Sir, I want to ask a question? If animals cannot plan the future then what phenomenal is convincing female animals to prepare the space for laying eggs or baby and then shelter to prevent them?
No do fast preacher!!! What about Emotions,; Moral; LOVE:Hoppe.. faith? - -you Just imagene! Prophesior We all Know don't need anader interpretation But a Factor!
I enjoy it too, but it is often a little vague and unclear. I think it is because his thoughts cause his language to be more experimental, he is a Theoretical Physicist after all. Sometimes I wish he'd spell it out a bit more clearly for some of us un-scientific gumps. His theory and model of consciousness through evolution is quite broad. Make it linear for me, you know?
@@artofneed2317 What he's saying is. Evolution / Natural Selection influenced and developed consciousness over time. If you think about it from an evolutionary point of view, there would have been organisms who survived better by eating organisms who then survived better by eating and avoiding consumption, and so forth, with organisms developing a sense of other organisms so that they would survive or better to survive. So in other-words, consciousness is just systematic gradual developments over time. Becoming aware of who we are and what we need to do, makes us the peak of evolution at present, so therefore consciousness is just a side effect of evolution. That's how I interpret it.
NO. The thing is, the only thing we (may) know about consciousness is; consciousness emanates from the brain. That's it. But that tells us NOTHING about WHAT the consiousness IS; we only know "Where?"; _not "What?"_. So basically Kaku decided to say: "consciousness is the tool for thinking" WITHOUT ANY PROOF. That's the sign of a _bad_ scientist; a bad physisist also : ) Either 1) consciousness is a necessary byproduct from a "smart", developed brain; you can't make "smart" brains without it 2) consciousness actually _does_ something on its own (like Kaku implied, it seems); maybe it's related to "free will" for instance (this is religion, opinions and stupid and so I won't give further examples) 3) the consciousness is a redundant byproduct of a "smart" brain; highly unlikely IMO; what's the chance of that??? In any case; we still don't know WHAT it is, where it begins or where it ends or how it relates to action of the "feeling" or "thinking" things. ALSO; so far we have no way to find out, unless we find out "consciousness particles" or "consciousness mediators" or the like, the measuring of whom would give us scientific = logical, experimental (empirical) proof of where consciousness is (could be) or isn't, for example.
Or when bees store honey to survive winter... Some scientists try to simplify everything,to make things appear easier,but it just can't be so simple...
It may turn out to be the case that the complexity of our brain/mind is equal to the complexity of our capacity for complex abstract thought, but this does not mean that comprehension is beyond possibility. If you consider a jigsaw puzzle, it may have thousands of pieces and if you don’t know what picture it actually makes prior to attempting assembling it, it will commence as a very complex task, gradually becoming less complex as you deduce the possibilities of arrangement with greater and greater refinement, eventually coming close to completion the image becomes more obvious and then we finally place all the pieces into their rightful positions and we have one cohesive picture. Strangely we have commenced with a complex task that proceeds towards a simpler task and finally arriving at just one simple overall picture of reality. The task of understanding consciousness might be like this, so all hope is not lost. Of course proceeding through the initial stage is likely to rely more on good guessing or sheer luck, maybe intuition too, then once we start to patch together enough of the picture our hope will become enhanced. Like your thoughts though, very interesting stuff isn’t it. Sorry for such a lengthy reply, but of course to reply properly might take light years.
Tech Guy but we collect memories through the senses of our body which is powered by energy and those experiences are stored inside us, Our thoughts, emotions and memories Are not our consciousness, But A Product of our consciousness. I believe our minds/individual consciousness are The focused activity of a matrix of organized energy within are body. Whether the consciousness is preserved as an echo(soul/spirit) after death or fades into oblivion is anyones guest
“The doubters said, "Man can not fly," The doers said, "Maybe, but we'll try," And finally soared In the morning glow While non-believers Watched from below.” ― Bruce Lee If we based life on where we are and not where we can be, we can not make progress, if i said to man who lived 1000 years ago that i can bend a bunch of metal together and fly over the ocean he would say i was crazy, but only time can tell you who was really the crazy one and who was the genius.
i think there's more to our consciousness than planning into the future. like being aware that we are conscious beings. that's a big thing. a thermostat may be conscious but it sure doesn't know that. it can't out itself apart from and observe the fact that it's collecting information
My thought was that a squirrel stores nuts, right? So he's technically saving them for later, because he's not going to eat them now. He has to remember where the nuts are stored to go back and get them. It does seem like there is some forethought in that. In addition, cause and effect as an aspect of thinking about the future. Don't stray away from the herd, you'll get eaten.
Ollie Shaman well you can say that the squirrels just have an instinctive urge to hide their nuts. they dont know why. they just do it. then later they have the urge to find those nuts. they just do it. animals dont stray from the herd for fear of being eaten. they just do it because their instincts say it's the right thing to do
Ollie Shaman I can just see it. When no one is around to witness it, the squirrels have board meetings. So as you can see, this quarter, we had a 33% increase in acorns, but an almost 100% decrease in walnuts. This is unacceptable. I propose a hostile take over of the Walnut tree to the south. Due to severe shortages of peanuts, the price has gone up to nearly 15,000 acorns per peanut! As risky as this sounds, I think we should do a complete acquisition of the circus peanut supply to the East. Yes, humans.
The way I've always seen it, is that people trying to explain consciousness almost always either ignore the brain, or treat it it like a secondary importance. If consciousness is obviously stored within the brain, then it is reliant upon the brain, I think. There has never been an example of consciousness without a physical brain categorized by science. Therefore, we cannot understand consciousness without also understanding the physical matter in which it resides and is reliant upon, the brain.
"Begin with a function of arbitrary complexity. Feed it values, "sense data". Then, take your result, square it, and feed it back into your original function, adding a new set of sense data. Continue to feed your results back into the original function ad infinitum. What do you have? The fundamental principle of human consciousness." - Academician Prokhor Zakharov - "The Feedback Principle"
Youssif Salama humans use information beyond what their instinct tells them to make decisions. if we were purely instinctual there would be no need for education.
Well, the thing is, no one did ask you because you're not a physicist and therefore inapt and unqualified to speak on suck matters of physical existence. But interesting point though.
If you don't want to see people's Opinions on subjects then you should stop reading comments,it's kind of the point. FYI physicists aren't qualified I'm animal behaviour.and just wanna say nothing you said interested me.
shoopdanerd Well, arguably we have an instinct for survival and prosperity. So you could say that we build civilization to ensure these goals are met and one of the best ways to keep this civilization going is to ensure that our children are educated so that we can have a society so that we can survive and prosper. It actually does appear to stem from instinct.
The beauty of this is that, at "Level 3", humans are able to run simulations/predict - which is the very method through which they develop models to understand the thing that creates such thoughts in the first place.
Funny thing is, anything that can be systemized - in principle that's everything - is eligible for being coded into game theory, the basic language of computer games. In other words everything can be simulated as a computer game.
I actually made a theory JUST like this! It all started from a walk I had from after school, I was walking and a leaf fell from a tree, it landed and I questioned why it landed in the exact location that it did. The leaf couldn't control where it fell for it isn't conscious, but why? Why isn't a leaf conscious? I then realized that in order for the leaf to control where it moved it would need to somehow interact with it's environment. The leaf would need eyes, something to steer it while in mid air, and what not. Of course, this itself doesn't explain consciousness...yet. I thought of how simple it is to interact with the environment, it doesn't make it "conscious" in the traditional sense. It's only aware of where it wants to fall, it doesn't question why it wants to fall in that one spot, it's only aware of one task. So I started making levels of consciousness, just like Michio Kaku, the levels were similar to his in fact, humans being on level three. In the end, what makes us "conscious" is being "conscious" of being "conscious", sounds silly huh? xD I'm not done though, because what I just went over is only the tip of the ice berg. Now, on my walk, after theorizing about the levels of consciousness, I was still dissatisfied. So I thought harder, and realized that memory is consciousness, or at least consciousness in the tradition sense. Think about it, if you can't remember anything, even what happened to you 2 seconds ago, are you even conscious? This is where things got REALLY good, I was finally getting somewhere. This idea came up because I had recently watched a video about a guy who could only remember things from 10 seconds ago, anything past that he would forget and I would try to put myself in his shoes but it was impossible for me to imagine. So being conscious doesn't only have levels to it, but it's memory. Now for our leaf to be conscious in the tradition sense, it needs to be able to be conscious of itself being conscious and it needs to know that it was conscious about being conscious 10 seconds ago. So now we know consciousness comes in levels and is literally memory, is there anymore? There’s one more part to consciousness, although there’s a lack of explanation to it, and that is learning. That’s right, I believe we learn the sensation of being aware just like we learn the color red. “Learn the color read?” you may ask, well think of it this way, there’s nothing in the universe that says “when you arrange these atoms it produces red consciously”...really? Why is red red? Why is blue blue? Couldn’t red have been blue and blue have been orange? Maybe red could have been some other color that doesn’t even exist! BUT WHY RED?! Why do high pitch sounds sound so high? Why do smelly smells smell smelly? Why is anything the way it is? The answer to that is that we learn those things to be the way they are...I don’t have the answer to why we learn them that way, how our brain creates these illusions but perhaps my level of consciousness prevents me from knowing the answer to that! And to think a mere leaf got me to theorize about consciousness. Falling objects sure do have a lot of impact on us humans don’t they? ...apples, anyone?
At the end of the day, I think it still comes down to the question of how we define consciousness. To me, he did a great job of defining levels of awareness, but is awareness all there is to consciousness, or is it simply a facet of the more more abstract definition of what consciousness truly is?
First he says that an electron can be in two places at once, and now a thermostat has one unit of consciousness? Seriously? A thermostat now has the ability to feel? Just goes to show that "Trust me, I'm a doctor" isn't always true.
If you see the human body as a very complex mechanism of elements (which it is) then it seems like a very practical explanation. he didnt say termostats "feel" but rather "human feelings" are a very complex sum of interactions.
Kikino He said "a thermostat has one unit of consciousness".Name for me a conscious being that doesn't feel. Feelings are not the complex sum of interactions, feelings are the result of a complex sum of interactions. He is trying to explain the unexplainable, i.e., the hard problem of consciousness/sentience.
Youre right, he is trying to explain the (not yet) explainable. Maybe he went too far with the comparison. Change the example a bit. Insects dont feel, but if you attack a bee hive it certainly seems like they have self awareness. Not at the same extent us "concious beings" do of course, so using Kaku's scale, insects have less conciousness units. There is a clear relation between the complexity of the nervous system and the "amount" of conciousness. As for inert things, the thermostat could be the insect and a Strong AI, the human being.
Kikino I don't think it will ever be explained. How do you know that insects do not feel? We don't know what it's like to be a bee, but there is evidence they feel pain. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_invertebrates This body I occupy is made of things that are inert., yet my body moves. A bee has a welfare, a thermostat does not. How will we know when we have created a "Strong AI"?
