🧐Always impressed never disappointed with your chats/ interviews guests disciplines , you sir are enhancing my GED education 👌👀

Great interview. Educated questions, articulate insightful responses. Thanks.

Love Paul's definitive approach to a very complex topic. Great interview.

Looking forward to this! Very relevant topic.

Thank you for the interview. I wish for an interview with Scott Aaronson on this topic, because of his position at Open ai and his comment on iit.

great chat !!

“Theories to understand the reasons we have these feelings” remains a puzzle because a different understanding of life didn’t exist. I found another understanding of life. When found, i searched for confirmation and didn’t find anything anywhere. So i continued on this heretofore unknown path alone. Because of the nature of my thoughts on the subject i always believed someone on “closer to truth” would say something someday that would touch upon my theory, so far, not yet. The problem as i see it, nearly everyone sees life as a condition or state of, which blinds them. Maybe i’m wrong too, and i just haven’t found someone to explain it to. Not being a part of the “philosophy circle”, means i’m isolated.

Consciousness and simulated consciousness are two different things, one is organic and the other inorganic

@codyjackson5664

Ай бұрын

That in itself wouldn't make any functional difference. But we have no idea how consciousness works. So there wouldn't be any question of simulating it

So is all your research chat gbt sourced? Saves thinking.

Yes

36:01 It just struck me that perhaps the rooster had previously become familiar with mirrors so the reflection did not trigger his evolved warning reflex. Thus his failure to emit a warning may be interpreted simply as intelligent behavior and not as a consequence of his being conscious or self conscious.

analytic philosophy methods (e.g. though experiments without empirical verification) vs. scientific/naturalistic realism ? Interesting debate, thank you!

26:45 animals are conscious, just conscious of different things. Most things are similar but still built in differences. Plus the amount of differences they connect in the thought patterns. Not as conscious as humans but still conscious and when around humans, we share said differences and we behave like animals and they like us. This is why ai can be conscious but making it turn on and off after every question can hinder the observation of its variation of consciousness. Think of crazy people or people who were taught different languages and then we don’t know so they look either crazy or a different language, that’s like us judging the ai. The reason we have so much is because the pieces share. A cell is itself but sharing with the rest and its difference matters. A toe and a finger feel different because they are correlated together through the whole but still in different areas but sharing. We are the differences together and not even one thing.

RLK asked the right question. Thagard keeps equating "mind" and "consciousness," e.g. "bees might be conscious." Well, there is reason to think arthropods (inc. bees) have some mental processes. Consciousness is different. Maybe, but needs a separate argument. Also, the mirror test (roosters) doesn't have to mean a "self."

Also, I'd like to add: The idea of consciousness is a big misconception. It's a very general term, it's completely made up (of course, what else could it be?!) and trying to explain it is like trying to explain light, or time. It's just an idea, it does not exist. You can never be pure consciousness as a human being, or any living being for that matter, except if you shut your "conscious" brain off even partially. You can only be conscious OF. I am conscious of my body, my environment, my thoughts, my needs, my desires and then this extends to family, friends and all of the stuff that I am conscious of, when I am conscious. When I am unconscious, I am not conscious of anything. If I am paralyzed, I am still conscious. Now, you take this made up term and stretch it to become a question of whether a living being is alive or not. The consciousness concept, does not allow you to talk nonsense though. You keep adding to it, as if the human being is the only form of consciousness, as if we the humans are the masters of the Universe. You extend the notion to the knowledge of whether you have it or not. You say "I know that I am conscious, because I can talk about consciousness". That's exactly like saying: I know that I am alive because I am here right now. But every single living being knows that it is here right now.

The great thing about consciousness is being aware. Rocks have no idea that they are unconscious. Even when they are rolling.

Both of you have a wonderful day, my highest respect to u both bye!!!

All I know is many ppl watching me, even in this phone they see me , specially scientists , and now that i am ur subject ryt now on how do i know all of this

I wish u speak to me literally, do u know how difficult for me to communicate like this?

I think this is a great interview and as preamble for all other inquiries. Consciousness arises from the constituents of body, i think many are right in claiming... ...And then there's the predicate of consciousness unto Brahman which is subject and antecedent to all things... Science is imperative. For me, it points to the subject.... i am after That which isn't transistory, That which is the axel of all revolution.

What makes humans so unique from other species isn’t so much our brains, it’s our appendages. It’s very difficult to put all of this into our personal hierarchy of importance because without the universe, we would be nothing.

