“The world is divided into two classes, those who believe the incredible, and those who do the improbable.” -Oscar Wilde

My computer is definitely conscious it knows exactly when and how to piss me off.

@marksevel7696

2 жыл бұрын

Get an Apple

@readynowforever3676

2 жыл бұрын

Mine too. And it often ask me questions like "What did you think of Whole Foods?". And I say back: "Why don't you really impress me & tell me what you thought of Whole Foods".

@NaryVynnsark

2 жыл бұрын

@@marksevel7696 you mean get a sheep?

@rohanjagdale97

2 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

computers are so wonderfully smart---yet, when i perform a task with no results and do that over and over and even in different ways, ya'd think this smart thing would tell me what to do---but no---it sits there without even a grin

Some of the most reasonable commentary on the subject I've heard in this series.

@scoreprinceton

2 жыл бұрын

Science is too busy with matter, particle and the universe as a whole to be concerned about questions of the kind asked in this conversation. We have words that are listed in an encyclopedia without any knowledge about them, such as this “consciousness” - perhaps because words are easier to conceive than to validate.

@syriouskash537

2 жыл бұрын

@@scoreprinceton BINGO!!! And this is what is holding them back. They are like Mr. Spock in that he is extremely smart...... but afraid to dive into emotion.... limiting his understanding of the FULL spectrum. In the scientists case?? He is also extremely smart....... but afraid to be ridiculed if they should dive into the spiritual or ... metaphysical. IF you are afraid to inquire in the metaphysical because you cant measure it? Then how would you know if such a thing is a reality?

@lutkedog1

2 жыл бұрын

@@syriouskash537 When under Anesthesia your Spirit would still be awake that is how you know you have neither a Spirit or soul.

wow , god bless u all , no pun intended this is so kool im so happy to be part of this conversation onward thru the fogg folks

One the most satisfying videos I have ever watched on consciousness.

I am of the view that animals are definitely conscious. Different animals can take different actions in similar situations based on how they are raised. Like a domestic dog will happily greet his master on returning home, or a cat will allow his human to pet him. But a wild cat or dog will react in very different manners. This shows that animals have a sense of identity. This sense is reinforced by their growth environment and hence different animals of same species have very different responses to similar situations. In my view, I think this demonstrates that these animals have consciousness. Yes they are not as intelligent as us but are definitely conscious. Also think it should be possible for AI to achieve consciousness at some point. Since modern neural networks are pretty much a simulation of neurons interacting in our brain. At some point it should be possible for these neural networks to have sufficient computing power to become conscious. But it will be only possible to test once we have a general AI. Current targeted AI's simply don't analyse info freely enough to attain consciousness, regardless of their computing power.

"We don't know if apes are conscious".... oh, please, come on....

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

yes, he was lazy here--he knows bonobos are self aware---he was just trying to stick to OUR high level of consciousness---an ape or bonobo may be self aware, but not because he sophiticatedly talks to himself---he limitedly talks to his fellow 'apes'---writes nor reads no books.

@blindlemon9

2 жыл бұрын

In a strict sense, we absolutely cannot claim to know that apes are conscious. How could we ever know, since consciousness is inherently a first-person phenomenon, and we can only ever know another species on a third-person basis? For that matter, how would we ever even place a probability on simian consciousness? The most that we can do is use an argument from analogy, but analogies are notoriously problematic. “Oh, please, come on...” is not a persuasive argument for consciousness in apes.

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

@@blindlemon9 1st, let me say, i enjoy all participants here---so much better than FB twitter or other places---thinkers are here---i have no idea if some are 5 times more educated or smarter than me or v/v. ---to answer about apes being conscious---1st, is some definition of consciousness which i have replied all over the place on these yT discusions on this subject---2nd, you can't tell me your friends and family are not conscious//self aware?--able to adjust, try to adjust their environment? We do need, on an evolutionary scale, the line that divides instinct from conscious action. Crows cross way over the line as do bonobos, many sea mammals etc. i see no "strict" sense". i mean not to insult, but your statement has too much philosophy in it and without learning bio, chem, physics, and math, you will just be good at killing time in a bar. (seriously, that harshness was only for emphasis and my true belief that my education and continued reading and debating have value---if i am wrong, then my bar talk just kills time :)---plz read//see YTs on how apes respond in only a way that can be called 'self aware'

@xaviertorrence2559

2 жыл бұрын

@@philipose66 I'm afraid @bindlemon9 is right on all counts. Your own points aren't invalid, for the most part, but depend on a significantly broader and perhaps weaker definition of "consciousness", and you also make a few crucial unfounded assumptions. Bindlemon is referring to the subjective core of consciousness, to the question of whether a thing experiences qualia, and whether or not there is something-it-is-like to be that thing. This phenomenon, whatever it may be specifically, is felt by each of us as our own, and is inaccessible to others. In the same way, we cannot access others' experiences directly, we can only feel our own approximations of them. There is no other known way to detect the presence of "consciousness" itself than to experience it, so we can never be sure that anything other than ourselves has or does not have it. We use, as they say, arguments from analogy - "other humans behave like I do when they get hurt, so they must feel pain like I do", but that is logically hollow. I feel the need to say that as a neuroscience and philosophy grad, I fully believe that the brain is in some senses the source of consciousness, but technically humanity just doesn't have the evidence to prove that. And it certainly does not have the evidence to say that things other than the brain CANNOT have consciousness, in the sense of subjective experience. That's why they asked the table for its input. Your arguments for proof of other consciousnesses are in fact arbitrarily established metrics. They can be useful tests of behavior, but (and this is a problem that frustrates me daily) they cannot be truly logically connected to consciousness. Specifically, in your two replies you use "self aware" as the proof of bonobo consciousness and "tries or is able to adjust to their environment" as proof of consciousness in friends and family. The latter argument, "adjusts to environment", is perhaps the worst of the two because nearly every single living thing does that (arguably some non-living things too), including organisms that are not intuitively labeled conscious. Myriad species of bacteria, plants and fungi, not to mention every animal ever, take in information about their environment, process it in some way, and emits a certain chemical or a specific electrical pulse to respond. The first definition, "self aware", is similarly arbitrary in its choice and in its application: humans are really bad at conclusively defining "self" and "awareness" and at proving those things are present (you may think of the mirror test). Arguments about those words are a whole other kettle of fish, so I'll just leave something for you to "read//see YT" about a robot spectrum.ieee.org/qbo-passes-mirror-test-is-therefore-selfaware#toggle-gdpr . Any line drawn between "instinct" and "conscious action" is a line drawn by humans making their best guess, and not reflective of an underlying truth about consciousness. Unfortunately, there are few bright lines to draw through evolution, and none that can be drawn without making an arbitrary choice somewhere.

@georgedoyle7971

2 жыл бұрын

@@xaviertorrence2559 Well said!! Materialism is clearly an incomplete theory of reality, existence and experience.

Very interesting and worthwhile video.

