34:52 does exist. It's an artwork. It's on a roundabout in Ieper, Belgium. The water flows downwards down the pipe and creates the illusion there isn't a physical backbone for the water tap.
And the tongue can taste itself if it bends, does not mean that the tongue can taste the blood inside it without cutting. Further science and technology will help us elucidate consciousness much better than mere thought and (external) chemical experiments.
Toononi does a good job of demonstrating that integrated information is necessary for consciousness (as we know it) but conflates that with it being sufficient.
at least he's better than eliminative materialists like dennett churchland & dawkins who deny the existence of consciousness because he cant explain it. IIT takes a panpsychist approach on the qualia part of consciousness.
Semantics mostly, like from your bias against them. Churchland and the two horsemen against false money-collecting/tax-break-requiring religions deny the existence of qualia as "measures of consciousness" not of brains doing consciousness. They deny the existence of consciousness as much as they deny the existence of falling or running. We do not measure falling or running in qualls and quans, and pretend that falling and running could exist independent of matter.
@A. Kataoka - have they really got a new idea though? It seems like they grabbed an old religious concept, and shoved some numbers on it to make it look like science
I think this correlates with our global political situation in a real way-"if the repertoire of states decreases the system becomes like a coin instead of a die with a trillion faces ... so any state of the system can only distinguish between two-the world is divided into two things, this or not this." Biological drive ensures that our lived experience gravitates toward simplified bifurcations in order to efficiently protect ourselves from natural threats-hence a predisposition to developing symptoms of disavowal/dissociation under stress. So we're losing the ability to process reality as complexity explodes and subsequently failing in our duties to educate individuals properly. Too many of our comrades are left to slip into false dichotomy or fragment neurotically on the dissonant political rocks below rather than being able to digest information from a position of mental comfort and _entertain_ a thought while in the middle of the stream. 13:32 "So how much consciousness is there? And of course the theme of the symposium is more about how much consciousness is there (or will there be) in machines that may be highly intelligent by any criterium and any machine we may already have? How do we go about addressing those questions? I think the way you have to go is to develop a theory heard many times: _the call for theories that are needed in addition to empirical studies._ To understand the mind and consciousness is probably the place where theory is _most_ important. So a _theory of consciousness_ needs to do several things. One is to define what consciousness is-what are the terms _quantity_ and _quality?_ Another thing is to be able to go back to neuroscience and account, in a parsimonious manner, for many empirical observations. Like why the cerebrum and not the cerebellum, why wake and not early slow wave sleep? And so on and so forth, there are many other examples. And even account for those aspects of phenomenology that right now seem ineffable, like what makes the _experience_ of pure red different from that of pure blue, or of a sound or of the scene that is in front of me right now-all those questions must have a scientific explanation. Now the two axioms that I believe are most important to understand what consciousness is come actually straight from phenomenology-you don't need to do any science or experiments to know that, you know it _directly._ The first one is that every experience, by itself, is extraordinary and informative-not because of how many chunks of information are contained in it, but because of what it rules out. Whenever we have an experience (the one you are having right now) it rules out trillions and trillions of other possible experiences you could have had (but you didn't) and it distinguishes it from them in that particular way-from each and every one of them. That is the essence of information no matter how you want to measure it. So that's the _key_ feature of consciousness-every experience is what it is because it is different in a particular way from many, many multitudinous other ones. But there is a second related feature that we cannot forget, and that's the _integration._ Meaning every experience is what it is and cannot be decomposed into independent parts. We can talk about the various pieces (what's on the left, what's on the right) but we cannot experience them as independent things-it doesn't even make sense. In fact, to be able to experience the left side of the visual field independent of the right side or the shape independent of the color you would need to split the brain. In fact split brain patients are the only ones who can do that, but then they have two consciousnesses, not one. So now the basic idea, purely from phenomenology then, is that given those two key features of consciousness any physical systems that generate consciousness should be able to be treated as a single entity (should be one-that's the integration part) and at the same time it should have a huge repertoire of distinguishable states due to its own mechanism. Those two requirements have be there together and if any of them goes away consciousness should vanish. If the repertoire of states decreases the system becomes like a *coin* instead of a *die with a trillion faces* (as depicted here [PPT slide]) ...then you have little repertoire so any state of the system can only distinguish between two-the world is divided into two things, _this or not this._ Or vice-a-versa, if you lose the integration the system breaks down into many little pieces that may store a lot of information if you want/represent a lot of information, but it's not a single entity anymore."
At a minimum, consciousness might seem a necessary precondition for any such freedom or self-determination (Hasker 1999). The freedom to choose one’s actions and the ability to determine one’s own nature and future development may admit of many interesting variations and degree rather than being a simple all or nothing matter, and various forms or levels of consciousness might be correlated with corresponding degrees or types of freedom and self-determination (Dennett 1984, 2003).
So "dimension" is a term that is locked to our perception, meaning we can see tridimensional things in colour due to our brain architecture, while some other beings or animals might just see the world differently, and therefor experience other dimensions. its also curious that consciousness can leave us during sleeping or in other rare situations like coma in a hospital and then return. So, what is consciusness? is it something permanent that exists, but only manifests when the brain functions in a certain way, or is it consciousness simply a state that is characterized by the function of several parts of the brain that when interacting with each other, generate the consciousness state?
The word "dimension" has a spatial/temporal connotation that's often known by most. However, this word is used in a wider vantage in many fields, to denote fully orthogonal "directions" of inquiry/understanding. Dimension is used to demarcate & discuss an entirely different avenue that characterizes an are of knowledge. The "quantum dimension" is an example of additional valid uses of this word.
