“Science done right is one of the humanities.” That’s an epic quote: have long thought it and never expressed it. Thanks, Professor D.D. (and anonymous high school physics teacher)!
@@hypehuman - Entirely agree. I have written of my own field, archaeology as: “the most scientific of the humanities, the most humanistic of the sciences.”
When he mentioned mindless processes creating things more advanced than themselves it reminded me Stephen Wolfram's study of cellular automata where he demonstrated how simple rules can create very complex systems.
+ Medical Cannabis Spain um wtf did you get that idea www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation/
Cellular automata were invented by John Von Newman and the type of cellular automata Wolfram explores were invented by Claude Shannon. But to listen to Wolfram you would think he invented the whole area himself. He reminds me of these people who patent genes with out knowing anything about them in the hope they will get some money in the future from other peoples research. Wolfram has made bold statements with no real proof and no real advancements in mathematics I think really what he is hoping for is that other people in the future will obtain results from this area of mathematics and he can claim credit.
I love this tempo of talking. Gives importance to the content of the speech. Simple sentences, not too simple and time and pause to digest them. No show. No artificial postures or tones to impress the audience. No flashes. Thanks
As a computer science student I really appreciate the "evm" english virtual machine comparison because that's pretty much how java works. Jvm knows how to talk to your cpu and the java applet knows how to talk to Jvm, in that way jvm is a "translator" or in other words an interpreter. the further down you go the closer you are to speaking the same language as your cpu, c is compiled to before you send the app (message) to the computer, so it's "translated" before you post the letter and the compiler knows the the address for you. if you go further down to assembler now you're writing a letter that's mostly in computer language and you need to know the addresses before you post the letter. When you compile (translate) to bytecode your computer can understand the information, it knows what to do with it.
True enough. I'd quibble with the implication that computers "know" anything. It's all electrons bouncing around wires. We may never know, I expect AI to get good enough to pass the Turing test. Whether the system is "actually" "aware", will be undeterminable.
"Jvm 'knows' how to talk to your cpu"🤔 That construct seem to assign intelligence to JVM. Like the java applet, JVM is all code! Code that was 'designed' by man to follow instructions that operates the cpu! The CPU is equally lifeless as the software(written instructions).
@Ralph Macchiato That is the 'real' Turing test! Joshua Bach has some really interesting ideas with regards to AI, should check him out if you've not done so already.
Thanks for the great talk Daniel. Two errors I found, anyone please feel free to comment. 1) 1:15:20 "genetic, deep learning algorithms ... sift through data and come up with new ideas", these algorithms do not come up with new ideas, they learn to replicate training labels specified by humans. 2) 8:57 "brains are not serial they're parallel", false, brains are both serial and parallel. For example, the series retina, optic nerve, LGN, V1, etc... is well known.
Parallel connections can be defined as serial connections running concurrently. A brain simultaneously processes information from multiple streams, even if some interfaces run in 'serial.' I don't know much about genetic algorithms but calling it replication of previous specified labels is just kicking the can down the road. At some point an original 'label' had to be created.
@@jelliott8424 I totally agree on the parallel concretions definition as used by physicists.... Most of parallel circuits have series branches within them but still called and described as parallel type.
I tend to agree, having studied some GOFAI decades ago. IMO "modern" methods ML and "AI" seem to merely be "trainable classifiers". They make "decisions" based on training, from predefined data sets, by choosing one (or more?) labels from those determined by some algorithms from the training data. IMO they do not "reason" at all, which I thought was a goal of original AI research. Early on, we were hoping to build "intelligent" reasoning machines which we can understand, and where one can explain the reasoning to arrive at their conclusions. ML has no reasoning, and no explanations, merely "because" (philosophy joke?) that is the emergent behaviour from that particular training algorithm and that particular data set.
@@FrancisLewis2000 I think you're correct. The large models used today don't need labels at all. They just come up with patterns, just like biological brains do.
What a fascinating and informative talk. Early in the lecture he asked the question, 'Are our brains computers?' and even before he answered I was saying, 'Yes! of course they are." I also thought as he continued, that if your definition precludes it from being a computer, it is your definition that needs looking at. I remembered back to when I was an apprentice at Lucas Aerospace in the UK many (many, many) years ago. One item of aviation hydraulic equipment they made was the wing sweep controller for the Panavia Tornado. This was a computer but entirely hydraulic (in its decision making). It took control inputs and sensor readings and calculated the appropriate output. You could not find within it a 'program'. Sure, there would have been a written algorithm during its design. A list if logic statements and tables of data to inform the output, but you would not find a 'program' stored in the unit anywhere. It is still a computer though.
When he said "the dream of every cell is to divide" is like an extraterrestrial being looking at us from a distant galaxy with a telescope and saying "the dream of every human is to replicate and die"
If aliens saw what was happening in developed counties they would say that our goal is to make and use toys to avoid the genetic urge to reproduce. We might be gone in the blink of an eye and the same for the aliens so that we never see each other though 😉
That's a good idea. I stopped watching/listening to him years ago because his speech often seemed slow and slurry to me and would put me to sleep, so I'll have to try that.
you might not konw it, but this one-line comment was the best ever! As therefore, it is a real transition just in the opposite direction of what he wanted to explain in his whole lecture and therefore a proof of his hypothesis just in one line! Let's continue in broken English. (As I am German): "computer " is a word and a meme that is subject to a shift in meaning, let's call this an effect of evolution, too. In the older sense, it was about the brain's abilities. Today, it's about a network of those non-human computers like those termites. BTW "robot " in an earlier meaning is nothing more than a (human) worker; see the famous play of Karel Čapek R.u.R from 1920! Now we have "artificial intelligence" in four seasons;-) and the quote from Goethe: If you lack the ideas, words come in handy ...
@@gregor-samsa you should never exclaim when making a statement. Another point i would raise is i am personally aware of the history of the word "robot" but entirely ignorant of the play you referred to, and finally if you were attempting to imply you had your own thoughts on anything discussed in this lecture, you didnt. Ffs
The word "computer" is the result of linguistically abrasive cultures of who-cares naivety. From Latin "computare" (to count) proper form would have been "computator".
@@jpdj2715 Thus a computer 'calculates' its inputs and give an outputs! A computer does not 'selects' which inputs it wants but what is given. Else, they would be useless a tool to man who have 'designed' them for his aid. A computer do not possess intelligence. Computers are designed to follow the subroutines consisting of algorithms by which they are programmed! Computers are made up of hardware and software. Man design both hardware and software. Humans may still be functional with a brain tumor until a point. What's the equivalent to 'brain tumor' for a computers brain? Which is more resilient to an attack by a virus? The human brain or the computer [brain]?
Lately I started to consider the brain as a giant filter/processor that delivers our consciousness (whatever it may be) the best statistical predictions for certain information patterns in this universe. E.g. we tend to predict human beings as being human with near to 100% accuracy, but we are pretty bad at predicting certain other things (like how we are preceived by others, cause we are often diluded due to self-doubt and other things - or e.g. optical illusions, since our brain is trained to expect certain outcomes). So basically all the brain does is it predicts certain events, it recognizes patterns, and it makes all this data somewhat interpretable. We don't know where consciousness itself comes from.. we just know how to deactivate it like a switch, when deactivating certain neurons, but that isn't proof that certain brain regions create it.
His title question reminds me of a similar one. If DNA is written instructions, who is the author? I like your take on the quantum nature of it. Seems like the quantum is the real basis of everything. The Newtonian is like a useful simplification. Ultimately we gotta have an answer to beginning and end.
Some good points there I think. Also, adding to something you point to is the fact, or apparence that just as you can develop muscle memory, so, with the brain also we have a parallel to this, which we could call memory memory, or brain muscle memory. An example is the amount of times I have been in meetings, and the person hosting it is so used to pushing a particular agenda, or to clients who say the same thoughtless things, can usually fall into the crpappy useless habit of NOT LISTENING to the person present, and is answering via ''muscle memory'' of the brain in what they have been taught to say and think, based on the common muddle they are daily subjected to. They are actually NOT hearing you, and NOT answering anything you needed to know. remindfs me a bit of how China's power brokers ''listen'' to their people.
@@fillinman1 the quantum is also a useful simplification. We are not meant to understand these things and we will never understand them. We humans are built for a purpose and that's it.
A funny little story during my school life. A instructor separated us in to two groups. Told us to tie our legs to other people in the group. Then we will have an extreme edition of a 3 legged race. In practice run, many people had topple over, obviously. The other group's leader told them to synchronize the movements by shouting 1,2 & so on. I simply told mine to keep moving forward & don't fall down. You know what, we across the finish line at same time. The instructor baffled, said cooperation is the key to success & apparently "just do it" also works. The game was outplayed and the monologue was ruined.
This is apparent with tradesmen. I would always plan carefully. Sometimes best. Others would just start but fail midstream at unforeseen obstacles. Often. Best would briefly survey the task then go, solving problems that came up on the fly and were invariably the fastest. Saw this many times. They intuitively avoided dead stop roadblocks without exactly identifying them beforehand. Now I have a better understanding of this. And I have something to think about. Thanks.
I am under the impression that Groves was certainly the administrative controller, but the physicists and engineers actually were in control of what got built and how (explicitly, Oppenheimer was in charge of the technical and creative work).
@@juhanleemet Relates to the question: If you're a highly intelligent person, how do you deal with administrators who are stupidr than you and judge you based on their inadequate understanding? Oppenheimer was denied security clearance by FBI agents (I believe) who put him into simple-minded categories and thought no more about it.
Another perspective is to think of the brain like a television set. It receives consciousness from the cosmos and interprets it in a way that is practical for human life and operating on a very narrow bandwidth
Get back to us when you can test that hypothesis. Bear in mind that it requires multiple extraordinary assumptions, so maybe start working on those first: 1) The existence of some kind of cosmic consciousness, for which there is currently zero evidence. 2) The existence of a very high bandwidth bidirectional signalling medium, currently undetectable, whose signal energy is unaffected by every form of shielding material that humans have ever encountered. 3) The identification of the special property of human brain matter - and all other known neurological structures in other species as well - that can detect and transmit signals across this same medium while not consuming or dissipating measurable energy.
@@starfishsystems There's so many things science can't prove. I'm not saying that the brain as a tv set theory is right or wrong but servers work for more users at the same time so it isn't something really unbelievable. And one more thing- science proven facts are changing constantly so I guess science has its limits, after all.
@@Bob-of-Zoid How would you know? World isn't as young as science told us it is. It seems like in a distant past we had technology more advanced than we have today and maybe The Great Flood we know about from the Bible might actually been happening for real and maybe more than once. Pseudo science is the science that every 50 years or so is deemed wrong? If so the entire human science is pseudo science, my friend. Do not bow to science as if it was a God. Science, just as the false idols are, is man made so it can't be a God, it can't be absolute.
I love Daniel Dennett because he makes me think. The more I listen to him the more I realize how much I disagree with what he is saying. At times it even sounds like mush. But, I have no doubt that he is much smarter than me, so I just write it off.
He is also smarter than me, and better trained in philosophy but for almost any philosophical position there are equally smart people in philosophy supporting the opposite view. Since there is no expert consensus in philosophy, I think we shouldn't feel bad for disagreeing with any particular philosopher.
