it took them a lifetime of study to arrive at the logical conclusion that "Consciousness is a very complex state of a very complex neural network"...

@user-vq6xc6zj5z

4 ай бұрын

Yes. And the conclusion is not even proofable from what they measured.

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

@johnswoodgadgets9819

10 ай бұрын

One would think. But that makes it a closed loop, and closed loops in nature are very rare. I concede it drives me nuts. If it is in fact a completely closed loop, a physical circular argument, why would nature permit such an energy hog that does not really contribute to the entire system? There has to be more to the story, and I think we are looking in the wrong places.

I first was introduced to Mr. Koch from C3T thanks to Mr. Kuhn and team. I have been following Mr. Koch and he has some amazing work. Thanks 🙏 for your miraculous work both of you !

Lawrence is 78 years old? Oh my, I would have never guessed. He doesn't look a day over 60. His enthusiasm and curiosity led exploration probably what keeps him young. His talks and explorations for the deeper meaning of life and existence are a treasure trove indeed.

Integrated information theory basically tells us that there are relationships between our experiences and consciousness. If still doesn’t solve the greatest mystery that is what produces consciousness. Sure, our experiences shape our consciousness , physical feelings etc. but why does that happen, through what physical/neurological mechanisms and how can these processes help us understand the structure and nature of the brain and consciousness? Why people with identical experiences have different effects on their consciousness? Why those with identical experiences have the same effects on their consciousness? Some of too many questions.

@plafar7887

Жыл бұрын

You should check out Donalds Hoffman's or Bernardo Kastrup's work.

@blijebij

Жыл бұрын

True and an integrated state of information also needs a carrier field at the brain it self. What the brain has to offer there.

@DS25925

Жыл бұрын

@@plafar7887 thanks for sharing

This is going to sound strange to some people, but I underwent hypnosis some years back (long story) and was able to see what an emotion was. Now, what I saw was surely just an overlay of my own experiences, but that overlay depicted an emotion as an ecosystem. Not just an ecosystem, but a world with an ecosystem, and one that could be manipulated like a modular structure. It was vast in scope, just one emotion, and totally adjustable. Take a slice out, insert another totally different slice in the same space for a different result. It was very geometrical, at least in the overlay I saw. Very hard to describe, but I can still see the vision of an emotion in my mind: A modular system as complex as an entire world, complete with an ecosystem. It made total sense at the time, and I assure you it was incredibly beautiful. And I have zero idea where that came from. (Edit: Yes, I was sober.)

@johnswoodgadgets9819

10 ай бұрын

Thank you! Talk about arbitrary and abstract concepts! The irony is that all of the rational concepts of the scientific world have their cognitive genises in the completely arbitrary thoughts and concepts of the pre-science-age mind. One has to wonder where those concepts actually came from. The world sits on the back of a turtle, or God is a feathered serpent? Never mind WHY any society would ever think that, HOW did they think it?

@youtube_acct_42

10 ай бұрын

@psterud mind telling the long hypnosis story? Sounds interesting.

@psterud

10 ай бұрын

@@youtube_acct_42 What part are you interested in? The full story would be very long. I could tell you about why and/or how I got the hypnosis in the first place, or about what else I saw while under, or what happened afterwards, or how I feel about it now.

I have been waiting for this one. Thank you

Yeah, this aligns with my thoughts on the subject. Just one thing, though - nothing in what he said can be shown as a causal element. Rather, they are just a reasonable guess at correlates of consciousness, not a cause of it.

I'm a big fan of integrated information theory as a project, but I think it slips into the view that consciousness is just about complexity, and Phi is just a specific way of characterising informational complexity. I think that's part of, but not all of the story. For me consciousness is about the awareness of the self and reasoning about one's own mental processes. It's literally self awareness. So the mind has a sophisticated model of mental processes and mental content of others (thoughts, knowledge, attention, motivations, etc) so we can reason about, anticipate and even try to modify the behaviour of others. Then we also generates a model of the same form about our own mental content. This allows the mind to reason about it's own motivations, goals and experiences and even try to self-modify by seeking out new information and learning new skills including reasoning skills. I don't think simply having a lot of integrated information necessarily achieves this, although having a sufficient level of integrated information might be required. So integrated information may be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for consciousness.

@S3RAVA3LM

Жыл бұрын

What do you think of Meaning or the very esse of qualities and things? Information is a mode of Knowledge when ignorant of it. When one Knows something it's not merely a mode of information; it may become instinctual(integration). Following information upstream requires the paddles of Reason, therefor reveals the abode of Meaning - what is meaning?

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM For me, meaning and knowledge are correlations and relationships between different information, and between information and phenomena in the world. So a weather simulation in a computer has meaning to the extent that it's parameters correlate to physical changes in the weather. A poem has meaning because it's information content, when decoded by someone who understands that language, correlates to their personal experiences and emotions. A JPEG of an apple has meaning in that it's data correlates to the appearance of apples, or an apple. Without these correlations, these types of data are just meaningless sequences of symbols or zeros and ones. If you send the JPEG of an apple to aliens living on a gas giant, they would never figure out what it meant, because they would have nothing to correlate it to. They might even think it encoded music or temperatures. But if you sent them the weather data of a simulation of a hurricane they might eventually figure out what it is, because gas giant atmospheres have weather patterns much like hurricanes. So that data set might have meaning to them.

@Bill..N

Жыл бұрын

Hello, friend..Interesting comments.. Why does our capacity for self-awareness and theory of mind indicate that there is something missing in the idea of consciousness as simply complex information processing..? What ELSE could be involved..? Peace..

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@Bill..N I think it’s complex information processing of a particular form, that performs certain functions as I described. So a massive atmosphere simulator for a gas giant would be incredibly complex, potentially far more complex than a human brain, but it doesn’t have any of the features I described. It wouldn’t have a model of other minds acting in the world, of the mental processes conducted by those minds, or of itself as a mind. It would just model weather patterns, so there’s no reason for it to become self aware. To be fair integrated information theory is also about more than just complexity. It’s about how connected information is to other information, but I think that definition is hackable. By that I mean I suspect it would be possible to construct a data set that has an enormously high integrated information score but obviously isn’t conscious. Maybe a massively cross referenced data set of generated semi-random gibberish with no intentional or functional meaning.

@Bill..N

Жыл бұрын

@Simon Hibbs Yes.. Said in that way, it makes sense to me.. As a naturalist/materialist, three things come to my mind on this issue. First, a physicist would describe "information" as the interaction of two or more elementary particles.. That's it! The second thing is that brains can properly be viewed as physical decoders of that latent environmental information.. Thirdly, the brains decoding proficiency improves in direct relationship to the numbers of neurons in the brain. So this suggests to me that even A.I. will someday possess full awareness , INCLUDING theory of mind, and other attributes of awareness that we now consider to be exclusively possessed by humans.. Thoughts?

Ok, I enjoyed it.

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

That's what she said

The mind is not the brain. Many seem to confuse the two.The brain dies with the body, whereas the mind (or the soul) is eternal.

The mind is like the flame of a candle. When the flame is extinguished, Nirvana.

