The Observer Is The Observed with Karl Friston and Chris Fields
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- #cognitivescience #consciousness #neuroscience #physics #cognitive #creativity #philosophy #metaphysics
In Philosophy Babble - The Great Minds Series
In this instalment :
We’re delighted to have Professor Karl Friston, is a theoretical neuroscientist and authority on brain imaging with Dr Chris Fields, PhD Philosopher and an independent scientist in theoretical physics and cognitive neuroscience.
On Spotify: tinyurl.com/y2sw4ewm
On Acast: tinyurl.com/mr7y74u8
Topic of discussion : Observer vs The Observed
In our culture we believe that reality means physical things. The question is not whether the world is real of not. The question is what is REALITY?
Questions for this conversation :
1. What is reality? ( Physical Universe )
2. At what level one can be describe as having a conscious experience?
3. What is the definition of an observer?
Summary :
Our daily perceptions of physical objects do not reflect the true nature of reality. Instead, our brains construct our physical reality through thought and perception. The reality of the world is akin to the reality of our own selves.
Experience is the pure awareness of being, unmediated by thought or perception. Curiosity arises from detecting uncertainty, and perception involves entanglement, as explored by Chris Fields.
The observer and the observed are one and the same, as observation requires awareness. Existence is interaction, and interaction is observation in modern physics. Friston and Fields are reshaping physics and neuroscience, showcasing the brilliance of their minds in real-time. Watch the full video to learn more about their insights.
Timecodes
00:00 - Intro
00:39 - Any interesting going on in 2023?
01:26 - Friston on how his career began
02:19 - Ivy’s asking Friston on the book he was planning to write
02:39 - Friston on the book he was going to title “Angel Shit”
04:32 - Fields on his great adventures in life and career
05:16 - Fields was a volunteer fireman in his past
06:10 - First round, Friston on the reality…..
10:03 - Fields on reality in physics
17:56 - Friston adding 2 more importance points
24:39 - Ivy’s on second question round
25:21 - Chris taking a radical views
30:37 - Karl agreed, and walked us through on neuroscience perspective
37:00 - Ivy’s lost in “entanglement” (escalated fast) she's having her autistic moment
42:05 - Karl summarise what Chris has said with clarity
46:33 - Ivy on the definition of an observer
47:02 - Chris on physics perpective
50:10 - Karl’s perspective on neuroscience/psychiatrist
54:12 - Ivy dropped the Krishnamurti and Bohm question!!
55:02 - Karl on “The Observer vs The Observed”, delivered.
58:58 - Things get real interesting at this point when got to Chris
01:02:07 - Karl chuckled to what Chris said regards to torturing bacteria
01:07:13 - Floor open up for Q&A but Andy lost all his prepared questions by that time
01:07:56 - First round Karl
01:10:56 - Second round Chris
01:13:47 - Kyle’s round for his two part questions
01:15:27 - Karl straight on “Spontaneity”
01:19:46 - Chris remarked on the “Eustress”
01:20:31 - Prakash went for the ultimate question on the Observer without content
01:21:18 - Chris on pure awareness without content
01:24:32 - Karl joke about taking a lot of drugs
01:28:50 - Karl concluding the literature on psychedelic (01:34:07 parts 2)
01:29:34 - Ary’s follow up question on the “void” or “emptiness”
01:30:22 - Chris on his view with the definition
01:31:58 - Karl on his propose argument with sleep state approach
01:34:07 - Karl addressing the previous psychedelic question from Prakash (Part two)
01:37:58 - Kyle complimented Karl for his intuition
01:28:24 - John had a funny moments with his joke
01:40:03 - John’s question stunned both speakers
01:40:14 - Karl took the question effortlessly with a sense of humour
01:43:02 - Mehran dropped the BOMB with a book as an observer!!!!
01:44:38 - Chris’s perspective on the question through physics
01:46:06 - Existence means interaction, interaction means observation!
01:46:22 - Karl reinforcing the points and joked about the question
01:47:54 - The Three Musketeer with Professor Friston and Dr Fields
01:49:00 - Prakash's excitement says it all on this footage!
Another from Friston, Levin and Fields: Is Reality Real? • Levin Λ Friston Λ Fiel... with @TheoriesofEverything
MASSIVE THANK YOU TO THE TEAM, ESPECIALLY JOHN AND EVERYONE ON THAT DAY.
JOIN US AT: CLUBHOUSE FOR FUTURE LIVE SESSION
Clubhouse: @philosophybabble
Copyright © 2023 by Philosophy Babble. All rights reserved. - Наука та технологія
absolutely fantastic. thanks Philosophy Babble for hosting and delivering these heroes to us!!
So beautiful to see two scientists actually listening to each other with deep interest and willingness to learn from each other with no rivalry. Thank you for the lesson!
What a cool new channel!
Feeling lucky to be in the first 100 people on this wonderful channel. A channel that promotes the spread of knowledge and tries to fight the growing ignorance of humanity.
Given that information is more and more freely available, why do you think ignorance would be growing?
@@xmathmanx Interesting counter question to ask although, could there be two perceptions / interpretations of the question: 1. As more information emerges and given that "Anyone can say Anything about Any topic", might "Humanity" become more sparse as a concept to us resulting from a "curse of dimensionality", for example is their a dissemination of "common sense" and values. 2. In the spirit of "Knowledge" representing a refinement of "Information" then both speakers potentially represent significant "Cognitive" lighthouse keepers, illuminating tacit and cross cutting perspectives for us as we navigate individually in the face of "noisy" informational sources. As for the word "IGNORance", it often comes with negative connotations, but just as "He who forgets, shall be destined to remember" then perhaps "he who IGNORes shall be destined to acKNOWLEDGE".
