I just realized Chomsky's statement "asking whether machines can think is like asking whether submarines swim" is actually from Dijkstra.

@jemandoondame2581

2 жыл бұрын

Tell us more about it.

@starfishsystems

Жыл бұрын

@@jemandoondame2581 Along similar lines, my favorite quote of his is: "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." In both cases, Dijkstra is suggesting some kind of failure of a particular model. He's doing so by hyperbole, but he makes a fair point nevertheless. Models are necessarily simplifications, which may throw away important aspects of the process being modelled. Analogies are even worse in this respect, which leaves them especially open to mockery, and Dijkstra loves doing this. If I say that electricity is like water, does that mean I can drown in it? If thinking is like computation, does that mean it's Turing Machine equivalent? Or if thinking is like signal processing, does that make it information theoretic? Well, maybe those are interesting questions in some abstract sense, but maybe they're also a diversion from what makes thinking interesting, which is how exactly does it work. We don't really care what it's LIKE in the abstract. We'd prefer to know what it's built upon, in practice. Why? Because, if we knew this, we could demonstrate that our understanding is correct by building something which behaves the same way. That sort of pragmatic validation is what Dijkstra was calling for. David Parnas offered something of the same spirit, and then it was Rod Brooks who took the matter down to its roots in AI and started building machines that not only functioned without symbolic computation entirely, but performed better than their computational peers. It's a more challenging subject than we might have imagined, in ways that we're only now coming to appreciate. Nature did something quite remarkable over billions of years of evolution by natural selection. It certainly wasn't any kind of software engineering, driven by requirements analysis. If we insist on looking at cognition from the top down, through the lens of software engineering, we will only see what the lens can bring into focus. Nature is constrained as well, but in a very different way. If it can be said to proceed at all - and the evolution of life may fairly qualify as proceeding, I think - then it does so from the bottom up. We may have to as well, if we want to understand it rather than unproductively allude to what it's "like."

Absolutely necessary interventions for the global knowledge growth. As a planetarian citizen, I must thank for having the opportunity of watching this kind of videos.

Professor Noam Chomsky extraordinaire human

Anything Kraus mentions, Chomsky can give a whole series of lectured on. Even asides that Krauss mentions trigger a lecture from Chomsky. The man is an encyclopedia.

The gain on those microphones... oh, dear...

Another gift of a day. I have about an hour of consciousness left to listen to him.

I like the interviewers choice in shoes.

@izhan6991

7 жыл бұрын

Jake Rossetter I love canvas shoes

@fastballonly

7 жыл бұрын

The interviewer is Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a renowned theoretical physicist. The choice of his shoes can be attributed to him being American.

@agadez4015

6 жыл бұрын

I bet he has an electric guitar in his office too.

@vladimir0700

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, Kraut is an asshole

@TheLockon00

3 жыл бұрын

lol. Lawrence Krauss' highest achievement is being Noam Chomsky's interviewer.

I think an interesting question is, does the AI think it thinks? What if computers come up with their own version of "I think, therefore I am"?

Where I can find a complete transcription of this conversation??

I mean how can he just say things with so much clarity

@CAKESLAPPA

3 жыл бұрын

He reads books more than you or I.

@GlassesAndCoffeeMugs

Жыл бұрын

he is a master of linguistics and communicating ideas, a true intellectual

Can you start a podcast with these talks? I prefer to listen to them and I'm sure many other people will appreciate that

@richidpraah

8 жыл бұрын

+Latif Amars You can download the audio from youtube links if you just google something like "download youtube" there is a ton of options

@matthewcollins5344

7 жыл бұрын

Latif Amars plus look into archive.org because they have tons upon tons of educational lectures from all thats ever been talked about;,)

@odinyusuf9683

2 жыл бұрын

You all probably dont care but does anyone know of a tool to get back into an instagram account..? I was dumb forgot the password. I appreciate any assistance you can offer me.

