I love Marvin, but one thing I wish could be asked is - what about value? When it boils down to it, I think all processes can be achieved without the need for a soul - the soul adds "value" to the experience and actually makes the system "alive". If the only thing you want to do is create a system that behaves, that's no problem, but what about creating a system that actually is alive. I know I'm eluding to something that sounds silly, but I can't help but feel like there is some secrete sauce past the processes that us humans have which they are not touching on....
Yeah. The fact that it's "like something" to be conscious (by definition) simply can't be explained by science within a physicalist paradigm. Trying to do so is basically committing a category error--like trying to explain nuclear fusion in terms of bird migration patterns...It just can't be done. No one has ever offered even an inkling of a hint of a clue of what a theory of subjective, first-person experience would look like. Not a hint (although some, like philosopher Daniel Dennett, think they have). And the qualities/contents of experience are almost equally as inexplicable as experience itself. If purely quantitative science can explain purely qualitative experiences like the redness of red, then what is the mathematical structure that describes the redness of red? Or the pain of being kicked in the balls, for that matter? It obviously can't be done. It's just another category error.
I believe "value" is merely a complex system of priorities and relevance given to specific circumstances in relation to past experiences based on a reward/sanction dynamics. If applied on enough fields (social, financial, professional, marital, legal, etc) and on different people with different realities, predispositions, environments, experiences and pedigree, I believe that's where "values" start to show.
The audio is fine, its just a little low. Most sound cards these days have ways of compensating for low sounds. I use the leveler on my card and I have no trouble whatsoever hearing. People should try to do something on their end first before whining like petulant children.
The problem is why SOME "processes" have qualia associated with them but not others. Functionalists risk ending up in the same territory as Pan-psychists here, as you must specify why the simplest version of the hypothesis (that qualia ARE what processes DO) does not apply for all processes without exception. It's even worse than theorising radioactive decay of rocks having conscious awareness of themselves, as there would also be no particular reason to experience time in any particular sized "chunks". That is, could there not also be a conscious awareness of your brain activity at the level of individual synapses or molecular processes within cells? What's the rule here? Only the most highly integrated superset of processes gets experienced? In that case, why am I experiencing my brain activity, and not the process of the whole universe evolving over time (which integrates my mental states, in addition to everything else)?
At least the word "soul" connotes that consciousness is conditional on some special "human" quality that naturally excludes calculators and rocks from having qualia. That's not much explanatory power, but it's something - and at least fits the evidence (that we humans are the only obviously conscious subjects thus far confirmed).
@@davidwood7817 I read through you interesting comment a couple of times because I wanted to disagree with lots of things that Marvin said, and I wanted to be sure that we agreed that he was not on the right track. I am a strict materialist, but I consider everything in the material universe to be "material", so I don't deny anything's existence that we can talk about. It may be a story, a mythical creature or a brain state, but it is here at some level, or we couldn't talk about it (even if just a concept that is instantiated in matter). So, I doubt you and I would agree on very much of this topic, but we can both agree that Marvin's idea that consciousness is just a complex system, no different than a computer program or a table isn't very coherent or useful. He really want computers to be able to basically replace humans, but computers will never be conscious as long as they are not alive.
@@caricue I think it's reasonable to assume that everything (including concepts, thoughts, experiences) has a material basis (e.g. an experience corresponds to physical processes in the brain). The problem I have with accepting materialism is that there seems to be no apparent reason to differentiate subjects (individual conscious awarenesses) purely on the basis of their physical properties. What is it about the neurons in my nervous system that produces a singular awareness of only those particular electrical patterns, etc? Why shouldn't my neurons and yours form part of a larger system, instead of existing separately from an experiential point of view? Perhaps one day we will discover a material basis for boundaries of consciousnesses, but at this stage it seems uncertain. For the same reason, I agree with your objection to Minsky painting consciousness as just a complex system. The problems with this are 1. To specify either no lower bound (pan psychism) or an arbitrary lower bound (the system needs exactly 1.463 complexity units to start experiencing) for complexity of conscious systems, and 2. To justify there being borders between systems from an experiential PoV (my complex system is not clearly separated from yours in physical terms, but is in terms of my qualia - as far as I can tell ;) ).
