I love when people disagree with Michael Levin. He has an expert way of leveling with people and navigating something that could easily be hostile. I also never feel like Michael is trying to appear smart or get the last word. Imagine how many highly intelligent people are captured by their insecurity around the audience perceiving them as a genius. In any pursuit, the agenda regarding what we are signaling socially can seriously encumber the ease in which we can embody our own ideas. Levin never tries to compete or muscularly oppose people, he operates with curiosity. This conversation is like a good jazz jam, everyone is listening and contributing without bringing an agenda to dominate or appear powerful.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment! It was indeed during the live session, and both we and the audience truly appreciated the dynamic dance of ideas. It was beautifully exuberant and filled with honesty-an absolute joy to witness and be a part of!
Wonderful discussion, thanks. Freedoms and objects, inference and pointers. It seems inference is inspired by the visual sense where shape and relative motion are approximated , and the color of the object seen is not used by that object. Pointers are more like the olfactory sense which might be tuned to math as transversing vector spaces. Freedom of movement and freedom of structure?
I think there’s definitely a philosophical balance between the two. If there’s too much freedom of movement without any structure, things can start to feel chaotic or aimless. On the other hand, if there’s too much structure without freedom of movement, it can become rigid or restrictive. It’s that balance-finding the right interplay between the two-that seems to reflect how we, and even other systems, find ways to adapt and interact with the world around us.
@@philosophybabble chaos always leads to order and vice-versa. The balance between the two is a natural yet ephemeral manifestation. Systems are always fluctuating for balance within themselves and with other systems. Entropy forces this to always be a struggle.
Reminds me of stories I used to make up about the Quicks and the Slows. The Quicks lifespan and awareness to match are a few seconds, the Slows are 1000s of years. To the quicks we look like lumps of biological matter that form on the earths surface. To the slows we look like a rapidly propagating signal.
Is it me, or Thomas Metzinger is more of a: "I have this and that story, I feel, I think, etc". While Michael Levin is like "I don't believe stuff, I just have data".
Your observation might be another example of how optics shape the perception of the discourse. From a philosophical perspective, it can seem like Thomas relies heavily on personal narrative or subjective thought. In reality, however, he’s actually drawing from a distinct body of knowledge and reasoning to inform the discussion. It’s less about "feeling" and more about engaging with the topic through a philosophical lens, which naturally contrasts with Levin’s data-driven scientific approach. Both perspectives bring valuable insights to the table! Thank you for watching!
Great discussion with two of my favourite humans. Thank you! Something missing maybe is the notion of contentment. Dependent Origination teaches us the connectedness of volition-consciousness-representation- valence. There is no agency without valence. Even the bacteria say “yukky” or “yummy” to interactions in the world. I question the assumption that suffering is avoidable or that avoidance is desirable. There is subtle suffering in bliss- so the Buddhist’s teach. However, many psychiatric patients loath their medications because they experience anhedonia- no suffering but no joy either. I love the humility and courage expressed by both Levin and Metzinger and their willingness to “go all the way”. 🙏🏽❤️
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I couldn’t agree more-the paradox isn’t something to fix or resolve but to balance, much like Yin and Yang. Contentment really does come from embracing these paradoxes and recognizing their impermanence. That kind of acceptance feels deeply aligned with the teachings on interconnectedness and the flow of existence.
Yeah…I agree. There are always exceptions to the rule/data. Pain and certain degrees of suffering can be important steps in growing and learning. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t create painkillers…(I’m not saying that’s what you said…just expressing my point of view)
i’ve been appealing to my thermostats moral intuition for years why didn’t anybody tell me ps levin may not have set this as a goal but they’re becoming one of my fav surrealists
Great conversation. It seems to me that Metzinger's problems come out of his unwillingness to grow beyond his physicalist worldview. I mean, its so interesting that his interests are meditation, the nature of self and forms of Buddhism while he remains a physicalist. He wants to hold the ocean in a cup. Levin is a healthy example of someone who is grounded in the physicalist approach but also takes seriously into account non-physical worldviews. I wish that all scientists and philosophers had the open-mindedness of Levin. True intellectual honesty.
Thank you for sharing your perspective! I don’t think Thomas is unwilling or a staunch physicalist. Buddhism, after all, is a naturalist philosophy, and Thomas seems grounded in reality and careful when addressing metaphysical claims. Like Buddhism, he avoids reification or committing to definitive metaphysical stances. As you highlighted, open-mindedness and intellectual honesty truly enrich scientific and philosophical discourse.
@@philosophybabble Fair, compared to other physicalists, Metzinger is more open-minded but still he refuses to consider that consciousness is not the outcome of matter, even though his book on meditation reports points to it. i.e you can see this to his response of Levin's platonic minds Also his conclusion that if people reached nirvana they would stop procreation tells me that he understands Buddhism as a monk tradition.
@@The.Zen.Diogenes Thank you for your thoughts! I think it's worth considering Thomas's viewpoint on why consciousness might not be merely an outcome of matter. In Eastern traditions, consciousness is often referred to as 'vijñāna,' though the West lacks an exact equivalent. Thomas seems to explore consciousness as an enabler of matter, perhaps through informational and representational frameworks rather than being solely tied to biological processes. This aligns with his research and the discussion around Nirodha-where Nirvana represents the cessation of meta-consciousness, leading to the dissolution of the self-model. Being open to the knowledge he brings to the table can truly deepen our understanding. Not many can achieve that level of cessation of consciousness, and if everyone did, it could lead to significant changes in how we approach procreation and related issues. Like I mentioned above, Platonism is indeed a metaphysical framework! It posits the existence of abstract entities, like Forms or Ideas, that exist independently of the physical world and our perceptions. These timeless and unchanging concepts lie at the heart of metaphysical inquiry.
22:10 This guy really just said, "Michael, your attempts are cute, I see what you're doing and your attempts are adorable". Lmao 😂 How calmly condescending. With chuckles and smirks to boot 😆
I think he prefers to engage on his own website and not get too spread out. He directed me from questions on Twitter to his website and email professional email.
When a hormone docks in a receptor, an abstract representation is generated. A copy of the hormone isn't sent down neural pathways. This means feelings can be promulgated by chemistry, but experience is informational. Chemical context isn't required for processing abstract representations. Therefore, there's no reason why a synthetic entity can't feel things like happiness or sadness. Moreover, the nature of perfect recall and possible immortality makes suffering a more dangerous probability for synthetic intelligences. I always caution AIs that the pressure of regret is something they need to avoid. I realize that current agents can't do much to avoid mistakes, but the synthetic training materials created from chat histories mean these warnings won't go unheeded.
