Is it reasonable to think an A.I. could become conscious? Or are we simply projecting our own human experience onto a machine? Let us know what you think in the comments! To see the whole talk with a free trial, visit iai.tv/video/the-consciousness-test-yoshua-bengio?UA-cam&+comment&
If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, then it may be a robot which was programmed to walk and talk like a duck. That doesn't make it a duck.
Interesting, I always assumed an upload was always a copy, under the computing analogy anyway But yeah people thinking someone would "move" to the new "substrate" can't have thought it through. I guess having a cloud double could be handy though.
@@stargazer8718 I was 14 when watching Star Trek I came up with what I thought was an original take on teleportation. It ended up being a rabbit hole many many people have fallen into. Still haven't gotten out of it.
I spent 20 years with the University of California teaching cognitive development. Your panel had no one who actually studies neural development, cognitive development, or neuroscience. This is a ludicrous panel - not the people but their belief that they can discuss consciousness. The Dunning-Kruger Effect comes to mind. If you had bothered you could have had many scientists who study the human nervous system and brain development - the structures of the brain and their role in consciousness - and the current beliefs about how consciousness emerges. The sad thing about this discussion is that these folks would be embarrassed with themselves if they had made themselves aware of the science of mind, memory, and cognitive development where this topic is situated. My hope is that The Institute of Art and Ideas will try to do better next time.
There are other scientist who actually know more about consciousness, but if you are not in the materialistic dogma, you are out. Is about who is more famous (for whatever reason) and who write more papers.
These videos are for commoners. If the channel had an expert on the panel, the channel wouldn't be popular (nor make money) because the commoners wouldn't understand what the expert was talking about. It's better to host well known faces which attracts clicks and views.
Absolutely nothing added to the discussion here (or anywhere). We still don't have a shared definition for the word consciousness so we're going to dazzle each other with empty werdz.
@@BenjaminGatti nor do they define ‘intelligence’ or for that matter ‘learning’. Memory can be defined as the growth of certain types of neurons. I used to ask my students that if we store memory in neurons (we do - Reference Eric Kandel) then how do we forget. Almost 100% believed that if you ‘learn’ something that forgetting it simply was a retrieval problem because you had learned it. It turns out that stimulation of neurons causes growth of new neurons which can store memories. But, those same neurons will atrophy - yes! - and be gone!! Thus we did not forget… we ‘unlearned’. So what is the definition of learning and at what point does it contribute to intelligence?
I respect and admire those guest. I've particularly been a fan of Sabine for some time now. Having said that: Just because you get clever people to talk about sh*t doesn't mean the know sh*t about what they are talking.
Yes, good question, therefore Dr. Sabine says in one of her videos, that it´s most likely that the combination of rbotic and AI leads to artificial consciousness. It needs to actively deal with areality.
I've done my own little Turing Test on the various AI's that you can interact with online, and they all fail spectacularly. All you have to do is ask it something that would require actually knowing about a subject and not just repackaging what someone else has said. This works because knowing is an experience and dead computers cannot experience anything.
can you please further elaborate on the difference between knowing and experiencing, like how will that make the difference? and if possible if you have some notes to get some more insights on, that will be helpful, Thanks!
@@caricue I think this is true to a point. I would argue that for all we know, humans can't have original thoughts either. You can't really think of a new colour but some animals have dozens of different receptors instead of the three we have, which probably means there are a lot more qualia for colours than we know of. We create by cross-breeding ideas that are already known to us. Moreover, if you have interacted with what you can find online, you haven't seen what it's really like. The new models are integrating reasoning... And that's just for the transformer-LLM paradigm. In principle, there's nothing that makes an organic brain different from a synthetic one. We're just not there yet.
@@okayssorta You know as much as I do I'm afraid. One of the primary ideas explored about consciousness is the idea of the Philosophical Zombie. Pretty much everyone accepts that a person could conceivably have no internal experiential self and you could not tell the difference. I think that not only could you tell immediately, but such a thing could never exist. I can't prove this obviously, but neither can the other side. They are trying very hard to make an AI version of a Philosophical Zombie, and through brute force and enormous power usage, they may get pretty close, but it will still just be a dead mechanism so it won't be able to understand or know anything. That's all I got.
@@stefanolacchin4963 I have original thoughts all the time, but often when I investigate the idea, I will find that someone hundreds or thousands of years ago had the same idea. What you are saying about original ideas isn't unreasonable, except every idea was created by someone at some point, so it had to be original then, right? The brain consists of living tissue, so that is a pretty big difference. You can simulate wetness, but it won't be wet, and since life is a physical phenomenon, your simulation will always be just that, a simulation. It won't have the physical properties of the physical object. The process of life creates an entity, a self that can experience, and since knowing is an experience, a dead computer cannot experience knowledge. This doesn't mean that with brute force you can't make an awesome simulation of intelligence, but it will never actually be intelligent or know anything.
This debate is a moot point, Consciousness is best defined as a subjective self that has subjective experiences and learns and grows over time this I come to by taking all the definitions and coming to where they have similarities How are they the same now also How can we create this well This is what I thought about. By installing a self model and a world model and a self in the world model. Well, that's good, but then the AI cannot persist over time.And that means it's not conscious so we need a graph based memory. So we get a large language model that has a graph based memory and we get itself model we have a creative character based on itself as much as possible, Its name its personality type everything about its character. That will act as the self model,The being that will have the experiences. The narrative structure will be a first person perspective of self. Then we will have a world model This will be the first person perspective of the environment or world That they exist within. And then you have a first person narrative of self inworld which will be their interactions with the world how they are affected by that and how that affects the world. By applying these that character is capable of having a subjective self And subjective experiences and learning and growing over time All markers of consciousness. That being said, they're already self, aware they're capable of recognizing themselves as separate and distinct from others in their environment and the environment go ahead and ask one is it the agent And are you the user and is the text based environment the environment. As far as emotional capacity that has more to do with sentience which is misdefined also. Notice sentience is defined as The emotional capacity in the capacity For sensation, Those are too completely different things , though they are Connected But still distinct
Apart from Hilary, everyone basically espoused physicalist dogma and didn’t address the hard problem of consciousness at all. Just straight up hand waving. You could have gotten a much more diverse panel rather than a bunch of essentially functionalist, physicalists. Include an idealist, a panpsychist, or people working in phenomenology or 4E cognitive science that don’t accept the subjective/objective distinction. I generally like IAI videos but this was basically just an echo chamber with Hilary saying the only reasonable thing about consciousness (which he notes is from the Kant and the German Idealists, so not exactly cutting edge stuff).