What about the people with an empty head. Some are mentally broken, some are fine and one has a maths degree or job, dont remember which. 🤣🤣 of course it is like the eraser QM experiments.. when you check the result is what matters. The mentally retarded ones must have been detected in the womb, even if not diagnosed there must be data somewhere, like an ultrasound filed away somewhere in a very large warehouse or digitized somewhere. Can't actually have reverse causality, so when the average IQ guy was told his head was empty, I wonder what he thought they meant ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh yeah, not totally empty there is a film/partial brain.. and brain stem. When I heard that I immediately linked it to.. the chicken with its head cut off and a bit of brain stem.. farmer fed it with an eye dropper when it kept walking around ! died some months later.. basically a coma patient. ua-cam.com/video/-kNtJ08a-ss/v-deo.html - more importantly his video with a similar BLUE BACKGROUND.. not green ;-) It's called WHY SHOULD I CARE oh heck here it's in my Firefox address bar history haha ua-cam.com/video/ogmBfwcIhug/v-deo.html Took me months to integrate.. kept making logical fails stuck in materialist way of thinking.. if you like this post move on to 3Blue1Brown and his channel (Grant Sanderson) the most recent video there is EPIC !! so relevant :) Wish I had time to enjoy this, but I have a watch later and bookmarks and reading list that is an unfixable mess.. gotta focus on sharing the message provoking thought on really important things ! like Jamie Dimon does anyone actually listen to him ? well yes.. and its always positive comments on the video. There is a super relevant one to current events, because of the complexity of regulating assets fairly, for the good of everyone, in a worldwide society ITS ABOUT THE ECONOMY where he's talking to each governor, and mentions the federal/state issue being the main problem (complexity is what it is!).. but the best part is when he references a different event, and when someone is stereotyping him or banks and inclusion.. diversity iirc. Its about when a black man stands up and says I STARTED AS A TELLER... and.. well I wont spoil :) its gold !
What If the way of Science that we know may not be correct in understanding the thing that we are trying to explain.......? Or the science only takes us only till this point...? Or I'm something else...?
Are you suggesting we do not keep updating science based on empirical data (non-anecdotal data)but simply leave it behind for nothing... until something perfect is judged by all as such? Or just to replace unbiased science with (old or new, or supposedly both) false emotion-based religions of unfair tax-breaks and money-collecting? Most of the religions that compete against science always push aggressively for the latter.
look how i see it. science is just an idea that try to explain the world how it is through ideas. like when i tell you if you cut your self you will feel pain is an intellectual understanding but feeling the pain is a different understanding. so yea science helped build what our society and civilization is but it will never solve the problems of the human psyche in fundamental level cause is the responsibility of every human being to understand this and self reflect to what he is rather to what he wants to be.
LOL the baby crawling was a nice touch... I refer to the majority is blindfolded children Running With Scissors... Of course have they really learn to run yet?
Beautiful haha.. What about the people with an empty head. Some are mentally broken, some are fine and one has a maths degree or job, dont remember which. 🤣🤣 of course it is like the eraser QM experiments.. when you check the result is what matters. The mentally retarded ones must have been detected in the womb, even if not diagnosed there must be data somewhere, like an ultrasound filed away somewhere in a very large warehouse or digitized somewhere. Can't actually have reverse causality, so when the average IQ guy was told his head was empty, I wonder what he thought they meant ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh yeah, not totally empty there is a film/partial brain.. and brain stem. When I heard that I immediately linked it to.. the chicken with its head cut off and a bit of brain stem.. farmer fed it with an eye dropper when it kept walking around ! died some months later.. basically a coma patient. ua-cam.com/video/-kNtJ08a-ss/v-deo.html - more importantly his video with a similar BLUE BACKGROUND.. not green ;-) It's called WHY SHOULD I CARE oh heck here it's in my Firefox address bar history haha ua-cam.com/video/ogmBfwcIhug/v-deo.html Took me months to integrate.. kept making logical fails stuck in materialist way of thinking.. if you like this post move on to 3Blue1Brown and his channel (Grant Sanderson) the most recent video there is EPIC !! so relevant :) OK enough pasting this and seems Google updated me to not be detected as a GPT3 textbot scammer LOL.. of course im wrong but hopefully they update their post/edit rate limiter. Its so simplistic I could smash my head on the wall. Told them to contact Kaspersky about heuristics the day I saw them, and those send 1 get 2 bs scams where the content is an edited rip with easily OCR text on them and a basic heuristic, gone forever. Obviously they need language ML, never read my comments ! nothing happened and for 18+ months the problem has increased exponentially, while the text and reply convos have barely evolved except when forced to. Shame, some good creativity solves everything.
IIT is a huge step forward in studying consciousness, especially in its quantifiability. However, I suspect it may only be a necessary condition for consciousness and not sufficient. More specifically, I suspect that it’s not just that there is the pattern of distributed causal network, but that the nature of its substrate must factor in. Or from a different perspective that a complete description of the distributed causal network would entail its particular substrate.
@spatium viator That’s just a bald statement with nothing to support it. Even if consciousness (in some abstract sense) were fundamental, which is highly speculative at best, why would that imply that any particular consciousness is eternal?
Consciousness can't be comprehended intellectually but we can experience IT by transcending thought in the state of Samadhi. No problem. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. The entire universe is Pure Consciousness.
That’s true. Meditation is one Avenue. But to truly inform ourselves into a state of constant meditation you need science and logic to drive discovery.
Would integrated information theory apply if we all live Ina simulation? Can I still assume others are conscious since their visual intelligence is the same as me even if we are in a simulation?
another example that gives me hope .. there is a glimmer of hope that I will be valued by this world. I thought that I would only be appreciated after I was dead... this is the second time this week I have seen evidence that I was wrong... we'll see.
looks like he's just using representation as a perception's state/configuration in the brain, regardless of conscious awareness. i think it still allows perception and representation to be different
First two speakers: Show that the fact that dead media (like photos) are representations which make it self evident that representations can never be sufficient to describe consciousness. Third speaker: Still doesn't get it. Makes a fool of himself. Proves only that the American education system is heading nowhere.
the large scale integration or binding problem has too many analogies to quantum mechanics. the construction of a meaningful object, wether it be an atom, color or a thought, the way our attention is driven towards a meaningful stimuli, all these relie on wave interactions of spontanious nature, free will is actually achieveable with exploiting plasticity in the limbic system. the empirical data that is accumulated in neuroscience in the near future would lead to the same boom that physics had 100 years ago
As early as Hegel, Fichte, Shelling and as logical as Russel, Gödel & Wittgenstein, it is clear that _perceptional/mental representationalism_ always leads to an *infinite regress.* The fact that Block is lecturing about representations, means that he is showing us a representation of a representation of the theory of representations. The video here is a representation of Blocks representation of others who made representions of their theory of representations. And anyone _watching_ this video is having a representation of... (insert ALL above), and then goes on to think (represent) and talk (representation of representations) about ALL THE ABOVE. Thus, "representational theory" is not only not distinguishing between information and integrated information, it also does not fulfill Occams Razor, for it interduces ridiculous amounts of information about even the most simplest things.