Considering that 200 years ago we only had horses to move around and now we have robots taking pictures of pluto, I think the answers that are out of our reach will eventually be answered. But not in this generation it seems. We are too young. About strong AI, the consensus is that as soon as the first is born, it will be aleady too late to stop it. Maybe we can ask IT the secret of conciousness, if it doesnt kill us all that is..
I wish I could live next to this guy and walk over on a Saturday morning watch some cartoons, eat some cereal and just talk about quantum physics and human perception
As a scientist and a person that discovered the spiritual world a few years ago. All I can say is...keeping an open mind is always going to lead to more discoveries. It is disturbingly mind blowing to realize how much spirituality and the physical world actually are the same thing. Experiments aim to measure, quantify. Whilst that is reasonable, in a new concept in science it is helpful to keep an open mind first before concluding things based on traditional mathematical concepts.
I have always thought of consciousness as the operating system of the mind. It takes our complicated thinking processes and simplifies it into something easy to understand. Like command prompt (the underlying processes of the brain) vs Windows (simplified and organized in a logical fashion)
"See its brackets nigga Them hoes ain't fucking you cuz you ain't in that bracket nigga Learn life, its levels to this shit young boy Ay O you feel me"
He cant get sarcasm. That statement was hilarious and exalt the erroneous ideas of the population which become very popular even if it just an expression.
Dr.Kaku is mixing up consciousness with intellectual complexity. if a brain has evolved differently, is the entity not conscious? Is a snake not conscious of its existence because it doesn't have a pre-frontal cortex? Is an earthworm not conscious of the fact that it exists? Consciousness is the independent ability of an entity to recognize that it is distinct from its environment. On a fundamental level, this recognition is ingrained in every living cell. Each cell is independently "conscious" of where it ends, and where the environment begins. Even if it has no well-developed sensory organs, it still is able to recognize on some level that it is a distinct entity, and that there exists (or may exist) something outside of itself. By this definition, all living cells are conscious at varying levels of complexity. More well developed the brain, more clearly is the self-distinction articulated to itself. So the feedback loops Dr. Kaku speaks about only enables an already conscious entity to better recognize the environment outside it. Conversely, Artificial Intelligence is not conscious - irrespective of the number of feedback loops we might program as its data input. The machine cannot, in a true sense, *independently* recognize itself as being distinct from its environment. The word "independent" is key here - even if AI's outward behavioral output might indicate that it is aware, if humans or external observers are removed from the picture, then that output is meaningless. By itself, the machine can only execute commands. This is what makes a living entity fundamentally different - it exists (and self-recognizes its existence) even if there is no other observer around it.
+Dobby ...yes but my point was that if we go by Dr.Kaku's explanation for consciousness, we should be able to build an AI that is conscious by simply increasing complexity of the machine - This is what I was refuting as being impossible.
***** e.g.1-Roots searching for water grows more and blindly. 2-Some plants close their leaves after touch or after sunset. 3-Indicater plants grows on respectivesoil. Ex:You know plants grown in Marshy field with methane. or Saline field trees or Arsenic containing soil has some indicator plants. 4-Imporatant plants respond to atmosphere and when we injure any plant it tries to heal.or in crops the infected part of plant is fall down before disease spread to overall plant. 5-You can read some work of Dr.Jagadish Bose on Plants for this May you got required info. All the Best!
+Morpheus ...Bro, forget trees, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to prove that even YOU are conscious. There is absolutely no scientific test available to prove something is conscious. A living entity's consciousness is a purely subjective experience - fully obvious and apparent to the subject, but utterly inexplicable to the rest of the universe. There is the Turing test - which at best proves that a software / process can mimic human-like conscious - it is based on responses / output being similar to human responses. But it is only proof of the ability to "mimic" consciousness, and not proof of consciousness itself. Consciousness is the only known phenomenon which is taken for granted in you and me, yet if seen from a mathematics or physics standpoint, it just should not exist - because it cannot be expressed in numerical or physical terms. And that's why I think Dr.Kaku is wrong when he states that evolved brains are conscious but simpler lifeforms are not - how can anyone state that as a scientific fact? For all we know, Dr.Kaku himself is not conscious - because he sure as hell can't prove it.
***** ...but that's scientifically incorrect to assume that only humans (or more developed brains) are conscious while others are not. The reason is simple - consciousness can neither be detected nor quantified by current technology or mathematical models. This is as unscientific a claim as it is for religious people to say that God exists because the sunrise is beautiful. That's not proof, that's magical thinking. There is no scientific basis to say earthworms and snakes are not conscious. We as humans can guess, but guesswork and "I feel" statements are not good enough to qualify something as scientific fact. It is much more scientific to say "I don't know" than to state an un-provable statement as fact. Infact, Dr.Kaku is making emotional statements here based on his gut feel, and not based on fact. Grandma too feels very strongly about rabbit's feet bringing good luck - but that don't make her a scientist, does it?
This is all fair speculation. Smart speculations, but just speculation. It seems overtly simplified. But it does get people to think. So that's a good thing. But in no way is this at all conclusive or even accurate. Just his opinions on an interesting subject.
Saying that consciousness is a number of feedback loops that interprets what he chooses to be exactly macroscopic information is not just an oversimplification, it is leaping to conclusions in a highly unjustified manner. Furthermore it is redundant, since the reason why our consciousness interprets macroscopic information about our relative positions in space to other objects and so on is caused by the sensory orans and does not necessarily need to be an ontologically necessary property of consciousness.
Of course it's overly simplified...most physics has to be for normal people to understand it. It may not be completely accurate but it might be one of the most accurate descriptions I've ever heard. People just wish they had superpowers and that consciousness was something more grandiose than it is.
I already explained that oversimplification isn't the problem here. He cannot distinguish between the processing of information and the experience of information. He explains consciousness as the process of interpreting information while it is only experiencing it. No feedback loops are required to explain information or experiencing it.
Kaku talks about evolution of brain structure, with human brains distinguished by pre-frontal cortex - the seat of rational thinking. Then jumps to talk about "consciousness" as a "mysterious object". This already dismisses the entire mind/brain discussion/debate. The key question is whether science's limiting to the study of "objects" can actually fully deal with the question of "consciousness" or "awareness" - a subjective, non-material realm (other than ignore or dismiss it). There are many interesting contributions to the study of consciousness in brain science, but it remains questionable whether scientific study can completely unravel or explain consciousness without missing the most important aspects. Maybe "you can't get here from there", but it is fascinating to try.
This +1 I too miss the explanation of the _first person perspective._ Without that, any "AI" will just be a stupid zombie with lot's of LED eye candy in it.
This sounds very similar to what Heidegger wrote in Being and Time. Heidegger's philosophy places the self, or Daesin, into a world of fore-sight, fore-having, and fore-conception. It's this projection that allows us to understand ourselves as beings that project ourselves into the future, onto the time in front of us. It's like Michio Kaku is quantifying Heidigger's work, and it fits well. Although, I think Antonio Damasio paints a more complete picture of consciousness, not that they are non-compatible.
4:08 It's understandable since Michio's primarily a physicist, but actually he's got some facts wrong. We do know of many animals that show remarkable signs of thinking towards the future, planning, even scheming, to get what they want/need. It's very difficult to say that humans and only humans are on a 3rd level (plus this would violate some of the implications of evolution, which supports a continous spectrum of linked creatures rather than distinct levels (staircase) of creatures.)
But without minimal development of a frontal-lobe-esque organ, wouldn't any behavior that implicates planning towards the future be an evolutionary adaptation or learned behavior? For instances squirrels that stash food for the winter, finches that use twigs as tools to retrieve insects from crevasses then store them for later use or even otters that collect rocks that are well formed for smashing oyster shells. All of these animals adapt this behavior from heritage and mimicry and not from ingenuity. Perhaps to some extent, their comprehension of the applications of the behavior they observe as being beneficial, is evidence to the case, but aside from that, what animals *predict* the future without experience.
Kisto Ogbaugo It has been proven that animals such as mammals,birds and so on possess the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states. Where do you draw the fine line between evolutionary instincts and conscious behavior? One could argue that the capabilities that humans possess could be the same as any other non-human animals except at a much higher and complex level. The premise at which we humans declare conscious from unconscious is unclear. Animals are much smarter than we give them credit for,better technology and further studies should help clarify the misconceptions that has been circling the scientific and non scientific community for decades. After the studies have explicitly derived indisputable evidence,hopefully the notion that animals are just a "biological system programmed to be instinctive" will be omitted for good.
Observing the cosmos is what gave humans the sense of time because that is on what we relied to predict the future. So now, studying the universe in depth might unlock another level of consciousness; perhaps our relationship to the cosmos themselves.
Is consciousness just a higher form of lowly chemical/natural reactions to physical processes? My body produces sweat in order to cool down when a certain temp. is reached - is that a form of consciousness. Maybe in the way it is defined here - but not in the way I feel many people want to define it. Is it just the evolutionary next level of animalistic social and instinctive behavior? The argument here is between the belief that it is a natural byproduct of LIFE (and hence natural processes) or NOT. I find it fascinating that this exact argument can be made for the origin of everything.
It all starts from the smallest particles which are atomic particles subatomic particles if you wanna learn how the world fucking words you gotta start from their up to everything else
i just reached Level 99. Man, just.. be at 3. it's better for you. the things i saw.. the things i fought.. unbelievable. i'm glad i learned your language to communicate with you.
Psy Qui Good to hear. Philosophy is relatively useless when compared to Physics anyway. Pondering mysteries is more productive when it produces data in my eyes…
I liked this more physical and biological view on counsiousness, even though that isn’t what many would think about when they heard that word. I’d love to hear what he thinks about the idea that space and matter comes from counsiousness since in this video he used the opposite approach
Fantastic man. Great ability to simplify an idea down to its very essence, and to communicate it clearly and dramatically in the appropriate scope of its potential implications. I do wonder if using the word 'intelligence' isn't as accurate as 'consciousness' when discussing the two fundamental mysteries
+ Michio Kaku whats the next step? level 4? Level 1 was Space awareness Level 2 was social awareness Level 3 was Time awareness Level 4 is ??? also...question, if it was possible to network a human preferential lobe, (biologically, in the same way new neurons are made) to a similar species without this organ,... something similar to adding Visual cells to monkeys eyes that allowed them to see color (that i know that they have done) assuming you were successfully wired it up, what would the results be (hypothetically at the very least), would that individual be elevated to level 3 once it started planning for the future?
