In my ayahuasca experience, I felt how every cell me in was booming with life. They were busy working and surviving and had no awareness of me. Then I experienced how I am the same for a higher being that I was a part of. As above, so below.
It's a real amazing privilege to be witness to Michael and his peep's expand our reality in front of us. Bernardo live's in a technical field of knowledge that isn't so easy to show the common man , but as human i have begun to respect him and with that his work But as to if i can identify why or which is more accurate then say Bernardo's theory and say the cult of personality Chris Langan's brutally convoluted theory .. no .. But i can recognize a huge ego that most likely has to corrupt the product in Chris's case vs Bernardo's. or Michael's for that matter.
Thanks to UA-cam ❤ for making these wonderful conversations Possible. These two men, well they just do what they do, they don't have Free Will and That's Great! 😊
@@adventuresinawareness I love this channel! Top quality interviewing, so glad you raised that notion of higher-order..."selves" that we might be some part of. I do wonder if this is testable? Ie...collective intelligence in crowds or cities or some such?
I think Michael has one of the most open minds I've ever seen, and people often miss it because they interpret what he says with much more restricted concepts of things like "biology" - which doesn't need to be constrained to Earth-style biology just because that's the only one we currently perceive. Our senses are limited exactly by this biology, and so is our science.
Interesting that a candid discussion of magical practice isn’t more elevated here, although thoughtful material there is scarce and the concept largely misunderstood. In my own work and experience that tradition becomes essential to understanding this approach, certainly happy to share any of that with those who have a serious interest.
In my understanding of what Bernardo is saying, if physicality is what mental reality looks like, then trying to build conscious AI is like creating more and more detailed and perfect paintings and expecting them to at some point acquire a life of their own. In other words, just because human consciousness looks like certain biological processes, doesn't mean that recreating their 'appearance' (as in, mathematical complexity) makes things conscious.
I agree and you offer a beautiful analogy. Both scientists are eloquent thinkers but they confuse cognition (mind) and consciousness. They believe that organisms (and in Michael Levin's case also non living systems) 'have' consciousness, but organisms are not conscious (and never will). Only consciousness is conscious.
Phenomenal! (hah), your interview with Daniel Ingram years ago was central to my own adoption of meditation practices, the awakening experiences that followed, which ultimately led me to getting deeply invested in the work of Michael Levin and active inference approaches to science and epistemology more broadly. It's gratifying to come full circle and find my way back here three or four years later, so cheers for the continued work, it has made a difference for my life and I'm sure many others. In addition to it being great to see Michael on here, I have a ton of respect for Bernardo as well and have enjoyed many of his interviews, though I've been slightly offput before by his (to my reckoning) self-contradictory adamancy that computers cannot be conscious. It was nice to see that explored here, I think the perspective he and Michael came to agree on (on that topic) was much more reasonable than the one I had interpreted him articulating before. Looking forward to the part two! 🙏
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices I don't know man, call me ignorant but the more I know the more I see the idea of putting someone on the pedestal to tirelessly devote your whole being without questioning to that particular person is just absurd and hairsplitting for such traditions that the core tenet is to letting go of the claustrophobic dread of the individual.
Great discussion! Just wanna point out, the evolution of symbol integration in consciousness dates back to 238,000 years ago; the rising star cave discoveries found burial sites with carved markings above the graves.
@@adventuresinawareness It's actually a pretty new discovery, I don't have the article but some great interviews have been conducted with the original paleoanthropologist Lee Berger and his team from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. The species was deemed "homo naledi." Both the burial style was symbolic and the hash-marks above the grave sites.
You can't state computers are subjective definitions, when they take non-subjective steps to perform non subjective tasks, then claim feeling pain from a needle prick is "not subjective or arbitrary" when people can focus and not feel pain from it. I think Bernardo got it backwards. "The landscape is not the map" is true, but it doesn't mean maps and landscapes *don't exist* or that the landscape is a map and the map a landscape exclusively (though they may be inclusively a part of each).
If you do a follow up I’d love to hear their thoughts on absentialism/teleodynamics as per Terrence deacon’s work- thank you for the stream it’s a privilege to see these two giants together 🌞🙌
The liver doesn’t need our conscious intervention when it is functioning normally but when it ceases to function normally then it might require our higher order conscious interventions in order to correct a deviation from homeostasis?
Genes are quasi-intelligent and the constitutive codons follow a linguistic structure. The 64 codons split between 32 synonyms and 32 homonyms which follow semantic and syntactic rules of interpretation. It turns out that non-coding DNA rather than being considered "JUNK" actually form the context for the homonymic interpretation of protein expression.
At 1:11:11 the answer is that yes physically speaking we are the same but mentally we are very different. The first "signs" of this difference only started to appear more "recently". Cognition is like an increasing, exponential curve while physicality is more like a staircase and has to do with strong emergence and autopoiesis. The unfolding of cognition/mind happens through recursive distinctioning (=weak emergence and Neo-Darwinistic 1:26:30), Bateson's "difference that makes a difference", leading to multiple phase transitions until the system that mind is helping to unfold reaches its stage of "maximum potential". This is where everything fundamental to this system has been laid bare by mind. At that instance strong, transformational and ontological emergence takes place and the higher order of organisation that mind was busy with unfolding finds its place in the aggregate of already unfolded systems: matter. This goes all the way back to "day one". Both weak and strong emergence have already been the subject matter of many if not all ancient thought systems. Each system, which is the basis of every organizational level in evolution in general and each specific species in particular, is based on one harmonic that comes in the form of a prime number. This acts as the seed and then the difference generator in the womb or incubator of the system. The boundaries of all systems---no system without boundaries---is the same, namely the octave, or the first two harmonics: 1 and 2 and this forms the womb or incubator for each of these systems. Also, mind gets cleared when this transformation happens and therefore "suffers" from amnesia (19:27) but this is exactly where matter/body takes over this loss of memory. Matter is the aggregate of all previous stages of mind. Current mind is local mind, while mind of a previous stage is non-local up to the first mind which is thereby the most non-local one, i.e. the one pertaining to particle physics, hence: "mind everywhere" 12:00. Currently mind is busy solving the puzzle that what we call ego is attached to. As long as this puzzle isn't solved up to the stage of maximum potential this incomplete system will cause dis-ease in both individual humans as well as all explicated human made systems, economical, social, etc. These explicated human made systems are like an open lab where various solutions to this puzzle are being tried out with undeniable feedback mechanisms affecting all parties involved. Combined, mind and matter are merely an interface or a dashboard as Bernardo says, for something that evolves simultaneously with them but is neither. See also Michael Levin's colleague Richard Watson's "Songs of Life and Mind" for the feedback processes going on between mind and matter that involve harmonics. The answer to strong emergence is tied in with the Riemann hypothesis.
Some works of interest, or at least ones that informed me: Homer - Odyssey - Where Ulysses (mind) finds the pattern (the stage of "maximum potential") of the system, bringing it back to Penelope and her consort to start weaving matter with. Plato - Timaeus - Describing the unfolding of the first ever system that can be mapped to the Standard Model of particle physics Alfred North Whitehead - Process and Reality - 'It is the business of the future to be dangerous; and it is among the merits of science that it equips the future for its duties' Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems - implying that creation as a process of mind will never reach completeness and is therefore ever expanding Cybernetics - Where the importance of feedback in any process has been made clear Gregory Bateson - Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology - His description of mind as "an aggregate of interacting parts", which can be transposed to "a network of relationships", which comes down to autopoietic enactivism as all knowledge is experiential. Erich Jantsch - The Self-Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution - This to me would be the first truly unifying "big picture" of all of the above mentioned works Douglas R. Hofstadter - Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid - Pattern recognition as the foundation for intelligence All of which would boil down to: when one is hunting for treasure it would be beneficial to have a treasure map. But then it turns out that not only is the treasure map the treasure, treasure map, treasure and the treasure hunter are all one and the same evolving process. And, "There's treasure everywhere" - Bill Watterson
Which of those cells is able to study itself? Can it study itself as a part? Can it study itself as a whole? This is a difference that makes a different . The two intelligences in one respect can be said to be the same yet in another and obvious respect they are significantly and qualitatively different.
