I was wondering. Does free will mean that you have some capacity to react to your environment in a way that causes you less harm. Some might say that is not free will, as in if your stomach says it's hungry you will eventually be driven towards eating something. Surely that does not mean you don't have free will. Or does it?
Thank you Schmachtenberger, for doing what almost no one does on this topic. He asks: "What do you mean by consciousness?" It has really started to irk me how sloppy all these people who make a living on their presumed smartness are when it comes to this particular best selling buzz word. Maybe it's because they know that part of the word's function hangs on it being ambiguous. I claim that once you hammer down a few nails here, consciousness won't be as enthralling as people seem to think, and we may finally get a shift towards questioning our psyche (which is what this is actually about) rather than perpetually chasing that woo-woo tail.
Lex, please look into Dr.Graziano's theory of consciousness, called attention schema theory. Please invite him, I think he has the best explanation of consciousness. He has written two books on this topic.
pretty good. The true Turing test isn't a system that can not be distinguished from a conscious agent. The test is an agent that can build a system that can not be distinguished. Humanity will have passed the Turing test when we are finally able to build a machine that passes the Turing test. (Yes I know what a tautology is). This is why we were built. As I say, "it's Turing tests all the way down" (not turtles) Reading Douglas Adams helps
Consciousness is a simulation. The physical body, environment and most specifically the brain is the base material reality (which preexists consciousness), through and on which consciousness can be simulated.
That's all well and good but it doesn't dispose of the hard problem of consciousness. How does a physical system give rise to subjective experience? Nowhere in the physical structure in a neuronal pathway is it obvious that it represent what I see as the color red. And if consciousness is just an illusion, who is being fooled by it?
@@Pheer777 Because there are physical mechanisms (nervous system) which create approximate models of reality in order to properly interact with it. Consciousness is just a high level internal model of attention that exists while alive as a biological being. Along with lower sensory models, like eyesight, hearing etc. Check out Dr.Graziano's attention schema theory, he has a solid explanation of the so-called hard problem, ie it's not really a problem. Consciousness is an informational model in the brain, not something that rises out of it that becomes independent or anything like that.
@@Zayden. I'll check out attention schema theory, but it still seems a bit questionable. It seems to fall in line though a bit with some type of panpsychism, but applying strictly to information processing.
@@bigt9374 That might make sense in a world where our Cortex is driving our limbic system, but it's pretty much the complete opposite. I think Elon put it best on this very channel. ua-cam.com/video/4Ei7MQjRK0U/v-deo.html . Unless you're proposing our limbic is being prodded in a vat somewhere, and our cortex is being controlled by some simulation. But it's not just a solid solitary one thread brain above as you put it fooling you.
@@bigt9374 Again, your use of "brain" through most of this is treating the cortex and limbic system (almost as if the limbic system doesn't exist?) are not separated in their functionality. Which if we want to go down a rabbit hole of giving any credence the two main *theories* you've brought up then it's kind of like ignoring what's already known in favour of unproven theory. Simply waving our hands "the brain invented it" comes off a little stoner-esque territory. But I haven't read up on how the limbic system is represented in those *theories* you brought up.
The true Turing test isn't a system that can not be distinguished from a conscious agent. The test is an agent that can build a system that can not be distinguished. Humanity will have passed the Turing test when we are finally able to build a machine that passes the Turing test. (Yes I know what a tautology is). This is why we were built. As I say, "it's Turing tests all the way down" (not turtles) Reading Douglas Adams helps
I think our 5 senses play a huge role in the eventual forming of a "consciousness". Imagine you could build a model of a human that is sufficient. How would you know the model worked? You would have to spend at least 3 years babysitting it and spending every day with it to actually test if it is working. That's a long time for one test and it is unlikely that you can build a better brain so you could not accelerate the process. And even then, since we know our senses are magic, you wont get the same outcome I think.
It still doesn't change that I see someone who says 'creative impulse' or 'ultimate creator' as someone who is simply projecting their ego. Someone trying to place themselves in the universe, thinking that they are something special because they can have conscious experiences and therefore thinks there is someone or something who is consciously and intellectually superior than them who must know everything and control everything. Just a side effect of being conscious social creatures who must place themselves first before thinking about the rest of the universe and then with empathy and longing create Gods.