@@davidwood7817 I think I get what you are saying. Two magnetic fields have definite boundaries, so they have to be very close to interact, in proportion to how strong the field is. Consciousness does not seem to have this spatial dimensionality, so there is no reason why one consciousness doesn't blend into every other. Is this your point of view?
@@caricue With regards to your first statement, I think my point is the opposite: since magnetic fields have infinite range and no discrete boundaries, I can think of no physical property which would make one cluster of electric interactions (e.g. your brain) discretely separate from another (e.g. my brain). Nonetheless, our respective conscious awarenesses do seem to be discretely separated... I think there may in fact be physical criteria for differentiating conscious subjects, but I've not heard many attempts to explain what these are. I'd certainly be interested to hear theories, as this issue may give some headway into the mind-body problem - since minds seem to be discretely separate, whereas physical processes in bodies (and brains) are ultimately due to fundamental interactions that have infinite range and which affect all other bodies in space.
Looking outside for answers will not work. Need to enhance the brian with dmt . Change your brains focus the bigger reality expand the brain neurons. Then you will know .
I don't think he's correctly interpreting the soul hypothesis. The soul hypothesis says that the components of the trillions of synapses etc. don't necessarily account for the emergence of a consciousness.
Consciousness evolves from our 5 senses. That's how we develop our consciousness and the reason why its so different between each other. It literally depends on our life experiences that are completely different from each other. You feel, see, smell, taste and hear different than me, by the way, there's nothing wrong with that.
So it's not REALLY "like something" to be you? You're not REALLY having experiences? What do you think a theory of subjective, first-person experience would even look like?
No materialist atheist (redundant, I know) ever has an answer for the origin of life and how the information of genetic coding could have ever come about from just a materialist view. The math alone says the materialist origin is impossible. Guess nobody ever put the question to Minsky directly...or he simply avoided the question
Like he said, people who claim "I am the most intelligent person there is, and I declare that the answer is this, therefore everyone else is wrong.". One thing is clear: there's no God. And maths can prove everything, we're just not advanced enough as a species to grasp such complex concepts yet. Religion is so pretentious by explaining everything with God, a magical creature. While maths and science actually find explanations and solutions. Ever heard of a remedy or technology invented by religion? Science does not have the answer to everything because we're merely 10,000 years as a species. Admitting one's limits is called humility. A very Christian virtue I believe. Pretending to have answer to everything, however, is a sign of arrogance, pride and ignorance.
@@fatkart7641 So its clear there is no God? Fine, where is your evidence? And if you want to claim math can solve everything (i.e. everything material), why do you ignore the math that shows life could not have come about by chance? Sounds like you're relying quite a bit on faith for your belief system
inferring that someone is illequiped to build something or figure out how something works with their current tools is intelligence, trying to do so anyway is stupidity
@@fatkart7641 It's just the opposite, in the movies we see androids who dream of becoming real, living humans. Who do you think this metaphor is about? In the Western world, people are disconnected from reality, but there is therapy for that. You see it on the news every day. Have a great day!
@@georgitchkhaidze1127 Not sure to follow your point. First, let's establish that what happens "in the movies" is depicted by humans, for humans, so it doesn't make for a very credible platform to stand on. Also, apart from the movie A.I. (which is a retelling of Pinocchio) and The Tin Man from Oz, I can't say I remember too much of what you're referring to. When I think "robot", I rather think of The Matrix and Skynet from Terminator. But then, this. Here is a summary of what you're saying: "Let's love and forgive, that's what makes us human. Rationality is idiotic." Then you talk about the TV and the news. 1) Love is a chemical reaction. Its compound is called Oxytocin. It is similar to pheromones. This phenomenon could easily be programmed in a computer using a Learn-By-Rewards type of AI. 2) Forgiveness is an individual choice. It can also be coded into an AI. But it can also be a weakness. Sometimes, holding a grudge or exacting revenge on someone can allow to move on, to regain loss confidence, self esteem, to make a statement to everyone that there will be consequences in causing them harm, therefore fending off further suffering. 3) Being rational is what makes peace. Rationality prevents emotional surges, impulsivity, crimes of passion. It helps to grief, to get closure, to chose peace over war or violence, to make better decisions for the greater good instead of greed, it helps to understand things instead of fearing them which then leads to hate. Rationality is healthy, necessary and without it, you're a wild animal only driven by your most basic emotions, including the ugly ones: envy, greed, jealousy, desire, etc. I don't mean it in a hurtful way, but if you really believe everything you said earlier, I am afraid that you might be the one in need of therapy.