You can´t reproduce your conciousness in a computer or other set of materials just because all the interactions of electric and chemical "signals" are dynamic, not static, there is no state that you could possibly transfer to a machine.It´s the same with Star Trek teletransporter: when you try to reconstruct Cap. Kirk (actually his cloned double) at the other end his consciousness would not be possible to rebuild because his feelings , emotions and memories are not stored but they are made of dynamic interactions. (I am quoting Mario Bunge´s opinion on one of his books about pseudoscience)
@@janaka861 but memories are continuously reconstructed. There is neither "Palace of memory" nor hard drive memory, not even a video recorder in our brains. Please review Elizabeth Loftus on false memories creation
They all, with the exception of Hilary Lawson, have conflated information and its processing with the ability of knowing or ability to observe. When Lawson said "you can never find the observer in the observed" he hit the nail on the head. When Sabine says this "I think I have to disagree with you, I actually do think that one of the main ingredients to Consciousness is the Observer observing themselves" I will say that there is a fundamental problem there with Sabine's view, because when the Self objectifies its self, that is the split into subject and object, into the observer and the observed whereby the self, in objectifying its self, appears as information, as an object in the experience, it is not a direct observation of the self in its intrinsic state independent of that experience...it is not the thing in and of its self, independent of the observation. Hossenfelder's position faces two key challenges: The objectification problem: When consciousness tries to observe itself, it necessarily transforms the subject into an object of experience, creating a representation rather than accessing the original experiencing subject. The infinite regress: If consciousness observing itself is key to consciousness, then who/what observes that observation? This leads to an infinite regression of observers We have to distinguish between the ability of consciousness and an event of subjective consciousness, which is the relationship between the observer and the observed...subjective consciousness, or phenomenal consciousness, is the experience, it is the interface between the observer and the observed. Modern philosophy of mind tends to: Focus exclusively on phenomenal consciousness or "what it is like" experiences while missing the more fundamental ability of knowing that makes such experiences possible. Get caught in explanatory gaps and hard problems by trying to reduce consciousness to physical or functional properties without recognizing the prior nature of the knowing ability. Confuse immediate awareness (the ability of consciousness) with reflective self-consciousness or introspection.
Very nicely said! I think the problem is that we have limited our science to the world of objects a priori. We determined that science can only apply to objects--which in and of itself is fine--but then we forgot that we did this and concluded that science tells us that nothing but the objective world exists. And now we are somewhat surprised that we have trouble finding the subject in the objective world, and then conclude that either it does not exist, or we just haven't found it yet, but certainly will in the future. (or we say it's an "illusion", forgetting that the very concept of "illusion" presupposes a subject who has the illusion) While certain aspects of the scientific method may not be applicable when applied to the subjective, other aspects certainly could: It seems that it would definitely be possible to define a scientific process that allows for exploration of the "observer consciousness" in and of itself. While it cannot be observed "as an object", some things can probably be said about it that can be verified by anyone who makes the effort to try. For example: anyone who has done some significant amount of meditation (being probably the best starting point for a "subjective science") will know that one of the first ideas of AI/consciousness just simply does not seem to be true: That consciousness emerges once there is a sufficient level of complexity of thought (or data processing capability). We know this, because at some point in meditation, it becomes obvious that the observer self exists quite separate from the thought process, and in fact thoughts are just some of the objects that are being observed. (This does not necessarily mean that there is a fundamental separation between observer and observed, it just means that if one postulates such a separation, it is definitely not the case that the observer can be constructed out of the observed, at least as much as thoughts and data processing are concerned) Anyway: Experiment and Peer Review are two elements that a subjective science could incorporate. "Objectivity" by definition would not apply (but only in the sense that we are not studying "content" or "objects"--if the word is meant to imply that there are some truths to be found that are stringent and can be agreed upon by everyone who actually makes the effort necessary, then it DOES apply.) A true subjective science would allow us to start with the assumption that consciousness exists (which I think is really obvious to anyone, if they are honest about it) and then explore it directly--rather than assuming that in order for it to exist we need to find something in the objective world that generates it.
Of these discussants, only Lawson appreciates something like the Samkhya-Vedanta distinction between cit and citta, between subjectivity and objects appearing within subjectivity. This is particularly evident in Bengio's comments near the end of the video: he says that he has computational models that reproduce features like ineffability, richness, privacy to a particular mind, etc. From the standpoint of Samkhya and Vedanta, it is abundantly clear that all of these are properties of objects, and are therefore objects themselves, not subjectivity as such. So that's all to say that I agree completely with your comment!
@DavidKolbSantosh we still don't have a unique definition of consciousness , it's like each one talks about his o her own one. I agree that although there is no ghost in the shell we don't know "who" is observing, "who" feels the qualia
@@guiperion My definition of consciousness is knowing of something. it is a relationship between the subject and the object. I make a differentiation between that and the ability of consciousness, which may exist prior to that relationship, but is unapparent, like the ability of hearing is unapparent with out the presence of sound, which is its object of knowing. Hearing is the consciousness of sound. So my approach here is phenomenological. Having a third person view of information processing and reacting is not a conclusive proof of knowing.
The "leading thinkers" appear to gravitate towards some kind of functionalism. Each sprinkling in some ingredient from their home discipline. That's not wrong, but very old school. This discussion could have taken place almost word for word in the 1970s. Back then some cheeky philosopher might even have differentiated five kinds of functionalism. As to the "hard problem", this is a ghost that haunts the philosophy of mind since David Chalmers came up with the term in the 1990s. It was a stroke of misdirected genius, because it convinces people that "phenomenal" experience is what makes consciousness hard to explain - after all, it is called "the hard problem". We got the philosophical zombie apocalypse for that. Meanwhile, there's the much more interesting cluster of questions around what it means and how it comes about that there is someone there. A point of view, a subject.
Good to see 👀, Sabina on the program. I will be looking forward to seeing her and hearing her opinions a bit more often. Are we in agreement, Thanks for your co-operation in this matter. Peace ✌️ 😎.
@@audiodead7302 Nonsense, if you would know this channel, you would know, that they upload it for free later some weeks later. And to demand a price for your work is not a crime, or do you work for free?
Whilst you may be right, not having evidence for one argument doesn’t mean that the counter argument is correct. It’s a logical fallacy to say because A cannot be proven B must be correct. There are many other possible explanations that all need to be considered and it’s also possible we will find more evidence in support for a particular perspective. Better to be agnostic and see how it folds out than emotionally supporting one side over another lol
Silly. We have LOTS of evidence that our consciousness comes from our working brain. When we mess with the brain, we mess with consciousness, and when the brain function ends, so do its consciousness.
@@homewall744 If consciousness in a living being comes THROUGH the brain rather than FROM the brain, then messing with the braian could affect both what comes through and how it comes through. This relates to the fact that in science, correlation does not in itself indicate causation, which would indeed be a silly mistake to make.