@@__-tz6xx I understand what you're saying, but my point was some form of 'creative impulse', likely something beyond human comprehension, could more accurately describe the origins of the universe, as apposed to a more ego-projected and anthropomorphised 'creator' of sorts, such as gods or some supernatural force with a will. Put it this way, reality is, it happened, and within it an unthinkable amount of intricate shit got created. Do you think its more likely some all-knowing 'god' caused it, or it was instead the result of some ever-expansive, non-human, intrinsically-creative force of nature we do not/ could not ever understand?
...kind of reminds me of how my very first sensation of primordial existence was some ineffable imperative to embed my then non physical essence into some physical state, which I subsequently did predicated on something akin to a "feeling"... Of course maybe that was just a drug induced pseudo memory - i doubt it - either way, emotionally the experience is too kool to sacrifice to the inevitable nihilism that results from totalitarian reasoning lol....
"my very first sensation of primordial existence" - You shouldn't take drugs that turn you into a baboon, try other kinds.. those that enhance cognitive performance.
Yes I think consciousness is a social construct these days. I wrote a poem with the line fuck the collective mind in it. Shhh. don't tell my kids I said that.
Westworld Season 1 is alllll about this. ua-cam.com/video/fs9Wyuub3jY/v-deo.html Lex your head is gonna explode if you've been sleeping on Westworld. Should def try to get Lisa Joy and Jonah Nolan on the podcast
I went from thinking this is ridiculous to giving it some serious thought. All before clicking on the video.
I'm so thankful for your podcast!
I was wondering. Does free will mean that you have some capacity to react to your environment in a way that causes you less harm. Some might say that is not free will, as in if your stomach says it's hungry you will eventually be driven towards eating something. Surely that does not mean you don't have free will. Or does it?
Thank you Schmachtenberger, for doing what almost no one does on this topic. He asks: "What do you mean by consciousness?"
It has really started to irk me how sloppy all these people who make a living on their presumed smartness are when it comes to this particular best selling buzz word. Maybe it's because they know that part of the word's function hangs on it being ambiguous. I claim that once you hammer down a few nails here, consciousness won't be as enthralling as people seem to think, and we may finally get a shift towards questioning our psyche (which is what this is actually about) rather than perpetually chasing that woo-woo tail.
I love this podcast
Lex, please look into Dr.Graziano's theory of consciousness, called attention schema theory. Please invite him, I think he has the best explanation of consciousness. He has written two books on this topic.
Teach a dog a trick, it's entertaining. Teach a dog to teach it's offspring the trick, it's consciousness
I think you cant reproduce exactly the capabilities of something without it being that thing?
@@SlipperyPatterns look up Turing machine.
Consciousness seems to afford emulation in this reality.
pretty good. The true Turing test isn't a system that can not be distinguished from a conscious agent. The test is an agent that can build a system that can not be distinguished. Humanity will have passed the Turing test when we are finally able to build a machine that passes the Turing test. (Yes I know what a tautology is). This is why we were built.
As I say, "it's Turing tests all the way down" (not turtles) Reading Douglas Adams helps
Consciousness is a simulation. The physical body, environment and most specifically the brain is the base material reality (which preexists consciousness), through and on which consciousness can be simulated.
That's all well and good but it doesn't dispose of the hard problem of consciousness. How does a physical system give rise to subjective experience? Nowhere in the physical structure in a neuronal pathway is it obvious that it represent what I see as the color red. And if consciousness is just an illusion, who is being fooled by it?
@@Pheer777 Because there are physical mechanisms (nervous system) which create approximate models of reality in order to properly interact with it. Consciousness is just a high level internal model of attention that exists while alive as a biological being. Along with lower sensory models, like eyesight, hearing etc.
Check out Dr.Graziano's attention schema theory, he has a solid explanation of the so-called hard problem, ie it's not really a problem. Consciousness is an informational model in the brain, not something that rises out of it that becomes independent or anything like that.
@@Zayden. I'll check out attention schema theory, but it still seems a bit questionable. It seems to fall in line though a bit with some type of panpsychism, but applying strictly to information processing.