Yes. The problem is people act like consciousness and awareness of consciousness are the same thing. Awareness is immaterial and works like an operating system that navigates information the material brain(consciousness) processes.

@larsfaye292

2 жыл бұрын

I think of things exactly the same way.

@quidestveritas

2 жыл бұрын

Those words are literally synonyms. Whether I say I am 'conscious' or 'aware' of something does not make a difference. I'm not convinced an operating system is the best analogy either. There are great mysteries regarding consciousness / awareness that don't come down to calculation or administration.

@jjay6764

2 жыл бұрын

@@quidestveritas there not the same. How can the material brain be aware of itself? How does the material brain initiate memory recall? How does the material brain tell the material brain which memories it wants the material brain to recall? Why is the material brain fooled by optical illusions but "we" aren't if "we" are just the material brain? What about qualia? How does the material brain have a me experience? Awareness is immaterial, non local and quantum as shown by the recent Wigner's Friend experiments. These are questions materialism can't answer and I don't blindly make materialism the default answer without any evidence.

@r.davidsen

2 жыл бұрын

@@quidestveritas No. Simply being aware of something, does not mean that you are aware thst you are aware. Same with consciousness. Simply being conscious and awake does not mean that you are conscious of your own consciousness. Let me put it this way: Are you always aware of your consciousness when you dream? No, you are not. Most of the time, you are not even aware that you are dreaming. It is possible to be aware of your own consciousness in a dream, which is called lucid dreaming, but this rarely happens.

At 4:44 In Psychology I learned to prepare myself before going to bed to be able to enter into my dream state consciously to stop a nightmare and it worked. I believe that with practice anyone can do this.

@delq

2 жыл бұрын

Can you elaborate ? How did you prepare ?

@like-icecream

2 жыл бұрын

how did you know you would've had a nightmare?

@thomassoliton1482

2 жыл бұрын

I have done this a couple times. When you have a recurrent nightmare (in particular) it suggests you have some stress, some fear, which is really the recognition that you are in some life situation you don't know how to deal with. In terms of dreaming, I used to find myself on a beach being chased by a monster, something like the creature from the black lagoon. These dreams can wake you up and you become "lucid" - being aware that it is a dream before you fully awaken. In that case, you can simply say to yourself, next time this happens, I need to realize this creature is just a dream and face it, knowing it cannot hurt me. If you do that once, it won't come back. Many peoplel have falling dreams - falling off a cliff. Same thing. Make a mental note, next time, don't be afraid, just control the dream and fly. It's fun! Generally I think dreaming is (in terms of real life) mostly a nonsense mishmash of present and past events and designed to integrate recent and past experience. I don't think dream diaries are all that helpful. More helpful is trying to be aware of your emotional reactions in real life - especially negative ones, and understanding the origin of the reaction.

@delq

2 жыл бұрын

@@thomassoliton1482 yes i have had this falling/jumping sensations in the middle of the night and i would jolt out and realise it was a dream.

@mohammedghander9243

2 жыл бұрын

For limited conditions only, but not all such as nice dreams, empty your bowel before sleep (it might happen or not). Still God (Allah) there overpowering. He Has programmed us all (Quran)

Wow, great video!

What a beautiful mind! Such a wonderful explanation!

Sounds like we really need to define exactly what consciousness is first

@delq

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, and a lot of them confuse consciousness with self awareness or recursive complex behavior/intelligence that is a result of higher complexity but is in no way related to the nature of experience which fundamentally constitutes consciousness.

@SandipChitale

2 жыл бұрын

IMO consciousness is not a thing. It is a concept. It is a shorthand word for a class of phenomenon that brains generate/exhibit with the attached bodies they control. We use the term consciousness for economy of expression. It is by convention we understand what we mean.Think of it like this somewhat, we use word light to really mean visible spectrum of light that human eye can see. we do not enumerate every frequency in that range. And it is ok to use consciousness as a short hand in casual day to day discussions. However, your point is very well taken. In specific discussions about consciousness we must define which precise meaning we are going to talk about.

@SandipChitale

2 жыл бұрын

@symo completely agree. And especially when the topics are as serious as consciousness, free will, living life and so on. Having said that the short video discussion format may be the issue but they should at least spend few words defining the terms under discussion. For example, I was shocked, in 2021, he said that we do not know if apes are conscious. Any life form that tries to defend or promote itself is self aware by the fact of awareness of its identity and exhibits behaviors that we put under the definition of consciousness and hence is conscious.

@RolandHuettmann

2 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is the only thing we know about and are sure that is exists. All else is derived. But what is it in essence? Maybe we never will know unless we can put ourselves outside of consciousness? Consciousness may be a property of our mind? Is the mind physical? I doubt it unless "physical" is defined in another new way. There is a huge gap. Understanding here would mean understanding of understanding itself. There is no real object. It reminds me of the Tao: Can you hear the clapping of one hand? It has to clap with itself.

@chrisgreen8803

2 жыл бұрын

@@RolandHuettmann when you are given a general anaesthetic you aren’t conscious during the operation. Even if we don’t fully understand how, it’s obviously a product of our brain

Perhaps the most important point in this conversation is a question Dr. Stickgold asks: how can we know if something is conscious? We have overwhelmingly good reasons to believe that other people are (most of the time) conscious, and since anyone who accepts mainstream science must accept that we are just a slight variation on many other animals, we have good reasons to believe that animals are conscious, at least those similar to us in some fundamental ways. But suppose you set out to build a conscious computer? How could you know if you'd succeeded? We all talk to Siri, Google, or Alexa, but there isn't good reason to believe they are conscious. They are bots that can have a conversation, coming close if not altogether succeeding at the Turing Test. But should we therefore believe they are conscious? It is, as the philosophers say, a hard problem.

@Yoctopory

7 ай бұрын

This is precisely the question that has preoccupied me the most for years now. I could well imagine that views on this could be divided in the future. I could well imagine that views on this could be divided in the future. There will be those who want to grant rights to artificial intelligence and those who think that AI is just clockwork and that there is no ethical problem in treating it badly. How would we ever know?

@ReasonableForseeability

Ай бұрын

This is one of the rare comments with which I agree. Many people are confusing Consciousness with Intelligence in the context of computers. Like @Yoctopory below.

.“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don’t know the answer.”

@Closminding

2 жыл бұрын

I refuse to answer that question because I don't want to think about it. I don't want it invading my consciousness.

@Jesse__H

2 жыл бұрын

Refusing on the ground of not knowing is always preferable to lying! Sometimes, you ask a very spiritual person a question like this, they'll talk your ear off as if they have the whole thing figured out. Whereas it's the scientist who is _truthful_ enough to give only a partial answer when only partial understanding exists.

@Closminding

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jesse__H yes it's interesting that. However a truly spiritual person won't do that. They'll just smile at you and keep their mouth shut. Sometimes keeping your mouth shut is the best way. And you don't always have to have an answer to a scientists jibings. Spiritual knowledge isn't about having an answer to all criticism cos you're threatened by it (although you're probably likely to go through that phase). It's existensial, immovable and you know - at a very deep level indeed - that your existence (and your consciousness) depends on it. So you can afford to smile (whilst keeping your mouth shut).