M31NgC224 I've seen you around on these types of videos and you seem knowledgeable, so maybe you can answer my question: Would integrated information theory apply if we all live In a simulation? Can I still assume others are conscious since their visual intelligence is the same as me even if we are in a simulation?
Interesting questions. I don't fully understand the second question, because I don't know what you mean with "visual intelligence". I think IIT actually speaks against the Matrix scenario, because then the whole simulation would have to be conscious. Thus we would all be sub-programmes - much like single dream sequences, which the simulation could manipulate according to its own laws. But then there would be a high probability that any of us could just dissapear at any time. (Immanuel Kant argued in thought experiments similiarly) Since none of us, in our woke consiousness, have ever saw each other simply dissappear or reappear, I don't think we live in any sort of simulation.
Ned Block is just firing against the IIT. He says nothing in his talk about the relationship between intelligence and consciousness. Or did I miss something? That's sad. As a philosopher, he should have the ability to respond.
Most of the psychopaths in Wall Street wear Big Smiles... so too do the poor who believe their miserable manipulated and powerless lives are just the beginning bad/dramatic part of a fairy tail with an ultimately happy ever-after for themselves and gruesome ending for their enemies. On can only imagine then, that a PhD in consciousness-related fields is not child's play and ruins all ignorant bliss. At least in whatever country/culture these guys are from. There was a time when American culture thought smiling even just to the camera was an insult to the self, and also a time when not smiling on the camera was a lost opportunity. Those Wild West and Hollywood days are both past and gone, I suppose.
The creedal (faith) position of the first two speakers (Tonini and Koch) is actually going to limit the value and outcomes of their expensive research. The potential for the outcome of their 'faith' is to reduce visions of human potential to their chosen parameters. Their creedal (faith) presumptions are well summed up in the words " how [the brain, experience, complexity] gives rise to consciousness". Maybe consciousness gives rise to its artefacts! including experience, brain events. Prof. Block's insights ought to be considered more.
@Ann Nonymous If the author was evil, he would need good to contrast the evil so that it could be understood to be more than just baseline nothing...given how are nervous systems sense pain. Thus, the existence of "small good" would only be for the greater evil in that very possible, as any, scenario.
I’m not sure he would state it in terms of “visual intelligence”. He’s really saying that if the machine can get town to the level of analysis of separate components of an image and tell whether or not they fit together, that would entail intelligent consciousness. I think the “visual” part of your statement is too limiting, because you’d need also to have information about optics, physics, biology (in the case of the missing head), etc. Not certain I agree with him, but I’m pretty certain that’s his meaning.
What about the people with an empty head. Some are mentally broken, some are fine and one has a maths degree or job, dont remember which. 🤣🤣 of course it is like the eraser QM experiments.. when you check the result is what matters. The mentally retarded ones must have been detected in the womb, even if not diagnosed there must be data somewhere, like an ultrasound filed away somewhere in a very large warehouse or digitized somewhere. Can't actually have reverse causality, so when the average IQ guy was told his head was empty, I wonder what he thought they meant ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh yeah, not totally empty there is a film/partial brain.. and brain stem. When I heard that I immediately linked it to.. the chicken with its head cut off and a bit of brain stem.. farmer fed it with an eye dropper when it kept walking around ! died some months later.. basically a coma patient. ua-cam.com/video/-kNtJ08a-ss/v-deo.html - more importantly his video with a similar BLUE BACKGROUND.. not green ;-) It's called WHY SHOULD I CARE oh heck here it's in my Firefox address bar history haha ua-cam.com/video/ogmBfwcIhug/v-deo.html Took me months to integrate.. kept making logical fails stuck in materialist way of thinking.. if you like this post move on to 3Blue1Brown and his channel (Grant Sanderson) the most recent video there is EPIC !! so relevant :)
@@goldnutter412 This is where I differ. Who is capable of saying that another is absent-minded. This is where the study of consciousness reaches a brick wall. Trying to learn of something inside through outside comparison.
@@SleepWavezzz oh I totally agree. I think I linked you some videos ? could explain my countless life experiences that in reflection are why I have such conviction I hope more agree ASAP and we don't try to copy paste people's consciousness 🤣 enhancing the brain will be able to overclock us.. but that will likely come with damage constraints that mean it just isn't worth it in the end. A fascinating thought recently was that of optics and beyond.. if we were meant to see everything with our eyes.. would we even have other senses. Hmm I wonder if your comment is the easy argument for free will exists.. you have the free will to do your own research. I did, was a wanderer for 20yrs after some sad events, life has never been better after the personal focus I put into understanding MBT.. its been about 5 years and now things are getting.. profound doesn't even cover it..
Collectively, these "experts" present over 100 years of research and experiments - and then they tell us they do not agree on what consciousness or intelligence is.
From the age of five, I was aware of the simulation, then my elementary school teacher telling our class that all the eye can see is light and that the brain interprets that light into what we think we see - she also told us that all the ear can hear is waves of energy and that our brain interprets that energy into what we think we hear - which corroborated my awareness of the simulation. In high school, our science teacher told us that matter is 99.99% space ... That was followed by a series of experiences of the warps in the time-space continuum which resulted in me studying Quantum Physics and the Holographic Simulation known as "reality" - for decades. On my channel is a video I uploaded - years ago - exposing the Holographic Simulation and the symmetry of principles among the chemical elements, music chords, geometry, cymatics, the movement of celestial bodies, etc. We've been lied to about "reality" all our lives - including the reality of our Earth, the reality of humankind, the reality of water, the reality of celestial bodies, the reality of chemical elements, etc. Thank you for your reply - it's all review for me - but I appreciate it.