@@fatkart7641 First of all, a simple general rule of discussion is not to overstep personal boundaries. Also, do not speak the language of the Inquisition from the position of scientific Catholicism. I wish you all the best of luck in the future!
@@georgitchkhaidze1127 I don't understand the ideas you're trying to convey with the words you chose. You seem to have a very specific (and hermetic) terminology. I don't know you but you creep me out for some reason - like, Tommy Wiseau kind of creepy. I only hope you'll find enough compassion to not reproduce and, if so, that you will not force your Inquisitory Scientific Catholicism cult ideology on them. Peace.
soul...? silly?sounds like an insult? the hard question, we should look more into this. there could be a soul........mabe but I don´t think so but still can´t rule it out completlty. Call the soul irritating better.
People were saying that about all sorts of scientific questions for hundreds of years, questions for which we now have provable answers. It's the classic god of the gaps arguments. We don't know how this works, therefore god does it. The soul is the same strategy, we don't know how minds work so we make up a supernatural explanation, but as Minsky points out it doesn't solve anything. If a 'soul' exists then it's s thing with functional parts and processes that produce it's behaviour. It's not a solution to the problem.
Marvin was one cool guy.
Dr Minsky was a grandmaster and always excellent
Before addressing the mind-body problem, how about we address the audio volume problem?
Closer To Truth's lack of proper audio is insane.
Closer To Speakers is where you should sit
DJones It's not that but their videos in the playlists go from loud to soft so you need to stay never the volume.
What a genius, Asimov said Minsky and Sagan were the only two people he knew were smarter than him.
I love Marvin, but one thing I wish could be asked is - what about value? When it boils down to it, I think all processes can be achieved without the need for a soul - the soul adds "value" to the experience and actually makes the system "alive". If the only thing you want to do is create a system that behaves, that's no problem, but what about creating a system that actually is alive.
I know I'm eluding to something that sounds silly, but I can't help but feel like there is some secrete sauce past the processes that us humans have which they are not touching on....
Yeah. The fact that it's "like something" to be conscious (by definition) simply can't be explained by science within a physicalist paradigm. Trying to do so is basically committing a category error--like trying to explain nuclear fusion in terms of bird migration patterns...It just can't be done.
No one has ever offered even an inkling of a hint of a clue of what a theory of subjective, first-person experience would look like. Not a hint (although some, like philosopher Daniel Dennett, think they have).
And the qualities/contents of experience are almost equally as inexplicable as experience itself. If purely quantitative science can explain purely qualitative experiences like the redness of red, then what is the mathematical structure that describes the redness of red? Or the pain of being kicked in the balls, for that matter?
It obviously can't be done. It's just another category error.
I believe "value" is merely a complex system of priorities and relevance given to specific circumstances in relation to past experiences based on a reward/sanction dynamics.
If applied on enough fields (social, financial, professional, marital, legal, etc) and on different people with different realities, predispositions, environments, experiences and pedigree, I believe that's where "values" start to show.
Can never hear these vids :(
I like Marvin, but the way he talks about consciousness makes me seriously wonder if there's anything it's like to be him...
Yeah, I know what you mean, I had that thought too. It is the same thing when I listen to Daniel Dennett.
"if there's anything it's like to be him"...? What?
@@fatkart7641 He implied that he is not sure if Minsky is conscious
How might quantum computers have subjective conscious awareness?
It looks like they are filming this from a fall out shelter
The audio is fine, its just a little low. Most sound cards these days have ways of compensating for low sounds. I use the leveler on my card and I have no trouble whatsoever hearing. People should try to do something on their end first before whining like petulant children.
Hypocrite.
The problem is why SOME "processes" have qualia associated with them but not others. Functionalists risk ending up in the same territory as Pan-psychists here, as you must specify why the simplest version of the hypothesis (that qualia ARE what processes DO) does not apply for all processes without exception.
It's even worse than theorising radioactive decay of rocks having conscious awareness of themselves, as there would also be no particular reason to experience time in any particular sized "chunks". That is, could there not also be a conscious awareness of your brain activity at the level of individual synapses or molecular processes within cells? What's the rule here? Only the most highly integrated superset of processes gets experienced? In that case, why am I experiencing my brain activity, and not the process of the whole universe evolving over time (which integrates my mental states, in addition to everything else)?