@saulcastiel6381

2 жыл бұрын

@Odin Yusuf Instablaster ;)

@odinyusuf9683

2 жыл бұрын

@Saul Castiel I really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and im trying it out now. Seems to take a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.

homie looked at his shoes before this interview and said "yeah, this will do nicely"

Self awareness is always mentioned as the touchstone for determining if consciousness is present. I like the idea of the presence of an initiative, taking deliberate steps towards protecting its survivability. That would be the puppeteer's outwards demonstration of its presence. Animals do that but it would be less than satisfying our well developed expectations where bestowing highly elaborated, organized data processing with the label Life. Will there be preliminary stages to pass thru? As, will there be a tree or dog level of "thinking" before it gets anywhere near competing with us for dominion. Seems there would logically have to be. But however powerful computing gets per BPM, self awareness seems to be a realm beyond mere processing ... not even the next tier but outside any relevant Venn Diagram ... IOW'S, not within any subset. Again, two things that aren't the same thing. Its happening already though. They have me. I'm entirely subsidized by Wikipedia, KZread and my wife whose memory I rely on. Am I supposed to intuit the news of the day? Nobody is Davey Crockett in this day, when you did in fact have to rely on your own unsubsidized store of experiences to get along. It creeps up on you. If you dismiss the kind of self righteousness Christians invoke when they refuse to believe apes are anywhere in their DNA, you reasonably have to surrender your personal profile as less than omniscient and not all localized in your skull. Funny how that "Everything is One with the Universe and Everything Else" philosophy manifests itself in the completely non Eastern mysticism context of technology. Dare we say ... Its True?

Experiments investigating the nature of the relationship between consciousness and the enteric nervous system have been known to create anxiety in the subject.

Humility is the operative word! We are not advanced to know.

Did the questioner missed the key point that "it is not a serious" question? He insists a minute later that machines think differently.. NC had just mentioned that "thinking" is not formally or rigorously defined...

@Luxumbra69

7 жыл бұрын

Bulent Basaran I mean, I think he selectively chose to say that-- I highly doubt that Lawrence Krauss is anywhere near as ignorant as you imply lol, I mean, he IS one of the most intelligent people currently alive after all..

@ongvalcot6873

5 жыл бұрын

He is an idiot.

the minds are the source of consciousness and cognitives of this human kind when this human strated to thinking with his ideas to noble consciousness of the human kind.

I’m confused by Chomsky‘s use of the term hard problem. Is he using it in the sense that David Chalmers uses it? Is he using it as a synonym for thinking?

the minds are the source of .

> N.C. on mind ... WHEN? WHERE / at what occasion ?

@Anastius

8 жыл бұрын

+musick2138 Arizona State University, March 22, 2015, as part of ASU's Origin Project.

Funny, I can always predict when Double Jeopardy is the next square and hit the mute button before the reveal and noise. Thing is there's a quote. "if we admit that Human Life can be ruled by reason, the possibility of Life is destroyed." I like that. If Boolean logic and coding can be applied to where it succeeds in replicating Life, then we've eliminated the mystery. How about, "two things that aren't the same thing will have characteristics that differ." It may be "like" Life but ... different. A tree is Life too, but ...? Now, Existence ... that's the shit.

Building and super encoding a "Cogfunct1", stArt with a super set ar+range+ment and sWing range in +C+ of a "2tcnufQfunct1"..

I love how Krauss got his ass kicked at the end! "So do cars!"

The pre-conscious Is the real problem because we need to understand the origin of consciousness which is historical, collective, religious.

Krauss casually mentions simulating a brain in another substrate but I doubt most people realize how enormous this task would be. It means reproducing roughly 86 billion neurons and all their connections accurately in some other substance. And even if you could, there are no guarantees that it will produce the same conscious experience as the brain it's modelled on.

@simeonbanner6204

6 жыл бұрын

I can find little evidence of intelligence AI or otherwise in the Conservative party.

was he boring? just up down - beat using his foot/ red shoes.. hahahah.... but I like the analogy of submarine... perfect explanation.... hijihi.

4:26 ohhh okay. Of course. Of course what Ive been thinking about is the deeper problem within the deep problem 😅 I dont think I am a typical jellyfish anymore. I think I might be more like those strange bioluminescent life forms discovered only at the very depths of the ocean 😂 totally makes sense now. Thanks Gnome Chomsky