@Dee-nonamnamrson8718

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jesse__H I'd say scientists are just as likely to lie.

@megustaav

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 in science you simply check sources and evaluate yourself, check if they are peer reviewed and so on. In magical woo woo spiritual case, you cannot really do that. All you can do is take it on faith.

.."May be. It is a funny question because we know so little". Best answer I've heard so far in CTT.

The man who invented the polygraph was an interesting guy - Baxter. He hooked up a plant to the polygraph electrodes & got a baseline reading. Then the thought entered his mind to hold a lighter to a leaf on the plant to see if it would react & at the moment the thought entered his head, the chart showed the plant "screamed" - a parabolic reaction! Then it calmed down & he actually held fire to the leaf & it "screamed" again. Also, legitimate remote viewers are accessing some aspect of universal consciousness. It may be somewhat akin to smashing a radio. The radio is toast but the signal continues whether the radio can decode & transmit the message or not...

@tobysmith2081

2 жыл бұрын

It's not a signal, it's a radio

I think we can only be certain about ourselves which are conscious, we don't even know 100% whether anybody else is truly conscious or not... that's a bit scary if I think about it....

@delq

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely !

@delq

2 жыл бұрын

@Sky Gardener true indeed

Loved this episode

We honestly don't know if any person other than us is conscious. We are just taking people's words that they are. They might be mimicking it for all we know. That's why it's so hard to solve the puzzle of conscious, we only have our own selves as a example.

This guy’s notion that discovering the foundations of consciousness is a scientific question has a giant hole in it. We don’t have a meaningful way to observe consciousness, except through observing physical process. It seems almost certain they’re deeply related, but consciousness itself isn’t observable apart from the “experience” of existing through it. That makes it seem like an irreducible step of inference we can’t side step - not that we should stop doing experiments that relate to this on many levels, but “knowing” where consciousness emerges isn’t what we learn. At root, we don’t know that “consciousness” doesn’t pervade all matter.

@rahuldhammi6153

2 жыл бұрын

True. Consciousness cannot be observed as it’s the very instrument through which all experiences arise. Investigating and getting to know about consciousness though physical means is something like a man standing on his own shoulders.

@Captain-Cosmo

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, dfMRI tech is actually allowing us to peer into the conscious brain. The brain is physical; consciousness is simply what the brain does. In 50 years, we'll have a pretty good picture of things.

@megustaav

2 жыл бұрын

I think in not so many years from now, we will be able to transfer data from brain throgh some interface and in some sense remove this problem of consciousness being only experience for observer. I think the last thing he said about understanding lightning is all we gotta trust now. We are currently at the very begining and consciousness may look like a spiritual woo or gods creation or anything, but with small steps I think it will be finally resolved one way or another.

"But to understand the nature of consciousness one question we can ask is: Can consciousness be derived from non-biological systems?" This question will not help at all in understanding the nature of consciousness, but the question shows that the person who asks it is far away from "understanding" the nature of consciousness.

@snap-off5383

2 жыл бұрын

Building conscious beings is exactly how we'll learn to understand consciousness.

@FarFromZero

2 жыл бұрын

@@snap-off5383 You can't even check if another biological being has consciousness. The less you can check if a machine has consciousness, which gets worse because such kind of machines will most probably be programmed to claim that they have it. Additionally no programmer on earth has any idea how to program consciousness. Beside this every single definition of consciousness is either rubbish or tautological. If you want to understand consciousness you have to examine it.

Great talk.

Thanks

I'm not so sure that this professor is conscious of his conscience!

@rangerpartners1971

2 жыл бұрын

;-) Etherist Tesla spanked atomist Einstein (& other physicist/mathematicians): "They are deep thinkers, but not clear thinkers." Some things - especially consciousness - don't lend themselves to current quantification measures & methods science is limited to.

5:00 he needs to explore lucid dreaming because we are definitely conscious while asleep, we're just not awake (obviously). I think every philosopher, quantum scientist everyone should practice lucid dreaming. You'll be able to access answers you may not be able to answer in your "awake" state.

@borderlands6606

2 жыл бұрын

Unconscious is a misnomer. We can be asleep, drunk, stoned, anaesthetised, incapacitated, delusional and ecstatic, but never un-conscious.

@ThePitchblue

2 жыл бұрын

@@borderlands6606 it seems that he is only acknowledging the awake state, alpha and beta brain waves approximately, which is silly, because they aren't the only ones

@PseudoAccurate

2 жыл бұрын

@@borderlands6606 There's no other word to describe not being conscious than unconscious. I've been unconscious. Maybe you just haven't noticed.

@megustaav

2 жыл бұрын

@@borderlands6606 remember what was before you were born? No, maybe becouse you were uncousiness. You were unconsciousness on top of not having a body and then after some time after being born you "got online".

Awesome!

Best one yet

If you want to understand consciousness, just read the comments here. Obviously, nearly everyone here claims to have figured it out and is willing to share their insight.

What a brilliant conscious organism!

@philipmcdonagh1094

2 жыл бұрын

Humans, bags of mostly water.

The answer is Yes. In my view it will take approx 200 years to achieve. And as yet, as stated by Robert, we have not arrived at that point from where to begin. However, the door to unfolding this quest is defined by the statement "Consciousness is its content, the content of consciousness is consciousness" and only when this obscure axiom is fully understood will this journey begin. I could begin by giving an overview of what I feel are the steps involved, but the more important question at this time is "is there anything to fear" and the answer is No.

My mother had a brain stroke and after that she was most of time semi conscious and she can not speak or move but after her brain was damaged she was still have same personality when she get awake for litle times she was hugs me smile to me it is not about the brain it is the soul which never damaged God bless her in heaven now l know she in better place till l met her again and seeing her face and her beautiful Caring smiles.