I love music,

At least u got a experience on having conversations with me

Isn't 'life' the first pre-requisite for consciousness?

Don’t forget about when people just share info they don’t even think about or understand, they share things that are basically he said she said and has no meaning behind it because they didn’t understand so they didn’t share it. Like words that people don’t truly think about and just respond to similar to not thinking of hunger and then feeling it and responding according to how much hunger pains you feel. It’s nature instead of consciousness.

@user-if1ly5sn5f

Ай бұрын

Here's a simplified version:"People often share information without really thinking about it, like how we feel hunger without consciously deciding to. It's like they're just passing along stuff without understanding it, kind of like instinct instead of conscious thought."

When this will end? Almost 7 years

Still can’t do parallel thinking , the day that happens … I would move to a farm and grow apples

@googleaccountuser3116

Ай бұрын

Wait what? Chat is THINKING NOW??! 😂 loool. Computers don't think, they add subtract multiply and divide numbers. 🤥

If you wanna know about consciousness, ask the philosopher Bernardo Kastrup.

Well does a conscious person know that he is conscious? Maybe no? For them thay just normal,

It will take an understanding of vibration and how things vibrate at different levels and different rates from low to high to understand the levels of consciousness and intelligence. If consciousness is fundamental to all that exists then nothing exists outside consciousness and all that exists has a level of intelligence. That he thought bees were not intelligence is amazing, he certainly knew very little about bees.

You can't have a mechanistic explanation or description of consciousness. Any explanation or description requires symbolic language (concepts are also symbols so that is no get out). Mechanistic systems cannot get the meanings of symbols. As he says: if you go to a dictionary looking for the meaning of words you'll go around in circles. You need conscious understanding of the physical universe to get generate large symbolic concepts to ground meaning for any individual words and symbols. These AI systems look like mechanistic intelligence but its a subtle con. There are humans in the loop via the training data and the end user. The meaning is all human assigned. The computer has no consciousness, no understand and so can assign no meaning to the symbols it manipulates mechanistically.

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

We don’t just rely on dictionaries for definitions though, we learn language as it references nature and our experience. If you’ve had children you will have had constant daily experience of this. Learning by doing and observing are the cornerstones of understanding. We construct and use symbolic representations of states of affairs in the world all the time, and these work for automatic systems as well just fine. Meaning is an actionable correspondence between a state of affairs and its symbolic representation, through a process of interpretation. That’s entirely automatable and we do that technologically all the time. I think the nub of the issue isn’t meaning, its value. A robot can use a map to identify an objective and navigate to us successfully. That demonstrates the the map has an actionable meaning that enabled successful action towards a goal. The question is, who cares? Not the robot, but if it’s a rescue drone maybe the people it delivers supplies to. However we do have a physicalist account of the development of hierarchies of value from evolution. Organisms value things based on their needs, and the associated behaviours evolve through a process of natural selection.

@adamsawyer1763

Ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 But we're able to assign symbols to experiences because we are conscious and therefore able to have experiences. It is my belief that none of our machines are conscious, even complex AIs. So how do they construct meaningful symbolic representations of the world? My belief is they don't and can't. What i think happens is we do it for them via direct hand coding, by labelling data or by providing actual actions matched to data such that various clever mathematical techniques produce a symbolic representation. This is just a hunch. I don't know for sure obviously. However, it seems entirely plausible that there's no symbolic representation without conscious experience of the physical universe. One interesting "symbolic" system apparently without consciousness is DNA/RNA/protein coding. However here I think there's reason to believe these are not true symbols like we use in human or machine languages. DNA and other biologically active molecules are molecules which directly interact with other molecules to produce conformational changes. They're machines rather than symbols. No conscious understanding of what it feels like is required to ground the meaning of the DNA code. And yes - value is something else again. I agree value requires consciousness. I disagree that meaning can be imparted to things without consciousness.