@@bigt9374 That might make sense in a world where our Cortex is driving our limbic system, but it's pretty much the complete opposite. I think Elon put it best on this very channel. ua-cam.com/video/4Ei7MQjRK0U/v-deo.html . Unless you're proposing our limbic is being prodded in a vat somewhere, and our cortex is being controlled by some simulation. But it's not just a solid solitary one thread brain above as you put it fooling you.
@@bigt9374 Again, your use of "brain" through most of this is treating the cortex and limbic system (almost as if the limbic system doesn't exist?) are not separated in their functionality. Which if we want to go down a rabbit hole of giving any credence the two main *theories* you've brought up then it's kind of like ignoring what's already known in favour of unproven theory. Simply waving our hands "the brain invented it" comes off a little stoner-esque territory. But I haven't read up on how the limbic system is represented in those *theories* you brought up.
The true Turing test isn't a system that can not be distinguished from a conscious agent. The test is an agent that can build a system that can not be distinguished. Humanity will have passed the Turing test when we are finally able to build a machine that passes the Turing test. (Yes I know what a tautology is). This is why we were built.
As I say, "it's Turing tests all the way down" (not turtles) Reading Douglas Adams helps
Check out "J. Krishnamurti" if your interested in this topic
^^^
I think our 5 senses play a huge role in the eventual forming of a "consciousness".
Imagine you could build a model of a human that is sufficient. How would you know the model worked? You would have to spend at least 3 years babysitting it and spending every day with it to actually test if it is working. That's a long time for one test and it is unlikely that you can build a better brain so you could not accelerate the process. And even then, since we know our senses are magic, you wont get the same outcome I think.
3 years being a long time is a matter of perspective
Never thought of a 'creative impulse' as an alternative to 'ultimate creator' of the universe. There's some food for thought.
It still doesn't change that I see someone who says 'creative impulse' or 'ultimate creator' as someone who is simply projecting their ego. Someone trying to place themselves in the universe, thinking that they are something special because they can have conscious experiences and therefore thinks there is someone or something who is consciously and intellectually superior than them who must know everything and control everything. Just a side effect of being conscious social creatures who must place themselves first before thinking about the rest of the universe and then with empathy and longing create Gods.
@@__-tz6xx I understand what you're saying, but my point was some form of 'creative impulse', likely something beyond human comprehension, could more accurately describe the origins of the universe, as apposed to a more ego-projected and anthropomorphised 'creator' of sorts, such as gods or some supernatural force with a will.
Put it this way, reality is, it happened, and within it an unthinkable amount of intricate shit got created. Do you think its more likely some all-knowing 'god' caused it, or it was instead the result of some ever-expansive, non-human, intrinsically-creative force of nature we do not/ could not ever understand?
I feel for Daniel having to print his last name out in kindergarten !
He should read Spinoza if he hasn’t already
You should have Tom Campbell on.
Intelligence does not equal consciousness.
🤨
...kind of reminds me of how my very first sensation of primordial existence was some ineffable imperative to embed my then non physical essence into some physical state, which I subsequently did predicated on something akin to a "feeling"... Of course maybe that was just a drug induced pseudo memory - i doubt it - either way, emotionally the experience is too kool to sacrifice to the inevitable nihilism that results from totalitarian reasoning lol....
damn, i wish i had a memory like that... i’m kinda stuck in the inevitable nihilism hole i dug with my totalitarian reasoning shovel
"my very first sensation of primordial existence"
- You shouldn't take drugs that turn you into a baboon, try other kinds.. those that enhance cognitive performance.
A three dimensional perspective.
I felt that
Hmmm I'm of two minds on this one
No
The Buddha said don't argue with idiots.
No.
Yes I think consciousness is a social construct these days. I wrote a poem with the line fuck the collective mind in it. Shhh. don't tell my kids I said that.
Westworld Season 1 is alllll about this.
ua-cam.com/video/fs9Wyuub3jY/v-deo.html
Lex your head is gonna explode if you've been sleeping on Westworld.
Should def try to get Lisa Joy and Jonah Nolan on the podcast
Indeed, I was thinking about it.