In modern computer software design, not only are there abstractions of the language eg. Java but we've developed design patterns. These are standard design solutions to common problems. One of the main advantages of patterns is not only do we have ready solutions but we can communicate that solution to another engineer with a single phrase thus speeding up the development process. "What you want there is an observer pattern". Naming things is one of the things that makes us human. The speed of advancement depends on it.
My brain/computer struggles to follow the thinking of this brilliant man, but it's also very fascinated because I always tried to figure out why I don't like computers.
Did you ever think that your brain/computer is able to grow new alive cells each second of your life and it is able to make them communicate one with the other and is able to tell them what to do to keep you alive against everything that's against you. Those are infinite more complex to follow than someone else's thinking. We are amazing machines. Imagine our tools of the year 2022 trying to make a board with 80 to 100 billion neurons and this would only be one brain. Imagine those machines trying to build the vast amount of billions of cells that make the human body. Now imagine someone or something programmed this to grow up from two cells. Now THAT is a master program.
I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few weeks in his memory, I made a playlist of his lectures and interviews for myself to work through, listening to Dr Dennett lectures would be my idea of Heaven 1:14:33
I'm so glad the EVM between my ears is working well, up to date and malware free!! I love Daniel Dennet, and everything he has done for this world in educating so many people by explaining intricate scientific and philosophical concepts in ways less learned people can understand, and especially for exposing the foibles of harboring unsubstantiated often dangerous beliefs such as religious fundamentalism.
''Malware free''? I doubt that VERY MUCH! The brain, for instance, has been hacked for millenia. religion? Gladiatorial/sports? What has become known as propaganda? Tabloids? And elite-leaning press? Any-leaning press. certain styles of drug communities (they got hacked by initially the U.S. legal/political monster to MAKE IT DANGEROUS.) So it is popously RIDICULOUS to make your point beyond humour.
Right there in that auditorium, extra-terrestials under cloak walked around and laughed to each others about the lifeforms they had created on "Earth" planet.....just like the numerous electromagnetic waves that travels through the space and people sitting there who are totally unaware because they do not have the right sensors to pick up the various frequencies....
That is really no different from the God Hypothesis. It pushes back the problem to an earlier cause : Who created the Aliens/God? Did they create themselves? If so, wouldn't it be simpler to say that we designed ourselves and are 'cloaked' from seeing it?
Michio Kaku's theory on quantifying consciousness suggests "consciousness is the number of feedback loops required to create a model of your position in space with relation to other organisms and time...."
Haven't read anything of him, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but this seems to be a blatant category error to me. Either the usages of 'number' or 'consciousness' here are extremely far removed from the ordinary ones or that statement does not seem to make sense at a very fundemental level. How could it possibly be sensible to say "For me, currently, consciousness is x" where x is 3 or pi or 12-7i or aleph_0 or any other kind of number?
@@MyMusics101 it is worth while to watch Dr.Michio kaku's presentation on consciousness.... he is internationally well known physicist..(one of the founders of "string theory"...)basically he is saying that there are different levels of consciousness...i.e flower....trees...bacteria.. mouse..monkey...orangutans(not only conscious but self aware ) .human..(consciousness and self awareness..) .
@@zerototalenergy150 You know that this assumption is total madness? We can only speak about our individual consciousness/awareness. Flower, trees refer to the plant kingdom which is different from the humanity. If bacteria is a consciousness then what are you when eat vegetables and meat that have bacteria?🤔 What's the difference between a patient in coma and another patient who is unconscious? Can someone who is unconscious be aware of his environment? Can he answer the paramedics or even call 911 for help? Does a plant
Raymond Tallis' point was that having grown up in modern technological society when we come to try to imagine what the brain is and how it works we readily adopt the model of the computer, that is what is familiar to us. Tallis being a neuroscientist (and a polymath) does not believe that the model is the correct one and that there are many important and profound differences we need to not overlook. But hey, if you mentioned him in another talk we can just ignore all that, right?
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed in this talk. Apparently the presenter is a philosopher, not a computer scientist or a neuroscientist. So why should we give his opinion any weight? The definition of "computer" that he gives is incomplete and inaccurate. A computer is a well defined machine, and the definition is not "a thing that can process information." I'm disappointed that he didn't even attempt to provide the proper definition of a computer (that is, a Turing machine,) but then again maybe I shouldn't be surprised. After all, if he had, he would have had to explain how the human brain is a Turing machine, and there is very good evidence that it is not. Perhaps he avoided the rigorous definition of "computer" on purpose rather than out of ignorance.
It could be argued that internet memes are a form of cultural expression, whether you like them or not. They reinforce shared values, thereby making one group more strongly bonded. It’s simply a larger scale version of making a joke to a group of people sitting around a campfire. The evolutionary advantage of having people on your side should be easy enough to work out
I disagree somewhat with Dennett when he says memes are created by a "mindless" process. While the actual creation might be random, successful memes do have some "selection" (as he says) perhaps external like "which boats came back", but also cultural. We do not accept ALL memes "just because". We have some choice (insert arguments about "free will" here?) in which memes we like or adopt. We could think of this as possibly a form of "intelligence amplification"? Vague glimmerings of preference are combined in society to choose which memes are acceptable, and then society builds on them, as they form part of the cultural context. The decision making is diffuse and unorganized and bottom-up, but is that totally "mindless"? True there is no "one mind" controlling the process, but perhaps many little minds?
This gets my attention..makes my brain light up- eyes wide open. Thank you! The programs are downloaded between ages 0- 7 from our parent, teachers, etc.
@@WmTyndale Danial Dennet strongly disagrees with you, and so do I! If you believe there is a god despite a complete lack of viable evidence, then your software is millennia out of date, and the data corruption accumulative! You have no evidence for your claim! The time to believe is when there is sufficient evidence, and well, you can pile layer upon layer of bad evidence onto a mountain of bad evidence (mere anecdote and false attribution in god's case), and it will never amount to a single shred of good evidence! No amount of faith based belief can make truth.
Self preservation, self awareness, and self motivation are the separation from man and computers. If computers are ever programmed or taught those three traits, we will have created a entity competitive against us.
@@MetalFacerRules what he meant by computers are like us is that both are excellent at processing / storing / retrieving data. His big flaw is he ascribes free will to humans and can't see how we evolved the software we run on over millions of years. He's basically a shameless capitalism / religion apologist, ultimately.
Three years too late, but I would suggest the lecturer watch the Feynman lecture, "Los Alamos From Below". Feynman visited Oak Ridge during the Manhatten project and told the engineers and scientists there a lot of information they needed so as design their isotope separation to avoid near critical mass events that could have harmed or killed the Oak Ridge staff.
You are making an important point. A system can behave intelligently, even creatively without being conscious. The power or replication, variation, selective pressure, and time is unbelievable. Our problem is the time span. We cannot understand it.
I think my comment was misunderstood. I sort of poked fun at the statement. In some ways, it is self-contradictory for an atheist because of the word "believe". At the same time, it recognizes the intelligent design but refuses to acknowledge the intelligent creator, i.e. God, and rather choses to believe in self-creation or deaf, dumb and blind Nature's intelligence, even though the Nature itself is merely a composition of forces set in motion.
I do believe our brain is the computing hardware. The software is the data flowing through chemical, electrical and quantum interference signals. Our minds are the result of the software at work. Our soul is the quantum “wave” field that holds our “molecules” together. We are bio-mechanical machines. However, we are so incredibly complex we exhibited free will. Wonderful thoughts.
Do you compute things in your brain? Yes? Well, that makes you a computer. Sadly, most of us have so much nonsense in our heads, we can't even recognize this.
But when do we call a computer a person? Calling a person a computer is not to be taken literally. It's only describing that the person is fast/computative as a computer.
@@V21IC Not back in those days. During the 30's and the 40's in the past century, those people called computers, limited their lives to compute, as to say: count! Numbers, stars, particles, components, whatever you can think that was accountable, those guys would count it. It is a very simple concept, as a matter of fact.
@@V21IC by definition a computer is a person or thing that "computes", and the only examples that previously existed were people, such as in the movie "Hidden Figures". In recent times the term has become mostly used for those electronic devices that we use for computing. From original definitions, we might still call the people that operate computers to be "computers", but that could get really confusing, so we differentiate: operators, programmers, analysts, etc.
I find it amusing, that a man who spent his life understanding language and cognition, is so quick to assume that the people who are on the cutting edge of memetic development online, are somehow an evolutionary dead-end and not, in fact, likely to be the blossom of a new path in life.
funny thing is that humans, specifically accountants, were the original computers. The machines were called computers when they became useful enough to be accountant like.
"Cognitive Cerebral Consciousness". Really like your work, sir. Yes, our brains are not computers but they are computerized. Wow, that one's pretty good! ( Universe Consciousness)
The speaker made an observation that intrigues me. He stated that it's possible to benefit from a certain aspect of our nature without understanding how that nature came into being and gave the example of a butterfly with camouflage patterns. This notion can be extended to disease. Presently, we treat "diseases" as if they are bad or harmful, but if we're truly the subject of Biological Evolution then the mutations that are expressed as "diseases" are simply the subtle, biological evolutionary steps towards human betterment. For instance, we may think heart attacks are bad not knowing that they are actually the evolutionary step towards developing a better heart. Or, the elimination of the heart as the fulcrum of the cardiovascular system. Perhaps, as evolutionists we should be thinking twice about treating certain conditions or risk hampering human development?
It is a great exercise to think about how the “unintelligent” assembly of documents and human knowledge over the past 30 years of building the internet has now led it to become the “intelligence” for platforms like GPT. Very stimulating and provocative talk from quite a while back but quite relevant today in our age of unintelligent “transformers”.
I remember trying to read his first book after having seen his interview in Playboy. The name of the book was 'Consciousness Explained'. After having got halfway through and Dennet still wondering about ´how the presence of consciousness could be verified, I threw the book in the garbage. After Dennet had met Dawkins, he became much more coherent as the concept of 'Neural Darwinism' proved to be a useful tool. The brain is not a computer like the ones people make. It does compute, simulate, steer, learn, remember and evaluate among other things. It also creates the world we live in, for each and every one of us, in private. The world it creates -or the worlds- are the only ones we have access to. Nothing exists to us unless our brain makes an image of it. This is the key.
@Nim Boo "In laymans terms; God is alive and for ever the sole Creator of the Universe which is his creation and from which He is seperate." In layman terms, prove it.
@@venturarodriguezvallejo9777 Yes, i can't really prove that everything exists. But if i can't assume that, as you note, i can't do anything to know reality. What i can do is assume that other people (and reality) exists, because pragmatically it seems to be so. This isn't at all applyable to a god: it's presence isn't obvious to me as it is of other people. If you want to stretch the concept of evidence so far to conclude that reality isn't real, you have evidence that "all that is" is your mind alone, no god there. Instead, if you want to pragmatically assume reality is real, we can explore it, and there's no evidence of a god there either. If you want to have faith in a god, you don't need and don't want evidence.
@@kregorovillupo3625 Agree with you. Very well structured answer. (BTW.: I'm an agnostic in the sense I DON'T KNOW if something we call "God" exists or not. Both believers and atheists have not give me so far well reasoned arguments to tip my opinion to one side or the opposite. The very concept behind the term "God" is quite a fuzzy one so, even for talking about it we have to define it first far more accurately than we can, I'm afraid).
