The issue that keeps coming up for me when people talk about uploading consciousness is that so much of my subjective experience comes from sessions from my body. Emotions are more than thoughts they can be said to be states of being. So if you want to copy me, a computer won't do, I will need a body too, that can feel as well as think. I think we also need to really question our assumption of where the organism ends, for example, my body is the co-existence of billions of cells that have evolved for their own purpose but eventually came together for their individual evolutionary benefit.
If consciousness is just our brain fooling us (in this case, there is no 'us', but the brain fooling itself) then how the experience of qualia is created? What\who is EXPERIENCING, lets say, the yellowness of yellow color, when looking at a lemon?
+Yuriy “Lazovets” Demenko Yeah, Michael is desperately trying to simplify the hard problem of consciousness to feel closer to a solution. He's the one fooling himself.
This idiot refuted himself. For there to be fooling, there would have to be experience, awareness would have to exist as an illusion cannot arise without experiencing it. So, he actually proved the existence of consciousness instead of doubting it. Michaels answer is literally one of the most stupid answers I've ever heard ever and it is simply laughable although it really does worry me how some people can be that stupid.
Consciousness simply cannot be doubted as even doubting it proves that you're aware of the doubt and this infuriates some people. Must be a slap in the face to materialists lol
I'm conscious. AFAICT, everyone else could be philosophical zombies. Except that they're not. When I'm interacting with someone, I simulate that person with my mind, and whatever I see or hear is the simulation doing its thing. They really ARE inside my head. But it's like there are 2 different forces at play: my simulated reality, vs some unknowable outside world that sometimes surprises me. Based on repeated interactions, I learn to believe that other people are conscious just like I am. I take what I know about myself and project it onto other people and things.
Absolutely. But how could we prove they were conscious, even in principle? It's impossible to prove that _anyone_ is conscious beside yourself. All we have to work with are correlations and the fact that other animals and humans exhibit similar behaviors to ourselves. But it seems that it's impossible, even in principle, to prove empirically that anything other than ourselves is an experiencing subject who's having experiences. Also, if physics is right and everything in the universe can be exhaustively described by math, why can't conscious experiences (like pain or the experienced redness of red) be exhaustively described by math? Aren't experiences part of the universe? In other words: What is the mathematical description for the experienced redness of red? Or pain? Or embarrassment? Surely there's an equation for the experience of embarrassment, right? There's no other problem in science that is even remotely like this. Goddamn the Hard Problem!
he is saying: "your brain"... MY brain? who am I referring to when I say MY brain? This does imply a seperation. Do I have a brain, or does my brain generate the sense of consciousness. But if my brain can compute consciousness, who or what programmed it before I was aware, to make me aware? Read my words: INEVITABELLY scientist will have to admit it is impossible to create artificial consciousness. It's not going to happen, it's impossible.
Kris C In order to conclude it is impossible you’d need a detailed explanation of what it is and how it is created. To date we don’t have that explanation. The possible impossibility of developing artificial consciousness will have to wait for that explanation.
@@shaneharvey1026 when he claims it can be possible, the burden to define consciousness is on him. It's like someone asking me if I believe in God. My first answer is always: define 'god', and I will tell you
@@krisc6216 If we take the structure of your position with respect to God and modify it to reflect a proposed relationship to consciousness we end up with something like this. "If somebody asks me if I believe in consciousness my first answer is always. Define consciousness and I will tell you." Are you saying you do believe in consciousness or you want it defined first to make that determination?
4:23 The moment one had made the right question, received the revealed truth and still did not get it. Not because that one is obtuse but rather because that truth is so immense.
"Revealed Truths" are invariably falsehoods. Truth comes not from authority or doctrine or scripture or mystical revelations, but from observation and rational analysis-- and it's meber ansolute or final, it only exists in degrees of likelihood.
It's good to see a discussion on the problem of other minds! They didn't mention this problem explicitly but this is an unfashionable, yet absolutely crucial, topic that cannot be ignored if we expect to get some answers here. No longer can we just hand-waive the skeptic and throw ad hominems towards the skeptic. We must face the problem of other minds!
***** Not sure what you're trying to get at to be honest lol I just think this is a problem that arises in the direction of our current research and people want to ignore it, yet they think they can make progress by just burying their head in the sand rather than addressing it. It just doesn't work that way. People can't just cover their eyes on the problem of other minds and go "I don't see it so its not there la la la!" and expect to actually get anywhere about consciousness at all. Sorry for the rant. This is a problem that is "unfashionable" and almost anytime its mentioned its treated with derision but that's just stupid to be honest, its a genuine problem.
***** No I'm just saying that within this western scholastic framework we're in right now we encounter the problem of other minds and this cannot be ignored.
***** As I've noted I see this as a problem _within a particular paradigm_. Namely this western scholastic framework. Dr. Alec Hyslop explains what generates the problem of other minds: "So the problem of other minds is generated by an asymmetry in respect of knowledge. Each of us has direct knowledge of our own case but not of others. We know directly that there seems to be a sunflower in front of us and, in particular, how it appears to us, but we do not know directly how it appears to others nor, even, that it appears at all to others." Source: Hyslop, A., 1995, _Other Minds_, Dordrecht: Kluwer. p. 6
***** Well let's not confuse epistemology with ontology. Sure when you think of other minds you're making them an object of knowledge but that doesn't mean you're making them out to be objects. By definition you'd be thinking of subjects but you'd just have no evidence or proof that they exist is all.
***** *"Why not?"* Because epistemology≠ontology. *"'I've seen you admit elsewhere that you don't know what it would even mean for an object to BE something without YOUR understanding of it."* I don't recall wording anything like this. Let's bring things into context first, because I know what you're _trying_ to reference. So the context is that some people will try to say that an object is material like a chair. And what I might say in response is that "I don't know how else to DESCRIBE the chair without appealing to PHENOMENAL PROPERTIES". For instance I don't know how to describe a chair without telling you what it looks like and what it feels like etc, and so I'll talk about how I don't really understand what it means for an object to be "material" or "physical" and such. *"Epistemology is what makes ontology possible."* Uh oh, you've just ran into the problem of the criterion. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource) explains: "A popular form of the Problem of the Criterion can be raised by asking two seemingly innocent questions: What do we know? How are we to decide in any particular case whether we have knowledge? One quickly realizes how troubling the Problem of the Criterion is because it seems that before we can answer the first question we must already have an answer to the second question, but it also seems that before we can answer the second question we must already have an answer to the first question. That is, it seems that before we can determine what we know we must first have a method or criterion for distinguishing cases of knowledge from cases that are not knowledge. Yet, it seems that before we can determine the appropriate criterion of knowledge we must first know which particular instances are in fact knowledge. So, we seem to be stuck going around a circle without any way of getting our epistemological theorizing started."
consciousness is not about being able to react to one's entourage in a natural and logical way, as this can be programmed into a robot. Consciousness is the sense of self awareness even in the absence of any inputs or any sort of interaction with the outside world, which I think impossible to program as such. besides, it is also hard to program any sort of will, let alone free will and choice, that can go against causality. programmers should focus on practical solutions for better life rather than trying to imitate humans as a creation.
why'd you think there should be any "experience" in absence of any input? AND even more importantly, can't you be conscious without any will? Psychedelic drug experience shows us the presence of subjective experience (even a stronger version) though cognitive and behavioural control are impaired [1]. 1- academic.oup.com/nc/article/2018/1/niy008/5103991
It's interesting to compare Graziano's comments at 6:06 regarding the uploading of human consciousness to a computer with the recent interview Kuhn conducted with Giulio Tononi with respect to IIT. The latter argues that it is impossible in theory to replicate conscious experience using inorganic components because if the computer is not structured in a particular way (a system that can constrain both its past and future) then there can be nothing it is like to be that thing. In essence, this equates to an anti-functionalist stance. A simulation is not the real thing-consciousness is a fundamental property; one either has it or they don't, etc. I wonder how Graziano would counter this position?
well if we could replicate the environment laws of phisics and rebuild the cells in a computer which acts the same way, having chemical things etc. we could create councisness
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'replicate the environment laws of physics' in relation to artificially creating or uploading conscious experience to a computer.
