The Bet on Consciousness
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 жов 2024
- Philosopher David Chalmers and neuroscientist Christof Koch made a bet in 1998 on a breakthrough in consciousness research within 25 years. Now the bet is settled - thanks to the journalist Per Snaprud, neuroscience editor at the Swedish popular science magazine Forskning & Framsteg. Here's a conversation that was held between the three at New York university on June 24:th 2023.
Such an endearing bet between two giants. I love having been a spectator all these years and continue to look forward to their work
David's leather jacket is so iconic, I've got the same one I believe... love it.
I remember reading about this in David's book! So cool to see the bet reach fruition.
A Chalmers - Kastrup - Koch conversation would be interesting
Somehow, youtube knew these were my childhood heroes, and this was what I wanted to click on.
Wow. Childhood? You must be gifted.
Congratulation David ! Wonderful bet David and Christof, We can bet again with Mr. David Chalmers, we can figure out this thing within ten years !
Not if consciousness is essentially non-physical you won't. Behaviour is objective, not subjective. Intelligence is behaviour. Conscious subjectivity can be very stupid. Intelligence is a good metric to try to improve for behavioural systems and material advancement, but it is not the same as consciousness.
Figure out consciousness in 10 years? I'm ready to bet with you any amount that you are comfortable betting that this won't be the case. Get in touch if interested. Happy to bet on 20 years scale as well.
They have long since found it, but say nothing. Because... as a German Interior Minister recently explained.... it would disturb people. So they are still working on control infrastructure before they can say it freely without consequences.
delusional.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, therefore consciousness cannot itself be an abstract concept. (Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness)
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using adictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics.
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea, and not an actual physical entity.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective abstract concepts and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality).
In other words, emergence is nothing but a cognitive construct that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes, and cognition itself can only come from a conscious mind; so emergence can never explain consciousness as it is, in itself, implied by consciousness. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting.
Marco Biagini
You are not a physicist😊
lol. No. Are you the one with one big ear? Zarathustra….
A quantum state is the ontological whole you are looking for.
@@MikeWiestYou are wrong for many reasons. For example, in quantum mechanics, the quantum state refers to the entire universe and it is not possible to divide it into many distinct quantum states, each referring to each distinct brain. The point is that my mental experiences are associated with the physical processes that happen in my brain and not with any physical process that happens in the universe.
@@marcobiagini1878 No sir. According to that claim we can't calculate atomic orbitals etc etc because there is only the state of the whole universe. Experimentally demonstrated phenomena like superconductivity and nonlocal correlations between entangled partners show that FINITE, well-defined quantum states display irreducible unity. That's why the substrate of consciousness in the brain must be a macroscopic quantum state. I am agreeing with your unity argument but disagreeing that there is no candidate physical state that satisfies it...
Don't we need to define consciousness first to know we've found the NCC? What EXACTLY are we measuring as being turned "on" or "off" by the NCC? What are the metaphysical implications arising from us finding the NCC?
That's where Chalmers' Hard Problem comes in.
no, according to physicalists there is no hard problem of consciousness, because only physical blue exists ie. there is no such thing as qualia blue, its just physical illusion.
in other words the ncc would have been confirmed upon locating the emergent property consciousness having located the correct neurons etc functioning as the basis of emergence (as stated and defined near the beginning of the conversation).
of course give it a few more decades, a few more billions of dollars, and a few more billions of animal brains, and we are sure to pray at least one emergent property into existence since currently no particle inside any of the neural correlates contain any. just keep kneeling before the alter of a metaphysics held by every 10yo, and things will definitely turn out well, cant you tell.
Christof definitely doesn't look like a happy man.
can you blame him?
hes trying to pray emergent properties into existence, and like a good christian is forbidden from questioning his god.
You are intimidated because he is too confident 😅
The nccs were found? Or am I just to drunk to notice
@@nickknowles8402 no, resulting in christof's abandoning of physicalism ie. emergent property conscious in favor of panpsychism. which is essentially just physicalist mysterianism for lab technicians ie. lazy bastards who dont want to do the hard work of resolving the mind-body problem empirically by developing methods of rigorously observing the mind directly.
David, congratulation in advance!
Science will one day discover the solution of the hard problem. But not until science changes its materialist paradigm.
"Just leave that question out." The history of western science and our 3 kings here. If you don't know it, we'll say it is not knowledge. Do you really think we became conscious to find it on our brains?
I'm very interested in finding the NCC, but I think that mankind will certainly find a way to use that knowledge to create horrors beyond our imagination.
if it can be found...
😂😂
Seems like concious observation with intent can stabilize or reconstitute reality. Negative attention can cause early rot in rice grains. Alkaline drinking water inhances "positive potential".....(whatever that means). Also, there's definitely a connection between Solar Surface activity and human cognitivity not just in animal & insects through their electro sensitive organs, witch I think is interesting FYI.
Consciousness is the key to super biological intelligence.
If we have Consciousness, with a couple of pints of mush. Imagine what a super Computer of the Future may have.
Coorelation is not causality
there goes silly old christof not paying attention to tibetan buddhist tukdam again.
this time one happened in taipei 2020, and was also the first to be fully monitored and tested by neuroscientists.
the psychosis required to maintain physicalism these days is profound.
or is he just roleplaying being a medieval scholar refusing to look through galileo's telescope.