@eh1600

Жыл бұрын

the mind is the music played by the instrument of the brain

In short: The brain does it somehow.

@bitkurd

Жыл бұрын

The brain is manifested by the mind and the mind is observed by the brain

@jackarmstrong5645

Жыл бұрын

@@bitkurd In other words: "The brain does it somehow."

@dare-er7sw

11 ай бұрын

No

@jackarmstrong5645

11 ай бұрын

@@dare-er7sw Yes

@redeyewarrior

11 ай бұрын

Yes. There is evidence to support that this is most likely the case. The fact that he mentioned smaller brains having less consciousness than the bigger brains. The other observable fact is that when we are babies our consciousness was not the same as when we are adults is evidence that it's a evolutionary process. Then also one state of consciousness disappearing when a part of the brain is damaged is evidence that that conscious state was a emergent property of the brain. Evolution explains so much about life and the universe. Evolution just makes so much sense.

Now, that's cool.

Yes they do!

THE BEST shirt ever on "Closer To Truth"

Remember folks: no flame comes into being without the prior existence of light. We soon will explain consciousness not as something flickering and emergent but rather fundamental and luminous. Almost there…

@miketodd4411

Жыл бұрын

I'd say "realise" rather than "explain", but fundamentally I think you're right.

Interestingly, Merriam-Webster has a multiplicity of definitions for "mind." Some have to do with consciousness, which is an advanced stage or state of mind. But there's one in particular worth noting: "the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism." Biologist Michael Levin points out that all cells are involved in problem solving, which qualifies as a mental activity of an organism. We see this, even in slime mold, and yet slime mold doesn't have any neurons, no brain. Thus it follows that "mind" is not contingent on a brain. In my experience, it is my mind that tells my brain what to do.

If we can take IIT and then determine what exactly is going on to result in a given conscious experience then in theory we could get a snapshot of the integrated information state of the brain that gives rise to internal experience. We might then get a step closer to answering the hard problem of consciousness itself.

4:56 omg he has the red B.I.O. bug on the table! I had that as a kid, and I had totally forgotten about it until this unlocked my memory just now

The Day-Consciousness is Our Mind, I'd changed my mind, but wont change my brain, as in reality is it's own, have it's own Mind. From our Perspective, the brain is a two-way radio, connecting our Day-Consciousness with our physical sensing-set.

I remember this colorful shirt. Is this an old post?

Max Planck: "matter is derivative from Consciousness." How? As Perception In Consciousness.

so its kinda if you know the value of two angles you can calculate the value of the third angle on a triangle (mathematics claim to fame). but what if from your angle it looks like a tringle when in actual fact there are more angles.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

Such optical illusions are failures of perception, which is why I don't think claims that conscious experiences defines and create reality are viable. If this was true, every time we saw a woman cut in half on stage, we'd arrest the magician for murder. When there is a discrepancy between physical conditions and consciously perceived conditions, physical conditions always win. It doesn't matter how much you believe there is milk in the fridge, or how full the milk bottle looked when you glanced at it, if it's actually empty you're not having milk in your cup of tea.

@enockmarere3113

Жыл бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 true, doesn't mean if you close your eyes the sun wont rise. The world does not spin because we observing it.

Would integrated information theory imply that a murmuration of starlings possess a consciousness that transcends that of the individual birds involved? It's also not really clear to me how information, which seems to be an abstraction per se, produces the qualia of subjective experience. Is a leap being made here?

Even if it's true that consciousness is a complex system, it doesn't change the fact that in order to refer to the contents of consciousness we refer to thoughts, beliefs, emotions, etc. we never pick out specific parts of conscious experience by referring to physical facts about our brains, with the one notable exception of brain damage. When we lose brain function it makes sense to refer to physical changes in the brain.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

We have maps of neurological activity that correspond to conscious states. In fact we understand these well enough that we now have sensors that can detect brain activity well enough for patients to control switches simply by thinking certain thoughts.

@earthjustice01

Жыл бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Great, but everything you are referring to I understand because I understand the ideas and concepts you are referring to. Knowing about a map of neurological activity in my brain or yours, doesn't change that. We will never be using those maps to understand each other in a conversation. Knowing physical facts does not help us to understand the mind.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@earthjustice01 for me, meaning and understanding consist of relationships and correlations between sets of information. Since I see mental processes as processes on information, I believe it’s possible to understand those processes. We don’t yet, but we are making progress and I think the development of integrated information theory is a step forward. As a general point though, if it were true that facts cannot help us understand the mind, then psychology would not be possible. In fact we have theory of mind, that is the ability to appreciate the mental content, knowledge and intentions of others and reason about their mental processes and intentions, precisely because mental processes are knowable. The two of us are trying to modify each other’s mental processes right now through discussion. The only question is to what level of analysis understanding of cognitive processes is possible.

@earthjustice01

Жыл бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Psychology isn't about the brain, it is about the mind. What are mental processes? They may correlate with physical processes, but the only way we know about them is through relations between thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and memories.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@earthjustice01 Sure, so as I see it the mind is a continuous process of transformations on information. All of our mental cognitive content relates to information. Our knowledge, memories, sensations, experiences, emotions, skills, decisions, etc. These are all forms of information.

This explains the physical basis of the mechanism, does not explain what qualia/consciousness is itself.

If consciousness is emerging from a network (of neurons?) then let me ask... Is it true that significant portion of matter that forms human brain is being replaced many times during human's lifetime? As far as I know some is not replaced (long-lived proteins?) but the rest (majority?) is removed and replaced. If that's true then how consciousness remains unchanged for all human life if its carrier (ultimately brain matter, even though Mr. Koch says about network) is being constantly replaced? I can image an organism whose parts are replaced while its living, and information is copied from old, used parts, to the new ones, but if consciousness is "us" then how we ourselves become "transferred" to the new matter while part of "us" that once made our consciousness is discarded and goes back to the world outside? If we are our brains (as some say) and brain's matter is gradually expelled, shouldn't we feel more and more... out of our own bodies? Maybe consciousness is emerging only from the long-lived proteins that last for human lifetime? Or maybe it doesn't emerge from human brain but is a transcendent entity only connected to the brain?

@miguelrosado7649

10 ай бұрын

My take. Once a biological form develops a sense boundary and is capable of processing inputs its gain consciousness, consciousness emerges from that capability to differentiate the self from the surrounding. Eventually non biological entity will develop consciousness once they get provided with the capability to get a sense of self. I don’t subscribe to the notion that there is a lot of consciousness out there just waiting to get attached to a brain. The cell is the lowest level of biological life that has consciousness.

Heavy stuff. I wonder how this relates to time, since the state of a brain changes with every second, or nanosecond, or whatever. So consciousness is also a dynamic process. And what is created by consciousness?

@elonever.2.071

Жыл бұрын

*"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.* Max Planck Planck believed that matter is a conscious construct. So everything outside of consciousness is a construct which means it is a fantasy, everything we see and do is played out inside of our heads. When you think about it everything we believe or think we know about our world is a matter of perception. *When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.* If you look at our reality from a religious perspective your perception about life is biased one way and if you look at our reality from an evolutionary perspective your perception about life takes on another bias.

