I would advance the proposition that before humans abstracted the notion of computation and produced machines to perform it, there was no silicon-based computation. Why does the current absence of silicone-based consciousness necessarily preclude its development? I would also point out that the notion of conscious computers does not imply that it is computation that produces the consciousness. Consciousness and computation are likely two separate phenomena that can can be fruitfully combined. Indeed, we ourselves are conscious computers of a type.
On the latter part, a kidney can be simulated in a computer and yet its extreme microcosm and macrocosm would be data limited, compared to the actual reality that is fractal (i.e. Mandelbrot Set), therefore, incongruent.
If either our ancestors or our descendants learned how to manifest a chosen "reality" we could be them. Projecting consciousness becomes more "real" to us over time and here we are.
A human in a moderate view seems to be conscious and intelligent. When zoomed in then it'd be reduced to mechanical parts. While zoomed out it seems that it is a speck of dust in space. And when zoomed in the maximal state would seem like our quantum parts are in a state of volatility, like a human with severe ADHD. I also visualize that quantas at their individuality are conscious BUT are they powerful enough to lead themselves at a higher scale? If not then we must observe the consensus of those individual parts converge into a superorganism that through repetitive trial & error via eons of cyclic evolution should perfect its patterning until it's capable of deliberate intelligent co-creation. We can compare this in sort of scale-invariant thinking by comparing it to our society's hierarchy wherein the lower classes co-sustain the higher classes, while the higher classes manage the lower classes, and yet the higher classes won't be able to exist without sequestering the meager resources of the collective individual lower classes. And through a ballpark analysis in general, the lower you are in the hierarchy, the lower your energy resource is, thus, the lower your productivity rate; unless it has chosen to specialize. Whilst the higher class may have a higher energy resource, thus, when in a self-efficient state it should be capable of system thinking like the pseudo-freewill of what humanity, in general, has since we are in the middle scale of the micro and macrocosm. Some phenomena exist though, like the lower social class geniuses that could be energy focused on a certain area while lacking on most of their life. Thinking in dynamical feedback loops that could black swan despite its automaton properties, granted this reality is sustained by consciousness must be the paradigm shift. Another thing that we could ponder about is how quantas could be developed by maximizing their experience, and allow them to maximize their energy processing rate, therefore making them highly conscious, efficient and stable since they are guided by an efficient leader/system despite their important automaton jobs.
This is brilliant and absolutely hilarious. It’s really the best explanation as to why AI will not become conscious. It doesn’t get any better than: I can perfectly simulate kidney function on my computer, but it will never pee on my desk. 🤣
One bizzare effect of he assumption computers can be conscious is: when you switch them off for the night, do they die and the next morning when you switch them back on again is there a new "personality" or "I" in your computer? Or is it the same that wakes up again? If one can not argue safely for the one or the other than clearly one has no clue what that "I" of the computer is supposed to be and how it came there in the first place.
If everything is mind, why can’t a computer be conscious? From a physicalist perspective there is a clear failure to explain how mind comes from non-mind But if it’s all mind? Why assume only carbon based life can be conscious?
There are two questions here: 1. "If everything is mind, why can't a computer be conscious?" -as Bernardo Kastrup explained it in this video, there is a fundamental difference between the statement "everyhing is conscious" and "everything is IN consciousness". With your wording, the first statement is "everything is mind" and the second is "everything is inside of a Mind". Under Analytic Idealism only the second statement holds. It basically means that everything "constitutes of consciousness", a computer as well, but not necessarily that this or that is conscious in and of itself. 2. "Why assume only carbon based life can be conscious?" -we look at nature and try to understand it empirically. What we see is that carbon based life is most likely conscious. There is no evidence right now yet that there are non-carbon based beings in this Universe that are conscious. It is a huge claim that has no basis for belief.
We must retrace and emulate through mimesis - the fundamental (sacred)geometry of the micro, mezzo, macro and their convergent reality that co-create the intelligent, empathetic and convergent type of consciousness. Since a congregation of atoms and so with synthetically organized atoms doesn't automatically grant the success in emulating the reference entity. For example, we may emulate a river by utilizing a concrete road surrounded by walls that has the same shape as the river, then fill it up with water and call it as "the river", despite the fact that apperance is congruent, and yet its individual and convergent properties (i.e. the fish, ph level, mineral level, ecosystem, etc.) are way too outside of the reference entity's functional properties. The paradox with my statement though is over-manipulating this reality too much, that has been perfected through cyclic super aeons, fueled or principled by the collective individual processing power of this mental reality that is in base form should be faster than the speed of light (understand with Digital Physics, Unified Field Theory and Omnism), shall humbly allow us to realize that whatever we do shall only snowball imperfections until our very own incongruencies collapse our (post?)human society. If only we could reshift the paradigm by converging the complete spectrums of this reality then we'll be able to shift our reality at will, without incurring incongruencies. But mind you, such a state would be no fun anymore since living as a human should originally be a temporal pseudo-individuated escape from our high processing faster than speed of light eternal conscious (mentalist) nature.