"the brain has a mind of its own" by Richard Restak, MD insights from a practicing neurologist-------also for zen people, ya gotta get to read and listen to Alan Watts---he will make you more conscious

If consciousness arises from the “push and pull” interactions of molecules following simple physical laws what would cause it to arise from such disparate interactions? If the world is composed of many simple insentient elemental entities juxtaposed to each other following simple mechanical rules in a certain pattern of behavior, why would we suppose any of them are conscious? No entity “knows” in any sense of what the others are doing. This is illustrated by the Turing machine analogy: In a computer’s “memory” unit there is stored a list of numbers encoding simple logical and arithmetical operations, and all a computer is doing at any one time is mechanically (or electronically) carrying out the instruction corresponding to one of these code numbers. The total behavior of the computer is simply the net result of the execution of many of these instructions, one after another. Since only a few interactions are happening at any one time, it is hard to see how the computer could be conscious. If the computer were slowed down (as is possible) so that each simple step was stretched out over several seconds, the pattern and sequence of the steps would remain the same. Why would executing the instructions at one speed generate conscious awareness of the thoughts being simulated, while at another speed there would be no consciousness of these thoughts? Changing the construction of the computer should presumably not affect its consciousness as long as it is programmed to carry out those steps, for this assures that it’s behavior will exhibit the same pattern. Say the computer instructions are used to set up a giant “game” which could be played by a child step by step (in the manner of a Turing machine). As the child carries out those steps, will the same consciousness of the simulated thoughts be manifested there-stretched out, perhaps, over several years? This hardly seems plausible, but otherwise how are we to judge which of many computers with equivalent programs will be conscious and which ones will not? One of the best analogies is Leibnitz’ of the grain mill as the inside of the brain. We could see the mechanics of the hardware or brain, the c-fibers that fire when we hurt ourselves, but the wetware of the brain won’t explain the experience of pain. That’s can’t be programmed into a computer. In other words you could explain the workings of such a computer or machine that mimicked humans without ever referring to the notion of pain. Conscious awareness is something totally different qualitatively from the body. This suggests consciousness may be a primary irreducible, mathematically indescribable fundamental element the way an electron is (a quanta of electricity); A quanta of consciousness.

@Mediumal

2 жыл бұрын

Simple single cells of life evolved from the inanimate earth billions of years ago, more complex organisms evolved tens of millions of years ago, even more complex societies of animals and plants came next, then came culture, intellect and self awareness less than a few million years ago. Modern human intellect probably less than a million years ago.These are evolutionary developments that some might argue are inevitable processes, and allowing for the chance right circumstances will always occur given sufficient time. Consciousness therefore was an inevitable evolutionary process once we humans had evolved from the primitive ape that was a common ancestor to us and all our hominid cousins we currently share this planet with. An interesting question is: What comes next? - if anything.

@mehryaarvid

2 жыл бұрын

Very wise. When I was reading the “age of spiritual machines” from Raymond kurzweil, it was calculating how much raw tera flops performance is needed to have human level intelligence. And I was wondering, how you can turn an algorithm machine, basically is complex calculator to a sentient being by adding more transistors?

@cultist100

2 жыл бұрын

Ok, it takes about 26 fundamental constants/laws of physics to make our universe suitable for life. Given those constants could have been almost anything, the chances of any one being suitable is like getting the best hand possible in a casino. Now 26 perfect hands in that casino in a row. Makes it tough for me to think we are a chance/random occurrence in a universe where only chance created laws of physics suitable for life. Or pre-life/prebiotic chemical processes in some cave somewhere created life, considering we can't create it with a modern lab with glassware, computers, high speed scientific equipment.

@mrweepz

2 жыл бұрын

@@cultist100 your model assumes that all the combinations are equally possible and stable, which is not when it comes to the laws of physics. I'd say it's not a chance of random occurrence rather than a result of most probable combination which is stable. (maybe there is a limited subset of those)

@cultist100

2 жыл бұрын

Can you put any science around that or is that just speculation? Because I have seen no science that proves what you are saying. What I have seen is that the constants don't have to be what they are. Please point me to equations, science, whatever that indicates what appears to be your speculation is correct.

Science is the tool we use for countless reasons to find answers we ultimately feel comfortable with. But the tools that comprise science are inescapably 100% human in perspective. We created hammers to fix problems, but they must fit *our* hands. It seems the definition of science will have to be reassessed in the near future. Stickgold and quite a few others are babes in the woods, thinking we can "get there". That threshold of understanding will always be a moving target. But we pursue things like this because we're supposed to; it's a survival imperative, and it's a good thing we've got the Stickgolds helping pull us forward. That's all we've really got.

That was just great

Smartest insight from this video was indeed from the table.

@crownhic6827

2 жыл бұрын

🤣 ouch

@bodhisattva3774

2 жыл бұрын

Lol

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

that is where philosophy will muddle pure science--fresh college 1st semester i was asked if this chair exists---a good language and thinking exercise, but accomplishes NOthing in science

@NebulaGray

2 жыл бұрын

A shinobi must read the hidden meanings within hidden meanings. Boruto naruto next generations.

@crownhic6827

2 жыл бұрын

@@NebulaGray the table is sturdy. No one challenges the table to an endurance test.

I believe everything is conscious, down to the last neutrino. Everything that is, is so and realizes it is so. Just because we're unable to recognize it, doesn't mean it isn't.

@blaster-zy7xx

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you Depak Chopra and his woo woo tin foil hat crowd. Just because we can't see pink unicorns flying around Jupiter doesn't mean they don't exist.

@delq

2 жыл бұрын

@@blaster-zy7xx if you take enough hallucinogens, you too will believe in pink fairies and whatnot even more realistically than jupiter and its rings, what makes you think they are less "real" than the "real outer world". First of all what do you mean by existence ? Define it. You cannot define existence without bringing into it some concept of conscious perception. Lol

@blaster-zy7xx

2 жыл бұрын

@@delq "Existence" means that it is still there irrespective if anyone perceives it or not.

@delq

2 жыл бұрын

@@blaster-zy7xx That is not even a definition of existence. Because if that were true i would say there exists exactly 7 unicorns flying east of jupiter right now and you would have no way of disproving me without actually looking at jupiter and ask me "where are the unicorns ?"

@blaster-zy7xx

2 жыл бұрын

@@delq No. You incorrectly CLAIMING existance is not existence.

Actually Epicurus from all people had some pretty good guesses about how lighting and rain and hail happen in a thunderstorm about 2200 years ago, it was just that the method itself (the modern scientific method) was not established yet and also he was not having any particular interest to go too deep on it because of his philosophy about "natural philosophy" as they called it back then. So i dont thin we have a problem of not putting the right question in relation to conciousness but more like we haven't taken it seriously until relatively recently.

In retrospect what qualifies us to make an assessment about something that can't necessarily be described outside of whatever constraints would be completely narrow.

5:15, I see consciousness as awareness, a tree is conscious, all life is conscious and symbiotic to all life, it’s natural,it’s nature

@allwheeldrive

2 жыл бұрын

Agree, though how that consciousness is defined would have to expand. All living things - even the ones that live very slowly, like rocks - "know" what they're supposed to do. It's not really random, and can't be, because it ultimately all balances out like it should.

I was drawn to this video by the title. I was disappointed when it became clear that these gentlemen have a presupposition that the brain is required for consciousness, or otherwise stated the consciousness is a result of processes in the brain. Thus, one would assume that they are limited to physiological naturalism. What if consciousness exists outside of physicality, and the brain is merely a means for this consciousness to manipulate a physical self in the physical universe. What if consciousness in not an epiphenomenon of the material universe , but instead it is consciousness that is the fundamental from which materiality emerges as an epiphenomenon.

@mountainjay

2 жыл бұрын

Welcome to closer to "truth". That's what they do here, give misleading titles like "the evidence of God's existance" and then have the video content be "there is no evidence I guess". I saw a recent interview with Robert and was very unimpressed.