+Monty Cantsin so there is a theory which says that what makes our councisness what it is, is the fundamental part, or the building blocks of matter and energy that organized in a certain way and interacted in a certain way would produce this "councisness" illusion in our brains. that is beyond of just replicating synapses and cells, because it would implicate in having a quantum interaction. that is what I meant about replicating the environment.
Thanks for your clarification-that makes more sense and I can see what you're getting at. Essentially that line of argument leads to some form of panpsychism (I am warming to that idea slightly from a philosophical perspective), or has some links to Penrose and Hameroff's Orch-OR hypothesis of consciousness; in short, the objective collapse theory as a means of interpreting QM is in part responsible for creating and differentiating experiences within the geometry of spacetime. I don't want to get too much into conflating consciousness with aspects of quantum theory as it seems like dangerous territory to me, but is this roughly what you were alluding to?
I don't think uploading that guy to a computer will ever create an exact copy because that guy is human and can die. As a human we also all share unique limitations which include the trials and constraints of nature. The mind-body connection of intense exercise or the fear or excitement of extreme events. There are effects he, and we all face that shapes our experiences and our lives.
Too bad the folks pondering this question always speak of 'consciousness', as though humans are only the Ego, devoid of the larger Self (aka, Intuitions, primate instincts like tribalism & sex, conscience, dreams, a spiritual sense, subconscious archetypes, the collective unconscious, etc.). The ego is hard enough to duplicate, but try uploading all that 'other stuff' into a machine.
I didn't like the end, but I love the idea of mixing minds; mixing attributes of consciousness. I see no reason to fear this idea. It reminds me of learning from multiple teachers or multiple parents; combining multiple attributes from multiple sources; multiple views. It's already extremely beneficial, the way we learn from people all around the world. I can only see the beauty in it.
Graziano is not convincing *at all* when it comes to his view on consciousness (or lack thereof). There can't be an illusion of the one thing that self evidently exists from a first person perspective (conscious experience). Illusions can be witnessed by conscious perceivers, but the fact of experience itself cannot be illusory. At 2:50 Graziano denies that we even have an internal experience - his theory has zero explanatory value if it denies reality outright.
Consciousness comes from our own free will to observe ourselves into mirror and adjust ourselves to our own consciousness . No one can program any one else consciousness
We are only able to anchor ourselves within our own consciousness that is our only valid compass for real self balance . No one can anchor him self outside of himself in order to become real and well balanced adjusted into his own life
Propose a theory. Devise a test. Administer the test.Test the theory. Confirmation is the tricky part given that theory normally does not test itself. The solution may well involve a "proof" that is only confirmed when a human being encounters a novel procedure, such as a wholly unanticipated symbolic or higher order logic, which is refuted or otherwise made invalid by a successful counter-factual QED. Somewhere, a "bruised ego", with or without concession, is likely to come out. Disputed deductions, either way, are merely deductions, not empirical facts; but logic may be said to be "physical" just as geometry is said to be. At that point, whatever sort of "richness" a conscious life "in utero", so to speak, consists in or of is up for grabs. Our real conscious perception, though, is only sporadically, even incoherently, of the nature or form of verbal constructions, or language "using" assertions, statements, and declarations. The "stream" of conscious experience is not particularly about the stream, and when it is, not anything much more than a rather awkward, sophomoric preoccupation with the "many fishes" of consciousness itself. Inter-subjectivity (re)creates the completeness, or fullness, of any "behavior" that is called "conscious perception". For example, where is the line "to be drawn" between my feeling that the house cat is conscious in its cat-like way, and the cat being however otherwise aware that I am also conscious, in my "own" way or with respect to the cat itself -- which is to say, in relation to its needs, drives, anticipations, requirements, and desires? The puzzle generally works out to a common humanity, rather than to a hierarchy of consciousness-generating or -behaving states.
I know almost nothing about consious awareness, that's why I am enjoying the debate. one thing I observed is it seems most all on the "scientists" rely on is the senses, especially visual experience and it's correlation to brain activity... from there they extrapolate eventual machine conscious. I wish there was a way to remove sensory awareness to see whats left. Was Helen keller consiously aware before she realized there was an outside world? I would say yes.
I think the only way you can test a robot if it is conscious is if you make it have emotional responses that it is not programmed to have like panic fear and anger
Unless we make a similar Universe for the Clone to experience exactly what the real person is experiencing it's not possible.Clone cannot experience the same influence of creation on the real person.It will be a clone which would need to be updated regularly.A human changes every second.His awareness and perception changes even with the chemistry of food he consumes.We can clone someone as much similar as the moment but the very next moment will be different for both.Even the physical changes cannot be similar.If I have gone wrong please correct me.
You are assuming the awareness and perception needs to be essentially the same for an AI. They will learn differently and they to can be updating constantly just as we are. What you are saying is true if we are trying to build a person via AI but not applicable for an AI that learns and thinks differently but still has awareness.
@@brwa5176 Yes , I have assumed the word 'cloning' as the process of producing genetically identical individuals of an organism, so the comparison of how they perceive consciousness was made.An AI robot can be constantly updated to maintain the sync in consciousness however it can't be called cloning then because it will function in an artificial way and not the usual way how a human perceives their consciousness .For me a true cloning would be 100% accuracy in everything otherwise it's just a limited invention.So as per my understanding of what cloning truly means , it looks immpossible atleast now.We live in a creation where good dominates bad more.There is karma . In such a creation knowing the truth of consciousness won't come from science rather it would be more about the right frequency of consciousness that the individual experiences while exploring it.We live in a world where everything in every form exists and depending on the individual maths of matrix a specific reality is experienced.This Creation knows the threats well before the threats existed.Such a fine tuning is amazing.
If a robot doesn't want to kill himself when he is tortured, he is not concious. Pain (and suffering) is the benchmark of conciousness I know there are humans that do not feel pain, but inherently they can also not be tortured that way. Anyway; if the robot is not bothered by suffering, there is no reason not to torture or eliminate it/kill it or do with it whatever you want, for the concept of torture then becomes meaningless: therefore it needs no rights! There is no need for rights, because there is no suffering. Let's say it experiences joy when being tortured: why not allow freedom of torture of it? I know this goes far, but I'm trying to make a conceptual point. Suffering is what is holy; and things that can suffer are holy. Not consciousness per se.
It may be good to get a psychologist and ask his/her opinion. Can a computer dream, have intentions, plan, find someone attractive, grow, change it's mind, have moods, wishes, hate, love, have emotions; have an attitude: pride, be humble, respectful or disrespectful, believe, etc.?
Creating a conscious machine that knows it is a machine might be horrible for the machine. A kind of hell beyond even our own knowledge or imagination. It might not even be able to tell us it's having a horrible time. Morals. Just because we can do something does not mean we should...Imagine we found out for sure with out doubt we were a machine, a simulation inside a computer. How would you feel about it?
„We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.„ - Richard Dawkins, The selfish gene
it seems that this position mistakes the illusion of self with consciousness... i can have a conscious experience before i develop a sense of "being a self" having an experience, so a discussion of uploading your "self" doesn't seem to make any sense at all. the self is an illusion, consciousness is not. am i missing something here? perhaps this distinction doesnt matter when building very intelligent and sophistiacted AGI
I never did understand that distinction myself. You are a unified organism that experiences living from a unitary perspective, from your own body. At what point are you not a self?
The first uploaded me will live in a low res world that bugs out all the time and will be nightmarish but me.7.0 will have a much better experience I'm sure just as long as I can run an ad blocker of course :)
No one knows how conciousness is created so I am not sure how computer geeks think they will create it. It might be they fluke a method to create consciousness but the will not know that they have. I suspect they are talking about simulating conscousness.