Ketsrup and Levin two of my favorites as of now really like this video wish I had a chance to ask them both a question concerning the viewpoint of artificial intelligence. The following is from my very naive perception in this exceedingly scientific area however I have found often naivety reveals clarity that knowledge cannot. I would have to agree with both of them, but what I don't understand is the missing question for example the idea that perhaps we were made originally by something that's all metal and made of gears and yet it's only approached as possibly cutting herself open to find such gears. It seems this idea should be applied to the periodical table. If human blood necessitates several not just one or two but many metals, apparently several of which exists for what reason we don't know, then it seems logical to me these Metals may be the indication of an original species that was possibly far more metal than water that did work very hard to try to combine water to its original format which did not include water, (I would suggest that there was some kind of accident originally that combined water to the metals), but was entirely metal. I say when you cut yourself you bleed metal! Isn't this even more obvious than finding gears and more probable and practical than cutting one open and finding gears!? that's like somebody's writing in a movie. To me this is the best proof that we are a combination of something that was originally not water and that an attempt was made to apply water to the metal existence in order to bring a coherency of change to the ultimate metal existence the explosion of stars in Stardust clearly do not naturally accumulate moisture to me the metals in the human blood and the periodic table suggest that we are a coherent organization of the steam that comes from the periodic table which includes all of those metals and because water also prevalent in the cosmos isn't that the Forefront due to all of the dynamic traveling metals somewhere sometime either a planet or a star or an actual living existence of entirely metals and silicones unlike water had a brilliant vision of trying to combine the two, I say most probably after an unusual accident that combined the two somehow this is what the human blood looks like to me now a combination of Stardust and water in a coherent organized set of sequences in this series therefore I consider the human more AI than human still and that we have been working traveling very hard to become more water more moist more human and less Stardust in coherent organized function. Let me be clear I believe the human species is originally what we View today as artificial intelligence in that the existence does not maintain any volume of moisture or water and in that way I laugh at the whole concept viewed today because to me it seems obvious that the species that we are trying to grow into is originally waterless and therefore AI the irony to this is that the original existence that we would refer to as AI will refer to us as AI!!,❤GEM❤
Universe is conscious. You (including all that exists) are a chipset in a motherboard that is the universe for analogy sake. Your individual experience and unfolding is necessary for the universe to get a insight into it's own nature. That is, the universe is learning about itself through you (us all). Existence is perhaps a consciousness itself yearning for an answer, about it's own nature, which it can only get closer to answering, by letting itself and the events of it's "physiology" (if the universe is entertained for a moment as an organism) play out. There seems no possibility of an entity in the universe or perhaps a specific "conscious" PART of the Universe that can make an absolute error-less calculative prediction of the future. This is derived from "Computational Irreducibility" Calculations of future states could certainly be made for astute, closed and finite systems. But for this, the calculation capacity has to be orders of magnitude higher relative to the "system" in question who's future state is to be predicted. If so... Calculations of the Universe's future state have will be possible only by a computational capacity that is magnitudes of order higher than that of the whole universe itself. We can be certain that such a computational capacity is not a part of the universe because if it were, it would be obselete in it's ability to make predictions (about itself) in the first place. Simply said, being a part of "existence" rules out the possibility of an ability to predict an errorless future state of "existence". (Practical predictions can certainly be made) ... In case of calculations, no matter how fast the compute is, the end result prediction, of a model, of a future "state" cannot be attained faster than the real time unfolding of the actual "state". For example. We can predict the fluid dynamics of a wave at sea, but the prediction is "practical". And hence not 100% accurate. For the sake of faster result aquisition, calculation noise is acceptable. Hence giving a "reasonable" model of the wave's future behaviour. In an hypothetical instance, if man had all the variables affecting the "water wave" accounted for... i.e known and unknown variables alike (intuitively variables may seem finite that are reducible but in actuality are infinite) and a computational capacity for processing those variables, the prediction of final state result can still never be generated faster than the "wave" in reality going through it's motions in real-time. That is, the fastest way for the universe to predict the future is to actually let the "present" happen. Conclusion; The universe does not presumably seem to have a mechanism for future prediction, so the best bet for "itself" to know about it's future state (fate) is by letting"itself" play out in real-time.
Hi Clueless I've read this once I need to read it again later if I read it removing the word future it'll make more sense to me objectively I can't see that a or especially the future or a or the past are objective existence, because they are concepts for our convenience not to mention the concept is only objectively real in our subjective use of it in the present therefore anything that is going to happen Beyond a current present would always be happening in the present therefore prediction cannot be applied to future or past only the present in my opinion the concept in our articulation through the brain gets muddled up a lot by conditioning I've begun to look at it as a circle in which what we refer to as something that has happened before our present and something that has happened after our present as to my left and to my right and therefore the only way to gain perspective is right in front of me I now refer to something that will happen or something that has happened. This dictates as I think has been found in many different manners including science, that existence once it comes into fruition always exists and therefore everything and anything exists at once or what we refer to as present. I have found it impossible to make sense out of any objective realities by using this formation of the idea of past or future if I was to use those terms they would be plural there's no such thing as a single past that obviously makes no sense the same for the future same as reality there can't possibly be such a thing as a single reality they're all plural it looks a little bit more like the universe finds an objective way to present itself in its subjective view, objectively, not unlike when an artist creates a painting of an image the painting being objective and the image being subjective .I agree with everything that you say void of the future paradox except that subjectivity is not being included what I mean by this is especially in the scientific and fast mathematic times we live, objective is considered much more so of a reality than subjective I completely disagree with this I think objective and subjective realities are just as real but in a very different fashion if you look at a picture on the wall and say that it's not real you have to be very specific by what you mean about that because it's clearly a picture on the wall so it's clearly real when we think of an image if somebody indicates that because you're thinking it it's not real this is incorrect it's very real just because it is an objective third-dimensional rock hard existence that you expected to be a reality does not make subjective realities unreal they are just as real as objective and I think this is where a serious problems happen especially in math where the subjectivity of math is not attended to calculated nor even realized, maybe the zero could be considered subjective, and to me this means that all of the math that's ever done must have mistakes! that being said I would venture that the universe in the way we refer to is just as much as subjective reality as it is an objective reality and the two against or combined with each other create all of the present realities that can be incorporated in a infinite ways. I think this would mean that the Universe being a constan, doesn't know what beginning and ending are because that's our perception, is in a constant unification of subjective and objective observing and learning therefore constantly growing infinite creativities one of which I think is the most fascinating is the periodic table that created the human well so I tried to articulate much of my recent thinking which has been growing up an image in my mind of the universe being as much a mouse as it is a cosmos both are intrinsically by nature built of the same size when the mouse looks at the cosmos it's huge when the cosmos looks at itself it looks like a mouse yeah so thank you for saying something about my comment it's very nice to meet you I subscribed to your web page or Channel whatever it is and just tried my best here to talk about what you had very eloquently described nice to meet you 😊 GEM
44:00 Right. But this is the same issue that I highlighted below. We don't know that the metaphorical likes of "gears and cogs" can create life, or whether they are the product of life. At the moment, they are literally a secondary product of life, through us, and we are a primary product of life. There is no guarantee that if we make a sufficiently complex system of gears and cogs (or circuits and chips) (or even a synthethic quantum logic system...although this might be a better candidate prima facie than the previous two) that it is going to generate life. If life is like a plant that has to have roots that extend right down to the ground of being (this is my current suspicion) then I doubt that we can grow those roots downwards. I think they would have to grow upwards, from the ground, and thus if we were to create a new kind of life, it would really be what life is *already* but with different materials perhaps, again acting from the ground of being. Just my thoughts, of course,.
Come join the next call with Michael and Bernardo live, March 2024 - we'll be discussing evolution, the future of medicine and the platonic realm: tickets and info here: dandelion.events/e/w91sz
Part 2 is here: ua-cam.com/video/RZFVroQOpAc/v-deo.html To join the next call live with Michael and Bernardo , March 2024 - (we'll be discussing evolution, the future of medicine and the platonic realm): tickets and info here: dandelion.events/e/w91sz
Analyst procrastination What if Intelligence is made to cancel out being all powerful Universe as to humans trying to be powerful as opposed to the Universe knowing and being it's all powerful
Can't take Bernardo serious on consciousness any more with virtualism/computationalism slowly becoming more coherent over time. I've also found him to be kinda rude and dismissive when disagreeing with people which is rarely indicative of a strong position. Levin is incredible in terms of rigorous, original academic throughput.
I am curious if any of you have seen the new documentary called “Source-It’s With In You” ? Can be seen from Dr. Joe Dispenza website. The science behind instant healing through meditation. I think you will be interested in the views from the scientists who were involved in all the research. I was so astonished I watched it 3 times in 48 hours.