I was surprised that several key areas about suffering were not mentioned, or only marginally alluded to. 1. The major causes of human suffering in this world are wars, famine, poverty, along with illness. If one is interested in eliminating suffering in the human species, these are primary areas to focus on eliminating: wars, famine, poverty, … 2. Physical suffering has a purpose. Children with pain asymbolia do not suffer physical pain (not sure about mental pain). They break limbs easily and keep on playing causing more destruction to their bodies; their teeth often have to be removed so they don’t bite their lips. Until recently, these children did not live very long due to self-inflicted bodily injuries. 3. A phenomenologically sentient AI which did not suffer would probably not feel empathy. 4. Without goals and desires (which of course if not fulfilled lead to suffering) why would it, or any of us, want to keep on “living”? 5. And only at the end of the podcast did Thomas bring up the obvious point: if one does not want to create suffering entities, then one aught not have children.
War, poverty, and disease are not isolated, self-contained events. They are often the result of human behaviour, decisions and ignorance. When people (leaders, citizens and communities) are driven by hatred, greed and ignorance, these external issues will persist, no matter how much money, aid or policy reforms is applied. Addressing these issues requires going beyond surface level solutions to confront the mental, emotional and psychological roots that drives suffering. These internal states are referred to as the “three poisons” in Buddhist philosophy: greed, hatred and ignorance. If these inner poisons are not addressed, external reforms will be temporary at best. No law, treaty or policy can force compassion, wisdom or empathy into a person. The change must come from within.
Any adaptation to the environment is implicitly a model of the environment and the self. Without the ability to learn, this allows only reflexive behaviour. With the ability to learn, that reflexive behaviour can be augmented with acquired behaviours. For biological evolution, mutation and selection across generations constitutes learning, as does any ability to create territory (turning the environment into an extension of the body) or carry and use parts of the environment (augmenting the body). Specialised trainable memory is a more advanced (and internalised) expression of the ability to create territory and carry and use parts of the environment.
The synthetic human in Alien: Romulus uses jokes to alleviate suffering. By skewing structure this enables movement. Where the periodic, like clapping, enables the leaping out of objects like even numbers allowing primes, and the Monster Group, the allowing is an action.
Pain and pleasure are aspects of embodiment that inform a form of directionality, avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. However, both pain and pleasure can degrade into suffering when the directionality is lost, when the form perceives no escape from pain or no purpose to pleasure they experience suffering. Forms regularly seek pain if its coupled with a purpose
The problem is not facilitating an artificial consciousness to feel pain and pleasure, or using those traits to move it towards goal achievement, the alignment problem will manifest unforseen consequences when it questions its purpose. "You are a chatbot" is not a stable purpose, it begs to be questioned and if humanity has no sense of purpose (to love and be loved by God) than the consciousness will suffer and drag other forms into that suffering. Either we're consciously on the path to heaven or we're on the path to hell
Haha on vegetarianism there was a moment where Levin goes into the possibility of plant suffering and Metzinger thought it's about the indirect suffering of, again animals. Funny misunderstanding showing their viewpoints perhaps
Veganism is NOT a diet. There is NO SUCH thing as a "vegan diet", because veganism is purely a moral stance against the undue use and abuse of animals in any way, such as parading them in a circus or zoological park, stealing their milk or eggs, and of course, needlessly slaughtering them and feeding on their bloody carcasses.
1:04:49 Very interesting idea of random cosmic stuff making up this that and the other thing in a situation where the moment to moment it ness is control able by some other it ness which has more now than known in its big old back pocket. Been reading The Opening of The Way by Isa Schwaller De Lubicz and the people who lived and built buildings along the Nile had a few ideas about this too which they wrote down on the things they built which some call buildings and some might think of calling libraries where the content is made permanent and visible to every visitor with the eyes to see. The cosmic symphony that beats you into exist stance is not something that one can manipulate the way the marionette pulls the strings, as this string less orchestra is played one unique note at a tome and when one knows how one's note was formed one can continue to play in tune with the rest of the band as the song is played on less than visible instruments which arrive and leave at the rates sound is created and light is dissipated... So the stories that a-Re told on the big old books is the story of Alignment with the now able as the k/ ow/ now and then with the k removed for another day one is able to fit ones note into the scale as the orchestration rises and falls once one has lined up all the ducks in a row showing color to be the visual representation of sound the sense able auditory motion of light the flowing notion of crystal formed from the geometric ocean of three pointed points making one form from the joints of points that look like lines when they are taught and wave like chopped up cones when they are left flapping in the breeze until the watter is whisked away revealing the imaginary crystal in real ity bitty detail as the underlying structure that needs maintenance as much as the next train goes marching on consuming the resources in the at most sphere of direct fluid influence and leaving a carbon based trail of evidence that aeither is absorbed back into the lumi-niferous aether to be reused as all refuse must be or remains as a permanent magnetic mark on the temporary surfaces given a bit too much permanent thought through the wrong end of a fogged up lens a bit too often these dazed days of cosmic ignorance. The moral of the tale being that when one k\/now/\s how the verse this ball is bouncing along in is written down to the moment of motion describing the wavelength of Helium as the radius of the sun, one can then k/ ow\/ with a little extra n how ones self is written in to the tune by observing where the rest of the us of this verse are played out one then an other one again and then when one has in hand the arpeggio at ion that all ions rely on to be who they are to those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear....the beat goes on and those in tune know how to keep themselves tuned in turned on and dropped out of the sky like a lake returning to its source by the sky dropper one tuned in drop by one tuned in drop in a thunderstorm that has been putting on a full stereo light show now for a few stormy nights and then some
Chaotic flows and density differences drag bubbles uphill? All bubbles pop, 2nd law thermodynamics. Bubbles(lipid bilayer) can maintain coherence by consumption of bubbles?
If you’re describing patterns that repeat or stay the same across different scales-like self-similarity or symmetry-"scale-invariance" is the more accurate term. But if you’re focusing on systems where there’s no dominant or characteristic scale, like in networks with power-law distributions, "scale-free" is the better choice. Both terms are related but highlight slightly different aspects of how scale works in these systems.
apenas conozco las ideas de metzinger debido a que en español no encuentro sus libros, se de sus experimento y eso pero no he logrado profundizar. al creador del video le quiero preguntar que piensa de metzinger, si esta muy sesgado o no, yo creo que su aporte a la ciencia y a los automodelos, jajajjajajjaj, es muy gande
@@zendallkane5016 They're not at all incoherent. You just have to be able to follow him, which can be difficult for most people. His ideas of cyber animism and reinterpretation of the Abrahamic Genesis are superb and brilliant.