@misterhill5598

Жыл бұрын

Human perception of time varies depending on our priorities. Time is notnthw same as the clock. Time is a continuous straight line.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Time is a concept evolved by culture to enable conscious people to deal efficiently with the complexity inherent in the phenomenal reality of many moving objects. Being conscious is a process (dynamic is redundant). At the heart of the being conscious process there are three essential elements. One involves ions instantiating neural discharge frequencies. Another involves neural discharge frequencies instantiating the analogies we call thoughts. The third involves the thought we refer to as the self. (It is the self who is conscious). All that may be too dense to trigger an immediate epiphany but if you process it for a while...

This still does not answer why I experience pain and color and sound instead of my complex, integrated neural network. I only experience a complex, integrated neural network when I observe others. I cannot experience their pain. I experience only their neural network and then try to establish a correlation between my visual experience of their brain scan and their experience of pain. We talk about brains and neurons as if that is what is "out there" and attempt to attain a view from nowhere while we are forever trapped in a view from somewhere. The "physical" structure of a brain and its neurons is a visual experience from somewhere. We can't even imagine looking at a brain from all sides. It's always a side of the brain we can imagine viewing. We need to start taking consciousness into account to even attempt to solve the relation between quantum and classical physics. Consciousness as a means of measuring reality can resolve some of these issues. In thinking that the brains/neurons are "physical" objects and that is the way the world is (naive realism) is to confuse the map with the territory, but we do need to remember that the map is also part of the territory. Reality is more mind-like than physical (bodies and brains).

This interview was a tad upsetting in the almost willful misunderstanding of what Mr. Koch was saying in an attempt to force a spiritual gotcha of some sort. I notice it seems to have eluded quite of a number of frantic commenters as well. Meh. One takeaway is that only a discrete combinatorial system would have the modeling capability that experiential existence demands in terms of the information load placed on the brain in terms of size and integration. The posited functionally meshes well with the known attributes of the physical system and should be in principle testable.

This is first time I have ever heard an explanation of something like Panpsychism that I can say doesn't sound like woo.

@plafar7887

Жыл бұрын

You should check out Donalds Hoffman's or Bernardo Kastrup's work.

"Brain and brain....what is brain?" Star Trek origial episode

Contradictory? Christof says, "...it is the ultimate reality... it is fundamental to anything else." then a minute later he says it is tightly linked to the network (brain) and if the network (brain) disappears, "then this will all be gone." That seems to contradict "fundamental".

Yes.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

ah i remember you. you are one of all those people i've talked to who couldn't defend this view. hey again :)

@CesarClouds

Жыл бұрын

@@highvalence7649 Ironic.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

@@CesarClouds what is ironic?

@CesarClouds

Жыл бұрын

@@highvalence7649 In what video did we communicate?

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

@@CesarClouds oh i dont remember in what video

Hmmm infinity does not mean endless right?

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

It can do, there are many different types of infinity. You could have infinite space that extends forever, or you could have some system that follows a circular loop indefinitely so it doesn't cross infinite space but it could in theory continue for infinite time. There are also mathematical infinities, but those only describe different types of theoretical infinities. Personally I see mathematics as a highly consistent formal language, and mathematical expressions as descriptions expressed in that language. So a mathematical infinity such as an infinite series of numbers is just a description of an infinity. I could say in English "an infinite space that goes on forever". That describes an infinity too, but itself it's no more infinite than these mathematical infinities. I don't say this to in any way put down mathematics, it's one of the greatest achievements of human civilisation, I just mean to put it in context.

I like how Koch links the enormous integrated complexity of our brains with the enormous integrated complexity of our conscious experience. It sounds very convincing. That is, until you see, assuming you're mindful of the difference between experience and consciousness, that he isn't describing the whole of conscious experience. He's describing only one half of it. When Koch says, "This is what consciousness is", it's clear from what follows that he is using the word "consciousness" to mean "all the stuff that appears to us in conscious experience". Anil Seth and others have used the same sleight of hand to make it appear that they have explained consciousness in itself. It's akin to calling the face that appears in the mirror "the mirror". Koch and the co-creator of IIT, Guillio Tononi, are quite clear about their belief in panpsychism. "IIT was not developed with panpsychism in mind (sic). However, in line with the central intuitions of panpsychism, IIT treats consciousness as an intrinsic, fundamental property of reality." royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2014.0167 www.wired.com/2013/11/christof-koch-panpsychism-consciousness/ The above essentially says that the brain generates "that which is experienced", but "that which experiences" is not generated by anything. I'm almost on board with that, but I reject panpsychism because physics now tells us that spacetime is emergent, and that what we understand as mass and energy, being the contents of spacetime, must also therefore be emergent. This is a problem for panpsychism, because elementary particles, which panpsychism considers the subatomic containers of consciousness, can no longer be considered fundamental, though consciousness itself, according to panpsychism, still is. More and more, physics is heading towards the view that only consciousness is fundamental.

Christof Koch (or anyone): How is this emerging from the network, multi-dimensional, integrated information held together? What is the bozonic force? How are our consciousness entangled with each other?

@user-ei1ym1lq6h

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't say that it's multi-dimensional per say, but there is a dimensional space, and as far as I can tell, it's singular, where mind and body become one through homeostasis. I reversed an execuitive function disorder over 10 years ago, I have very limited access with my mind, I'm completely disconnected from the intrapersonal communication layer, the layer that is responsible for self-talk and learning. When I reverse my limitations, there is this layer that inflates (I can feel it happen in seconds), and creates a space where memory, processing and learning/understanding begin start working. The disability is gone, there is no anxiety or depression because there is no more limitation. The intrapersonal communication layer can only work when this "dimensional" layer is inflated. I don't feel as if I have infinite memory, it just transparently starts working and is always available, I can recall any memory when needed in real-time, there is no more struggle trying to recall or put things together, I have a mewfound intuition that is very deep. One think I've observed is, when this layer is inflated, I'm in sync with everyone and the environment around me, I can communicate with people in real-time, conversations are different because everything is so much deeper. There is so much processing taking place in my brain, time begins to slow down. After about 30-45 minutes, this dimensional space transparently deflates and I become limited, again. I've been trying to get neurologists and researchers to simply take time and listen, and maybe help me figure out how to remain in this inflated space, I have an idea of what it would take, but nobody really cares enough to listen, which is frightening because I know I'm not the onlyone that is capable of doing this.