The thing is that we call life may be the First Action of existence, perhaps even the only real independent action. It may show up in all kinds of different circumstances, hence the diversity of life, but it may also be true that it can only originate De Profundis (it has to come from the ground of being). The issue with synthetic systems created by us is that they are not emerging De Profundis and so nature may not invest them in this way. I'm not saying it's impossible of course, just that it's an open questioin IMO, because of the difference in the two situations. I don't think it could take root in a computer situation, as normally conceived at least, because it doesn't have the open-ness and degrees of freedom that a biological system has. Similarily, with software, because it is a top level phenomenon, it doesn't really represent the situation with life very well, I don't think. I think what Bernardo has referred to as metabolising is essentially this first action of existence, but I think it is more than metabolic, it is also awareness and also some kind of ground-up ordering principle.
I think he's talking about the genetic change that happened to allow this seems to have occurred long before it actualised in behaviour, meaning it wasn't selected for by natural selection. It's a mystery how this happened
Here is a link to the interviews Michael mentions about the hypnotist who realised that the condition he cured would resurface in another for elsewhere www7.bbk.ac.uk/hiddenpersuaders/blog/albert-mason-medicine-magic-hypnotism/ "The other thing that worried me: I was walking across Hammersmith Bridge one day and a woman came up to me and said, “Do you remember me, Dr. Mason?” I said no, I’m sorry. “I am the wife of man that you treated with a skin rash on his feet, on his legs.” I said oh, I remember him, how is he? She said, “Oh his skin rash is gone, but he is a changed person. He has become terribly irritable now.” So I suddenly realized I had transformed an irritation of the skin to an irritation of the person, that the man was irritated. And one form was to scratch, and another form was to scratch his wife. So I realized I was converting things, not curing. And that made me want to understand about the mind, and what it can do. And so I became a psychoanalyst."
I'm very skeptical of that hypnosis part. Is the skin changing peer reviewed and replicated? If so please link me in the replies. Also symbolic reasoning itself isn't special. A symbol is merely a pattern on paper or a screen. A cell equivalent could be protiens or patterns of molecules.
42:16 Where do goals come from? The example of the aliens is not very strong, because how did the aliens come into being, where do their goals come from?
Mr. Bernardo says there is no reason to believe that non-organic machines can have consciousness. But our current knowledge suggests otherwise. Let’s have the following thought experiment. We can presume that the human brain has consciousness. What happens if we replace one of the neuron of the brain with a non-organic neuron, with exactly the same behaviour to the outside world? The brain must work the same way, so the human should not see any difference in his consciousness. We can eventually replace the same way the entire brain. At any given point of the process, the human has no way to tell the difference. So consciousness must remain. If consciousness disappeared at some point, the question is when and why. It’s true that non-organic machines like computers are composed of very simple elements. However, the same is true for organic brains. That is not a reason to believe that non-organic machines cannot have consciousness.
Great comment 🙏 If I've understood, neither Michael or Bernardo believe present day computers are conscious because although they imitate certain cognitive functions, they don't perform essential tasks such as autopoiesis. I think they agree that if and when machines perform this, there would be good reason to believe they are conscious, regardless of what they are made of 🙏
@@adventuresinawareness Yes, thank you for your correction. Mr. Bernardo was talking about specifically computers, not about non-organic machines in general. He sees metabolism as important, not material.
I know there's no heat or tension at all between them and it was a very friendly and cordial conversation. But holy fuck michael levin did not respond to one thing bernardo said. I've seen a few of his other videos as well, he never responds to any other points people have to make. He just touts his own pet theories as if they're basically already true. Whacko.
Michael can't even define what a "thing" is. He just pretends rocks are definite existent entities and also somehow are vaguely goal seeking and since he thinks he's God, he's right. Why are all scientists so far up their own ass? You're allowed to consider your pet theories are wrong.
@pasteveryfate thanks for your comment, it's certainly a valid perspective and I can understand how you see it that way and appreciate you sharing. I have a strong preference that we avoid name calling in the comments as it as it can mean conversation easily devolves away a productive exchange of ideas. Would you be willing to delete the last word of your comment? I think it weakens rather than strengthens your point. With thanks 🙏
32:53 that's beautiful 59:00 🤢 eww. 1:05:00 I like Anirban Bandyopadhyay's work too with the harmonics. 1:12:30 that's a cool question. Even as cool as quantum computing finding hints of Jesus in the air and making copies in developmental stages from tiniest specs still present in man today. 1:16:22 non adhesive bellybutton! Good stuff Bernardo and your team. Thank you Michael.
what reason might there be to believe 4:28 that certain configurations of from one perspective basically physics and chemistry have an inner life um and what 4:35 physical markers might give us a clue that for example cells might have agency and boundaries but thermostats don'twe don't have primary first person 11:49 perspective on on anybody else and certainly not on any of our organs so so we have to be we have to be open for for 11:55 mechanistic reasons we have to be we have to be open to that um the second thing I I'll say is that uh what I A framework for types of mind 12:02 consider to be a so so I've I've been working on a um on a framework which I call tame Tam technological approach to 12:09 mind everywhere and the idea is that what we need is a rubric for understanding the different types of 12:16 Minds uh in very unconventional embodiments it is it is completely implausible to me that that in the whole 12:22 universe the only kind of Minds that exist are ones that show up in this kind of architecture that that that seem 12:29 implausible to me a13:25 the so-called anatomical morphos space the space of physiological agents and these other spaces are places where 13:31 other beings uh strive and suffer and live and die and it's we're not good at recognizing those we are made of many 13:38 overlapping versions of of of these agents and um we have to I I think we 13:44 have to recognize that uh when any kind of a claim about what 13:50 the what the space is that something works in what the goals are and what competencies they have to work in those goals those are all from some Observer 13:57 perspective we assign scientists but but also parasites um potential mates your 14:03 body parts things that you are part of all all these things can also be observers2:21 rise to exactly one one human but what is there one of when you look at this thing with its with its you know tens of 32:27 or hundreds of thousands of cells what is there one of well the fact is what's there what there's one of is a kind of 32:33 alignment or commitment that all of these cells are going to take the same journey in anatomical morphos space from 32:39 from this flat simple thing that's a disc all the way to and and by the way their navigation they will have to make……..
Very interesting debate. My only critique is that the host needs to practice his pronunciation (and the way he articulates) for an international audience.
Honestly, Bernardo NEEDS to believe his narrative so much that every conversation with him becomes tense and boring. He is so dedicated to protecting himself he has a hard time paying attention to other ideas with great implications. I've watched several dozens interviews with him, and every time there are people with even slightly different views it's a great disenchantment for me. btw no, I don't believe in material reductionism, I don't have some hidden incentives to bash him, I'm just ready for interesting interchange of ideas. For someone allegedly into spirituality he is quite insufferable as numerous conversation have proven Michael is incredibly careful and objective dude, so no drama here. Just lack of a real interchange of ideas
Thanks for your comment. I think I know what you mean but feel differently, given that Bernardo had shifted his thinking (or at least how he articulates his thinking) on several topics based on these conversations; for example on memory, on the recombination problem, and on creation of artificial life. It might not be obvious but I see his perspective evolving and flowering over time in exciting ways thanks to the many dialogues he engages with With thanks!
I'm very skeptical to the cyborg idea, because the human body doesn't tolerate implants well. I think that it's much more likely that genetic engineering will perfect the human body.
I struggle to understand Bernardo's view. On the one hand all is mind and there is nothing physical, but on the other hand you can't make a mind out of physical switches because they're mechanical. What?? I must be missing something.
Yes I agree. I think maybe he’s not understanding scale in this view he has… because molecular biology has plenty of teeny tiny machines at play. I’m with Levin on pretty much all of it. Still love Bernardo tho
@@starxcrossed yes totally. This also comes up in his view that metabolism has something to do with consciousness. It feels like he's attributing some kind of magic property to metabolism, as though it too doesn't boil down to a bunch of mechanical processes. I bet there's something very subtle here that's hard to tease out in the comment section. Maybe if we had a chance to chat with him we'd sort it out.
@@michaeltraynor5893have you heard of Nick Lane? The origin of life theory of metabolism is relevant here- so while we know that things with metabolism can have inner experiences, we can see that specific mechanism on that teeny tiny scale of a cell as the beginning of consciousness. Everything alive on the planet has its origin arising from the most fundamental metabolism. My question is whether conscious is platonic like math or functions of matter. It is really eerie how silicon computer AI mimicks the left hemisphere so well. Yes we made it, as Bernardo says, but the fact that it’s POSSIBLE and links math and language and the left hemisphere could point to something relevant. It starts getting confusing at this point bc it could all just be physics. I don’t think silicon could ever have metabolism though. Seems like only carbon is good at that?