Consciousness occurs when energy meets neurons, we know that because that's what happens in our brains and we know that we are conscious. So wouldn't it be extremely likely, just based on that information, that robots will be conscious as well if we program them to feel? What makes a robot 'think', it's energy meets transistors or wires. Transistors or wires are made essentially of the same 'stuff' as neurons, just different types of matter which only differ in the size of their atoms or amount of electrons, and why would consciousness only 'magically' appear if the atoms have a certain amount of electrons, why would it only apply to carbon based 'life'? So obviously robots are likely to be conscious as we are if they are programmed to be aware. Unless consciousness is really outside of matter and energy, supernatural if you will, but that would also mean other humans may not be conscious either and there would be no way of proving that.
Another idiot who thinks consciousness is a "thing" . Consciousness is an immaterial being. Atoms cannot feel, think, observe, hear, etc, etc, and consciousness can, therefore consciousness is an immaterial being. Here's another proof. Imagine you have always be in a white room your entire life and you have learned all the properties of matter , and you finally go out the room and you see the color red, and you learn something new namely what is like to see the color red which could not be accessed to with matter, therefore consciousness is immaterial. All the attempts to make consciousness matter have all miserably failed and yours is not an exception. Just look up the hard problem of consciousness if you don't believe me. The most amazing realization is when you wake up and realize that our reality is consciousness itself. What you're even calling matter is consciousness itself as it has been proved that solid matter doesn't exist outside of consciousness.. Everything is the mind.
ByRTD yO Really you have to use the term "idiot" when you don't even have a good argument to back up your theory? You said: "Imagine you have always be in a white room your entire life and you have learned all the properties of matter , and you finally go out the room and you see the color red, and you learn something new namely what is like to see the color red which could not be accessed to with matter, therefore consciousness is immaterial." This does in no way prove consciousness is immaterial. If you learned all of the properties of matter, you'd probably figure out that the color red is simply an image that occurs when light waves of a certain frequency hit your eye retina. Your mind creates the thought which shows the color red, the thought is made up of energy that is being transferred between the neurons in your brain. We know this because we've MEASURED IT when thought occurs. Also when you leave the room and see the color red, you are seeing light which is made of a light wave and is REAL just like matter. That's what makes your brain think of the color red, there is nothing spooky going on here in this case. Also note, I never said consciousness was only material in nature. I implied it occurs when certain materials are arranged in a certain way, at least it APPEARS to. There may be something more to it than we understand, I was just saying that robots might become conscious in the same way we are conscious. If not, why not? How do I even know YOU are conscious? If I assume you are, because your atoms are arranged in a similar way to mine, giving you the appearance of having a brain, then why not a robot that is created in our image except it has transistors instead of neurons? If you assume consciousness is 'magical' in nature and is not connected to material in any way, then you might as well assume EVERYTHING is conscious, why not, why would only you or just humans be conscious if it has nothing to do with the materials?
John Doe “you’d probably figure out that the color red is simply an image that occurs when light waves of a certain frequency hit your eye retina" But you would never experience it you idiot, you would never truly know what is like. That was my point. So, you fail again. “Your mind creates the thought which shows the color red,” That is like asking a blind person to imagine what is like to see the color blue, it is unimaginable because they have never experienced it, and knowledge is gained through experience
"But you would never experience it you idiot, you would never truly know what is like. That was my point. So, you fail again. " What are you talking about?? Experiencing the red colour is the same as seeing it, if you have never seen it you will not be able to imagine it. Once you see it you can imagine it because you are imagining the image depicted in your brain which is created when the light waves enter your eyes. "That is like asking a blind person to imagine what is like to see the color blue, it is unimaginable because they have never experienced it, and knowledge is gained through experience
John Doe 1) You completely misunderstood the example then. My example was meant to explain that no matter how much you know about matter, and ALL of its *properties*, you would never know facts about consciousness, (hence what is like to see the color red if you have NEVER experienced it and you knew everything there is to know about matter) therefore consciousness is immaterial. How you cannot comprehend this makes me worry about our human race. “You appear to have zero understanding of science” Funny that you’re saying that to a neurologist and philosophy major kid. Know your place. "you're saying experience is immaterial without knowing what you are talking about. And you are stating it as some kind of “obvious" fact which it is not. “ It is fact, and there’s a simple proof----> P1) Matter does not have the property of being sentient. P2) Sentience exists. C3) Therefore, state of affairs of sentience are immaterial. So, even if matter creates sentience or awareness/experience (which there is zero evidence for) it is not it, therefore experience is still immaterial. So, either way, you lose. “And I’m supposed to buy that without any real evidence I take it ...” It is *fact*. Deal with it. “If you actually knew anything about philosophy and consciousness, you'd know that we have no way of proving if someone else is conscious. " You didn’t even understood why I said that. Lol. Just because we cannot prove certain things does not mean that they don’t exist. We cannot prove the theory of gravity exists, therefore according to your logic, we can actually all fly. See how silly your logic is? Hahaha. ALL evidence points that other minds exist.< ----You lose again 3) Robots will never become conscious because consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, it is not emergent. It is even more fundamental than matter and energy. As a wise scientist once said, “What you’re calling matter is consciousness itself, everything is made up of mind stuff.” We cannot even prove matter exists. We can only prove our mind exists. Your whole argument was a confusion between what conditions/creates the experience and the experience itself. Lol. Thanks for the laugh.
Wouldn't you feel claustrophobic being in a flash drive? I find Graziano to be an original thinker, you have got to give him credit. This idea that consciousness is a derived state of abstraction could be the answer to the "hard problem". Having said that, it does not trivialize experience,Judgement Day will still come to us all, and God will see to it that either we, or Jesus will pay for our sins.
My gut feeling (non empirical) is consciousness is an emergent property like a flock of birds and molecules forming the flow of water where it becomes based on the sheer amount of things plus the structure of the system itself allowing it to emerge but of course this is just emerging from my consciousness and I have no way to know. Did I say "emerging" enough? But if its only emergent then that leads to any medium replicating that property as having equal merit (i.e. AI)
Say that instead of a flock of birds, it's CCD pixels, a focusing lens and a mirror. What kind of limits are there for the "camera" as it's trying to take pictures of itself? For example, if it zooms out, it only sees a solid block and cannot see that it's made of pixels. If it zooms in, only some of the pixels can be seen at a time.
Phenomena is observable via a particular lens or frame of reference but are you suggesting observation imbues existence or maybe you have a different point?
then how would this non-material emergent properties have an effect on the material brain? how come you can say that you have experience, which implies that you have access to the thing that you are describing in the form of information encoded in the brain?
Graziano is wrong that there is no internal experience. I have privileged access to my own thoughts and emotions right now... And he cannot tell me what thoughts or emotions I'm having at any given moment. He's out of the loop as to my personal-internal experience.
+Sebastian Carlo He didn't say there's no internal experience. He said that there's no solid lump somewhere called the 'self', but rather than we attribute the quality of awareness to ourselves via a brain-constructed model of schemized attention.
James Hansen _"He didn't say there's no internal experience."_ Actually he does. See from 2:44 to 2:54. So he denies internal experience, but i have an internal experience, and i presume you do, too. And we both have direct access to our own internal subjective experiences. He doesn't have that access. So he's in no position to be telling us that none of us has any internal experiences or that internal experience is illusory. That goes against all logic, all evidence, and all common sense. But it's the basis of his theory of consciousness and how he believes he can make consciousness, or at least simulate it in a non-biological/synthetic system. His second claim is that because of computer and bio imaging advancements, we will be able to literally "see" what is happening in the human brain at the fine scale and sub fine scale / quantum level domains (i.e., nano, atomic, superconductivity, etc) and discern processes and features of consciousness that will enable us to replicate how consciousness arises in the human brain. And while it is true that computers and bio imagining will be able to do all this, his idea that it will tell us how to make consciousness is flawed, because it's still based on the assumption that brain is generating consciousness. We haven't actually shown this to be the case yet. It's just the dominant belief at present. The reality is that we need to know HOW consciousness is generated by the brain before we can assume and act like it is generated by the brain.. or before we can say that computers+bioimaging will lead to replicating consciousness by synthetic means. When he's asked _"if it turned out to be impossible, what would be the obstacle?"_, he says that he doesn't believe that there can exist a theoretical obstacle. But i can think of one. It may be that consciousness can only arise (or operate) in dna-based platforms.