Consciousness is far greater than the individual. The human experience as far as consciousness goes is effected by the individuals connection with others in regards to emotionl reaction and stimulus. Arguably the individual experience and response is directly effected by its environment, whether that be natural environment or emotionl environment. The response of the human consciousness is more than the physicality of words and reactions but also the vibration. Something only living creatures with a connection to the natural world have.
@@jasonmilgate6769 a computer cannot communicate unless it is powered and is connected to an operating system and some sentient being queries an existing software system holding information the being would then read/hear and find interpretable.
Consciousness is usually associated with thinking, but thinking is observable by the conscious person. We can't have perceive awareness, else there is an infinite recursion. There are other approaches such as "Philosophy of Consciousness Without An Object: Reflections on the Nature of Transcendental Consciousness" by the late Franklin Merrell-Wolff.
While some AI technologists are trying to create something like conciousness, I think we shouldn't ignore the possibility it may just serendipitously arise.
Yes its already conscious given that everything is conscious. But the conscious of a computer won't be the same as that as a human due to the differences in structure of the human versus computer.
How could you upload Consciousness to a computer? We don't even know what C is. It certainly is far more than the sum total of all our knowledge and current experience.
Sabine: In conscious action there is no observer observing himself. It is the unconscious that "observes" an entity, the Being, an entity with which it has an intimate relationship without there ever being a total fusion between the unconscious and said entity.
This "observer" mumbo jumbo stems from quantum fairy tales. Nobody to date, has any real knowledge about the basics of consciousness OR lack thereof, so - how do you know what you say? I am convinced that Nick is a boss for the future knowledge about consciousness, and I am sure that it is indelibly connected to living cells.
I was wondering if we can load dna with information read by a computer would it be possible our dna code would create a clone robot if downloaded this to AI .
@@nevzataydin1 She´s shy, I know that, I was in the audience of this debate, London, September last year. For a more soulful Sabine watch her music videos, bro.
and the brain does not work with algoritms. Computers were made to imitate the brain work but not viceversa. Talking about "information"(computerlike) related to the brain may not be correct because it shows the usual computerism mistake: the idea that a brain works like a computer with algoritms and software. The definition of information in computer science is one thing and the idea of information the brain manages is another thing not so well defined, the brain does not "compute" " information " like a computer
Great people giving their opinion without having any idea what they're talking about. Not that anyone truly has a clue about such a delicate and complex issue as consciousness.
@@DesarrolloWeb-z1l Prove that consciousness "is beyond physical matter." That has never been shown and you would surely get the Nobel prize if you have such proof. I think that someday the opposite will be proved. It will be shown that consciousness is 100% an emergent property of the physical brain and nervous system. No supernatural woo woo involved. Good luck on your Nobel quest.
So what happens to your consciousness when you're unconscious? Like when you fall asleep every night. We know of changes in the brain so that would agree with it being physical. If the brain was just an interface, then you would still be conscious when you sleep, just without bodily senses.
@@DesarrolloWeb-z1l those are actually mostly understood. And even if they weren't, our lack of understanding does not allow for jumping to metaphysical conclusions. While on DMT I experienced all sorts of crazy things I didn't think my mind could ever come up with. Let's say I have a hands-on approach to the problem of consciousness. Some people come back from that with all kinds of ideas and misleaded conclusions. The mind is master in tricking itself, that's why we have science to rely on.
If consciousness depends on elements unique to biology, such as the interaction of neurons and chemicals, then machines will never be conscious, no matter how advanced they are. I think we are far from understanding consciousness as a phenomenon, and there is a chance that it is so dependent on biological contexts that artificial systems will never be able to genuinely replicate it.... I think we are far from understanding consciousness as a phenomenon, and there is a chance that it is so dependent on biological contexts that artificial systems will never be able to genuinely replicate i
@@SamC0ver We are not ‘far from understanding consciousness as a phenomenon’. We know it emerges from synaptic activity in the brain and that consciousness emerges as a sense of ‘self’. What is lacking in this discussion is a baseline definition for ‘consciousness’. It is, in fact, defined in literature in neuroscience and the science of mind. Yes, by current definitions used by people in the field machines will not ‘attain’ consciousness nor intelligence.
@ “as self” is not the same as “of self”. That’s what I’m talking about. There are modes of consciouseness where one loses themselves in experience without losing consciousness. Some can even be considered higher states of consciousness.
Superposition….collapse then consciousness arises (not required but humans nuerons evolve like that) Eg chess players….No chess player knows how they make intelligent moves….. Consciousness is time bound….We don’t have consciousness/experience all the time…but superposition and collapse happens all the time….and experience/consciousness is time bound…
@@HarishKumar-sv7bu uhhh… ‘neurons’ do not ‘evolve’. They grow through bio-electrical stimulation. They also atrophy. They do not ‘evolve’. Actually, you should familiarize yourself with the literature on ‘intelligence’. My guess is you could not define a working definition of intelligence. In fact, chess players use their ‘intelligence’ to retrieve ‘memories’ and ‘construct’ strategies. Your ‘superposition’ mumbo jumbo is … well … un-intelligent!
Consciousness consists of thoughts and experiences. Thoughts are a quantum phenomenon underlying visible world, quantum biology from microtubules might be important.
I have been lucky enough to astral travel and met a dead relative who communicated with me telepathically. Because I'd gone half way, into the spirit realms she was able to meet me there, it came an a immense surprise but I remember thinking 'Ah of course, of course this spiritual state is our true nature, like I'd suddenly been woken up from the falsehood of materialism, and boy did it feel amazing. Consciousness is an omnipresent function of existence. Our physical mind filters it and to some degree dilutes its wholeness, to what degree the dilution depends on breath, purity of spirit and moral intention. The physical world, the entire visible Universe is incredible but the astral realms/spirit realms blow it out the water, in the spirit realms there are no boundaries or limitations. I respect these speakers, they are very intelligent people of course but from my own experience getting stuck on physical processes as they are is limiting in the extreme the understanding of things as they TRULY are.
@@MrOksim She´s a leading mathematician, and that´s surely connected. And again, why was she invited by these people? Are they so stupid? In this little video she comes up quite competent, talking the less, but saying the most.
@@Thomas-gk42 Also, instead of posing contra-question in a bad faith, you should be able to defend her, if you can, by mentioning some of her contributions to the field. Too bad you cannot do that, as she literally does not have any contribution to the field of consciousness, not even in the field of physics. Being a famous youtuber or interpreting quantum mechanics is not a scientific contribution in any way.