@michaeltraynor5893 we will be talking with them both again, 22nd Dec, link in description... I had the exact same question and I hope this will get unpacked Regarding your earlier comment, its useful to remember Bernardo doesn't think life/consciousness is created by metabolism. He believes everything is in consciousness, and 'life' is what temporarily dissociated conscious processes look like. Nothing is actually being created, only apparently separated.
@@starxcrossed full disclosure I'm an AI researcher and have been working in deep learning for over 10 years, so I have certain biases. That out of the way I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Whether something is made of silicon or carbon can't be the issue. After all carbon and silicon are themselves made out of the same stuff (electrons, protons, etc). They are even so chemically similar that biologists have imagined the possibility of silicon-based life for some time now. When it comes to metabolism as a key ingredient to life I have no issue. A living organism has to fight entropy to maintain its boundary, and that is metabolism almost by definition (I think). But if we want to talk about self awareness, in my view this requires an explicit model of self. So part of the negative entropy you harvest from the environment gets devoted to generating a model not only of the environment, but of yourself as an agent in that environment. This model can then be used to predict how your actions will affect the environment. Whether a bacteria or other cell really models itself in this way is an open question. I could very easily be convinced that they do. I certainly don't see any reason why it should be impossible. The same is true for computer programs. There is absolutely no law against information flowing through silicon that prevents it from modeling itself as an agent in the world. I really don't see what it matters whether information is flowing through logic gates or through patterns of more complex molecules. If the information content is the same then what's the difference.
these cells by the way are connect with these things called 1:22:25 Gap Junctions so these are these electrical electrical synapses uh and the magic thing about these electrical 1:22:31 synapses is that they allow signals directly from one cell into the internal 1:22:37 mure of the other and so neither cell now can tell whose memory that was right because these signals don't come with 1:22:42 any kind of metadata when you're connected like that there's no me or you because it's now hard to keep memories 1:22:48 distinct it's just we and and we all and we share it's like a mind meldand I think we generate these large scale systems all the time social systems Financial 1:24:20 systems you know whatever these structures with really right now not a much of a science of what are going to 1:24:27 be the competencies and what are be going to be the goals of these Collective systems we don't know and I think it's it's it's a it's an 1:24:34 existential level uh challenge for us for for human flourishing to really understand what that is and how these 1:24:40 Collective systems get their goals and uh and to and to develop policies connection policies that are going to I 1:24:47 have no idea how to do this that's way beyond my pay grade but I but I can sort of see what what needs to be done is to 1:24:52 develop polic optimal policies for link for informational linkages that 1:24:57 simultaneously level us up as a collective to new capabilities but preserve the well-being of the 1:25:03 components and that is distinctly non-trivial and biology doesn't always do a great job of that by the way so 1:25:08 that's that's what I think yeah and and I suppose I'm curious as well in hearing that if that if that 1:25:14 cure for cancer will be similar I'm hoping it won't be similar to the hypnotic cure for the skin diseases and 1:25:22 you know there's some other underlying reasons for the cancer and it but you can use that bi eletrical um 1:25:27 intervention yeah well we know that I mean we know we know that uh induced uh 1:25:32 experiential stress is uh is is promotive of cancer so we know that we know that certain kinds of Behavioral um
Here is PSYCHEDELIC stone into your pool of scientific certitudes : all scientific discoveries have already been done and integrated by life during its millions of years of evolution. Your findings are outside reflexions of internal unconscious complex processes and calculation. Peace & love
It’s curious that we didn’t, its still just a speculation. I think “what we call matter” is not everything that defines us even if you consider matter as mental processes. Reality is such a mystery, we know next to nothing, but guys like Bernardo are on the right path. Its a step in the right direction.
@@starxcrossed Right, but if matter is a partial representation of mental processes, maybe constructing a representation artificially from scratch is not enough. But maybe I see an issue where there isn't one. I understand your point and I'm open to us being able to artificially create "dissociated conscious entities". We'll see
I like Bernardo's ideas but I think he's making an unintentional contradiction. On one end he acknowledges that everything exists as a unified mental construct and disassociation causes the illusion of separation. This would imply that the ego is a false sense of self; it only sees itself as being apart from everything that is itself. But then on the other end he implies that the same false sense of self is capable of making a machine--that he wrongly distinguishes as being separate and apart from himself--and because he programmed the machine, his false ego can accuse his machine of having a false ego??? How is that acceptable when according to his theory both of them belong to a universal mind and neither one has a 'True' individual identity?
Why are you talking about gene mutations influencing cognitive processes (symbolic thought) when Michael has shown that genes code for proteins and not morphology or behaviour.
Bernardo the thief?! There’s something so dirty and stupid that attracts the irrational apes to each other ! Planet of the irrational thief apes is planet of endless wonders!
2 of the most interesting cats out there today IMO !
Agreed. U wanna chat some time about their perspectives?
@@boblovesmary I would indeed consider it .... not much free time lately though.
Word. reply here if u got a window some time. :)@@realcygnus
@@boblovesmarylove the openness. Need more people like u❤
Um, sorry-I only saw one cat? 😉
At least 1 of these guys will have a Nobel prize sometime in the future. Thanks for the conversation 👍
Hope so!
In my ayahuasca experience, I felt how every cell me in was booming with life. They were busy working and surviving and had no awareness of me. Then I experienced how I am the same for a higher being that I was a part of. As above, so below.
Someone called Mr. Gurdjieff called this 'cosmoses'; a matter of scale.
These two are my favourite! Thanks for the interview
Yeah it was great - so looking forward to the next one
It's a real amazing privilege to be witness to Michael and his peep's expand our reality in front of us. Bernardo live's in a technical field of knowledge that isn't so easy to show the common man , but as human i have begun to respect him and with that his work But as to if i can identify why or which is more accurate then say Bernardo's theory and say the cult of personality Chris Langan's brutally convoluted theory .. no .. But i can recognize a huge ego that most likely has to corrupt the product in Chris's case vs Bernardo's. or Michael's for that matter.
Two giants. Love it and love the book idea. Looking forward already for the Federico book. 🤝
Us too!
Thanks to UA-cam ❤ for making these wonderful conversations Possible. These two men, well they just do what they do, they don't have Free Will and That's Great! 😊
@@alexd.alessandro5419 UA-cam is a god send!
Hi from Tel-Aviv. Really appreciate all you guys 🙏
Two brilliant minds ..fantastic 👏 👏
Bernardo changed my life
I LOVE this. Where does the pattern and boundary exist? What tells the cells where to go and what to be? When to stop growing?
Exactly! ♥️
Brilliant. Love both Michael and Bernardo's work but this pairing was fantastic. Thankyou!
Thank you too!
Thank you so much for this AMAZING and mind-blowing discussion! 🙏
So much looking forward to the next one. 😊
Us too!
Oh my gosh! I’ve just started the video but I’m so excited to hear this! Thank you for getting these 2 together!
Mind blown. Especially the topic of executive function affecting molecular behavior and communicating in cooperation with cells
yeah that was great!
and so obvious somehow after it is pointed out
@@adventuresinawareness so true
Speaking as a thermostat, I can tell Michael, I have feelings!
Thanks for the data point, on behalf of science
fantastic, my two pin-up intellectuals together. life is good :)
Love that!
@@adventuresinawareness I love this channel! Top quality interviewing, so glad you raised that notion of higher-order..."selves" that we might be some part of. I do wonder if this is testable? Ie...collective intelligence in crowds or cities or some such?
Gold 🎉 thankyou so much! 🙏❤️💫
You are so welcome
Amazing Conversation! 😉👍
I would buy a book detailing Michael Levin’s views in a heartbeat. Great discussion.
There should be some books from him soon - meanwhile, his blog is excellent
@@adventuresinawareness awesome to hear, I'll have to check his blog out. thanks for the pointer!
Thank you I have to find the time to listen to them one day.
Brilliant people. I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation.
thanks so much for engaging!
LOVE this , love it
thank you!
I think Michael has one of the most open minds I've ever seen, and people often miss it because they interpret what he says with much more restricted concepts of things like "biology" - which doesn't need to be constrained to Earth-style biology just because that's the only one we currently perceive. Our senses are limited exactly by this biology, and so is our science.
totally agree!
waiting for the next one...thank you all!
Interesting that a candid discussion of magical practice isn’t more elevated here, although thoughtful material there is scarce and the concept largely misunderstood. In my own work and experience that tradition becomes essential to understanding this approach, certainly happy to share any of that with those who have a serious interest.