@@venturarodriguezvallejo9777 I've only tried to be clear, english isn't my first language and i had to learn it by my own. I'm glad you liked it. I use for me the label of Agnostic Atheist, because i use definition of the two words out of the "layman" use. Agnostic is a declaratio on knowledge, Atheist is a declaration on faith (or lack of, in this case). If at the question "Do you believe in god?" you answer "No", you are atheist. If at the question "Describe me your god" you answer "I've no sufficent elements to do it adequately", you're agnostic. This defines 4 major kind of stance on spirituality, see if you recognize yourself into one: Gnostic Theist: "I believe in god, and he's jhahwheh/allah/brama/manitù/whatever" Agnostic Theist: "I believe there's something there, but i can't describe what it is" Agnostic Atheist: "I don't believe a god exists, because every description provided left me unconvinced" Gnostic Atheist: "I can't believe your god exist, because [insert reasons here, like "his description is logically inconsistent, so he can't logically exist"]"
The brain is like a computer, however the nervous system is what drastically influences how the many functions of the brain reacts to and stored information. The muscles are also store houses for memory and experiences as well. The nerve endings connects to the ligaments and tendons which ultimately influence the actions of the muscles. It's all very neat and satisfying to learn more about.
as subnautica once said "your species still see's a difference between biology and technology?" they are 2 different sides of a spectrum where the biggest difference is just complexity and eventually a difference in the *scale* of complexity becomes a difference in the *kind* of complexity
Emotions are interesting things. Before you feel a certain way about something, say some situation, or some person, your brain must go through a process of assessing the situation, or recognizing the person. In it's most fundamental form, it must go through a quantitative process. It has to literally 'place' that situation or person on a scale that runs roughly like this: from disgust, through dislike, or dissatisfaction, to neutrality, or towards satisfaction, maybe preference, then liking, and up to loving. Your brain has to go through a quantitative analysis, (which is almost instantaneous), before it can truly develop an emotional reaction to something. It has to think, before it can feel.
1 Clearly defined laws regarding the definition and criteria for consciousness in AI, and regulations on their use and treatment. 2 Legal recognition of advanced AI as autonomous entities with rights and responsibilities. 3 Clear guidelines for the ethical use and development of advanced AI, including ensuring that they are not used to harm or discriminate against humans. 4 Regulations to protect the privacy and personal data of individuals, as well as prevent misuse of AI by organizations and individuals. 5 Responsibilities placed on creators, developers and owners of AI systems to ensure they are operating safely and ethically. 6 Government oversight and regulation of the development and use of AI, with penalties for non-compliance. 7 Standards for transparency and explainability in AI systems, to ensure that their decision-making processes are understandable and accountable. 8 Investment in research and development of safety and ethical measures for advanced AI. 9 Education and public awareness programs to educate the public about AI and its potential impact on society. 10 Robust international cooperation, to ensure that AI development and regulation is consistent across borders and that the potential negative impact of AI on individuals and society is minimized.
Before the invention if electronic computers in the 1940's most people compared brains to telegraph systems, but brains aren't really telegraph systems, because they do much more than telegraph systems can do. Now we have brains compared to computers because computers do more than telegraph systems, but they still aren't exactly like brains. You might be able to say that brains are, in fact computers, but you can't say that computers are thinking machines. Both brains and computers can take in and process information, but computers can't think. In the future they may well invent machines that can think, but these machines won't work the way computers work. And we will not experience the "Singularity" until computers can be designed to think.
Eric Taylor you gotta agree that the modern computer (starting with ones such as ENIAC) are a pivotal point because they're reprogrammable. That's why computer is such an iconical word, I'd say it's the last step. Because there's no need to invent something entirely new, you just make a better computer. Obviously future computers will be different, but I don't see how we need anything radically different than the ability to input software and get results, specially if you consider that self changing software is perfectly possible as it is but not invented yet.
Are computers thinking agents. Well probably not. But computers can in fact progress and gain information provided a set of rules or a framework. This is what happened to the best chess player in history which is a computer that plays itself repeatedly and learned to beat the engine. Another example is league of legend (or maybe dota2) AI that did the same as the chess ai and became better then the best gamer teams in the world who spend thousands of thousands of hours playing.
it's a little more complicated than that both being computers doesn't necessarily mean they're equivalent or that you can substitute one for the other, even if both are turing complete. Remember that the theoretical standard assumes both have infinite memory and instantaneous run time. What that means is that even though both can theoretically do the same thing, some architectures are much more suited for some tasks than others. Think quantum computers vs normal computers. One can't replace the other, they are better suited to some other type of tasks. what we have nowdays with stuff like neural networks is how using the architecture of your regular computers we can have meta programs that somewhat behave like your brain does. So asside from the differences in architecture (which means some computers will do some tasks more efficiently than others) it might very well be posible for computers to think, with the appropriate sofware. They would just work on a different time scale. the more complicated side of the issue is: we don't even know what "thinking" actually means. Where's the line between just computing and thinking? Self-awareness? Because that's something we can't measure.
Computers don't do much computing. They mainly display and alter files. They should be called electronic filing cabinets. They are capable of computing though. General purpose computing is the same thing regardless of the machine it is done on. You get the same answer whether you compute mechanically, electronically, biologically, you can compute with matchboxes.
some say that there are many many problems in mathematics which are not solvable with any computation but perfectly clear for human intuition. That would be a good argument for the case that thinking is more than what algorithms (and so computers of today's sort) will ever be able to do.
Your "necktop" throws sentences (ideas) and pictures(one of the ways we remember things) and sounds (a way of encoding and storing words and experiences) around inside itself. The winners are the "you" at the moment.
What is intelligence? A number of years ago I decided to test mine by seeing if I qualified for MENSA. I took the test and a week or so later I was pleased to see I was in the top 2% . Great I thought and I was so proud. Then over the next few months all I received from MENSA were monthly publications that contained nothing more than tests and puzzles. Before I joined I thought that I could perhaps team up with a mathematics genius in order to calculate a perfect system on roulette for example. I came away with the conclusion that MENSA was just a group of people tricking people into thinking they were clever. After all there was the yearly membership fee and no mechanism for merging these minds in order to create/improve/invent things of any use.
The sense that "I feel too special to 'just be physics' has a lot to answer for". Once we get over our anthropocentric arrogance, things become much clearer - and maybe even more awesome than the "magic" some others prefer.
This makes me realize a few things. 1. Man we must have been dumb back in the day and through sheer luck and animal survival instinct to run away from anything that just killed the guy next to you. 2. Wow lots of us must have died through trial an error. 3. We over wrote our own animistic "software" to become aware free thinking and able to invent everything up to this day. Pretty good video that gets the brain churning. Also Necktop is funny lol
The strive forward of the human race is down to communication and education. From learning those same instinctive abilities of our fellow life forms to education of our specific species and then to the ability to communicate that education. The aforesaid is both why and how modern human beings became so dominant.
So, basically, by defining "computer" in a completely unconventional vague and all-encompassing way, he proves the brain is a "computer". how revolutionary. I quote: "make an architecture out of these different, unruly, clueless, little, multi-armed, blind cells" yes, that certainly sound like "computers" people can really prove anything these days
@@beowulf_of_wall_st You see that more and more in society how words have their definitions changed so incompetents, lunatics and malefactors can have their swindles and harmful ideas injected into the public sphere. With then of course the dire phyiscal consequences soon afterwards.
To answer you questions we absorb knowledge and form oppions based on what we've learned and as we age the programming gets more refined untill our head drive starts to fail and go into protection mode. And things don't compute anymore.
Fred Hoyle did coin the phrase "Big Bang" in a BBC radio interview. But he preferred a different cosmological model, "the Steady State". He used the phrase "Big Bang" in order to oppose and dismiss those who believed in a creation moment. So most ironic that he coined a great meme for something he did not believe in.
It really is. Thing of it is, there are just so many of them working together on this fundamental level. Perfect synchronicity. When you think about it, our brain processes information and translates that information in to something useful. So yes, the brain is essentially a computer.
There is not a single neuroscientist or any other scientist that can explain how do you get experience out of neural activity. So i dont think we are just neurons at the fundamental level, there is something much deeper at work here. But it requiers expanding your mind a bit..
if you look at twitch chat when 20,000 people are watching a stream and around 100 of them are typing in the chat at the same time the chat also kinda behaves like a brain. and the memes that result out of it which often come seemingly out of nowhere can be compared to what richard dawkings ment when he used the term meme
This seems like a beneficial video to watch, for beginners in crafting neural networks. And even a useful thing for the more experienced practitioners, just to get the creative juices going.
In 2000 BC the brain was compared to an abacus, 15th century the brain was compared to a clock, in the 1700s it was compared to a steam engine. Now it’s compared to the most advanced device we know of, the computer
Dan, Dan, Dan. Dad gone at 5, raised by a Saintly Mom with 3 kids, I used the no Dad excuse for many a year. As a teen JoAnn sat me down, apologized and said to take some responsibility, be happy. Easy enough, I chose my Father figures, gleaned every iota of what I thought was important. I had the greatest adventure and fun. As an old man, I'm more conscious of all the grateful gifts, I would hoe the weeds At Larry Krauss's house, pick apples on Gabor Mate's farm and wash the windows at Noam's house, lastly (or lately), I giggle about camping with Sam, Hitch, Dawkins and you. Well said Dad. Sincerely Lawson di Ransom Canyon
To me there has to be a deeper mystery to consciousness than this opinion gives credit to. I personally found Roger Penrose's insights into the non-computational nature of consciousness as evidenced by its effects in quantum mechanical experiments to offer some real depth of insight into this subject.
Yes that’s the fuel for religion. You can want all you like but there will always be something that cannot be explained. By imagine there are more level of reality(eg spiritual). You just move the goal post with no evidence.
A big difference between human brains and artificial computers is that brains can generate their own data input through imagination etc. Computers can only receive input from an external controller.
We don't really understand how brains can "generate their own data" (hallucination? random variation?) and there is nothing intrinsically to prevent computers from generating similar variations. We know how to make pretty good (not perfect) random number generators, and can use (truly random physical) electrical "noise"
The speaker argued for the ability of a blind and undirected process (biological evolution) to orchestrate a complicated process. He gave the example of the construction of the JPL building and how the construction workers were not aware of the purpose of the building as they raised its walls and laid its foundation, completely ignoring the fact that there were persons who were aware of the building's purpose and intelligently orchestrated its construction. In the context of the abiogenesis of life, where did that initial spark of intelligence come from in the orchestration of cell replication, arrangement and timing? A prior, superior intelligence as the cause of biology is worthy of pursuing scientifically.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by the brain or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness why the heck? say I ask a computer to track the molecules of a gas and ask it to come up with as many possible ways of predicting what happens when I decrease pressure, it might come up with the PV=nRT where T represents the average kinetic energy of the particles(temperature ) its arbitrary cause the computer could have predicted what would happen by considering every particle and ignoring the statistical overarching behaviour of entropy but none of these require consciousness to choose arbitrarily which i prefer, i could use atmospheric noise. so the experience of consciousness doesn't presuppose anything, its an explantion for many kinds of behaviours and is a useful unit by which to measure our activities (humans). So it is an emergent property like temperature. its not elementary but it is useful.
In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical just because temperature is not fundamentally encoded in the laws of physics doesn't mean it doesn't describe the physical world. There is nothing non-physical about every property that isn't elementary. Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities just beacause we cannot yet describe how consciousness arises from the physical brain(an arbitrary but useful property of an organism and describing its behaviour) doesn't mean we never will. Every oxygen atom doesn't have temperature but a property of the gas is temperature (that's why the word emergent is used) so there is no reason every neuron has the same kind of self-aware preocessing of consciousness that you do.