@spatium viator I notice your channel has no uploaded videos - I'd like to encourage you to upload your summary of the history of the study of Quantum Physics into a video - and any other follow up info you have. Thank you for caring about the truth of our world and thank you for sharing your summary of the evidence.
Response to Koch: I appreciate panpsychism but.. Viewing consciousness, any subject or thing is entirely dependent on a chosen or conditioned perspective. Once we assume a perspective, unless we are able to shift from one to another (very difficult for most), we are limited by that model. The ability to maintain multiple perspectives, or even contradictory ones, is the mark of genius. However once a conceptual model has been established and accepted by a community who's responsibility it is to generate such view (scientists, priests, educators, political groups), if one seeks to identify himself and prosper within it, he must profess that point of view. The individual also identifies not only with the group but with his own theories. When we identify ourselves with our thoughts or favored theory, we entrench ourselves even deeper in the function of intellect, which is a limited epistemic function within consciousness. Koch is admittedly a reductionist. He begins with the assumption, based upon what other men have thought before him, that consciousness is physical matter. He then spends 20 years of his life researching and says: "yes we've finally found the NCC, we have determined that consciousness is the cortex"! So what? Who is he trying to convince? Theists? Mystics? Metaphysicians? He started with a fixed perspective and wasted 20 years to arrive at that same conclusion. What has he achieved? Nothing really. He has found out what he already knew; he found what he was looking for; so what else is new? Koch knows consciousness is cortex but he doesn't know his own consciousness, because he's never bothered to look. Had he spent those 20, or even 2 years, enhancing his own consciousness, using phenomenology, or studying in a Tibetan monastery, he would be much further along in his understanding, and what meaningful content he could produce.
I think you miss what Science is about, if you think that showing what we think is the case actually to be true, is not a great thing. If he has managed to do that, it is amazing. He is doing science, not getting lost in his own human ape mind, which is a patchwork of biases/fallacies that keeps the real world effectively hidden from us, obviously. Hence the need for Science, to produce Scientia.
+Consciousness & Phenomenology "or studying in a Tibetan monastery, he would be much further along in his understanding" can u explain what tibetan buddhist say about consciousness? how do they solve the mind body problem? how does the mind and the brain interact? is idealism correct? i see a lot of people claiming buddhism/mediation lets u know what consciousness is, but they never explain the details.
Scientific enquiry ,experimentation and subsequent theory ,have ,in some instances lagged behind conscious intuition and or thought by ,in a few cases One hundred and fifty years . Albeit in qualitative terms. Revisit your Neitzsche for one. Then compare recent studies in neuroscience. My source ? Hell, I'm no encyclopaedia . Quantifying consciosness ,if one observes patterns of action by science, can ,by some measure( no pun), be construed (if one has audacity enough to ) induct the hubris of manipulation . Not always probable but always possible.
It seems blatently obvious to me that consciousness is just a word, a label attached to the computation of input. Philosphers muddy the water with rhetoric for their own gain. It's detestable.
+judgeomega it's clear you've not spent any time reading or studying this question. If your argument is truly that consciousness is just computation of input (though I doubt that's what you actually meant, because even a 12 year old child wouldn't argue that), then any computer program is conscious. There is a specific type of computation that makes something conscious, that is, that makes something able to understand itself, become self aware, and to experience qualia of some sort. What is detestable is a person that tries to ridicule attempts to answer a problem by simplifying it to a ridiculous caricature.
+Pollen Applebee he must be 12 year old since he doesnt understand the hard problem. to bridge the hard problem u either deny consciousness exist like dennett, or accept its fundamental like IIT (restricted panpsychist) and idealist and dualist approaches. there's simply no way to deal with the hard problem directly, anyone will tell u this.
If Zero is = to Infinity, then sure. Since the way that smaller parts can interact with each other is infinitely more then how a smaller part could interact with just itself. Then again, one could also count the "interactions" as "parts" or better the "possible interactions" as "virtual parts" which only become real once they occur.
That is the most complex presentation I've ever seen to say the scientific method of proof is impotent when it comes to understanding consciousness. I am not saying that Tononi personally is impotent. After all he is Italian. On the other hand this long winded rationalization is not very sexy. Remember, the simplest answer is usually the correct one and this is just the opposite of simple. Is he the silver tongue Hitler of consciousness?
The brainstem is the conductor of the brain's orchestra. The music played is our consciousness
A symphony also played by wind powered 'organs'.
34:52 does exist. It's an artwork. It's on a roundabout in Ieper, Belgium. The water flows downwards down the pipe and creates the illusion there isn't a physical backbone for the water tap.
The eye can see, but cannot see itself. Consciousness can experience, but cannot experience itself.
Ithe eye can see itself in the mirror.
And the tongue can taste itself if it bends, does not mean that the tongue can taste the blood inside it without cutting. Further science and technology will help us elucidate consciousness much better than mere thought and (external) chemical experiments.
Toononi does a good job of demonstrating that integrated information is necessary for consciousness (as we know it) but conflates that with it being sufficient.
But it sure looks like the best starting point we have right now.
at least he's better than eliminative materialists like dennett churchland & dawkins who deny the existence of consciousness because he cant explain it. IIT takes a panpsychist approach on the qualia part of consciousness.
Semantics mostly, like from your bias against them. Churchland and the two horsemen against false money-collecting/tax-break-requiring religions deny the existence of qualia as "measures of consciousness" not of brains doing consciousness. They deny the existence of consciousness as much as they deny the existence of falling or running. We do not measure falling or running in qualls and quans, and pretend that falling and running could exist independent of matter.