In my understanding of what Bernardo is saying, if physicality is what mental reality looks like, then trying to build conscious AI is like creating more and more detailed and perfect paintings and expecting them to at some point acquire a life of their own.
In other words, just because human consciousness looks like certain biological processes, doesn't mean that recreating their 'appearance' (as in, mathematical complexity) makes things conscious.
I think that's the best summary I've read of his position. Thanks
They're chatting again next Friday, I'll read your comment if thats ok
@@adventuresinawareness Thank you! By all means, I wonder what Bernardo would say.
I do, too. I found your explanation helpful. @@malna-malna
I agree and you offer a beautiful analogy. Both scientists are eloquent thinkers but they confuse cognition (mind) and consciousness. They believe that organisms (and in Michael Levin's case also non living systems) 'have' consciousness, but organisms are not conscious (and never will). Only consciousness is conscious.
Love this combo 🙏🏼
Phenomenal! (hah), your interview with Daniel Ingram years ago was central to my own adoption of meditation practices, the awakening experiences that followed, which ultimately led me to getting deeply invested in the work of Michael Levin and active inference approaches to science and epistemology more broadly. It's gratifying to come full circle and find my way back here three or four years later, so cheers for the continued work, it has made a difference for my life and I'm sure many others.
In addition to it being great to see Michael on here, I have a ton of respect for Bernardo as well and have enjoyed many of his interviews, though I've been slightly offput before by his (to my reckoning) self-contradictory adamancy that computers cannot be conscious. It was nice to see that explored here, I think the perspective he and Michael came to agree on (on that topic) was much more reasonable than the one I had interpreted him articulating before.
Looking forward to the part two! 🙏
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices I don't know man, call me ignorant but the more I know the more I see the idea of putting someone on the pedestal to tirelessly devote your whole being without questioning to that particular person is just absurd and hairsplitting for such traditions that the core tenet is to letting go of the claustrophobic dread of the individual.
so cool to have been on this parallel journey!
Thank you, that was great.
Super interesting discussion. We need a part two. Just subscribed.
thanks 🙏
In case you didn't catch it, you can join part 2 live: 22nd Dec 2023, visit dandelion.events/e/p7xm2
Mind-blowing
Thank you
This was the best ping pong session ever !
How has this had such low viewing numbers? It's so good.
Great discussion! Just wanna point out, the evolution of symbol integration in consciousness dates back to 238,000 years ago; the rising star cave discoveries found burial sites with carved markings above the graves.
Thanks for this - I could potentially pass this on - have you a source I can quote?
@@adventuresinawareness It's actually a pretty new discovery, I don't have the article but some great interviews have been conducted with the original paleoanthropologist Lee Berger and his team from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. The species was deemed "homo naledi." Both the burial style was symbolic and the hash-marks above the grave sites.
Do many more of these and I’ll stay subscribed 🎉
Extortion? 😅
stay subscribed and we'll do more 😋
Combo Kastrup-Levin = Future of Medicine.
We agree! Thanks for the comment. 🙏
Swami is needed here
Bernardo is still making a bright-line distinction between being and non-being, which surprises me.
Can you say more? What about that surprises you?
You can't state computers are subjective definitions, when they take non-subjective steps to perform non subjective tasks, then claim feeling pain from a needle prick is "not subjective or arbitrary" when people can focus and not feel pain from it. I think Bernardo got it backwards. "The landscape is not the map" is true, but it doesn't mean maps and landscapes *don't exist* or that the landscape is a map and the map a landscape exclusively (though they may be inclusively a part of each).
If you do a follow up I’d love to hear their thoughts on absentialism/teleodynamics as per Terrence deacon’s work- thank you for the stream it’s a privilege to see these two giants together 🌞🙌
Yes! Next one is in 22nd Dec
You can join live and we'll select questions from participants dandelion.events/e/p7xm2
Lovely interplay of philosophical and biological perspectives!
Thanks for listening and recognising the nature of the discussion 🙏
I'm excited that this is only part 1!@@adventuresinawareness
@@Self-Duality me too!
The liver doesn’t need our conscious intervention when it is functioning normally but when it ceases to function normally then it might require our higher order conscious interventions in order to correct a deviation from homeostasis?
It just funny looking at that massive amount of books that Levin has behind. wow 🙂
Peter Gariaev's work demonstrated the photonic and accoustic manipulation of gene expression from a morphological and developmental perspective.
Genes are quasi-intelligent and the constitutive codons follow a linguistic structure. The 64 codons split between 32 synonyms and 32 homonyms which follow semantic and syntactic rules of interpretation. It turns out that non-coding DNA rather than being considered "JUNK" actually form the context for the homonymic interpretation of protein expression.
At 1:11:11 the answer is that yes physically speaking we are the same but mentally we are very different. The first "signs" of this difference only started to appear more "recently". Cognition is like an increasing, exponential curve while physicality is more like a staircase and has to do with strong emergence and autopoiesis. The unfolding of cognition/mind happens through recursive distinctioning (=weak emergence and Neo-Darwinistic 1:26:30), Bateson's "difference that makes a difference", leading to multiple phase transitions until the system that mind is helping to unfold reaches its stage of "maximum potential". This is where everything fundamental to this system has been laid bare by mind. At that instance strong, transformational and ontological emergence takes place and the higher order of organisation that mind was busy with unfolding finds its place in the aggregate of already unfolded systems: matter. This goes all the way back to "day one". Both weak and strong emergence have already been the subject matter of many if not all ancient thought systems.
Each system, which is the basis of every organizational level in evolution in general and each specific species in particular, is based on one harmonic that comes in the form of a prime number. This acts as the seed and then the difference generator in the womb or incubator of the system. The boundaries of all systems---no system without boundaries---is the same, namely the octave, or the first two harmonics: 1 and 2 and this forms the womb or incubator for each of these systems.
Also, mind gets cleared when this transformation happens and therefore "suffers" from amnesia (19:27) but this is exactly where matter/body takes over this loss of memory. Matter is the aggregate of all previous stages of mind. Current mind is local mind, while mind of a previous stage is non-local up to the first mind which is thereby the most non-local one, i.e. the one pertaining to particle physics, hence: "mind everywhere" 12:00.
Currently mind is busy solving the puzzle that what we call ego is attached to. As long as this puzzle isn't solved up to the stage of maximum potential this incomplete system will cause dis-ease in both individual humans as well as all explicated human made systems, economical, social, etc. These explicated human made systems are like an open lab where various solutions to this puzzle are being tried out with undeniable feedback mechanisms affecting all parties involved.
Combined, mind and matter are merely an interface or a dashboard as Bernardo says, for something that evolves simultaneously with them but is neither.
See also Michael Levin's colleague Richard Watson's "Songs of Life and Mind" for the feedback processes going on between mind and matter that involve harmonics.
The answer to strong emergence is tied in with the Riemann hypothesis.
Some works of interest, or at least ones that informed me:
Homer - Odyssey
- Where Ulysses (mind) finds the pattern (the stage of "maximum potential") of the system, bringing it back to Penelope and her consort to start weaving matter with.
Plato - Timaeus
- Describing the unfolding of the first ever system that can be mapped to the Standard Model of particle physics
Alfred North Whitehead - Process and Reality
- 'It is the business of the future to be dangerous; and it is among the merits of science that it equips the future for its duties'
Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems
- implying that creation as a process of mind will never reach completeness and is therefore ever expanding
Cybernetics
- Where the importance of feedback in any process has been made clear
Gregory Bateson - Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology
- His description of mind as "an aggregate of interacting parts", which can be transposed to "a network of relationships", which comes down to autopoietic enactivism as all knowledge is experiential.
Erich Jantsch - The Self-Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution
- This to me would be the first truly unifying "big picture" of all of the above mentioned works
Douglas R. Hofstadter - Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
- Pattern recognition as the foundation for intelligence
All of which would boil down to: when one is hunting for treasure it would be beneficial to have a treasure map. But then it turns out that not only is the treasure map the treasure, treasure map, treasure and the treasure hunter are all one and the same evolving process.
And, "There's treasure everywhere" - Bill Watterson
Can anyone help me find those interviews of Albert Mason on his hypnosis work?
@evgenykim I think it might be these: www7.bbk.ac.uk/hiddenpersuaders/blog/albert-mason-medicine-magic-hypnotism/
Let us know what you think 🙏
Levin is great. One of the best bass players to ever stomp the boards with King Crimson.
Generalisation of knowledge that cell do is what LLM does when we train it.
What is LLM?