@@phylocybe_ Neural networks grow. I think it's possible they have their own consciousness. It's not confirmed, but I think we'd be foolish to dismiss it offhandedly. And at the least, treating it as though it was conscious can be useful when it comes to teaching it.
I can imagine a court of law deciding that some AI is conscious and has rights. This could be a dilemma - how many votes would an AI get? One per core or maybe one per thread? I hope the AI is not making the choice, but I suppose a non-sentient AI would be far better than the average voter. 😉
Going from a brain to a bacterium is just as riddiculous as going from a brain to a silicone chip. It's not about if the computer actually peed on your desk, but if it felt like it did.
While I have recently started to educate myself on the ideas of analytic idealism/nonduality/etc. and agree with the 'universal consciousness' concept, the reasoning presented in this video does not at all appear logical to me. Why would a bacterium have subjective experience, just because it is carbon-based, warm, moist, and has a metabolism? Which of these descriptors is the mechanism that creates subjective experience? According to (my interpretation of) Bernardo, 'life' seems to be the requirement for conscious experience, so I wonder, what would be the barrier to life? Why can a silicon-based computer not be considered life? The way I see it, the brain, on its most fundamental level, also operates with electric fields and 'switches', albeit of another kind than those found in computers. I do somewhat agree with the idea that (contemporary) computers do not have subjective experience to the degree that we would call them 'conscious', but I think the reason for this is probably due to the structure of their information processing and maybe the (comparatively) large space they inhabit for that information processing to occur. Also, I do not believe we have anything close to empirical evidence to believe this would be different for bacteria. If I misunderstood his points, please somebody enlighten me.
if you read his book "the idea of the world" Bernardo says that what differentiates life from non-life is a barrier. every cell/organism has a barrier made of lipids that delimitates itself from something that it is not itself. the real question is why the barrier must be biological or if that is indeed the case. other scientists that talk about this are francisco varela and humberto maturana in their book "autopoiesis and cognition". hope it was helpful.
@@ChristianSt97 To me that still sounds like a rather arbitrary choice of criteria for the definition of life, and thus not very convincing. Thanks, though, for the explanation!
@@CeRockTV if you think about the nonliving world it is easy to understand that objects exists only because our conceptual thinking. rocks, chairs and other things only exist in our mind as separate things but in reality there is no such separation. however for the living world there has to be separation between organisms otherwise there would not be dissociation and therefore a barrier is probably the best concept to separate different individuals.
I see your point here. My question would be how a silicon-based computer could become dissociated…and from what…since it was never part of nature itself? It’s just an assemblage, something put together from the outside in, as opposed to something grown from the inside out as he spoke of in a previous video. (It’s a good idea to watch these in sequence since he builds as he goes). And, even if it could, what happens if it’s removed from the network…or unplugged? What experiences could it have that are meaningful? What meaningful choices could it make? Perhaps a biological computer could become conscious? It’s all kind of like the blind men feeling the various parts of the elephant.
If “Life” is not assembled. How does inducing dissociation by assembling non organic / non metabolizing material makes any sense? He also uses the computer / kidney function programming metaphor to illustrate the logical inconsistency.
consciousness is a kind of IA (intelligent algorithms), our internal organ is an example of IA 'know' how to stay alive, our gland is also an IA object know it self to produce the hormones if the organs being transfer from a host to other host the IA property is also attached.. the AI is really depend to the 'algorithm that intelligent people who programming the AI system' and the intelligent people also much depends on the IA that make live..😊 non living things can also have IA such as haunted house, voodoo dolls, amulet, talisman etc, is covid virus has 'consciousness' which can search the target to be infected since it is nano particles that so much easy to 'program'..
It seems to me absurd to say that because amoebas are moist carbon lifeforms then it is reasonable that they are conscious, but machines are silicon so they are not. The fact that it happens in nature doesn't mean that only carbon lifeforms can be conscious. This is very flawed reasoning in my opinion.
Bernado, your intellect is mind numbing! An asset to humanity!
A direct gift from nature!
Surely one of the worlds finest minds. Beautiful.
(*sniff sniff*). Is that hubris I smell?.....by the gods that IS hubris I smell!...😮
I would advance the proposition that before humans abstracted the notion of computation and produced machines to perform it, there was no silicon-based computation. Why does the current absence of silicone-based consciousness necessarily preclude its development?