@A. Kataoka - have they really got a new idea though? It seems like they grabbed an old religious concept, and shoved some numbers on it to make it look like science
I think this correlates with our global political situation in a real way-"if the repertoire of states decreases the system becomes like a coin instead of a die with a trillion faces ... so any state of the system can only distinguish between two-the world is divided into two things, this or not this."
Biological drive ensures that our lived experience gravitates toward simplified bifurcations in order to efficiently protect ourselves from natural threats-hence a predisposition to developing symptoms of disavowal/dissociation under stress. So we're losing the ability to process reality as complexity explodes and subsequently failing in our duties to educate individuals properly. Too many of our comrades are left to slip into false dichotomy or fragment neurotically on the dissonant political rocks below rather than being able to digest information from a position of mental comfort and _entertain_ a thought while in the middle of the stream.
13:32
"So how much consciousness is there? And of course the theme of the symposium is more about how much consciousness is there (or will there be) in machines that may be highly intelligent by any criterium and any machine we may already have? How do we go about addressing those questions? I think the way you have to go is to develop a theory heard many times: _the call for theories that are needed in addition to empirical studies._ To understand the mind and consciousness is probably the place where theory is _most_ important.
So a _theory of consciousness_ needs to do several things. One is to define what consciousness is-what are the terms _quantity_ and _quality?_ Another thing is to be able to go back to neuroscience and account, in a parsimonious manner, for many empirical observations. Like why the cerebrum and not the cerebellum, why wake and not early slow wave sleep? And so on and so forth, there are many other examples. And even account for those aspects of phenomenology that right now seem ineffable, like what makes the _experience_ of pure red different from that of pure blue, or of a sound or of the scene that is in front of me right now-all those questions must have a scientific explanation.
Now the two axioms that I believe are most important to understand what consciousness is come actually straight from phenomenology-you don't need to do any science or experiments to know that, you know it _directly._ The first one is that every experience, by itself, is extraordinary and informative-not because of how many chunks of information are contained in it, but because of what it rules out. Whenever we have an experience (the one you are having right now) it rules out trillions and trillions of other possible experiences you could have had (but you didn't) and it distinguishes it from them in that particular way-from each and every one of them. That is the essence of information no matter how you want to measure it.
So that's the _key_ feature of consciousness-every experience is what it is because it is different in a particular way from many, many multitudinous other ones. But there is a second related feature that we cannot forget, and that's the _integration._ Meaning every experience is what it is and cannot be decomposed into independent parts. We can talk about the various pieces (what's on the left, what's on the right) but we cannot experience them as independent things-it doesn't even make sense. In fact, to be able to experience the left side of the visual field independent of the right side or the shape independent of the color you would need to split the brain. In fact split brain patients are the only ones who can do that, but then they have two consciousnesses, not one.
So now the basic idea, purely from phenomenology then, is that given those two key features of consciousness any physical systems that generate consciousness should be able to be treated as a single entity (should be one-that's the integration part) and at the same time it should have a huge repertoire of distinguishable states due to its own mechanism. Those two requirements have be there together and if any of them goes away consciousness should vanish. If the repertoire of states decreases the system becomes like a *coin* instead of a *die with a trillion faces* (as depicted here [PPT slide]) ...then you have little repertoire so any state of the system can only distinguish between two-the world is divided into two things, _this or not this._ Or vice-a-versa, if you lose the integration the system breaks down into many little pieces that may store a lot of information if you want/represent a lot of information, but it's not a single entity anymore."
At a minimum, consciousness might seem a necessary precondition for any such freedom or self-determination (Hasker 1999).
The freedom to choose one’s actions and the ability to determine one’s own nature and future development may admit of many interesting variations and degree rather than being a simple all or nothing matter, and various forms or levels of consciousness might be correlated with corresponding degrees or types of freedom and self-determination (Dennett 1984, 2003).
Comprehending consciousness is like taking a leap to the other side of the mirror
No one comprehends it
@@Laotzu.Goldbugi think it is real Comprehending consciousness
Wonderful presentations and discussion. Thank you!
So "dimension" is a term that is locked to our perception, meaning we can see tridimensional things in colour due to our brain architecture, while some other beings or animals might just see the world differently, and therefor experience other dimensions.
its also curious that consciousness can leave us during sleeping or in other rare situations like coma in a hospital and then return.
So, what is consciusness? is it something permanent that exists, but only manifests when the brain functions in a certain way, or is it consciousness simply a state that is characterized by the function of several parts of the brain that when interacting with each other, generate the consciousness state?
The word "dimension" has a spatial/temporal connotation that's often known by most. However, this word is used in a wider vantage in many fields, to denote fully orthogonal "directions" of inquiry/understanding. Dimension is used to demarcate & discuss an entirely different avenue that characterizes an are of knowledge.
The "quantum dimension" is an example of additional valid uses of this word.
Maybe it means consciousness is temporary too. But to whom it comes? That may be permanent.
Science with spirituality will give a broader picture in the study of consciousness.
Consciousness can not be studied simply because it is that I AM.. "Infinite Conscious Being = I AM = timeless Presence" (::)
@spatium viator if You ?, what You ?.. "Only I AM..as all of this" (::) .. [anything & everything are jut my imagination] .. hihihi
Amazing panelists.
What about the people with an empty head. Some are mentally broken, some are fine and one has a maths degree or job, dont remember which.
🤣🤣 of course it is like the eraser QM experiments.. when you check the result is what matters. The mentally retarded ones must have been detected in the womb, even if not diagnosed there must be data somewhere, like an ultrasound filed away somewhere in a very large warehouse or digitized somewhere.