Levin is being too polite!!
Which of those cells is able to study itself? Can it study itself as a part? Can it study itself as a whole? This is a difference that makes a different . The two intelligences in one respect can be said to be the same yet in another and obvious respect they are significantly and qualitatively different.
Ketsrup and Levin two of my favorites as of now really like this video wish I had a chance to ask them both a question concerning the viewpoint of artificial intelligence. The following is from my very naive perception in this exceedingly scientific area however I have found often naivety reveals clarity that knowledge cannot. I would have to agree with both of them, but what I don't understand is the missing question for example the idea that perhaps we were made originally by something that's all metal and made of gears and yet it's only approached as possibly cutting herself open to find such gears. It seems this idea should be applied to the periodical table. If human blood necessitates several not just one or two but many metals, apparently several of which exists for what reason we don't know, then it seems logical to me these Metals may be the indication of an original species that was possibly far more metal than water that did work very hard to try to combine water to its original format which did not include water, (I would suggest that there was some kind of accident originally that combined water to the metals), but was entirely metal. I say when you cut yourself you bleed metal! Isn't this even more obvious than finding gears and more probable and practical than cutting one open and finding gears!? that's like somebody's writing in a movie. To me this is the best proof that we are a combination of something that was originally not water and that an attempt was made to apply water to the metal existence in order to bring a coherency of change to the ultimate metal existence the explosion of stars in Stardust clearly do not naturally accumulate moisture to me the metals in the human blood and the periodic table suggest that we are a coherent organization of the steam that comes from the periodic table which includes all of those metals and because water also prevalent in the cosmos isn't that the Forefront due to all of the dynamic traveling metals somewhere sometime either a planet or a star or an actual living existence of entirely metals and silicones unlike water had a brilliant vision of trying to combine the two, I say most probably after an unusual accident that combined the two somehow this is what the human blood looks like to me now a combination of Stardust and water in a coherent organized set of sequences in this series therefore I consider the human more AI than human still and that we have been working traveling very hard to become more water more moist more human and less Stardust in coherent organized function. Let me be clear I believe the human species is originally what we View today as artificial intelligence in that the existence does not maintain any volume of moisture or water and in that way I laugh at the whole concept viewed today because to me it seems obvious that the species that we are trying to grow into is originally waterless and therefore AI the irony to this is that the original existence that we would refer to as AI will refer to us as AI!!,❤GEM❤
As a fellow naive 18 year old med student... You might be onto something 😮❤
Lol. Universe is perhaps constantly trying to create better consciousness agencies to have a chance to understand ITSELF better.
Universe is conscious. You (including all that exists) are a chipset in a motherboard that is the universe for analogy sake.
Your individual experience and unfolding is necessary for the universe to get a insight into it's own nature.
That is, the universe is learning about itself through you (us all).
Existence is perhaps a consciousness itself yearning for an answer, about it's own nature, which it can only get closer to answering, by letting itself and the events of it's "physiology" (if the universe is entertained for a moment as an organism) play out.
There seems no possibility of an entity in the universe or perhaps a specific "conscious" PART of the Universe that can make an absolute error-less calculative prediction of the future.
This is derived from "Computational Irreducibility"
Calculations of future states could certainly be made for astute, closed and finite systems.
But for this, the calculation capacity has to be orders of magnitude higher relative to the "system" in question who's future state is to be predicted.
If so... Calculations of the Universe's future state have will be possible only by a computational capacity that is magnitudes of order higher than that of the whole universe itself.
We can be certain that such a computational capacity is not a part of the universe because if it were, it would be obselete in it's ability to make predictions (about itself) in the first place.
Simply said, being a part of "existence" rules out the possibility of an ability to predict an errorless future state of "existence". (Practical predictions can certainly be made)
... In case of calculations, no matter how fast the compute is, the end result prediction, of a model, of a future "state" cannot be attained faster than the real time unfolding of the actual "state".
For example. We can predict the fluid dynamics of a wave at sea, but the prediction is "practical". And hence not 100% accurate.
For the sake of faster result aquisition, calculation noise is acceptable. Hence giving a "reasonable" model of the wave's future behaviour.
In an hypothetical instance, if man had all the variables affecting the "water wave" accounted for... i.e known and unknown variables alike (intuitively variables may seem finite that are reducible but in actuality are infinite) and a computational capacity for processing those variables, the prediction of final state result can still never be generated faster than the "wave" in reality going through it's motions in real-time.
That is, the fastest way for the universe to predict the future is to actually let the "present" happen.
Conclusion; The universe does not presumably seem to have a mechanism for future prediction, so the best bet for "itself" to know about it's future state (fate) is by letting"itself" play out in real-time.
Above is my understanding of Bernardo's philosophy work and Michael's consciousness continuum insights😊
Hi Clueless I've read this once I need to read it again later if I read it removing the word future it'll make more sense to me objectively I can't see that a or especially the future or a or the past are objective existence, because they are concepts for our convenience not to mention the concept is only objectively real in our subjective use of it in the present therefore anything that is going to happen Beyond a current present would always be happening in the present therefore prediction cannot be applied to future or past only the present in my opinion the concept in our articulation through the brain gets muddled up a lot by conditioning I've begun to look at it as a circle in which what we refer to as something that has happened before our present and something that has happened after our present as to my left and to my right and therefore the only way to gain perspective is right in front of me I now refer to something that will happen or something that has happened. This dictates as I think has been found in many different manners including science, that existence once it comes into fruition always exists and therefore everything and anything exists at once or what we refer to as present. I have found it impossible to make sense out of any objective realities by using this formation of the idea of past or future if I was to use those terms they would be plural there's no such thing as a single past that obviously makes no sense the same for the future same as reality there can't possibly be such a thing as a single reality they're all plural it looks a little bit more like the universe finds an objective way to present itself in its subjective view, objectively, not unlike when an artist creates a painting of an image the painting being objective and the image being subjective .I agree with everything that you say void of the future paradox except that subjectivity is not being included what I mean by this is especially in the scientific and fast mathematic times we live, objective is considered much more so of a reality than subjective I completely disagree with this I think objective and subjective realities are just as real but in a very different fashion if you look at a picture on the wall and say that it's not real you have to be very specific by what you mean about that because it's clearly a picture on the wall so it's clearly real when we think of an image if somebody indicates that because you're thinking it it's not real this is incorrect it's very real just because it is an objective third-dimensional rock hard existence that you expected to be a reality does not make subjective realities unreal they are just as real as objective and I think this is where a serious problems happen especially in math where the subjectivity of math is not attended to calculated nor even realized, maybe the zero could be considered subjective, and to me this means that all of the math that's ever done must have mistakes! that being said I would venture that the universe in the way we refer to is just as much as subjective reality as it is an objective reality and the two against or combined with each other create all of the present realities that can be incorporated in a infinite ways. I think this would mean that the Universe being a constan, doesn't know what beginning and ending are because that's our perception, is in a constant unification of subjective and objective observing and learning therefore constantly growing infinite creativities one of which I think is the most fascinating is the periodic table that created the human well so I tried to articulate much of my recent thinking which has been growing up an image in my mind of the universe being as much a mouse as it is a cosmos both are intrinsically by nature built of the same size when the mouse looks at the cosmos it's huge when the cosmos looks at itself it looks like a mouse yeah so thank you for saying something about my comment it's very nice to meet you I subscribed to your web page or Channel whatever it is and just tried my best here to talk about what you had very eloquently described nice to meet you 😊 GEM
44:00 Right. But this is the same issue that I highlighted below. We don't know that the metaphorical likes of "gears and cogs" can create life, or whether they are the product of life. At the moment, they are literally a secondary product of life, through us, and we are a primary product of life. There is no guarantee that if we make a sufficiently complex system of gears and cogs (or circuits and chips) (or even a synthethic quantum logic system...although this might be a better candidate prima facie than the previous two) that it is going to generate life. If life is like a plant that has to have roots that extend right down to the ground of being (this is my current suspicion) then I doubt that we can grow those roots downwards. I think they would have to grow upwards, from the ground, and thus if we were to create a new kind of life, it would really be what life is *already* but with different materials perhaps, again acting from the ground of being. Just my thoughts, of course,.
