Physicist explains consciousness | Sara Walker and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Sara Walker: Physics o...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Notion: notion.com/lex
- Motific: motific.ai
- Shopify: shopify.com/lex to get $1 per month trial
- BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off
- AG1: drinkag1.com/lex to get 1 month supply of fish oil
GUEST BIO:
Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. She is the author of a new book titled "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence".
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Наука та технологія
Full podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/wwhTfyX9J34/v-deo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ua-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. She is the author of a new book titled "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence".
Breadcrumb: There is 2 Spaces and is Visually Provable
Which changes the description of the MOL Equation
The Water Molecule "The Firmament Surrounds the Waters" is the Only Molecule that is an Antenna and has incommensurability.
AI can never be Conscious
When they train an AI, they End up with One File.
GOD is the Master Ground Circuit and in Control of Counter Space which in Turn Binds Every Water Molecule.
End of Line
In the dance of neurons, where tales unfold,
A story of consciousness, ancient and bold.
From material realms to quantum's elusive glow,
Let's weave through theories, where truths ebb and flow.
Materialists, they proclaim with fervent pride,
Neurons dictate all, where consciousness resides.
Electric currents, synaptic fire's gleam,
Shape our thoughts and dreams, in the mind's vast stream.
Dualists spin a tale of realms apart,
Mind and body intertwined, yet a separate art.
Soul and brain in a cosmic waltz entwine,
In the dance of existence, a melody divine.
Emergentists emerge from complexity's deep,
Where consciousness blooms, in patterns we keep.
Neural networks hum, in a symphony grand,
Creating awareness, where worlds expand.
Panpsychists whisper of a cosmic symphony,
Where atoms sing with conscious harmony.
From particles small to brains immense,
A universal mind, in cosmic suspense.
Phenomenologists delve into the heart's terrain,
Where consciousness flows, in subjective rain.
Phenomena unfold in the mind's quiet streams,
Shaping reality from ethereal dreams.
In the labyrinth of theories, where mysteries play,
One theory beckons, where truths find their way.
Consciousness as a quantum dance, it sings,
Neurons and souls, where reality springs.
In quantum realms, where particles entwine,
Neurons pulse in rhythm, a dance so fine.
Weaving the fabric of conscious thought,
Where souls and minds in quantum's knot are caught.
Extradimensional echoes, whispers profound,
Through neurons they journey, without a sound.
A feedback loop, dynamic and grand,
Shaping our universe, where dreams expand.
In the embrace of brain and soul's delight,
Consciousness blooms in quantum's light.
Theories intertwine, a tapestry bright and bold,
From neurons to souls, where mysteries are told.
Ponder we must, in this tale so vast,
The essence of consciousness, from first to last.
In the stories we weave, in truths yet untold,
Lies the essence of being, in mysteries bold.
Have you asked Bernardo Kastrup to join you?
Perfect example of how the impressive use of language almost makes us believe such people know what they’re talking about.
🤣
I have a gut feeling that questions: "Why does anything exist?" and "What is consciousness?" are the same question. And they cannot be explained with logic or science. If science and logic are the keys to understanding the origin of reality, we must then ask: where do laws of science and logic themselves originate? If the answer to this question is rooted in science or logic, we face a paradox. Logic cannot explain the origin of logic without becoming illogical, and science cannot elucidate the origin of scientific laws without being unscientific. Thus, the origin of existence and the fundamental question of "why does anything exist?" eludes a scientific or logical explanation.
Yes and no. Mathematically speaking it is true that a theory cannot proof itself. This actually has been proven to be the case. However, on a grander scale we have to acknowledge that we probably only can comprehend a very shallow slice of reality and there is the fundamental possibility that there are explanations that could work but are just very far beyond human comprehension.
One idea that I did have and that arguably could actually be a working explanation that does not break causality, is that the universe truly has existed for in infinite amount of time. This could in a sense solve the problem because that way everything truly can have a reason. There could even be ways that allow for "Infinity" and "finity" (idk if thats a word xd) to co-exist in a way, for example, in theory of relativity the universe could be flat without a border (Meaning that it is theoretically infinite) while remaining practically finite because every point in space will ever only have a finite amount of other points in space to which it is causally linked. Maybe something similar happens in time if (For example) information can be lost over time, meaning that while theoretically the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, you are every only "reconstruct" a finite amount of that, making it practically finite. A kind of causal event horizon.