Can't actually have reverse causality, so when the average IQ guy was told his head was empty, I wonder what he thought they meant ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Oh yeah, not totally empty there is a film/partial brain.. and brain stem. When I heard that I immediately linked it to.. the chicken with its head cut off and a bit of brain stem.. farmer fed it with an eye dropper when it kept walking around ! died some months later.. basically a coma patient.
ua-cam.com/video/-kNtJ08a-ss/v-deo.html - more importantly his video with a similar BLUE BACKGROUND.. not green ;-)
It's called WHY SHOULD I CARE oh heck here it's in my Firefox address bar history haha
ua-cam.com/video/ogmBfwcIhug/v-deo.html
Took me months to integrate.. kept making logical fails stuck in materialist way of thinking.. if you like this post move on to 3Blue1Brown and his channel (Grant Sanderson) the most recent video there is EPIC !! so relevant :)
Wish I had time to enjoy this, but I have a watch later and bookmarks and reading list that is an unfixable mess.. gotta focus on sharing the message provoking thought on really important things ! like Jamie Dimon does anyone actually listen to him ? well yes.. and its always positive comments on the video. There is a super relevant one to current events, because of the complexity of regulating assets fairly, for the good of everyone, in a worldwide society
ITS ABOUT THE ECONOMY where he's talking to each governor, and mentions the federal/state issue being the main problem (complexity is what it is!).. but the best part is when he references a different event, and when someone is stereotyping him or banks and inclusion.. diversity iirc. Its about when a black man stands up and says I STARTED AS A TELLER... and.. well I wont spoil :) its gold !
Good choice of arsene Wenger to do the intro
Pleeeease, increase sound volume a bit, it's a bit hard to hear sometimes
What If the way of Science that we know may not be correct in understanding the thing that we are trying to explain.......? Or the science only takes us only till this point...? Or I'm something else...?
Are you suggesting we do not keep updating science based on empirical data (non-anecdotal data)but simply leave it behind for nothing... until something perfect is judged by all as such? Or just to replace unbiased science with (old or new, or supposedly both) false emotion-based religions of unfair tax-breaks and money-collecting? Most of the religions that compete against science always push aggressively for the latter.
look how i see it. science is just an idea that try to explain the world how it is through ideas. like when i tell you if you cut your self you will feel pain is an intellectual understanding but feeling the pain is a different understanding. so yea science helped build what our society and civilization is but it will never solve the problems of the human psyche in fundamental level cause is the responsibility of every human being to understand this and self reflect to what he is rather to what he wants to be.
LOL the baby crawling was a nice touch... I refer to the majority is blindfolded children Running With Scissors... Of course have they really learn to run yet?
Beautiful haha..
What about the people with an empty head. Some are mentally broken, some are fine and one has a maths degree or job, dont remember which.
🤣🤣 of course it is like the eraser QM experiments.. when you check the result is what matters. The mentally retarded ones must have been detected in the womb, even if not diagnosed there must be data somewhere, like an ultrasound filed away somewhere in a very large warehouse or digitized somewhere.
Can't actually have reverse causality, so when the average IQ guy was told his head was empty, I wonder what he thought they meant ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Oh yeah, not totally empty there is a film/partial brain.. and brain stem. When I heard that I immediately linked it to.. the chicken with its head cut off and a bit of brain stem.. farmer fed it with an eye dropper when it kept walking around ! died some months later.. basically a coma patient.
ua-cam.com/video/-kNtJ08a-ss/v-deo.html - more importantly his video with a similar BLUE BACKGROUND.. not green ;-)
It's called WHY SHOULD I CARE oh heck here it's in my Firefox address bar history haha
ua-cam.com/video/ogmBfwcIhug/v-deo.html
Took me months to integrate.. kept making logical fails stuck in materialist way of thinking.. if you like this post move on to 3Blue1Brown and his channel (Grant Sanderson) the most recent video there is EPIC !! so relevant :)
OK enough pasting this and seems Google updated me to not be detected as a GPT3 textbot scammer LOL.. of course im wrong but hopefully they update their post/edit rate limiter. Its so simplistic I could smash my head on the wall. Told them to contact Kaspersky about heuristics the day I saw them, and those send 1 get 2 bs scams where the content is an edited rip with easily OCR text on them and a basic heuristic, gone forever. Obviously they need language ML, never read my comments ! nothing happened and for 18+ months the problem has increased exponentially, while the text and reply convos have barely evolved except when forced to. Shame, some good creativity solves everything.
Thank you for uploading😊
IIT is a huge step forward in studying consciousness, especially in its quantifiability. However, I suspect it may only be a necessary condition for consciousness and not sufficient.
More specifically, I suspect that it’s not just that there is the pattern of distributed causal network, but that the nature of its substrate must factor in. Or from a different perspective that a complete description of the distributed causal network would entail its particular substrate.
@spatium viator That’s just a bald statement with nothing to support it. Even if consciousness (in some abstract sense) were fundamental, which is highly speculative at best, why would that imply that any particular consciousness is eternal?
Consciousness can't be comprehended intellectually but we can experience IT by transcending thought in the state of Samadhi. No problem. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. The entire universe is Pure Consciousness.
That’s true. Meditation is one Avenue. But to truly inform ourselves into a state of constant meditation you need science and logic to drive discovery.
Would integrated information theory apply if we all live Ina simulation? Can I still assume others are conscious since their visual intelligence is the same as me even if we are in a simulation?
another example that gives me hope .. there is a glimmer of hope that I will be valued by this world.
I thought that I would only be appreciated after I was dead... this is the second time this week I have seen evidence that I was wrong... we'll see.
Amazing!
Is your tv the tv show
Can anyone elucidate what Block means by “representation”? Surely he's he's not making the cardinal sin of treating perception as representational?
looks like he's just using representation as a perception's state/configuration in the brain, regardless of conscious awareness. i think it still allows perception and representation to be different
First two speakers: Show that the fact that dead media (like photos) are representations which make it self evident that representations can never be sufficient to describe consciousness.
Third speaker: Still doesn't get it. Makes a fool of himself. Proves only that the American education system is heading nowhere.
Short answer: Yes. Block treating perception as representational.
I differentiate between Consciousness and mere awareness.
please elaborate on what that difference then would be.