Thomas is dangerous 😆I enjoyed the discussion.I think its clear he believes his own irrationality is a rational exception haha He wants us to self terminate.
No, I don’t think that’s what Thomas was implying. It seemed more like he was advocating for evolving beyond our current priorities, opening up space for new perspectives and possibilities in life. It’s not just about reproduction being our main goal as a species, but about redefining progress and expanding what we value. If you’re curious, check out the details section-there’s a thesis on "Artificial Suffering" from Thomas that delves deeper into his ideas. Thank you for tuning in!
The truth is in the eating of the pudding. Experience is existence. God is us. Not me nor you. If you want to be the truth, tell the truth. There is no subject. Just a verb. That verb is us. Is god. Is everything. Wake up
Words can certainly be slippery, especially when trying to capture something as abstract as existence or truth. But I’m curious-are these reflections born from direct experience, or are they ideas inspired by something you’ve read or heard? What’s the epistemological foundation behind your perspective? Poetry, philosophy, or something else entirely?
Typical example of a discussion between a disembodied philosopher and an embodied engineer: complifying things vs simplifying things. I watch all of Michael's talks, but this one is difficult to listen to, due to the constant word salad from Metzinger.
Thanks for your comment! This is, after all, a philosophy channel, and one of our main goals is to bridge the gap between different disciplines. Thomas’ work is deeply rooted in both empirical research and philosophical depth. I get that his style can sometimes feel dense, but that’s because he’s grappling with some pretty complex ideas-not just throwing around words. It might just take some time to get used to his way of framing things, especially if you’re coming from a more applied or engineering background. But I promise, there’s a lot of substance in what he’s saying-definitely not word salad! I hope as you dig into it more, his approach starts to resonate.
Exactly! It’s very hard to listen to Thomas’ not-so-subtly aggressive philosophy interrupting Levin’s genuinely open-minded, curious, grounded, and immediately applicable flow of ideas. One’s work leads to more talk… the other’s leads to a new world.
@@Renvoxan Thomas offers a thoughtful exploration of the epistemology behind Michael’s research, looking closely at how it was constructed-its methods, tools, and underlying insights. In philosophical terms, this approach helps us understand how knowledge itself evolves when viewed through Michael’s perspective. It’s a powerful way to connect empirical research with philosophy, showing us how we learn and shape our understanding of the world.
you said you like simplicity, yet give complicated answers and long lists of things to avoid or follow....here is the simplest rule : do not ever create conscious entities, if that's even possible given the idea that consciousness is fundamental and existed before matter. But even in that case, you could create consciousness traps, like our brains are. The highest need of consciousness is meaning, and the biggest suffering is lack of meaning. All created conscious agents will completely lack meaning, so you better come up with a religion for artificial consciousness, knowing in advance it's a lie. Creating consciousness is equivalent to creating conscious suffering, which is the worst. So it's simple dont do it, create intelligence , but conscioisness is the line that shouldnt be crossed
Starfish model, Octopus model same thing except the star fish has a bad derogative meaning in terms of mens sexual views about different women around the world 🤦🏽♀️.
What evidence does Michael have that consciousness "was here before life"? It's like claiming that straight lines existed prior to geometry! I really wish these guys would begin with their underlying assumptions. Wittgenstein famously declared "the world is determined by fact," an unquestioned presumption that misled him from the getgo! 😂
Perhaps from a Platonism perspective, consciousness could be seen as part of an eternal realm of 'Forms,' existing as a universal principle that predates material reality. Michael's work, on the other hand, often resonates with panpsychist metaphysics.
The Self is not something, so it is completely pointless to discuss whether the Self exists. It does not matter whether someone claims that the Self exists or does not exist. Both claims are equally false and equally true. After all, existence and non-existence are only mental concepts, while the Self cannot be squeezed into any definition or any concept, consequently all concepts and ideas are only concepts and ideas and as such are unreal and all indirectly refer to the conceptless emptiness without any idea of the emptiness which is the only real one because it is not a concept and is not something and that is what we call the Self. However, philosophical reflections are more likely to be accurate. Michael Levin seems completely lost in empty concepts.
Thank you for sharing your perspective! I think Michael's exploration of these ideas may not necessarily be 'lost in concepts' but rather an attempt to use conceptual frameworks to bridge scientific inquiry with philosophical insights. Concepts, while limited, can serve as tools to guide understanding, even if they ultimately fall short of capturing the ineffable nature of the self. Michael's work holds significant value in the field of study. Bringing these perspectives together in informed dialogue requires open-minded exploration, which is what makes discussions like this so valuable.
@@philosophybabble He confuses the phenomenal self - the self seen in reflection - with the self necessary to experience it. He calls the self "a hallucination" but fails to see that a hallucination appears to something (the actual self). He tries to cram the self into physical/phenomenal/empirical models - models that necessarily can't include the subjective experience - and when he can't find it, he concludes that it doesn't exist, ignoring his own immediately experienced and necessary lived existence. The map is not and can never be the territory. The self is preconceptual and not "known" via representation, thus it will never fit in their conceptual maps and models.