@@AngadSingh-bv7vn By no means your example invalidate my statement about consciousness being the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrainess. Actually, your example confirms what I have writte. In fact, the relation PV=nRT has no meaning for the computer; you must understand the output of a computer are simply sequences of binary digits, which have no intrinsic meaning. We intrepret such sequences and attribute to them a menaing because we are conscious and intelligent, and we can codify a concept as a sequence of binary digits. Therefore, without consciousness, the computer could find no relation between pressure, volume and temperature simply because the concepts of pressure, volume and temperature would not exis at all.
@@AngadSingh-bv7vn You wrote: "just because temperature is not fundamentally encoded in the laws of physics doesn't mean it doesn't describe the physical world. ". Actually temperature can be defined using only the laws of physics; for example there is a direct relation between temperature and the average kinetic energy. But this is not the point; we can certainly describe the physical world using many non-fundamental concepts, but the point is that consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of every description; a description implies a conscious observer who focus on certain aspects of reality. Then you wrote:"just beacause we cannot yet describe how consciousness arises from the physical brain(an arbitrary but useful property of an organism and describing its behaviour) doesn't mean we never will. " You should consider that the current laws of physics explain with great accuracy all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes. Devolopments in physics are expected to refer to high energy processes or cosmology, but it is unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes, because such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics, while consciousness is not. Consciousness is irreducible to cerebral processes and to the laws of physics Then you wrote: "Every oxygen atom doesn't have temperature but a property of the gas is temperature (that's why the word emergent is used) so there is no reason every neuron has the same kind of self-aware preocessing of consciousness that you do." You are wrong; you can define temperature using the average kinetic energy, and therefore, you can define temeprature also for a single oxigen atom (the average can be calculated also on one single element). Besides, your idea that every neuron has the same self-aware preocessing of consciousness that I have is simply nonsensical; I am one person with one mind and one will etc, and I am not billions of persons with billions of minds and wills etc. You should meditate on my arguments because you does not seem to understand them.
fpgas that can reprogram themselves in runtime would be really cool. but afaik that's not really done yet, except on a very coarse level. part of if is probably the still very proprietary nature of fpga tooling (go SymbiFlow!), another part may be weird bootstrapping and security issues..
You could also consider that the human condition becomes the development tool for our consciousness- starting from basic concepts leading to all manner of skills and 'powers' based on the utilisation of the human body.
If brain is computer, then the consciousness is software which is constantly updated by knowledge and experiences until hard drive crashes and computer dies.
the alan turing joke reminds me about a other joke the cooking recept for a cake First you have to make a univers then wait around 14 billion years then harvest grain, breeding cows milking patorization . . .. . you get the point ^^
There is a difference between how an entity is formed and what is an entity. An entity may hold a certain attribute pertaining to its formation history, but this is not the same thing as the entity itself. A computer has a different formation history as a brain. A brain must learn to count before it can count and must switch itself on to do so. A computer comes ready made to count and cannot switch itself on before it can start counting. A brain is not a computer.
Wrong. A computer does not come ready to count. It needs a program. Like our brain does. "Switch itself on" Wrong. Its mother does that. The brain IS a computer. There is hardly any difference.
@@petermatthiesen8288 If there is any difference then they arent the same. Hardly any difference implies a difference. An entity with attributes {1,2,3} is not the same entity with attributes {2,3,4} despite both holding similar attributes, namely {2,3}.
wise man. .. and here I was thinking all this time that 'philosophy' is a mere mumbo jumbo, convinced I was based on not very good high school teacher ... but this here is something completely different. ... it's like a creation of a way and through a rough forest; when you see it. you use it for it's been done well. ! hm
Consciousness works on a, "if this then that". That's mathematical language programmed into ur being. So it is not the brain alone working as a computer it is the whole unit
48:28 This is true, but as far as I know, there was no increase after about 1970 and now there is a decline. Also part of he increase is because the American School system is optimized to score good at IQ tests. People are smarter now than 100 years ago in every western country, but the results in the US are exaggerated because of the American believe that you can measure smartness with a single number that can be measured in a short test. The increase is lower than in other states which don't emphasize IQ tests so much, although the average educational level (if measured by other measures than IQ tests) is better in most other western countries than in the US (mainly because the public schools in the US are underfunded, except in very wealthy areas).
20.05. I didn't understand why Dennett, when making the point about creating a computer out of things from the 'pre-electronic' age, made it seem as though frontiers were being pushed back. During WWII, Tommy Flowers, working with Alan Turing, built a 'programmable computer' back in '43/'44 as part of the Enigma programme at Bletchley Park. It was called 'Colossus'. Tommy was an engineer at the General Post Office of Britain (the old GPO and forerunner of BT) and he used diodes, switches, nixie tubes and bakelite. He actually built more than one machine. Their pioneering and brilliant work gave the allies a sublime edge in the war. They certainly saved lives and probably foreshortened the war. By the way, there is a lesson here for all such centralist, totalitarian regimes (as the Nazis): vanity and arrogance foster always a sense of destiny and infallibility. And that is always the augur of their demise. Hitler skipped in his 'nest' in the mountains of Berchtesgaden with his black-booted bullies (though the pompous buffoon was scared of heights). Goering pranced like a poppycock with his pretty sky-blue coloured costume stretched tight across his aryan, über-mensch, über-sized bulk. Our two likely lads, Tommy, the son of a bricklayer, and Alan, a the social misfit, cracked their bloody uncrackable code*. We could then read the entire encrypted communications of the entire German war machine as if the 'Oberkommando der Wehrmacht' had placed full page ads of their intentions every day in the Times. You couldn't make it up! Surely there must have been some clever junior officer in the German High Command pushing to have the Enigma machines changed and updated, you know, just to be safe, boss? The British government's obsession with secrecy after the war meant that no one knew of Tommy's and Alan's work for decades. Cometh the moment, cometh the men!
Professor Dennet, surely you understand that the complexity, flight, takeoff, landing, and evasion capabilities of the human house fly can not be built or even approximated by a team of thousands of NASA engineers. And that is not to mention its energy harvesting from the environment and self-manufacturing abilities!
A computer in it's own right. It's got it's own video equipment, dreams. You watch it as it's being made up while sleeping. You concentrate the mind behind the eyelids as you start to go into a sleep the pictures start to come to the front. The quality of the picture is better than what we produce digitally. Copy and paste dreams that can be a mashup that's been taken in over time from the surroundings. Creating a computer to mimic the brain, but taken further. Software, hard drive, memory, sharing information, storing information. Ways of getting around the cons of the brain. We are starting to make sense of our makeup (Big things come in small packages), atoms, energy, protons, neutrons, electrons and so on. The computer being an extension of the minds computer.
Funny thing about Rand and Friedman. Neither of them told us what we _must_ do, they described what we should do in order to have a society that's built on mutual cooperation, while still dealing with the fact that there is competition in human nature. Whether Dennett realizes it or not, human nature is to compete first, and to cooperate second. But there's a balance between the two that leads to society benefiting from fair competition. Some people are simply better at doing one thing than doing another. When a group of people find that balance where, between them, they do the most good for the most people, by taking advantage of the various talents people have, that balance is _organically_ _evolved_ _capitalism._ When governments begin to meddle in the affairs of those groups of people that have come to a satisfactory arrangement of bartering between themselves, that meddling almost exclusively results in some form of socialism, which is an artificial construct born of faceless bureaucracies, and is almost always less efficient than the organically evolved capitalism it attempts to replace. It is impossible for a 'central authority' to improve upon what processes organically evolved within a society as a result of the actions of innumerable individual free choices by and between those individuals. It always misses the mark, and inefficiencies invariably develop within that artificial construct.
What would happen if we used a software that acted on the Mandelbrot set in a Turing system to rectify the top down hierarchy problem that organic brains struggle with? I’m heavily invested in making a synthetic, organic supercomputer with a QPU.
Consider the Halting Problem and Gödel's Incompleteness theorem for a second. It is logically proven that no system of formal axioms can prove its own consistency. It's a fundamental shortcoming baked into logic itself. It's got nothing to do with the hardware involved.
the first words...so true...science is one of the humanities. Meaning it is one of the things that makes us "human" and not animals. The fact that we(some of us...okay a few of us...more like a handful) want to understand and find whats best and correct according to facts based on theories and observations that have been tested and can be proven and reproduced. Word....
"Thinking tools" approach/idea is amazing. I never thought about this in that way. Thank you sir!
“Science done right is one of the humanities.” That’s an epic quote: have long thought it and never expressed it. Thanks, Professor D.D. (and anonymous high school physics teacher)!
Science done right...
Christopher Ellis - mea culpa - quite right: “done right”. Thanks, I will edit.
And the humanities done right is one of the sciences! Any field of study can benefit from applying the best practices of both traditions.
@@hypehuman - Entirely agree. I have written of my own field, archaeology as: “the most scientific of the humanities, the most humanistic of the sciences.”
No.
When he mentioned mindless processes creating things more advanced than themselves it reminded me Stephen Wolfram's study of cellular automata where he demonstrated how simple rules can create very complex systems.
Israel Grogin good analogy. Also neural networks are an example of self programming/designing simple systems evolving to do complex tasks.
we cant even understand photosynthesis :)
Yeah come to think of it! I immediately visualized Conway's game of life when reading your comment.
+ Medical Cannabis Spain
um wtf did you get that idea www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation/
Cellular automata were invented by John Von Newman and the type of cellular automata Wolfram explores were invented by Claude Shannon. But to listen to Wolfram you would think he invented the whole area himself. He reminds me of these people who patent genes with out knowing anything about them in the hope they will get some money in the future from other peoples research. Wolfram has made bold statements with no real proof and no real advancements in mathematics I think really what he is hoping for is that other people in the future will obtain results from this area of mathematics and he can claim credit.
I love this tempo of talking. Gives importance to the content of the speech.
Simple sentences, not too simple and time and pause to digest them.
No show. No artificial postures or tones to impress the audience. No flashes.
Thanks
As a computer science student I really appreciate the "evm" english virtual machine comparison because that's pretty much how java works. Jvm knows how to talk to your cpu and the java applet knows how to talk to Jvm, in that way jvm is a "translator" or in other words an interpreter.
the further down you go the closer you are to speaking the same language as your cpu, c is compiled to before you send the app (message) to the computer, so it's "translated" before you post the letter and the compiler knows the the address for you.
if you go further down to assembler now you're writing a letter that's mostly in computer language and you need to know the addresses before you post the letter.
When you compile (translate) to bytecode your computer can understand the information, it knows what to do with it.
True enough. I'd quibble with the implication that computers "know" anything. It's all electrons bouncing around wires. We may never know, I expect AI to get good enough to pass the Turing test. Whether the system is "actually" "aware", will be undeterminable.
"Jvm 'knows' how to talk to your cpu"🤔
That construct seem to assign intelligence to JVM.
Like the java applet, JVM is all code!
Code that was 'designed' by man to follow instructions that operates the cpu!
The CPU is equally lifeless as the software(written instructions).
@Ralph Macchiato That is the 'real' Turing test! Joshua Bach has some really interesting ideas with regards to AI, should check him out if you've not done so already.
thats how most programming works
the compiler for C is itself written in C
Great analogy. Translating and communicating with dogs is my main job when training them. Fostering the relationship
Thanks for the great talk Daniel. Two errors I found, anyone please feel free to comment.