Yes! I've spent a lot of time before, sitting and thinking; contemplating the concept of consciousness. Identifying the meaning of many words such as sentience or sapience, studying what I could as amateur neurology and psychology. Through everything that I could surmise my interpretation of consciousness was as simple as that. That the simple volume of brain, and the amount if information that it could contain within itself, excess space that it could use to comprehend that it itself existed. I like the term feedback loop because it really creates a proper model of what were speaking about. What I really love is the quantitative table he creates with units. Because while trying to define consciousness myself I would create thought experiments, such as, a conscious brain, but with no sensory organs, if a human was born with no senses, could the brain still retain a consciousness? How would it think? Would it think at all? Does it matter if it thinks or is the simple capacity enough to facilitate the definition. Etc. I'm really glad that I can hear Michio Kaku present the same evaluation albeit more eloquently.
some thoughts I came up on quantifying "level 3" consciousness: Short term: number of neurons * quality of neurons (life cycle) * input energy (chemicals in the brain can be used for neural connections/firing) long-term: number of neurons * quality of neurons (life cycle) * input energy (chemicals in the brain + body’s system that con provide continuous necessary chemicals) *number of neurons: number of neurons can be used for (topic 1+related topics) *Input energy: The brain and human system can supply relatively long term chemical substances for connection of neurons
Whats wrong is that it seems that even michio kaku starts to questioning the Evolution theory . Our Consciousness is not a poor accident by evolution . Our brain is more complex then the brain of an animal . And it doesnt happened by evolution , it was created like a complex mechanism that works with Consciousness.
M6Alex6961992 Sure, he mentions part by part which areas of the brain correspond to less complex animals in order to refute evolution. In the same sense that a cow didn't evolve because its brain is so much more complex than that of a fish. All hail cow-jesus.
M6Alex6961992 He's operating way outside his area of expertise and drawing on outdated ideas of the so-called 'triune brain' to concoct a theory with little explanatory power. I really don't know why Big Think would feel this a useful contribution when there are genuine researchers in to brain science and philosophers who specialise in consciousness out there.
I was wondering when someone would point that out . . . I guess we can say that this is just a layperson's opinion - an idea from someone who possesses plenty of knowledge in certain fields of study - just not the ones that address human cognition and conscience . . . . his notions should not be viewed as academically sound just because he has a doctorate in a science . . . .
***** Unlike Kaku I make no claim to knowledge in an area outside my area of expertise. I do know enough to be able to recognise ill-informed, over-confident, and frankly misleading information when I see it though. Rather than defend Kaku (and I really don't know why you would want to) maybe you should do some checking yourself? Google is your friend.
+stephine price Either he hurt his hand skydiving on Jupiter with the aliens that the government is hiding from us, or he slipped while cutting an onion with a new kitchen knife. I'm placing my bets on the former...... like, totally...
+LemonStacks :D You know skydiving with aliens sounds like a very reasonable explanation for this mystery. Or maybe he created a worm hole and was testing it out by sticking his hand through. I guess there was kittens on the other end....
Very interesting take on this, Dr. Kaka. But I would argue that my dog is also conscious of itself because when I say: "come here boy", it totally knows that it should come to me. So the dog must be aware of itself and also of me as a separate entity. And it has to decipher my body language, so you could technically say that we are communicating in a way. But anyways, could you tell us again that story about an ant hill?
Okay, I can see where he's gone wrong philosophically. "I believe that consciousness IS the number of feedback loops..." etc. Schoolboy error. Consciousness *might* arise from the right number of feedback loops, that doesn't mean it *is* the right number of feedback loops. That's as confused as saying speed is an engine because with the right engine we can drive very fast.
Good conclusion, conciousness also have a super power a metaphysics phenomenon, where you can't touch it but you can feel it only yourself the owner and can travel through time and space to the end and to the beginning of creation, we experience endless thoughts and simulations of the future, So here you define it like a Spirit,
1. He's not addressing the "hard problem" of consciousness, which is how qualitative states of experience can arise from a purely quantitative model of the world. 2. What he described seems consistent with panpsychism, the theory that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality and exists in different things to varying degrees of complexity.
This is what happens when a physicist dabbles in biology. As much as i agree that thinking about the future is an important part of what makes our consciousness different from other organisms, there are still countless other things which are arguably just as important - for instance thinking about situations which could not possibly exist just to see their implications, empathy, morality, identification of logic systems and rationale, one could go on forever. The problem with what michio is doing here is assuming that consciousness follows a sort of model like the laws of physics tend to, which it might not - and perhaps is the reason why science has had such difficulty with interpreting what consciousness is. In other words, it's arguable that each individual neuron has it's own unique and specific function or role and these collectively make up consciousness, so if you want to assign a sort of "model" to how consciousness works you may have to design a model consisting of trillions of levels, not just 3. Still, very thought provoking!
Thinking about situations which could not possibly exist it's also thinking about the future, an alternative future. When we think about future we try to predict, that is we try to simulate and so we do with thinking about non-existent situations, we simulate them.
Wtf did he do to his right hand? A band aid on this right lower pinky knuckle, middle finger knuckle, and index middle knuckle. I hurt my hands frequently but rarely enough to need to cover one wound with a band aid let alone three on one hand. Michio, please tell me why
There are 11 theoretical/mathematical dimensions to our multiverse, Then there's the question of what or how our universe was created our multiverse. there are too many possibilities and no proof of anything who is correct, to reject theories when you don't begin to understand at any level is pure ignorance and I feel bad for you son
This is just a play on the four levels or types of civilizations on the Kardashev scale. I don't think consciousness can split be into distinct levels. Having demarcation lines splitting the conscious space is not a particularly insightful.
Interesting hypnosis Dr Kaku; but I disagree on the point of only humans understanding their place in time. Lions plan in advance for the coming of the rains or the return of the herds, as do wolves and any other creature who's life depends on understanding the seasons. The difference is merely the detail in which we ponder time, our place in it and how best to use it.
Do you actually think that they really "understand" the seasons? I bet animals just have something which resembles compass in their brain, or biological clock that tells them when to move and which direction. For example If you have ever tried spy a dog, you certainly realize that when this dog does something naughty, it really does not stop thinking "what will that two legged animal think?!" but they might feel ashamed when the owner actually arrives and starts to blame the dog. Animals do live in the moment and probably do not understand future or seasons.
Abonodi Dogs don't understand the difference between an hour and a minute but they do understand summer and winter, it all depends on what is important to what animal.
Though I find this concept intriguing, I do have to bring up that the tufted titmouse and nuthatch both hide seeds in spaces in tree bark for future food supplies. They have the a ability to recall a large number of these stashes.
But how do we become ourselves why a I me and not someone else or born during another era? why am I in this form? why am I not born in Another country, why am I not my siblings?
physics. physics determines how things happen were and when. you are you because its not possible to be anyone else..... I mean that should be kinda obvious. its not like there was a point that you chose who you wanted to be before your born or something silly.
yawnos that's not a good answer.At this moment in time there are some 6 billion people alive on earth. Moreover, there have been billions alive in the past - before me - and there will be billions more after me. Yet, of all these human beings, there is one individual (from my perspective) that stands out from the rest, that’s different from all the others. And that person, of course, is me. Presumably I could have been any one of all those billions. But something determined that I would be on the inside of this particular body. What determined that? How was that association made? What determined that my consciousness would manifest itself in this (my) particular body - out of all those others? I understand that mind and body go hand in hand and that one’s consciousness develops from one’s experiences. If I had an identical twin, for example, we would be genetically identical but differ in our experiences. But, in my opinion, that’s not enough to justify why my consciousnes manifested itself inside only one of those bodies. I can’t help feeling there’s just got to be an answer to this question.Posing the question is hard enough. Why is my consciousness in this particular body, and why does so much of who I am seem predefined? I am struggling to come to terms with the fundamental alienation I feel from all other entities. I can never truly know anyone because I cannot experience their consciousness; I can only perceive them in a manner which is, essentially, primarily a reflection of my own consciousness. Am I alone in feeling this way? Out of all the people born and existing through out history and still alive today, why did I happen to be this one? It’s really hard to understand… I mean what the heck am I, the part that is observing all of this? I mean I know I can see my body and interact with physical objects, but I feel like there is something underneath that is observing it happening, something sort of timeless.
Zac6230 .... dude I gave you the only answer to that question you are you because YOU are YOU. by definition you can't e anyone else because if you were they would be you. your question makes no sense. physics explains it all. your parents had sex some number of years ago that kid grew. that was a physical (governed by physics) event if that had never happened you would not exist, so you could not ask the question to begin with. "What determined that my consciousness would manifest " the fact that your brain is in that body. " I understand that mind and body go hand in hand and that one’s consciousness develops from one’s experiences." you just answered you question with what i told you... physics its not hard to understand the universe is all cause and effect its all physics taking place. "I mean I know I can see my body and interact with physical objects, but I feel like there is something underneath that is observing it happening, something sort of timeless." no there is no such thing. your thoughts come from your brain, once your brain is gone you are gone. its like a computer without a processor.
You misunderstand. Physics is a description of the mechanics of the universe. So yes physics determines everything in the sense that it is the universe undergoing the passage of time. Physics asserts that everything that happens has an effect and a cause in relation to time. This is to say that IF we knew the position and all of the variables of all the particles and all forms of energy and the exact way in which all of these things interact we could then with 100% accuracy predict the future and very likely examine the past as well by "playing time backwards".
An important distinction to make as far as consciousness is concerned: that between sensation and awareness. A thermometer senses the temperature of it's surroundings but is unaware of it (as far as we can imagine). You also have to consider that there are movements of consciousness that are much more difficult to quantify than sensing surrounding objects and people and the passage of time. The fact that we can even question consciousness indicates that consciousness is qualitative (and higher analogues?). My understanding is that, while consciousness may be tethered to our neurons, it is housed in higher and lower dimensions, and as such, is a metaphysical as well as a physical phenomenon.
Aging is a mental thinking process,if you for example think about the future as it is already been done,you life is over and you produce more freeradicals inside you but if you handle this wisely and speak to yourself there are no future or past only a illusion only the here and now then you will always stay the same long Thats my theory anyway sad that Michiokaku gets older he is a great mind with great thoughts .