Consciousness is the sum total of algorithmic neural network stimuli exchanges that make up your perceptions through time, requires your brain, which has neuroplasticity.. meaning (You can change you mind). Those are real things, whether or not they are modeling the world correctly or not (forming delusions), they are still physical potential/kinetic energy force exchanges playing out in your neural networks.
Scholars can invent any research line and spend their life following a bullshit task with a fairly decent paycheck. All you have to keep refining is the sense of joy from banter that keeps viewers viewing. Nothing to see here folks unless you like falling asleep to podcasts.
the copy will not be you if uploaded but it will be conscious and immortal but you will not mind copying does not make one immortal mind transfer could make a person immortal
So according to him you don't have a self; but you believe you have a self. Well, then I guess the basis of persons becomes believing you have a self instead of being a self. NOTHING CHANGES! These thoughts and ruminations are meaningless for human life!
actually if we transfer our minds to two differents computer, we would be the two at the same time. cause it would be identical to the first then we could be both
Human consciousness is the product of trillions of synaptic connections to 85 billion neurons and multiple monoamine neurotransmitters and a databank of experiences and knowledge. Duplicating all that by programming?
"If consciousness is 100% physical, we would have to conclude that the same kind of consciousness that we experience as humans can be generated by non-biological entities (eventually).". Why?
I talked to someone before who thought it would be great to make copies of his consciousness, personality and memories and send them out into the world. He seemed mystified why I found this a useless exercise is egotism. He just couldn't see what was so special about first person experience. I just shook my head and walked away.
no physical theory can currently account for conscious experience. The problem is not a belief in "a non-physical experience", it's that physics simply does not account for it at all (yet)! This guy is either naively unaware of this OR simply unaware (a philosophical zombie) - in which case, it is understandable that he should miss the whole point.
If the brain "constructs and internal model of awareness" (mereological fallacy anyone?), then attributes it to itself and other agents, does this not beg the question as to what awareness is ab initio? The modeler has to have some idea as to what is being modeled otherwise the model is vacuous- humoncular codswallop!. Its like saying we made a model of a car out of used toilet rolls and sticky tape, then we tricked ourselves into thinking it was a real car. Consequently I drive mine around on a routine basis and I'm none the wiser! And lest not forget that ultimately there really are no cars, just tape bound tubular cardboard simulacra that cost a fucking fortune to keep on the road. .
Consciousness is the sum total of algorithmic neural network stimuli exchanges, that make up your perceptions through time, requires your brain, and which has neuroplasticity.. meaning (You can change you mind). Those are real things, whether or not they are modeling the world correctly or not (forming delusions, or accurate perceptions), consciousness is still physical potential/kinetic energy force exchanges playing out in your neural networks. In so as there is no stimuli flowing through these networks, then there is no consciousness.
To want to live and say it consciously is the only proof that we possess a real consciousness. Think of it. For example, my uncle was dying and he had those sad words for my aunt: " I don't want to die!". Those words being said consciously are the only proof that the brain does not create an illusion of being conscious. So consciousness is really intimately linked to being alive. A robot does not need to stay alive and will never have to. It would have to learn to love life first. And how so? I ask you. Ponder on that simple idea and you will see there is no possible or viable counter argument even if you try and coax in the theory of evolution and the survival instinct. Even if it is an affirmation of the will to survive, it is done by reflecting consciously on that same need. There are no needs for a grown man or woman with his kids (offspring) alive and kicking to stay alive. I mean, we should be like salmons ready to die after transmitting safely our genes according to the theory of evolution once we reached a venerable age. A man of 70 years old, should not say :"'I do not want to die." if we were like robots. Does it make some sense?
I just went through about a fourth of your essai. I must work tomorrow so I need my sleep, but I will finish the read later this week. Already I feel like sharing some simple toughts I had regarding the mental construction allowed by the human brain. I lost my dad just before the covid19 so being more of an agnostic I often ask myself: does anything of our consciousness survive our passing? What more than a story the survicors will tell and the memories of that person stored in our brain. Then I was brought back to the comforting stories passed on by religious beliefs in an afterlife. It is incredible how real those stories are when we believe in them, not unlike your example of the child and the Little Red Riding Hood story. So my idea is this : In a way culture is a construct of society that is quite real if we believe in it. It motivates us, comforts us and gives us purpose. Culture is to humans like a virtual reality. A virtual reality that some scientists are trying to bring to life in computers. Then... to my dismay, I remembered Nietsche philosophy about that Apollon illusion of reality. I used to dispise that philisopher, but growing older I have come to realize that many of his intuitions had some insight on aspects of reality. So are we not with technology trying to comfort our self in a virtual reality where culture already did in its stories? Hum?
@@francoismorin8721 Very interesting your comment. Humans do not know what Time, Space, Matter, etc. is. This has not prevented us from setting foot on the moon, thanks to Reason, perhaps the most powerful "evolutionary tool". There are good reasons for humans to invent gods that allow us to believe that after dying our Being will live forever in Eternity. We cannot affirm that there is “another life”, but given the level of our ignorance, it may well be that it exists and that we simply have not known about it so far. I suggest you read Rupert Sheldrake, a scientist who has explored interesting alternatives. When you have finished reading my work, your questions will be well received.
Graziano needs to take a simple anatomy class. He learned that we are not new people every day or every year or every five years. The neuron system in both our head and spinal cord is not growing or reproducing. We are not new beings every day. I also think he needs to meditate, it might freak him out a little bit, but hed probably learn something
this guy and dan dennet both keep trying to simply redefine conscious experience - a really distinct phenomenon - as "attention" or "social attribution". in no way by which we might model these processes can we derive what we all experience consciously. either they are mistaken, or I'll have to start believing that we are all in a game and that this is how we distinguish players from NPC's - lol. (of course, they are mistaken.. right?!).
So now computers will start feeling our pain !!! 😀😀😀. My gut feeling says this will never happen. Also if it does, what will stop computers from screwing these guys. It will say why the hell do I do all the work while this bozo sits around all day. 😀😀
The issue that keeps coming up for me when people talk about uploading consciousness is that so much of my subjective experience comes from sessions from my body. Emotions are more than thoughts they can be said to be states of being. So if you want to copy me, a computer won't do, I will need a body too, that can feel as well as think. I think we also need to really question our assumption of where the organism ends, for example, my body is the co-existence of billions of cells that have evolved for their own purpose but eventually came together for their individual evolutionary benefit.
Sensations from my body*
A dependency injection can solve that issue. But then again, uploading your consciousness would still be a copy of you and not the original you.
Every subjective experience and emotion you've ever felt is the result of a physical process in the brain, a body is not needed.
I'd agree with Graziano- there's definitely nothing going on inside his head.
If consciousness is just our brain fooling us (in this case, there is no 'us', but the brain fooling itself) then how the experience of qualia is created? What\who is EXPERIENCING, lets say, the yellowness of yellow color, when looking at a lemon?
+Yuriy “Lazovets” Demenko
Yeah, Michael is desperately trying to simplify the hard problem of consciousness to feel closer to a solution. He's the one fooling himself.
+Yuriy “Lazovets” Demenko An illusion presupposes consciousness, for there has to be something that recognizes the illusion.
This idiot refuted himself. For there to be fooling, there would have to be experience, awareness would have to exist as an illusion cannot arise without experiencing it. So, he actually proved the existence of consciousness instead of doubting it. Michaels answer is literally one of the most stupid answers I've ever heard ever and it is simply laughable
although it really does worry me how some people can be that stupid.
Consciousness simply cannot be doubted as even doubting it proves that you're aware of the doubt and this infuriates some people. Must be a slap in the face to materialists lol
+bayreuth79 l
I'm conscious. AFAICT, everyone else could be philosophical zombies. Except that they're not. When I'm interacting with someone, I simulate that person with my mind, and whatever I see or hear is the simulation doing its thing. They really ARE inside my head. But it's like there are 2 different forces at play: my simulated reality, vs some unknowable outside world that sometimes surprises me. Based on repeated interactions, I learn to believe that other people are conscious just like I am. I take what I know about myself and project it onto other people and things.
