The most accessible of these talks yet, by far. Excellent. The answer between the options of solipsism and agent-independent objectivity is simply: it’s a multi-player virtual reality.

Excellent talk. Pries open new thoughts.

Beautiful insight!

Thank you We must realize that open mind give space to the unknow. It is this spaceness dimension of "I realy do not know." that knowledge and everything we perceive and conceptualiuze arises.

Great talk thank you

Excellent! Thank you

Good one !

excellent

Lovely

I've listened to this several times now, and I still don't see how we can get off the ground with bodies and embodiment. First off, it's not at all the case that we don't deduce consciousness based on the behavior of other organisms. Indeed, whole debates about which organisms have consciousness are predicated on this. When one person says worms are conscious and another says "hogwash, they are clearly automatons" the very next step is to start delineating worms behaviors that support one or the other supposition. More fundamentally, however, bodies themselves are a part of the quasi-private universe. So, to even say what the body of a human is to a cat in the classical world presupposes all sorts of knowledge about cat perception which is impossible to have even in principle. We don't even have to appeal to the possible mysteries of cat perception here. A close study of human perception reveals that what we call "depth" perception is really a sort of 2D plus perception where all kinds of cognitive deductions about objects are dumped into the plus. As primates we have a lot of plus information regarding surfaces and graspable objects. That's because our ancestors lived not only lived in trees and picked fruit but excelled at this to an extent that is miraculous compared to other animals. It's highly unlikely that the cat likewise perceives objects or even surfaces in the same way. Cat surface proficiency is more akin to balance. However, cats as miraculous hunters almost certainly perceive living bodies with a lot of plus-ness that we lack. It's easily conceivable that all living things pop-out from their environment and seem to move independently of background, for example. Adding, on quantum quasi-privateness only compounds this classical divide. The notion of body is just inextricably wound up in the very subjectivity that we hope to understand. Moreover, to just cut to the chase, I think the concept that you really want here is not body but soul. I get why that would be immediately off-putting and I don't expect it to be taken lightly but this notion of a "locus and essence of subjectivity" is precisely the idea that soul is designed to capture. I say this to say this route of seeking intersubjectivity through the localization of subjectivity is road that is well traveled but has never be made amenable to physicalism alone. I don't think that's a reason to be scared off it necessarily butvI suspect that a lot if physicists if they groked the intellectual history here would be.

Thx

Can each quantum system be an agent?

At min 37 Markus presents the thought experiment of a lonely world. Markus, the only survivor of the next coronavirus, conducts a quantum experiment and is able to predict. What about intersubjectivity and the other agent? Jacques responds that the intersubjectivity is retained in those who built the lasers and the rest of the equipment and proposes instead a scnerio where Markus is born ex-nihilo without any lasers. There are too many contradictions in Jacques answers. He had previously said that the instruments are part of the observer (min 4:50) and that the cat had to be alive to make contact with Alioscia. Well, let's also create the laser ex nihilo, or let only the corpse remain of the cat. Markus's thought experiment is valid and it totally destroy the role of intersubjectivity claimed by Jacques. There is an external world independent of any observer.

9:33 "[T]he world as experienced by no-one in particular." The world is created by my experiences and my preferences/fears. There are no two worlds alike. Pienaar's world is different altogether from my mom's world. An ontology that says "anything can be" is vacuously true and totally useless.

Abstract ME away⁉️ Whatever helps you sleep at night and look in the mirror, genius⚡️🤯😱😳🥶😇

Stop it, gust give me formula for montecarlo calculations