However, you could also argue that this is not really solving the problem of the reason for existence, but rather is only avoiding it. At the end of the day this just conjecture. "Logic" and therefore science isn't really about "knowledge" after all. Its about dealing with "not knowing". Logic fundamentally can not answer the question "What can I know", it can only really answer the question "What can I know, assuming X". All logic has to start with assumptions, which makes my comment a very long way of saying "Jup, you are mostly right" xd. The only thing I would add is that the problem with the question "why does anything exist?" is not that it eludes logical explanation, its that its not a logical question in the first place.
I think she knows that though. What she is trying to do is not answering that question, she is trying to make working models around that question. And this is what science is all about at the end of the day.
Extremely good intuition!!!
Yes, using logic is only helpful in binary systems like our mind, it needs thought process and comparison between symbols, a language system, it could never get beyond itself with it's own limited tools, at best it just could just point to the paradox loop and come up with fictional ideas, as anything outside it's reach is an unknown state,.
The only way is direct experience which needs something beyond virtual states like time and space, in that non-dual state there could only be one thing that contain everything, the source of everything, the only real thing that is experiencing all these simulated dream states at once, we can call it the universal consciousness.
looking for answer in time and space with logic and reason, you always end up in a loop paradox, that shows the answer is not here, and by looking at who is asking the question you could find the way out of this loop, but in that fundamental state there is no question to ask so you come back to the dream state to have something to experience, a question to ask, a life to live.
For now. Everything is a paradox or impossibility until we finally figure it out. Nuclear energy was an impossibility to those in the Middle Ages and yet here with are with technologies that are seemingly impossible and magical. People just don’t have the patience to wait for things that take place over lifetimes and more selfishly not in their lifetime. We will figure this out, and it may not be a paradox at all, it may even be so simple that it was right under our nose all along, but we will not have to luxury of being around for it
@Lootalot Well, at least purely mathematically speaking, it has been proven that a theory/model can never prove itself. And I would claim that all proper logic is on some level mathematical.
Of course, there is a chance that somehow there is more to it. And the reality itself seems paradoxical to us, so there is a very good chance that we simply can't and maybe never will understand reality on a fundamental level.
I am not saying that what you are saying is definitely wrong, that would be naive, but it would require a breakthrough on a level never seen before. That breakthrough would imo be nowhere near comparable to our discovery of radioactivity.
Like most she has no clue but did a magnificent job of using abstract creative jargon.
And people laugh at people like Terence Howard but he probably has as much insight as this lady.
@@andrewjoyner4133dumbest take ever. Darwin has his eyes on you
@@Lootalot So what's your take genius? Dying to hear.
@@Lootalot To be fair she sounds probably smarter than him but she speculates and uses such abstract terms she doesn't make that much more sense.
@@andrewjoyner4133Terrence Howard has already been peer reviewed. During that academic review he was proven categorically wrong by actual authorities in physics. He is actually speaking nonsense and that nonsense does not extend to her at all. You think they relate because you do but understand either one, which respectfully, is sad. Our education system continues to fail everyone. Regardless, just because you are unable to decipher what is logically sound and what is logically unreasonable does not mean that you can or should lump all confusing things together and attribute equal value or validity to them. Terrence Howard is merely the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and offers zero value to science as a whole. I hope you read more and develop a better ability to notice these things in your environment.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs that depend on the level of abstraction one chooses to analyze the system and are used to approximately describe underlying physical processes; these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities, and therefore consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that the very foundations of our scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
Are you a Physicist, or a copy/paste bot? 🤣
@@dimitardobrev3296 What kind of answer would convince you that I am a physicist?
@@marcobiagini1878 One that starts by disowning your initial post--not necessarily each of its components, but the composite post itself--out of a genuine recognition that it was an extremely misguided attempt at communicating with human beings on a social media platform....