The consciousness model that Dr.Kaku mentions here is flawed. All non-living technology (such as the thermostat) can detect the external universe only when their sensors are switched on. The moment that the sensors are switched off, the equipment LOSES ALL AWARENESS of the outside world. However, living creatures are fundamentally different. In a living organism, even if all sensory inputs were to be removed, the living creature could still conceive of there being an environment around it. That organism may not be able to gauge the nature of the outside environment, but it still is able to conceive that something exists outside of itself. This recognition of separateness is fundamental to it, and does not depend on any kind of sensory feedback loop. In other words, consciousness is the independent ability of an entity to recognize that it is distinct from its environment. Only living entities have this ability. Non living technology can mimic the outward behavior of living systems, but can never ever be truly aware of the fact that it exists as distinct from the rest of the universe.
if you are talking about all non-living technology, then how about a mercury thermostat? A mercury thermostat is does not work on electricity. When themperature rises, the mercury atoms start to vibrate more (what pretty much ALL the atoms/molecules do when temperature rises). When the mercury atoms start to vibrate more, they take up more 'space' and the liquid mercury in the glass?container of the thermostat raises up to the higher number of temperature on the thermostat. This is actually basic chemistry and physics which is applicable to a lot of events that happen in the universe, living or non-living actually does not make a difference in the face that particles respond to their 'enviroment/(change in) physical circumstances. ~hope you could understand my point, and even if not, enjoy the sun
+OnePieceOfRedSun... The mercury thermostat is not a single item - it is a collection of atoms behaving independently. External observers can observe this collective result of millions of atoms occupying more space, which is mapped to a scale outside it from which the observer can infer a result. It is an analog result vs binary. Usually analog results require some observer to make an approximate inference. This is not so for a a computer chip based thermostat (which I believe Kaku is analogizing to living things). Computers usually have a specific binary output - either yes or no. It senses electrical signal strength and gives a single output. However, my personal believe is that Dr.Kaku's inference that "non-living things have consciousness" is wrong. The fact that a non-living tool can give a binary output on an external stimulus doesn't make it conscious. On the contrary. *The very fact that a non-living thing needs external input to give an output makes it non-living*. The fundamental distinction between living and non-living is the fact that living creatures can be fully conscious of there being something outside itself even when it momentarily stops receiving input from its senses. Living conscious things can conceptualize a universe outside itself even if its senses are inactive. That's an output that originates from within - without being preceded by an external input.
+TPI STK... Yes absolutely - things made of atoms/energy always transform from one state to another. All technology is non-living...that was the point of disagreement with Dr.Kaku. He said that a thermostat can be considered as having one unit of consciousness because it has given an output based on a calculation. However, I disagree - technology cannot ever be considered conscious (even 1 unit is 1 unit too many). The reason being, technology can only react to stimulus - It cannot originate a response on its own. A thermostat is reactionary - it reacts to a signal. If the signal stops, thermostat stops. At the point when the signal stops, as far as the thermostat is concerned, the universe does not exist anymore. However, living conscious are totally different. Even if the external signals stop (i.e., our senses stop functioning - like closing our eyes or going blind), living beings can still very much conceive of light as a concept. The concept of an external world comes from within living creatures even before it is born - it is not a machine reacting to stimulus, but rather it is a biological machine that pre-conceives an external universe and anticipates it.
Sam Reads well spoken, I can't say I disagree with you. In respons to the last part of your comment that: "Living conscious things can conceptualize a universe outside itself even if its senses are inactive. That's an output that originates from within - without being preceded by an external input." What if a living being stops recieving ALL external inputs? I believe the inner consciousness will still be able to do what it always does, but I don't believe that it necessarily will be conscious of an external universe around him. Let's that you are in empty space and have no change in any of the physical circumstances (meaning nothing you can sense that is there because there is no contrast) in the outside universe (and you don't have the memory/knowledge from a time that there was an observable outside universe), do you believe would you still be able of being conscious of the outside universe?
+OnePieceOfRedSun ... I believe absolutely yes. Living organism MUST have a concept of an outside universe even if it has NO sense organs. (For example, single celled creatures - who do not have any senses, and only have rudimentary chemical receptors at best.). The act of staying alive is essentially a process of replenishment of resources. Organisms need to replenish their inherited energy which is continuously depleting. This sparks off a need to seek out energy sources - which must necessarily lie outside itself. Every organism recognizes this "need" - it manifests itself as "Survival instinct" which is fundamental to life as we know it. Survival instinct is nothing but a recognition of external resources that must be acquired to stay alive. This is a fundamental recognition of the universe outside of itself - and it is a sense that originates from within itself. So if your theoretical lifeform somehow magically found itself alive in the middle of deep space with zero access to resources, even then it still has this "need" to seek out external resources. It would of course fail to find the resources, and eventually die very quickly, but before it died, it had a concept of an external universe that was triggered from nowhere else but within itself.
But it is said that squirrels also forgot where they bury most items that they bury. So if they plan, they plan to fail since they cannot remember where they hid their goodies.
I also can't remember where I put a lot of things! I read that they look for landmarks to remember where they put things, which is pretty smart if true.
Yes but his arguement is that it is purely instincual. Bears hibernate because when they sense cold, they start packing on fat, slowing down, and sleep more as a way to conserve energy. They aren't consciously planning their future; they are purely doing what their brains naturally are 'telling' them to do. Same goes with birds, squirrels, etc.
You could then also argue that what humans do is just a more advanced instinct. Is there really a scientifically valid way to differentiate "consciousness" from "instinct"? Plus how can we tell what's actually happening inside a bear's mind/brain?
Whoa.. i wonder what happened to his hand? Anyway, back on the comment's track; Something something God, something circular logic something Bible something something!
Still better then * evolution did it * or a* aliens did it * You need to know that God is beyond all that gaps and is a Intelligence creator who breathed within you the nostrils of life which includes this Conscious Intelligence and the Human being became a living Soul .
yawnos What would you prefer, an autopsy before your own eyes, or would some diagram be enough? How about evidence of how the heart is constructed and how it Works... or how our eyesight functions... wow, such pathetic cynicism!
Beatriz Valdes What are you on about? If some one is going to believe in some kind of all powerful universe creating super being they better have some proof that it actually exists, otherwise they are no better than children believing there are monsters under the bed.
Carpaithia Forest The triune distinction is just based on gross morphological criteria. It is disproved by: - histological research: the architecture of the neurons - functional research: scans of the activity of the brain - embryological research: the sequence of development in the embryo For example, certain parts of the cerebellum develop at the very end of the embryonic development, at the same time as certain parts of the cerebral cortex.
I think the main issue with mainstream sciences' approach to consciousness is they assume matter comes first without any proof. What if, like our daily experience, I(consciousness) comes first, before any experience(environment, body, thoughts, sensations/ senses, emotions). All experience appears in I. Without or without the experience. I exist
In fact: Both offers are to simplistic for me. Consciousness is a natural phenomena that (still) cannot be defined by our current primitive scientific models. Complexity is just one piece of the puzzle. Just adding more feedback loops just gives you very sophisticated zombies that will never even know they exist. What is missing is the unique _first hand perspective_ through which every conscious living being percieves the world (and it's dreams) it's entire lifetime.
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
Sir, I want to ask a question?
If animals cannot plan the future then what phenomenal is convincing female animals to prepare the space for laying eggs or baby and then shelter to prevent them?
InstaBlaster...
No do fast preacher!!!
What about Emotions,; Moral; LOVE:Hoppe.. faith? - -you Just imagene! Prophesior
We all Know don't need anader interpretation But a Factor!
I think we can straightforwardly claim consciousness is quantum because it collapses wave functions
What's with all the bandages on his right hand?
Is he in some sort of Science Fight Club?
Rule number one of Science Fight Club...you do not talk about Science Fight Club.
lol -
lol..😂
LOL-LOL.
Happened after meeting a flat earther
Dr Michio Kaku has a way of explaining things that grabs your attention and make you want to keep listening. I really enjoy listening to him talk.
brasilman11 totally agree
I enjoy it too, but it is often a little vague and unclear. I think it is because his thoughts cause his language to be more experimental, he is a Theoretical Physicist after all. Sometimes I wish he'd spell it out a bit more clearly for some of us un-scientific gumps. His theory and model of consciousness through evolution is quite broad. Make it linear for me, you know?
@@artofneed2317 What he's saying is. Evolution / Natural Selection influenced and developed consciousness over time. If you think about it from an evolutionary point of view, there would have been organisms who survived better by eating organisms who then survived better by eating and avoiding consumption, and so forth, with organisms developing a sense of other organisms so that they would survive or better to survive. So in other-words, consciousness is just systematic gradual developments over time. Becoming aware of who we are and what we need to do, makes us the peak of evolution at present, so therefore consciousness is just a side effect of evolution. That's how I interpret it.
Looks like Dr. Kaku knocked somebody out with a right hook in the the name of science!
It was a "Quantum" knockout.
NO.
The thing is, the only thing we (may) know about consciousness is; consciousness emanates from the brain. That's it. But that tells us NOTHING about WHAT the consiousness IS; we only know "Where?"; _not "What?"_.
So basically Kaku decided to say: "consciousness is the tool for thinking" WITHOUT ANY PROOF. That's the sign of a _bad_ scientist; a bad physisist also : )
Either
1) consciousness is a necessary byproduct from a "smart", developed brain; you can't make "smart" brains without it
2) consciousness actually _does_ something on its own (like Kaku implied, it seems); maybe it's related to "free will" for instance (this is religion, opinions and stupid and so I won't give further examples)
3) the consciousness is a redundant byproduct of a "smart" brain; highly unlikely IMO; what's the chance of that???
In any case; we still don't know WHAT it is, where it begins or where it ends or how it relates to action of the "feeling" or "thinking" things. ALSO; so far we have no way to find out, unless we find out "consciousness particles" or "consciousness mediators" or the like, the measuring of whom would give us scientific = logical, experimental (empirical) proof of where consciousness is (could be) or isn't, for example.
Nope.
PASSIONATE MC yes Hahahahaha!!
Sure does...
Doesn't some animals hide foood witch they come back to get later. Isn't that some sort of plan for the future?
+Henrik H Instinct vs. conscious planning.
stocking food has nothing to do with consciousness. even you dont need consciousness to put milk in refrigerator. you do it kinda automatically.
Yes. But I would probably never do it if i didn't knew why I did it.
Or when bees store honey to survive winter...
Some scientists try to simplify everything,to make things appear easier,but it just can't be so simple...
Rzdawg - This is old but I agree.
"If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we'd be so simple we couldn't"
so basically our brain is simple as hell
It may turn out to be the case that the complexity of our brain/mind is equal to the complexity of our capacity for complex abstract thought, but this does not mean that comprehension is beyond possibility. If you consider a jigsaw puzzle, it may have thousands of pieces and if you don’t know what picture it actually makes prior to attempting assembling it, it will commence as a very complex task, gradually becoming less complex as you deduce the possibilities of arrangement with greater and greater refinement, eventually coming close to completion the image becomes more obvious and then we finally place all the pieces into their rightful positions and we have one cohesive picture. Strangely we have commenced with a complex task that proceeds towards a simpler task and finally arriving at just one simple overall picture of reality. The task of understanding consciousness might be like this, so all hope is not lost. Of course proceeding through the initial stage is likely to rely more on good guessing or sheer luck, maybe intuition too, then once we start to patch together enough of the picture our hope will become enhanced. Like your thoughts though, very interesting stuff isn’t it. Sorry for such a lengthy reply, but of course to reply properly might take light years.