1) 1:15:20 "genetic, deep learning algorithms ... sift through data and come up with new ideas", these algorithms do not come up with new ideas, they learn to replicate training labels specified by humans.
2) 8:57 "brains are not serial they're parallel", false, brains are both serial and parallel. For example, the series retina, optic nerve, LGN, V1, etc... is well known.
Parallel connections can be defined as serial connections running concurrently. A brain simultaneously processes information from multiple streams, even if some interfaces run in 'serial.'
I don't know much about genetic algorithms but calling it replication of previous specified labels is just kicking the can down the road. At some point an original 'label' had to be created.
@@jelliott8424 I totally agree on the parallel concretions definition as used by physicists.... Most of parallel circuits have series branches within them but still called and described as parallel type.
I tend to agree, having studied some GOFAI decades ago. IMO "modern" methods ML and "AI" seem to merely be "trainable classifiers". They make "decisions" based on training, from predefined data sets, by choosing one (or more?) labels from those determined by some algorithms from the training data. IMO they do not "reason" at all, which I thought was a goal of original AI research. Early on, we were hoping to build "intelligent" reasoning machines which we can understand, and where one can explain the reasoning to arrive at their conclusions. ML has no reasoning, and no explanations, merely "because" (philosophy joke?) that is the emergent behaviour from that particular training algorithm and that particular data set.
I thought the idea with new deep learning was that with enough hidden layers the algorithim will find it's own groups/categories?
@@FrancisLewis2000 I think you're correct. The large models used today don't need labels at all. They just come up with patterns, just like biological brains do.
What a fascinating and informative talk. Early in the lecture he asked the question, 'Are our brains computers?' and even before he answered I was saying, 'Yes! of course they are." I also thought as he continued, that if your definition precludes it from being a computer, it is your definition that needs looking at. I remembered back to when I was an apprentice at Lucas Aerospace in the UK many (many, many) years ago. One item of aviation hydraulic equipment they made was the wing sweep controller for the Panavia Tornado. This was a computer but entirely hydraulic (in its decision making). It took control inputs and sensor readings and calculated the appropriate output. You could not find within it a 'program'. Sure, there would have been a written algorithm during its design. A list if logic statements and tables of data to inform the output, but you would not find a 'program' stored in the unit anywhere. It is still a computer though.
When he said "the dream of every cell is to divide" is like an extraterrestrial being looking at us from a distant galaxy with a telescope and saying "the dream of every human is to replicate and die"
If aliens saw what was happening in developed counties they would say that our goal is to make and use toys to avoid the genetic urge to reproduce. We might be gone in the blink of an eye and the same for the aliens so that we never see each other though 😉
This topic just randomly popped in my head and my first reaction was to look it up on here. I'm glad I did.
If you watch at 1.25 speed Dennett's speech becomes as brisk and lively as it was 20 years ago.
That's a good idea. I stopped watching/listening to him years ago because his speech often seemed slow and slurry to me and would put me to sleep, so I'll have to try that.
Good recommendation! Thanks!
Was a time not too many decades ago when every computer was a human. The word pre-dates electronic computers.
you might not konw it, but this one-line comment was the best ever! As therefore, it is a real transition just in the opposite direction of what he wanted to explain in his whole lecture and therefore a proof of his hypothesis just in one line! Let's continue in broken English. (As I am German): "computer " is a word and a meme that is subject to a shift in meaning, let's call this an effect of evolution, too. In the older sense, it was about the brain's abilities. Today, it's about a network of those non-human computers like those termites. BTW "robot " in an earlier meaning is nothing more than a (human) worker; see the famous play of Karel Čapek R.u.R from 1920! Now we have "artificial intelligence" in four seasons;-) and the quote from Goethe: If you lack the ideas, words come in handy ...
@@gregor-samsa you should never exclaim when making a statement. Another point i would raise is i am personally aware of the history of the word "robot" but entirely ignorant of the play you referred to, and finally if you were attempting to imply you had your own thoughts on anything discussed in this lecture, you didnt. Ffs
The word "computer" is the result of linguistically abrasive cultures of who-cares naivety. From Latin "computare" (to count) proper form would have been "computator".
@@jpdj2715 Thus a computer 'calculates' its inputs and give an outputs!
A computer does not 'selects' which inputs it wants but what is given.
Else, they would be useless a tool to man who have 'designed' them for his aid.
A computer do not possess intelligence.
Computers are designed to follow the subroutines consisting of algorithms by which they are programmed!
Computers are made up of hardware and software. Man design both hardware and software.
Humans may still be functional with a brain tumor until a point.
What's the equivalent to 'brain tumor' for a computers brain?
Which is more resilient to an attack by a virus? The human brain or the computer [brain]?
@@iandoyle5017 lol
Lately I started to consider the brain as a giant filter/processor that delivers our consciousness (whatever it may be) the best statistical predictions for certain information patterns in this universe. E.g. we tend to predict human beings as being human with near to 100% accuracy, but we are pretty bad at predicting certain other things (like how we are preceived by others, cause we are often diluded due to self-doubt and other things - or e.g. optical illusions, since our brain is trained to expect certain outcomes). So basically all the brain does is it predicts certain events, it recognizes patterns, and it makes all this data somewhat interpretable. We don't know where consciousness itself comes from.. we just know how to deactivate it like a switch, when deactivating certain neurons, but that isn't proof that certain brain regions create it.
His title question reminds me of a similar one. If DNA is written instructions, who is the author? I like your take on the quantum nature of it. Seems like the quantum is the real basis of everything. The Newtonian is like a useful simplification. Ultimately we gotta have an answer to beginning and end.
@@fillinman1 the author may be the “evolution” ?
Some good points there I think. Also, adding to something you point to is the fact, or apparence that just as you can develop muscle memory, so, with the brain also we have a parallel to this, which we could call memory memory, or brain muscle memory.
An example is the amount of times I have been in meetings, and the person hosting it is so used to pushing a particular agenda, or to clients who say the same thoughtless things, can usually fall into the crpappy useless habit of NOT LISTENING to the person present, and is answering via ''muscle memory'' of the brain in what they have been taught to say and think, based on the common muddle they are daily subjected to. They are actually NOT hearing you, and NOT answering anything you needed to know. remindfs me a bit of how China's power brokers ''listen'' to their people.
@@fillinman1 the quantum is also a useful simplification. We are not meant to understand these things and we will never understand them. We humans are built for a purpose and that's it.
@@10418 Darwin's evolution? haha.
A funny little story during my school life.
A instructor separated us in to two groups.
Told us to tie our legs to other people in the group.
Then we will have an extreme edition of a 3 legged race.
In practice run, many people had topple over, obviously.
The other group's leader told them to synchronize the movements by shouting 1,2 & so on.
I simply told mine to keep moving forward & don't fall down.
You know what, we across the finish line at same time.
The instructor baffled, said cooperation is the key to success & apparently "just do it" also works.
The game was outplayed and the monologue was ruined.
There were many more factors in play than the few mentioned.
This is apparent with tradesmen. I would always plan carefully. Sometimes best. Others would just start but fail midstream at unforeseen obstacles. Often. Best would briefly survey the task then go, solving problems that came up on the fly and were invariably the fastest. Saw this many times. They intuitively avoided dead stop roadblocks without exactly identifying them beforehand. Now I have a better understanding of this. And I have something to think about. Thanks.
I am under the impression that Groves was certainly the administrative controller, but the physicists and engineers actually were in control of what got built and how (explicitly, Oppenheimer was in charge of the technical and creative work).
relates to the conundrum of how do you control or manage poeple smarter than you are? or how we choose specialist professionals?
There's a great TV film about Oppenheimer and Groves. In one scene he says "I played him like a fiddle".
@@juhanleemet Relates to the question: If you're a highly intelligent person, how do you deal with administrators who are stupidr than you and judge you based on their inadequate understanding? Oppenheimer was denied security clearance by FBI agents (I believe) who put him into simple-minded categories and thought no more about it.
Another perspective is to think of the brain like a television set.
It receives consciousness from the cosmos and interprets it in a way that is practical for human life and operating on a very narrow bandwidth
Hinduism 101
That's just pseudo-science mumbo jumbo with zero viable evidence to back it up!
Get back to us when you can test that hypothesis. Bear in mind that it requires multiple extraordinary assumptions, so maybe start working on those first:
1) The existence of some kind of cosmic consciousness, for which there is currently zero evidence.
2) The existence of a very high bandwidth bidirectional signalling medium, currently undetectable, whose signal energy is unaffected by every form of shielding material that humans have ever encountered.
3) The identification of the special property of human brain matter - and all other known neurological structures in other species as well - that can detect and transmit signals across this same medium while not consuming or dissipating measurable energy.
@@starfishsystems There's so many things science can't prove. I'm not saying that the brain as a tv set theory is right or wrong but servers work for more users at the same time so it isn't something really unbelievable. And one more thing- science proven facts are changing constantly so I guess science has its limits, after all.
@@Bob-of-Zoid How would you know? World isn't as young as science told us it is. It seems like in a distant past we had technology more advanced than we have today and maybe The Great Flood we know about from the Bible might actually been happening for real and maybe more than once. Pseudo science is the science that every 50 years or so is deemed wrong? If so the entire human science is pseudo science, my friend. Do not bow to science as if it was a God. Science, just as the false idols are, is man made so it can't be a God, it can't be absolute.
I love Daniel Dennett because he makes me think. The more I listen to him the more I realize how much I disagree with what he is saying. At times it even sounds like mush. But, I have no doubt that he is much smarter than me, so I just write it off.
He is also smarter than me, and better trained in philosophy but for almost any philosophical position there are equally smart people in philosophy supporting the opposite view. Since there is no expert consensus in philosophy, I think we shouldn't feel bad for disagreeing with any particular philosopher.
i watched this 5 times just because i like him talking
Certainly glad I ~never had that thought.
Not me.
Apart the "slow motion" effect, his difficult breath is anguishing.
Exaybachay
Explain why.
In modern computer software design, not only are there abstractions of the language eg. Java but we've developed design patterns. These are standard design solutions to common problems.
One of the main advantages of patterns is not only do we have ready solutions but we can communicate that solution to another engineer with a single phrase thus speeding up the development process.
"What you want there is an observer pattern".
Naming things is one of the things that makes us human. The speed of advancement depends on it.
Excellent thinking. I always say , even with common daily software that this is the case. Each computer's suffers as much as his programmer
9
Reading Intuition Pumps by Dennett now and watching all his content to reinforce his work.
My brain/computer struggles to follow the thinking of this brilliant man, but it's also very fascinated because I always tried to figure out why I don't like computers.
Did you ever think that your brain/computer is able to grow new alive cells each second of your life and it is able to make them communicate one with the other and is able to tell them what to do to keep you alive against everything that's against you. Those are infinite more complex to follow than someone else's thinking. We are amazing machines. Imagine our tools of the year 2022 trying to make a board with 80 to 100 billion neurons and this would only be one brain. Imagine those machines trying to build the vast amount of billions of cells that make the human body. Now imagine someone or something programmed this to grow up from two cells. Now THAT is a master program.
I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few weeks in his memory, I made a playlist of his lectures and interviews for myself to work through, listening to Dr Dennett lectures would be my idea of Heaven 1:14:33
I'm so glad the EVM between my ears is working well, up to date and malware free!! I love Daniel Dennet, and everything he has done for this world in educating so many people by explaining intricate scientific and philosophical concepts in ways less learned people can understand, and especially for exposing the foibles of harboring unsubstantiated often dangerous beliefs such as religious fundamentalism.