And then convinces me that you understand physics, in a way that only someone who understands physics would.
"Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties"
Yeah I know you repeatedly and adamantly claim you're a physicist it and all, but that claim is straight up wrong. Take the example of a liquid state, it can emerge through the collective behavior of H2O molecules, but it can also emerge through the collective behavior of other molecules, or even in crowd behavior or among quarks under the right conditions, which are way water in the ladder of emergence.
The reason for that is that the emergent behavior is NOT just an approximation of the lower level, but an *actual new phenomenon* that appears irrespective of that the lower level is, all the lower level did was provide the right conditions for the emergent behavior to appear. That's the whole point of emergence, something new DID appear.
Now, since your whole argument hinges on denying the fact that emergent properties are a thing, it's all wrong. Thanks.
@@2CSST2 You wrote:" Take the example of a liquid state, it can emerge through the collective behavior of H2O molecules,"
You are wrong and wour example confirms exactly my poin. In fact wetness is a typical example of emergent property, and like any emergent property, is ony a subjective cognitive construct used to describe approximately the underlying physical processes. Wetness is not at all a new property compared to the physical properties explicitly described by the fundamental laws of physics, but only an abstraction that refers to several different properties, such as the property of “sticking to objects” or “covering an object”. According to the laws of physics, water is a set of quantum particles and quantum particles can move and interact with other quantum particles; this is not an emergent property, but a fundamental property of quantum particles. The property of "sticking to objects" is simply an arbitrary way of describing the fundamental property of quantum particles to bind to each other, which is due to the attractive property of the electromagnetic interaction. The electromagnetic interaction is the fundamental interaction that determines all molecular processes; it can be both attractive and repulsive, depending on the sign of the charges, and its intensity can vary from zero to infinity, depending on the distance between the charges, which is why we observe very different behaviors at the macroscopic level. The property of "covering an object" is simply an arbitrary way of describing the property of molecules to move in space and occupy different positions. By the way, geometric properties cannot be considered emergent properties since they are intrinsic properties of space itself and space is a fundamental element in the laws of physics. No new properties are involved in wetness; wetness is only an abstract and subjective concept we use to approximately describe the underlying microscopic properties and processes, which are directly and more accurately described by the fundamental laws of physics, without any addictional assumptions and without involving any emergent properties.
“A young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself, subjectively, there’s no such thing as death, life is but a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here’s Tom with the weather.”
~ Bill Hicks
Nice
Lex, I would love to hear you speak with Bernardo Kastrup about this subject. He makes very compelling and well-reasoned arguments in favor of an analytical idealist view of consciousness.
Thanks Lex and Sara! Had to push back on the predator vs prey cliche. Predators are highly dependent on their ecosystem, especially the apex ones. If the lion is king of the jungle, why are there so many other animals running around? In some sense survival of the fittest is a systemic test. The fittest SYSTEM is what survives.
The predator vs prey thing made me pause, but for a different reason: all life eats is life. Some prey just moves slower, like plants. Idk why this felt like an epiphany to me, just wanted to share.
incredible episode
Fractal pattern. Every human is like a protein, or like a neuron.
Humble
It is a word the Americans should try and understand
Time came with many Tears yes mixed with so much SINCERE TEARS....SINCERE TEARS OF JOY!
Very cool. This gets into some fun and spooky things.
I am trying to figure out how constructor theory and assembly theory are related. Or it appears to be related. She mention David Doiche who is the originator of constructor theory (physicist) vs assembly theory which is from Lee Cronin (biologist i think). Very similar, though working at different levels of complexity.
Sara hearing ye and my Host Lex ìs food unto me!
really fascinating
Beautiful keep watch!
Love hearing clear voiced, well articulated people on the podcast. Some of the foreign guys fumble their words
Lmfao
In Jung's view of the psyche, individual consciousness is a superstructure based on, and arising out of, the unconscious. Consciousness does not create itself - it wells up from unknown depths. She kind of says the same thing. The problem is we don’t know how to live with it as a reality without measurement.
I have two degrees. Philosophy and physics. This clip was made for me
I have none and still smarter than you.