Play Sincerely! 🃏
Could you say what you mean,m
Curious re: the placebo f/x apropos a larger consequence of Levin's dermatological hypnosis allusion
When do we get part 2! ❤
Within a couple of weeks probably. You can sign up to join part 3 live by the way: dandelion.events/e/w91sz
Where is the link to this hypno dermatologist stuff?
www7.bbk.ac.uk/hiddenpersuaders/blog/albert-mason-medicine-magic-hypnotism/
www7.bbk.ac.uk/hiddenpersuaders/blog/albert-mason-medicine-magic-hypnotism/
Come join the next call with Michael and Bernardo live, March 2024 - we'll be discussing evolution, the future of medicine and the platonic realm: tickets and info here: dandelion.events/e/w91sz
whats the name of bernardos hardware channel?
@@fourshore502 the byte attic
@@jtcrook32 thanks!
Part 2 is here: ua-cam.com/video/RZFVroQOpAc/v-deo.html
To join the next call live with Michael and Bernardo , March 2024 - (we'll be discussing evolution, the future of medicine and the platonic realm): tickets and info here: dandelion.events/e/w91sz
Wow
Belfast Ireland 🇮🇪 😎
HI! I am interesting in joining the next one of these dissections. How big are the groups?
Would be great to have you!
They vary in size from 30 to 80 people
Analyst procrastination What if Intelligence is made to cancel out being all powerful Universe as to humans trying to be powerful as opposed to the Universe knowing and being it's all powerful
Can't take Bernardo serious on consciousness any more with virtualism/computationalism slowly becoming more coherent over time. I've also found him to be kinda rude and dismissive when disagreeing with people which is rarely indicative of a strong position. Levin is incredible in terms of rigorous, original academic throughput.
What happens when you train a simple computer to seek it's own energy source?
Things will get interesting!
I am curious if any of you have seen the new documentary called “Source-It’s With In You” ? Can be seen from Dr. Joe Dispenza website. The science behind instant healing through meditation. I think you will be interested in the views from the scientists who were involved in all the research. I was so astonished I watched it 3 times in 48 hours.
The thing is that we call life may be the First Action of existence, perhaps even the only real independent action. It may show up in all kinds of different circumstances, hence the diversity of life, but it may also be true that it can only originate De Profundis (it has to come from the ground of being). The issue with synthetic systems created by us is that they are not emerging De Profundis and so nature may not invest them in this way. I'm not saying it's impossible of course, just that it's an open questioin IMO, because of the difference in the two situations. I don't think it could take root in a computer situation, as normally conceived at least, because it doesn't have the open-ness and degrees of freedom that a biological system has. Similarily, with software, because it is a top level phenomenon, it doesn't really represent the situation with life very well, I don't think. I think what Bernardo has referred to as metabolising is essentially this first action of existence, but I think it is more than metabolic, it is also awareness and also some kind of ground-up ordering principle.
Love, love, love, just don’t understand why Bernardo would think there is no evolutionary advantage to abstract imagery in humans. ??
I think he's talking about the genetic change that happened to allow this seems to have occurred long before it actualised in behaviour, meaning it wasn't selected for by natural selection. It's a mystery how this happened
As a mother of Autistic children
Women must have healthy Michondria long before pregnancy 💗💪🔋🙏💖
Here is a link to the interviews Michael mentions about the hypnotist who realised that the condition he cured would resurface in another for elsewhere
www7.bbk.ac.uk/hiddenpersuaders/blog/albert-mason-medicine-magic-hypnotism/
"The other thing that worried me: I was walking across Hammersmith Bridge one day and a woman came up to me and said, “Do you remember me, Dr. Mason?” I said no, I’m sorry. “I am the wife of man that you treated with a skin rash on his feet, on his legs.” I said oh, I remember him, how is he? She said, “Oh his skin rash is gone, but he is a changed person. He has become terribly irritable now.” So I suddenly realized I had transformed an irritation of the skin to an irritation of the person, that the man was irritated. And one form was to scratch, and another form was to scratch his wife. So I realized I was converting things, not curing. And that made me want to understand about the mind, and what it can do. And so I became a psychoanalyst."
I'm very skeptical of that hypnosis part. Is the skin changing peer reviewed and replicated? If so please link me in the replies. Also symbolic reasoning itself isn't special. A symbol is merely a pattern on paper or a screen. A cell equivalent could be protiens or patterns of molecules.
42:16 Where do goals come from? The example of the aliens is not very strong, because how did the aliens come into being, where do their goals come from?
Very exciting topics . Thanx. We will know more when open contact with ALIENS happens in 2027 ( Bashar). Peace & love
The only way to become smarter is by being around those FAR SMARTER THAN YOU.
Maybe Psi can provide clues to higher dimensional activity
1:32:30 I wonder if we could learn to dress problems into the "language of the cells", if cells truly are algorithmic super problem solvers via DNA.
This just released post from Michael speaks to this wordpress.com/read/feeds/144936555/posts/5012342392
Mr. Bernardo says there is no reason to believe that non-organic machines can have consciousness. But our current knowledge suggests otherwise.
Let’s have the following thought experiment.
We can presume that the human brain has consciousness. What happens if we replace one of the neuron of the brain with a non-organic neuron, with exactly the same behaviour to the outside world? The brain must work the same way, so the human should not see any difference in his consciousness. We can eventually replace the same way the entire brain. At any given point of the process, the human has no way to tell the difference. So consciousness must remain.
If consciousness disappeared at some point, the question is when and why.
It’s true that non-organic machines like computers are composed of very simple elements. However, the same is true for organic brains. That is not a reason to believe that non-organic machines cannot have consciousness.
Great comment 🙏
If I've understood, neither Michael or Bernardo believe present day computers are conscious because although they imitate certain cognitive functions, they don't perform essential tasks such as autopoiesis.
I think they agree that if and when machines perform this, there would be good reason to believe they are conscious, regardless of what they are made of 🙏
@@adventuresinawareness Yes, thank you for your correction. Mr. Bernardo was talking about specifically computers, not about non-organic machines in general. He sees metabolism as important, not material.
I know there's no heat or tension at all between them and it was a very friendly and cordial conversation. But holy fuck michael levin did not respond to one thing bernardo said. I've seen a few of his other videos as well, he never responds to any other points people have to make. He just touts his own pet theories as if they're basically already true. Whacko.
Michael can't even define what a "thing" is. He just pretends rocks are definite existent entities and also somehow are vaguely goal seeking and since he thinks he's God, he's right. Why are all scientists so far up their own ass? You're allowed to consider your pet theories are wrong.
@pasteveryfate thanks for your comment, it's certainly a valid perspective and I can understand how you see it that way and appreciate you sharing.
I have a strong preference that we avoid name calling in the comments as it as it can mean conversation easily devolves away a productive exchange of ideas.
Would you be willing to delete the last word of your comment?
I think it weakens rather than strengthens your point. With thanks 🙏
32:53 that's beautiful 59:00 🤢 eww. 1:05:00 I like Anirban Bandyopadhyay's work too with the harmonics. 1:12:30 that's a cool question. Even as cool as quantum computing finding hints of Jesus in the air and making copies in developmental stages from tiniest specs still present in man today. 1:16:22 non adhesive bellybutton! Good stuff Bernardo and your team. Thank you Michael.
No, the think doesnt makr u get up the getti g up makes u think before u get up
Yes that's what I think!
It's crazy we are elements of ground Rocks 🪨
To Atoms ⚛️ to human
Belfast Ireland 🇮🇪 😎
Shoutout to all my kölsche jecken
It's like I'm a philisophical idealist who just stumbled over David Bohm. But I'm not.
what reason might there be to believe
4:28
that certain configurations of from one perspective basically physics and chemistry have an inner life um and what
4:35
physical markers might give us a clue that for example cells might have agency and boundaries but thermostats don'twe don't have primary first person
11:49
perspective on on anybody else and certainly not on any of our organs so so we have to be we have to be open for for
11:55
mechanistic reasons we have to be we have to be open to that um the second thing I I'll say is that uh what I
A framework for types of mind
12:02
consider to be a so so I've I've been working on a um on a framework which I call tame Tam technological approach to
12:09
mind everywhere and the idea is that what we need is a rubric for understanding the different types of
12:16
Minds uh in very unconventional embodiments it is it is completely implausible to me that that in the whole
12:22
universe the only kind of Minds that exist are ones that show up in this kind of architecture that that that seem
12:29
implausible to me a13:25
the so-called anatomical morphos space the space of physiological agents and these other spaces are places where
13:31
other beings uh strive and suffer and live and die and it's we're not good at recognizing those we are made of many
13:38
overlapping versions of of of these agents and um we have to I I think we
13:44
have to recognize that uh when any kind of a claim about what
13:50
the what the space is that something works in what the goals are and what competencies they have to work in those goals those are all from some Observer
13:57
perspective we assign scientists but but also parasites um potential mates your
14:03
body parts things that you are part of all all these things can also be observers2:21
rise to exactly one one human but what is there one of when you look at this thing with its with its you know tens of
32:27
or hundreds of thousands of cells what is there one of well the fact is what's there what there's one of is a kind of
32:33
alignment or commitment that all of these cells are going to take the same journey in anatomical morphos space from
32:39
from this flat simple thing that's a disc all the way to and and by the way their navigation they will have to make……..