I differentiate between Awareness and mere consciousness.
the large scale integration or binding problem has too many analogies to quantum mechanics. the construction of a meaningful object, wether it be an atom, color or a thought, the way our attention is driven towards a meaningful stimuli, all these relie on wave interactions of spontanious nature, free will is actually achieveable with exploiting plasticity in the limbic system. the empirical data that is accumulated in neuroscience in the near future would lead to the same boom that physics had 100 years ago
Amazing stuff. 🌹
The Gallileo Gallilei of consciousness (Giullio Tononi) almost died of boredom during the third speakers uneducated brabbeling.
As early as Hegel, Fichte, Shelling and as logical as Russel, Gödel & Wittgenstein, it is clear that _perceptional/mental representationalism_ always leads to an *infinite regress.* The fact that Block is lecturing about representations, means that he is showing us a representation of a representation of the theory of representations. The video here is a representation of Blocks representation of others who made representions of their theory of representations.
And anyone _watching_ this video is having a representation of... (insert ALL above), and then goes on to think (represent) and talk (representation of representations) about ALL THE ABOVE.
Thus, "representational theory" is not only not distinguishing between information and integrated information, it also does not fulfill Occams Razor, for it interduces ridiculous amounts of information about even the most simplest things.
M31NgC224 I've seen you around on these types of videos and you seem knowledgeable, so maybe you can answer my question:
Would integrated information theory apply if we all live In a simulation? Can I still assume others are conscious since their visual intelligence is the same as me even if we are in a simulation?
Interesting questions. I don't fully understand the second question, because I don't know what you mean with "visual intelligence".
I think IIT actually speaks against the Matrix scenario, because then the whole simulation would have to be conscious. Thus we would all be sub-programmes - much like single dream sequences, which the simulation could manipulate according to its own laws. But then there would be a high probability that any of us could just dissapear at any time. (Immanuel Kant argued in thought experiments similiarly)
Since none of us, in our woke consiousness, have ever saw each other simply dissappear or reappear, I don't think we live in any sort of simulation.
haha... not true. it's just that general bond-villain vibe. :-)
@@The_Accuser it doesn't matter if something fulfills Occam's razor it's not a law
Ned Block is just firing against the IIT. He says nothing in his talk about the relationship between intelligence and consciousness. Or did I miss something? That's sad. As a philosopher, he should have the ability to respond.
Gosh they look so happy
🤣
Most of the psychopaths in Wall Street wear Big Smiles... so too do the poor who believe their miserable manipulated and powerless lives are just the beginning bad/dramatic part of a fairy tail with an ultimately happy ever-after for themselves and gruesome ending for their enemies.
On can only imagine then, that a PhD in consciousness-related fields is not child's play and ruins all ignorant bliss. At least in whatever country/culture these guys are from. There was a time when American culture thought smiling even just to the camera was an insult to the self, and also a time when not smiling on the camera was a lost opportunity. Those Wild West and Hollywood days are both past and gone, I suppose.
22:01 pentakis dodecahedron
The brainstem/ reticular activation system decides the boundary between conscious/ unconscious and volition/ involuntary. Not the cortex
The creedal (faith) position of the first two speakers (Tonini and Koch) is actually going to limit the value and outcomes of their expensive research. The potential for the outcome of their 'faith' is to reduce visions of human potential to their chosen parameters. Their creedal (faith) presumptions are well summed up in the words " how [the brain, experience, complexity] gives rise to consciousness". Maybe consciousness gives rise to its artefacts! including experience, brain events. Prof. Block's insights ought to be considered more.
@Ann Nonymous If the author was evil, he would need good to contrast the evil so that it could be understood to be more than just baseline nothing...given how are nervous systems sense pain. Thus, the existence of "small good" would only be for the greater evil in that very possible, as any, scenario.
So Koch is claiming that any machine which has the same type of "visual intelligence" that we have would also be conscious like us, correct?
I’m not sure he would state it in terms of “visual intelligence”. He’s really saying that if the machine can get town to the level of analysis of separate components of an image and tell whether or not they fit together, that would entail intelligent consciousness. I think the “visual” part of your statement is too limiting, because you’d need also to have information about optics, physics, biology (in the case of the missing head), etc.
Not certain I agree with him, but I’m pretty certain that’s his meaning.
I believe consciousness is only meant to be understood rather than explained.
What about the people with an empty head. Some are mentally broken, some are fine and one has a maths degree or job, dont remember which.
🤣🤣 of course it is like the eraser QM experiments.. when you check the result is what matters. The mentally retarded ones must have been detected in the womb, even if not diagnosed there must be data somewhere, like an ultrasound filed away somewhere in a very large warehouse or digitized somewhere.
Can't actually have reverse causality, so when the average IQ guy was told his head was empty, I wonder what he thought they meant ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Oh yeah, not totally empty there is a film/partial brain.. and brain stem. When I heard that I immediately linked it to.. the chicken with its head cut off and a bit of brain stem.. farmer fed it with an eye dropper when it kept walking around ! died some months later.. basically a coma patient.
ua-cam.com/video/-kNtJ08a-ss/v-deo.html - more importantly his video with a similar BLUE BACKGROUND.. not green ;-)
It's called WHY SHOULD I CARE oh heck here it's in my Firefox address bar history haha
ua-cam.com/video/ogmBfwcIhug/v-deo.html
Took me months to integrate.. kept making logical fails stuck in materialist way of thinking.. if you like this post move on to 3Blue1Brown and his channel (Grant Sanderson) the most recent video there is EPIC !! so relevant :)
@@goldnutter412 This is where I differ. Who is capable of saying that another is absent-minded. This is where the study of consciousness reaches a brick wall. Trying to learn of something inside through outside comparison.
@@SleepWavezzz oh I totally agree. I think I linked you some videos ? could explain my countless life experiences that in reflection are why I have such conviction
I hope more agree ASAP and we don't try to copy paste people's consciousness 🤣 enhancing the brain will be able to overclock us.. but that will likely come with damage constraints that mean it just isn't worth it in the end. A fascinating thought recently was that of optics and beyond.. if we were meant to see everything with our eyes.. would we even have other senses.