''Malware free''? I doubt that VERY MUCH!
The brain, for instance, has been hacked for millenia. religion? Gladiatorial/sports? What has become known as propaganda? Tabloids? And elite-leaning press? Any-leaning press.
certain styles of drug communities (they got hacked by initially the U.S. legal/political monster to MAKE IT DANGEROUS.)
So it is popously RIDICULOUS to make your point beyond humour.
Right there in that auditorium, extra-terrestials under cloak walked around and laughed to each others about the lifeforms they had created on "Earth" planet.....just like the numerous electromagnetic waves that travels through the space and people sitting there who are totally unaware because they do not have the right sensors to pick up the various frequencies....
That is really no different from the God Hypothesis. It pushes back the problem to an earlier cause : Who created the Aliens/God? Did they create themselves? If so, wouldn't it be simpler to say that we designed ourselves and are 'cloaked' from seeing it?
Michio Kaku's theory on quantifying consciousness suggests "consciousness is the number of feedback loops required to create a model of your position in space with relation to other organisms and time...."
Haven't read anything of him, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but this seems to be a blatant category error to me. Either the usages of 'number' or 'consciousness' here are extremely far removed from the ordinary ones or that statement does not seem to make sense at a very fundemental level. How could it possibly be sensible to say "For me, currently, consciousness is x" where x is 3 or pi or 12-7i or aleph_0 or any other kind of number?
@@MyMusics101 it is worth while to watch Dr.Michio kaku's presentation on consciousness.... he is internationally well known physicist..(one of the founders of "string theory"...)basically he is saying that there are different levels of consciousness...i.e flower....trees...bacteria.. mouse..monkey...orangutans(not only conscious but self aware ) .human..(consciousness and self awareness..) .
@@zerototalenergy150 You know that this assumption is total madness?
We can only speak about our individual consciousness/awareness.
Flower, trees refer to the plant kingdom which is different from the humanity.
If bacteria is a consciousness then what are you when eat vegetables and meat that have bacteria?🤔
What's the difference between a patient in coma and another patient who is unconscious?
Can someone who is unconscious be aware of his environment? Can he answer the paramedics or even call 911 for help?
Does a plant
@@V21IC create a model of "YOUR" position in space with relation to other organisms and time...."
Reality doesn't exist if it's not measured no consiousness needed just a measurement
Fascinated mindless worker at the bottom learnt so much from this lecture...THANK YOU.
for example?
@@zagyex 😂
Raymond Tallis' point was that having grown up in modern technological society when we come to try to imagine what the brain is and how it works we readily adopt the model of the computer, that is what is familiar to us. Tallis being a neuroscientist (and a polymath) does not believe that the model is the correct one and that there are many important and profound differences we need to not overlook.
But hey, if you mentioned him in another talk we can just ignore all that, right?
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed in this talk. Apparently the presenter is a philosopher, not a computer scientist or a neuroscientist. So why should we give his opinion any weight?
The definition of "computer" that he gives is incomplete and inaccurate. A computer is a well defined machine, and the definition is not "a thing that can process information." I'm disappointed that he didn't even attempt to provide the proper definition of a computer (that is, a Turing machine,) but then again maybe I shouldn't be surprised. After all, if he had, he would have had to explain how the human brain is a Turing machine, and there is very good evidence that it is not. Perhaps he avoided the rigorous definition of "computer" on purpose rather than out of ignorance.
It could be argued that internet memes are a form of cultural expression, whether you like them or not. They reinforce shared values, thereby making one group more strongly bonded. It’s simply a larger scale version of making a joke to a group of people sitting around a campfire.
The evolutionary advantage of having people on your side should be easy enough to work out
I disagree somewhat with Dennett when he says memes are created by a "mindless" process. While the actual creation might be random, successful memes do have some "selection" (as he says) perhaps external like "which boats came back", but also cultural. We do not accept ALL memes "just because". We have some choice (insert arguments about "free will" here?) in which memes we like or adopt. We could think of this as possibly a form of "intelligence amplification"? Vague glimmerings of preference are combined in society to choose which memes are acceptable, and then society builds on them, as they form part of the cultural context. The decision making is diffuse and unorganized and bottom-up, but is that totally "mindless"? True there is no "one mind" controlling the process, but perhaps many little minds?
This gets my attention..makes my brain light up- eyes wide open. Thank you! The programs are downloaded between ages 0- 7 from our parent, teachers, etc.
You are forgetting about the BIOS. The original was given by God and reproduced.
@@WmTyndale Danial Dennet strongly disagrees with you, and so do I! If you believe there is a god despite a complete lack of viable evidence, then your software is millennia out of date, and the data corruption accumulative! You have no evidence for your claim! The time to believe is when there is sufficient evidence, and well, you can pile layer upon layer of bad evidence onto a mountain of bad evidence (mere anecdote and false attribution in god's case), and it will never amount to a single shred of good evidence! No amount of faith based belief can make truth.
@@WmTyndale Where is God?..
Answer: we did, along a myriad of updates along upgrades (fortunately we're mortals). Many people are filled with bloatware though.
MEDIA is bloatware.
Self preservation, self awareness, and self motivation are the separation from man and computers. If computers are ever programmed or taught those three traits, we will have created a entity competitive against us.
what he meant by we are like computers that we are sharing the same fundamental mathematical calculation processing, input and output and stuff
@@MetalFacerRules what he meant by computers are like us is that both are excellent at processing / storing / retrieving data. His big flaw is he ascribes free will to humans and can't see how we evolved the software we run on over millions of years. He's basically a shameless capitalism / religion apologist, ultimately.
@@MetalFacerRules dna: instructions
Three years too late, but I would suggest the lecturer watch the Feynman lecture, "Los Alamos From Below".
Feynman visited Oak Ridge during the Manhatten project and told the engineers and scientists there a lot of information they needed so as design their isotope separation to avoid near critical mass events that could have harmed or killed the Oak Ridge staff.
"We don't believe in an intelligent designer. We believe in an intelligent design by natural selection." kind of summarizes it for me.
Then you better prepare for a long wait. Just take a look at his tree of life. lol.
You are making an important point. A system can behave intelligently, even creatively without being conscious. The power or replication, variation, selective pressure, and time is unbelievable. Our problem is the time span. We cannot understand it.
I think my comment was misunderstood.
I sort of poked fun at the statement.
In some ways, it is self-contradictory for an atheist because of the word "believe".
At the same time, it recognizes the intelligent design but refuses to acknowledge the intelligent creator, i.e. God, and rather choses to believe in self-creation or deaf, dumb and blind Nature's intelligence, even though the Nature itself is merely a composition of forces set in motion.
I do believe our brain is the computing hardware. The software is the data flowing through chemical, electrical and quantum interference signals. Our minds are the result of the software at work. Our soul is the quantum “wave” field that holds our “molecules” together. We are bio-mechanical machines. However, we are so incredibly complex we exhibited free will. Wonderful thoughts.
Free will to believe what we choose. Enjoy.
@@SoirEkim i don’t really believe in free will, Sadly
That was bloody brilliant
i keep this app in my necktop^^
Good one,props
Excellent lecture, thanks to you and the people who were involved in making it available on the internet.
I like to keep UA-cam on all my devices.
@@rogerbeck2085 Has your intelligence increased to the point that you get why people do that?
Keep it bloody
"Your necktop"
Nice meme there.
Do you compute things in your brain? Yes? Well, that makes you a computer. Sadly, most of us have so much nonsense in our heads, we can't even recognize this.
Well there’s no need to, for most people’s life it’s irrelevant if it is or not but yes it’s a computer
A fleshy one
In the time of Alan Turing and during the second world war "a computer" was something you would call a person.
But when do we call a computer a person?
Calling a person a computer is not to be taken literally.
It's only describing that the person is fast/computative as a computer.
@@V21IC Not back in those days. During the 30's and the 40's in the past century, those people called computers, limited their lives to compute, as to say: count! Numbers, stars, particles, components, whatever you can think that was accountable, those guys would count it. It is a very simple concept, as a matter of fact.
@@V21IC by definition a computer is a person or thing that "computes", and the only examples that previously existed were people, such as in the movie "Hidden Figures". In recent times the term has become mostly used for those electronic devices that we use for computing. From original definitions, we might still call the people that operate computers to be "computers", but that could get really confusing, so we differentiate: operators, programmers, analysts, etc.
What a great explainer! Thank you for the upload.
I find it amusing, that a man who spent his life understanding language and cognition, is so quick to assume that the people who are on the cutting edge of memetic development online, are somehow an evolutionary dead-end and not, in fact, likely to be the blossom of a new path in life.
funny thing is that humans, specifically accountants, were the original computers. The machines were called computers when they became useful enough to be accountant like.
"Cognitive Cerebral Consciousness".
Really like your work, sir. Yes, our brains are not computers but they are computerized.
Wow, that one's pretty good! ( Universe Consciousness)
Best talk I've heard in a while. Very interesting stuff.
The speaker made an observation that intrigues me. He stated that it's possible to benefit from a certain aspect of our nature without understanding how that nature came into being and gave the example of a butterfly with camouflage patterns. This notion can be extended to disease. Presently, we treat "diseases" as if they are bad or harmful, but if we're truly the subject of Biological Evolution then the mutations that are expressed as "diseases" are simply the subtle, biological evolutionary steps towards human betterment. For instance, we may think heart attacks are bad not knowing that they are actually the evolutionary step towards developing a better heart. Or, the elimination of the heart as the fulcrum of the cardiovascular system. Perhaps, as evolutionists we should be thinking twice about treating certain conditions or risk hampering human development?
Like feet, our feet are not well suited for us. Due to year's centuries of Shoe's.
Love this guy, he reminds me of the kind geologist in Big Bang, voice, mannerisms, looks.
It is a great exercise to think about how the “unintelligent” assembly of documents and human knowledge over the past 30 years of building the internet has now led it to become the “intelligence” for platforms like GPT. Very stimulating and provocative talk from quite a while back but quite relevant today in our age of unintelligent “transformers”.
I remember trying to read his first book after having seen his interview in Playboy. The name of the book was 'Consciousness Explained'.
After having got halfway through and Dennet still wondering about ´how the presence of consciousness could be verified, I threw the book in the garbage. After Dennet had met Dawkins, he became much more coherent as the concept of 'Neural Darwinism' proved to be a useful tool.
The brain is not a computer like the ones people make. It does compute, simulate, steer, learn, remember and evaluate among other things.
It also creates the world we live in, for each and every one of us, in private.
The world it creates -or the worlds- are the only ones we have access to. Nothing exists to us unless our brain makes an image of it.
This is the key.
@Nim Boo "In laymans terms; God is alive and for ever the sole Creator of the Universe which is his creation and from which He is seperate."
In layman terms, prove it.
You can be right...
But because your conclusion, we can be lead to Solipsism, wich being irrefutable, is not demonstrable, either.
@@venturarodriguezvallejo9777 Yes, i can't really prove that everything exists. But if i can't assume that, as you note, i can't do anything to know reality. What i can do is assume that other people (and reality) exists, because pragmatically it seems to be so. This isn't at all applyable to a god: it's presence isn't obvious to me as it is of other people. If you want to stretch the concept of evidence so far to conclude that reality isn't real, you have evidence that "all that is" is your mind alone, no god there. Instead, if you want to pragmatically assume reality is real, we can explore it, and there's no evidence of a god there either. If you want to have faith in a god, you don't need and don't want evidence.