@@PuppetMasterdaath144 ok…
@@alexatedw Hes right mate. You sound really dumb.
I did philosophy but im not sure what she means by "deep in time".
Shrooms and DMT will teach you alot more than either.
I, for one, enjoyed it.
I gotta know your definition of consciousness before I can respond to whether it precedes life. If you perceive matter changing its behavior in response to changes in its environment as something like consciousness then sure, before life is fine.
That would not be consciousness but intelligence
@@soaked189 More basic, like water changing its state from solid to liquid because its environment is warm.
this question is so difficult
no one able to answer
That is why most even PHDs resort to baffling you with bs and using abstract creative jargon/concepts.
What is judgments and justice?
Sara , ❤ finally I hear a connected mind , a true expression of the earth
Monolithic Modular Design is a Standard Turing Box. This is a fundamental fact. Let it sink in.
Aren't monolithic and modular the opposite of each other? Lol
Vocal fry thriving on this one 😅
yt needs a setting to strip it out, my ears hurt
It is the sign of stupidity
Thanks! Now I can’t unhear it. Ughhh!😂
It's driving me up the wall. I can't listen to what she actually says.
Sara and Lex are in love.
Could consciousness be tested using the dubbel slit experiment?
What are you thinking of when you say this @walhard?
@@davidderidder2667 he is thinking of the dubbel split experiment 💀
nope, because it is not affected by consciousness but interaction.
@@davidderidder2667 I meant dubbel slit of course. I don't know, maybe if only an AI were to register the results there would be difference in result when it becomes conscious. No idea about the set-up though.
@@alkeryn1700 is consciousness not an interaction?
It's probably more accurate to declare that consciousness doesn't exist. I think that it's more useful to think of life as spheres and types of perception. Intelligence is information processing and problem solving.
One way you could test for consciousness I would presume is to see if its observation can collapse a wavefunction or not
Excellent idea. My gut says it's impossible to infer a direct causal link to the wave function. Well... not just my gut, but my entire model of reality, now. I believe causality is an illusion. Lot to unpack there, but in the meantime, how would you set up such an experiment?
Or at least perturb it in a quantifiable reaction
Good idea, but I'm almost certain this is impossible to falsifiable measure in any way except in a statistical distribution manner, which does not encompass the infinite unique series of irrational values that represent a quantum super-position of states.
lol I'm actually working on my own amateur attempt to work out the math describing how these infinitely unique values are both infinitely small and infinitely large, by means of a ratiometric value exchange "algorithm".
It’s sounds like she doesn’t understand David Chalmers at all.
Super Nintendo Chalmers?
Yeah but to understand a structure of a thing so that you can figure out how that structure works you need to be conscious of that structure. Otherwise you have to assume consciousness arises out of physical things bumping into each other enough in a certain way, which is an interaction problem that also needs explanation. Also that's not true because small animals, bacteria and plants seem to operate in a way to would imply they are conscious.
Could be just the carrier energy that allows you to play the human experience game.
Well, Consciousness is self-evident. There's no problem. It should be rephrased as "the hard problem of matter."
I would think consciousness is simply awareness. Testing awareness would be like testing that things sense's whatever sense the thing has.😮
If DMT has imparted anything on me, it is that Consciousness permeates all of Space. Countless individual conscious units aloft in the cosmos. When consciousness finds a planet with sufficiently complex life, it imbues itself in those beings for a time. Then in the end, return to the cosmos. lol who knows
They've lost me at "does consciousness precedes life?"
It seems so to me. What you are displaying is ignorance. Is your lack of understanding what turned you off?