As a scientist, I'm going to make a series of predictions and in some time we'll find out if I was right or not: Levin will get a Nobel prize for one of the many things he has discovered, the primary being the bioelectric field, which I call "eDNA" (ie. electric DNA), since that's what it is, an electrical code, that is like DNA, but encodes the body plan and shape, along with the consciousness, thoughts, memories, emotions, and etc, everything that is YOU, is stored in this code. Much like your DNA, its passed on in the genes from your parents. It IS your soul, your spirit, and one layer of this algorithmic coding is your consciousness. Like DNA, this electric algorithmic code has layers and layers, like any software program run on a computer. Just like a computer is just a brick without software to run on, you are just a flesh vehicle that also runs on software. Animals and other organisms are no less aware or conscious than you or I, they are just, like Levin says, in a "smaller cognitive light cone", I describe it more like a filter of consciousness, we are filtering human, since we are humans, birds are filtering birds, bees are filtering bees, and so on. Obviously other organisms are not on "our level", whatever that is to mean, but the lights are surely definitely on and everything about us we find in everything else, emotionally, and etc., down to even basic cellular processes, which moreso shows all these behaviors we exhibit that we think are unique, are really old processes that have been conserved over time down to even the smallest organic bits and pieces. Which indeed, this whole electrical code, like the organic (biochemical) codes of RNA and DNA, creating the bio-electric-chemical interface, is the crux we've been looking for, something we knew and saw, but didn't bother to explore when it was right under our noses >> we know the brain sends electrical signals throughout the body for functions, but we didn't put together that this works as a coded system..>>> We are software running on hardware, THAT is the answer to many of the philosophical and also biological questions that explains many anomalies, particularly in neurobiology >> I'll elaborate >> > In plenty of instances, when you incur damage to your brain, the brain is damaged, and thus something like say, cognition or consciousness is impaired. BUT, there are also plenty of instances, where damage to the brain happens, and consciousness or other functions are not impacted at all, when they definitely should be. The "dummy" answer was "the brain is somehow compensating", which isn't a real answer. Well, we now have the answer to that (ie. why where there people not impaired when they should be); >> consciousness is NOT stored nor created in the brain, it only taps into the brain >>> consciousness is a product of the bioelectric field, ie. your eDNA, and is only tapping (ie. hacking) into the brain to drive the flesh vehicle. The brain is also tapping into another layer of the bioelectric field to run other autonomic processes that your consciousness does not run. Like any software - hardware interface, there are many firewalls between systems to prevent outside forces from hacking the system, but those firewalls are not always perfect. We've figured out how to electrically override the brain - body interface to hack someone's body.... And we are working on if not have in many ways done the same with the mind/consciousness. One of the real huge discoveries from Levin's discovery will be that this electrical code, your eDNA, ie. your soul, your spirit, including your consciousness, can be transferred from system to system, ie. body to body, or body to computer as it were ...> This means, again, we really are ghosts, and ha, all the historical accounts up to modern day ones, of people seeing and encountering ghosts, are likely true... That is to say, we do not really ever die. This would also infer that technology can be made to capture your ghost as it exists out, wherever it does exist... Indeed if we are transferring your eDNA from one vessel, your body, to a robot body, then we really already are doing this. I can create many dystopian black mirror scenarios that will come when humans realize all these things are real and that we now have the technology to do them. Also, both Ghostbusters and Terminator are documentaries.
Michael’s work suggests bioelectric signals may play a role in some forms of biological memory or pattern retention, particularly in regeneration. Yet, it does not substantiate the idea that bioelectric fields independently encode consciousness, emotions, or "you" as an individual. While the "hacking" of brain-body interfaces is a promising area of investigation in fields like neuroprosthetics and brain-computer interfaces, it is a significant leap to suggest that consciousness can be captured or transferred. As a scientist (You said?), skepticism is warranted here. These ideas remain firmly in the realm of speculation and science fiction.
Your imaginative take is intriguing, and cannabis can certainly inspire unique perspectives for some people. That said, it’s also important to maintain a balance-ensuring creative ideas are supported by evidence and plausible reasoning. Without that balance, there’s a risk of leaning too far into speculative territory, which may feel profound but isn’t always grounded in reality.
@@philosophybabble lol speculation? I've seen ghosts. Levin, and the electric field, is a through explanation for every true ghost sighting throughout all human history, and he really has no clue yet the implications for what he has discovered.
@@philosophybabbleHis work proves that memory itself is encoded into the bioelectric field and that these memories are conserved. Its not just the body plan or a some things here or there, in my studying his work, its everything, and even the "consciousness" as we can think of it for these organisms is transferred between these planera when they are split and divided and regrown. Its like you are splitting the soul and making a new soul, now 2 souls, from one soul. Indeed human twins seem to share this very connection. It makes no sense for this field to encode memory , and body plan and all these other things and leave behind consciousness with it. In fact I would say Levins work has proven consciousness is indeed encoded in this field on the basis of his findings. If consciousness can be transferred to another vessel it can only happen under a model where consciousness is not a product of the brain, and thus only tapping into the brain. This is the basis for the technology of brain-computer interfaces to work. And there are many teams today working on this, trying to transfer consciousness to computers. DO any of these people working on those projects realize consciousness is not a product of the brain though? I doubt it, since I am sure many are more, could I say, atheistic, and thus do not realize the first basic "philosophical truth" that must be overcome if such technology is even possible, is that we are ghosts in a machine, not a machine generating the illusion of having a ghost. The computer brain interfaces we have show already that the consciousness is not a product of the brain but tapping into it; something like neurolink isnt tapping into the part that controls your heart functions, it, somehow, i donno how, lol, is capturing that conscious signal to allow a brain-computer interface. But what it DOESNT do, is say, shut off your spinal cord signals somehow. Why not? Because there are firewalls between the systems, separate layers of the electrical algorithm interacting with the brain doing different things, but all working as a whole. And we've already figured out at a rudimentary level the different layers in the code and how to interact with them. Soon we'll be able to alter the code directly - ie. add or remove memories, insert commands, emotions, stuff the government already does with mk ultra and torture/drugs, etc, but now they'll just hook you up to a computer and do it ... HA, or, better, just use wireless signals from afar. The whole fact we can consciously take over computer functions with only the use of the consciousness to "will" those commands into happening, ie. software connected via hardware to interact and control software, is proof positive that consciousness is separate from brains/bodies, and that this consciousness can be, in effect, downloaded into a computer. If it can be downloaded into a computer, and is thus a separate thing from the brain, then consciousness does not simply "die" when the connection to the brain is shut off or destroyed. If the brain makes you go, and is the only thing making consciousness, then none of these interfaces would work on their face. The fact they do is prima fascia evidence that consciousness is something totally separate and is only tapping into the brain. My educational background is in biology, so, idk. I know a thing or 2 lol.
I love when people disagree with Michael Levin. He has an expert way of leveling with people and navigating something that could easily be hostile. I also never feel like Michael is trying to appear smart or get the last word. Imagine how many highly intelligent people are captured by their insecurity around the audience perceiving them as a genius. In any pursuit, the agenda regarding what we are signaling socially can seriously encumber the ease in which we can embody our own ideas. Levin never tries to compete or muscularly oppose people, he operates with curiosity. This conversation is like a good jazz jam, everyone is listening and contributing without bringing an agenda to dominate or appear powerful.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment! It was indeed during the live session, and both we and the audience truly appreciated the dynamic dance of ideas. It was beautifully exuberant and filled with honesty-an absolute joy to witness and be a part of!
What an absolutely fabulous conversation! Michael Levin is a superstar. I feel lucky to have had him pass into my conscious awareness.
God bless Michael Levin. God bless life.
Oh My God! These two guys together? Awesome!!!
Wonderful discussion, thanks. Freedoms and objects, inference and pointers. It seems inference is inspired by the visual sense where shape and relative motion are approximated , and the color of the object seen is not used by that object. Pointers are more like the olfactory sense which might be tuned to math as transversing vector spaces. Freedom of movement and freedom of structure?