@@kregorovillupo3625 Agree with you.
Very well structured answer.
(BTW.: I'm an agnostic in the sense I DON'T KNOW if something we call "God" exists or not.
Both believers and atheists have not give me so far well reasoned arguments to tip my opinion to one side or the opposite. The very concept behind the term "God" is quite a fuzzy one so, even for talking about it we have to define it first far more accurately than we can, I'm afraid).
@@venturarodriguezvallejo9777 I've only tried to be clear, english isn't my first language and i had to learn it by my own. I'm glad you liked it.
I use for me the label of Agnostic Atheist, because i use definition of the two words out of the "layman" use. Agnostic is a declaratio on knowledge, Atheist is a declaration on faith (or lack of, in this case). If at the question "Do you believe in god?" you answer "No", you are atheist. If at the question "Describe me your god" you answer "I've no sufficent elements to do it adequately", you're agnostic. This defines 4 major kind of stance on spirituality, see if you recognize yourself into one:
Gnostic Theist: "I believe in god, and he's jhahwheh/allah/brama/manitù/whatever"
Agnostic Theist: "I believe there's something there, but i can't describe what it is"
Agnostic Atheist: "I don't believe a god exists, because every description provided left me unconvinced"
Gnostic Atheist: "I can't believe your god exist, because [insert reasons here, like "his description is logically inconsistent, so he can't logically exist"]"
The brain is like a computer, however the nervous system is what drastically influences how the many functions of the brain reacts to and stored information. The muscles are also store houses for memory and experiences as well. The nerve endings connects to the ligaments and tendons which ultimately influence the actions of the muscles. It's all very neat and satisfying to learn more about.
I think you are wrong so called "muscle memory" is likely in the cerebellum and maybe partially the spinal cord, but not the muscles themselves.
We wield the paintbrush like Icarus wielded his wings. Let us hope that we fare better.
as subnautica once said
"your species still see's a difference between biology and technology?"
they are 2 different sides of a spectrum
where the biggest difference is just complexity
and eventually a difference in the *scale* of complexity
becomes a difference in the *kind* of complexity
Yes. Evolution.
Emotions are interesting things.
Before you feel a certain way about something, say some situation, or some person,
your brain must go through a process of assessing the situation, or recognizing the person.
In it's most fundamental form, it must go through a quantitative process. It has to literally 'place' that situation or person on a scale that runs roughly like this:
from disgust, through dislike, or dissatisfaction, to neutrality, or towards satisfaction, maybe preference, then liking, and up to loving.
Your brain has to go through a quantitative analysis, (which is almost instantaneous), before it can truly develop an emotional reaction to something.
It has to think, before it can feel.
Daniel Dennett; always brilliant, always entertaining and surprising.
1 Clearly defined laws regarding the definition and criteria for consciousness in AI, and regulations on their use and treatment.
2 Legal recognition of advanced AI as autonomous entities with rights and responsibilities.
3 Clear guidelines for the ethical use and development of advanced AI, including ensuring that they are not used to harm or discriminate against humans.
4 Regulations to protect the privacy and personal data of individuals, as well as prevent misuse of AI by organizations and individuals.
5 Responsibilities placed on creators, developers and owners of AI systems to ensure they are operating safely and ethically.
6 Government oversight and regulation of the development and use of AI, with penalties for non-compliance.
7 Standards for transparency and explainability in AI systems, to ensure that their decision-making processes are understandable and accountable.
8 Investment in research and development of safety and ethical measures for advanced AI.
9 Education and public awareness programs to educate the public about AI and its potential impact on society.
10 Robust international cooperation, to ensure that AI development and regulation is consistent across borders and that the potential negative impact of AI on individuals and society is minimized.
Before the invention if electronic computers in the 1940's most people compared brains to telegraph systems, but brains aren't really telegraph systems, because they do much more than telegraph systems can do.
Now we have brains compared to computers because computers do more than telegraph systems, but they still aren't exactly like brains.
You might be able to say that brains are, in fact computers, but you can't say that computers are thinking machines.
Both brains and computers can take in and process information, but computers can't think.
In the future they may well invent machines that can think, but these machines won't work the way computers work. And we will not experience the "Singularity" until computers can be designed to think.
Eric Taylor you gotta agree that the modern computer (starting with ones such as ENIAC) are a pivotal point because they're reprogrammable. That's why computer is such an iconical word, I'd say it's the last step. Because there's no need to invent something entirely new, you just make a better computer. Obviously future computers will be different, but I don't see how we need anything radically different than the ability to input software and get results, specially if you consider that self changing software is perfectly possible as it is but not invented yet.
Are computers thinking agents. Well probably not. But computers can in fact progress and gain information provided a set of rules or a framework. This is what happened to the best chess player in history which is a computer that plays itself repeatedly and learned to beat the engine. Another example is league of legend (or maybe dota2) AI that did the same as the chess ai and became better then the best gamer teams in the world who spend thousands of thousands of hours playing.
it's a little more complicated than that
both being computers doesn't necessarily mean they're equivalent or that you can substitute one for the other, even if both are turing complete. Remember that the theoretical standard assumes both have infinite memory and instantaneous run time. What that means is that even though both can theoretically do the same thing, some architectures are much more suited for some tasks than others. Think quantum computers vs normal computers. One can't replace the other, they are better suited to some other type of tasks.
what we have nowdays with stuff like neural networks is how using the architecture of your regular computers we can have meta programs that somewhat behave like your brain does. So asside from the differences in architecture (which means some computers will do some tasks more efficiently than others) it might very well be posible for computers to think, with the appropriate sofware. They would just work on a different time scale.
the more complicated side of the issue is: we don't even know what "thinking" actually means. Where's the line between just computing and thinking? Self-awareness? Because that's something we can't measure.
Computers don't do much computing. They mainly display and alter files. They should be called electronic filing cabinets. They are capable of computing though. General purpose computing is the same thing regardless of the machine it is done on. You get the same answer whether you compute mechanically, electronically, biologically, you can compute with matchboxes.
some say that there are many many problems in mathematics which are not solvable with any computation but perfectly clear for human intuition. That would be a good argument for the case that thinking is more than what algorithms (and so computers of today's sort) will ever be able to do.
Your "necktop" throws sentences (ideas) and pictures(one of the ways we remember things) and sounds (a way of encoding and storing words and experiences) around inside itself. The winners are the "you" at the moment.
What is intelligence? A number of years ago I decided to test mine by seeing if I qualified for MENSA. I took the test and a week or so later I was pleased to see I was in the top 2% . Great I thought and I was so proud. Then over the next few months all I received from MENSA were monthly publications that contained nothing more than tests and puzzles. Before I joined I thought that I could perhaps team up with a mathematics genius in order to calculate a perfect system on roulette for example. I came away with the conclusion that MENSA was just a group of people tricking people into thinking they were clever. After all there was the yearly membership fee and no mechanism for merging these minds in order to create/improve/invent things of any use.
The sense that "I feel too special to 'just be physics' has a lot to answer for". Once we get over our anthropocentric arrogance, things become much clearer - and maybe even more awesome than the "magic" some others prefer.
I think anyone who says that is a lot less impressed by physics than they should be.
@@GodwynDi Indeed!
This makes me realize a few things.
1. Man we must have been dumb back in the day and through sheer luck and animal survival instinct to run away from anything that just killed the guy next to you.
2. Wow lots of us must have died through trial an error.
3. We over wrote our own animistic "software" to become aware free thinking and able to invent everything up to this day.
Pretty good video that gets the brain churning. Also Necktop is funny lol
Plenty of really dumb people being born each day, and dying by by trial and error instead of thinking things through first.
The strive forward of the human race is down to communication and education. From learning those same instinctive abilities of our fellow life forms to education of our specific species and then to the ability to communicate that education. The aforesaid is both why and how modern human beings became so dominant.
So, basically, by defining "computer" in a completely unconventional vague and all-encompassing way, he proves the brain is a "computer". how revolutionary.
I quote:
"make an architecture out of these different, unruly, clueless, little, multi-armed, blind cells"
yes, that certainly sound like "computers"
people can really prove anything these days
@@beowulf_of_wall_st You see that more and more in society how words have their definitions changed so incompetents, lunatics and malefactors can have their swindles and harmful ideas injected into the public sphere. With then of course the dire phyiscal consequences soon afterwards.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st Delusional being the key word.
To answer you questions we absorb knowledge and form oppions based on what we've learned and as we age the programming gets more refined untill our head drive starts to fail and go into protection mode.
And things don't compute anymore.
Fred Hoyle did coin the phrase "Big Bang" in a BBC radio interview. But he preferred a different cosmological model, "the Steady State". He used the phrase "Big Bang" in order to oppose and dismiss those who believed in a creation moment. So most ironic that he coined a great meme for something he did not believe in.
Fred Hoyle is deist not atheist.
Mind blowing to see we are just neurons working together at the fundamental level
It really is. Thing of it is, there are just so many of them working together on this fundamental level. Perfect synchronicity. When you think about it, our brain processes information and translates that information in to something useful. So yes, the brain is essentially a computer.
There is not a single neuroscientist or any other scientist that can explain how do you get experience out of neural activity. So i dont think we are just neurons at the fundamental level, there is something much deeper at work here. But it requiers expanding your mind a bit..
if you look at twitch chat when 20,000 people are watching a stream and around 100 of them are typing in the chat at the same time the chat also kinda behaves like a brain. and the memes that result out of it which often come seemingly out of nowhere can be compared to what richard dawkings ment when he used the term meme
I know where meme's come from, aliens
Dear Daniel missed very important idea that brain can be antenna. That way it is not a computer.
Go back to newest comments
This seems like a beneficial video to watch, for beginners in crafting neural networks. And even a useful thing for the more experienced practitioners, just to get the creative juices going.
This does not even touch the subject of neural networks in the machine learning sense
In 2000 BC the brain was compared to an abacus, 15th century the brain was compared to a clock, in the 1700s it was compared to a steam engine. Now it’s compared to the most advanced device we know of, the computer
U program your own brain ! After child hood
So, internet is primordial soup for AI.
yes dna came from rocks lol
Dan, Dan, Dan. Dad gone at 5, raised by a Saintly Mom with 3 kids, I used the no Dad excuse for many a year. As a teen JoAnn sat me down, apologized and said to take some responsibility, be happy. Easy enough, I chose my Father figures, gleaned every iota of what I thought was important. I had the greatest adventure and fun. As an old man, I'm more conscious of all the grateful gifts, I would hoe the weeds At Larry Krauss's house, pick apples on Gabor Mate's farm and wash the windows at Noam's house, lastly (or lately), I giggle about camping with Sam, Hitch, Dawkins and you. Well said Dad. Sincerely Lawson di Ransom Canyon
To me there has to be a deeper mystery to consciousness than this opinion gives credit to. I personally found Roger Penrose's insights into the non-computational nature of consciousness as evidenced by its effects in quantum mechanical experiments to offer some real depth of insight into this subject.
Yes that’s the fuel for religion. You can want all you like but there will always be something that cannot be explained. By imagine there are more level of reality(eg spiritual). You just move the goal post with no evidence.
A big difference between human brains and artificial computers is that brains can generate their own data input through imagination etc.