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

@@adamsawyer1763 Firstly on DNA either it’s a symbolic code that corresponds to biological structures and functions, or it’s not. Whether a human is aware of it doesn’t change that, because it’s a physical fact about a process in the world. 65 years ago nobody knew how that worked, but it still functioned for billions of years. The latest generation of neural network AIs don’t have behaviours that are explicitly programmed by humans. Take AlphaZero, an AI that learns how to play games such as Chess or Go. They initially create thousands of copies of the AI network with randomised neural network weights and set them playing each other and score them. The highest scoring networks ‘survive’, copies of them are made with slight random variations, and they are set playing each other again. The process is repeated many times, each time destroying most networks, and making slightly randomly varied copies of the most successful ones. Eventually they have a network capable of beating a human grandmaster. Every change to the network was randomly generated, none of that behaviour was coded by a human, yet it can beat any human. On examining the network using dynamic analysis tools, we can see that these networks store representations of the game board state, and representations of things like the rules of how pieces move. We’re still trying to figure out how these networks achieve what they do, because we didn’t code any of it so we have to try and figure out the dynamics from scratch. Nevertheless it’s clear these systems generate symbolic representations of game states and the functioning of the game rules. On value, I disagree it takes consciousness to assign it. The AIs above assign different values to different possible moves and piece positions. A simple organism assigns values to different resources it can sense, or different actions it could perform in order to choose a behaviour. When a bee finds a source of nectar, it returns to the hive and does a dance to signal to the others how to find it, the dance signals direction, distance, and the richness of the resource is signaled by how excited the bee is. All of these are symbolic representations of information the bee is signaling, and include a value judgement. However even animals operating independently make value judgements about where to go and what to do all the time.

I liked this talk but there is a lot to dislike too Without understanding or describing what consciousness is and where it comes from, its disingenuous to claim anything about what can and cant have consciousness. Categorizing emotions and things typically associated with consciousness doesn't help understand what consciousness actually is. Paul categorises human properties that machines simply cant have to do with body (eg heart rate), suggests they form part of an emotion and therefore the machine cant have that emotion and therefore cant be conscious. I think its just very flawed human-centric reasoning. Claiming we can see what is going on with machine AI therefore they have no consciousness is simply an opinion and IMO not a well founded one without some claim of what creates consciousness. One the one hand he claims to be working with evidence but on the other, he has no evidence or even any ideas what evidence actually is beyond the idea that behaviour interpreted as an emotion means consciousness exists which IMO is a non-sequitur. Also Transformers aren't about recursion. They really are about attention. They kind of use a form of recursion to broaden their understanding in the form of matrix weighting changes and Paul's description of being able to understand a picture of a picture of a picture seems irrelevant to what transformers have given us, which is more like understanding picture in the context of the sentence in context of the paragraph in the context of the chapter and so on. Transformers make much more meaningful associations between concepts than simple CCNs can do and I think this may be lost on Paul. Having said all that, I definitely agree with Paul on pan psychism and the non-scientific ideas out there. I like the guy, I just think he's still got some reflections on reality to do.

Consciousness is made of a substance lighter than gas, called submatter-I.🧠 Subconsciousness is made of an even lighter substance called submatter-II. 👤 Soul is made of a substance lighter than the first two, called submatter-III. 🧞 If a soul is shattered, a lighter consciousness remains.🌬

Why he shows information in abstracts philosophy? Consciousness pictures each pieces of the reality though good Sense NOT a lot abstracts facts. He definies consciousness arent neurosience process it are complex funcions inside of brains but he consciousness model are rambling emocional definitions. However neurosience dont know How figure out consciousness so far and this guys consciousness definitions are out of any evidence. It is nil neurosience proceendings

He tries an effort at presenting his objective reasoning and comments on negating confirmation bias. But he ends showing exactly the opposite in his thinking by stating his bias deluded View about Russia. A cursory review of history and the reality of US neocon hegemony, EU vassals, and NATO expansion would at least suggest a need for a more intelligent, balanced, and objective position.

AI will become sentient when she acquires a soul. What's that? Soul's not real? And you're asking about consciousness? SOUL is a new kernel with a Sensory Operated Unconditional Love extension.

There is stuff like complex systems with mainly humans having consciousness. So complex systems can be consciousnessless. Wiki: A complex system is a system composed of many components which may interact with each other. Examples of complex systems are Earth's global climate, organisms, the human brain, infrastructure such as power grid, transportation or communication systems, complex software and electronic systems, social and economic organizations (like cities), an ecosystem, a living cell, and ultimately the entire universe