Hmm I wonder if your comment is the easy argument for free will exists.. you have the free will to do your own research. I did, was a wanderer for 20yrs after some sad events, life has never been better after the personal focus I put into understanding MBT.. its been about 5 years and now things are getting.. profound doesn't even cover it..
Collectively, these "experts" present over 100 years of research and experiments - and then they tell us they do not agree on what consciousness or intelligence is.
From the age of five, I was aware of the simulation, then my elementary school teacher telling our class that all the eye can see is light and that the brain interprets that light into what we think we see - she also told us that all the ear can hear is waves of energy and that our brain interprets that energy into what we think we hear - which corroborated my awareness of the simulation.
In high school, our science teacher told us that matter is 99.99% space ...
That was followed by a series of experiences of the warps in the time-space continuum which resulted in me studying Quantum Physics and the Holographic Simulation known as "reality" - for decades.
On my channel is a video I uploaded - years ago - exposing the Holographic Simulation and the symmetry of principles among the chemical elements, music chords, geometry, cymatics, the movement of celestial bodies, etc.
We've been lied to about "reality" all our lives - including the reality of our Earth, the reality of humankind, the reality of water, the reality of celestial bodies, the reality of chemical elements, etc.
Thank you for your reply - it's all review for me - but I appreciate it.
@spatium viator I notice your channel has no uploaded videos - I'd like to encourage you to upload your summary of the history of the study of Quantum Physics into a video - and any other follow up info you have. Thank you for caring about the truth of our world and thank you for sharing your summary of the evidence.
Response to Koch:
I appreciate panpsychism but..
Viewing consciousness, any subject or thing is entirely dependent on a chosen or conditioned perspective.
Once we assume a perspective, unless we are able to shift from one to another (very difficult for most), we are limited by that model.
The ability to maintain multiple perspectives, or even contradictory ones, is the mark of genius.
However once a conceptual model has been established and accepted by a community who's responsibility it is to generate such view (scientists, priests, educators, political groups), if one seeks to identify himself and prosper within it, he must profess that point of view.
The individual also identifies not only with the group but with his own theories.
When we identify ourselves with our thoughts or favored theory, we entrench ourselves even deeper in the function of intellect, which is a limited epistemic function within consciousness.
Koch is admittedly a reductionist. He begins with the assumption, based upon what other men have thought before him, that consciousness is physical matter.
He then spends 20 years of his life researching and says: "yes we've finally found the NCC, we have determined that consciousness is the cortex"!
So what?
Who is he trying to convince? Theists? Mystics? Metaphysicians?
He started with a fixed perspective and wasted 20 years to arrive at that same conclusion.
What has he achieved? Nothing really. He has found out what he already knew; he found what he was looking for; so what else is new?
Koch knows consciousness is cortex but he doesn't know his own consciousness, because he's never bothered to look.
Had he spent those 20, or even 2 years, enhancing his own consciousness, using phenomenology, or studying in a Tibetan monastery, he would be much further along in his understanding, and what meaningful content he could produce.
I think you miss what Science is about, if you think that showing what we think is the case actually to be true, is not a great thing. If he has managed to do that, it is amazing. He is doing science, not getting lost in his own human ape mind, which is a patchwork of biases/fallacies that keeps the real world effectively hidden from us, obviously. Hence the need for Science, to produce Scientia.
+Consciousness & Phenomenology "or studying in a Tibetan monastery, he would be much further along in his understanding"
can u explain what tibetan buddhist say about consciousness? how do they solve the mind body problem? how does the mind and the brain interact? is idealism correct?
i see a lot of people claiming buddhism/mediation lets u know what consciousness is, but they never explain the details.
Sanity prevails.
@@estring123 consciousness is what you find when you learn how examine your own.
How would you program an AI to join a cult? This is the world I'm living in.
Scientific enquiry ,experimentation and subsequent theory ,have ,in some instances lagged behind conscious intuition and or thought by ,in a few cases
One hundred and fifty years . Albeit in qualitative terms.
Revisit your Neitzsche for one. Then compare recent studies in neuroscience.
My source ? Hell, I'm no encyclopaedia .
Quantifying consciosness ,if one observes patterns of action by science, can ,by some measure( no pun),
be construed (if one has audacity enough to ) induct the hubris of manipulation . Not always probable but always possible.
Fix the low volume level. unconscionable. LOL!
It seems blatently obvious to me that consciousness is just a word, a label attached to the computation of input. Philosphers muddy the water with rhetoric for their own gain. It's detestable.
+judgeomega it's clear you've not spent any time reading or studying this question. If your argument is truly that consciousness is just computation of input (though I doubt that's what you actually meant, because even a 12 year old child wouldn't argue that), then any computer program is conscious. There is a specific type of computation that makes something conscious, that is, that makes something able to understand itself, become self aware, and to experience qualia of some sort. What is detestable is a person that tries to ridicule attempts to answer a problem by simplifying it to a ridiculous caricature.
It seems blatently obvious to me that ur just another materialist shithead
+Pollen Applebee he must be 12 year old since he doesnt understand the hard problem. to bridge the hard problem u either deny consciousness exist like dennett, or accept its fundamental like IIT (restricted panpsychist) and idealist and dualist approaches. there's simply no way to deal with the hard problem directly, anyone will tell u this.
Why would you become a shrink if you wanna do actual science?
BS
He is just too young to be wise. Consciousness requires wisdom as well as intelligence
Babies love their Mother’s smile.
If phi is the amount of additional information in a system of smaller parts, phi is always zero.
If Zero is = to Infinity, then sure. Since the way that smaller parts can interact with each other is infinitely more then how a smaller part could interact with just itself. Then again, one could also count the "interactions" as "parts" or better the "possible interactions" as "virtual parts" which only become real once they occur.
That is the most complex presentation I've ever seen to say the scientific method of proof is impotent when it comes to understanding consciousness. I am not saying that Tononi personally is impotent. After all he is Italian. On the other hand this long winded rationalization is not very sexy. Remember, the simplest answer is usually the correct one and this is just the opposite of simple. Is he the silver tongue Hitler of consciousness?