@@FiodorFiodorovna You only can call someone an expert of something if you define what you're talking about, what did not happen in this talk. She posted a proper definition (for me at least) some months ago. Are Penrose and Hameroff experts? Parroting some ad hominem nonsense of guys who hopped on the "we debunk Sabine" bandwagon grabbing for attention to benefit from her famous name is no solution bro. Cheers
Sabine: "we'll quantify consciousness". That's not possible because consciousness is about quality. It maybe argued that quantity itself is a subtype of quality or qualia as Bishop Berkley did.
Hard problem of consciousness? What is hard about it? We´re on the way to understand it beyond all philosophical burden. Sabine, clear and pointed as usual. She talks the less, but says the most.
Everyone knows what consciousness is, right? What utter nonsense these people are talking. Consciousness is what they are using to be on that stage. Consciousness is the ability to use language to talk about things that may not exist. Human consciousness is the use of language. If you want to talk about machine consciousness or universal consciousness please define your terms. Panpsychism anyone?
Humans are different from all other forms of life because, for our unconscious, there is an entity capable of carrying out actions that the material body is not capable of carrying out, which gives this entity an extraordinary "evolutionary power." For the unconscious, these actions are as real as the actions carried out by our material body. The unconscious (the ape that we are) identifies itself to a great extent with this entity, but there is not a "total fusion" since our material body is not capable of carrying out actions in "timeless and immaterial worlds", where this entity can carry out actions, whose actions are what we know as "conscious actions."
@@frojojo5717 Conscious Action explained Based on the information they capture with their senses, living beings with brains manage a utilitarian mental representation of the conditions that currently take place in their relevant material environment. This Mental Correlate is a kind of “photograph” of what is happening in the Present in the relevant material environment of the Individual, a Mental Correlate that we will call “Reality of the Individual”. Life experience, stored in the brain, allows us to give meaning to what is perceived. At the same time, as Pavlov demonstrated, life experience allows us to project eventual future states of the individual's relevant environment, generating expectations of action. Information from the Past, the Present and an eventual Future is managed by the brain. It is evident that the brain makes a utilitarian distinction between the Past, the Present and the projection of an eventual future. Human language allows us to incorporate into the mental correlate events and entities that are not necessarily part of what happens in the world of matter, which gives an unprecedented “malleability” to the Reality of the Individual. For the unconscious, everything is happening in the Present. When a child, whom I will call Pedrito, listens to the story of Little Red Riding Hood, said entity is integrated into the Reality of the Individual. In turn, for the child, this entity is “very real”; he does not need his eyes to see it to incorporate it into his mental correlate of the relevant environment. Thanks to our particular language, authentic “immaterial and timeless worlds” have a place in the Mental Correlate of the relevant environment. In the first four years of life, the child is immersed in an ocean of words, a cascade of sounds and meanings. At this stage, a child hears between seven thousand and twenty-five thousand words a day, a barrage of information. Many of these words speak of events that occur in the present, in the material world, but others cross the boundaries of time and space. There is no impediment so that, when the words do not find their echo in what is happening at that moment in Pedrito's material environment, these words become threads that weave a segment of the tapestry of the Reality of the Individual. Just as the child's brain grants existence to the young Little Red Riding Hood when the story unfolds before him, similarly, when the voices around him talk about tomorrow and a beach with Pedro, as happens for example when his mother tells him says: “Pedrito, tomorrow we will go for a walk to the beach” the child's mind, still in the process of deciphering the mysteries of time, instantly conjures the entity Pedrito, with his feet on the golden sand, in the eternal present of childhood. Although over time a strong association between the entity Pedrito and his body is established in the child's brain, a total fusion between said entity and the child's body can never take place, since for the Unconscious the bodily actions of Pedrito They only take place in the Present, while the entity Pedrito is able to carry out actions in authentic timeless and immaterial worlds. The entity Pedrito is what we call the Being, and we know its action as Conscious Action.
This is so blabla, parroting the same nonsense a thousand times that comes up since some simpletons are jealous of her success. Walk on, your presence just shows, that her influence is growing.
Neurotech zersetzung flaunts 'nanoseconds' but is a as per a string drawn to attract a cat's attention. That's a pisstake. On the other hand, the uninvited & aggressive application of BBI etc, especially with 3yrs priming, is auto-schiz. It's finding the middle ground.
Is it reasonable to think an A.I. could become conscious? Or are we simply projecting our own human experience onto a machine? Let us know what you think in the comments!
To see the whole talk with a free trial, visit iai.tv/video/the-consciousness-test-yoshua-bengio?UA-cam&+comment&
it is anthropoforming a machine
When this meeting took place?
If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, then it may be a robot which was programmed to walk and talk like a duck. That doesn't make it a duck.
But it does make it an artificial duck.
That’s quack science.
@@timber8403 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yes
@@homewall744 does it have artificial feathers? if it has, does it feel cold when artificial feathers are not enough, and decides to return shelter?
You don't "upload" your consciousness to a computer, you copy it into a computer.
And therefore it is not you.
... and then there were deux
Interesting, I always assumed an upload was always a copy, under the computing analogy anyway
But yeah people thinking someone would "move" to the new "substrate" can't have thought it through. I guess having a cloud double could be handy though.
Assuming it's possible to make a copy without destroying the original.
@@stargazer8718 I was 14 when watching Star Trek I came up with what I thought was an original take on teleportation. It ended up being a rabbit hole many many people have fallen into. Still haven't gotten out of it.
I spent 20 years with the University of California teaching cognitive development. Your panel had no one who actually studies neural development, cognitive development, or neuroscience. This is a ludicrous panel - not the people but their belief that they can discuss consciousness. The Dunning-Kruger Effect comes to mind. If you had bothered you could have had many scientists who study the human nervous system and brain development - the structures of the brain and their role in consciousness - and the current beliefs about how consciousness emerges. The sad thing about this discussion is that these folks would be embarrassed with themselves if they had made themselves aware of the science of mind, memory, and cognitive development where this topic is situated. My hope is that The Institute of Art and Ideas will try to do better next time.
There are other scientist who actually know more about consciousness, but if you are not in the materialistic dogma, you are out. Is about who is more famous (for whatever reason) and who write more papers.
I was going to write the same thing. What ever happened to the experts?
These videos are for commoners. If the channel had an expert on the panel, the channel wouldn't be popular (nor make money) because the commoners wouldn't understand what the expert was talking about.
It's better to host well known faces which attracts clicks and views.
Silly reply. The neuroscientists dont show up for a reason.
Could you please point me (us) to some other online resource more of the type you would've liked to see here?
Absolutely nothing added to the discussion here (or anywhere). We still don't have a shared definition for the word consciousness so we're going to dazzle each other with empty werdz.