If only consciousness could be demonstrated like thermodynamics ( you can check out but you can never leave) at least in principle we could harness it like the steam engine hopefully for a better world.
its already scientifically demonstrated that it can be fully harnessed, just not by not by religious zealots of the church of physicalism.
@@5piles science and religion move in mysterious ways relative to particular in-group dynamics.
@@italogiardina8183 in this case we have the neural correlates for voluntary attention and concentration, having measured the typical person capable of 2 seconds on avg, whereas certain tibetan buddhist monks are measured to be capable of perfect voluntary single-pointed concentration for multiple hours without any impingement or interruption by any external sensory data or internal distraction.
the scientists involved call this superhuman consciousness and has been known for 2 decades. however psychotic attachment to metaphysics makes ppl talk about the thermodynamics of consciousness rather than doing real science ie. developing methods of rigorously observing the phenomenon we seek to understand, and thereby actually arriving at a position of harnessing the mind.
If to myself its self referential, so no@@11235but
Christof looks a bit frustrated lol. I would be as well if I was trying to summon the territory from a map!
Sound is not good from Per.
If you understand awareness and consciousness then you understand everything. The only path to knowing everything begins with knowing the first thing, because that thing is the foundation and the Law of everything. So none of you know the first thing huh? Have you ever even asked yourselves the question? What's the most fundamental thing? The one thing you must have in order for any other thing to be possible. Where do you get potential? Ever asked that question? I answered it 20 years ago. The principle Allowance. The only plausible definition of unconditional anything. Now consider the implications, the logic. In the beginning and necessarily eternally was is and always will be the idea Yes and it's sole attribute, the only thing that is and can be infinite. Potential.
Nice pants.
I pick boobs. mic drop.
Anesthetic shuts on and off the contents of consciousness (thoughts, sensations, perceptions, and emotions). Why not start there, with neurological correlates? But then what is it in us that is aware of the contents of consciousness? What is this constant element of all experience? There is no evidence eitehr way awareness is not present under anesthesia (certainly no content of consciousness occurs, as no memory is recorded). But we only have logic to conclude it may be there in deep sleep as well. On waking we notice "time travel," and remember nothing if it's a good anesthesia or good deep dreamless sleep...... so is this not a hint? that space-time is also created by the "Contents of consciousness" ? implying if awareness exists in all cases, we are back to what consciousness studies has been saying for over 5,000 years, which some how Physcalist ignore that wisdom/history like the plague!!!
📍14:36
Consciousness came from heart not brain. 😊
Consciousness in human body lives in the Spinal Fluid. There are 33 degrees of Freemasonry, that's when secretion comes down from upper porion of the brain called claustrum and then goes up. This is where Santa Clause (claustrum in brain) story originates when he goes down the chimney (spinal vertabrae) and leaves gifts (Enlightenment, awareness) and that's why Freemasonry has 33 degrees just as the numder of spinal vertebrae. The brain is a control panel.
For anyone interested in consciousness see my papers like How Self-Reference Builds the World author Cosmin Visan.
lol. Audio person is fired. Can't listen to this w/ headphones on or you'll get the veRtigYO
What part of the brain has consciousness is the equivalent of saying what part of the computer has the electricity. The answer is none. Consciousness expresses through the brain the same way as electricity expresses through a computer. No consciousness endemic to the brain; no electricity endemic to a computer. That is not to say that consciousness is a form of electricity. If it is fundamental it is not elemental. The mind in contrast we could see as elemental and emerging with quantum events.
10:00 the terms
Christoph's shirt looks like the correlates of a shirt.
I explained what consciousness is in the conference: "Toward a Science of Consciousness" in Copenhagen.
It is the result of a "generator loop" between a group of neurons.
youtu.be/
4Lne1bFc0rA
Like a working memory loop? See my recent reply…
¿ A ‘strange loop’ ? ie , please- is
1. your explanation at all similar to Hoffstedder?
and
2. Could substrates / instansiations other than neuronal also produce consciousness? ( eg silicon, circuits etc.
Thanks
@@mattkanter1729
I don't consider it to be a "strange loop"
It is similar to the audio feedback loop (Sir Francis Crick told me that he demonstrated it to Christof Koch in the lab in 2002). In a brain, the loop is much more complicated since it can involve a lot of neurons to cover many different aspects of the experience. Sound waves are simple pressure waves. The brain can generate multi dimensional "waves" and when they repeat themselves several times, we become conscious about all the aspects represented by the involved neurons. It is a pretty simple explanation which is good (Occams razor)
I do not exclude the possibility of an artificial intelligent becoming "conscious" and as a matter of fact, I am currently creating a first attempt to make a simple version of it.
@@pallerj neurons producing consciousness or its emergent property is exactly what was not found by koch and crick. "we become conscious" is an appeal to magic.
It is difficult for materialists or atheists, which are synonymous terms, to come to terms with consciousness being fundamental. That is why they are whistling in the dark, and will continue to do so. The brain is an instrument through which consciousness expresses in much the same way as a lamp enables the transmission of light. Why is that so hard to understand? It is not so hard to understand except to the extent that relying on a material explanation will never make it other than hard to understand. It is nice to see them flummoxed when the answer is so obvious but they cannot acquiesce with it without undermining their world view and that is the real hard problem. Materialists flummoxed, happy day! They have finally found something they cannot explain, measure, deconstruct, reduce, or otherwise mess with.
Dudes look like the Beatles or something jahaha
Jättekul! :D