As the quote a physician is a bunch of atoms talking about atoms
Is consciousness produced by organized energy
Tech Guy but we collect memories through the senses of our body which is powered by energy and those experiences are stored inside us, Our thoughts, emotions and memories Are not our consciousness, But A Product of our consciousness. I believe our minds/individual consciousness are The focused activity of a matrix of organized energy within are body. Whether the consciousness is preserved as an echo(soul/spirit) after death or fades into oblivion is anyones guest
“The doubters said,
"Man can not fly,"
The doers said,
"Maybe, but we'll try,"
And finally soared
In the morning glow
While non-believers
Watched from below.”
― Bruce Lee
If we based life on where we are and not where we can be, we can not make progress, if i said to man who lived 1000 years ago that i can bend a bunch of metal together and fly over the ocean he would say i was crazy, but only time can tell you who was really the crazy one and who was the genius.
R.I.P ✝️.
i think there's more to our consciousness than planning into the future. like being aware that we are conscious beings. that's a big thing. a thermostat may be conscious but it sure doesn't know that. it can't out itself apart from and observe the fact that it's collecting information
My thought was that a squirrel stores nuts, right? So he's technically saving them for later, because he's not going to eat them now. He has to remember where the nuts are stored to go back and get them. It does seem like there is some forethought in that. In addition, cause and effect as an aspect of thinking about the future. Don't stray away from the herd, you'll get eaten.
Ollie Shaman well you can say that the squirrels just have an instinctive urge to hide their nuts. they dont know why. they just do it. then later they have the urge to find those nuts. they just do it. animals dont stray from the herd for fear of being eaten. they just do it because their instincts say it's the right thing to do
Greyz174 Yay time to do more research. Thanks for your response.
Greyz174 When one works with animals. Its clear that they have self aware consciousness.
Ollie Shaman
I can just see it. When no one is around to witness it, the squirrels have board meetings.
So as you can see, this quarter, we had a 33% increase in acorns, but an almost 100% decrease in walnuts.
This is unacceptable. I propose a hostile take over of the Walnut tree to the south.
Due to severe shortages of peanuts, the price has gone up to nearly 15,000 acorns per peanut!
As risky as this sounds, I think we should do a complete acquisition of the circus peanut supply to the East.
Yes, humans.
This is actually very interesting, I've never really thought of consciousness like that before, and it greatly simplifies what consciousness is.
The way I've always seen it, is that people trying to explain consciousness almost always either ignore the brain, or treat it it like a secondary importance.
If consciousness is obviously stored within the brain, then it is reliant upon the brain, I think. There has never been an example of consciousness without a physical brain categorized by science. Therefore, we cannot understand consciousness without also understanding the physical matter in which it resides and is reliant upon, the brain.
"Begin with a function of arbitrary complexity. Feed it values, "sense data". Then, take your result, square it, and feed it back into your original function, adding a new set of sense data. Continue to feed your results back into the original function ad infinitum. What do you have? The fundamental principle of human consciousness." - Academician Prokhor Zakharov - "The Feedback Principle"
Animals do run simulations into the future,they Bury food for consumption at a later date. That's thinking ahead if you ask me.
Dogurasu Well, you could argue that humans do the same thing. All what they do is because of "instinct."
Youssif Salama humans use information beyond what their instinct tells them to make decisions. if we were purely instinctual there would be no need for education.
Well, the thing is, no one did ask you because you're not a physicist and therefore inapt and unqualified to speak on suck matters of physical existence. But interesting point though.
If you don't want to see people's Opinions on subjects then you should stop reading comments,it's kind of the point.
FYI physicists aren't qualified I'm animal behaviour.and just wanna say nothing you said interested me.
shoopdanerd Well, arguably we have an instinct for survival and prosperity. So you could say that we build civilization to ensure these goals are met and one of the best ways to keep this civilization going is to ensure that our children are educated so that we can have a society so that we can survive and prosper. It actually does appear to stem from instinct.
we gotta level up so we can become doctor Manhattan
The beauty of this is that, at "Level 3", humans are able to run simulations/predict - which is the very method through which they develop models to understand the thing that creates such thoughts in the first place.
Saying this guy should stick to String theory is like telling Davinci to just stick with painting.
Great analogy, I think his work warrants his opinions in other fields.
Michio Kaku loves classing stuff into levels. I'm pretty sure he is a hard core gamer in his spare time :D.
i was expecting him to guess what a level 4 conciousness would be like
mind control, or mind reading, or jump from body to body, who knows :)
Funny thing is, anything that can be systemized - in principle that's everything - is eligible for being coded into game theory, the basic language of computer games. In other words everything can be simulated as a computer game.
Level 4 is Christ consciousness
I actually made a theory JUST like this! It all started from a walk I had from after school, I was walking and a leaf fell from a tree, it landed and I questioned why it landed in the exact location that it did. The leaf couldn't control where it fell for it isn't conscious, but why? Why isn't a leaf conscious? I then realized that in order for the leaf to control where it moved it would need to somehow interact with it's environment. The leaf would need eyes, something to steer it while in mid air, and what not. Of course, this itself doesn't explain consciousness...yet. I thought of how simple it is to interact with the environment, it doesn't make it "conscious" in the traditional sense. It's only aware of where it wants to fall, it doesn't question why it wants to fall in that one spot, it's only aware of one task. So I started making levels of consciousness, just like Michio Kaku, the levels were similar to his in fact, humans being on level three. In the end, what makes us "conscious" is being "conscious" of being "conscious", sounds silly huh? xD
I'm not done though, because what I just went over is only the tip of the ice berg. Now, on my walk, after theorizing about the levels of consciousness, I was still dissatisfied. So I thought harder, and realized that memory is consciousness, or at least consciousness in the tradition sense. Think about it, if you can't remember anything, even what happened to you 2 seconds ago, are you even conscious? This is where things got REALLY good, I was finally getting somewhere. This idea came up because I had recently watched a video about a guy who could only remember things from 10 seconds ago, anything past that he would forget and I would try to put myself in his shoes but it was impossible for me to imagine. So being conscious doesn't only have levels to it, but it's memory. Now for our leaf to be conscious in the tradition sense, it needs to be able to be conscious of itself being conscious and it needs to know that it was conscious about being conscious 10 seconds ago.
So now we know consciousness comes in levels and is literally memory, is there anymore? There’s one more part to consciousness, although there’s a lack of explanation to it, and that is learning. That’s right, I believe we learn the sensation of being aware just like we learn the color red. “Learn the color read?” you may ask, well think of it this way, there’s nothing in the universe that says “when you arrange these atoms it produces red consciously”...really? Why is red red? Why is blue blue? Couldn’t red have been blue and blue have been orange? Maybe red could have been some other color that doesn’t even exist! BUT WHY RED?! Why do high pitch sounds sound so high? Why do smelly smells smell smelly? Why is anything the way it is? The answer to that is that we learn those things to be the way they are...I don’t have the answer to why we learn them that way, how our brain creates these illusions but perhaps my level of consciousness prevents me from knowing the answer to that! And to think a mere leaf got me to theorize about consciousness. Falling objects sure do have a lot of impact on us humans don’t they? ...apples, anyone?
+Armadder here have a cookie
ZeroGorDIE *eats cookie* thanks :)
+Armadder You mean "hypothesis".
FieroGT42 well the memory part is not a hypothesis, it's just common sense :O I guess the rest is though, i'm a philosopher.
Highly entertaining !
Best part is that....he made everything so simple.
Yeah and its almost certainly wrong.
Yes! Another Michio Kaku video! I subscribed to BigThink just for him.
your lectures helped me to think about a lot about future and physics in the space.
he mustve stuck his hand in schroedingers box at dinner time
At the end of the day, I think it still comes down to the question of how we define consciousness. To me, he did a great job of defining levels of awareness, but is awareness all there is to consciousness, or is it simply a facet of the more more abstract definition of what consciousness truly is?
First he says that an electron can be in two places at once, and now a thermostat has one unit of consciousness? Seriously? A thermostat now has the ability to feel? Just goes to show that "Trust me, I'm a doctor" isn't always true.
If you see the human body as a very complex mechanism of elements (which it is) then it seems like a very practical explanation.
he didnt say termostats "feel" but rather "human feelings" are a very complex sum of interactions.
Kikino He said "a thermostat has one unit of consciousness".Name for me a conscious being that doesn't feel. Feelings are not the complex sum of interactions, feelings are the result of a complex sum of interactions. He is trying to explain the unexplainable, i.e., the hard problem of consciousness/sentience.
Youre right, he is trying to explain the (not yet) explainable. Maybe he went too far with the comparison. Change the example a bit. Insects dont feel, but if you attack a bee hive it certainly seems like they have self awareness. Not at the same extent us "concious beings" do of course, so using Kaku's scale, insects have less conciousness units.
There is a clear relation between the complexity of the nervous system and the "amount" of conciousness.
As for inert things, the thermostat could be the insect and a Strong AI, the human being.
Kikino I don't think it will ever be explained. How do you know that insects do not feel? We don't know what it's like to be a bee, but there is evidence they feel pain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_invertebrates
This body I occupy is made of things that are inert., yet my body moves. A bee has a welfare, a thermostat does not. How will we know when we have created a "Strong AI"?
Considering that 200 years ago we only had horses to move around and now we have robots taking pictures of pluto, I think the answers that are out of our reach will eventually be answered. But not in this generation it seems. We are too young.
About strong AI, the consensus is that as soon as the first is born, it will be aleady too late to stop it. Maybe we can ask IT the secret of conciousness, if it doesnt kill us all that is..
Michio Kaku is a major dude. He is qualified to teach at any university and he chooses to teach at a city college.
His "string" BS confuses me. (No great feat).
And level 4 is beyond our ability to comprehend because we are only level 3... Woah
I believe level 4 would be what we would call "God" or atleast "God-like powers"
MrUtoobtroll of course you would, because you are predisposed to think above us is a god.
James Grassel
Lol, his username alone shows that you should be wary of even replying to someone like that.
RCynic75 I know. "James Grassel" is a pretty shady name… (¬_¬)
Is James short for Judas? ⓞ_ⓞ
MrUtoobtroll
Think about your pineal gland as an eye into the unseen a more spiritual dimension maybe.
I wish I could live next to this guy and walk over on a Saturday morning watch some cartoons, eat some cereal and just talk about quantum physics and human perception
As a scientist and a person that discovered the spiritual world a few years ago. All I can say is...keeping an open mind is always going to lead to more discoveries. It is disturbingly mind blowing to realize how much spirituality and the physical world actually are the same thing. Experiments aim to measure, quantify. Whilst that is reasonable, in a new concept in science it is helpful to keep an open mind first before concluding things based on traditional mathematical concepts.
I have always thought of consciousness as the operating system of the mind. It takes our complicated thinking processes and simplifies it into something easy to understand. Like command prompt (the underlying processes of the brain) vs Windows (simplified and organized in a logical fashion)
Michio loves putting everything into levels. I wonder how many levels his finger bandages are at. XD
no doubt it was from beating creationists up....
He put those on after telling the snake about how much he was not, in fact, lunch.
