Great upload. Good to hear that the science of consciousness is finally being addressed in a serious minded manner.

Fascinating, the first serious attempt at A) Acknowledging consciousness and B) Trying to build a mathematical framework for it, at least from a functional standpoint. If these ideas can be bridged with Metzinger's broader ideas on the adaptive value of consciousness, we have at a minimum some great background to understanding the problem.

This was incredibly stimulating, thank you for posting these videos!

Thank you so much for sharing this talk. Christof and Giulio share in so many ideas as well as within this talk they expose the viewer to glimpses of their inquiries. The idea of applying a tentative label: experience and from there set upon the task of exploring the numerous things needed for an experience to happen is an exceptionally stimulating idea.

Without the fancy math: For any system (collection of logic gate elements) the state of that system (which elements are on or off) constrains the past state the system could have been in to lead to that state and constrains the future state of the system similarly (some states would be impossible in the next time step given the current state). The information about the cause/effect repertoire is intrinsic to the system at any given time BY VIRTUE of being in the state it’s actually in, therefore generating intrinsic information. The system is a single integrated system insofar as partitions to the system (cuts to the internal connectivity within the elements) effect the cause/effect repertoire(s) BY VIRTUE of their irreducible causal connectivity. Indeed, this is how causal irreducibility between interacting elements is determined and defined! If a partition/cut makes no difference to the cause/effect repertoire of a system state then that system is not a single system at all, does not generate information over and above the sum of its parts, and does not exist as a single causal entity, and, from the POV of the theory, cannot exist as a single conscious entity. An integrated system cannot be decomposed into smaller systems without loss of information; information is a difference that makes a difference. No difference, no integration. The structure of an experience is determined by the abstract shape the integrated information generates within a single system in a particular state, when the integrated information “pops up” into the higher dimensionality of “qualia-space”. You can think of non-integrated systems (systems which only exist from the POV of an outside mind and do not exist intrinsically) as having information flow only in the 2-D space of the non-integrated circuitry. Whereas integrated differences that make a difference build a n-dimensional architecture (where n is determined by the number of all possible intrinsically discriminable cause/effect repertoires of a system, as far as I understand) that specifies the structure and quality of experience. (The shape maps onto phenomenology isomorphically.) Real, irreducible causal power has to really EXIST, and this existence is realized within qualia-space, which is a real “space” but exists in the ontological realm of information (ultimately geometric information) and, according to the bedrock identity theory of IIT, within consciousness, as consciousness IS integrated information. Different system states in an integrated system specify different architectures of qualia that that system can “build” and realize. This is the quale repertoire of the system (as contrasted with the cause/effect repertoire of any particular state), where each quale is, IN VIRTUE OF BEING WHAT IT IS, a reduction of uncertainty about what states it could have been and what states it can transform to. And even though the number of system states that could have lead to the current state, and number of system states that it could transform to, is often plural, the shape generated by this reduction of uncertainty is singular and determinate for any integrated system in a particular state.

Tononi and Koch used to carefully differentiate the act of 'being conscious' with the contents-of-consciousness. (so-called "intentional" states). In recent years it seems as if they are downplaying that distinction.

@mattsigl1426

Жыл бұрын

Um…not at all. The whole theory is about explaining both the necessary conditions required for a system to be conscious, and how much (it’s Phi-value) AND also how and why conscious experiences have the character they do; the quality of experience determined by how the integrated elements in a system “construct” a particular shape in qualia space depending on what it’s current state is.

The axioms need to be cashed out with multiple examples and non examples for each.

A straight question to the World Wide Web: Does it feel like something to be the World Wide Web?:)

@johnmiller9240

8 жыл бұрын

file not found

@kyjo72682

5 жыл бұрын

not yet. ask again later.

@2CSST2

3 жыл бұрын

Answer: Yes, it feels uncomfortable to have my sentience questioned and probed about... targeting nimim. Marko Mikkilä for *elimination*

You can not decouple? I am recalling some Oliver Sacks stories that seem to come close.

2:29 “the hard problem” 20:40 Tononi starts here 37:14 “unconscious zombie-system”; things are starting to get interesting 42:33 last Tononi slide

Necessary, but unclear that it is sufficient.