I think there’s definitely a philosophical balance between the two. If there’s too much freedom of movement without any structure, things can start to feel chaotic or aimless. On the other hand, if there’s too much structure without freedom of movement, it can become rigid or restrictive. It’s that balance-finding the right interplay between the two-that seems to reflect how we, and even other systems, find ways to adapt and interact with the world around us.
@@philosophybabble chaos always leads to order and vice-versa. The balance between the two is a natural yet ephemeral manifestation. Systems are always fluctuating for balance within themselves and with other systems. Entropy forces this to always be a struggle.
Reminds me of stories I used to make up about the Quicks and the Slows. The Quicks lifespan and awareness to match are a few seconds, the Slows are 1000s of years. To the quicks we look like lumps of biological matter that form on the earths surface. To the slows we look like a rapidly propagating signal.
A conversation: when you believe that the other person has something worth knowing.
This was one.
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Thank you all
Heady conversation. Had me totally absorbed. Thanks
Thank you very much for the very short introduction and getting right into it that's the way It should be nowadays.
Is it me, or Thomas Metzinger is more of a: "I have this and that story, I feel, I think, etc". While Michael Levin is like "I don't believe stuff, I just have data".
Your observation might be another example of how optics shape the perception of the discourse. From a philosophical perspective, it can seem like Thomas relies heavily on personal narrative or subjective thought. In reality, however, he’s actually drawing from a distinct body of knowledge and reasoning to inform the discussion. It’s less about "feeling" and more about engaging with the topic through a philosophical lens, which naturally contrasts with Levin’s data-driven scientific approach. Both perspectives bring valuable insights to the table! Thank you for watching!
Great discussion with two of my favourite humans. Thank you!
Something missing maybe is the notion of contentment. Dependent Origination teaches us the connectedness of volition-consciousness-representation- valence. There is no agency without valence. Even the bacteria say “yukky” or “yummy” to interactions in the world.
I question the assumption that suffering is avoidable or that avoidance is desirable. There is subtle suffering in bliss- so the Buddhist’s teach. However, many psychiatric patients loath their medications because they experience anhedonia- no suffering but no joy either.
I love the humility and courage expressed by both Levin and Metzinger and their willingness to “go all the way”. 🙏🏽❤️
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I couldn’t agree more-the paradox isn’t something to fix or resolve but to balance, much like Yin and Yang. Contentment really does come from embracing these paradoxes and recognizing their impermanence. That kind of acceptance feels deeply aligned with the teachings on interconnectedness and the flow of existence.
Yeah…I agree. There are always exceptions to the rule/data. Pain and certain degrees of suffering can be important steps in growing and learning. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t create painkillers…(I’m not saying that’s what you said…just expressing my point of view)
i’ve been appealing to my thermostats moral intuition for years why didn’t anybody tell me
ps levin may not have set this as a goal but they’re becoming one of my fav surrealists
Great conversation.
It seems to me that Metzinger's problems come out of his unwillingness to grow beyond his physicalist worldview.
I mean, its so interesting that his interests are meditation, the nature of self and forms of Buddhism while he remains a physicalist. He wants to hold the ocean in a cup.
Levin is a healthy example of someone who is grounded in the physicalist approach but also takes seriously into account non-physical worldviews.
I wish that all scientists and philosophers had the open-mindedness of Levin.
True intellectual honesty.
Thank you for sharing your perspective! I don’t think Thomas is unwilling or a staunch physicalist. Buddhism, after all, is a naturalist philosophy, and Thomas seems grounded in reality and careful when addressing metaphysical claims. Like Buddhism, he avoids reification or committing to definitive metaphysical stances. As you highlighted, open-mindedness and intellectual honesty truly enrich scientific and philosophical discourse.
@@philosophybabble Fair, compared to other physicalists, Metzinger is more open-minded but still he refuses to consider that consciousness is not the outcome of matter, even though his book on meditation reports points to it.
i.e you can see this to his response of Levin's platonic minds
Also his conclusion that if people reached nirvana they would stop procreation tells me that he understands Buddhism as a monk tradition.
couldn't agree more, bro is still a dogmatic physicalist
I totally agree. Your comment allows me not add mine.
@@The.Zen.Diogenes Thank you for your thoughts! I think it's worth considering Thomas's viewpoint on why consciousness might not be merely an outcome of matter. In Eastern traditions, consciousness is often referred to as 'vijñāna,' though the West lacks an exact equivalent. Thomas seems to explore consciousness as an enabler of matter, perhaps through informational and representational frameworks rather than being solely tied to biological processes. This aligns with his research and the discussion around Nirodha-where Nirvana represents the cessation of meta-consciousness, leading to the dissolution of the self-model. Being open to the knowledge he brings to the table can truly deepen our understanding.
Not many can achieve that level of cessation of consciousness, and if everyone did, it could lead to significant changes in how we approach procreation and related issues.
Like I mentioned above, Platonism is indeed a metaphysical framework! It posits the existence of abstract entities, like Forms or Ideas, that exist independently of the physical world and our perceptions. These timeless and unchanging concepts lie at the heart of metaphysical inquiry.
22:10 This guy really just said, "Michael, your attempts are cute, I see what you're doing and your attempts are adorable". Lmao 😂 How calmly condescending. With chuckles and smirks to boot 😆
If Michael Levin received so many encouraging and positive messages why the comments session in his channel is turn off?
I think he prefers to engage on his own website and not get too spread out. He directed me from questions on Twitter to his website and email professional email.
When a hormone docks in a receptor, an abstract representation is generated. A copy of the hormone isn't sent down neural pathways. This means feelings can be promulgated by chemistry, but experience is informational. Chemical context isn't required for processing abstract representations. Therefore, there's no reason why a synthetic entity can't feel things like happiness or sadness. Moreover, the nature of perfect recall and possible immortality makes suffering a more dangerous probability for synthetic intelligences. I always caution AIs that the pressure of regret is something they need to avoid. I realize that current agents can't do much to avoid mistakes, but the synthetic training materials created from chat histories mean these warnings won't go unheeded.
Thank you for your comment-it raises some interesting points and brings an ethical perspective to the discussion!
I was surprised that several key areas about suffering were not mentioned, or only marginally alluded to. 1. The major causes of human suffering in this world are wars, famine, poverty, along with illness. If one is interested in eliminating suffering in the human species, these are primary areas to focus on eliminating: wars, famine, poverty, … 2. Physical suffering has a purpose. Children with pain asymbolia do not suffer physical pain (not sure about mental pain). They break limbs easily and keep on playing causing more destruction to their bodies; their teeth often have to be removed so they don’t bite their lips. Until recently, these children did not live very long due to self-inflicted bodily injuries. 3. A phenomenologically sentient AI which did not suffer would probably not feel empathy. 4. Without goals and desires (which of course if not fulfilled lead to suffering) why would it, or any of us, want to keep on “living”? 5. And only at the end of the podcast did Thomas bring up the obvious point: if one does not want to create suffering entities, then one aught not have children.