@borderlands6606

2 жыл бұрын

@@mountainjay It's the academic version of Scooby Doo. A perambulation through vying causal strategies that always ends in the triumph of the mundane over the numinous, without saying why?

@megustaav

2 жыл бұрын

you can have milion explenations like you gave, but all what we have points now to brain being responsible for consciousness. We recently got a paper that explained connection between brain and general anesthesia(the way it works as it was a mystery for like 130 years). If we get any good testable hipotesis that point in other direction then materialism, we will explore that. As of know we got hundreds of reglions, new age voodoo, mystical woo, and people claiming some stuff after using drugs, but thats not enough. Lets take other property of the brain, calculating flight trajectory of the ball that is going to be thrown or processing visuals, sound. These are all emergent properites of the brain and I think everybody agrees that it is so. We got animals that can trace blood and electric signals in water, and for their brain it has to be also emergent property. Currently, we got no reason to think that consciousness is any different then that.

@borderlands6606

2 жыл бұрын

@@megustaav What emerges, that satisfies an exclusively physicalist reading of reality? Unless consciousness is like bile or hair, emergence is woo.

@megustaav

2 жыл бұрын

@@borderlands6606 emergence is simply the process we do not understand yet. Like lightning 2000 years ago. We saw effect of it and so on, but process was a mystery. Same is today with consciousness. We all expericnce it. We got methotds to manipulate it. We got methods to disable it, but we don't know the process of emergence. Following the very same logic, we don't know how calculations of the brain necessary to throw the ball emerged, yet we do not state that they are not product of the brain. Because of all soul and spirtual woo the same is impossible to simple assume for consciousness. We do assume that, becasue examining the brain gives best results. Examing spiritual woo and religious claims gives us nothing.

Beautiful epistemological profound & poignant conclusion. 7:45

He really had me in the first half.

surely as long as an entity qualifies to be aware and respond to external stimuli then - yes - | who are we to dictate what consciousness is...

@kevinfisher466

2 жыл бұрын

we are the universe experiencing it self.

@delq

2 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is the substance of experience. No more, no less ?

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

single cell bio 'animals and even a bit more, respond to stimuli---they are not self aware, tho

@delq

2 жыл бұрын

@@philipose66 how do you know ?

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

@@delq how do i know a single cell animal or a tree or table from a tree is not conscious?---evolution shows me the progression of biological entities more and more capable of controlling or trying to control their environment. To do that, an entity must know it is in an environment and know as much about that environment as possible---hardly does a worm know these things---sea mammals and some apes like bonobos, are quite good but physically limited and language limited. language is how our brain tgells our mind what the freak is going on---we are real good at that

I like him, he is quite humble and open minded. But he is the old generation of thinkers as well. We will start teaching consciousness eventually as humans, thanks to the new generation of thinkers and technology available to them. It is consciousness which creates the mechanics of the world. This reality is what would be better called a simulation, 13.7 billion years old, but only one of the possible paths for awareness units, which you and I represent. Anyone can access this knowledge.

I like the part about the table. I been thinking that since I was 4 years old

We can also ask: What are the signs consciousness creates the environment? Here is one phenomenon in particular that clearly stands out: Pattern formation. - All biological life creates pattern formation. So consciousness can follow. But much more than biological also forms patterns, both at the atomic level and on large scales in the universe. So whether this is hiding some kind of consciousness is not a meaningless question.

Taking a TV set apart and analyzing its components in order to figure out how movies are made.

I think even science has its limitations! Essentially science is an attempt to describe the world around us. I also believe that we all have a soul. Maybe science can describe a soul but I am not convinced of that as yet. There is this energy within all of us that is the essence of each of us.

@con.troller4183

2 жыл бұрын

There is energy in a fire but it isn't conscious. The key is configuration, not just existence.

@Pheer777

2 жыл бұрын

Science is great at modeling the natural world around us, but it's important to not mistake the map for the territory.

@con.troller4183

2 жыл бұрын

@@Pheer777 It is also important to know that there are bad, better and best maps. Science is a better map than ones including the soul as a destination. Arguably at present, science is our best map. IMO.

@Pheer777

2 жыл бұрын

@@con.troller4183 I wouldn't put it like that. "Science" is not a thing or a map in and of itself but rather a methodology of systematic, critical inquiry. Scientific ideas can be disproven by new findings but you can never technically "prove" a scientific theory - they just become more and more accepted within the mainstream. It would be impossible to even know if we found a perfect "theory of everything" because by definition science is incapable of making 100% authoritative truth claims about the nature of reality. Science is very useful at explaining how the natural world behaves but I'd argue it's intrinsically unequipped to answer deeper ontological questions about what reality is.

@larsfaye292

2 жыл бұрын

@@Pheer777 I often say that Science will explain HOW the universe formed, but it will never be able to touch the WHY. Which is fine, that's not its role. We have spirituality and philosophy for that. I've ways loved Carl Sagan's approach to the holistic views, that Science is really uncovering the beautiful majesty of "creation" (in quotes, because I do not believe that creation requires an independent central creator, necessarily).

A piece from a new book titled: Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlie all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us. To understand the meaning of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo even more, I sincerely recommend that you read Tina Turner's new book: Happiness Becomes You. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gIZppsaqmrDel6Q.html Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo www.youtube.com

3:06 Perhaps it's less to do w/ information processing and more to do with how the information is processed (e.g. electrical signals or electromagnetism or/and in relation to something else going on that goes beyond space-time or other aspects of existing we're yet aware of). It's like, you've got the information processing but need more to light it up and add sparks. And then when you've got information processing + a flash light form of existence itself, you get conscious experience finally.

Consciousness is not a matter of information. In other words, there's no amount of information that can create consciousness.

Nine minutes in and he's glossed over the fact that we apparently have two consciousnesses coexisting in a normal human brain. I mean, it seems to only become apparent if a person has their corpus callosum completely bisected, but is always running as a pair, otherwise. That seems pretty specific to our biology. I don't know how important this fact is, do you? So I think it needs air time, since we don't know how important it is. The urge to wave it off or dismiss it is unwarranted. Our general tendency to avoid attending to it is conspicuous.

Exactly... ty...

I counter argue against not being conscious while in sleep. We do dream and in the dream we are well aware of ourselves and I have had lots of dreams in which I have questioned if I am sleep or not. It is only when you get up that you "realize" that you were sleep and all you saw were "dreams". But what does that mean??

A thought: Maybe we have a human brain (integral to the size it is) to be the receiver now and later to connect to a Higher consciousness. Whether, it is, now or later as we grow in knowledge and wisdom? Man is creating a 'reflective image' of himself in the Ai computer.