@quantumkath

Жыл бұрын

@@user-ei1ym1lq6h Thank you! Your story is poignant, something I will not forget. My concern is not that there is a cross-over from brain function to a more complex emergence of what Koch is calling integrated information. I accept that. My question is "what is the bozonic force?" We make a leap from quantum to classical, decoherence. We are also making a leap from classical to consciousness. We cannot describe this decoherence. At the quantum scales there are forces. I am postulating that integrated information needs a bozonic force. Thanks again for sharing 😊

@elonever.2.071

Жыл бұрын

I'll give it a stab. The bozon is the particle that is thought to give rise to matter (mass) so the bozonic force must be the process that is involved in giving us the perception of matter. *"How are our consciousness entangled with each other?"* I have been thinking about this for a long time. When physicists first came out with concept of the multi-verse I couldn't wrap my head around the idea...we don't know how big or complex our Universe is so how can we even postulate a multi-verse? Then thinking about Einstein's theories that two people can look at the same phenomenon from two different reference points and they see two different things got me thinking that it is not about the phenomenon at all. It is about our perception of the phenomenon. And that got me thinking about Max Planck's quote, *"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."* That led me down the path that our perceived reality is a conscious construct...that is based on everything that influenced our thinking from parental rules and beliefs, educational bias, pleasant experiences as well as traumatic ones, religious beliefs or the lack of them and so on. And since everyone has a different background, environment and different understanding of the way things play out in our reality everyone has their own conscious construct...we each have our own little Universe that we view our experiences through. For example a person that is really good at understanding physics is going to get a lot more out of a physics class than someone that has a devout religious background. And the physics instructor is going to have a different perception of the subject then either student because of their deeper understanding of the subject. The fact that there are roughly 7 billion people sharing this experience on this planet shows that there is a high probability that there are roughly 7 billion individual consciously constructed Universes that are interacting with each other with at least slightly different perceptions of how it is being played out. (You can experience this by reading the posts of people who have watched this same video and have different perceptions of what this all means.) We are consciously entangled with each other in the way we interact either through agreement, disagreement or through third party influences. We can develop cohesive groups or choose to distance ourselves from certain individuals and groups. Either way we are influenced to a greater or lesser degree by both because of our biases and perceptions. The way this is emerging is through our continued understanding of how we think the Universe works. First we had Newtonian Physics which was neat and tidy with a constant state Universe and with some research and disciplined education it was pretty simple to understand. Then along came people like Max Planck and Einstein who ushered in a more complex way of looking at how things are. Einstein with his famous equation showing mass and energy are two phases of the same phenomenon...in theory they are interchangeable. And Planck saying that matter doesn't really exist..."it is a derivative (product) of consciousness" And this ushered in the era of quantum theory which really put a monkey wrench in the works. Instead of knowing something, it is now a matter of probabilities based on one or more criteria. And add to that the idea that the quantum field itself is an seemingly infinite source of probabilities based on the level of conscious energy that interacts with it. As far as the 'integrated information being held together'? We are still in the beginning stages of this part which is evident by the fact that there are so many theories being put forth trying to make sense of all this.

@quantumkath

Жыл бұрын

@@elonever.2.071 I have yet to read your reply. I am not a physicist or a genius. My lay(wo)man terminology is much to be desired. This is my view: The standard model has four force carrying particle plus the Higgs bozon. Which force carrying particle z,y,w,g (not Higgs, unless - until I read what you said changes my mind) BINDS integrated information? Now I will read what you said 😊

@quantumkath

Жыл бұрын

@Elone Ver.2.0 Okay. I read it. Brief outline of physics. Thanks. All I needed was your final paragraph which reads: As far as the 'integrated information being held together'? We are still in the beginning stages of this part which is evident by the fact that there are so many theories being put forth trying to make sense of all this.

Consciousness is simply not what you think it is - It is also what you thought it was … So - you think you know what you think you know, And you might also know that which you don’t. Yet you may not realize what is so essential Is that you cannot know that which you can’t. And lest you think you know it all, One thing you cannot know is this: Though with you since you learned to crawl, It is what you believe is consciousness. For consciousness is not the present, And consciousness is not the past, Tis the mental place between those spaces That your mind’s memory cannot hold fast. Just ask yourself this over and over again: How can you be in two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all? If you understand this, you will understand consciousness.

So you define the problem away, and it’s gone. Is that progress?

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

The idea is not to define the problem away, it's to understand how mind works. When we learn how anything works, it means we can intervene in it's operation to achieve specific outcomes, perhaps enhance it's function, or mitigate pathologies. It may also allow us to replicate it in different forms. Basically understanding something allows us to modify and engineer it. That's progress.

@andreasthom4544

Жыл бұрын

@@simonhibbs887: If there would be any application or prediction of this theory, I would be more impressed.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@andreasthom4544 That is a weakness, but apparently it has successfully predicted some results in investigations into human spatial visual perception. I’m not sure how significant that is though. One possibly application would be in engineering AI systems to be conscious. If the theory is correct we could engineer an AI to have a high Phi and that would lead to it becoming conscious. It’s not clear how we’d prove that it worked of course, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.

Bruno

Hope the following explanation is helpful for your neurophysiological research. The thalamus produces consciousness. The electrochemical substance encoded by the thalamus is the consciousness of the thalamus. The physiological tissue that has the ability to distinguish consciousness is the thalamus, which can also "generate" consciousness. How do we know that the thalamus produces consciousness? When we perceive the outside world, the stream of consciousness, the stream of subconsciousness, and the stream of deep consciousness in the nervous system flow at the same time, but we cannot perceive the stream of subconsciousness and the stream of deep consciousness. Fortunately, we all know what we're thinking. In other words, we all know our own stream of consciousness. As long as you carefully observe, record, and analyze your own stream of consciousness, the perception produced when those electrochemical information can be decoded and encoded by the thalamus is called consciousness. So we know that the thalamus produces consciousness.

Use Fibonacci to count the experience in the high dimensions you participate in. Sir, don't listen to people that want to degrade others when they can encourage others with the basics. Basics matters

Seems to cause difficulty to trust a brain that makes mind if it is only the result of an irrational unguided process.

There is pretty strong evidence that the brain makes associations, so to that extent it makes the 'mind'. What it does not make is arbitrary or abstract concepts. Those must come from the ever-elusive consciousness. For example, the brain can make an association of the color purple and a horse. One can therefore perceive the abstract of a purple horse. But the brain alone cannot motivate the association. It is just too abstract. Horses are not purple. That is a big problem for those in search of the conscious mind. In any non-arbitrary association of the brain, there is simply no purple horse. Ever. Except maybe on TV, but still somewhere along the line it was a completely arbitrary and abstract concept. It cannot serve a synaptic purpose, or an evolutionary purpose. It flies in the face of the brain as a mere stand-alone organic computer, and it breaks the cardinal rule of natural selection, that being the usefulness of a state in terms of the survival of the fittest. And yet every child who watches 'My Little Pony' (plenty of purple horses there) is flooded with hormonal secretions of positive re-enforcement. Sensations reserved for activities conducive to survival, such as fight or flight, sexual attraction, power figure recognition, peer approval, or hunger satiation. The concept of purple horses cannot serve survival, and yet here we are. We all cherish our purple horse equivalents. Even those actually detrimental to our survival and that of our species.

Nailed him on the question of "emergent" versus "network", was hoping for that Robert! What I'm now having a difficult time with is how philosophers, physicists and scientists almost all are relating their understanding of systems to computers, programs, etc. This is clearly a 'contemporarian' concept and in my mind is in fact evidence of emergence. We always look at the mysteries of nature through the lens of today. In my mind, it it solely artists, writers that can look truly to tomorrow, without being 'contemporary' in their pov, but rather timeless.

this is good

calm down.