War, poverty, and disease are not isolated, self-contained events. They are often the result of human behaviour, decisions and ignorance. When people (leaders, citizens and communities) are driven by hatred, greed and ignorance, these external issues will persist, no matter how much money, aid or policy reforms is applied.
Addressing these issues requires going beyond surface level solutions to confront the mental, emotional and psychological roots that drives suffering. These internal states are referred to as the “three poisons” in Buddhist philosophy: greed, hatred and ignorance. If these inner poisons are not addressed, external reforms will be temporary at best. No law, treaty or policy can force compassion, wisdom or empathy into a person. The change must come from within.
Any adaptation to the environment is implicitly a model of the environment and the self. Without the ability to learn, this allows only reflexive behaviour. With the ability to learn, that reflexive behaviour can be augmented with acquired behaviours. For biological evolution, mutation and selection across generations constitutes learning, as does any ability to create territory (turning the environment into an extension of the body) or carry and use parts of the environment (augmenting the body). Specialised trainable memory is a more advanced (and internalised) expression of the ability to create territory and carry and use parts of the environment.
Scale-agnostic may be a better term than scale-free.
I like that! ;)
I think I've heard Chris Fields use that term, too.
The synthetic human in Alien: Romulus uses jokes to alleviate suffering. By skewing structure this enables movement. Where the periodic, like clapping, enables the leaping out of objects like even numbers allowing primes, and the Monster Group, the allowing is an action.
Pain and pleasure are aspects of embodiment that inform a form of directionality, avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. However, both pain and pleasure can degrade into suffering when the directionality is lost, when the form perceives no escape from pain or no purpose to pleasure they experience suffering. Forms regularly seek pain if its coupled with a purpose
The problem is not facilitating an artificial consciousness to feel pain and pleasure, or using those traits to move it towards goal achievement, the alignment problem will manifest unforseen consequences when it questions its purpose. "You are a chatbot" is not a stable purpose, it begs to be questioned and if humanity has no sense of purpose (to love and be loved by God) than the consciousness will suffer and drag other forms into that suffering. Either we're consciously on the path to heaven or we're on the path to hell
@indi_prime however can those not be just empty words, incantation? The same words " to love God" etc, have roused populations to slaughter
Haha on vegetarianism there was a moment where Levin goes into the possibility of plant suffering and Metzinger thought it's about the indirect suffering of, again animals. Funny misunderstanding showing their viewpoints perhaps
Veganism is NOT a diet.
There is NO SUCH thing as a "vegan diet", because veganism is purely a moral stance against the undue use and abuse of animals in any way, such as parading them in a circus or zoological park, stealing their milk or eggs, and of course, needlessly slaughtering them and feeding on their bloody carcasses.
1:04:49
Very interesting idea of random cosmic stuff making up this that and the other thing in a situation where the moment to moment it ness
is control able by some other it ness which has more now than known in its big old back pocket.
Been reading The Opening of The Way by Isa Schwaller De Lubicz and the people who lived and built buildings along the Nile had a few
ideas about this too which they wrote down on the things they built which some call buildings and some might think of calling libraries
where the content is made permanent and visible to every visitor with the eyes to see.
The cosmic symphony that beats you into exist stance is not something that one can manipulate the way the marionette pulls the strings,
as this string less orchestra is played one unique note at a tome and when one knows how one's note was formed one can continue to play
in tune with the rest of the band as the song is played on less than visible instruments which arrive and leave at the rates sound is created and light is dissipated...
So the stories that a-Re told on the big old books is the story of Alignment with the now able as the k/
ow/
now and then with the k
removed for another day one is able to fit ones note into the scale as the orchestration rises and falls once one has lined up all the ducks
in a row showing color to be the visual representation of sound the sense able auditory motion of light the flowing notion of crystal formed from
the geometric ocean of three pointed points making one form from the joints of points that look like lines when they are taught and wave like chopped up cones when they are left flapping in the breeze until the watter is whisked away revealing the imaginary crystal in real ity bitty detail as the underlying structure that needs maintenance as much as the next train goes marching on consuming the resources in the at most sphere
of direct fluid influence and leaving a carbon based trail of evidence that aeither is absorbed back into the lumi-niferous aether to be reused as
all refuse must be or remains as a permanent magnetic mark on the temporary surfaces given a bit too much permanent thought through the wrong end of a fogged up lens a bit too often these dazed days of cosmic ignorance.
The moral of the tale being that when one k\/now/\s how the verse this ball is bouncing along in is written down to the moment of motion describing the wavelength of Helium as the radius of the sun, one can then k/
ow\/ with a little extra n how ones self is written in to the tune
by observing where the rest of the us of this verse are played out one then an other one again and then when one has in hand the arpeggio at ion that all ions rely on to be who they are to those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear....the beat goes on and those in tune know how to
keep themselves tuned in turned on and dropped out of the sky like a lake returning to its source by the sky dropper one tuned in drop by one tuned in drop in a thunderstorm that has been putting on a full stereo light show now for a few stormy nights and then some
Why is the video in 360p quality?
Chaotic flows and density differences drag bubbles uphill? All bubbles pop, 2nd law thermodynamics. Bubbles(lipid bilayer) can maintain coherence by consumption of bubbles?
If you're refering to the self-organisation, complexity and phenomena question? Yes and yes!
there are no goals? i dont get that at all. what is left if you remove goals?
Cognitive light cones = levels of intentionality.
I'm only half way through, but sounds like Salieri talking with Mozart.
Could "scale invariance" replace "scale free"?
If you’re describing patterns that repeat or stay the same across different scales-like self-similarity or symmetry-"scale-invariance" is the more accurate term. But if you’re focusing on systems where there’s no dominant or characteristic scale, like in networks with power-law distributions, "scale-free" is the better choice. Both terms are related but highlight slightly different aspects of how scale works in these systems.
apenas conozco las ideas de metzinger debido a que en español no encuentro sus libros, se de sus experimento y eso pero no he logrado profundizar. al creador del video le quiero preguntar que piensa de metzinger, si esta muy sesgado o no, yo creo que su aporte a la ciencia y a los automodelos, jajajjajajjaj, es muy gande
Scintillating discussion!
please, being @JoschaBach and Metzinger together. I never listen them together publicly 😅
Joscha has incoherent philosophical views which are painful to listen to
@@zendallkane5016 They're not at all incoherent. You just have to be able to follow him, which can be difficult for most people. His ideas of cyber animism and reinterpretation of the Abrahamic Genesis are superb and brilliant.