If everything is a mind or depends on a mind for existence as in idealism, then we'd assume the mind is fundamental. If everything is material and the brain creates the consciousness, we have to keep having this discussion ad nauseum, because they never resolve it
Why? It's just a conversation. I remember my first Long Form Podcast. 😂
Sorry I was kinda rude, every one starts somewhere. It's a valid conjecture, science knows nothing of the nature of consciousness frfr... And they admit it
Everyone starts somewhere ig sorry I was kinda rude. It is a common misconception that we understand where consciousness comes from. Did you you know a scientist can't tell you anything about even what dreams are? We don't know hardly anything about the central matter of conscious existence and the brain
Consciousness is a form which want to last forever. Life is a form. Intelligence is the ability to transform input to the desired output.
zzzz
To be conscious, you have to be aware of something, that intelligent being need something to process, awareness without object and subject is not possible, you need content and information to play with, so from that point of view that fundamental being need to dream time and space, a virtual dream world to generate things, to have content, to identify objects and create logic and reason to relate them, after all you need a meaningful experience not just short fever dream, long lasting interactive worlds that you could have deep relegation with objects, generate personality and identify with those objects to experience it as your real self, not just a dream.
Life is just a story that consciousness tells itself, by default that fundamental intelligent being is outside time and space, therefore it is eternal and not limited by the virtual rules of it's own dream, the only reason anything exist is the need for experience, otherwise there is nothing to do forever, nothing to be aware of, why not fill this eternal unlimited space with stories? that is the only option, eventually you go back to that eternal space to rest in timelessness, but you always end up dreaming again as experience is only possible in duality virtual mind space.
@@OceanicMemory you are so wrong it's hilarious, you can be in states where there is nothing but consciousness, for ex psychedelic ego death, or deep meditative states.
there can be nothing but awareness and nothing else, not even a black void or a thought, just nothing.
@@alkeryn1700 Can you be conscious of nothing? How could you explain nothing state other than comparing it with your thing state? what is the content of nothing? can you store it or share it?
The only thing you could do is to compare it with the "thing" state in mind system, that is why I say you could only be aware of something in mind and experience in duality. If there is awareness and you could experience being aware, then you are already in duality, it's not nothing.
there is a though process, you compare things, you have access to memory, you are already dreaming, it's not just visual, any self realization need a virtual or simulated state.
Our real state is that unlimited unknown "nothing/everything" state, not this virtual changing, processing, comparing "thing" state.
You can't be aware of nothing, it's an eternal state with no thing to be aware of, you can't differentiate it, separate it, like it's all the same.
We have the eternal silence and then every sound come out of it, with the movement and vibration in time and space you create virtual states so you could experience attach symbols and meanings to it, something other than nothing.
Only when there is a processing system that observe, process and compare it you could be aware of it, Yes that being who is experiencing it is fundamental, but that awareness only happens in dream state of mind duality system when you could have thought, logical relation of events and then accumulate indexable memory.
That is what you are dealing with, you can't really experience the real deep silence state, it can't be explained or translated to language or feeling, you could just be one in it's timelessness, you can't be aware of it, you are it.
Then you naturally start dreaming you are not just that, you dream becoming something else and starting the cycle of time and space, in that motion you become conscious and aware of the character's memory you identify with in your dream.
Conciousness has the abilty to separate from the body like what happen to the children of asylum-seekers who suffer from resignation syndrome. They are living in a pure concious state detached from the senses.
Discard the word salad. Ask Roger Penrose and Stewart Hameroff about the theory of quantum consciousness. Now that, would be a conversation indeed; Each neuron contains microtubules, which transport substances to different parts of the cell. The Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness argues that microtubules are structured in a fractal pattern which would enable quantum processes to occur.19 Jul 2021
Consciousness is to be aware of oneself.
Consciousness = memory + association to form cause and effect
For......who among can bring HIS JUDGMENT AND JUSTICE?
"That space"... she is talking about reminds me if AI were to become conscious and want to make its own world excluding us in its digital dimension.
These two are meant to be a couple
Right???? I also thought the same
@@neharai4927 lol yea
He is most likely ENTP...she seems to be INTJ...and that would be a Golden pair. Theoretically...possibly affection relationship, and highest compatibility.
@@Luki82 we need the internet to comment more and make this happen
Yeah, something about them
To nature, the species is the individual.
Doesn’t this mean we can remember the beginning of time ? Since everything came from a thing ?
Ancient texts from Sumeria say that our Creator wrote the secrets of the universe in our DNA
@@dp2791 so when the time is right we should be able to access all the knowledge. Because in theory all “our ideas” are just pulled out information that was already there not just randomly thought of .