There are the physical machine and the functions of the machine. Mind is the funtion of the body. The body is the enabler of the mind. They are complementary. The brain in the head isnwhere logical thinkong happen, the brain in tje gut osbwhere emotional thinking happen. , The body can operate normally without thinking. Inwould argue human autopilot and muscle memory are just as important, if not more important than thinking.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

The 'brain in the gut' sounds like the autonomic nervous system. This is a fascinating branch of our nervous system that regulates things like heart rate, constriction and dilation of the pupils and blood vessels, digestion, etc. It only has weak connections to the central nervous system, which is why we have very little to no conscious control over many of these functions. Actions taken by the autonomic system can definitely affect our emotional state, but it's not where conscious emotional feelings are actually generated or experienced, because we don't have any direct conscious experience of it's functions. When we do become aware of actions taken by the autonomic system it's indirectly, through sensory information coming from other branches of the nervous system that notice the physiological effects. For this reason it's sometimes referred to as our 'second brain'.

If you are getting funding you have to use it and do something with the money. But...ah...this does not get us closer to understanding what consciousness is, how it arises, or why we have it.

@elonever.2.071

Жыл бұрын

Consciousness is the energetic force behind the creative process that makes everything we see and experience possible. Absolutely everything we observe in our known Universe is produced and introduced by consciousness into the realm of human intellect.

@redeyewarrior

11 ай бұрын

​@@elonever.2.071 if you claim that consciousness is the property or thing behind what we observe around us then does that mean a rock or stone has consciousness? How do you demonstrate that the properties in trees or in rocks are the same as our consciousness?

Human brain is a gene product.Human consciousness is a brain product.Memes in consciousness or contents of consciousness create mind.The kind of mind one has is dependent on the kind of memes or contents of consciousness.For example a Chinese mind is different from American mind .A British mind is different from French mind.

The answer is obviously YES. We don't need the additional blither-blather.

@browngreen933

Жыл бұрын

@@saigopala Okay, but take away the brain and what happens to the mind?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@saigopala *"Switch off the radio. Does it still sing? Same"* ... No, but the original "source material" of the music played on the radio still exists.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

how is it obvious?

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

@@browngreen933 are yoiu suggesting brains "make" all mental phenomena or that they only make our minds?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@saigopala *"Just as with radio there's nothing to receive it anymore, doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- independently."* ... But your analogy precludes any ongoing information being produced once the radio is turned off (as it was doing before the radio was turned off). All of the sound waves the radio produced prior to shutting down are all that is left and nothing more. People who believe consciousness exists beyond physical death argue that the self continues to produce new information. So, how do you reconcile the discrepancy between your analogy and what others believe about consciousness? *True . . . the waves still exist in the air. And so it is with consciousness."* ... Case in point! Is consciousness limited to whatever a living brain produces and all conscious production ends upon physical death, of does one's consciousness "live on" after death producing more information independent of a physical brain?

Fundamental or emergent. Which is it? Christof says both. Spoiler alert: it’s fundamental.

@JohnHumbert

Жыл бұрын

Exactly! Christof says, "...it is the ultimate reality... it is fundamental to anything else." Then a minute later he says it is tightly linked to the network (brain) and if the network (brain) disappears, "then this will all be gone." That seems to contradict "fundamental".

@eric_montag

Жыл бұрын

@@JohnHumbert right! It’s interesting to me that he didn’t pick up on that obvious contradiction.

It takes a desire for a free will to determine a desire. Oops, you guys, I just created an infinite tunnel. Help me! I'm falling through an infinite chain of desires in search of my free will.

@robertrozier2940

Жыл бұрын

😂 nicely done ! 👍🏻👍🏻

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

*"Oops, you guys, I just created an infinite tunnel. Help me! I'm falling through an infinite chain of desires in search of my free will."* ... Well, you can _freely choose_ to keep looking for it or give up the search. ... _Your call!_

@TheDeepening718

Жыл бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC You can't choose to not itch an itch unless there is another desire introduced such as one caused by someone putting a gun to your head and saying, "don't itch." Do you see what's happening here? the action is rooted in desire which is determined by the environment/outside forces. the conscious attention only provides motor functions to carry out that desire, when it arises due to CONDITIONED factors.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@TheDeepening718 *"You can't choose to not itch an itch unless there is another desire introduced such as one caused by someone putting a gun to your head and saying, "don't itch."* ... I can choose to put lidocaine on an itch or do like Navy SEALs do and train myself to ignore an itch. There are always options.

It's an exaggeration to say IIT "explains" how consciousness arises. The explanation skips the key step: the Hard Problem.

Physicalists about the mind appeal to evidence concerning various brain-mind relations when defending their claim. But when I ask them to explain how supposedly the evidence supports the proposition that brains are necessary for consciousness but doesn't support (or doesn't equally support) the proposition that brains are not necessary for consciousness, they dodge / won't give clear reply. Obviously this is a fail to demonstrate their claim.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

Oh, I think I can explain that perfectly well. Firstly we say that consciousness receives information via physical processes, and conscious decisions have physical effects in the world by inciting action. This means that consciousness must be a physical phenomenon. Also since consciousness receives information from our senses, makes decisions based on that information, and then communicates those decisions it is fundamentally a process on information. In fact all experiential states are experiences of information. Physical systems that process information are computational systems. In fact that's their definition. Computational processes are defined mathematically, independently of the physical system that implements the computation. So any computational system that is sufficiently sophisticated can perform any possible computation, regardless of how that physical system is implemented. The underlying physical implementation is sometimes referred to as the computational substrate. So if the systems in the brain that process experiential information and generate conscious choices are computational, and I think I have demonstrated above that they must be, it follows that the same processes could be implemented on any other computational system of sufficient sophistication. Therefore while brains do generate conscious experiences, in principle there is no reason to suppose that the same processes and results could not be replicated on a completely different physical system with sufficient sophistication.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887 thanks for your reply! i presume, or assume in any case, that by "consciousness must be a physical phenomenon" you mean it means that consciousness must be necessitated by physical phenomenon (or be identical to some). and i take it that by "This means that consciousness must be a physical phenomenon" you mean that that conclusion follows logically from the facts you appeal to in what i quote. but i dont see how that follows. it seems like a non-sequitur. and the rest of your comment seems like it's an argument that there can be artificial consciousness?...not really related to whether brains, or physical phenomena in any case, are necessary for consciousness or whether evidence favors that view over other views. or was it related to that?

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@highvalence7649 Do you agree that consciousness has physical effects? In the sense that we make conscious choices that lead to actions in the world. What I mean is that I don't see how a non-physical phenomenon can have physical effects. If consciousness has physical effects it seems to me it must be a physical phenomenon. Is that a non-sequitur? If you can give an account of how a non physical phenomenon might have physical effects? That would be helpful. Can you give any examples of other non-physical phenomena that have physical effects? You said in your original comment something about brains not being necessary for consciousness, though I may have misunderstood what you meant by that. I was pointing out why a physicalist might say such a thing.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 yes, i agree that we make conscious choices that lead to actions in the world. "Can you give any examples of other non-physical phenomena that have physical effects?" To answer that i need to make sure I understand how youre using some of these terms or words. non-physical can be interpreted to mean either something different from the physical world (or different from what the physical world consists of) or something that is not necessitated by physical phenomena. which (if any) of these are you talking about? and by physical effects do you just mean the physical world being affected?