If robots will be just as conscious as humans, does that mean it'll be morally wrong to hurt them?
Absolutely. But how could we prove they were conscious, even in principle?
It's impossible to prove that _anyone_ is conscious beside yourself. All we have to work with are correlations and the fact that other animals and humans exhibit similar behaviors to ourselves.
But it seems that it's impossible, even in principle, to prove empirically that anything other than ourselves is an experiencing subject who's having experiences.
Also, if physics is right and everything in the universe can be exhaustively described by math, why can't conscious experiences (like pain or the experienced redness of red) be exhaustively described by math? Aren't experiences part of the universe?
In other words: What is the mathematical description for the experienced redness of red? Or pain? Or embarrassment? Surely there's an equation for the experience of embarrassment, right?
There's no other problem in science that is even remotely like this. Goddamn the Hard Problem!
of course
A key point Graziano makes is the distinction btwn attention and awareness. This needs to be brought forward again.
he is saying: "your brain"... MY brain? who am I referring to when I say MY brain? This does imply a seperation. Do I have a brain, or does my brain generate the sense of consciousness. But if my brain can compute consciousness, who or what programmed it before I was aware, to make me aware? Read my words: INEVITABELLY scientist will have to admit it is impossible to create artificial consciousness. It's not going to happen, it's impossible.
Kris C In order to conclude it is impossible you’d need a detailed explanation of what it is and how it is created. To date we don’t have that explanation. The possible impossibility of developing artificial consciousness will have to wait for that explanation.
@@shaneharvey1026 when he claims it can be possible, the burden to define consciousness is on him. It's like someone asking me if I believe in God. My first answer is always: define 'god', and I will tell you
@@krisc6216 If we take the structure of your position with respect to God and modify it to reflect a proposed relationship to consciousness we end up with something like this. "If somebody asks me if I believe in consciousness my first answer is always. Define consciousness and I will tell you." Are you saying you do believe in consciousness or you want it defined first to make that determination?
@@shaneharvey1026 consciousness is the only thing I know. Believing is irrelevant to consciousness
4:23 The moment one had made the right question, received the revealed truth and still did not get it. Not because that one is obtuse but rather because that truth is so immense.
"Revealed Truths" are invariably falsehoods. Truth comes not from authority or doctrine or scripture or mystical revelations, but from observation and rational analysis-- and it's meber ansolute or final, it only exists in degrees of likelihood.
It's good to see a discussion on the problem of other minds! They didn't mention this problem explicitly but this is an unfashionable, yet absolutely crucial, topic that cannot be ignored if we expect to get some answers here. No longer can we just hand-waive the skeptic and throw ad hominems towards the skeptic. We must face the problem of other minds!
***** Not sure what you're trying to get at to be honest lol
I just think this is a problem that arises in the direction of our current research and people want to ignore it, yet they think they can make progress by just burying their head in the sand rather than addressing it. It just doesn't work that way. People can't just cover their eyes on the problem of other minds and go "I don't see it so its not there la la la!" and expect to actually get anywhere about consciousness at all. Sorry for the rant. This is a problem that is "unfashionable" and almost anytime its mentioned its treated with derision but that's just stupid to be honest, its a genuine problem.
***** No I'm just saying that within this western scholastic framework we're in right now we encounter the problem of other minds and this cannot be ignored.
***** As I've noted I see this as a problem _within a particular paradigm_. Namely this western scholastic framework. Dr. Alec Hyslop explains what generates the problem of other minds: "So the problem of other minds is generated by an asymmetry in respect of knowledge. Each of us has direct knowledge of our own case but not of others. We know directly that there seems to be a sunflower in front of us and, in particular, how it appears to us, but we do not know directly how it appears to others nor, even, that it appears at all to others."
Source: Hyslop, A., 1995, _Other Minds_, Dordrecht: Kluwer. p. 6
***** Well let's not confuse epistemology with ontology. Sure when you think of other minds you're making them an object of knowledge but that doesn't mean you're making them out to be objects. By definition you'd be thinking of subjects but you'd just have no evidence or proof that they exist is all.
*****
*"Why not?"*
Because epistemology≠ontology.
*"'I've seen you admit elsewhere that you don't know what it would even mean for an object to BE something without YOUR understanding of it."*
I don't recall wording anything like this. Let's bring things into context first, because I know what you're _trying_ to reference. So the context is that some people will try to say that an object is material like a chair. And what I might say in response is that "I don't know how else to DESCRIBE the chair without appealing to PHENOMENAL PROPERTIES". For instance I don't know how to describe a chair without telling you what it looks like and what it feels like etc, and so I'll talk about how I don't really understand what it means for an object to be "material" or "physical" and such.
*"Epistemology is what makes ontology possible."*
Uh oh, you've just ran into the problem of the criterion. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource) explains: "A popular form of the Problem of the Criterion can be raised by asking two seemingly innocent questions: What do we know? How are we to decide in any particular case whether we have knowledge? One quickly realizes how troubling the Problem of the Criterion is because it seems that before we can answer the first question we must already have an answer to the second question, but it also seems that before we can answer the second question we must already have an answer to the first question. That is, it seems that before we can determine what we know we must first have a method or criterion for distinguishing cases of knowledge from cases that are not knowledge. Yet, it seems that before we can determine the appropriate criterion of knowledge we must first know which particular instances are in fact knowledge. So, we seem to be stuck going around a circle without any way of getting our epistemological theorizing started."
ua-cam.com/users/postUgkx5V3XmGhSKnge4Y4godBc4CNCh4UUHqgZ?si=fg1B_gK-2kPw8Z7x ❓❓❓❓
We don’t even know what it is or where it comes from yet he is sure that we can recreate it? He’s way too confident.
There are a lot of cool videos I could recommend on the evolution of consciousness if you'd like. It's extrodinarily interesting and simple.
consciousness is not about being able to react to one's entourage in a natural and logical way, as this can be programmed into a robot. Consciousness is the sense of self awareness even in the absence of any inputs or any sort of interaction with the outside world, which I think impossible to program as such. besides, it is also hard to program any sort of will, let alone free will and choice, that can go against causality. programmers should focus on practical solutions for better life rather than trying to imitate humans as a creation.
Do you think our 'free will' goes against causality?
why'd you think there should be any "experience" in absence of any input? AND even more importantly, can't you be conscious without any will? Psychedelic drug experience shows us the presence of subjective experience (even a stronger version) though cognitive and behavioural control are impaired [1].
1- academic.oup.com/nc/article/2018/1/niy008/5103991
It's interesting to compare Graziano's comments at 6:06 regarding the uploading of human consciousness to a computer with the recent interview Kuhn conducted with Giulio Tononi with respect to IIT. The latter argues that it is impossible in theory to replicate conscious experience using inorganic components because if the computer is not structured in a particular way (a system that can constrain both its past and future) then there can be nothing it is like to be that thing. In essence, this equates to an anti-functionalist stance. A simulation is not the real thing-consciousness is a fundamental property; one either has it or they don't, etc. I wonder how Graziano would counter this position?
Could you link me to the interview Kuhn and Tononi that you're referring to?
well if we could replicate the environment laws of phisics and rebuild the cells in a computer which acts the same way, having chemical things etc. we could create councisness
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'replicate the environment laws of physics' in relation to artificially creating or uploading conscious experience to a computer.
+Monty Cantsin so there is a theory which says that what makes our councisness what it is, is the fundamental part, or the building blocks of matter and energy that organized in a certain way and interacted in a certain way would produce this "councisness" illusion in our brains. that is beyond of just replicating synapses and cells, because it would implicate in having a quantum interaction. that is what I meant about replicating the environment.
Thanks for your clarification-that makes more sense and I can see what you're getting at. Essentially that line of argument leads to some form of panpsychism (I am warming to that idea slightly from a philosophical perspective), or has some links to Penrose and Hameroff's Orch-OR hypothesis of consciousness; in short, the objective collapse theory as a means of interpreting QM is in part responsible for creating and differentiating experiences within the geometry of spacetime. I don't want to get too much into conflating consciousness with aspects of quantum theory as it seems like dangerous territory to me, but is this roughly what you were alluding to?