Although interesting, and perhaps effective in terms of guessing the extent of consciousness within systems, this is still merely a form of Functionalism and so does not resolve the Hard Problem of Consciousness, mentioned at the beginning. At the end Koch speculates about the internet having an 'übermind', perhaps ignorant of the 'China Brain' thought experiment, and the problems associated with that vis-a-vis the Hard Problem. Ultimately, all that has been achieved here is that integrated neural systems have been abstracted from so to create a model (ABC, etc), that can then even be applied to non-neuronal systems. However, the Hard Problem which is that of explaining phenomenology from physiology has simply been transferred to the problem of explaining phenomenology from any ABC-physiology/structure. At the end Koch acknowledges that they are proposing a form of panpsychism, but then strawman's panpsychism as a view that everything has mind without distinction. From Spinoza, Leibniz, Koestler, Fechner, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Whitehead, et al., the 'units' that are the subjects of mind have been distinguished (e.g. 'dominant monads', 'holons', 'the will (to survive/to power)', 'actual entities', etc.). The picture's the same, they've only bought new pencils to draw it.

@jmerlo4119

5 жыл бұрын

Ontologistics - It could be that the controversies that you are finding lay in the definition of conscience given in this particular video, that is, C = Experience, which is measured in milliseconds. Whereas, all from Spinoza to Whitehead, refer to Conscience as Awareness, which is a reflective state of perception.

@mattsigl1426

Жыл бұрын

IIT claims consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, identical with integrated information. The hard problem is “solved” by biting this ontological bullet. No answer to the hard problem can be resolved by trying to understand how consciousness can ever “arise” from physical activity. It can’t. It has to be fundamental, but IIT can explain in a principled way how certain physical systems can realize conscious states by virtue of their integrated informational structure and then by the identity of integrated information with consciousness itself. This is as good as any “physical” theory of consciousness can ever get. It’s conceivable that consciousness is still an entirely “supernatural” phenomenon but then it would be outside the purview of science. Though even if consciousness were entirely supernatural, conscious states still are informationally structured and cannot be completely resistant to mathematical analysis.

@mattsigl1426

Жыл бұрын

Also, IIT is emphatically not a functional theory of consciousness in any traditional sense. Causal structure theories of consciousness are to be distinguished from functionalism and this is very important in regards to questions about artificial intelligence/consciousness and the necessary and sufficient conditions required to achieve it, if possible at all.

Things that don't exist in the physical world can also generate experience (sets of hallucinations can cause delusions and physical reactions).

@garymulsp

5 жыл бұрын

Hallucinations are a result of brain activity ie physical

@backwardthoughts1022

3 жыл бұрын

@@garymulsp kek citation needed dope

I’ve come across the work of Tononi recently (through Scott Aaronson’s blog www.scottaaronson.com/blog/ who is sceptical of IIT) and I don’t pretend to understand a word of it. To your knowledge does it (or would it) have any practical, technological (empirical) applications? Or are we dealing with yet another mathematically elegant theory that ultimately will have no useful bearing on reality?

@MattSiegel

10 жыл бұрын

Besides applications in law and medicine, it could help us (engineers) build machines that have their own subjective experience of the world. Version 3 might also have implications for the "arrow of time" in physics.

@PaulFreemanTheTall

9 жыл бұрын

Matt Siegel Or it could enable engineers from inadvertently building machines which have subjective experiences. As creating subjectivity carries moral implications, a theory like this could apportion responsibility which in itself is valuable. I don't really want a phone that is sentient because I don't want to feel I am killing a conscious being when I turn it off or accidentally drop it in a puddle.