I donno but i feel that its difficult to link materialistic things with conciousness .... conciousness is not just an outcome of something material ....i guess explanation for conciousness will need human transcendence from current Physical models and laws

Yes

Colin from Who's Line really knows his stuff

Consciousness is more than merely the ability to access information and fo calculations. It involves self-awareness. Awareness of oneself as a being opposed to an external world. Subjectivity. Without subjectivity the can he no consciousness. Computers are not conscious of anything. They are merely machines that can calculate and can store information.

@stevenyourke7901

2 жыл бұрын

@DecrepitOrigin888 Tress? Bugs? Consciousness?! Really?

@stevenyourke7901

2 жыл бұрын

@DecrepitOrigin888 Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that trees are conscious?

@VidkunQL

2 жыл бұрын

Suppose I build a new computer and claim that it is conscious. What must it do to convince you that it is?

@stevenyourke7901

2 жыл бұрын

@Sky Gardener All human beings - including small children - are conscious of themselves as individuals. It’s practically a defining characteristic of human beings. The sense of self is not a social construct at all. It’s not a habit. You’re talking nonsense.

I assume that eventually neural surgeons will start replacing central nervous system structures or sub-structures or individual neurons with prosthetic "artificial" or tissue engineered versions. Then advances in understanding may be made by testing these neural prosthetics recipients for post operative consciousness. This will be somewhat tricky, but perhaps possible, to measure. In the distant future, (robot) surgeons might swap out brain structures, and then swap them back in; followed by simply asking people if they were still conscious with the replacements. By temporarily swapping out different brain structures one at a time, the "center(s)" of consciousness may be narrowed down and identified.

I liked the question about consciousness of other animals. I assumed that everything living had consciousness but of different degree and its use. Consciousness is related to emotions. And now, more questions are in my mind. If computers can be conscious then so can an atom. Law of attraction is followed by every known thing in this universe, one way or another. So is that attraction pre determined or caused by consciousness? If its pre destined then whether we love someone or something will be like an npc in any video game. And if we have free will over our decision then are other beings following the set pattern of growth and emotions like its programmed for same? Damn... Well anyone reading it can tell me something new.

Yes of course it is certain.

I flat out loved this interview.. this guy is not only engaging, but is remarkably intellectually honest.. I like his thinking BUT, a humble opinion is, it seems highly unlikely that current computers possess any Awareness of their inviornment.. NOT because supercomputers aren't sufficiently complex either..It's the way they are programmed and operate .Future neuro net type platforms hold distant promise .. Additionally Complex data processing is obviously important, but so would be the computer equivalent of a cerebral cortex..A "Governor" to MONITOR other inputs and decide such issues as relationships in the data and the relative value of such information..An opinion that may or may not be wrong.. Thanks.

@tonoornottono

2 жыл бұрын

i like what you’re saying. but i think the problem is that “monitor” would be a separate program. in a sense, it would be a microcosm of the larger set. so it would be no more likely to be conscious than the rest of the set. in my opinion consciousness arises out of the cohesion of an entire set- if a computer is to become conscious, it must become that way out of its normal operations. in other words, the computer must become communicative: the different components must be made of increasingly complex components so that the whole machine may be introspective. so in your model, the machine would have an “eye” or governing core which looks out from the center, whereas mine is a machine with such depth that it generates a surface consciousness to introspect on its inner workings. the reason a computer is not aware of its surroundings is because of this flaw- we want them to look from the inside out. humans do not look from the inside out. all that we perceive is abstracted by the mind. so for a computer to become aware of its surroundings, it must have a way to abstract and reflect upon them. the mind is the mirror humans use to view the world, computation must be the mirror for future conscious machines. the naked eye cannot see the world, but a mind with an eye can project one.

@Bill..N

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonoornottono A very intriguing reply friend..I'll respond after tending to distractions..Thx

@Bill..N

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonoornottono It seems that your model in essence would be the same as the one I'm referring to and for this reason: DIFFERENT parts of our brain have separate programs as well.. Their individual functions are quite distinct and yet are intimately INTERCONNECTED..Which I think is the part you are expanding on..By building on this model WITH completely autonomous self learning Neuro- networks, instead of Brute Force parallel processors , it could work.. so we may be coming at the same idea but from different angles friend...

@Bill..N

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonoornottono Even like you suggest, the entire nervous system throughout the body is intimately connected..

Yes.

Right approach would be can anything be material. Means when we know whole universe is alive consciousness only and intractable with all features of life. Even what we call matters have half-life. So matters are long life living entities. And respond to only specific.

He gives the "what if the table is conscious" example, joking. But if you took it seriously you'd immediately have to separate memory from awareness. Table has only primitive "memory" in that it can store dents and marks, hold objects, but it does not hold images of itself, does not self-reflect. It only has the "zero-level" selfsame reflection, which is undifferentiated. It does not represent, it is not optimized for meaning-to-itself. We marvel at how hidden/isolated/unprovable our own consciousness is, but imagine being a table. That's the hard problem. Its experience is forever lost into each moment. Consciousness as we know it is more complex: relationality through memory and introspection, held in the basic field of *awareness*, which is more the key, which doesn't need a reason to be, has no substance of its own but holds all substance. Awareness isn't a doing, can't be caused. But consciousness is what we call it when complex systems self-reflect within it. That there is a root experience is inevitable. Hard to imagine it for a table, but probably because it's so dead simple. Tables don't imagine, and don't conceive of likenesses, but exude suchness. So you don't get imagine what it's like. In table's world you don't get to NOT be table. Table is very generous/flexible with its tableness.

This is extreme positivism, it has led to what seems to incredible progress but future generations may call them rudimentary steps, who knows and mayeby we destroy ourselves and the whole cycle begins

4:17, you build a generator,all the parts are physical,but yet it creates energy or transforms it from using physical power , is that energy you created the generator or a separate entity ? and at that moment, they are related

I think a common sign of something that is conscious is the feeling of pain. Pain (and every other feeling for that matter) is ONLY experienced through a conscious state. If you are put out for surgery, the body wont flinch because the experience of pain is not there. Awake, and pain will be experienced, showing very visible outward signs that you are experiencing pain. Cutting a tree you wont see any visible signs of it being conscious, but animals/bugs would show those outward signs of the feeling of pain should they get injured. So I think they are conscious, but for humans, I think what really gave us the self awareness (inner experience) aspect of consciousness was the development of language, allowing us to put thoughts into words and allow us to question things. Pre-language, I think humans at that time acted purely out of instinct much like animals. So I believe animals are conscious, but lack inner awareness until they are able to evolve into next level communicating.

@bobbywise2313

2 жыл бұрын

You may be on to something.

A pure eternal mind gave birth to the matter and the physical experience, paradoxically enough we are that eternal mind individualized and each part of the different manifestations of that one mind holds a degree of awareness from the tiniest subatomic particle all the way to us ..

i think it's the presence of the soul in the body that expresses itself as consciousness. Right now we are making automatons that can move around, avoid obstacles on the fly, discern and pickup objects but these machines are no where near the complexity and sensitivity as the human body tissues. Maybe we'll have robot bodies that are on par to the tissue body so that at that point the soul may incarnate in the more durable machine body. who knows?

consciousness is always conscious in itself. but i would say that we know nothing is the most probable answer

The short answer is yes, it can. Not unlikely either. Is it a very good idea? Depends how it's managed.