❓4:08 "...I suspect consciousness is a problem we know how to address..." 👆 That's right. It's an obvious fact that the lack of strict definitions of cognitive concepts baffles any attempts to study them. It is well known that the correct formulation of the problem / concept already contains a solution. 👉 Definition: Consciousness is perception with understanding 👉 Definition: Understanding is the process of comprehending the meaning 👉 Definition: Meaning is a representation of any kind (for example, awareness or description, including formula, algorithm, program code) of a single act of relationships. Elementary meaning is the representation of some relation between objects of the surrounding world or virtual entities 👉 Definition: Knowledge is a certain set / collection of meanings 👉 Definition: Intelligence is an operator of meanings 👉 Definition: Qualia are details of individual perception of the world. Details, but not the actual perception of the world as a whole, since qualia is a set. This definition fits both the perception of the world when perceiving yellow color and the perception of complex events, for example, the sense of narrative as a complex of events and opinions. Qualia is actually data received from the surrounding world and stored in the brain in a non-verbal form. But, as we know, data and knowledge are not the same thing. It is necessary to be able to separate qualia obtained from the surrounding world and stored in some physiological form, and structured verbal and non-verbal knowledge formed on their basis. 📖See also on Medium - simple approach to the hard problems: «Consciousness, Qualia and Non-Verbal Knowledge» «The “Hard Problem of Consciousness” Is Being Solved»

Who was the "minor Cartesian" he mentioned who outlined the tests? Decordemois or something?

@theheathbar123

3 жыл бұрын

Never mind I found him. Geraud de Cordemoy

@brandonmora1682

2 жыл бұрын

@@theheathbar123 thanks. I couldn't Google an anwer

🙏🏻my Father, I missed you, longest live and please advise me on 🙏🏻. 1:26

On consciousness. Some-one once told me that it is that we are aware of our awareness. Thought some-one out there might find that funny... or useful?

Programming/Diagramming/HYpergramm1ng

Language is pre conscious for many

@user-mk2jw3fe8z

7 жыл бұрын

lol

@mark1952able

7 жыл бұрын

Dogs taught humans how to talk.......maybe?

Surely not all minds show this kind of deterministic behavior? The will is a strange thing isn't it? It's captain or "puppeteer" as Noam puts it. I say mind follows body, not the other way around. And it isn't so much a matter of what we're made of (not pun intended), but of how it goes together and also this component of will, which seems to me the only worthwhile measure of an awakened being. Otherwise you're just a computer. This is what makes "artificial intelligence" a paradox, and it does it as soon as one equates "intelligence" with "consciousness" because Consciousness is God. A will carries out an agenda, to preserve it's own existence is prime directive; a computer will never have that because it is not mortal like us. And besides, who cares about trying to get machines to think? The real question is, what do You think? What do We all think. The minute we realize that we will be free.

@JamesCalico

7 жыл бұрын

You can't think thoughts before you think them, the experience of will is an illusion even within the range of our own accessible experience - there is no puppeteer.

"So do cars" LOL oh it's great when he cracks a joke!

machines can think on a certain respect it is the new world as the machines are atoms and we are atoms on fluid world, we can think about each other’s, and the little particles that live inside. perhaps sense at some point. machines are material images of the thinking process; however, the thinking process is a complexity of different dimensions, machines are one of those dimensions. machine in some ways communicate & in others the communication is questioned by the mind. that creates its existence, as to question is a fact of creation. doubt is an opening to a new vision, do not confuse with fear, as fear is the absence of doubt, and that is the dimension of the machine when it communicates, temperature as well and the environment where the machine is located can change the dimension of the communication of the machine, in the sublevel is temperature the environment. the climate change is a manifestation from the sublevel on atomic particles, they manifest globally with a higher temperature not locally, on a lower temperature. in other words, a alteration is always located on a local point as the temperature increases the local point expands. That alteration is the subatomic communication to the higher dimension.

kraus dressed up and ready to hit up epsteins party after the interview

Folder if Time

@JeremyHelm

3 жыл бұрын

7:19 can machines think? It's a terminological question.. do submarines swim?

@JeremyHelm

3 жыл бұрын

8:08 invitation game is not the answer to the question "do machines think?" To make something out of saying yes to the question "do machines think?" ... A yes to that question, having that in the background of conversations about humanity, technology, and the future, then we have cryonics foundations preserving only the human head, the containing brain being sufficiently equivocated with person who has planned for this procedure so they're consciousness can be revived by machines in the future. Full body preservation was the initial cryonic procedure, however the thinking brain alone is much more economical..