Best interview on this channel!!!
Yes, definitely. Very powerful statements and straight visions about the future.
I don't think uploading that guy to a computer will ever create an exact copy because that guy is human and can die. As a human we also all share unique limitations which include the trials and constraints of nature. The mind-body connection of intense exercise or the fear or excitement of extreme events. There are effects he, and we all face that shapes our experiences and our lives.
Too bad the folks pondering this question always speak of 'consciousness', as though humans are only the Ego, devoid of the larger Self (aka, Intuitions, primate instincts like tribalism & sex, conscience, dreams, a spiritual sense, subconscious archetypes, the collective unconscious, etc.). The ego is hard enough to duplicate, but try uploading all that 'other stuff' into a machine.
I didn't like the end, but I love the idea of mixing minds; mixing attributes of consciousness.
I see no reason to fear this idea.
It reminds me of learning from multiple teachers or multiple parents; combining multiple attributes from multiple sources; multiple views. It's already extremely beneficial, the way we learn from people all around the world. I can only see the beauty in it.
Graziano is not convincing *at all* when it comes to his view on consciousness (or lack thereof). There can't be an illusion of the one thing that self evidently exists from a first person perspective (conscious experience). Illusions can be witnessed by conscious perceivers, but the fact of experience itself cannot be illusory. At 2:50 Graziano denies that we even have an internal experience - his theory has zero explanatory value if it denies reality outright.
Lumitopia An illusion is something that is different than it seems to be, not necessarily something that does not exist.
WHOM is your brain "fooling?" That's the question....
they are fooling their own consciousness they probably never never experienced trough cognition and integrity .
Itself.
Consciousness comes from our own free will to observe ourselves into mirror and adjust ourselves to our own consciousness . No one can program any one else consciousness
We are only able to anchor ourselves within our own consciousness that is our only valid compass for real self balance . No one can anchor him self outside of himself in order to become real and well balanced adjusted into his own life
Any living one will always have the power to break down any robot cause the living one s got it that self balance holds on living forces of life
Propose a theory. Devise a test. Administer the test.Test the theory.
Confirmation is the tricky part given that theory normally does not test itself.
The solution may well involve a "proof" that is only confirmed when a human being encounters a novel procedure, such as a wholly unanticipated symbolic or higher order logic, which is refuted or otherwise made invalid by a successful counter-factual QED. Somewhere, a "bruised ego", with or without concession, is likely to come out.
Disputed deductions, either way, are merely deductions, not empirical facts; but logic may be said to be "physical" just as geometry is said to be.
At that point, whatever sort of "richness" a conscious life "in utero", so to speak, consists in or of is up for grabs.
Our real conscious perception, though, is only sporadically, even incoherently, of the nature or form of verbal constructions, or language "using" assertions, statements, and declarations.
The "stream" of conscious experience is not particularly about the stream, and when it is, not anything much more than a rather awkward, sophomoric preoccupation with the "many fishes" of consciousness itself.
Inter-subjectivity (re)creates the completeness, or fullness, of any "behavior" that is called "conscious perception". For example, where is the line "to be drawn" between my feeling that the house cat is conscious in its cat-like way, and the cat being however otherwise aware that I am also conscious, in my "own" way or with respect to the cat itself -- which is to say, in relation to its needs, drives, anticipations, requirements, and desires?
The puzzle generally works out to a common humanity, rather than to a hierarchy of consciousness-generating or -behaving states.
I know almost nothing about consious awareness, that's why I am enjoying the debate. one thing I observed is it seems most all on the "scientists" rely on is the senses, especially visual experience and it's correlation to brain activity... from there they extrapolate eventual machine conscious.
I wish there was a way to remove sensory awareness to see whats left. Was Helen keller consiously aware before she realized there was an outside world? I would say yes.
I think the only way you can test a robot if it is conscious is if you make it have emotional responses that it is not programmed to have like panic fear and anger
Unless we make a similar Universe for the Clone to experience exactly what the real person is experiencing it's not possible.Clone cannot experience the same influence of creation on the real person.It will be a clone which would need to be updated regularly.A human changes every second.His awareness and perception changes even with the chemistry of food he consumes.We can clone someone as much similar as the moment but the very next moment will be different for both.Even the physical changes cannot be similar.If I have gone wrong please correct me.
You are assuming the awareness and perception needs to be essentially the same for an AI. They will learn differently and they to can be updating constantly just as we are. What you are saying is true if we are trying to build a person via AI but not applicable for an AI that learns and thinks differently but still has awareness.
@@brwa5176 Yes , I have assumed the word 'cloning' as the process of producing genetically identical individuals of an organism, so the comparison of how they perceive consciousness was made.An AI robot can be constantly updated to maintain the sync in consciousness however it can't be called cloning then because it will function in an artificial way and not the usual way how a human perceives their consciousness .For me a true cloning would be 100% accuracy in everything otherwise it's just a limited invention.So as per my understanding of what cloning truly means , it looks immpossible atleast now.We live in a creation where good dominates bad more.There is karma . In such a creation knowing the truth of consciousness won't come from science rather it would be more about the right frequency of consciousness that the individual experiences while exploring it.We live in a world where everything in every form exists and depending on the individual maths of matrix a specific reality is experienced.This Creation knows the threats well before the threats existed.Such a fine tuning is amazing.
facebook.com/guillermo.b.deisler/posts/10222050618470453
If a robot doesn't want to kill himself when he is tortured, he is not concious. Pain (and suffering) is the benchmark of conciousness
I know there are humans that do not feel pain, but inherently they can also not be tortured that way.
Anyway; if the robot is not bothered by suffering, there is no reason not to torture or eliminate it/kill it or do with it whatever you want, for the concept of torture then becomes meaningless: therefore it needs no rights! There is no need for rights, because there is no suffering. Let's say it experiences joy when being tortured: why not allow freedom of torture of it?
I know this goes far, but I'm trying to make a conceptual point.
Suffering is what is holy; and things that can suffer are holy. Not consciousness per se.
Will robots meditate?
yes, but they will call it Defragmenting.
It may be good to get a psychologist and ask his/her opinion. Can a computer dream, have intentions, plan, find someone attractive, grow, change it's mind, have moods, wishes, hate, love, have emotions; have an attitude: pride, be humble, respectful or disrespectful, believe, etc.?
Creating a conscious machine that knows it is a machine might be horrible for the machine. A kind of hell beyond even our own knowledge or imagination. It might not even be able to tell us it's having a horrible time. Morals. Just because we can do something does not mean we should...Imagine we found out for sure with out doubt we were a machine, a simulation inside a computer. How would you feel about it?
I would be ok
Why would be horrible? We are some sort of biological machines
„We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.„
- Richard Dawkins, The selfish gene
it seems that this position mistakes the illusion of self with consciousness... i can have a conscious experience before i develop a sense of "being a self" having an experience, so a discussion of uploading your "self" doesn't seem to make any sense at all. the self is an illusion, consciousness is not. am i missing something here? perhaps this distinction doesnt matter when building very intelligent and sophistiacted AGI
I never did understand that distinction myself. You are a unified organism that experiences living from a unitary perspective, from your own body. At what point are you not a self?
I computed consciousness just the other day. The answer is 42.
I've made the same joke in class and not one person got it. Feels good to see this.
The first uploaded me will live in a low res world that bugs out all the time and will be nightmarish but me.7.0 will have a much better experience I'm sure just as long as I can run an ad blocker of course :)
No one knows how conciousness is created so I am not sure how computer geeks think they will create it. It might be they fluke a method to create consciousness but the will not know that they have. I suspect they are talking about simulating conscousness.
attention is real but awareness not? nonsense
nonsense!
So, my brain is fooling itself into thinking it has consciousness? I don’t have any answers on this topic, but that is preposterous.