I would also point out that the notion of conscious computers does not imply that it is computation that produces the consciousness. Consciousness and computation are likely two separate phenomena that can can be fruitfully combined.
Indeed, we ourselves are conscious computers of a type.
On the latter part, a kidney can be simulated in a computer and yet its extreme microcosm and macrocosm would be data limited, compared to the actual reality that is fractal (i.e. Mandelbrot Set), therefore, incongruent.
If either our ancestors or our descendants learned how to manifest a chosen "reality" we could be them. Projecting consciousness becomes more "real" to us over time and here we are.
A human in a moderate view seems to be conscious and intelligent. When zoomed in then it'd be reduced to mechanical parts. While zoomed out it seems that it is a speck of dust in space. And when zoomed in the maximal state would seem like our quantum parts are in a state of volatility, like a human with severe ADHD.
I also visualize that quantas at their individuality are conscious BUT are they powerful enough to lead themselves at a higher scale? If not then we must observe the consensus of those individual parts converge into a superorganism that through repetitive trial & error via eons of cyclic evolution should perfect its patterning until it's capable of deliberate intelligent co-creation.
We can compare this in sort of scale-invariant thinking by comparing it to our society's hierarchy wherein the lower classes co-sustain the higher classes, while the higher classes manage the lower classes, and yet the higher classes won't be able to exist without sequestering the meager resources of the collective individual lower classes. And through a ballpark analysis in general, the lower you are in the hierarchy, the lower your energy resource is, thus, the lower your productivity rate; unless it has chosen to specialize. Whilst the higher class may have a higher energy resource, thus, when in a self-efficient state it should be capable of system thinking like the pseudo-freewill of what humanity, in general, has since we are in the middle scale of the micro and macrocosm. Some phenomena exist though, like the lower social class geniuses that could be energy focused on a certain area while lacking on most of their life.
Thinking in dynamical feedback loops that could black swan despite its automaton properties, granted this reality is sustained by consciousness must be the paradigm shift.
Another thing that we could ponder about is how quantas could be developed by maximizing their experience, and allow them to maximize their energy processing rate, therefore making them highly conscious, efficient and stable since they are guided by an efficient leader/system despite their important automaton jobs.
This is brilliant and absolutely hilarious. It’s really the best explanation as to why AI will not become conscious.
It doesn’t get any better than: I can perfectly simulate kidney function on my computer, but it will never pee on my desk. 🤣
One bizzare effect of he assumption computers can be conscious is: when you switch them off for the night, do they die and the next morning when you switch them back on again is there a new "personality" or "I" in your computer? Or is it the same that wakes up again? If one can not argue safely for the one or the other than clearly one has no clue what that "I" of the computer is supposed to be and how it came there in the first place.
A computer has no inner self. They only do what they're programmed to do.
I haven't seen Einstein but
I have seen Bernardo. 😮❤
Plot twist, next iMac model made with features so that it pees on your desk.
But based on this reasoning. Would grass also have a consciousness? This argument could make a lot of sense to grant woodlands and animals rights…
Consciousness is transcendent and transcendent means supernatural
If everything is mind, why can’t a computer be conscious?
From a physicalist perspective there is a clear failure to explain how mind comes from non-mind
But if it’s all mind? Why assume only carbon based life can be conscious?
There are two questions here:
1. "If everything is mind, why can't a computer be conscious?"
-as Bernardo Kastrup explained it in this video, there is a fundamental difference between the statement "everyhing is conscious" and "everything is IN consciousness". With your wording, the first statement is "everything is mind" and the second is "everything is inside of a Mind". Under Analytic Idealism only the second statement holds. It basically means that everything "constitutes of consciousness", a computer as well, but not necessarily that this or that is conscious in and of itself.
2. "Why assume only carbon based life can be conscious?"
-we look at nature and try to understand it empirically. What we see is that carbon based life is most likely conscious. There is no evidence right now yet that there are non-carbon based beings in this Universe that are conscious. It is a huge claim that has no basis for belief.
Because computers are assembled and carbon life grows.
I don’t think he’s assuming only carbon-based life is metacognitive
We must retrace and emulate through mimesis - the fundamental (sacred)geometry of the micro, mezzo, macro and their convergent reality that co-create the intelligent, empathetic and convergent type of consciousness. Since a congregation of atoms and so with synthetically organized atoms doesn't automatically grant the success in emulating the reference entity.
For example, we may emulate a river by utilizing a concrete road surrounded by walls that has the same shape as the river, then fill it up with water and call it as "the river", despite the fact that apperance is congruent, and yet its individual and convergent properties (i.e. the fish, ph level, mineral level, ecosystem, etc.) are way too outside of the reference entity's functional properties.