"See its brackets nigga
Them hoes ain't fucking you cuz you ain't in that bracket nigga
Learn life, its levels to this shit young boy
Ay O you feel me"
Psy Qui Why did you decide to use that type of language?
freedomandliberty93
it's a song "Levels" By Meek Mill
For a quantifiable description of consciousness that sounded awfully qualitative to me.
1:37 I bet Michio Kaku knows the first rule of the fight club
lol nailed it man.
This is by far the best theory of consciousness I've ever came across.
I had to check that my head was in fact still on top of my neck, and not, as Kaku suggests, on any of my shoulders.
Its an expression, troll.
He cant get sarcasm. That statement was hilarious and exalt the erroneous ideas of the population which become very popular even if it just an expression.
Michio Kaku the only Japanese who speaks English without a Japanese accent!
And also a great physicist lol
LYJManchesterUnited He is American, not Japanese.
Love idea !!! Love the information!!!
so good, hope we have more of this guy, glad he is back!
We need more people like Michio Kaku! These types of people are absolutely necessary for the betterment of our future.
Dr.Kaku is mixing up consciousness with intellectual complexity. if a brain has evolved differently, is the entity not conscious? Is a snake not conscious of its existence because it doesn't have a pre-frontal cortex? Is an earthworm not conscious of the fact that it exists?
Consciousness is the independent ability of an entity to recognize that it is distinct from its environment.
On a fundamental level, this recognition is ingrained in every living cell. Each cell is independently "conscious" of where it ends, and where the environment begins. Even if it has no well-developed sensory organs, it still is able to recognize on some level that it is a distinct entity, and that there exists (or may exist) something outside of itself.
By this definition, all living cells are conscious at varying levels of complexity. More well developed the brain, more clearly is the self-distinction articulated to itself. So the feedback loops Dr. Kaku speaks about only enables an already conscious entity to better recognize the environment outside it.
Conversely, Artificial Intelligence is not conscious - irrespective of the number of feedback loops we might program as its data input. The machine cannot, in a true sense, *independently* recognize itself as being distinct from its environment. The word "independent" is key here - even if AI's outward behavioral output might indicate that it is aware, if humans or external observers are removed from the picture, then that output is meaningless. By itself, the machine can only execute commands.
This is what makes a living entity fundamentally different - it exists (and self-recognizes its existence) even if there is no other observer around it.
+Dobby ...yes but my point was that if we go by Dr.Kaku's explanation for consciousness, we should be able to build an AI that is conscious by simply increasing complexity of the machine - This is what I was refuting as being impossible.
+Sam Reads this is so well said Theories but be derived from evidence.
But the fanboys will so cry about it xD
***** e.g.1-Roots searching for water grows more and blindly.
2-Some plants close their leaves after touch or after sunset.
3-Indicater plants grows on respectivesoil.
Ex:You know plants grown in Marshy field with methane.
or Saline field trees or Arsenic containing soil has some indicator plants.
4-Imporatant plants respond to atmosphere and when we injure any plant it tries to heal.or in crops the infected part of plant is fall down before disease spread to overall plant.
5-You can read some work of Dr.Jagadish Bose on Plants for this
May you got required info.
All the Best!
+Morpheus ...Bro, forget trees, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to prove that even YOU are conscious. There is absolutely no scientific test available to prove something is conscious. A living entity's consciousness is a purely subjective experience - fully obvious and apparent to the subject, but utterly inexplicable to the rest of the universe.
There is the Turing test - which at best proves that a software / process can mimic human-like conscious - it is based on responses / output being similar to human responses. But it is only proof of the ability to "mimic" consciousness, and not proof of consciousness itself.
Consciousness is the only known phenomenon which is taken for granted in you and me, yet if seen from a mathematics or physics standpoint, it just should not exist - because it cannot be expressed in numerical or physical terms.
And that's why I think Dr.Kaku is wrong when he states that evolved brains are conscious but simpler lifeforms are not - how can anyone state that as a scientific fact? For all we know, Dr.Kaku himself is not conscious - because he sure as hell can't prove it.
***** ...but that's scientifically incorrect to assume that only humans (or more developed brains) are conscious while others are not. The reason is simple - consciousness can neither be detected nor quantified by current technology or mathematical models.
This is as unscientific a claim as it is for religious people to say that God exists because the sunrise is beautiful. That's not proof, that's magical thinking.
There is no scientific basis to say earthworms and snakes are not conscious. We as humans can guess, but guesswork and "I feel" statements are not good enough to qualify something as scientific fact. It is much more scientific to say "I don't know" than to state an un-provable statement as fact.
Infact, Dr.Kaku is making emotional statements here based on his gut feel, and not based on fact. Grandma too feels very strongly about rabbit's feet bringing good luck - but that don't make her a scientist, does it?
Wow that's actually a very good definition of consciousness. Never thought about it that way.
I have one question, if consciousness can be quantified, so creativity can be quantified (brain calculating) and taught?
thanks in advance for reply
This is all fair speculation. Smart speculations, but just speculation. It seems overtly simplified. But it does get people to think. So that's a good thing. But in no way is this at all conclusive or even accurate.
Just his opinions on an interesting subject.
Saying that consciousness is a number of feedback loops that interprets what he chooses to be exactly macroscopic information is not just an oversimplification, it is leaping to conclusions in a highly unjustified manner.
Furthermore it is redundant, since the reason why our consciousness interprets macroscopic information about our relative positions in space to other objects and so on is caused by the sensory orans and does not necessarily need to be an ontologically necessary property of consciousness.
melkor321 I agree wholeheartedly. I was just being respectful of his ideas since he is brilliant (and educated) in other areas.
You need to agree with him.
Of course it's overly simplified...most physics has to be for normal people to understand it. It may not be completely accurate but it might be one of the most accurate descriptions I've ever heard. People just wish they had superpowers and that consciousness was something more grandiose than it is.
I already explained that oversimplification isn't the problem here. He cannot distinguish between the processing of information and the experience of information. He explains consciousness as the process of interpreting information while it is only experiencing it. No feedback loops are required to explain information or experiencing it.
Kaku talks about evolution of brain structure, with human brains distinguished by pre-frontal cortex - the seat of rational thinking. Then jumps to talk about "consciousness" as a "mysterious object". This already dismisses the entire mind/brain discussion/debate.
The key question is whether science's limiting to the study of "objects" can actually fully deal with the question of "consciousness" or "awareness" - a subjective, non-material realm (other than ignore or dismiss it). There are many interesting contributions to the study of consciousness in brain science, but it remains questionable whether scientific study can completely unravel or explain consciousness without missing the most important aspects. Maybe "you can't get here from there", but it is fascinating to try.
This +1 I too miss the explanation of the _first person perspective._ Without that, any "AI" will just be a stupid zombie with lot's of LED eye candy in it.
If he had been my teacher at school I would have become a physicist. For someone with his expertise, he boils it down to the gist of it expertly.
This sounds very similar to what Heidegger wrote in Being and Time. Heidegger's philosophy places the self, or Daesin, into a world of fore-sight, fore-having, and fore-conception. It's this projection that allows us to understand ourselves as beings that project ourselves into the future, onto the time in front of us.
It's like Michio Kaku is quantifying Heidigger's work, and it fits well. Although, I think Antonio Damasio paints a more complete picture of consciousness, not that they are non-compatible.
4:08 It's understandable since Michio's primarily a physicist, but actually he's got some facts wrong. We do know of many animals that show remarkable signs of thinking towards the future, planning, even scheming, to get what they want/need. It's very difficult to say that humans and only humans are on a 3rd level (plus this would violate some of the implications of evolution, which supports a continous spectrum of linked creatures rather than distinct levels (staircase) of creatures.)
But without minimal development of a frontal-lobe-esque organ, wouldn't any behavior that implicates planning towards the future be an evolutionary adaptation or learned behavior? For instances squirrels that stash food for the winter, finches that use twigs as tools to retrieve insects from crevasses then store them for later use or even otters that collect rocks that are well formed for smashing oyster shells. All of these animals adapt this behavior from heritage and mimicry and not from ingenuity. Perhaps to some extent, their comprehension of the applications of the behavior they observe as being beneficial, is evidence to the case, but aside from that, what animals *predict* the future without experience.
Kisto Ogbaugo It has been proven that animals such as mammals,birds and so on possess the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states. Where do you draw the fine line between evolutionary instincts and conscious behavior? One could argue that the capabilities that humans possess could be the same as any other non-human animals except at a much higher and complex level. The premise at which we humans declare conscious from unconscious is unclear. Animals are much smarter than we give them credit for,better technology and further studies should help clarify the misconceptions that has been circling the scientific and non scientific community for decades. After the studies have explicitly derived indisputable evidence,hopefully the notion that animals are just a "biological system programmed to be instinctive" will be omitted for good.
Are there other animals beside humans which project their minds into the future, if so how?
i love this guy!
Observing the cosmos is what gave humans the sense of time because that is on what we relied to predict the future. So now, studying the universe in depth might unlock another level of consciousness; perhaps our relationship to the cosmos themselves.
Although far from complete in this very short video, I fully agree with this view of consciousness!
Is consciousness just a higher form of lowly chemical/natural reactions to physical processes? My body produces sweat in order to cool down when a certain temp. is reached - is that a form of consciousness. Maybe in the way it is defined here - but not in the way I feel many people want to define it. Is it just the evolutionary next level of animalistic social and instinctive behavior? The argument here is between the belief that it is a natural byproduct of LIFE (and hence natural processes) or NOT. I find it fascinating that this exact argument can be made for the origin of everything.
It all starts from the smallest particles which are atomic particles subatomic particles if you wanna learn how the world fucking words you gotta start from their up to everything else
blu3flare25 WRONG. Consciousness has no objective qualities, it is made of nothing, consciousness is what is there before anything.
Michio Kaku explains something very hard so easily. DARN I WANT HIM TO BE MY TEACHER.
Michio mate I'd so love to sit with u & ask u all the questions I want to
Ur a clever man keep up with ur knowledge
i just reached Level 99.
Man, just.. be at 3. it's better for you.
the things i saw.. the things i fought.. unbelievable.
i'm glad i learned your language to communicate with you.
Your the great man.
Well fucking said. Guy knows what he's saying. I am happy we have him
triciakitty HAWKING! STEPHEN -FUCKING- HAWKING, MAN! Don't you ever leave him off that list again.
MrUtoobtroll Dude, Hawking is superman in my book. ALWAYS.
Psy Qui Except when Hawking tries to dispute philosophy... miserably. Same goes for Lawrence Krauss.
CosmoShidan
very much agreed but no one is 100% perfect and understanding in everything.. that's why we have diversity :)
Psy Qui Good to hear. Philosophy is relatively useless when compared to Physics anyway. Pondering mysteries is more productive when it produces data in my eyes…
So matter is consciousness. Makes me think we are all the same being experiencing reality from different perspectives.
