spiritual. This definition bridges science and philosophy. No more mystery about it.
Hopefully, scientists and philosophers can work toward this direction. Btw, it is a blessing of fate to define this way when I was working on my Model.
That doesn't explain anything.
@@cosmikrelic4815 The definition of consciousness is, consciousness is nothing but an integration of mental abilities. This is an scientific definition. When you are disagree, there is nothing to explain.
@@bruceylwang Funny, I can't find that definition anywhere.
@@cosmikrelic4815 Hopefully, scientists and philosophers can work toward this direction.
Here are two examples of the mind influencing matter:
1. Your body says you are aware. The information flow from conciouscness to nuerons.
2. Evolution made a good corraltion between brain feelings and mind feelings. You could have had caos in your mind and a functioning brain, if the mind has no active role to play in evolution. Say you see red but you feel your burning.
If you want I have more to say on the body mind problem, it is the pivot of everything.
Pls , the opening music name, thx
The mind is the only bridge to reality
No!
Thoughts are representations.
Representations are not what they represent.
The mind is made of thoughts only.
Thus 'reality' hides forever beyond the mind's ability to grasp.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL the mind is the only actualization which by default can be the only realization
@@sopanmcfadden276 If thoughts are representations and
reality is made entirely of them then
what is represented must also be thoughts.
Whether we think of atoms as thoughts or as matter makes no difference.
Seems to me this lack of difference makes the word 'reality' totally meaningless.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL it's natural for processing information in this universe. Someone could say a falling tree makes a sound in the woods therefore the mind is unimportant but the universe is connected so the sound is integral to consciousness indirectly. Actualization and processing gives the universe witness.
Is consciousness relationship then
From this video there seems to be some confusion with invention and thinking as Conciousness. Revelation synchronicity coincidence need under decision etc. Refer to real living aspects of life and not just thinking. But thinking then is what is rich to these aspects
RLK.... your “lifelong desire to believe in GOD” ..... is something very many people have...... the “GOD hole in your intellect”. Mine was filled at age 44. May yours be filled soon ! Thanks for all your wonderful videos!
Gerhard moeller how?
“ what do we think consciousness is”
Who’s “ we”
Nobody knows what conciousness is...
We still have no idea...
If I may, we know that all is one with God - for those who believe in God. From this I imagine that consciousness is mind sharing with God. I don't care how infinitely advanced you make a computer it will never share mind with God - the unknowable "I AM". Then again, we are all One with everyone, everything, and even God. Whatever it is we need to love it.
@@garychartrand7378 Hey Gary, Is anyone else in your cult or are you all by yourself?
Luam, you are wrong, I know what consciousness is.
Awareness must be of the illusion of a self. Meaning? To love others. And to serve. Purpose not meaning.
Actually a fully expanded awareness notices everything - everything around you and everything within oneself.
I think that the consciousness did not arise from the cosmic dust, but the other way around. The cosmic dust arose from the consciousness, or they are the same thing.
find something that the brain is not capable of doing on it's own or with some interactions with the presumed external reality inputs being processes neurologically but how to observe it or how to touch it or how to interact with this thing this is the process by which we could discover how the brain interacts with consciousness
Since when are red and green different colors?
“ it’s not an allusion “
Agreed, what is being fooled by the allusion?”
Materialism suggest we are meaningless as a chair, just more complex.
They are saying 'illusion' not 'allusion'.
Illusion has at least two meanings.
One is the usual that entails somebody being fooled.
The other is just another way of saying 'not materially existent' and
is an Englishism almost never used by Americans.
"Materialism suggest we are meaningless as a chair, just more complex."
Absolutely not!
Pattern and process are abstract concepts that
are perfectly at home in the vocabulary of materialists.
A: LIGHT.
I'm Researcher and Professor in Computer Science at the University of Venice, Italy. My research field includes functional languages, compilers and type systems, though I have a strong interest for consciousness science, physics, phylosophy and everything in between. Over the decades I developed my own theory on what consciousness could be and why I personally believe that most collegues in the AI field could be wrong: computers may never become conscious - that's my claim - because we confuse the function of consciousness with the spontaneous emergence of the phenomenon from the relations of a complex system.
Let me clarify.
Whether consciousness is just a product of neural activity (Materialism) or it comes from an underlying layer of quantum-level computations (Orch OR), the substance is the same: consciousness is an informational process, thus described by the relations among the states of a complex system, not by the states themselves. If you freeze a brain in an istant in time, then it won't be conscious: consciousness is the "continous becoming" of the interactions between the states within the brain (or whatever else is involved).
Consciousness is a "shape" - Giulio Tononi forged a good word for it - a stable shape consisting of the union of the interactions between the nodes (neurons) of the network, constantly renovating, constructing and maintaining that stable shape over time.