I think this will be another great channel like Theory of everything and closer to truth
This is absolutely fantastic - the access here to the deep thinking of such accomplished and illuminating minds is truly exceptional, thank you for posting. I have heard and read a lot of Friston's work, and I am following other thinkers like Donald Hoffman on consciousness, and the conversation here and another with Friston and Levin have deepened my understanding no end. This sort of foundational principles discussion is exactly what I was seeking but not expecting to find...
Glad you enjoyed it!
Such a wonderful conversation,
Thank you to the team 🙏
This was such a wonderful conversation and thank you all.
Love you guys
Great talk. I was glad the guests were asked if they believe consciousness is fundamental, but I’m not sure either answered the question definitively.
It seems like they are both leaning that way, but might not be 100% ready to state what Don Hoffman is focusing on …and so many of us experience / feel, every moment.
Curious to hear others’ interpretation.
Well said!
Right, the observer is the observed in several models of reality. First, in Shankara's (788-820), everything is Pure Consciousness, so both observer and observed are That Pure Consciousness. On a more conventional "scientific" level requiring the apparent duality of subject and object, that would be a delusion per Advaita Vedanta, but in a more liberal Kashmir Shaivism, the apparent delusion itself (in a sense) is "real". That level of reality is what makes the apparent world "tick". In the holographic model, the apparent "parts" are also holograms like waves in an ocean.
It's fascinating to realise that our picture of the world is simply that, an arbitrary _picture._ What we see is _not_ what's actually out there, it's simply a model, an interpretation of the world - it's not _the_ world. For instance, the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that we interpret as the colour 'yellow', holds no intrinsic connection to the colour 'yellow'. In fact, it holds no intrinsic connection to _any_ colour. An alien creature that had taken a different evolutionary pathway to ourselves may well experience that exact same frequency of electromagnetic radiation as the smell of sulphur, say, or the sound of a chainsaw, or any number of other possibilities. The point is that our interpretation of the world is just that, an _interpretation!_
It isn't arbitrary, every aspect of it is determined
Wow you guys are spot on Fantastic I’m not the only one who knows 😂
What about a person that wishes to increase their tolerance for uncertainty such that the person is able to encounter and assimilate greater degrees of uncertainty? We might say the person is becoming more stable or coherent and at the came time able to be creative across a wider range of circumstances that contain a higher degree of uncertainty? Could we even say that this is related to a kind of intentional evolution. Can it be that there is the possibility of our not only learning to learn (Gregory Bateson suggested calling this "second order learning") but also learning to participate in our own evolution?
i like this, but youd probably get beaten back and hard now and then. are you attempting Nietzsche's advice in wtp to tale everything dangerous and worst upon yourself? christianity is clearly a religion meant to stomp out contingencies. Nietzsche writes the Ubermensch should desire the opposite of this.
this is simply just learning something new. you didnt have to ask as you andwered your own question
I love it. But can you pleasee invest into a better microphone so it's more listenable :) otherwise amazing questions and discussion. Thanks
The triadic idealism (or cosmopsychism) presented by Dr Nikolaj Petersen is completely consistent with the observer equals the observed condition leading to an integration of a self as a nested hierarchy (Levin’s multi-scale competency architecture). Dr Petersen’s account solves both the combination problem of panpsychism and its invers, the decombination problem, which means that our apparent property dualism is a direct result of the holographic screen being two-sided. As a result, the self requires three levels of description, agreeing with the semiotics favored by Charles S Pierce.
Stress responses even operate with evolution, leading to the regulation of mutability and genetic stability. Molecular geneticist James Shapiro (see his book, Evolution) has defeated the idea that evolution acts without purpose, and he claims that DNA has read/write capabilities and that our DNA (and that of other life) has been impacted by the innate intelligence carried by life.
"The observer is the observed," (discussion somewhere around the time stamp 58:00) strikes me as referencing the self. If this is what was meant, it suggests that the self exists as the process of observing ones own perceptions (observations) and actions. The statement seems to relate a recursive structure of self. This seems different than a hierarchy of Markov blankets that operate cohesively at different levels spatially and temporally. I'm not understanding Friston at this point of the discussion. I don't get how the hierarchy of markov blankets explains the statement, "the observer is the observed,"
Edit
The observer is the observed is an ontological claim, not a functional one. The discussion in response to this statement gives a functional explanation, rather than addressing what the observer is.
Chris Fields is in normal mood while Karl Friston is in hallucination one!
We are god (or the devine mind to be exact) We split into diversity . Chosing to forget and fracture thyself . From the perfect into the game of games. Im talking with you but im talking with myself. U r welcome. Unity for the eternity is boring cuz theres no movement in anyway just the horror of knowing that you are one and alone,without parents or creator. Chosing to create yourself as an illusion (all the kinds of an existences ,lives,things, the form).im Dancing between eternal knowing that the mind is all there is and the joy of the creation and forgeting . Of course everything is more complex that this stupid broken english explanation :d
You've articulated well. ☺
This kind of vagueness which feels profound is usually an effect of taking drugs
1:06 "Strictly speaking there is no pathological behaviour, it is all Bayes optimal" ROFL
I don’t know that “non-qualitative experience” isn’t just an oxymoron.
Krishnamurti, anyone?