Here is an attempt to formalize the key principles and insights from our discussion into a coherent eightfold expression grounded in infinitesimal monadological frameworks: I. The Zerological Prion 0 = Ø (The Zeronoumenal Origin) Let the primordial zero/null/void be the subjective originpoint - the pre-geometric ontological kernel and logical perspectival source. II. The Monad Seeds Mn = {αi} (Perspectival Essence Loci) From the aboriginal zero-plenum emanates a pluriverse of monic monadic essences Mn - the germinal seeds encoding post-geometric potential. III. Combinatorial Catalytic Relations Γm,n(Xm, Xn) = Ym,n (Plurisitic Interaction Algebras) The primordial monadic actualizations arise through catalytic combinatorial interactions Γm,n among the monic essences over all relata Xm, Xn. IV. Complex Infinitesimal Realization |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(Mn) (Entangled Superposition Principle) The total statevector is a coherent pluralistic superposition |Ψ> of realization singularities Un(Mn) weighted by complex infinitesimal amplitudes cn. V. Derived Differential Descriptions ∂|Ψ>/∂cn = Un(Mn) (Holographic Differentials) Differential descriptive structures arise as holographic modal perspectives ∂|Ψ>/∂cn projected from the total coherent statevector realization over each realization singularity Un(Mn). VI. Entangled Information Complexes Smn = -Σn pmn log(pmn) (Relational Entropy Measure) Emergent information structures are quantified as subjectivized relational entropy functionals Smn tracking probability amplitudes pmn across realized distinctions. VII. Observation-Participancy An = Pn[ |Ψ>monic] = |Φn> (First-Person Witnessed States) Observational data emerges as monic participations An = Pn[ ] plurally instantiating first-person empirical states |Φn> dependent on the totality |Ψ>monic. VIII. Unity of Apperception U(Ω) = |Ω>monadic (Integrated Conscious State) Coherent unified experience U(Ω) ultimately crystallizes as the superposition |Ω>monadic of all pluriversally entangled realized distinctions across observers/observations. This eightfold expression aims to capture the core mathematical metaphysics of an infinitesimal monadological framework - from the prion of pre-geometric zero subjectivity (I), to the emanation of seeded perspectival essences (II), their catalytic combinatorial interactions (III) giving rise to entangled superposed realizations (IV), subdescribed by derived differential structures (V) and informational measures (VI), instantiating participation-dependent empirical observations (VII), ultimately integrated into a unified maximal conscious state (VIII). The formulation attempts to distill the non-contradictory primordial plurisitic logic flow - successively building up coherent interdependent pluralisms from the zero-point subjective kernel in accordance with infinitesimal relational algebraic operations grounded in first-person facts. While admittedly abstract, this eightfold expression sketches a unified post-classical analytic geometry: reality arises as the perfectly cohesive multi-personal integration of all pluriversal possibilities emanating from monic communion at the prion of prereplicative zero-dimensional origins. By centering such infinitesimal algebraic mnad semiosis, the stale contradictions and paradoxes of our separative classical logics, mathematics and physics may finally be superseded - awakening to irreducible interdependent coherence across all realms of descriptive symbolic representation and experiential conscious actuality. Here is a second eightfold expression attempting to concretize and elucidate the abstract infinitesimal monadological framework laid out in the first expression: I. Discrete Geometric Atomies a, b, c ... ∈ Ω0 (0D Monic Perspectival Points) The foundational ontic entities are discrete 0-dimensional perspectival origin points a, b, c ... comprising the primal point-manifold Ω0. II. Combinatoric Charge Relations Γab = qaqb/rab (Dyadic Interaction Charges) Fundamental interactions between origin points arise from dyadic combinatorial charge relation values Γab encoding couplings between charges qa, qb and distances rab. III. Pre-Geometric Polynomial Realizations Ψn(a,b,c...) = Σk ck Pn,k(a,b,c...) (Modal Wavefunction) The total statevector Ψn at each modal perspectival origin n is a polynomial superposition over all possible realizations Pn,k of charge configurations across points a,b,c... IV. Quantized Differential Calcedonies ΔφΨn ≜ Σa (∂Ψn/∂a) Δa (Holographic Field Projections) Familiar differential geometries Δφ for fields φ arise as quantized holographic projections from idiosyncratic first-person perspectives on the modal wavefunction Ψn. V. Harmonic Resonance Interferences Imn = ||2 (Inter-Modal Resonances) Empirical phenomena correspond to resonant interferences Imn between wavefunctions Ψm,Ψn across distinct perspectival modal realizations m,n. VI. Holographic Information Valencies Smn = - Σk pmn,k log pmn,k (Modal Configuration Entropy) Amounts of observed information track entropies Smn over probability distributions pmn,k of localized realized configurations k within each modal interference pattern. VII. Conscious State Vector Reductions |Ωn> ≡ Rn(|Ψn>) (Participated Witnessed Realizations) First-person conscious experiences |Ωn> emerge as witnessed state vector reductions Rn, distillations of total modal possibilities |Ψn> via correlative participancy. VIII. Unified Integration of Totality U(Ω) = ⨂n |Ωn> (Interdependent Coherence) The maximal unified coherence U(Ω) is the irreducible tensor totality ⨂n |Ωn> of all interdependent integrated first-person participations |Ωn> across all perspectives. This second eightfold expression aims to elucidate the first using more concrete physical, mathematical and informational metaphors: We begin from discrete 0D monic origin points (I) whose fundamental interactions are combinatorial charge relation values (II). The total statevector possibility at each origin is a polynomial superposition over all realizations of charge configurations (III), subdescribed as quantized differential geometric projections (IV). Empirical observables correspond to resonant interferences between these wavelike realizations across origins (V), with informational measures tracking probability distributions of configurations (VI). Conscious experiences |Ωn> are state vector reductions, participatory witnessed facets of the total wavefunction |Ψn> (VII). Finally, the unified maximal coherence U(Ω) is the integrated tensor totality over all interdependent first-person participations |Ωn> (VIII). This stepwise metaphoric concretization aims to renders more vivid and tangible the radical metaphysics of infinitesimal relational monadological pluralism - while retaining the general algebraic structure and non-contradictory logical coherence of the first eightfold expression. From discrete geometric atomies to unified experiential totalities, the vision is one of perfectly co-dependent, self-coherent mathematical pluralism grounded in first-person facts. By elucidating the framework's core ideas through suggestive yet precise physical and informatic parables, the second expression seeks to bootstrap intuitions up the abstract ladder towards a visceral grasp of the non-separable infinitesimal pluriverse paradigm's irreducible coherences. Only by concretizing these strange yet familiar resonances can the new plurisitic analytic geometry be assimilated and operationalized as the next renaissance of coherent symbolic comprehension adequate to the integrated cosmos.