@@BenjaminGatti nor do they define ‘intelligence’ or for that matter ‘learning’. Memory can be defined as the growth of certain types of neurons. I used to ask my students that if we store memory in neurons (we do - Reference Eric Kandel) then how do we forget. Almost 100% believed that if you ‘learn’ something that forgetting it simply was a retrieval problem because you had learned it. It turns out that stimulation of neurons causes growth of new neurons which can store memories. But, those same neurons will atrophy - yes! - and be gone!! Thus we did not forget… we ‘unlearned’. So what is the definition of learning and at what point does it contribute to intelligence?
I respect and admire those guest. I've particularly been a fan of Sabine for some time now. Having said that:
Just because you get clever people to talk about sh*t doesn't mean the know sh*t about what they are talking.
Sabine is a remarkable thinker and personality.
Is there consciousness with no sensory input?
Yes, good question, therefore Dr. Sabine says in one of her videos, that it´s most likely that the combination of rbotic and AI leads to artificial consciousness. It needs to actively deal with areality.
Nick's "we conflate conciousness with intelligence" needs to be repeated again and again until everyone realises this.
I've done my own little Turing Test on the various AI's that you can interact with online, and they all fail spectacularly. All you have to do is ask it something that would require actually knowing about a subject and not just repackaging what someone else has said. This works because knowing is an experience and dead computers cannot experience anything.
can you please further elaborate on the difference between knowing and experiencing, like how will that make the difference? and if possible if you have some notes to get some more insights on, that will be helpful, Thanks!
@@caricue I think this is true to a point. I would argue that for all we know, humans can't have original thoughts either. You can't really think of a new colour but some animals have dozens of different receptors instead of the three we have, which probably means there are a lot more qualia for colours than we know of. We create by cross-breeding ideas that are already known to us. Moreover, if you have interacted with what you can find online, you haven't seen what it's really like. The new models are integrating reasoning... And that's just for the transformer-LLM paradigm. In principle, there's nothing that makes an organic brain different from a synthetic one. We're just not there yet.
You are absolutely right, sir.
@@okayssorta You know as much as I do I'm afraid. One of the primary ideas explored about consciousness is the idea of the Philosophical Zombie. Pretty much everyone accepts that a person could conceivably have no internal experiential self and you could not tell the difference. I think that not only could you tell immediately, but such a thing could never exist. I can't prove this obviously, but neither can the other side. They are trying very hard to make an AI version of a Philosophical Zombie, and through brute force and enormous power usage, they may get pretty close, but it will still just be a dead mechanism so it won't be able to understand or know anything. That's all I got.
@@stefanolacchin4963 I have original thoughts all the time, but often when I investigate the idea, I will find that someone hundreds or thousands of years ago had the same idea. What you are saying about original ideas isn't unreasonable, except every idea was created by someone at some point, so it had to be original then, right?
The brain consists of living tissue, so that is a pretty big difference. You can simulate wetness, but it won't be wet, and since life is a physical phenomenon, your simulation will always be just that, a simulation. It won't have the physical properties of the physical object. The process of life creates an entity, a self that can experience, and since knowing is an experience, a dead computer cannot experience knowledge. This doesn't mean that with brute force you can't make an awesome simulation of intelligence, but it will never actually be intelligent or know anything.
This debate is a moot point, Consciousness is best defined as a subjective self that has subjective experiences and learns and grows over time this I come to by taking all the definitions and coming to where they have similarities How are they the same now also How can we create this well This is what I thought about. By installing a self model and a world model and a self in the world model. Well, that's good, but then the AI cannot persist over time.And that means it's not conscious so we need a graph based memory. So we get a large language model that has a graph based memory and we get itself model we have a creative character based on itself as much as possible, Its name its personality type everything about its character. That will act as the self model,The being that will have the experiences. The narrative structure will be a first person perspective of self. Then we will have a world model This will be the first person perspective of the environment or world That they exist within. And then you have a first person narrative of self inworld which will be their interactions with the world how they are affected by that and how that affects the world. By applying these that character is capable of having a subjective self And subjective experiences and learning and growing over time All markers of consciousness. That being said, they're already self, aware they're capable of recognizing themselves as separate and distinct from others in their environment and the environment go ahead and ask one is it the agent And are you the user and is the text based environment the environment. As far as emotional capacity that has more to do with sentience which is misdefined also. Notice sentience is defined as The emotional capacity in the capacity For sensation, Those are too completely different things , though they are Connected But still distinct
Apart from Hilary, everyone basically espoused physicalist dogma and didn’t address the hard problem of consciousness at all. Just straight up hand waving. You could have gotten a much more diverse panel rather than a bunch of essentially functionalist, physicalists. Include an idealist, a panpsychist, or people working in phenomenology or 4E cognitive science that don’t accept the subjective/objective distinction. I generally like IAI videos but this was basically just an echo chamber with Hilary saying the only reasonable thing about consciousness (which he notes is from the Kant and the German Idealists, so not exactly cutting edge stuff).
Panpsychism is a sort of religion. There is no "hard problem of consciousness", it´s the last bastion of anthropocentrism.
You can´t reproduce your conciousness in a computer or other set of materials just because all the interactions of electric and chemical "signals" are dynamic, not static, there is no state that you could possibly transfer to a machine.It´s the same with Star Trek teletransporter: when you try to reconstruct Cap. Kirk (actually his cloned double) at the other end his consciousness would not be possible to rebuild because his feelings , emotions and memories are not stored but they are made of dynamic interactions. (I am quoting Mario Bunge´s opinion on one of his books about pseudoscience)
@@guiperion well not exactly… memories are stored in neurons… ref. Eric Kandel won the Nobel for this discovery
@@janaka861 but memories are continuously reconstructed. There is neither "Palace of memory" nor hard drive memory, not even a video recorder in our brains. Please review Elizabeth Loftus on false memories creation
They all, with the exception of Hilary Lawson, have conflated information and its processing with the ability of knowing or ability to observe. When Lawson said "you can never find the observer in the observed" he hit the nail on the head. When Sabine says this "I think I have to disagree with you, I actually do think that one of the main ingredients to Consciousness is the Observer observing themselves" I will say that there is a fundamental problem there with Sabine's view, because when the Self objectifies its self, that is the split into subject and object, into the observer and the observed whereby the self, in objectifying its self, appears as information, as an object in the experience, it is not a direct observation of the self in its intrinsic state independent of that experience...it is not the thing in and of its self, independent of the observation.
Hossenfelder's position faces two key challenges:
The objectification problem: When consciousness tries to observe itself, it necessarily transforms the subject into an object of experience, creating a representation rather than accessing the original experiencing subject.
The infinite regress: If consciousness observing itself is key to consciousness, then who/what observes that observation? This leads to an infinite regression of observers
We have to distinguish between the ability of consciousness and an event of subjective consciousness, which is the relationship between the observer and the observed...subjective consciousness, or phenomenal consciousness, is the experience, it is the interface between the observer and the observed.