The paradox with my statement though is over-manipulating this reality too much, that has been perfected through cyclic super aeons, fueled or principled by the collective individual processing power of this mental reality that is in base form should be faster than the speed of light (understand with Digital Physics, Unified Field Theory and Omnism), shall humbly allow us to realize that whatever we do shall only snowball imperfections until our very own incongruencies collapse our (post?)human society.
If only we could reshift the paradigm by converging the complete spectrums of this reality then we'll be able to shift our reality at will, without incurring incongruencies. But mind you, such a state would be no fun anymore since living as a human should originally be a temporal pseudo-individuated escape from our high processing faster than speed of light eternal conscious (mentalist) nature.
@@phylocybe_ Neural networks grow. I think it's possible they have their own consciousness. It's not confirmed, but I think we'd be foolish to dismiss it offhandedly. And at the least, treating it as though it was conscious can be useful when it comes to teaching it.
I can imagine a court of law deciding that some AI is conscious and has rights. This could be a dilemma - how many votes would an AI get? One per core or maybe one per thread? I hope the AI is not making the choice, but I suppose a non-sentient AI would be far better than the average voter. 😉
I don't know who was putting forth that straw argument.
Going from a brain to a bacterium is just as riddiculous as going from a brain to a silicone chip. It's not about if the computer actually peed on your desk, but if it felt like it did.
While I have recently started to educate myself on the ideas of analytic idealism/nonduality/etc. and agree with the 'universal consciousness' concept, the reasoning presented in this video does not at all appear logical to me. Why would a bacterium have subjective experience, just because it is carbon-based, warm, moist, and has a metabolism? Which of these descriptors is the mechanism that creates subjective experience? According to (my interpretation of) Bernardo, 'life' seems to be the requirement for conscious experience, so I wonder, what would be the barrier to life? Why can a silicon-based computer not be considered life? The way I see it, the brain, on its most fundamental level, also operates with electric fields and 'switches', albeit of another kind than those found in computers. I do somewhat agree with the idea that (contemporary) computers do not have subjective experience to the degree that we would call them 'conscious', but I think the reason for this is probably due to the structure of their information processing and maybe the (comparatively) large space they inhabit for that information processing to occur. Also, I do not believe we have anything close to empirical evidence to believe this would be different for bacteria. If I misunderstood his points, please somebody enlighten me.
if you read his book "the idea of the world" Bernardo says that what differentiates life from non-life is a barrier. every cell/organism has a barrier made of lipids that delimitates itself from something that it is not itself. the real question is why the barrier must be biological or if that is indeed the case. other scientists that talk about this are francisco varela and humberto maturana in their book "autopoiesis and cognition". hope it was helpful.
@@ChristianSt97 To me that still sounds like a rather arbitrary choice of criteria for the definition of life, and thus not very convincing. Thanks, though, for the explanation!
@@CeRockTV if you think about the nonliving world it is easy to understand that objects exists only because our conceptual thinking. rocks, chairs and other things only exist in our mind as separate things but in reality there is no such separation. however for the living world there has to be separation between organisms otherwise there would not be dissociation and therefore a barrier is probably the best concept to separate different individuals.
I see your point here. My question would be how a silicon-based computer could become dissociated…and from what…since it was never part of nature itself? It’s just an assemblage, something put together from the outside in, as opposed to something grown from the inside out as he spoke of in a previous video. (It’s a good idea to watch these in sequence since he builds as he goes). And, even if it could, what happens if it’s removed from the network…or unplugged? What experiences could it have that are meaningful? What meaningful choices could it make? Perhaps a biological computer could become conscious? It’s all kind of like the blind men feeling the various parts of the elephant.
If “Life” is not assembled. How does inducing dissociation by assembling non organic / non metabolizing material makes any sense? He also uses the computer / kidney function programming metaphor to illustrate the logical inconsistency.
You can simulate water and get wet. You just have to connect your mind with simulator.
9:16
This was funny
In short...A.I doesn't need to be conscious.
consciousness is a kind of IA (intelligent algorithms), our internal organ is an example of IA 'know' how to stay alive, our gland is also an IA object know it self to produce the hormones if the organs being transfer from a host to other host the IA property is also attached..
the AI is really depend to the 'algorithm that intelligent people who programming the AI system' and the intelligent people also much depends on the IA that make live..😊
non living things can also have IA such as haunted house, voodoo dolls, amulet, talisman etc, is covid virus has 'consciousness' which can search the target to be infected since it is nano particles that so much easy to 'program'..
😂 womb envy! Brilliant, Elon Musk just appears way more clearer to me 😅
It seems to me absurd to say that because amoebas are moist carbon lifeforms then it is reasonable that they are conscious, but machines are silicon so they are not. The fact that it happens in nature doesn't mean that only carbon lifeforms can be conscious. This is very flawed reasoning in my opinion.