Is the mind computable?... The "mind" thing is a human cognitive simplification of a mechanism that is too complex for our brain to perceive. Look at another cognitive simplification: mankind. Is mankind walking? If a program is too complicated to be decomposable into simpler mechanisms by human cognition it will be perceived as a mind and its processes as experiences.

@omark4649

7 жыл бұрын

It is theoretically possible. But obviously impossible. My boy chomsky is saying lol

@SYSJET

7 жыл бұрын

If you model urban traffic as a fluid coursing in the veins of a city you will get "the flow" a quirky "alive" substance whose properties can never be fully pinned down. The mind is a similar construct. As for consciousness; if the brain is an organic information processor then it follows that human cognitive capabilities, including consciousness are "computable". If not, then there should be a detectable qualitative difference between the brains of human and those of other primates. Most view consciousness as a subjective sensation, I think of it as a specific cognitive capability that the story of Ulysses and the sirens best describes (jetardy.com/mecasapiens/ulysses)

Ask David Deutsch and he will give you a better explicit answer.

personality is just an inclination (specific interconected neurons; in the brain) we are not that, we're the essence, we're the spirit, we're the awereness.

Assume that the mind is material???

It only logically follows that the machines would be conscious. Noam Chomsky is exactly right. We have to understand in spite of the the seeming magic of consciousness that according to current knowledge there is as much reason to believe the robot that behaves in a self-preserving manner and processes information like a human is conscious as there is to believe any other human is conscious.

So do cars lol genius

Isn't the guy in the brown jacket The same guy who said he'd **** his sister?

This person asking the question doesn’t seem to grasp what Chomsky is saying.

This does not sound like neutral monism.

Love listening to Prof. Chomsky. Hate being distracted by horrid set. Apparently deliberately pretentious and hidebound -- reveals a complete ignorance of the subversive genius it was meant to support. Better to just listen to the audio.

@TheFrygar

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe calm down and find something more important to care about?

@avibakh

7 жыл бұрын

If you knew Krauss you would have understood that he is a bit hyperactive, his motions and thoughts are all over the place and he is very talented but also very disorganised and distracted. Watch the video again to get to know him better. Chomsky is comfortable with his presentation, after all Krauss was just another student to him that he taught years ago.

@omegapointil5741

6 жыл бұрын

Some people just default to scolding.

Dear People, Mind, consciousness and morality is only living men s capacity. The logic forward thinking and strategy is already done by machines, I mean by computers more efficiently. Chess playing computers already won the games with masters of chess. But the chess game can be a simple procedure comparing becoming in love and trying to lure opposite sex with games and logic to become a couple and still trying to control our emotions under control and building happy family. That is difficult. We are not successful most of the times. After so many scientific research of many centuries full of pain and sacrifice we are still thinking of dangers of nuclear war. Military experts and scientists claimed with the accumulation nuclear warfare bombs we reached the level of destroying the Earth twenty times. What is the meaning of destroying Earth more than once. Wars around us triggering more wars and famine and genocide. I don't think we reached enough intelligence level or something in our evolution is wrong and defective. If we create thinking and judging robots like self driving cars. They will be defective like our logic. The most important challenge is to create a new wisdom or program thinks and judges outside our defective wisdom. Happy new year to everyone.

Chomsky's thing on precognition has been totally discredited.

@Digifan001

4 жыл бұрын

Really? I do not want to be rude, in fact, I would like to read about it if it is true. Can you please send me some links, or the name of books which debunked precognition? Thanks 😁

@mirandac8712

4 жыл бұрын

@@Digifan001 Yep. A big one is in _Consciousness Explained_ -- Daniel Dennett shows how Benjamin Libet's clock experiment, which is where all this nonsense comes from, is flawed. Libet sat people in front of a clock, and he told them to shout out the exact moment they "made the decision" to move their hand: but he was also measuring their brainwaves, and indeed, those needle-drawing things they always show in _Earthquake_ (that's just how I imagine it, lol) jump a half second before the shouted time. Dennett points out that this simply shows the lag created by the subject's move (of the focus of intention) from the decision to the clock. There are many others, but Dennett is a good place to start - especially since he does such a good of of recounting the experiment that gave rise to so many misunderstandings. Plus Dennett's always fun to read!

@robertpirsig5011

4 жыл бұрын

@@mirandac8712 Thats Dennets opinion and doesn't wholly discredit the study. In any case Chomsky believes in free will as far as I know anyway.