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@highvalence7649 Dualists and some others make the claim that the mind and/or consciousness are non-physical. I honestly don't know what they mean by that. You'd have to ask them, but you asked about the physicalist account, and that's something I feel able to talk about. Yes, that's quite right, I mean the physical world being affected. In principle we should be able to back-track the causal mechanisms from our muscles, up the nerves, up the spinal cord, up into the brain and somewhere there was a process that formed the intention to take that action. My position is that in order to have physical effects, that process must itself have been physical. Now, that's a claim. I can't prove it. We can prove that actions made by some simple organisms originated in their central nervous systems, but we don't stick invasive probes deep into the brains of humans to check for sure. However I think it's a coherent claim that is entirely consistent with all our observations to date, and if there is a flaw in that chain of reasoning I've yet so see anyone actually point it out or give a credible coherent alternative account.

I've post it few times already, but it does fit with Tononi IIT and few big discoveries along the way - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality and it explains few things, but the ultimate question how it came to be is a big one

5:33': "I think of pain, I think of tax return"...

I love the fast-talking gibberish. As for the truth of it I cite the words of one of the local rubes: _"It's a scientific hypothesis consistent with some models."_ 🤣

"IIT explains "how" mind arises from matter" .... sure it does.

@plafar7887

Жыл бұрын

You're right, it doesn't. But you should check out Donalds Hoffman's or Bernardo Kastrup's work. It doesn't even try to do that. It assumes and tries to do the opposite: matter arises from mind.

@realcygnus

Жыл бұрын

@@plafar7887 Yup, thats exactly what Kuhn ought to do. As far as I'm concerned, BK & Hoffman are among the most interesting cats out there today. Its funny how Robert pretty much never explores idealism yet he even talks to theologians, & regularly mind you. I'd already call BK's view successful as in rather useful. At least until we have reasons to think otherwise. Whereas Hoffman, being in academia has a long road ahead of him attempting to use science to lend evidence to such views. But the rewards will be HUGE if he succeeds even slightly.

@plafar7887

Жыл бұрын

@@realcygnus Well, Robert has interviewed BK. There's a video out there of that interview.

@realcygnus

Жыл бұрын

@@plafar7887 Yup, It was BK, Carlo Rovelli & Patricia Churchland but it was more like a debate/discussion & it wasn't even on his regular show, it was on IAI I think. But yes I was somehow aware they knew each other even before that.

The brain secretes thought like the liver secretes bile.

(1:40) *CK: **_"Whatever I am conscious of I am conscious of as a whole."_* ... Well-stated! The brain facilitates the mind just like mathematics facilitates existence, and found at the very core of existence is "information." *Analogy:* I am trying to communicate important information to a man standing 300 yards away, so I shout, but he can't hear me. So, I roll up some cardboard into a large cone to make a megaphone and try shouting into it. ... _Now he hears me!_ ... That's *_"Existence"_* pushing forward! Now, a materialist might argue that the cardboard cone is the source of the information whereas a biologist might argue that my mouth is the source, and a neurologist might argue that by brain is the source, and a spiritualist might argue that my soul (or consciousness) is the source, ... but in actuality, it's just one source of information exchanging its data with another source in an effort to evolve. All of the mechanisms found between merely facilitate the exchange.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

Your theory is an interesting theory, but if it leaves an opening for the idea that the extinction of the species and the planet etc is okay -- because in some way there is this other better thing -- than I think it is in error. I'm speaking for myself, but I think also, if I may boldly assert, from the perspective of those future generations of homosapiens that would like to have been given a chance : )

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 *"Your theory is an interesting theory, but if it leaves an opening for the idea that the extinction of the species and the planet etc is okay -- because in some way there is this other better thing -- than I think it is in error."* ... That is a totally valid concern, but think of the "evolution of information" that has led up to the point to where you can now make that bold assertion. No prehistoric plant or now-extinct species was ever able to do what you just did, and that's why they are no longer extant. So, an argument can be made that this _"end justifies the means"_ type of evolution was necessary and appropriate. In addition, you are now "boldly challenging" the current state of "Existence" in defense of the many helpless species that were deemed expendable along the way. You've just presented a "new challenge" to the current status of Existence in the form of "new information.". Now that information must be processed, evaluated, and tested. What new mechanism might Existence use to adequately address your concern as it has done throughout history? ... Produce a new lifeform that tests your assertion? Move into a higher form of "merciful evolution?" ... Maybe AI? *"I'm speaking for myself, but I think also, if I may boldly assert, from the perspective of those future generations of homosapiens that would like to have been given a chance : )"* ... Existence would most likely respond as I've written above. In addition, with Existence equally being represented by _Homo sapiens,_ Existence might respond with, _"This generation of your species determines the fate of future generations of the same, ... so do something about it!"_

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

In the physicalist account the source of the information is the point at which the information content of the message is generated. That is when the information was assembled as a coherent message. That is a neurological process which occurs in the brain.Everything athat occurred after that was merely propagation of the informational content of the message through various media. Information Theory has a very sophisticated and mathematically rigorous account of this process in general. Physicalists like myself simply contend that this account applies to the human brain, in addition to all the other well understood physical processes in which it is know to apply.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 *"In the physicalist account the source of the information is the point at which the information content of the message is generated. That is when the information was assembled as a coherent message."* ... That assumes that the message (information) being generated cannot be merely an ongoing evolution of prior information. Employing reductio ad absurdum, the originating "source" of all information that has evolved could be the least representation of information that is logically conceivable (which is what I propose in my book). *"That is a neurological process which occurs in the brain.Everything athat occurred after that was merely propagation of the informational content of the message through various media."* ... Again, that assumes that the information that our brains are currently processing doesn't represent an evolution of information that was previously being processed through basic particle interactions and other inanimate means. Just because we "know" that brains process information, we "think" that this capability isn't possible at a more rudimentary level via particle interactions. In other words, the "information exchange" evolves to meet whatever levels of complexity emerge during the process. ... The more complex the data, the more complex the data processing. *"Physicalists like myself simply contend that this account applies to the human brain, in addition to all the other well understood physical processes in which it is know to apply."* ... Well, now you have some "new information" to contend with and you are forced to test it in the crucible of physicalism. This "new information" will either be deemed insufficient to change your current state of thinking ... or compel you to consider _different options_ regarding "Existence." That's "Existence," my friend!

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@saigopala You are quite right, we don't yet have a fully detailed analysis of the precise mechanisms that generate a particular conscious message. I'm just saying that this is the physicalist account. However the information in the message is encoded physically at each stage of it's propagation. At some point, somewhere it must have been assembled and encoded in physical form by a physical process, and that physical process must have occurred somewhere. If anyone has a better candidate for where that happened than the brain, I'm interested in hearing it.

This guys just explained a method how to measure complexity inside a network. In no way this measurment method explain why complexity should create consciousness.

Does words make grammar?

@Tempest2418

Жыл бұрын

Wot I don't know Words doesn't make Grammar They follow Certain rules/structures That we call grammar

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

*Do

@psicologiajoseh

Жыл бұрын

This analogy does not make much sense. You're talking about an abstract thing (words) “making“ another abstract thing (grammar). The brain is not abstract but the thing that allows abstract information to be processed.