You'll know whether your PC has attained conciousness when it suddenly suggests "Hey Boss, I'm tired. Let's continue tomorrow, ok?" and shutdown to your dismay.

It don't know about the size of data but how it interacts as a whole to create a narrative a set of data isn't meant to create stories(although it probably doesn't work like that) because those ideas are elusive. At that point an equation for love would need to exist, I've seen the seemingly greatest minds defy logic for whatever love might represent but it's not that easily defined even in a large scaled matrix

That paper encyclopedia becoming conscius analogy is Amazing, that is exactly the problem. Why so many pure mechanicists disregard so happily that question?

Consciousness is flow of energy

I am with the Nobel Prize winner R.Penrose on this issue - consciousness by all evidence must be non-computable (in mathematical terms). As such it certainly can't be achieved just by complexity of the system or by any, no matter how complex algorithm/programming or combination of those. It must arise from natural self-organization. He proposes that the hypothetical graviton plays the crucial role in its emergence through the self-organizing of a system, hard to prove speculation w/o graviton... So, the question remaining is "what is biology/life" - if we constrain it to known, carbon based life as on the Earth, then indeed any other life in the universe based on something else is non-biological but can attain consciousness from self organization. However if we define biology wider, as ANY self-organized life than by the very definition consciousness can only be biological. So, no "strong AI", nothing that we can build no matter how powerful will ever be self aware.

The first step in understanding consciousness is to accept that we are spacetime beings: all that we perceive is derived from spacetime. Take language for example, everything you say references something in space or time. Even the concept of love assumes at least the number 2 which implies distance or a dimension of space.

There are 16 basic personalities with many variations (512 total) according to Jungian theory as explored at Objective Personality. There are 4 functions which can be either introverted or extroverted: thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition. Everyone can do all 8 things, but 4 are dominant and come in pairs. If you have introverted thinking, you also have extroverted feelings. Computers can store information (introverted sensing) but have very limited extroverted sensing. They can do trial and error (extroverted thinking) and analysis (introverted thinking) or at least they can be programmed to mimic it. Whether it can do these things in a self-directed manner is doubtful. It does not have the ability to come up with creative innovation that will not look silly, but that may be possible. People judge whether a singularity has occurred by whether a computer could do this on its own and do it well. It can certainly do limited introverted intuition, meaning it can plan its own actions, although currently most of this us done for it. Can extroverted feeling, that is, awareness of group values and empathy with group members occur? A good interface could mimic this, but at this point computers don't have the ego awareness to relate its feelings to those of others. Introverted feeling has to do with personal values. Do we want computers to self-direct their ethics? Could we program this. Whose values would we use as a model? After we simulate or create real functions, who gets to decide the mix used in AI systems? Any Star Trek fan will look at the M5 computer whose values were programmed from Dr. Daystrom (its creator). The best episodes are Kirk and Spock outfitting out of control AIs. Commander Data was an intelligent android. The son of his creator (Dr. Sung Jr.) developed a race of synthetic life forms, which eventually tapped into their own deity from another dimension, although the loop was closed. Admiral Picard was dying, so his consciousness was placed into a synth in the last episode of season one. Season 2 starts soon. He had already been a Borg. Trek also explores relations with "higher" life forms like the Q Continuum, the Organians and a Dowd. Also the Prophets, who are a race that can be non corporeal and have no limits in time, what in String Theory is a higher dimension. Capt Cisco, the protagonist of Deep Space 9, had a mother who was a prophet and joined their pantheon at the end of that series. Perhaps Closer to Truth should talk to the shows producers about this, including Gene Roddenberry's son. How much if modern philosophy in these issues is driven by the franchise and how much if the franchise is determined by the issues? Do both tie into some kind of zeitgeist? Maybe the question is whether the concept of the zeitgeust is real...which brings us back to Jung.

I know the answer, but the problem is "you" are "designed" to not to believe it, even if the truth is laid in front of you in plain sight. Also, the reality is far stranger and bigger than your imagination. I have been working for long time to find a way to make reality realizable for a common man. Someone who "knows" what I am talking about can join or help me in this mission

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

you are beginnin to tink, but ZEN and philosophy will lead you round and round---this is pure science and unless you study bio, chem, physics, and math you are doomed to a real good bar discussion and not much more

How would you be able to tell?

I think the first thing that needs to be done is to define just what is consciousness.

What i know is that computers had "moodiness", at least the old computers... my mother worked in the 80' on the old punched cards computers and she told me that there where days when the machines will simply does not "want" to work properly and on other days with the same set of cards it worked flawesless.

It's the entire idea of the last scene in Blade Runner when the Replicant dies. Is he conscience of his doing or not. The movie suggests that yes, he is conscience even though he is a machine.

But how does he know that consciousness is destroyed when a person becomes brain dead? Why can't it simply be released from its shell and sent on its merry way through the layer cake of dimensions?

Those that believe that consciousness extends beyond death, become very competitive, in concern with whose consciousness will be rewarded with eternal bliss, compared to whose consciousness will suffer for eternity.