This makes consciousness a property of the dynamics of the relations between the items of a system, which in turn implies that it doesn't have to be neurons necessarely: my claim is that any system with intricate interactions may produce consciousness, if capable of assuming and maintaining that shape over time.
Consciousness therefore abstracts the substrate upon which it is physically implemented (neurons and/or whatever else is involved) and does not depend on the matter, but only on the informational content set up by trillions of relations among that matter.
Let me make a sloppy metaphor: consciousness is the movie, not the film.
Now, if we generalize this, we may come up with some sort of "polymorphic" property for consciousness: you could setup a trillion of small items on a network and make them interact properly, reproducing a stable shape consisting of the relations among such items over time - would that become a consciuous system? My guess is yes. You may apply that to any system made of nodes and interactions between such nodes: a trillion of neurons exchanging electro-chemical signals within the brain, or a trillion of stars exchanging photons within a galaxy, or a trillion of quarks exchanging gluons within a neutron star.
Now, here lies, I think, the great misunderstanding that many AI specialists believe: if we reproduce that on a computer through a program emulating such relations and interactions through computations, then that doesn't mean the system will become conscious. It may seem counterintuitive but the reason is the program only emulates all those relations through a series of computations happening in the memory of the computer, which does not mean it would reproduce the relations themselves or their actual stable shape over time.
There's a very subtle difference between reproducing the dynamics of a system and emulating it via computations: the outcome may look the same, but the qualia won't emerge. You may end up implementing a program that speaks, thinks and even believes it exists - but that does not mean it is conscious.
Yes, I know it is counterintuitive, but if consciousness emerges spontaneously from the relations of a system, then emulating that system won't work.
Let me make another metaphor: by emulating the chaotic motion of particles due to temperature in a fluid, you won't make your computer hot!
Arguably, in order to make a computer conscious we would need to recreate and reproduce the very same shape between the relations currently happening in our brains: for example, by putting transistors in a net and allowing them to relate in the same complex way that neurons relate when producing that stable shape. But that would not be a program emulating them in the common sense - that'd be something else.
I know, it is a very subtle difference: I'm afraid it is not easy to explain this as a comment on YT.
Mr. Khun, should you be interested in this, I'd love to delve deeper into it.
Emulation is not simulation. I've thought about this too and what I believe is that what you'd require is a 3D computer made up of trillions upon trillions of morphological structures that run based on the laws of physics and some kind of habitual code that elucidates a sense of persisting self to the system. However this doesn't explain consciousness for the following reason: my identical twin has the same neurology as I do, yet his "I" isn't my "I". In other words his perceptions aren't mathematically identical to my perceptions even though we might be exposed to the same stimuli. For to be numerically identical, I must be both of them, yet logically it is untenable how'd that come about. What is the nature of this singular "I"?
They might be both conscious but what does it mean to be conscious? Decision-making? Qualia? How is qualia possible with mechanical systems? Does my car have some sort of rudimentary qualia as it runs?
@Abhishek shah You precisely got the point: emulation is not simulation. Most collegues involved in AI believe that reproducing by computing means to reproduce the system - but that's not true, I'm afraid, that's only emulation.
As you said and as I pointed out, we would need a simulation instead: a network of billions of neuron-like devices and accurately reproduce the relations occurring between them. That way we might be able to reproduce the famous "stable shape" that our neurons keep maintaining, only through another medium or signal.
On the contrary, even if we write a program that computes any possible state and relations at every level, from quantum to synapses to dendrites, then the magic would probably not happen because that's only an ocean of mutating numbers in memory, not the real thing.
There is nothing like self consciousness. There is reality(synonymous of consciousness) senses deliver the picture of it landing on the brain creating the patterns . Consciousness depends how complicated brain is(animals.etc) it is a filter of reality an illusion. It doesn't emerge from.anything
Generaly it is a function of 5 senses and mind(mental faculty) it doesnt exist. All of it is ghost hunting.
The laser hologram can recreate any awereness. The technology is around
@@Eric123456355 this is just the local consciousness.
Now add an Internet connection to every one that allows them to connect to the universal consciousness to whatever extent each individual is biologically able and tuned in to do so and I think that's closer to the start of it.
@@alvisespano Saying that consciousness is an "informational process" makes it look like an AI can eventually get conscious if there is sufficient interaction within its neural networks.
A computer can process information, but _understand_ that information is completely different, and I don't see how your theory explains that.
Every night when we sleep, where is our normal awaken consciousness?
In you dreams remembered or not.
@@garychartrand7378 Wakeup within dreams, remember after awoken. Continue dreams after awoken. Remember(within 1 hr) after fully woken.
@@scivanpoon You seem to be agreeing with my presumptions.