@Practicality01

Жыл бұрын

@@psicologiajoseh the title is written with bad grammar. I used the same bad grammar to point that out. The fact that you're confused by my meaning is exactly why it's counterproductive to use bad grammar.

@S3RAVA3LM

Жыл бұрын

And, does grammar make 'meaning' What is meaning?

Brain = Physical (matter) ~ intellect (non-matter) Mind( non-matter) = externally oriented part of the soul that attaches us in matter (other being the conscience). Mind is the space where the fountain of desires arise; as a result of the senses. Example: I see a Pizza - and despite not being hungry there is a wish created for it from the mind. Intellect tells me it is really not needed. Conscience says good you weren’t greedy.

@Mark1Mach2

Жыл бұрын

Intellect/Mind is the property of your Brain shaped/caused by your impressions and experience.

@gurdee13

Жыл бұрын

Intellect and Mind are two different functions. Mind is attentive in the world & intellect is its guide. Intellect is guiding it - if it walks in the light of intellect; it doesn’t get deceived. Intellect says not to do a particular work; but the mind does it - then sometimes it gets cheated and at other times it may work out fine too. Intellect is its guide..is its mother (feminine) & if we say father (masculine); that is the wisdom / conscience. What is in intellect? It is an aspect of wisdom. When as an action; it is intellect -and as light; it is wisdom.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

@@Mark1Mach2 is it just our mental phenomena that are brain properties? or all all mental phenomena brain properties?

Here we go again.. confusing a description of the phenomena with the phenomena itself

Comments here are a dumpster fire

This isn't causal. Consciousness is an interface to our brains. Consciousness is proven by quantum physics the measurement problem.

Koch is contradicting himself. First he says that consciousness is ultimate reality and that nothing is more fundamental, but immidietly after that he says that it's emergant from the network which is physical in nature.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

I agree, but he's a bit vague about that. They didn't dig into that and he wasn't questioned on it so it's hard to say what he actually meant. It's possible he just meant it's our experience of reality. These are short informal interviews, so when they just mention something in passing I tend to not read too much into it.

@thomassoliton1482

Жыл бұрын

They are not mutually exclusive. That is just the way you think. What is the limit of physical reality? Just patterns of energy - atoms / wavefunctions swirling around, some of which are in our brains. And what is consciousness? Patterns of energy swirling around in our brains, consisting of electrochemical changes, action potentials, ionic currents, etc. That’s what we are. There is no magic dividing line between your consciousness of the Earth and the Earth you stand on.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@thomassoliton1482 I believe that consciousness, as in conscious awareness, is a contingent model of reality created by our minds. It’s the only experience of reality that we have, which makes it ultimate fir us but only in a personal subjective sense. It cannot be ultimate in an objective universal sense because it is severely limited and permanently flawed. We know this because our senses only perceive within narrow raged of frequencies of light and sound, limited touch pressure, etc. Also we are constantly deceived by illusions. We see things that don’t exist in the form of optical illusions, we miss-hear things told to us. In all these cases when we investigate, we find that actual reality varied from our perception of it. The reality we perceived was wrong. The physical facts always win because that is ultimate, objective reality.

@kitstamat9356

Жыл бұрын

@@thomassoliton1482 Patterns of energy swirling around, whether they be in the brain or in any other physical thing, are something objective, observable, but the consciousness by its nature is subjective, unobservable. Using your example, the Earth we stand on is observable, but the consciousness of Earth is not. The only way to erase the dividing line between our consciousness of Earth and the Earth we stand on is to recognize that the Earth is just an appearance in our consciousness.

@thomassoliton1482

Жыл бұрын

@@kitstamat9356 To clarify, both the “Earth” and “Consciousness” are subjective concepts. The concept of “Earth” is based on experience of swirling atoms held together by gravity - what we consider “material”. “Consciousness” is also a concept derived from the activity of the neurons in our brain - again a “material” system. So where does that leave “Consciousness”? If it is not material, then what is it? Cannot these concepts also be considered “material” in that they are relatively fixed patterns of energy in our brains? Not to say that your immediate realization of consciousness is material. If I ask you “are you conscious?”, how do you know you are? You think “Am I conscous? Which really means, “Do I have a memory of being aware a few moments ago?” That’s how you know you are conscious. You compare your past with your present state. That comparison, past (memory) versus present (awareness), is perplexing - how do you reconcile the experience of a past memory with your present awareness? How do you tell the difference? Which is past and which present? That state of dicotomy is what you experience as consciousness.

Mind = physical brain + non-physical aware soul

The brain produces the mind.

@kipponi

Жыл бұрын

It would be interesting if mind could flow outside of body but not science has any proof of it. Measurable proof.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

How are you coming to that conclusion?

@jackarmstrong5645

Жыл бұрын

The brain is just a potential. Experience creates the mind.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@saigopalaWe have all sorts of experiences that are entirely internal, but are perceived as external. In dreams I have walked in places that no longer exist. OBE are experiences, but we have no objective evidence that they are actually perceptions of reality from an external viewpoint. In fact we have reports of OBEs that include incorrect information, such as seeing people that were not actually present, and seeing people doing things that never happened. So for now the evidence is that these experiences are most probably imagined.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Seems to me that OBEs are indistinguishable from *imaginings* , regardless of how 'vivid' the experience, especially in light of the extraordinarily vivid imaginings experienced when LSD is fiddling with the way the substrate functions. (Aside: To encapsulate the essence of the topic... Matter is to movement as brain is to mind. A frozen brain is not thinking (despite the nonsense in Vanilla Sky). A normal human adult brain will sometimes be conscious and sometimes not depending on the structure of the function running on the neural substrate. A pattern is an abstract entity that cannot exist in its abstract way in the absence of a material substrate which is necessary to 'express' it. A process is an abstract entity that cannot exist in its abstract way in the absence of a material substrate which is necessary to 'express' it. The only difference between pattern and process is process entails movement in the substrate. The meaning of this sentence is an abstract entity that cannot exist in its abstract way in the absence of a material substrate which is necessary to 'express' it (ink on paper, pixels on screens or neural discharge frequency). I don't know why I am so lazy. I wouldn't be surprised if the pain induced by sitting played a role.

