TIMESTAMPS: (0:00) - Introduction (0:09) - Towards Solving The Hard Problem of Consciousness (7:27) - Entering Neurons & Riding Electrons (16:22) - Science of Brain vs Philosophy of Mind (21:14) - Informational Theories (27:30) - Panpsychist & Quantum Theories of Consciousness (41:50) - Morphogensis & Bioelectric Communication's link to Adaptive Resonance (50:00) - Consciousness vs Cognition (Defining terms) (1:00:17) - Qualia, Intentionality & "Aboutness" of experience (1:06:28) - Eliminative Materialism (1:19:07) - When exaclty does brain become mind? (1:32:30) - How Does Adaptive Resonance Theory (ART) explain Qualia? (1:38:09) - Conscious Mind, Resonant Brain (Steve's Magnum Opus) (1:45:47) - Gale Carpenter's Pioneering Work (With & Without Steve) (1:52:22) - Conclusion THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)

Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.

There’s a lot talk about the hard problem of consciousness but little discussion about hardest problem of all - our seeming individuality. Why would electricity in my head create my consciousness and electricity in your head create your consciousness? Why am I, I and you, you? As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain this, the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should suddenly find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not even possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.

Thank you for this video. I think the premise that modeling physiologic properties of things "with consciousness" is an interesting starting point... however, we also need a model that clearly demonstrates the "absence" of those properties in living beings without consciousness. So, we don't have a definition for consciousness that is scientifically rigorous and that can be tested against. So as I see it, unless you can "define" what has consciousness and what doesn't... much of the talk about it... seems rather superfluous to the question.

@drtevinnaidu

6 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@drtevinnaidu

6 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/lJeKk8eMl6Xfqso.html (first conversation for more context - hope it helps)

While ART makes a strong case for resonance being a first principle driver of modulating our concious experience, it falls into the exact same trap as any other physicalist model does. It's a procedural redefinition of qualia that really explains nothing at all. It's what happens if you do sciencentific sensemaking without a proper epistemological framework to base your heuristic on. The core of the mystery is still there, and not seeing that is a problem in my opinion. Grossberg is definitely onto something, but I think at some point - the question of ontology has to come into play.

There is no such thing as "hard problem of consciousness. The fallacy here is physicalism/materialism. Nobel prize winners in high energy physics for 2022 proved that local realism is false. Physical entities dont have stand alone existance. Now, you get hard problem by sticking to same belief that was established by Rene Descartes in wich he divided the world into primary and secondary qualities; 1. Primary or rather quantities are descriptions, messerments of the pheonomea such are: mass, momentum, geometrical relationships, spin, charge etc. 2. Secondary are: colours, memory, thought, emotion etc... Now if you believe in physicalism wich says that your mind and consciousness are created in brains, physical entity (nobody knows how) then you have a "hard" problem. Because there is nothing about mass, momentum, spin, charge, distamce or patterns that can create consciousness or its content like thought, awareness or feeling of love or a headache. Momentum, spin,charge etc are all descriptions. Booting consciousness from descriptions of it is literally pulling the teritory out of the map. Its rather funny every time i hear about the "hard problem". 😂 Every possible experience for all living beings is possible because of consciousness, and our awareness. Every human endeaveur that happens or it did, it happens in the field of consciousness just like everything we know. So its a background to every possible human or otherwise experience. How it is not fundamental? 😂😊 Its the ground of being for this universe.

There’s a lot talk about the hard problem of consciousness but little discussion about hardest problem of all - our seeming individuality. Why would electricity in my head create my consciousness and electricity in your head create your consciousness? Why am I, I and you, you? As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain this, the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should suddenly find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not even possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.