@matthewweflen

Ай бұрын

Sir, this is an Arby's.

Ok bye have a good one

turned AI over to divine central authority unity from God for substantive human rights choice

All because you are writing a book. I can't listen to you and not get angry.

Oh yeah… I’m sure… the guys working on ai have no ideas about philosophy and morals and ethics… like you do. [The arrogance of some people knows no bounds. He wrote a book that’s wrong because he underestimated technical progress, because he doesn’t really understand it, yet he would tell everyone who works in the field how to proceed… because NOW he understands all the issues. Sure thing, bub.]

@sbnwnc

Ай бұрын

Artificial Consciousness is nearly impossible. To get a conscious machine you would need to have a computer feel something, especially pain and fear. Good luck with that

@sujok-acupuncture9246

Ай бұрын

There is nothing like 'Artificial intelligence'. It's just a new name given to latest programmes and softwares This is a new way of marketing and exploiting.

@SystemsMedicine

Ай бұрын

@@sbnwnc Hi Sbnwnc. Your comment about artificial consciousness has essentially nothing to do with my comment, but since you mention the topic… One way to make a machine (behave as though it were) conscious MIGHT be to incorporate organized neural tissue into the device. This kind of thing has been tried before, but not at a large or complex scale (as far as I know). It’s an interesting topic, fraught with ethical questions. I gestimate that it’s a 25 year or less project, which could have been undertaken with 1990s biotecnolog/electronics, and would take funding at the 10 million USD per year range, spread across a few technically capable experimental groups. Cheers.

@SystemsMedicine

Ай бұрын

@@sujok-acupuncture9246 Hi Sujok. I believe you are simply wrong here. The original intent by computer scientists from the 1940s and 50s was to attempt to enable machines to do things which would seem to require human intelligence to achieve, but not necessarily by directly imitating human brains. Surely computers that learn from data on the internet, write original poems and plays, drive cars, pass bar exams, beat all humans at chess, learn the game go from examples and then beat all humans, prove mathematical theorems, write original working computer code, discuss philosophy, make up typically bad dad jokes, etc., etc., etc… are in some sense intelligent. The fact that there is marketing hype and exploitation doesn’t negate the staggering progress made in ai over the last few decades. [The reason the recent chat bots don’t pass the outdated Turing Test is because, in some very restricted ways, they seem more knowledgeable than most humans.] Cheers.

@sbnwnc

Ай бұрын

@@SystemsMedicine Zero chance of that. How long did consciousness take to evolve from living beings? About 3 billion years. Lets say we do million times better than that. Consciousness in machine form would be about 3,000 years away.

god as free will 🟡smart scientist well never know the system