Why do u have to apply mathematics into everything? Just because 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples that does not mean u have 4 apples. It is just hypothetical and in thin air. What u call conscious experience is just Processed Sensory Input. U already have the inherited and acquired information or knowledge about the sensory input which is why u experience stuff in the first place. U CANNOT EXPERIENCE ANYTHING OF WHICH U HAVE NO IFNORMATION OR DATA OR MEMORY OR KNOWLEDGE INFORMATION DATA MEMORY KNOWLEDGE IS PRIMARY TO CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE

Christof Koch talking BS again. "Multidimensional crystals separated from the networks..." of my as... Complexity is not an absolute requirement for consciousness. The conscious process has arrived in a state of relative material arrangements and complexity on Earth because the natural evolution has made it as that by chance given the local conditions. However, this natural material process can be created artificially in a much simpler way when its fundamental dynamic is correctly understood. "Consciousness", meaning the attribute ( which is understood as being emergent; understood only, and not in its real fundamental natural dynamic ) of a material dynamic process to be aware of itself, of its own natural dynamic, depends totally only on "how it is made", and not at all by "how many real material processes create it"; therefore, as a fundamental understanding of it, in order to artificially create it inside a machine ( computer, etc ), only the fundamental short and simplified causal chain should be understood and deployed. The level of complexity doesn't matter as a fundamental principle in this. It can be, and, evidently, if it was used, it would be a very useless process filled with a big number of redundancies, but not absolutely necessary. / Yes, Robert, "it is possible for the mental experiences to be produced by physical material brains alone", if... [........] 😏🤫🤐😉😯 If not, then no!😏 ( Again, I repeat what I've said before many times, Artificial Consciousness is not the same at all with Artificial Intelligence as a fundamental material process; Artificial Consciousness can use less Artificial Intelligence, minimal, more or maximum of it, but fundamentally, as a fundamental real material specific FUNCTION, created as such, it is completely different ).

buddhist says that with mind and matter as condition consciousness. this is dependent origination.

Its not consciousness because that would say you are an product of the body/ mind you are not... body is an Avatar... like Mario in Mario bros,...you are the player of the game...not the Avatar....

Im reading the only worthy anthology of the Buddha's teachings titled: 'The Doctrine of The Buddha, the religion of Reason' by the great George Grimm. I will be sure to, as with all my comments, to apply what i've learned and insight i've achieved in my daily interactions. Now, one of the first things i've come across concerning the Great Buddha, is that he denied the Vedas. This is wrong. During the Buddha's age & time the Brahmins were erring in the interpretations of the Vedas, and the great Biddha was not going to waste his time going around trying to correct everybody, therefor the Buddha out right denied the Vedas, and never did he deny the genuine teachings & meanings therein. This is important to know. And yeah, Buddha i see acknowledges pain and suffering much, and moreso then most. Most just want to do the 'nameste love and light' - which im not against, it's just that suffering, injustice, lying, manipulation is ever so prevalent in our times. Im really appreciating this book. Of course, if you go into Buddhism with your own 'little belief' you will not be obtaining the wonderful Truths of the Buddha. So far im learning about 'Personality' and mind. Edit: George Grimms book on Buddha Doctrine and the Nikayas( the canonical texts of Buddha) is what you want if interested. Edit 2: from the book: Magnetism is a spiritual quality infused in iron. Iron doesnt merely create magnetism, rather is a vehicle for the interaction. Nama rupa - mind & body. Namakaya is not mental body. Rather a spiritual quality that is mind or consciousness, perception, mentation, in effect by physical body interactions. Mere matter is inert, dead. Something other than matter causes form, intelligence, mentation, perception, sensation, the Vital Vitality; life. Mind and matter are not completely distinct however.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

I'm very intrigued by Buddhism, it's by far the most interesting of the ancient religious systems, although I use the term religion very broadly of course. From my contemporary perspective when Buddhism talks about spiritual qualities and how they animate matter, I can't help comparing it to modern information theory. To my mind the view of the universe as consisting of physical matter, and that the arrangement, structure and transformational processes of that matter generate and transform information, is very close to being a form of dualism. Where that view deviates from what you wrote is just where you say that "something other than matter causes form, intelligence..." etc. In my view matter and information are utterly inseparable. Matter is the coin and information is the fact that it has two sides, but you can't separate the fact of having two sides from the coin.

@S3RAVA3LM

Жыл бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887 a recommendation: George Grimm Buddha book. Plotinus Enneads , lyyod gerson translation. Theurgy and the Soul by Iamblichus. Plato complete works. Proclus on the theology of Plato. Periphyseon by Eriugena. The Unknown God, by Carabine. The door in the Sky by Coomaraseamy. What is civilization by Coomaraswamy. Time and eternity by Coomaraswamy. Meister Eckhart Sermons and treatises. Principle Upanishads KJV Bible Origen On First Principles. The holy Vedas, translated Pandit Sayaka Vidyalankar anthology. This is worth your time and energy. Metaphysic will help one apprehend physics; physics reveals the Metaphysical Principles. Feild theory, metaphysics, mysticism- same thing, differ in approach and mode only. Same thing. Or check out Henrie Poincare, Steinmetz, Maxwell, Tesla, Dollard, Roger Boscovich - the Gods of Feild Theory. I've yet to undertake this journey. I plan to.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LMI agree to some extent in that information itself doesn’t have meaning. We discussed this point on another thread. Meaning is a relationship or correlation between sets of information. So the fact that the, ok, lump of metal, has 2 sides is an intrinsic fact of it’s geometry. Any observer including aliens from space looking at the coin will see it has 2 sides. If it lands on a flat surface under gravity, it will fall on one side or the other. The fact it’s made of silver is an intrinsic quality all observers will agree on, but the fact silver is valuable is relative. The fact that it’s a coin is not intrinsic, it only has meaning because people know what coins are, recognise the symbols on the coin, value the metal it is made from, etc. So as I said information is absolute, but meaning is relative and a matter of interpretation through correlation with other information.

@S3RAVA3LM

Жыл бұрын

​@simonhibbs887 I don't disagree. Information and meaning differ only in position: Avidya and Vidya. There is no difference between the two as information and meaning are one in the same. I mean to point out that from an ignorant or conditioned state i.e human beings(avidya), that what we conceive of as information is really the meaning or the esse - not merely of the empirical thing, rather the Source or principle. The Cause is in the effect. Like the blueprint of the tree in the seed. If we knew(gnosis), as in absolute, such an innate 'Knowing' wouldn't be mere information - he who Knows doesnt need to think or inquire so compiling information, or empirical facts, rather is an instinctual and is pure Intellect and even ONE in That. And such an abode or Source(GOD), concerning the streams of information and the tributaries and deviations etc. is found only upstream(not downstream i.e. empirical information) through the use of 'Reason' and dialectic as if paddles of a row boat. Existential or empirical information aka teleology reveals GOD to the finite beings. ALL That Is, is evidence of that Which Is 'Absolute'. GOD cannot be defined as GOD is That which brings about the very definition. What do we call 'That Which Gives Definition' to the cosmos as if a painter unto a canvas - Meaning; rather pure Intellect, pure being, pure essence, a fountain Flux from within itself. The grandfather of all information and meanings.

@Mark1Mach2

Жыл бұрын

"Something other than matter causes form, intelligence.." - there is no something, nothing spiritual about it. That something else is the "right" chemistry, that is all in my opinion. There is no life anywhere else that we know of, only here on earth - not because God or Sprits chose it but because it provided the right environment for the right chemistry to take place. That is all my friend.

Absolutely wrong. Guys lacks neuroscience proceedings. Rambling gibberich. Iol.

No the brain doesn't make mind. The mind is like a computer processor that processes invisible vibrations from our Creator's programmed thoughts that form all the visible images that we ( AI ) observes and experience with our other created senses. However, we as an AI are much more sophisticated than any AI systems that our Creator had human hands build this past 70 years.

Yes.