Another issue. If longevity by ancient survival is a means of a species life form then ignoring the line of survival to momentary success of mechanised science asks who's really thinking of survival rather that aspects of experience to the colour of changes to be experienced...so they state their limit in duration and assimilate the con on life meaning.
It's impossible to know if the red I see is the red you see! In fact, such evidence of this is with shades of orange red 1 observer sees orange and another sees red.
The idea of "consciousness" emerged out of dualistic Cartesian philosophy which divided reality into "dead matter" and "pure ideas". We are now obsessed with a dualism between brain and body, but the very same Cartesian misconception is at its roots. There is no such thing as "dead matter" or "pure ideas" -- ideas are always mediated by language and technology, and physical things have intrinsic properties and teleoogy.
The program makes sure that most humans see and agree on the same experience, otherwise this thing called life or reality won't work.
Consciousness is witnessing entity. it witness the existence so that the existence become exist. It witness your I feeling so that you know that you exist
God IS everywhere.
these guys are missing the boat..
Hammerof & Penrose have the answer.
Not even close.
17:00 Yes! In a deterministic world 'consciousness' is necessarily impossible. Because Consciousness is indisputably real, determinism is necessarily false!
Why in a deterministic world, consciousness is necessarily impossible?
Like consciousness itself, it's easy to 'know' but difficult to 'explain'. Nevertheless I'll try. Where one event is necessarily the effect of an antecedent event - the cause, then the two events are indistinguishable from a 'single' event because they cannot exist as distinct events. In the same way then - a deterministic universe is indistinguishable from a 'single' event or a single object. Such an event or object can have no 'complexity ' about it since it is, as implied, 'singular'. In order for anything to be 'conscious' there necessarily has to be something 'of which' to 'be' conscious. A deterministic universe has no 'parts', 'aspects', or 'components' other than are conceptually derived. Also a deterministic universe precludes any possibility of 'randomness' whatsoever anywhere to be found. Nothing anywhere ever can be discovered or created that is at all 'random'. A deterministic universe is only as capable of containing consciousness as would be a block of perfectly uniform matter because both are essentially the same - that is 'a deterministic universe' in which innumerable things occur is no more complex than a 'non-deterministic' universe in which 'nothing' occurs. The reason I say that consciousness cannot occur in a deterministic universe has something to do with consciousness requiring that there actually 'be' things and stuff i.e. complexity, and that in a deterministic universe there are ultimately and in actuality no things and stuff because ultimately in a deterministic universe everything must reduce to nothingness here and now.
@@MarkLucasProductionsI have the feeling that consciousness requires some form of agency and an interpertation of individual consciouss event but i can't prove it. For example the red does not just feel warm. The visual event of red and the warmth is the same thing but this is repeated on a very strong feetback loop, combined with other things like the shape of the red object or the non warmth of its surroundings and consonant contrast of the two that result to the vision of a red object. I think that consciouness is more of some stories of many parts. This could explain synesthesia and how colours,flavors and sounds look so complex.
@@MarkLucasProductions We are not conscious of things that we have no saying on like the beating of the heart. I think that the opposite may be true.
So is life, there's not even a single hint in our understanding of reality life might emerge from physical properties and laws. Imagine there would be no life in the universe and one would know what we know about physics and chemistry, who could guess life will emerge from that?
There's a formula missing like E=m2 or to B(brain) + C(consciousness = R (Real)but by trained people
R+H=E=UR=O reality human everything ultimate.reality oneness
@Robert Kuhn any chance you can do a program exploring consciousness from the brain's "software" perspective with the right people? I feel that the brain's functions and its potential role in producing or enabling consciousness has (distractively) received too much attention from the hardware point of view. I tend to believe, however, that the brain's hardware (neurons and synapses, etc.), while playing an important role, may not be as critical in enabling consciousness (if at all) as the way the brain's software has been programmed is. The software may be able to operate similarly on a different hardware as well! This may be a subtle yet somewhat underestimated piece of the puzzle. Thanks for the great work you are putting out there.
It's interesting that during the industrial revolution humans conceived of the heart as a pump. And now, during the information age humans conceive of the brain as a computer with software. Both metaphors are reductionist and insufficient.
Are you calling God software ?
Conscious beings create meaning!! It is a uniquely Anthropic value. Meaning is the answer to a question conscious beings ask in an attempt to relate events to the conscious being asking the question!! A single large boulder rolling down a slope has no meaning whatsoever unless a hiker was passing by as the large boulder rolled down the slope, then the hiker could ask “what is the meaning of that boulder rolling down the hill just as I pass by??” “Does it relate to me and to what I am going through at all??” Paredolia is the same. A cloud formation may look vaguely like a face but someone seeing that may ask “what is the meaning of that cloud looking like a face” “what does it mean to me??”
Does blue have purpose?
Yes. Blue serves to mark the cool end of various continua.