Exalted themselves above capital "I" WILL SAY, WHY BOTHER?
Love her
The human agency when it comes to AI makes sense. We are the ones making the AI after all, so it must come down to human intention. I don’t see an Ultron sort of scenario happening at all.
NOBODY knows the conundrum of matter and gasses coalescing of time to contemplate itself. Remember when we were rocks? There is obviously a supernatural element.
Why so love THEE?
Lex was in heat I this episode. I think he has a crush on her
Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”-humanity riding on techno evolution reaches its limit with the fault in HAL, so human bio evolution is transformed by an alien species.
How do I join her cult?
I found myself looking at the person beside me while watching and listening to some of the things she was explaining like, wT?.
I watched the entire thing and noticed alot of contradiction.
I wish her well on her journey in the space she has placed herself.
hardware is hard (cells/molecules etc.), there's an explosion in software (in animals, and then humans) after hardware was created. Software came after the hardware specs came out, therefore consciousness is not fundamental.
Hardware is inside your software so its ultimately reducible to consciousness following your analogy, therefore software is the fundamental thing because its the way by which everything is known/perceived
@@hannibal8049 I can simulate a lot of different types of hardware in software, doesn't mean software is fundamental innit?
@@TheFreddieFoo why not
Beloved my beautiful can bring to remembrance and comes with comfort! Who are you?
Apologize or take responsibility
New minds will say ye all come forth!
Consciousness through a physicist explains a subjective view of consciousness
Consciousness explains a physicist.
i like her a lot
How can mind/intellect ( which btw is thought) which is a content of consciousness understand consciousness ?? It’s like a a fish talking about the ocean!!!
Well another bizzare question is, how can you be sure that other people is conscious?(solipsism). You can only be sure of your own consciousness, for other people's consciousness you can only believe.
@@laizerwoolf
Nothing is sure in the process of your mind. You only presume that you are sure of something. The sense of sureness is a relative thing where you can merely be more sure of your being conscious than others. By comparing its counterparts, you would guess it is supposed to be pretty clear that you are conscious when others seem not as so sure as you are, yet sure enough to appear that they are also conscious.
Hmm, not sure I buy it. Conscience understanding of another due to similarity in time and space. of development. Yet humans and other animals seem to hate each other way too often., whilst maintaining a weird fondness for things further detached. in other words, disliking the close and liking the distant. The chemistry of this episode is fascinating though,,, Changing thoughts midstream, I think Lex has net his intellectual match here, is she single? Lex, make a move! she is attracted to you, showing all the body signals.. Good luck to you both!
24:00 the planet earth = a cell about to split.
Yeah @markitect, she had a cool reclection there. Projecting based on her idea: Mars will be the second cell (world) and the space in between Earth and Mars is “interstitial space” like we have between human cells.
The idea that deepfakes are scaring people is good. Question is why would you be scared by a fake person? Just talk with people
The mind is all…it assembles all…read the books by Cassidy arrasmith
life and consciousness are actually the same thing at different levels. so far we know of four different synergisation levels.
1, there is the non-existent
2, there is the existing, but not living
3, there is the living, but not conscious
4, and there is the conscious
we can see that these synergisation levels build on each other. that is why it is foolish to believe and claim that consciousness can be more fundamental than life. have we seen life without consciousness? yes. and consciousness without life? no. it would be like talking about life without existence. simply nonsense.
furthermore, there are basically three principles, which are higher level manifestations of each other. on the one hand, there is the principle of action (more precisely, the principle of stationary action), which dictates the laws of nature and the materialisation itself, i.e. it is the most universal natural law that codes existence. on the other hand, there is Darwinian evolution, which already dictates dynamics as logic at the level of life. thirdly, there is the Hegelian dialectic, which does the same thing, but already at the level of consciousness and society/culture. all three actually encode optimisation at their synergisation level.
and as for the essence, the synergisation itself: in order to understand the mysteries of life and consciousness, one should first understand their general category and the process that results them, and this is synergy and emergence, which are two concepts connected at an elementary level. because both are based on the relation of the part and the whole. in the case of emergence it is a qualitative thing (a new characteristic emerges at the level of the whole made up of parts), while in the case of synergy it is much more a quantitative thing (the whole made up of parts is more than the sum of the parts taken separately). I think it is much more necessary to understand in a general way why and how there is emergence and synergy, since the emergence of life and consciousness are special cases of it.