Computers can only receive input from an external controller.
yet...
We don't really understand how brains can "generate their own data" (hallucination? random variation?) and there is nothing intrinsically to prevent computers from generating similar variations. We know how to make pretty good (not perfect) random number generators, and can use (truly random physical) electrical "noise"
Amazing talk. It challenges the way we think of complex systems on the whole
Listening to this in the background I cannot help but picture John C Reilly speaking. Great lecture. :)
omg Darwin is still alive :O
Hmmmm
“ 6 million years “ ...the Doctor has enjoyed 6 million Beers for sure 😃
The speaker argued for the ability of a blind and undirected process (biological evolution) to orchestrate a complicated process. He gave the example of the construction of the JPL building and how the construction workers were not aware of the purpose of the building as they raised its walls and laid its foundation, completely ignoring the fact that there were persons who were aware of the building's purpose and intelligently orchestrated its construction. In the context of the abiogenesis of life, where did that initial spark of intelligence come from in the orchestration of cell replication, arrangement and timing? A prior, superior intelligence as the cause of biology is worthy of pursuing scientifically.
Thank you for the upload. A real noodle cruncher.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by the brain or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness
why the heck?
say I ask a computer to track the molecules of a gas and ask it to come up with as many possible ways of predicting what happens when I decrease pressure, it might come up with the PV=nRT where T represents the average kinetic energy of the particles(temperature ) its arbitrary cause the computer could have predicted what would happen by considering every particle and ignoring the statistical overarching behaviour of entropy but none of these require consciousness to choose arbitrarily which i prefer, i could use atmospheric noise. so the experience of consciousness doesn't presuppose anything, its an explantion for many kinds of behaviours and is a useful unit by which to measure our activities (humans). So it is an emergent property like temperature. its not elementary but it is useful.
In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical
just because temperature is not fundamentally encoded in the laws of physics doesn't mean it doesn't describe the physical world. There is nothing non-physical about every property that isn't elementary.
Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities
just beacause we cannot yet describe how consciousness arises from the physical brain(an arbitrary but useful property of an organism and describing its behaviour) doesn't mean we never will. Every oxygen atom doesn't have temperature but a property of the gas is temperature (that's why the word emergent is used) so there is no reason every neuron has the same kind of self-aware preocessing of consciousness that you do.
@@AngadSingh-bv7vn By no means your example invalidate my statement about consciousness being the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrainess. Actually, your example confirms what I have writte. In fact, the relation PV=nRT has no meaning for the computer; you must understand the output of a computer are simply sequences of binary digits, which have no intrinsic meaning. We intrepret such sequences and attribute to them a menaing because we are conscious and intelligent, and we can codify a concept as a sequence of binary digits. Therefore, without consciousness, the computer could find no relation between pressure, volume and temperature simply because the concepts of pressure, volume and temperature would not exis at all.
@@AngadSingh-bv7vn You wrote: "just because temperature is not fundamentally encoded in the laws of physics doesn't mean it doesn't describe the physical world. ".
Actually temperature can be defined using only the laws of physics; for example there is a direct relation between temperature and the average kinetic energy. But this is not the point; we can certainly describe the physical world using many non-fundamental concepts, but the point is that consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of every description; a description implies a conscious observer who focus on certain aspects of reality.
Then you wrote:"just beacause we cannot yet describe how consciousness arises from the physical brain(an arbitrary but useful property of an organism and describing its behaviour) doesn't mean we never will. " You should consider that the current laws of physics explain with great accuracy all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes. Devolopments in physics are expected to refer to high energy processes or cosmology, but it is unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes, because such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics, while consciousness is not. Consciousness is irreducible to cerebral processes and to the laws of physics
Then you wrote: "Every oxygen atom doesn't have temperature but a property of the gas is temperature (that's why the word emergent is used) so there is no reason every neuron has the same kind of self-aware preocessing of consciousness that you do." You are wrong; you can define temperature using the average kinetic energy, and therefore, you can define temeprature also for a single oxigen atom (the average can be calculated also on one single element). Besides, your idea that every neuron has the same self-aware preocessing of consciousness that I have is simply nonsensical; I am one person with one mind and one will etc, and I am not billions of persons with billions of minds and wills etc. You should meditate on my arguments because you does not seem to understand them.
our brains are more like fpga's
fpgas that can reprogram themselves in runtime would be really cool. but afaik that's not really done yet, except on a very coarse level.
part of if is probably the still very proprietary nature of fpga tooling (go SymbiFlow!), another part may be weird bootstrapping and security issues..
You could also consider that the human condition becomes the development tool for our consciousness- starting from basic concepts leading to all manner of skills and 'powers' based on the utilisation of the human body.
The intuition 'designs the software'... when the intellect will allow it.
If brain is computer, then the consciousness is software which is constantly updated by knowledge and experiences until hard drive crashes and computer dies.
the alan turing joke reminds me about a other joke
the cooking recept for a cake
First you have to make a univers
then wait around 14 billion years
then harvest grain,
breeding cows
milking
patorization . . .. . you get the point ^^
i like the idea: words are semi-autonomous informational structures. glad i discovered this lecture
There is a difference between how an entity is formed and what is an entity. An entity may hold a certain attribute pertaining to its formation history, but this is not the same thing as the entity itself. A computer has a different formation history as a brain. A brain must learn to count before it can count and must switch itself on to do so. A computer comes ready made to count and cannot switch itself on before it can start counting.
A brain is not a computer.
Wrong. A computer does not come ready to count. It needs a program. Like our brain does. "Switch itself on" Wrong. Its mother does that. The brain IS a computer. There is hardly any difference.
@@petermatthiesen8288 If there is any difference then they arent the same. Hardly any difference implies a difference.
An entity with attributes {1,2,3} is not the same entity with attributes {2,3,4} despite both holding similar attributes, namely {2,3}.
@@petermatthiesen8288 Programming, conditioning, learning. Learning, conditioning, programming.
A typical philosopher. Very interesting use of words by the man.
wise man. .. and here I was thinking all this time that 'philosophy' is a mere mumbo jumbo, convinced I was based on not very good high school teacher ... but this here is something completely different. ... it's like a creation of a way and through a rough forest; when you see it. you use it for it's been done well. ! hm
That’s exactly what philosophy is supposed to be. Just clear, rational thinking.
Consciousness works on a, "if this then that". That's mathematical language programmed into ur being. So it is not the brain alone working as a computer it is the whole unit
48:28 This is true, but as far as I know, there was no increase after about 1970 and now there is a decline. Also part of he increase is because the American School system is optimized to score good at IQ tests. People are smarter now than 100 years ago in every western country, but the results in the US are exaggerated because of the American believe that you can measure smartness with a single number that can be measured in a short test. The increase is lower than in other states which don't emphasize IQ tests so much, although the average educational level (if measured by other measures than IQ tests) is better in most other western countries than in the US (mainly because the public schools in the US are underfunded, except in very wealthy areas).
Yes like you say maybe people are just taught how to specifically pass IQ tests rather than becoming more intelligent per say
20.05. I didn't understand why Dennett, when making the point about creating a computer out of things from the 'pre-electronic' age, made it seem as though frontiers were being pushed back.
During WWII, Tommy Flowers, working with Alan Turing, built a 'programmable computer' back in '43/'44 as part of the Enigma programme at Bletchley Park. It was called 'Colossus'. Tommy was an engineer at the General Post Office of Britain (the old GPO and forerunner of BT) and he used diodes, switches, nixie tubes and bakelite. He actually built more than one machine. Their pioneering and brilliant work gave the allies a sublime edge in the war. They certainly saved lives and probably foreshortened the war.
By the way, there is a lesson here for all such centralist, totalitarian regimes (as the Nazis): vanity and arrogance foster always a sense of destiny and infallibility. And that is always the augur of their demise. Hitler skipped in his 'nest' in the mountains of Berchtesgaden with his black-booted bullies (though the pompous buffoon was scared of heights). Goering pranced like a poppycock with his pretty sky-blue coloured costume stretched tight across his aryan, über-mensch, über-sized bulk. Our two likely lads, Tommy, the son of a bricklayer, and Alan, a the social misfit, cracked their bloody uncrackable code*. We could then read the entire encrypted communications of the entire German war machine as if the 'Oberkommando der Wehrmacht' had placed full page ads of their intentions every day in the Times. You couldn't make it up! Surely there must have been some clever junior officer in the German High Command pushing to have the Enigma machines changed and updated, you know, just to be safe, boss?
The British government's obsession with secrecy after the war meant that no one knew of Tommy's and Alan's work for decades.
Cometh the moment, cometh the men!
Professor Dennet, surely you understand that the complexity, flight, takeoff, landing, and evasion capabilities of the human house fly can not be built or even approximated by a team of thousands of NASA engineers. And that is not to mention its energy harvesting from the environment and self-manufacturing abilities!
It's amazing how the term "meme" has become such a successful meme. But the actual concepts it was meant to refer to have been much less successful
I agree with every word, so it must be right.
Do religion much?
A computer in it's own right. It's got it's own video equipment, dreams. You watch it as it's being made up while sleeping. You concentrate the mind behind the eyelids as you start to go into a sleep the pictures start to come to the front. The quality of the picture is better than what we produce digitally. Copy and paste dreams that can be a mashup that's been taken in over time from the surroundings. Creating a computer to mimic the brain, but taken further. Software, hard drive, memory, sharing information, storing information. Ways of getting around the cons of the brain.
We are starting to make sense of our makeup (Big things come in small packages), atoms, energy, protons, neutrons, electrons and so on. The computer being an extension of the minds computer.
i absoloutly love your videos!
Funny thing about Rand and Friedman.
Neither of them told us what we _must_ do,
they described what we should do in order to have a society that's built on mutual cooperation, while still dealing with the fact that there is competition in human nature.
Whether Dennett realizes it or not,
human nature is to compete first, and to cooperate second.
But there's a balance between the two that leads to society benefiting from fair competition.
Some people are simply better at doing one thing than doing another.
When a group of people find that balance where, between them, they do the most good for the most people, by taking advantage of the various talents people have, that balance is _organically_ _evolved_ _capitalism._
When governments begin to meddle in the affairs of those groups of people that have come to a satisfactory arrangement of bartering between themselves, that meddling almost exclusively results in some form of socialism, which is an artificial construct born of faceless bureaucracies, and is almost always less efficient than the organically evolved capitalism it attempts to replace. It is impossible for a 'central authority' to improve upon what processes organically evolved within a society as a result of the actions of innumerable individual free choices by and between those individuals. It always misses the mark, and inefficiencies invariably develop within that artificial construct.
What would happen if we used a software that acted on the Mandelbrot set in a Turing system to rectify the top down hierarchy problem that organic brains struggle with? I’m heavily invested in making a synthetic, organic supercomputer with a QPU.
Consider the Halting Problem and Gödel's Incompleteness theorem for a second. It is logically proven that no system of formal axioms can prove its own consistency.
It's a fundamental shortcoming baked into logic itself. It's got nothing to do with the hardware involved.
the first words...so true...science is one of the humanities. Meaning it is one of the things that makes us "human" and not animals. The fact that we(some of us...okay a few of us...more like a handful) want to understand and find whats best and correct according to facts based on theories and observations that have been tested and can be proven and reproduced. Word....
neurons want to fightfor their right to party
Watched all of it 1:16:06 , absolutely brilliant ❤