I could listen to this man all day.
level 4 might be collabirating / shared consciousness
uncertainty principle that’s our wiener...
Anyone notice all the bandaids on his hand and a seeming lack of oral hygiene?
BUT DAMN IT HE KNOWS HOW TO SPEAK
I liked this more physical and biological view on counsiousness, even though that isn’t what many would think about when they heard that word. I’d love to hear what he thinks about the idea that space and matter comes from counsiousness since in this video he used the opposite approach
Fantastic man. Great ability to simplify an idea down to its very essence, and to communicate it clearly and dramatically in the appropriate scope of its potential implications.
I do wonder if using the word 'intelligence' isn't as accurate as 'consciousness' when discussing the two fundamental mysteries
+ Michio Kaku
whats the next step? level 4?
Level 1 was Space awareness
Level 2 was social awareness
Level 3 was Time awareness
Level 4 is ???
also...question, if it was possible to network a human preferential lobe, (biologically, in the same way new neurons are made) to a similar species without this organ,... something similar to adding Visual cells to monkeys eyes that allowed them to see color (that i know that they have done) assuming you were successfully wired it up, what would the results be (hypothetically at the very least), would that individual be elevated to level 3 once it started planning for the future?
The fourth level should be full of candies.
Level 4: QUANTUM AWARENESS!!!
Do you think it could be Self Awareness?
Just disregard my last comment..
Yes! I've spent a lot of time before, sitting and thinking; contemplating the concept of consciousness. Identifying the meaning of many words such as sentience or sapience, studying what I could as amateur neurology and psychology. Through everything that I could surmise my interpretation of consciousness was as simple as that. That the simple volume of brain, and the amount if information that it could contain within itself, excess space that it could use to comprehend that it itself existed. I like the term feedback loop because it really creates a proper model of what were speaking about.
What I really love is the quantitative table he creates with units. Because while trying to define consciousness myself I would create thought experiments, such as, a conscious brain, but with no sensory organs, if a human was born with no senses, could the brain still retain a consciousness? How would it think? Would it think at all? Does it matter if it thinks or is the simple capacity enough to facilitate the definition.
Etc. I'm really glad that I can hear Michio Kaku present the same evaluation albeit more eloquently.
some thoughts I came up on quantifying "level 3" consciousness:
Short term:
number of neurons * quality of neurons (life cycle) * input energy (chemicals in the brain can be used for neural connections/firing)
long-term:
number of neurons * quality of neurons (life cycle) * input energy (chemicals in the brain + body’s system that con provide continuous necessary chemicals)
*number of neurons: number of neurons can be used for (topic 1+related topics)
*Input energy: The brain and human system can supply relatively long term chemical substances for connection of neurons
If we can predict the future we're doing a bang up job running the word. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Physicist cites evolutionary biology and cognitive neuroscience to produce a new theory of consciousness. What's wrong with this picture?
Whats wrong is that it seems that even michio kaku starts to questioning the Evolution theory . Our Consciousness is not a poor accident by evolution . Our brain is more complex then the brain of an animal . And it doesnt happened by evolution , it was created like a complex mechanism that works with Consciousness.
M6Alex6961992 Sure, he mentions part by part which areas of the brain correspond to less complex animals in order to refute evolution. In the same sense that a cow didn't evolve because its brain is so much more complex than that of a fish. All hail cow-jesus.
M6Alex6961992 He's operating way outside his area of expertise and drawing on outdated ideas of the so-called 'triune brain' to concoct a theory with little explanatory power. I really don't know why Big Think would feel this a useful contribution when there are genuine researchers in to brain science and philosophers who specialise in consciousness out there.
I was wondering when someone would point that out . . . I guess we can say that this is just a layperson's opinion - an idea from someone who possesses plenty of knowledge in certain fields of study - just not the ones that address human cognition and conscience . . . . his notions should not be viewed as academically sound just because he has a doctorate in a science . . . .
***** Unlike Kaku I make no claim to knowledge in an area outside my area of expertise. I do know enough to be able to recognise ill-informed, over-confident, and frankly misleading information when I see it though. Rather than defend Kaku (and I really don't know why you would want to) maybe you should do some checking yourself? Google is your friend.
I wonder how he hurt his hand...
+stephine price Either he hurt his hand skydiving on Jupiter with the aliens that the government is hiding from us, or he slipped while cutting an onion with a new kitchen knife. I'm placing my bets on the former...... like, totally...
+LemonStacks :D You know skydiving with aliens sounds like a very reasonable explanation for this mystery. Or maybe he created a worm hole and was testing it out by sticking his hand through. I guess there was kittens on the other end....
stephine price That is also a completely reasonable potential explanation. I hadn't thought of that.
+LemonStacks :D well I guess we will never know for sure lol
knuckle-walking? (evolutionary scientist .. get it?)
Consciousness is everywhere as he says aside from the thermostat, ego the ability to say I am is what we have over all animals
Very interesting take on this, Dr. Kaka. But I would argue that my dog is also conscious of itself because when I say: "come here boy", it totally knows that it should come to me. So the dog must be aware of itself and also of me as a separate entity. And it has to decipher my body language, so you could technically say that we are communicating in a way. But anyways, could you tell us again that story about an ant hill?
whats with all the bandages on his hand?
Old physicist fight club
oh man you dont want to know...
endthedisease shhh
He was beating the dumb out of people.
Okay, I can see where he's gone wrong philosophically. "I believe that consciousness IS the number of feedback loops..." etc. Schoolboy error. Consciousness *might* arise from the right number of feedback loops, that doesn't mean it *is* the right number of feedback loops. That's as confused as saying speed is an engine because with the right engine we can drive very fast.
No one mentions the theory, "the brain is a satellite dish".
well you are right but he knows that too , i think he was trying to say the same thing.
Wow... Quentin Crisp is the new Michio Kaku . Another self assured genius
Cheap shot. Argument from authority. If you think I'm wrong, just tell me how. That's all you have to do. Thanks.
Most people these days have poor reasoning capacity. He thinks that because Michio Kaku said it then it must be true lol.
Good conclusion, conciousness also have a super power a metaphysics phenomenon, where you can't touch it but you can feel it only yourself the owner and can travel through time and space to the end and to the beginning of creation, we experience endless thoughts and simulations of the future, So here you define it like a Spirit,
1. He's not addressing the "hard problem" of consciousness, which is how qualitative states of experience can arise from a purely quantitative model of the world.
2. What he described seems consistent with panpsychism, the theory that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality and exists in different things to varying degrees of complexity.
This is what happens when a physicist dabbles in biology.
As much as i agree that thinking about the future is an important part of what makes our consciousness different from other organisms, there are still countless other things which are arguably just as important - for instance thinking about situations which could not possibly exist just to see their implications, empathy, morality, identification of logic systems and rationale, one could go on forever.
The problem with what michio is doing here is assuming that consciousness follows a sort of model like the laws of physics tend to, which it might not - and perhaps is the reason why science has had such difficulty with interpreting what consciousness is.
In other words, it's arguable that each individual neuron has it's own unique and specific function or role and these collectively make up consciousness, so if you want to assign a sort of "model" to how consciousness works you may have to design a model consisting of trillions of levels, not just 3.
Still, very thought provoking!
Thinking about situations which could not possibly exist it's also thinking about the future, an alternative future. When we think about future we try to predict, that is we try to simulate and so we do with thinking about non-existent situations, we simulate them.
Wtf did he do to his right hand? A band aid on this right lower pinky knuckle, middle finger knuckle, and index middle knuckle. I hurt my hands frequently but rarely enough to need to cover one wound with a band aid let alone three on one hand. Michio, please tell me why
He fucked one scientist who disagreed with the string theory up.
TheSwoleBroscientist god man that one made me crack. +1
TheSwoleBroscientist god man that one made me crack. +1
Does anyone know where I can find his paper?
Thank you!
Only me thinking of the movie Her? :p
yes
There are 11 theoretical/mathematical dimensions to our multiverse, Then there's the question of what or how our universe was created our multiverse. there are too many possibilities and no proof of anything who is correct, to reject theories when you don't begin to understand at any level is pure ignorance and I feel bad for you son
I love this guy so much.
The man is a real gentleman ;never jelling ,always gentle
This is just a play on the four levels or types of civilizations on the Kardashev scale. I don't think consciousness can split be into distinct levels. Having demarcation lines splitting the conscious space is not a particularly insightful.
He means roughly
Interesting hypnosis Dr Kaku; but I disagree on the point of only humans understanding their place in time. Lions plan in advance for the coming of the rains or the return of the herds, as do wolves and any other creature who's life depends on understanding the seasons. The difference is merely the detail in which we ponder time, our place in it and how best to use it.
Do you actually think that they really "understand" the seasons? I bet animals just have something which resembles compass in their brain, or biological clock that tells them when to move and which direction.
For example If you have ever tried spy a dog, you certainly realize that when this dog does something naughty, it really does not stop thinking "what will that two legged animal think?!" but they might feel ashamed when the owner actually arrives and starts to blame the dog. Animals do live in the moment and probably do not understand future or seasons.
Abonodi your shitty rage comic avatar makes you less believable than any sort of spiritual text ever.
Goris. and my cross-dressing anime character makes me seems like a MORE believeable person :D
Goris. and your completely irrelevant comment made my IQ drop by 20 points
Abonodi Dogs don't understand the difference between an hour and a minute but they do understand summer and winter, it all depends on what is important to what animal.
First time I've accurately used the word "wow" today. Great theory. Wonder how we can test it.
Though I find this concept intriguing, I do have to bring up that the tufted titmouse and nuthatch both hide seeds in spaces in tree bark for future food supplies. They have the a ability to recall a large number of these stashes.
But how do we become ourselves why a I me and not someone else or born during another era? why am I in this form? why am I not born in Another country, why am I not my siblings?
physics. physics determines how things happen were and when.
you are you because its not possible to be anyone else..... I mean that should be kinda obvious. its not like there was a point that you chose who you wanted to be before your born or something silly.
yawnos that's not a good answer.At this moment in time there are some 6 billion people alive on earth. Moreover, there have been billions alive in the past - before me - and there will be billions more after me. Yet, of all these human beings, there is one individual (from my perspective) that stands out from the rest, that’s different from all the others. And that person, of course, is me. Presumably I could have been any one of all those billions. But something determined that I would be on the inside of this particular body. What determined that? How was that association made? What determined that my consciousness would manifest itself in this (my) particular body - out of all those others? I understand that mind and body go hand in hand and that one’s consciousness develops from one’s experiences. If I had an identical twin, for example, we would be genetically identical but differ in our experiences. But, in my opinion, that’s not enough to justify why my consciousnes manifested itself inside only one of those bodies. I can’t help feeling there’s just got to be an answer to this question.Posing the question is hard enough.