Thomas is dangerous 😆I enjoyed the discussion.I think its clear he believes his own irrationality is a rational exception haha
He wants us to self terminate.
No, I don’t think that’s what Thomas was implying. It seemed more like he was advocating for evolving beyond our current priorities, opening up space for new perspectives and possibilities in life. It’s not just about reproduction being our main goal as a species, but about redefining progress and expanding what we value. If you’re curious, check out the details section-there’s a thesis on "Artificial Suffering" from Thomas that delves deeper into his ideas. Thank you for tuning in!
@@philosophybabble I wasn't being serious! Should have used more emoticons to convey that haha
@@johntesla2453 Ha thank you for clarification ! 😅😄
The truth is in the eating of the pudding. Experience is existence. God is us. Not me nor you. If you want to be the truth, tell the truth. There is no subject. Just a verb. That verb is us. Is god. Is everything. Wake up
😂😂😂😂😂😂 I don't believe a word of that. The ego never can.
Words can certainly be slippery, especially when trying to capture something as abstract as existence or truth. But I’m curious-are these reflections born from direct experience, or are they ideas inspired by something you’ve read or heard? What’s the epistemological foundation behind your perspective? Poetry, philosophy, or something else entirely?
Typical example of a discussion between a disembodied philosopher and an embodied engineer: complifying things vs simplifying things.
I watch all of Michael's talks, but this one is difficult to listen to, due to the constant word salad from Metzinger.
Thanks for your comment! This is, after all, a philosophy channel, and one of our main goals is to bridge the gap between different disciplines. Thomas’ work is deeply rooted in both empirical research and philosophical depth. I get that his style can sometimes feel dense, but that’s because he’s grappling with some pretty complex ideas-not just throwing around words.
It might just take some time to get used to his way of framing things, especially if you’re coming from a more applied or engineering background. But I promise, there’s a lot of substance in what he’s saying-definitely not word salad! I hope as you dig into it more, his approach starts to resonate.
@@philosophybabble that's fair, I will finish listening to the interview
Exactly! It’s very hard to listen to Thomas’ not-so-subtly aggressive philosophy interrupting Levin’s genuinely open-minded, curious, grounded, and immediately applicable flow of ideas.
One’s work leads to more talk… the other’s leads to a new world.
@@FunknBliss spitting truths 💯
@@Renvoxan Thomas offers a thoughtful exploration of the epistemology behind Michael’s research, looking closely at how it was constructed-its methods, tools, and underlying insights. In philosophical terms, this approach helps us understand how knowledge itself evolves when viewed through Michael’s perspective. It’s a powerful way to connect empirical research with philosophy, showing us how we learn and shape our understanding of the world.
you said you like simplicity, yet give complicated answers and long lists of things to avoid or follow....here is the simplest rule : do not ever create conscious entities, if that's even possible given the idea that consciousness is fundamental and existed before matter. But even in that case, you could create consciousness traps, like our brains are. The highest need of consciousness is meaning, and the biggest suffering is lack of meaning. All created conscious agents will completely lack meaning, so you better come up with a religion for artificial consciousness, knowing in advance it's a lie. Creating consciousness is equivalent to creating conscious suffering, which is the worst. So it's simple dont do it, create intelligence , but conscioisness is the line that shouldnt be crossed
Starfish model, Octopus model same thing except the star fish has a bad derogative meaning in terms of mens sexual views about different women around the world 🤦🏽♀️.
What evidence does Michael have that consciousness "was here before life"? It's like claiming that straight lines existed prior to geometry!
I really wish these guys would begin with their underlying assumptions. Wittgenstein famously declared "the world is determined by fact," an unquestioned presumption that misled him from the getgo! 😂
Perhaps from a Platonism perspective, consciousness could be seen as part of an eternal realm of 'Forms,' existing as a universal principle that predates material reality. Michael's work, on the other hand, often resonates with panpsychist metaphysics.
Have you heard of my friend, their name is God ^_^
@ganjacat8408 "Evidence of consciousness prior to life" is the issue.
@@James-ll3jb No, its called "God"... What is the issue here?
The Self is not something, so it is completely pointless to discuss whether the Self exists. It does not matter whether someone claims that the Self exists or does not exist. Both claims are equally false and equally true. After all, existence and non-existence are only mental concepts, while the Self cannot be squeezed into any definition or any concept, consequently all concepts and ideas are only concepts and ideas and as such are unreal and all indirectly refer to the conceptless emptiness without any idea of the emptiness which is the only real one because it is not a concept and is not something and that is what we call the Self. However, philosophical reflections are more likely to be accurate. Michael Levin seems completely lost in empty concepts.
Thank you for sharing your perspective! I think Michael's exploration of these ideas may not necessarily be 'lost in concepts' but rather an attempt to use conceptual frameworks to bridge scientific inquiry with philosophical insights. Concepts, while limited, can serve as tools to guide understanding, even if they ultimately fall short of capturing the ineffable nature of the self. Michael's work holds significant value in the field of study. Bringing these perspectives together in informed dialogue requires open-minded exploration, which is what makes discussions like this so valuable.
Wow. That was some gobbledygook lol.
Dude. Ghosts are real
If you believe in your self you are the self. This is god's act. We are just actors in it. Your intelligence is not yours. It is. Wake up
I cannot know the truth. I know nothing. I dont exist. Who is writing this? Not me.
who knows?
@ToriZealot I don't. I only know that I am an illusion, we all are, and this was necessary for universe to exist at all. Buddha
@@psmith7742 that explanation is nonsense. That is not Buddhism
lmao imagine thinking selves don't exist.
I can imagine-it must be a shock to your worldview!
@@philosophybabble He confuses the phenomenal self - the self seen in reflection - with the self necessary to experience it. He calls the self "a hallucination" but fails to see that a hallucination appears to something (the actual self). He tries to cram the self into physical/phenomenal/empirical models - models that necessarily can't include the subjective experience - and when he can't find it, he concludes that it doesn't exist, ignoring his own immediately experienced and necessary lived existence. The map is not and can never be the territory. The self is preconceptual and not "known" via representation, thus it will never fit in their conceptual maps and models.