At least the word "soul" connotes that consciousness is conditional on some special "human" quality that naturally excludes calculators and rocks from having qualia. That's not much explanatory power, but it's something - and at least fits the evidence (that we humans are the only obviously conscious subjects thus far confirmed).
@@davidwood7817 I read through you interesting comment a couple of times because I wanted to disagree with lots of things that Marvin said, and I wanted to be sure that we agreed that he was not on the right track. I am a strict materialist, but I consider everything in the material universe to be "material", so I don't deny anything's existence that we can talk about. It may be a story, a mythical creature or a brain state, but it is here at some level, or we couldn't talk about it (even if just a concept that is instantiated in matter). So, I doubt you and I would agree on very much of this topic, but we can both agree that Marvin's idea that consciousness is just a complex system, no different than a computer program or a table isn't very coherent or useful. He really want computers to be able to basically replace humans, but computers will never be conscious as long as they are not alive.
@@caricue I think it's reasonable to assume that everything (including concepts, thoughts, experiences) has a material basis (e.g. an experience corresponds to physical processes in the brain). The problem I have with accepting materialism is that there seems to be no apparent reason to differentiate subjects (individual conscious awarenesses) purely on the basis of their physical properties. What is it about the neurons in my nervous system that produces a singular awareness of only those particular electrical patterns, etc? Why shouldn't my neurons and yours form part of a larger system, instead of existing separately from an experiential point of view? Perhaps one day we will discover a material basis for boundaries of consciousnesses, but at this stage it seems uncertain.
For the same reason, I agree with your objection to Minsky painting consciousness as just a complex system. The problems with this are 1. To specify either no lower bound (pan psychism) or an arbitrary lower bound (the system needs exactly 1.463 complexity units to start experiencing) for complexity of conscious systems, and 2. To justify there being borders between systems from an experiential PoV (my complex system is not clearly separated from yours in physical terms, but is in terms of my qualia - as far as I can tell ;) ).
@@davidwood7817 I think I get what you are saying. Two magnetic fields have definite boundaries, so they have to be very close to interact, in proportion to how strong the field is. Consciousness does not seem to have this spatial dimensionality, so there is no reason why one consciousness doesn't blend into every other. Is this your point of view?
@@caricue With regards to your first statement, I think my point is the opposite: since magnetic fields have infinite range and no discrete boundaries, I can think of no physical property which would make one cluster of electric interactions (e.g. your brain) discretely separate from another (e.g. my brain). Nonetheless, our respective conscious awarenesses do seem to be discretely separated...
I think there may in fact be physical criteria for differentiating conscious subjects, but I've not heard many attempts to explain what these are. I'd certainly be interested to hear theories, as this issue may give some headway into the mind-body problem - since minds seem to be discretely separate, whereas physical processes in bodies (and brains) are ultimately due to fundamental interactions that have infinite range and which affect all other bodies in space.
Dont know how Robert Kuhn can ask those questions with a straight face.
Looking outside for answers will not work. Need to enhance the brian with dmt . Change your brains focus the bigger reality expand the brain neurons. Then you will know .
Agreed... check out Michael Hoffman’s Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence found at: www.egodeath.com
Next level shit
I don't think he's correctly interpreting the soul hypothesis. The soul hypothesis says that the components of the trillions of synapses etc. don't necessarily account for the emergence of a consciousness.
Consciousness evolves from our 5 senses. That's how we develop our consciousness and the reason why its so different between each other. It literally depends on our life experiences that are completely different from each other. You feel, see, smell, taste and hear different than me, by the way, there's nothing wrong with that.
The mind-body problem is a cultural artifact.
So it's not REALLY "like something" to be you? You're not REALLY having experiences?
What do you think a theory of subjective, first-person experience would even look like?
No materialist atheist (redundant, I know) ever has an answer for the origin of life and how the information of genetic coding could have ever come about from just a materialist view. The math alone says the materialist origin is impossible. Guess nobody ever put the question to Minsky directly...or he simply avoided the question
Like he said, people who claim "I am the most intelligent person there is, and I declare that the answer is this, therefore everyone else is wrong.".
One thing is clear: there's no God. And maths can prove everything, we're just not advanced enough as a species to grasp such complex concepts yet.