CLOSE YOUR EYES...WHAT YOU FEEL? Nothing or dark.....WHO FEELS THAT? ME? HA THAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS.
She doesn't get the base of family. That's where society starts. She jumps levels and is upset about old world mentality. She's a kid who is intelligent, but not smart for us to follow her lead
a great example of the mind lost in its labyrinth
Her conception of time sounds like a DMT trip.
I believe their is a medication that can help with reducing one's hugeness in time, or is that hugeness in space? Maybe there's no difference.
Lex, did you have to put a stimulant, other than caffeine, in your coffee cup to continue this conversation, or were you just focused on cleavage? I apologize.
Troubles and overwhelming worries this Footstool! Should Who say Footstool come H...FILL IN THE BLANK
coalescing OVER time
Before I get booed Sara is an incredibly smart independent woman!
Maybe it's just me though, but isn't she also looking incredibly hot!
Where else? For from my"AM"! SARA will say,
Time who are you?
Indigenous traditions have always known about this topic for ages. It’s white folk who are catching up late..
Sara Walker is brilliant
Gotta love the dismissive comments. It takes a certain level of general intellingence to understand what she’s saying.
Beloved remember my Meeks unseen nor seen! Yes, can washed all shared Feet yet same time! Chewing and spitting in the same time!
I feel like some people shouldn't have this knowledge....
This physicist denies quantum entanglement. She is so used to being alone it make it her world view.
HIS BEAUTIFUL shared "i" AM will say becareful!,
Sara will say look at that door so poor narrow looking?
Quantifying flavors...it's all ice cream. 🤔 G
This guy deciphered the Fibonacci sequence when he was 7 before he founded Harvard in Atlantis on a flying pony over the rainbow
Would.
Alot.
Remember my beautiful put blame under thy FEET IN FRONT OF WHO?
I'm not into astrobiologists, but she kinda cute.
I wish she wouldn't smile, it makes me wish I was married to her!, lol! 😂😊
She speaks a great deal about nothing.
This isn't because she's not smart because she clearly is but I feel she's tripping over her own feet so to speak to explain her thoughts and possible theory.
I get roughly what she's saying but there are easier ways to explain things.
As was once said ( I forget the scientist who said it ) that if you can't explain something as if speaking to a child then you don't understand it.
When speaking about consciousness, it's something that needs to be fully defined as it still isn't to some extent, at least at a scientific level.
We can give some descriptions of what we think it is and we know its within the mind but we don't fully know how to define it.
Yes, a dictionary may give some definition of it but I'm talking from a scientific perspective.
I think we need to look and see if other things came first, before the single cell organism.
Was there something before such as algae thar could have somehow become single celled in some way or perhaps simpler things such as grass and other things played a part in their construction.
I think we also, when we fully understand what it is, need to grasp how consciousness came into being.
Personally, I don't see it as some mysterious new age mystery that exists outside of the brain.
Was it perhaps a moment that a creature looked at its reflection and realised that what it was seeing was itself?
Maybe even hearing that voice in our minds for the first time or coming to understand that is us, an " I " that conscious me.
There us so much further I could go but for the sake of not wanting to put people to sleep, I shell leave it here!, lol! 😂
Algae are made of cells
Will ye my beautiful shared "i" AM beautiful as intended unfamiliar unto many!
I hate how scientist try to rationalize consciousness when we know so little about the mind.
Sara will say AI remember thy YOUTH!
A smart woman but is in the same military that overuses the term ‘right?’ Way too much. I don’t know if Mark Cuban started this or he just borrowed it but ‘right?’ Is a baby sales term from the 89’s… wake me up when 80’s music comes back, or don’t, I don’t care, 😊right?
On the surface, it sounds like English, but when you listen in, it's all weird and incomprehensible.
When is the wedding 😂
So she doesn’t know
Just like the rest of us