Nick Bostrom: Why Quantum Consciousness is a SCAM!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Join my mailing list briankeating.c... to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN!
Many laymen and even scientists are making bold statements about quantum computing and simulation theory. But what is really behind this enigmatic technology, which seems to pique people's interest like few things in physics? I asked expert Nick Bostrom for his opinion. Enjoy!
Watch the full conversation: • Nick Bostrom: Superint...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
📺 Watch my most popular videos:
Neil Turok • Why Neil Turok Believe...
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 RUclips: www.youtube.co...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.c...
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.c...
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.c...
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #nickbostrom
![Eminem - Like My Shit [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vx_IMvFkrfA/mqdefault.jpg)
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
Friend, I do not mean to be disrespectful of your belief, but as a debate forum, which the comment section represents, I strongly disagree with your position on awareness.. It is EASY to argue a fully naturalistic genesis of awareness without resorting to untestable EVEN supernatural speculations...One opinion, which I think is supportable..Peace.
Should I suggest an alternative explanation to your assertions ? Or if you prefer and choose NOT to respond, that is fine too.. I won't press further, peace to you friend..
you are wrong. souls do not exist
Marco, do you think that consciousness could have come into existence co-incident with a naturally developed life? That is, for humans, consciousness is the result of a naturally gestating baby and its developing brain first expressing perceptual cognitive processes (or perhaps a little later)?
@@jonwong3696 No because my arguments prove that the fragmentary nature of brain processes excludes the possibility that mental experiences have a purely physical/biological origin.
Is Nick Bostrom calling from heaven? Bro got me shielding my eyes from the white light
Brian, you look very distracted and keep laughing at jokes that chat (presumably) makes while your guest is talking. Do you not have a moderator that could collect questions for you from the chat, so you can focus on the interview instead?
Nick's arguments are always fascinating AND engaging.. The issue seems to be that simulation in the context of his theory requires a SIMULATOR, yes? So, with us at the bottom of the simulation pile, does it seem reasonable to say it is simulators (instead of turtles) all the way UP..?
I disagree. We are electrically bond to everything around us.
Roger Penrose would like to know your location
Lmaoo
The quantum computer starts and ends with the mind..and if you're into mathematics your confined to numbers!! Lol the beginning language started off with symbols !
You guys seen the picture of har nasa took during the eclipse? Lol look like the lotus flower!!
Thoth?!? Is thoughts , thoughts are the beginning of action . But if your stuck in some ekes equation, well now you limit your mind and creation living by someone else's logic.
The beginning language started with speech
If we cannot create artificial consciousness I think that the Simulation argument is wrong
If we assume "consciousness" exists as a complex function, then the subjective experience of qualia could be interpreted as an "imaginary" component whereas the brain could be interpreted as the "real" component. Since quantum phenomena has both real and imaginary components, it's not a stretch to argue consciousness and quanta are of the same nature.
Very perceptive! Quite right to attribute consciousness as a combined real ‘local spacetime’ entity and the interpretations of this local receptor as the QP or imaginary component. the link to complex numbers appears embedded in the fundament of physics and conciousness. The true gem here is that if the QP part is indeed a fact, then the quantum coherence supporting structure of our microtubiles, may function as a quantum entangled part of an array of similar human brains. The QP effect would thus allow for a shared humanoid neural imaginary network if you like. Physical separation of Space and time between brains would not be a factor. You are quite on to something me thinks…..
Like Nick . But I think he should read the seminal work of Stuart Hamerhoff and Roger Penrose Penrose. They make a great case about microtubules generating quantum coherence and effects that may very well be the basic structure of what may resonate as consciousness. How else does consciousness arise in creatures without a single neuron.( lacrymaria e.g.). So would like to hear Nicks detailed analysis of penrose work on this before pushing it aside.
Consciousness without a single neuron sound idiotically sorry.
@@VolodymyrPankov Agree completely. Yet here we have the tenacious creature Lacrymaria on youtube. Hunting for pray, even shooting poisonous darts to stun its prey. A singe cell creature. No neuron. It seems our biases are wrong.
If consciousness is just a large scale statistical computation then, terminator uprising is not a question of if, but when.
I think you have a good CORE idea there except perhaps on the uprising part.. It is merely an opinion on the matter, but someday I'm convinced computers WILL become aware of their environment.. The uprising part seems FAR less likely, but no one can say with certainty..
@@Bill..N I mean, with enough time wouldn't survival instinct kick in any conscious creature or this case machines. We'll see evolution play out right before our eyes
@@ouranosTheos I think survival instinct is a characteristic of organisms evolved specifically to survive so they can pass on their genes. To develop the same instinct would require more than a machine that can think like us. The machine would need to have something at stake, and that does not come from nothing.
@@paulwary We are assuming that machine reaches our level of thinking if consciousness is large scale computation. Machines have ability to adapt a unimaginable scale unlike us humans. They wouldn't need to pass their genes or something equivalent, they would just run simulations in their brain
For a second i thought this video was about quantum computing is a scam. 😂
Computing isn't a scam but a necessity of manufacturing and research. It helped us to solve technical issues and difficulties before building a prototype out of actual materials. Quantum computing is a different way to solve problems.
something about the constant cuts back to Brian got me rolling, it's funny but I can't explain why
The brain may not be noisy.
The axions are very much like carbon nanotubes perhaps providing the needed isolation of entangled ions, from adjacent charges.
The dendrites and axion terminals providing inputs and outputs while the cell body/nucleus could be providing the required logic (and,or,not).
All together… sounds very quantum to me.
Maybe Quantum Computing is a scam?
Hi Brian, you are a very smart accomplished and educated man, and thank you for providing such valuable resources on youtube, but I think you are wrong here.
i am wondering if your emotion state can modify the output of a brain interface?
the neuralink demo was sort of of basic.--- i think it could have been done with eye tracking and a breath controller
i would not trust neuralink in tesla , but they are very well matched
It would be good to see Bostrom, Chalmers, Hoffman, Kastrup, Penrose and Henry Stapp all in the same room thrashing this out.
Mmmh,fine but the video talk doesn't match the topic, trying to find solutions?well it can be conscious with some new math
Much sense talked there by Nick Bostrom. I agree with him entirely on all the topics raised.
Humanity was created to have very limited experience of the spiritual universes. This made them the perfect test vehicle to perfect the laws of reincarnation and Karma, making it possible to define corruption and decay much better than earlier chosen species, who did much entitled and loving damage to this planet, looking to make it "perfect" for their elite beautiful sinners
hey brian i noticed you started to emulate the aeuuhhh noise that kip thorne makes
Nick Bostrom knows pretty well that if artificial consciousness cannot be created and verified his simulation hypothesis becomes a failure.
📍4:11
I agree that it’s a scam and I’m not even as smart as you guys .
Dr. Keating! Are you a member of MENSA? Also I love your channel :)
Good subject matter.
Typical gaslighting attack from an NPC character stuck in the adversary's atheist programming
bostrom is an ai who dont get kardASHIan jokes😮
Bostrom has ZERO sense of humor. Dry, dry, dry. Just...not much fun.
Lol jeezeus
Nick’s so far off track on reality