Religion is so pretentious by explaining everything with God, a magical creature. While maths and science actually find explanations and solutions. Ever heard of a remedy or technology invented by religion?
Science does not have the answer to everything because we're merely 10,000 years as a species.
Admitting one's limits is called humility. A very Christian virtue I believe.
Pretending to have answer to everything, however, is a sign of arrogance, pride and ignorance.
@@fatkart7641 So its clear there is no God? Fine, where is your evidence? And if you want to claim math can solve everything (i.e. everything material), why do you ignore the math that shows life could not have come about by chance? Sounds like you're relying quite a bit on faith for your belief system
inferring that someone is illequiped to build something or figure out how something works with their current tools is intelligence, trying to do so anyway is stupidity
Really?! Will we soon be able to build a robot that will love and forgive?! Maybe first we need to learn to be people again, not rational idiots!
Yes we could, eventually. What's your problem?!
@@fatkart7641 It's just the opposite, in the movies we see androids who dream of becoming real, living humans. Who do you think this metaphor is about? In the Western world, people are disconnected from reality, but there is therapy for that. You see it on the news every day. Have a great day!
@@georgitchkhaidze1127 Not sure to follow your point. First, let's establish that what happens "in the movies" is depicted by humans, for humans, so it doesn't make for a very credible platform to stand on.
Also, apart from the movie A.I. (which is a retelling of Pinocchio) and The Tin Man from Oz, I can't say I remember too much of what you're referring to. When I think "robot", I rather think of The Matrix and Skynet from Terminator.
But then, this. Here is a summary of what you're saying: "Let's love and forgive, that's what makes us human. Rationality is idiotic." Then you talk about the TV and the news.
1) Love is a chemical reaction. Its compound is called Oxytocin. It is similar to pheromones. This phenomenon could easily be programmed in a computer using a Learn-By-Rewards type of AI.
2) Forgiveness is an individual choice. It can also be coded into an AI. But it can also be a weakness. Sometimes, holding a grudge or exacting revenge on someone can allow to move on, to regain loss confidence, self esteem, to make a statement to everyone that there will be consequences in causing them harm, therefore fending off further suffering.
3) Being rational is what makes peace. Rationality prevents emotional surges, impulsivity, crimes of passion. It helps to grief, to get closure, to chose peace over war or violence, to make better decisions for the greater good instead of greed, it helps to understand things instead of fearing them which then leads to hate. Rationality is healthy, necessary and without it, you're a wild animal only driven by your most basic emotions, including the ugly ones: envy, greed, jealousy, desire, etc.
I don't mean it in a hurtful way, but if you really believe everything you said earlier, I am afraid that you might be the one in need of therapy.
@@fatkart7641 First of all, a simple general rule of discussion is not to overstep personal boundaries.
Also, do not speak the language of the Inquisition from the position of scientific Catholicism.
I wish you all the best of luck in the future!
@@georgitchkhaidze1127 I don't understand the ideas you're trying to convey with the words you chose. You seem to have a very specific (and hermetic) terminology.
I don't know you but you creep me out for some reason - like, Tommy Wiseau kind of creepy. I only hope you'll find enough compassion to not reproduce and, if so, that you will not force your Inquisitory Scientific Catholicism cult ideology on them.
Peace.
soul...? silly?sounds like an insult? the hard question, we should look more into this. there could be a soul........mabe but I don´t think so but still can´t rule it out completlty. Call the soul irritating better.
The soul is unfalsifiable and hence can be ruled out by definition.
The Mind-Body problem is not a problem at all to our Creator who created everything. He will explain how He created us if you're chosen to hear it.
Brad Holkesvig happy to see happy people
Eyes rolling back.
God is man made. So it didn't create everything.
God was just our first (and very poor attempt) at explaining the universe
People were saying that about all sorts of scientific questions for hundreds of years, questions for which we now have provable answers. It's the classic god of the gaps arguments. We don't know how this works, therefore god does it. The soul is the same strategy, we don't know how minds work so we make up a supernatural explanation, but as Minsky points out it doesn't solve anything. If a 'soul' exists then it's s thing with functional parts and processes that produce it's behaviour. It's not a solution to the problem.
@@simonhibbs887 Scientist's don't have any proof to know who I AM as the IMAGE and VOICE of our CREATOR because I AM totally invisible.