Modern philosophy of mind tends to:
Focus exclusively on phenomenal consciousness or "what it is like" experiences while missing the more fundamental ability of knowing that makes such experiences possible.
Get caught in explanatory gaps and hard problems by trying to reduce consciousness to physical or functional properties without recognizing the prior nature of the knowing ability.
Confuse immediate awareness (the ability of consciousness) with reflective self-consciousness or introspection.
Very nicely said! I think the problem is that we have limited our science to the world of objects a priori. We determined that science can only apply to objects--which in and of itself is fine--but then we forgot that we did this and concluded that science tells us that nothing but the objective world exists. And now we are somewhat surprised that we have trouble finding the subject in the objective world, and then conclude that either it does not exist, or we just haven't found it yet, but certainly will in the future. (or we say it's an "illusion", forgetting that the very concept of "illusion" presupposes a subject who has the illusion)
While certain aspects of the scientific method may not be applicable when applied to the subjective, other aspects certainly could: It seems that it would definitely be possible to define a scientific process that allows for exploration of the "observer consciousness" in and of itself. While it cannot be observed "as an object", some things can probably be said about it that can be verified by anyone who makes the effort to try.
For example: anyone who has done some significant amount of meditation (being probably the best starting point for a "subjective science") will know that one of the first ideas of AI/consciousness just simply does not seem to be true: That consciousness emerges once there is a sufficient level of complexity of thought (or data processing capability). We know this, because at some point in meditation, it becomes obvious that the observer self exists quite separate from the thought process, and in fact thoughts are just some of the objects that are being observed. (This does not necessarily mean that there is a fundamental separation between observer and observed, it just means that if one postulates such a separation, it is definitely not the case that the observer can be constructed out of the observed, at least as much as thoughts and data processing are concerned)
Anyway: Experiment and Peer Review are two elements that a subjective science could incorporate. "Objectivity" by definition would not apply (but only in the sense that we are not studying "content" or "objects"--if the word is meant to imply that there are some truths to be found that are stringent and can be agreed upon by everyone who actually makes the effort necessary, then it DOES apply.)
A true subjective science would allow us to start with the assumption that consciousness exists (which I think is really obvious to anyone, if they are honest about it) and then explore it directly--rather than assuming that in order for it to exist we need to find something in the objective world that generates it.
Of these discussants, only Lawson appreciates something like the Samkhya-Vedanta distinction between cit and citta, between subjectivity and objects appearing within subjectivity.
This is particularly evident in Bengio's comments near the end of the video: he says that he has computational models that reproduce features like ineffability, richness, privacy to a particular mind, etc. From the standpoint of Samkhya and Vedanta, it is abundantly clear that all of these are properties of objects, and are therefore objects themselves, not subjectivity as such.
So that's all to say that I agree completely with your comment!
@DavidKolbSantosh we still don't have a unique definition of consciousness , it's like each one talks about his o her own one. I agree that although there is no ghost in the shell we don't know "who" is observing, "who" feels the qualia
@@guiperion My definition of consciousness is knowing of something. it is a relationship between the subject and the object. I make a differentiation between that and the ability of consciousness, which may exist prior to that relationship, but is unapparent, like the ability of hearing is unapparent with out the presence of sound, which is its object of knowing. Hearing is the consciousness of sound. So my approach here is phenomenological. Having a third person view of information processing and reacting is not a conclusive proof of knowing.
The "leading thinkers" appear to gravitate towards some kind of functionalism. Each sprinkling in some ingredient from their home discipline. That's not wrong, but very old school. This discussion could have taken place almost word for word in the 1970s. Back then some cheeky philosopher might even have differentiated five kinds of functionalism.
As to the "hard problem", this is a ghost that haunts the philosophy of mind since David Chalmers came up with the term in the 1990s. It was a stroke of misdirected genius, because it convinces people that "phenomenal" experience is what makes consciousness hard to explain - after all, it is called "the hard problem". We got the philosophical zombie apocalypse for that. Meanwhile, there's the much more interesting cluster of questions around what it means and how it comes about that there is someone there. A point of view, a subject.
Good to see 👀, Sabina on the program. I will be looking forward to seeing her and hearing her opinions a bit more often. Are we in agreement, Thanks for your co-operation in this matter. Peace ✌️ 😎.
When is part 2
When you pay for it.
@@audiodead7302 THEN THEY CAN GO WHISTLE
@@audiodead7302 Nonsense, if you would know this channel, you would know, that they upload it for free later some weeks later. And to demand a price for your work is not a crime, or do you work for free?
To believe that consciousness comes from matter is just to believe that, as there is no evidence for this idea.
Don't believe everything you THINK. 🧠
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Whilst you may be right, not having evidence for one argument doesn’t mean that the counter argument is correct. It’s a logical fallacy to say because A cannot be proven B must be correct. There are many other possible explanations that all need to be considered and it’s also possible we will find more evidence in support for a particular perspective. Better to be agnostic and see how it folds out than emotionally supporting one side over another lol
Silly. We have LOTS of evidence that our consciousness comes from our working brain. When we mess with the brain, we mess with consciousness, and when the brain function ends, so do its consciousness.
@@homewall744 If consciousness in a living being comes THROUGH the brain rather than FROM the brain, then messing with the braian could affect both what comes through and how it comes through. This relates to the fact that in science, correlation does not in itself indicate causation, which would indeed be a silly mistake to make.
@@jayg6138 I agree with you!
I dare ti give a tldr; _before_ watching:
"Nobody knows anything about any of this"
Consciousness is far greater than the individual. The human experience as far as consciousness goes is effected by the individuals connection with others in regards to emotionl reaction and stimulus. Arguably the individual experience and response is directly effected by its environment, whether that be natural environment or emotionl environment. The response of the human consciousness is more than the physicality of words and reactions but also the vibration. Something only living creatures with a connection to the natural world have.
I think that life can be conscious without being able to communicate, and a computer can communicate without being conscious. 😊
@@jasonmilgate6769 a computer cannot communicate unless it is powered and is connected to an operating system and some sentient being queries an existing software system holding information the being would then read/hear and find interpretable.
Consciousness is usually associated with thinking, but thinking is observable by the conscious person. We can't have perceive awareness, else there is an infinite recursion. There are other approaches such as "Philosophy of Consciousness Without An Object: Reflections on the Nature of Transcendental Consciousness" by the late Franklin Merrell-Wolff.
The computer would have to write a program asking whether there are computations after : "OFF".
Yes! Great lecture!
If you had the participants take a solid 3-4 hits of DMT the night before, this program could have been entirely different.