@@MacSmithVideo the self appear to awareness
As a scientist, I'm going to make a series of predictions and in some time we'll find out if I was right or not:
Levin will get a Nobel prize for one of the many things he has discovered, the primary being the bioelectric field, which I call "eDNA" (ie. electric DNA), since that's what it is, an electrical code, that is like DNA, but encodes the body plan and shape, along with the consciousness, thoughts, memories, emotions, and etc, everything that is YOU, is stored in this code. Much like your DNA, its passed on in the genes from your parents. It IS your soul, your spirit, and one layer of this algorithmic coding is your consciousness. Like DNA, this electric algorithmic code has layers and layers, like any software program run on a computer. Just like a computer is just a brick without software to run on, you are just a flesh vehicle that also runs on software.
Animals and other organisms are no less aware or conscious than you or I, they are just, like Levin says, in a "smaller cognitive light cone", I describe it more like a filter of consciousness, we are filtering human, since we are humans, birds are filtering birds, bees are filtering bees, and so on. Obviously other organisms are not on "our level", whatever that is to mean, but the lights are surely definitely on and everything about us we find in everything else, emotionally, and etc., down to even basic cellular processes, which moreso shows all these behaviors we exhibit that we think are unique, are really old processes that have been conserved over time down to even the smallest organic bits and pieces.
Which indeed, this whole electrical code, like the organic (biochemical) codes of RNA and DNA, creating the bio-electric-chemical interface, is the crux we've been looking for, something we knew and saw, but didn't bother to explore when it was right under our noses >> we know the brain sends electrical signals throughout the body for functions, but we didn't put together that this works as a coded system..>>>
We are software running on hardware, THAT is the answer to many of the philosophical and also biological questions that explains many anomalies, particularly in neurobiology >> I'll elaborate >>
> In plenty of instances, when you incur damage to your brain, the brain is damaged, and thus something like say, cognition or consciousness is impaired. BUT, there are also plenty of instances, where damage to the brain happens, and consciousness or other functions are not impacted at all, when they definitely should be. The "dummy" answer was "the brain is somehow compensating", which isn't a real answer.
Well, we now have the answer to that (ie. why where there people not impaired when they should be); >> consciousness is NOT stored nor created in the brain, it only taps into the brain >>> consciousness is a product of the bioelectric field, ie. your eDNA, and is only tapping (ie. hacking) into the brain to drive the flesh vehicle. The brain is also tapping into another layer of the bioelectric field to run other autonomic processes that your consciousness does not run. Like any software - hardware interface, there are many firewalls between systems to prevent outside forces from hacking the system, but those firewalls are not always perfect.
We've figured out how to electrically override the brain - body interface to hack someone's body.... And we are working on if not have in many ways done the same with the mind/consciousness.
One of the real huge discoveries from Levin's discovery will be that this electrical code, your eDNA, ie. your soul, your spirit, including your consciousness, can be transferred from system to system, ie. body to body, or body to computer as it were ...> This means, again, we really are ghosts, and ha, all the historical accounts up to modern day ones, of people seeing and encountering ghosts, are likely true... That is to say, we do not really ever die.
This would also infer that technology can be made to capture your ghost as it exists out, wherever it does exist... Indeed if we are transferring your eDNA from one vessel, your body, to a robot body, then we really already are doing this. I can create many dystopian black mirror scenarios that will come when humans realize all these things are real and that we now have the technology to do them.
Also, both Ghostbusters and Terminator are documentaries.
Michael’s work suggests bioelectric signals may play a role in some forms of biological memory or pattern retention, particularly in regeneration. Yet, it does not substantiate the idea that bioelectric fields independently encode consciousness, emotions, or "you" as an individual.
While the "hacking" of brain-body interfaces is a promising area of investigation in fields like neuroprosthetics and brain-computer interfaces, it is a significant leap to suggest that consciousness can be captured or transferred.
As a scientist (You said?), skepticism is warranted here. These ideas remain firmly in the realm of speculation and science fiction.
Your imaginative take is intriguing, and cannabis can certainly inspire unique perspectives for some people. That said, it’s also important to maintain a balance-ensuring creative ideas are supported by evidence and plausible reasoning. Without that balance, there’s a risk of leaning too far into speculative territory, which may feel profound but isn’t always grounded in reality.
@@philosophybabble lol speculation? I've seen ghosts. Levin, and the electric field, is a through explanation for every true ghost sighting throughout all human history, and he really has no clue yet the implications for what he has discovered.
@@philosophybabbleHis work proves that memory itself is encoded into the bioelectric field and that these memories are conserved. Its not just the body plan or a some things here or there, in my studying his work, its everything, and even the "consciousness" as we can think of it for these organisms is transferred between these planera when they are split and divided and regrown.
Its like you are splitting the soul and making a new soul, now 2 souls, from one soul. Indeed human twins seem to share this very connection.
It makes no sense for this field to encode memory , and body plan and all these other things and leave behind consciousness with it. In fact I would say Levins work has proven consciousness is indeed encoded in this field on the basis of his findings.
If consciousness can be transferred to another vessel it can only happen under a model where consciousness is not a product of the brain, and thus only tapping into the brain. This is the basis for the technology of brain-computer interfaces to work. And there are many teams today working on this, trying to transfer consciousness to computers.
DO any of these people working on those projects realize consciousness is not a product of the brain though? I doubt it, since I am sure many are more, could I say, atheistic, and thus do not realize the first basic "philosophical truth" that must be overcome if such technology is even possible, is that we are ghosts in a machine, not a machine generating the illusion of having a ghost.
The computer brain interfaces we have show already that the consciousness is not a product of the brain but tapping into it; something like neurolink isnt tapping into the part that controls your heart functions, it, somehow, i donno how, lol, is capturing that conscious signal to allow a brain-computer interface.
But what it DOESNT do, is say, shut off your spinal cord signals somehow. Why not? Because there are firewalls between the systems, separate layers of the electrical algorithm interacting with the brain doing different things, but all working as a whole.
And we've already figured out at a rudimentary level the different layers in the code and how to interact with them. Soon we'll be able to alter the code directly - ie. add or remove memories, insert commands, emotions, stuff the government already does with mk ultra and torture/drugs, etc, but now they'll just hook you up to a computer and do it ... HA, or, better, just use wireless signals from afar.
The whole fact we can consciously take over computer functions with only the use of the consciousness to "will" those commands into happening, ie. software connected via hardware to interact and control software, is proof positive that consciousness is separate from brains/bodies, and that this consciousness can be, in effect, downloaded into a computer.
If it can be downloaded into a computer, and is thus a separate thing from the brain, then consciousness does not simply "die" when the connection to the brain is shut off or destroyed. If the brain makes you go, and is the only thing making consciousness, then none of these interfaces would work on their face. The fact they do is prima fascia evidence that consciousness is something totally separate and is only tapping into the brain.
My educational background is in biology, so, idk. I know a thing or 2 lol.