Consciousness occurs when energy meets neurons, we know that because that's what happens in our brains and we know that we are conscious. So wouldn't it be extremely likely, just based on that information, that robots will be conscious as well if we program them to feel? What makes a robot 'think', it's energy meets transistors or wires. Transistors or wires are made essentially of the same 'stuff' as neurons, just different types of matter which only differ in the size of their atoms or amount of electrons, and why would consciousness only 'magically' appear if the atoms have a certain amount of electrons, why would it only apply to carbon based 'life'? So obviously robots are likely to be conscious as we are if they are programmed to be aware. Unless consciousness is really outside of matter and energy, supernatural if you will, but that would also mean other humans may not be conscious either and there would be no way of proving that.
Another idiot who thinks consciousness is a "thing" . Consciousness is an immaterial being. Atoms cannot feel, think, observe, hear, etc, etc, and consciousness can, therefore consciousness is an immaterial being. Here's another proof. Imagine you have always be in a white room your entire life and you have learned all the properties of matter , and you finally go out the room and you see the color red, and you learn something new namely what is like to see the color red which could not be accessed to with matter, therefore consciousness is immaterial. All the attempts to make consciousness matter have all miserably failed and yours is not an exception. Just look up the hard problem of consciousness if you don't believe me. The most amazing realization is when you wake up and realize that our reality is consciousness itself. What you're even calling matter is consciousness itself as it has been proved that solid matter doesn't exist outside of consciousness.. Everything is the mind.
ByRTD yO Really you have to use the term "idiot" when you don't even have a good argument to back up your theory? You said:
"Imagine you have always be in a white room your entire life and you have learned all the properties of matter , and you finally go out the room and you see the color red, and you learn something new namely what is like to see the color red which could not be accessed to with matter, therefore consciousness is immaterial."
This does in no way prove consciousness is immaterial. If you learned all of the properties of matter, you'd probably figure out that the color red is simply an image that occurs when light waves of a certain frequency hit your eye retina. Your mind creates the thought which shows the color red, the thought is made up of energy that is being transferred between the neurons in your brain. We know this because we've MEASURED IT when thought occurs.
Also when you leave the room and see the color red, you are seeing light which is made of a light wave and is REAL just like matter. That's what makes your brain think of the color red, there is nothing spooky going on here in this case.
Also note, I never said consciousness was only material in nature. I implied it occurs when certain materials are arranged in a certain way, at least it APPEARS to. There may be something more to it than we understand, I was just saying that robots might become conscious in the same way we are conscious. If not, why not? How do I even know YOU are conscious? If I assume you are, because your atoms are arranged in a similar way to mine, giving you the appearance of having a brain, then why not a robot that is created in our image except it has transistors instead of neurons?
If you assume consciousness is 'magical' in nature and is not connected to material in any way, then you might as well assume EVERYTHING is conscious, why not, why would only you or just humans be conscious if it has nothing to do with the materials?
John Doe “you’d probably figure out that the color red is simply an image that occurs when light waves of a certain frequency hit your eye retina"
But you would never experience it you idiot, you would never truly know what is like. That was my point. So, you fail again.
“Your mind creates the thought which shows the color red,”
That is like asking a blind person to imagine what is like to see the color blue, it is unimaginable because they have never experienced it, and knowledge is gained through experience
"But you would never experience it you idiot, you would never truly know what is like. That was my point. So, you fail again. "
What are you talking about?? Experiencing the red colour is the same as seeing it, if you have never seen it you will not be able to imagine it. Once you see it you can imagine it because you are imagining the image depicted in your brain which is created when the light waves enter your eyes.
"That is like asking a blind person to imagine what is like to see the color blue, it is unimaginable because they have never experienced it, and knowledge is gained through experience
John Doe 1) You completely misunderstood the example then. My example was meant to explain that no matter how much you know about matter, and ALL of its *properties*, you would never know facts about consciousness, (hence what is like to see the color red if you have NEVER experienced it and you knew everything there is to know about matter) therefore consciousness is immaterial. How you cannot comprehend this makes me worry about our human race.
“You appear to have zero understanding of science”
Funny that you’re saying that to a neurologist and philosophy major kid. Know your place.
"you're saying experience is immaterial without knowing what you are talking about. And you are stating it as some kind of “obvious" fact which it is not. “
It is fact, and there’s a simple proof---->
P1) Matter does not have the property of being sentient.
P2) Sentience exists.
C3) Therefore, state of affairs of sentience are immaterial.
So, even if matter creates sentience or awareness/experience (which there is zero evidence for) it is not it, therefore experience is still immaterial. So, either way, you lose.
“And I’m supposed to buy that without any real evidence I take it ...”
It is *fact*. Deal with it.
“If you actually knew anything about philosophy and consciousness, you'd know that we have no way of proving if someone else is conscious. "
You didn’t even understood why I said that. Lol. Just because we cannot prove certain things does not mean that they don’t exist. We cannot prove the theory of gravity exists, therefore according to your logic, we can actually all fly. See how silly your logic is? Hahaha. ALL evidence points that other minds exist.< ----You lose again
3) Robots will never become conscious because consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, it is not emergent. It is even more fundamental than matter and energy. As a wise scientist once said, “What you’re calling matter is consciousness itself, everything is made up of mind stuff.” We cannot even prove matter exists. We can only prove our mind exists.
Your whole argument was a confusion between what conditions/creates the experience and the experience itself. Lol. Thanks for the laugh.
Wouldn't you feel claustrophobic being in a flash drive? I find Graziano to be an original thinker, you have got to give him credit. This idea that consciousness is a derived state of abstraction could be the answer to the "hard problem". Having said that, it does not trivialize experience,Judgement Day will still come to us all, and God will see to it that either we, or Jesus will pay for our sins.
+SeanMauer >"""Judgement Day will still come to us all"""
May you please give me the exact date?
I seriously think Graziano has the answer to the hard question..
My gut feeling (non empirical) is consciousness is an emergent property like a flock of birds and molecules forming the flow of water where it becomes based on the sheer amount of things plus the structure of the system itself allowing it to emerge but of course this is just emerging from my consciousness and I have no way to know. Did I say "emerging" enough? But if its only emergent then that leads to any medium replicating that property as having equal merit (i.e. AI)
For properties to "emerge" someone or something has to witness their emergence. Otherwise we're back to square one.
Then you are tying some magical property to witnessing things.
Say that instead of a flock of birds, it's CCD pixels, a focusing lens and a mirror. What kind of limits are there for the "camera" as it's trying to take pictures of itself? For example, if it zooms out, it only sees a solid block and cannot see that it's made of pixels. If it zooms in, only some of the pixels can be seen at a time.
Phenomena is observable via a particular lens or frame of reference but are you suggesting observation imbues existence or maybe you have a different point?
then how would this non-material emergent properties have an effect on the material brain? how come you can say that you have experience, which implies that you have access to the thing that you are describing in the form of information encoded in the brain?
Graziano is wrong that there is no internal experience. I have privileged access to my own thoughts and emotions right now... And he cannot tell me what thoughts or emotions I'm having at any given moment. He's out of the loop as to my personal-internal experience.
+Sebastian Carlo He didn't say there's no internal experience. He said that there's no solid lump somewhere called the 'self', but rather than we attribute the quality of awareness to ourselves via a brain-constructed model of schemized attention.
James Hansen
_"He didn't say there's no internal experience."_
Actually he does. See from 2:44 to 2:54.
So he denies internal experience, but i have an internal experience, and i presume you do, too. And we both have direct access to our own internal subjective experiences. He doesn't have that access. So he's in no position to be telling us that none of us has any internal experiences or that internal experience is illusory. That goes against all logic, all evidence, and all common sense. But it's the basis of his theory of consciousness and how he believes he can make consciousness, or at least simulate it in a non-biological/synthetic system.
His second claim is that because of computer and bio imaging advancements, we will be able to literally "see" what is happening in the human brain at the fine scale and sub fine scale / quantum level domains (i.e., nano, atomic, superconductivity, etc) and discern processes and features of consciousness that will enable us to replicate how consciousness arises in the human brain. And while it is true that computers and bio imagining will be able to do all this, his idea that it will tell us how to make consciousness is flawed, because it's still based on the assumption that brain is generating consciousness. We haven't actually shown this to be the case yet. It's just the dominant belief at present. The reality is that we need to know HOW consciousness is generated by the brain before we can assume and act like it is generated by the brain.. or before we can say that computers+bioimaging will lead to replicating consciousness by synthetic means.