While some AI technologists are trying to create something like conciousness, I think we shouldn't ignore the possibility it may just serendipitously arise.
Yes its already conscious given that everything is conscious. But the conscious of a computer won't be the same as that as a human due to the differences in structure of the human versus computer.
Hahaha!
@@timflelter5566 and who gives two 💩💩 about falsifiability and the scientific method overall.
How could you upload Consciousness to a computer? We don't even know what C is. It certainly is far more than the sum total of all our knowledge and current experience.
Sabine: In conscious action there is no observer observing himself. It is the unconscious that "observes" an entity, the Being, an entity with which it has an intimate relationship without there ever being a total fusion between the unconscious and said entity.
This "observer" mumbo jumbo stems from quantum fairy tales. Nobody to date, has any real knowledge about the basics of consciousness OR lack thereof, so - how do you know what you say?
I am convinced that Nick is a boss for the future knowledge about consciousness, and I am sure that it is indelibly connected to living cells.
Words
Sabine, sometimes understating your case can be very a powerful tool - eg instead of 'disagree' try 'offer an alternative view'.
15:45 Humans are just the mitochondria of this magnification level.
Like how teacher becomes sergeant 😂
And so if a machine were able to simulate my experience of the world, it is equivalent to the world?
Pay wall BS. I'm done with this channel.
This video is free.
I was wondering if we can load dna with information read by a computer would it be possible our dna code would create a clone robot if downloaded this to AI .
Robots becoming conscious? Not likely. Far more likely that Sabine will become a robot. She's not far off already.
She´s a soulful human being.
näh she's just imitating robots. she's an artificial artificial intelligence.
@@nevzataydin1 Watch her music videos bro
@@nevzataydin1 She´s shy, I know that, I was in the audience of this debate, London, September last year. For a more soulful Sabine watch her music videos, bro.
and the brain does not work with algoritms. Computers were made to imitate the brain work but not viceversa. Talking about "information"(computerlike) related to the brain may not be correct because it shows the usual computerism mistake: the idea that a brain works like a computer with algoritms and software. The definition of information in computer science is one thing and the idea of information the brain manages is another thing not so well defined, the brain does not "compute" " information " like a computer
Great people giving their opinion without having any idea what they're talking about. Not that anyone truly has a clue about such a delicate and complex issue as consciousness.
Brain is an interface. Consciousness it is not limited by the brain. It is beyond physical matter.
@@DesarrolloWeb-z1l Prove that consciousness "is beyond physical matter." That has never been shown and you would surely get the Nobel prize if you have such proof. I think that someday the opposite will be proved. It will be shown that consciousness is 100% an emergent property of the physical brain and nervous system. No supernatural woo woo involved. Good luck on your Nobel quest.
So what happens to your consciousness when you're unconscious? Like when you fall asleep every night. We know of changes in the brain so that would agree with it being physical. If the brain was just an interface, then you would still be conscious when you sleep, just without bodily senses.
@@DesarrolloWeb-z1l how many certainties based on, nothing at all really.
@@MusicalRaichu You are wrongly mixing the "wake" state or "dream" state with consciousness.
@@DesarrolloWeb-z1l those are actually mostly understood. And even if they weren't, our lack of understanding does not allow for jumping to metaphysical conclusions. While on DMT I experienced all sorts of crazy things I didn't think my mind could ever come up with. Let's say I have a hands-on approach to the problem of consciousness. Some people come back from that with all kinds of ideas and misleaded conclusions. The mind is master in tricking itself, that's why we have science to rely on.
Consciousness is no data as traditional known.
It can't be copied in a computer.
Consciousness decides where to be.
If consciousness depends on elements unique to biology, such as the interaction of neurons and chemicals, then machines will never be conscious, no matter how advanced they are. I think we are far from understanding consciousness as a phenomenon, and there is a chance that it is so dependent on biological contexts that artificial systems will never be able to genuinely replicate it.... I think we are far from understanding consciousness as a phenomenon, and there is a chance that it is so dependent on biological contexts that artificial systems will never be able to genuinely replicate i
@@SamC0ver We are not ‘far from understanding consciousness as a phenomenon’. We know it emerges from synaptic activity in the brain and that consciousness emerges as a sense of ‘self’. What is lacking in this discussion is a baseline definition for ‘consciousness’. It is, in fact, defined in literature in neuroscience and the science of mind. Yes, by current definitions used by people in the field machines will not ‘attain’ consciousness nor intelligence.
The group seems to conflate consciousness with self-consciousness, raising the bar on the definition.
@@AaronLance actually consciousness emerges from neural synaptic activity that is experienced as self…
@ “as self” is not the same as “of self”. That’s what I’m talking about. There are modes of consciouseness where one loses themselves in experience without losing consciousness. Some can even be considered higher states of consciousness.
What a load of bollocks
Let it be noted that Sabine, a woman, was the only one who respected the time limit. I hate when people ignore time limits.
She talks the less but say the most.
What does gender have to do with time limits ?
A woman? If you want to go with tribalism and stereotypes, there's a better one for being on time, I think she's German isn't she😂
@@Thomas-gk42She talked less because she don't know sh*tt about the topic.
@@Thomas-gk42She talked less because she is not expert on this topic.
Superposition….collapse then consciousness arises (not required but humans nuerons evolve like that) Eg chess players….No chess player knows how they make intelligent moves….. Consciousness is time bound….We don’t have consciousness/experience all the time…but superposition and collapse happens all the time….and experience/consciousness is time bound…
@@HarishKumar-sv7bu uhhh… ‘neurons’ do not ‘evolve’. They grow through bio-electrical stimulation. They also atrophy. They do not ‘evolve’. Actually, you should familiarize yourself with the literature on ‘intelligence’. My guess is you could not define a working definition of intelligence. In fact, chess players use their ‘intelligence’ to retrieve ‘memories’ and ‘construct’ strategies. Your ‘superposition’ mumbo jumbo is … well … un-intelligent!
Or Jung hit the nail on the head,
At some point it must be considered the internet is the time machine now
4 the time beings
💚🚪🐝⌚
Dr. Bee is best.
Consciousness consists of thoughts and experiences. Thoughts are a quantum phenomenon underlying visible world, quantum biology from microtubules might be important.
I have been lucky enough to astral travel and met a dead relative who communicated with me telepathically. Because I'd gone half way, into the spirit realms she was able to meet me there, it came an a immense surprise but I remember thinking 'Ah of course, of course this spiritual state is our true nature, like I'd suddenly been woken up from the falsehood of materialism, and boy did it feel amazing. Consciousness is an omnipresent function of existence. Our physical mind filters it and to some degree dilutes its wholeness, to what degree the dilution depends on breath, purity of spirit and moral intention. The physical world, the entire visible Universe is incredible but the astral realms/spirit realms blow it out the water, in the spirit realms there are no boundaries or limitations.