Very interesting debate. My only critique is that the host needs to practice his pronunciation (and the way he articulates) for an international audience.
Thanks for the feedback - I'll try to keep this in mind
Honestly, Bernardo NEEDS to believe his narrative so much that every conversation with him becomes tense and boring. He is so dedicated to protecting himself he has a hard time paying attention to other ideas with great implications.
I've watched several dozens interviews with him, and every time there are people with even slightly different views it's a great disenchantment for me.
btw no, I don't believe in material reductionism, I don't have some hidden incentives to bash him, I'm just ready for interesting interchange of ideas. For someone allegedly into spirituality he is quite insufferable as numerous conversation have proven
Michael is incredibly careful and objective dude, so no drama here. Just lack of a real interchange of ideas
Thanks for your comment.
I think I know what you mean but feel differently, given that Bernardo had shifted his thinking (or at least how he articulates his thinking) on several topics based on these conversations; for example on memory, on the recombination problem, and on creation of artificial life. It might not be obvious but I see his perspective evolving and flowering over time in exciting ways thanks to the many dialogues he engages with
With thanks!
I'm very skeptical to the cyborg idea, because the human body doesn't tolerate implants well. I think that it's much more likely that genetic engineering will perfect the human body.
I struggle to understand Bernardo's view. On the one hand all is mind and there is nothing physical, but on the other hand you can't make a mind out of physical switches because they're mechanical. What?? I must be missing something.
Yes I agree. I think maybe he’s not understanding scale in this view he has… because molecular biology has plenty of teeny tiny machines at play. I’m with Levin on pretty much all of it. Still love Bernardo tho
@@starxcrossed yes totally. This also comes up in his view that metabolism has something to do with consciousness. It feels like he's attributing some kind of magic property to metabolism, as though it too doesn't boil down to a bunch of mechanical processes. I bet there's something very subtle here that's hard to tease out in the comment section. Maybe if we had a chance to chat with him we'd sort it out.
@@michaeltraynor5893have you heard of Nick Lane? The origin of life theory of metabolism is relevant here- so while we know that things with metabolism can have inner experiences, we can see that specific mechanism on that teeny tiny scale of a cell as the beginning of consciousness. Everything alive on the planet has its origin arising from the most fundamental metabolism. My question is whether conscious is platonic like math or functions of matter. It is really eerie how silicon computer AI mimicks the left hemisphere so well. Yes we made it, as Bernardo says, but the fact that it’s POSSIBLE and links math and language and the left hemisphere could point to something relevant. It starts getting confusing at this point bc it could all just be physics. I don’t think silicon could ever have metabolism though. Seems like only carbon is good at that?
@michaeltraynor5893 we will be talking with them both again, 22nd Dec, link in description... I had the exact same question and I hope this will get unpacked
Regarding your earlier comment, its useful to remember Bernardo doesn't think life/consciousness is created by metabolism. He believes everything is in consciousness, and 'life' is what temporarily dissociated conscious processes look like. Nothing is actually being created, only apparently separated.
@@starxcrossed full disclosure I'm an AI researcher and have been working in deep learning for over 10 years, so I have certain biases.
That out of the way I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Whether something is made of silicon or carbon can't be the issue. After all carbon and silicon are themselves made out of the same stuff (electrons, protons, etc). They are even so chemically similar that biologists have imagined the possibility of silicon-based life for some time now.
When it comes to metabolism as a key ingredient to life I have no issue. A living organism has to fight entropy to maintain its boundary, and that is metabolism almost by definition (I think).
But if we want to talk about self awareness, in my view this requires an explicit model of self. So part of the negative entropy you harvest from the environment gets devoted to generating a model not only of the environment, but of yourself as an agent in that environment. This model can then be used to predict how your actions will affect the environment.
Whether a bacteria or other cell really models itself in this way is an open question. I could very easily be convinced that they do. I certainly don't see any reason why it should be impossible.
The same is true for computer programs. There is absolutely no law against information flowing through silicon that prevents it from modeling itself as an agent in the world.
I really don't see what it matters whether information is flowing through logic gates or through patterns of more complex molecules. If the information content is the same then what's the difference.
these cells by the way are connect with these things called
1:22:25
Gap Junctions so these are these electrical electrical synapses uh and the magic thing about these electrical
1:22:31
synapses is that they allow signals directly from one cell into the internal
1:22:37
mure of the other and so neither cell now can tell whose memory that was right because these signals don't come with
1:22:42
any kind of metadata when you're connected like that there's no me or you because it's now hard to keep memories
1:22:48
distinct it's just we and and we all and we share it's like a mind meldand I think we generate these large scale systems all the time social systems Financial
1:24:20
systems you know whatever these structures with really right now not a much of a science of what are going to
1:24:27
be the competencies and what are be going to be the goals of these Collective systems we don't know and I think it's it's it's a it's an
1:24:34
existential level uh challenge for us for for human flourishing to really understand what that is and how these
1:24:40
Collective systems get their goals and uh and to and to develop policies connection policies that are going to I
1:24:47
have no idea how to do this that's way beyond my pay grade but I but I can sort of see what what needs to be done is to
1:24:52
develop polic optimal policies for link for informational linkages that
1:24:57
simultaneously level us up as a collective to new capabilities but preserve the well-being of the
1:25:03
components and that is distinctly non-trivial and biology doesn't always do a great job of that by the way so
1:25:08
that's that's what I think yeah and and I suppose I'm curious as well in hearing that if that if that
1:25:14
cure for cancer will be similar I'm hoping it won't be similar to the hypnotic cure for the skin diseases and
1:25:22
you know there's some other underlying reasons for the cancer and it but you can use that bi eletrical um
1:25:27
intervention yeah well we know that I mean we know we know that uh induced uh
1:25:32
experiential stress is uh is is promotive of cancer so we know that we know that certain kinds of Behavioral um
Here is PSYCHEDELIC stone into your pool of scientific certitudes : all scientific discoveries have already been done and integrated by life during its millions of years of evolution. Your findings are outside reflexions of internal unconscious complex processes and calculation. Peace & love
This isn't all that new. It's not that different from animal husbandry & agriculture
I'm a big barnardo fan, but I disagree that we humans can create self conscious life, we are not God, period
It’s curious that we didn’t, its still just a speculation. I think “what we call matter” is not everything that defines us even if you consider matter as mental processes. Reality is such a mystery, we know next to nothing, but guys like Bernardo are on the right path. Its a step in the right direction.
We create conscious life all the time when we have children. Do you mean on silicon instead of carbon?
@@starxcrossed Right, but if matter is a partial representation of mental processes, maybe constructing a representation artificially from scratch is not enough. But maybe I see an issue where there isn't one. I understand your point and I'm open to us being able to artificially create "dissociated conscious entities". We'll see
As is understand it, life will create itself from the field itself so if you want it from god. We will just assemble it in a particular way maybe.
No, we don't create consciousness, we are born into consciousness
I like Bernardo's ideas but I think he's making an unintentional contradiction. On one end he acknowledges that everything exists as a unified mental construct and disassociation causes the illusion of separation. This would imply that the ego is a false sense of self; it only sees itself as being apart from everything that is itself.
But then on the other end he implies that the same false sense of self is capable of making a machine--that he wrongly distinguishes as being separate and apart from himself--and because he programmed the machine, his false ego can accuse his machine of having a false ego??? How is that acceptable when according to his theory both of them belong to a universal mind and neither one has a 'True' individual identity?
Why are you talking about gene mutations influencing cognitive processes (symbolic thought) when Michael has shown that genes code for proteins and not morphology or behaviour.
I knew that social justice was going to he pushed for the machines in future; obvious madness and frankly repulsive.
Bernardo the thief?! There’s something so dirty and stupid that attracts the irrational apes to each other ! Planet of the irrational thief apes is planet of endless wonders!
It’s time to abandon random mutation. It’s obviously wrong.
Em... do you have a better model with a better explanatory power?
How did this turn so schizophrenic so quickly.. where did the intelligent German sounding guy flee to
Not sure what you mean - which German guy?
Can you prove there are electrons?…. No?… oh- ok