When he's asked _"if it turned out to be impossible, what would be the obstacle?"_, he says that he doesn't believe that there can exist a theoretical obstacle. But i can think of one. It may be that consciousness can only arise (or operate) in dna-based platforms.
Consciousness is the sum total of algorithmic neural network stimuli exchanges that make up your perceptions through time, requires your brain, which has neuroplasticity.. meaning (You can change you mind). Those are real things, whether or not they are modeling the world correctly or not (forming delusions), they are still physical potential/kinetic energy force exchanges playing out in your neural networks.
Things are not in my favor , thats a fact and you all know that
Scholars can invent any research line and spend their life following a bullshit task with a fairly decent paycheck. All you have to keep refining is the sense of joy from banter that keeps viewers viewing. Nothing to see here folks unless you like falling asleep to podcasts.
the copy will not be you if uploaded but it will be conscious and immortal but you will not mind copying does not make one immortal mind transfer could make a person immortal
this is the kid that just circled the X on the page and wrote "here it is" on test where it said given these two sides of the right triangle find X
The soul.
Your only 'obstacle'
Would a robot be scared of the eternity of death?
Like clones would each copy exponentially degrade?
The absence of chemistry and chemical emotional response is an issue too
But we haven't proven that consciousness arises from brain.
They have robot voices in this video which makes it weirder
You are a conscious point of view in spacetime. You can't upload.
So according to him you don't have a self; but you believe you have a self. Well, then I guess the basis of persons becomes believing you have a self instead of being a self. NOTHING CHANGES! These thoughts and ruminations are meaningless for human life!
Bring Sam harris here
actually if we transfer our minds to two differents computer, we would be the two at the same time. cause it would be identical to the first then we could be both
Human consciousness is the product of trillions of synaptic connections to 85 billion neurons and multiple monoamine neurotransmitters and a databank of experiences and knowledge. Duplicating all that by programming?
"If consciousness is 100% physical, we would have to conclude that the same kind of consciousness that we experience as humans can be generated by non-biological entities (eventually).".
Why?
Because is governed by same forces
@@thermobaric3884 What are you talking about? Forces? Which ones!?
@@GeoCoppens the forces that govern the universe you dumbass. What a heck are you doing on this channel?
@@thermobaric3884 Name those forces, you moron! Consciousness is biology, nothing else, whatever nutcases say!
This reminds me of a twilight zone episode.
We'll see if it's inevitable...we'll see.
look up, Donald Hoffman. Graziano is educated on the neural activity of the brain but way off about awareness.
Lawrence lost for words
I talked to someone before who thought it would be great to make copies of his consciousness, personality and memories and send them out into the world. He seemed mystified why I found this a useless exercise is egotism. He just couldn't see what was so special about first person experience. I just shook my head and walked away.
I enjoyed this episode very much. Thanks
no physical theory can currently account for conscious experience. The problem is not a belief in "a non-physical experience", it's that physics simply does not account for it at all (yet)! This guy is either naively unaware of this OR simply unaware (a philosophical zombie) - in which case, it is understandable that he should miss the whole point.
Zzzz. Enough with the inner self is an illusion already. So we are moist robots got ya
A robot will never have what we call Qualia.
Nutty idea, gl with that
If the brain "constructs and internal model of awareness" (mereological fallacy anyone?), then attributes it to itself and other agents, does this not beg the question as to what awareness is ab initio? The modeler has to have some idea as to what is being modeled otherwise the model is vacuous- humoncular codswallop!. Its like saying we made a model of a car out of used toilet rolls and sticky tape, then we tricked ourselves into thinking it was a real car. Consequently I drive mine around on a routine basis and I'm none the wiser! And lest not forget that ultimately there really are no cars, just tape bound tubular cardboard simulacra that cost a fucking fortune to keep on the road. .
Consciousness is the sum total of algorithmic neural network stimuli exchanges, that make up your perceptions through time, requires your brain, and which has neuroplasticity.. meaning (You can change you mind). Those are real things, whether or not they are modeling the world correctly or not (forming delusions, or accurate perceptions), consciousness is still physical potential/kinetic energy force exchanges playing out in your neural networks. In so as there is no stimuli flowing through these networks, then there is no consciousness.
facebook.com/guillermo.b.deisler/posts/10222050618470453
"i dont think it is way"
"i think it is this way"
detta är god tro
To want to live and say it consciously is the only proof that we possess a real consciousness. Think of it. For example, my uncle was dying and he had those sad words for my aunt: " I don't want to die!". Those words being said consciously are the only proof that the brain does not create an illusion of being conscious. So consciousness is really intimately linked to being alive. A robot does not need to stay alive and will never have to. It would have to learn to love life first. And how so? I ask you. Ponder on that simple idea and you will see there is no possible or viable counter argument even if you try and coax in the theory of evolution and the survival instinct. Even if it is an affirmation of the will to survive, it is done by reflecting consciously on that same need. There are no needs for a grown man or woman with his kids (offspring) alive and kicking to stay alive. I mean, we should be like salmons ready to die after transmitting safely our genes according to the theory of evolution once we reached a venerable age. A man of 70 years old, should not say :"'I do not want to die." if we were like robots. Does it make some sense?
facebook.com/guillermo.b.deisler/posts/10222050618470453
I just went through about a fourth of your essai. I must work tomorrow so I need my sleep, but I will finish the read later this week. Already I feel like sharing some simple toughts I had regarding the mental construction allowed by the human brain. I lost my dad just before the covid19 so being more of an agnostic I often ask myself: does anything of our consciousness survive our passing? What more than a story the survicors will tell and the memories of that person stored in our brain. Then I was brought back to the comforting stories passed on by religious beliefs in an afterlife. It is incredible how real those stories are when we believe in them, not unlike your example of the child and the Little Red Riding Hood story. So my idea is this : In a way culture is a construct of society that is quite real if we believe in it. It motivates us, comforts us and gives us purpose. Culture is to humans like a virtual reality. A virtual reality that some scientists are trying to bring to life in computers. Then... to my dismay, I remembered Nietsche philosophy about that Apollon illusion of reality. I used to dispise that philisopher, but growing older I have come to realize that many of his intuitions had some insight on aspects of reality. So are we not with technology trying to comfort our self in a virtual reality where culture already did in its stories? Hum?
@@francoismorin8721 Very interesting your comment. Humans do not know what Time, Space, Matter, etc. is. This has not prevented us from setting foot on the moon, thanks to Reason, perhaps the most powerful "evolutionary tool". There are good reasons for humans to invent gods that allow us to believe that after dying our Being will live forever in Eternity. We cannot affirm that there is “another life”, but given the level of our ignorance, it may well be that it exists and that we simply have not known about it so far. I suggest you read Rupert Sheldrake, a scientist who has explored interesting alternatives. When you have finished reading my work, your questions will be well received.
Nope.
Dump humanity let the machine rule. enough of human mess and disasters.
Graziano needs to take a simple anatomy class. He learned that we are not new people every day or every year or every five years. The neuron system in both our head and spinal cord is not growing or reproducing. We are not new beings every day. I also think he needs to meditate, it might freak him out a little bit, but hed probably learn something
detta är verkligen naturalism i dess essens
this guy and dan dennet both keep trying to simply redefine conscious experience - a really distinct phenomenon - as "attention" or "social attribution". in no way by which we might model these processes can we derive what we all experience consciously.
either they are mistaken, or I'll have to start believing that we are all in a game and that this is how we distinguish players from NPC's - lol. (of course, they are mistaken.. right?!).
So now computers will start feeling our pain !!! 😀😀😀. My gut feeling says this will never happen. Also if it does, what will stop computers from screwing these guys. It will say why the hell do I do all the work while this bozo sits around all day. 😀😀
This guy has no idea what’s he’s talking about.
He strikes me as a kind of adolescent with a sci-fi fantasy - God forbid he is right and we opne the Pandora's box
But a charming reductionist.