I am not a scientist and so...what do I know? But that disclaimer aside... I feel like the limitations of this discussion to the human brain and computer circuitboards limits investigation of the question. Answering the question first requires defining what is meant by consciousness. Generally speaking, consciousness is an entity's awareness of the world around it. We know for certain that animals, plants and fungi all are conscious of their environments-or at least it can be strongly argued, depending on one's agreement about signifiers of awareness-because they react and respond to environmental stimuli based on (at least) needs and (sometimes) inessential desires. I think when human beings have the conversation being had here, the discussion always hinges on the notion of self-consciousness-an entity's awareness of itself as within and separate from its environment. We know that many animals are self-conscious in this sense, and that includes animals such as octopi that do not have brains. The discussion above suggests that the brain = the generator of consciousness. But animals without brains have shown that they can be both conscious and self-conscious, and so we need to remove "must have brain" as a requisite for consciousness (unless the person arguing the case wants to focus on semantics). The next layer of these sorts of conversations about consciousness relates not only to self-consciousness-an entity understanding that it exists apart from everything else-but ruminating on it. I think that's what human beings *really* mean when they have this discussion-not only "are other beings aware that they exist?" but "do other beings question why they exist as we do?" That's a question that we can't answer because we can't communicate sufficiently with any other creature. We only know for certain that other human beings share our individual questions about consciousness because we have common languages through which we can communicate these notions. We can't do that with any other animal, fungus, plant or other being.* *Except there are questions about whether we can. Through scientific research, we can observe other living beings and how they interact, and we can make educated guesses based on observations about their depth of awareness and understanding and what their intentions and investigations may be. Octopuses spend a lot of time alone and they show signs of advanced intelligence. A lot of highly intelligent, and perhaps the most self-investigatory, people spend a lot of time alone thinking. Is it possible that an octopus during its down time may be questioning why it exists, where it came from, etc.? Perhaps. Although, human beings have come to ask these questions commonly over our existence probably in great part because we cumulatively ask these questions generation after generation using our languages, and so it may be the use of spoken communication among individual people over many generations of time, combined with storytelling, that has led us to think this uniquely. We just don't know. Does such communication *have* to be spoken? I don't think so. That's as limiting as believing that nothing can be conscious without a brain/the brain generates consciousness. Bees communicate through dance-we see that through observation. Many creatures communicate by exchanging chemical signals. We now know that plants and animals do. We know that human beings do, although we usually don't register the meaning of chemical signals within our consciousnesses. But what if, for example, the trees and fungi that communicate not only among themselves but among one another, register chemical signals in a way similar to how our brains interpret spoken and written languages? Plants as a kingdom have existed longer than animals have. Who is to say that trees and fungi don't communicate chemically/electronically/magnetically/some other way that is *even more sophisticated* than spoken and written language limited by the building-block aspect of human language? Theoretically, they may be exponentially more intelligent than we are, and they may have greater consciousness in theory--we wouldn't know because we can't ask them and get answers.* *Not in a way that conventional science and contemporary civilizations would believe in, anyway. There's a new, great interest in researching plant medicines such as ayahuasca and psilocybin, which in traditional use many people have interpreted for at least hundreds of years as possessing consciousness and communicating actively with human beings through ingestion. This notion is totally contrary to our paradigm of human superiority and what communication is; however, a huge number of people have attested that they participated in two-way telepathic communication with consciousness from plant or fungal ingestion. If science is really serious about asking whether consciousness exists, then scientists need to take these claims seriously and break themselves apart from the invented limitation of "brain = consciousness" to determine whether brainless organisms with which we are already familiar could possess consciousness. And then that opens up a whole different can of worms-the notion of possessing or generating consciousness (always assumed to be done by the brain). Some people theorize that the brain is less a consciousness generator than a consciousness antenna, tuned to receive certain aspects of consciousness that exists outside of bodily form in the way that analog and digital broadcast signals do. The brain is an organ of interpretation, not just calculation, and it is possible that when the brain "loses consciousness," its antenna may be down for servicing and unable to receive consciousness signals that exist outside of the brain. All of this interests me greatly in part because my mother had an out-of-body experience when I was very young, and she always remained curious and somewhat alarmed by it. She insisted that it was not a dream, but as real as anything else in her waking life. She was in bed inside her body, and then she was "floating above her body" and looking down on herself and my father in bed. She said she looked around the room and felt like she was a surveillance camera, able to pivot and move around but without her body. She tried to get back into her body and could not--until she finally did, and immediately woke up my father to tell him. I have experienced ayahuasca and have had several different experiences that have totally broken apart the paradigms of what I used to believe consciousness was. I think that in order for scientists to understand consciousness, they will need to begin to think differently about what it means, whether it could be beyond the brain and corporeal form, and consider beginning to apply unconventional, nontraditional methods of investigation in order to make truly new discoveries. These questions matter insofar as our search for life beyond Earth (and perhaps within the Earth). Are we really looking for a version of ourselves out there-something so similar in form and thought that we can consider it parallel and therefore "intelligent"-or are we really looking for life at all, or are we really looking for consciousness? Life is defined by very specific characteristics that generally are bound by a physical/material form. What if a consciousness exists "out there" that not only doesn't have a brain but doesn't have a physical body as we can conceive of, and it's able to communicate and make evident its self-awareness and its awareness of us? Is that life? Can we deny that it is conscious because it doesn't meet our definitions? And if we were to discover something like this, something beyond our expectations, beyond Earth, it's even possible we could discover something like it right here on Earth, but never having registered with us because we're not conscious enough to perceive something we can't relate to.

consciousness is fundamental.... not emergent, awareness emergent. Before time began, I AM. In the beginning was the logos, aka ; information. Information can only arise from sentience.

Would consciousness require focus on consciousness?

I think I know what consciousness is (very simply, the confluence of perception and reflective thought), and I know what people mean by the concept of "free will". However, I would be interested to know whether those that believe we have free will also believe that a robot or "sophisticated complex" computer could have free will. It seems to me if robot had free will, it would also be likely to be conscious. The reason is that "free will" implicitly suggests a choice and some process for selecting among any possible choices. That in turn requires memory and prediction of outcomes and comparison and value-judgements - although the processes may be subconscoious and we may not be aware of how the outcomes are really determined. In any case, comparison of external conditions and internal predictions is always part of making a conscious choice.

@snap-off5383

2 жыл бұрын

"free will" is the human ability to IMAGINE that it could have made a different decision prior.

@thomassoliton1482

2 жыл бұрын

Snap-off: Yep - predict / act / review / update. Memory is required. Without memory, you can’t have free will because you wouldn’t be able to imagine a choice.

@tajzikria5307

Жыл бұрын

We have a direct experience of free will and all of us ACT as if we have free will.

@thomassoliton1482

Жыл бұрын

@@tajzikria5307 If you think so. Key word: YOU - who is that? You have to think about who “YOU” are! But you can’t really answer that question. Therefore, you can’t really answer whether YOU have free will. Catch 22. Cat chasing it’s tail. Try this: How can you be in two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all? (E.g. split between the present awareness and past memories). What to do? It really doesnt matter if you think you have free will or not. You will still keep thinking and making decisions. So just go with the flow and find a more worthwhile problem to solve.

@tajzikria5307

Жыл бұрын

@Thomas Soliton True I will ACT as all of us have free will lol.

The magical piece we don’t understand is aesthetics and the appreciation of such or invention of such and critically the experience of such 🙏🙏🏿🦄👍

Science only(NOT in a derogatory way) studies & models the "behaviors" of nature & should NOT even be expected to "settle" questions about what nature is, in & of itself. Except of course to rule out certain ideas. I agree that correctly framing a problem is often half the battle but, I'm much more with someone like Bernardo Kastrup on such issues. Though I didn't hear him say anything else too unreasonable.

What is a noun, what is a verb etc... says who? Janes cousin? Should we be fighting or running, should we be happy or sad, what happened to freedom? What happened to literacy, What movie is that in?

Visions of long gone grandma guiding me to be better at life fill my conscious everyday; nonbiological.

Arrogant and somewhat contradictory, if they don’t know what consciousness is, how do they know that they can eliminate it when they remove a part of the brain?

@mountainjay

2 жыл бұрын

Video title: "Can conciouness be non-biological?" Video content: "the brain 100% produces conciouness, people who believe conciouness can exist outside of the brain are like naive religious imbeciles". This channel is basically atheist propaganda stated as fact with misleading titles.

I think therefore I am, I think.

Might consciousness be not just the ability to use energy, like cells (physical); also the ability to experience energy (subjective) and direct energy (meaning)?