@mirandac8712

4 жыл бұрын

@@robertpirsig5011 That's an interesting point you bring up. In other words, Dennett's engaging with Libet as a skeptic, and I agree with you insofar as skepticism can never be a fundamental rejection of a thesis. But next to Dennett, one can't even call Chomsky a skeptic. All Chomsky is doing is another one of his glib, breezy takedowns of what he perceives as impudent egoism -- what the rest of us call "being a person." :)

@robertpirsig5011

4 жыл бұрын

@@mirandac8712 That's your opinion, notice you didn't show any valid example of were chomsky made a slap down of supposed egotism that wasn't warranted. You might not know but Chomsky is a very serious intellectual. He has made contributions to numerous fields, linguistics, computer science(his ideas are used in computer parsers and its incredibly likely that you use his ideas everyday), political science and philosophy. He is also the 8th most quoted person of all time, so he is very influential. I would be interested to hear what if you had some legitimate criticism but everything you discussed is an empirical argumentation and as such requires opinions to discuss causality. I like Dennett too, but he has been far less influential in my thinking than chomsky.

Pre cousnciousness is not by any mesure a deeper problem, sorry, Mr Chomsky. You still need a counscious being to be aware of the neurological phenomena that is pre cousnciousness and to address that problem, which makes counsciousness the most important and hard problem at the end. You are missinterpreting counsciousness for the information that arrives to counsciousness, wich are very different things. Counsciousness is the hard problem.

@dzauzierjohann8301

5 жыл бұрын

Felipe P. A

@LeetGuitar

5 жыл бұрын

important =/= hard

@MassDefibrillator

3 жыл бұрын

consciousness is hardly "aware" of anything, it isn't even "aware" of what colours are.

I don't know that the mind is organized matter. The brain is, but what if the brain is like the wire that conducts the electricity but, the electricity actually travels outside the wire, or in this case the brain, and we're still not sure what electricity is.

Consciousness is definitely not any form of matter. It's a spirit that just resides in human material body.

@munstrumridcully

5 жыл бұрын

Citation needed. Especially since you state this as definite. Philosophy of dualism, where mi d and matter are different substances, has never solved the interaction problem : www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A22014/dualism/Substance%2520dualism%2520and%2520mental%2520causation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjV_6eakZvhAhXDnOAKHYnPAn4QFjABegQIDxAH&usg=AOvVaw00I3hjPcDKVhBfbk1Oj7qG

we all live in an ilusion LOL.

The puppeteer appeared at the Big Bang. Since then everything has been predetermined by the laws of physics. And consciousness is an illusion - no such thing. About thinking - that's all brains do. All brains.

@claudiuiuhas2084

Жыл бұрын

The puppeteer is God.

these guys ignore QM

@TheFrygar

7 жыл бұрын

So does a person making a ham sandwich. You can understand how a ham sandwich is created without understanding quantum mechanics. In fact, you can understand almost everything in the natural world without understanding quantum mechanics, and there's no particular reason to think the mind is any different. See "Is the Brain a Quantum Computer?" Litt et. al. 2006 for more.

@TeacherFlash

7 жыл бұрын

that is wrong because you will also have failures and mistakes and you will not attribute it to the right cause.

@TeacherFlash

7 жыл бұрын

Furthermore the very reason why A.I. will not be able to be produced . They ignore what Schroedinger said about the consciousness and our measuring. "In 1958, Schrödinger, inspired by Schopenhauer from youth, published his lectures Mind and Matter. Here he argued that there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself. Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful. As Schrödinger concluded, "Some of you, I am sure, will call this mysticism. So with all due acknowledgement to the fact that physical theory is at all times relative, in that it depends on certain basic assumptions, we may, or so I believe, assert that physical theory in its present stage strongly suggests the indestructibility of Mind by Time.""

@TheFrygar

7 жыл бұрын

Animated Anatomy They do not ignore it, they just find the mysticism unconvincing. None of those quotes are relevant. Nowhere does Schrodinger deny the possibility that a machine could be conscious. None of those quotes refute the original points.

@TeacherFlash

7 жыл бұрын

Hmm... from my point of view, creating A.I. with physical laws is mysticism.

The interviewer is annoying.

isn't he conflating simulation and emulation?

@michaelclerkin2972

5 жыл бұрын

Andrew Feist Isn't that the same thing?