Why is my consciousness in this particular body, and why does so much of who I am seem predefined? I am struggling to come to terms with the fundamental alienation I feel from all other entities. I can never truly know anyone because I cannot experience their consciousness; I can only perceive them in a manner which is, essentially, primarily a reflection of my own consciousness. Am I alone in feeling this way? Out of all the people born and existing through out history and still alive today, why did I happen to be this one? It’s really hard to understand…
I mean what the heck am I, the part that is observing all of this? I mean I know I can see my body and interact with physical objects, but I feel like there is something underneath that is observing it happening, something sort of timeless.
Zac6230 .... dude I gave you the only answer to that question you are you because YOU are YOU. by definition you can't e anyone else because if you were they would be you. your question makes no sense.
physics explains it all.
your parents had sex some number of years ago that kid grew. that was a physical (governed by physics) event if that had never happened you would not exist, so you could not ask the question to begin with.
"What determined that my consciousness would manifest "
the fact that your brain is in that body.
" I understand that mind and body go hand in hand and that one’s consciousness develops from one’s experiences."
you just answered you question with what i told you... physics
its not hard to understand the universe is all cause and effect its all physics taking place.
"I mean I know I can see my body and interact with physical objects, but I feel like there is something underneath that is observing it happening, something sort of timeless."
no there is no such thing. your thoughts come from your brain, once your brain is gone you are gone. its like a computer without a processor.
You misunderstand. Physics is a description of the mechanics of the universe.
So yes physics determines everything in the sense that it is the universe undergoing the passage of time. Physics asserts that everything that happens has an effect and a cause in relation to time.
This is to say that IF we knew the position and all of the variables of all the particles and all forms of energy and the exact way in which all of these things interact we could then with 100% accuracy predict the future and very likely examine the past as well by "playing time backwards".
Chad Williams How can they be me?
gosh I better stat planing for future otherwise i am not a human.......
Lol
An important distinction to make as far as consciousness is concerned: that between sensation and awareness. A thermometer senses the temperature of it's surroundings but is unaware of it (as far as we can imagine). You also have to consider that there are movements of consciousness that are much more difficult to quantify than sensing surrounding objects and people and the passage of time. The fact that we can even question consciousness indicates that consciousness is qualitative (and higher analogues?). My understanding is that, while consciousness may be tethered to our neurons, it is housed in higher and lower dimensions, and as such, is a metaphysical as well as a physical phenomenon.
How do we level up? Do we pay subscription?
Michio Kaku is getting older. :(
Aging is a mental thinking process,if you for example think about the future as it is already been done,you life is over and you produce more freeradicals inside you but if you handle this wisely and speak to yourself there are no future or past only a illusion only the here and now then you will always stay the same long Thats my theory anyway sad that Michiokaku gets older he is a great mind with great thoughts .
The consciousness model that Dr.Kaku mentions here is flawed. All non-living technology (such as the thermostat) can detect the external universe only when their sensors are switched on. The moment that the sensors are switched off, the equipment LOSES ALL AWARENESS of the outside world. However, living creatures are fundamentally different.
In a living organism, even if all sensory inputs were to be removed, the living creature could still conceive of there being an environment around it. That organism may not be able to gauge the nature of the outside environment, but it still is able to conceive that something exists outside of itself. This recognition of separateness is fundamental to it, and does not depend on any kind of sensory feedback loop.
In other words, consciousness is the independent ability of an entity to recognize that it is distinct from its environment.
Only living entities have this ability. Non living technology can mimic the outward behavior of living systems, but can never ever be truly aware of the fact that it exists as distinct from the rest of the universe.
if you are talking about all non-living technology, then how about a mercury thermostat? A mercury thermostat is does not work on electricity. When themperature rises, the mercury atoms start to vibrate more (what pretty much ALL the atoms/molecules do when temperature rises). When the mercury atoms start to vibrate more, they take up more 'space' and the liquid mercury in the glass?container of the thermostat raises up to the higher number of temperature on the thermostat. This is actually basic chemistry and physics which is applicable to a lot of events that happen in the universe, living or non-living actually does not make a difference in the face that particles respond to their 'enviroment/(change in) physical circumstances.
~hope you could understand my point, and even if not, enjoy the sun
+OnePieceOfRedSun... The mercury thermostat is not a single item - it is a collection of atoms behaving independently. External observers can observe this collective result of millions of atoms occupying more space, which is mapped to a scale outside it from which the observer can infer a result. It is an analog result vs binary. Usually analog results require some observer to make an approximate inference.
This is not so for a a computer chip based thermostat (which I believe Kaku is analogizing to living things). Computers usually have a specific binary output - either yes or no. It senses electrical signal strength and gives a single output.
However, my personal believe is that Dr.Kaku's inference that "non-living things have consciousness" is wrong. The fact that a non-living tool can give a binary output on an external stimulus doesn't make it conscious. On the contrary.
*The very fact that a non-living thing needs external input to give an output makes it non-living*. The fundamental distinction between living and non-living is the fact that living creatures can be fully conscious of there being something outside itself even when it momentarily stops receiving input from its senses. Living conscious things can conceptualize a universe outside itself even if its senses are inactive. That's an output that originates from within - without being preceded by an external input.
+TPI STK... Yes absolutely - things made of atoms/energy always transform from one state to another. All technology is non-living...that was the point of disagreement with Dr.Kaku. He said that a thermostat can be considered as having one unit of consciousness because it has given an output based on a calculation. However, I disagree - technology cannot ever be considered conscious (even 1 unit is 1 unit too many). The reason being, technology can only react to stimulus - It cannot originate a response on its own. A thermostat is reactionary - it reacts to a signal. If the signal stops, thermostat stops. At the point when the signal stops, as far as the thermostat is concerned, the universe does not exist anymore.
However, living conscious are totally different. Even if the external signals stop (i.e., our senses stop functioning - like closing our eyes or going blind), living beings can still very much conceive of light as a concept. The concept of an external world comes from within living creatures even before it is born - it is not a machine reacting to stimulus, but rather it is a biological machine that pre-conceives an external universe and anticipates it.
Sam Reads well spoken, I can't say I disagree with you.
In respons to the last part of your comment that: "Living conscious things can conceptualize a universe outside itself even if its senses are inactive. That's an output that originates from within - without being preceded by an external input."
What if a living being stops recieving ALL external inputs? I believe the inner consciousness will still be able to do what it always does, but I don't believe that it necessarily will be conscious of an external universe around him.
Let's that you are in empty space and have no change in any of the physical circumstances (meaning nothing you can sense that is there because there is no contrast) in the outside universe (and you don't have the memory/knowledge from a time that there was an observable outside universe), do you believe would you still be able of being conscious of the outside universe?
+OnePieceOfRedSun ... I believe absolutely yes. Living organism MUST have a concept of an outside universe even if it has NO sense organs. (For example, single celled creatures - who do not have any senses, and only have rudimentary chemical receptors at best.).
The act of staying alive is essentially a process of replenishment of resources. Organisms need to replenish their inherited energy which is continuously depleting. This sparks off a need to seek out energy sources - which must necessarily lie outside itself. Every organism recognizes this "need" - it manifests itself as "Survival instinct" which is fundamental to life as we know it. Survival instinct is nothing but a recognition of external resources that must be acquired to stay alive. This is a fundamental recognition of the universe outside of itself - and it is a sense that originates from within itself.
So if your theoretical lifeform somehow magically found itself alive in the middle of deep space with zero access to resources, even then it still has this "need" to seek out external resources. It would of course fail to find the resources, and eventually die very quickly, but before it died, it had a concept of an external universe that was triggered from nowhere else but within itself.
Consciousness is just the sum of all senses.. Everything that can sense something is conscious, the more sense it have, the more conscious it is..
Wow this is great and interesting!
So squirrels must be level 3 because they plan by burying acorns.
Ever heard of the concept called competence without comprehension?
But it is said that squirrels also forgot where they bury most items that they bury. So if they plan, they plan to fail since they cannot remember where they hid their goodies.
I also can't remember where I put a lot of things! I read that they look for landmarks to remember where they put things, which is pretty smart if true.
Animals plan ahead. Birds make nests ahead of time
Yes but his arguement is that it is purely instincual. Bears hibernate because when they sense cold, they start packing on fat, slowing down, and sleep more as a way to conserve energy. They aren't consciously planning their future; they are purely doing what their brains naturally are 'telling' them to do.
Same goes with birds, squirrels, etc.
Magpies have funerals for dead family members which shows that they understand the concept of death
You could then also argue that what humans do is just a more advanced instinct. Is there really a scientifically valid way to differentiate "consciousness" from "instinct"? Plus how can we tell what's actually happening inside a bear's mind/brain?
Jesus Christ: Thank you, Jesus.
So what do you think about level 4 consciousness sir??
Whoa.. i wonder what happened to his hand?
Anyway, back on the comment's track; Something something God, something circular logic something Bible something something!
Still better then * evolution did it * or a* aliens did it * You need to know that God is beyond all that gaps and is a Intelligence creator who breathed within you the nostrils of life which includes this Conscious Intelligence and the Human being became a living Soul .
M6Alex7871992 Evidence please.
M6Alex7871992 Evolution did it or aliens did it are still better. Even Sonic did it is better.
yawnos What would you prefer, an autopsy before your own eyes, or would some diagram be enough? How about evidence of how the heart is constructed and how it Works... or how our eyesight functions... wow, such pathetic cynicism!
Beatriz Valdes What are you on about? If some one is going to believe in some kind of all powerful universe creating super being they better have some proof that it actually exists, otherwise they are no better than children believing there are monsters under the bed.
The triune brain model has already been dismissed by the scientific comunity as too simplistic.
Perhaps its too simplistic, but you have to play to your audience.
Carpaithia Forest
The triune distinction is just based on gross morphological criteria. It is disproved by:
- histological research: the architecture of the neurons
- functional research: scans of the activity of the brain
- embryological research: the sequence of development in the embryo
For example, certain parts of the cerebellum develop at the very end of the embryonic development, at the same time as certain parts of the cerebral cortex.
Can I ask, any ideas on what Level 4 consciousness could be?
I think the main issue with mainstream sciences' approach to consciousness is they assume matter comes first without any proof.
What if, like our daily experience, I(consciousness) comes first, before any experience(environment, body, thoughts, sensations/ senses, emotions). All experience appears in I. Without or without the experience. I exist
This is probably the best explanation I have found, the rest were just the GodSquad trying to sell me a villa in heaven.
From the members iv met, I'll take my chances...!
In fact: Both offers are to simplistic for me. Consciousness is a natural phenomena that (still) cannot be defined by our current primitive scientific models. Complexity is just one piece of the puzzle. Just adding more feedback loops just gives you very sophisticated zombies that will never even know they exist. What is missing is the unique _first hand perspective_ through which every conscious living being percieves the world (and it's dreams) it's entire lifetime.
dratsab1980 NOPE, no one who understands consciousness properly ever says stuff like that. You are speaking t the wrong people