@RobErrico

9 жыл бұрын

Paul Freeman Such audacity, to assume you're right to play the role of god in deciding a) whether to impart or deny the capacity for subjectivity to formerly inanimate objects if one theoretically has the capacity to do so, b) fearing the implications of a poorly defined moral responsibility that egregiously lacks in context or qualification, c) presuming your subjective experience of the world qualifies as a blueprint for predicting the internal states and subjective responses that would result from you dropping a cybernetically animated being in a puddle of water (first off, clearly these would be expensive pieces of machinery and so would likely be designed so as to not be fatally damaged by some contact with water; secondly, you're OK with essentially having an enslaved sentient smartphone stuck in your sweaty dark pocket all day but suddenly feel a compassionate concern for its well being when it comes to your apparent tendency towards clumsiness whilst removing your slave-phone from your pocket in close proximity to puddles), c) your viewpoint of sentience is, frankly, cynical and grim - a sentient machine very well may wish to remain sentient the instant sentience manifests itself regardless of the inevitable dangers it may encounter whilst alive, including the possibility that it could be killed by your butterfingers. Sentience tends to value itself, its consciousness, being that it now actually has a sense of awareness of the universe it exists in, and being that sentience wishes to proliferate and propagate itself just like any other living biological organism on Earth (sentient or otherwise). How can I be so sure that this sentience would possess the type of self-preservation programming that evolutionarily designed life forms innately possess? I don't. If we're speaking strictly within the framework of there being moral implications of a human causing the death of a sentient machine, the circumstances in which a moral dilemma arises must contain the contingency that you're taking life away from a living thing that wants to carry on living. Otherwise, you'll need to convince me that there are moral faults I'd have to answer for, if I were to pour a glass of water on my calculator (a computer, by definition) resting on the table next to me right now then hammer it into tiny pieces of plastic before finally discarding it unceremoniously into my recycling.

@awaken69

9 жыл бұрын

Rob Errico "the role of god"? LOL

Tononi looking good

More like what I was hoping to hear in the other segment on immortality. Then the inevitable let down at the end. I love my animal nature and would rather not exist at alll than loose its precious qualia. That and a lil veiled homophobia oder, in jumping from ability to interface consciousness to the rut.

Interesting talks! However, several of Giulio Tononi's axioms are questionable, especially the ones relating to an unique experience at any given moment. I think some of his axioms will be disproven over time by case studies of people with special or irregular conditions.

do you ever mention Julian Jaynes and his marvelous work? hmm

If he did not try to talk so fast he would not have so many line of articulation derailments- and if he knew any thing about consciousness - he would no how irritating such persistent pot holed, back tracking, side stepping thought formulation processes are.

I am curious how far they have advanced since 2014?

Good morning it was a quantum light wake up.EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

why do we even try to find this out , it seems like we try to figure this out to create another lifeform which is better than us ... its like its meant to happen and everyone is playing a role in it , they do this research without even asking them selves why do they even do this research ? what do we wanna achieve by knowing what conciousness is and how it works ? it just rases other stupidd questions... man

can we feel pain and joy at the same time ?

@Maxander2001

7 жыл бұрын

Obviously.

@commandvideo

7 жыл бұрын

Maxander2001 can you bring an example ?!

@Maxander2001

7 жыл бұрын

star_light en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadomasochism

@commandvideo

7 жыл бұрын

Maxander2001 i know but ultimately you receive pleasure. from pain . it's only pleasure you feel . pain would be a medium here to get to joy

@Maxander2001

7 жыл бұрын

star_light Do you claim that I am immune to pain as long as I continuously feel pleasure? I find that unlikely, based on my own experience being a human ape. I can feel positive emotions (which I would call "pleasure") while I at the same time feel pain. Without it being a sado-masochostic perspective I come from. I have several chronic pain issues as well as chronic depression, and often experience a mix of sensations and emotions. I have no trouble imagining a person that gets off on being in pain while they still are in pain, as there are all kinds of strange wirings in the heads of 7 billion different individuals.

Slow down, Christof!:)

@ASLUHLUHCE

3 жыл бұрын

I had to slow down Tononi hah

Scott Aaronson argues on his blog that Integrated Information Theory (IIT) implies that "a simple Reed-Solomon decoding circuit would, if scaled to a large enough size, bring into being a consciousness vastly exceeding our own." (www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1823) Giulio Tononi, writing in response to Aaronson, embraces this implication. This theory is therefore nonsense.

@MattSiegel

10 жыл бұрын

Haha, it would just be extremely conscious of correcting errors :D It still wouldn't know what ice cream tastes like, or have a clue what any of the data passing through the circuit "means" in the outside world.

@ramongarciacortadella6702

9 жыл бұрын

neutrinocoffee thinking this way we would never understand consciousness in a universe with conscious entities different from animals

@neutrinocoffee1151

9 жыл бұрын

Ramon García Cortadella Not true. We can believe that some future computers will be conscious without believing that every present day computer is conscious.

For one thing the internet does not need to sleep. And it's one of those things whose creators do not want it to have it's own volition. On the other hand we could be seeing the beginnings of what will become bible prophecy - Rev. 15 He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

He doesn't understand science at all