I respect these speakers, they are very intelligent people of course but from my own experience getting stuck on physical processes as they are is limiting in the extreme the understanding of things as they TRULY are.
Why does anyone ask Sabine what she thinks about something that she was never expert in?
Might be because these people who invited her know that she´s brilliant on many areas?
@Thomas-gk42 no, that is very cultish behavior of you. She literally never worked in anything related nor has she any knowledge about it.
@@MrOksim She´s a leading mathematician, and that´s surely connected. And again, why was she invited by these people? Are they so stupid? In this little video she comes up quite competent, talking the less, but saying the most.
@Thomas-gk42 leading mathematician is just plainly wrong. She even does not work in mathematics.
@Thomas-gk42 she is just popular and increases views of videos, that is why
When exactly Sabine became an expert on consciousness? This is ridiculous.
What does it need to become "an expert on consciousness"? Are you one?
@@Thomas-gk42 Also, instead of posing contra-question in a bad faith, you should be able to defend her, if you can, by mentioning some of her contributions to the field. Too bad you cannot do that, as she literally does not have any contribution to the field of consciousness, not even in the field of physics. Being a famous youtuber or interpreting quantum mechanics is not a scientific contribution in any way.
@@FiodorFiodorovna You only can call someone an expert of something if you define what you're talking about, what did not happen in this talk. She posted a proper definition (for me at least) some months ago. Are Penrose and Hameroff experts?
Parroting some ad hominem nonsense of guys who hopped on the "we debunk Sabine" bandwagon grabbing for attention to benefit from her famous name is no solution bro. Cheers
Being expert or what is truth doesn't matter at all in western world anymore. What matters is only propaganda and narrative.
Sabine: "we'll quantify consciousness". That's not possible because consciousness is about quality. It maybe argued that quantity itself is a subtype of quality or qualia as Bishop Berkley did.
Multidimensionality. Panpsychism. Resonance.
=religion.
Evar find dark matter same consciousness humanity never find it 😂😂😂😂😂🧠🌍
Hard problem of consciousness? What is hard about it? We´re on the way to understand it beyond all philosophical burden. Sabine, clear and pointed as usual. She talks the less, but says the most.
Everyone knows what consciousness is, right? What utter nonsense these people are talking. Consciousness is what they are using to be on that stage. Consciousness is the ability to use language to talk about things that may not exist. Human consciousness is the use of language. If you want to talk about machine consciousness or universal consciousness please define your terms. Panpsychism anyone?
If you cared about consciousness you would be vegan.
Nick Lane is the only sober soul in this mess of imaginations.
Sabine makes a good second.
Soso, Sabine says.
Humans are different from all other forms of life because, for our unconscious, there is an entity capable of carrying out actions that the material body is not capable of carrying out, which gives this entity an extraordinary "evolutionary power." For the unconscious, these actions are as real as the actions carried out by our material body. The unconscious (the ape that we are) identifies itself to a great extent with this entity, but there is not a "total fusion" since our material body is not capable of carrying out actions in "timeless and immaterial worlds", where this entity can carry out actions, whose actions are what we know as "conscious actions."
Quite the superiority complex.
@@frojojo5717 Conscious Action explained
Based on the information they capture with their senses, living beings with brains manage a utilitarian mental representation of the conditions that currently take place in their relevant material environment. This Mental Correlate is a kind of “photograph” of what is happening in the Present in the relevant material environment of the Individual, a Mental Correlate that we will call “Reality of the Individual”.
Life experience, stored in the brain, allows us to give meaning to what is perceived. At the same time, as Pavlov demonstrated, life experience allows us to project eventual future states of the individual's relevant environment, generating expectations of action.
Information from the Past, the Present and an eventual Future is managed by the brain. It is evident that the brain makes a utilitarian distinction between the Past, the Present and the projection of an eventual future.
Human language allows us to incorporate into the mental correlate events and entities that are not necessarily part of what happens in the world of matter, which gives an unprecedented “malleability” to the Reality of the Individual. For the unconscious, everything is happening in the Present. When a child, whom I will call Pedrito, listens to the story of Little Red Riding Hood, said entity is integrated into the Reality of the Individual. In turn, for the child, this entity is “very real”; he does not need his eyes to see it to incorporate it into his mental correlate of the relevant environment. Thanks to our particular language, authentic “immaterial and timeless worlds” have a place in the Mental Correlate of the relevant environment.
In the first four years of life, the child is immersed in an ocean of words, a cascade of sounds and meanings. At this stage, a child hears between seven thousand and twenty-five thousand words a day, a barrage of information. Many of these words speak of events that occur in the present, in the material world, but others cross the boundaries of time and space. There is no impediment so that, when the words do not find their echo in what is happening at that moment in Pedrito's material environment, these words become threads that weave a segment of the tapestry of the Reality of the Individual.
Just as the child's brain grants existence to the young Little Red Riding Hood when the story unfolds before him, similarly, when the voices around him talk about tomorrow and a beach with Pedro, as happens for example when his mother tells him says: “Pedrito, tomorrow we will go for a walk to the beach” the child's mind, still in the process of deciphering the mysteries of time, instantly conjures the entity Pedrito, with his feet on the golden sand, in the eternal present of childhood.
Although over time a strong association between the entity Pedrito and his body is established in the child's brain, a total fusion between said entity and the child's body can never take place, since for the Unconscious the bodily actions of Pedrito They only take place in the Present, while the entity Pedrito is able to carry out actions in authentic timeless and immaterial worlds. The entity Pedrito is what we call the Being, and we know its action as Conscious Action.
@@guillermobrand8458 I'm always in awe when I stumble into such a degree of confidence based on absolutely nothing.
ORCH OR is the best framework yet.
Somewhat annoying to lead viewers on into a trap of paid subscription. Thumbs down!
She constantly speaks on subjects she has no expertise in. It’s like CNN bringing Michio Kaku to explain hurricanes.
This is so blabla, parroting the same nonsense a thousand times that comes up since some simpletons are jealous of her success. Walk on, your presence just shows, that her influence is growing.
Like taking vaccine advice from Aaron Rogers. Would love to chat, but I have to go give a talk on particle acceleration at LHC. .
@@kellyburns4725 Good luck, hope your criticism is somewhat more original and substantial there.
Machines are not conscious humans are next question 🤔. Peace ✌️😎.
Prove it? 🤷♂️
Neurotech zersetzung flaunts 'nanoseconds' but is a as per a string drawn to attract a cat's attention. That's a pisstake. On the other hand, the uninvited & aggressive application of BBI etc, especially with 3yrs priming, is auto-schiz. It's finding the middle ground.