Nicholas Humphrey on the Invention of Consciousness | Closer To Truth Chats
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 бер 2023
- Neuropsychologist Nicholas Humphrey talks about his new book, Sentience: The Invention of Consciousness. He tackles the hard problem of consciousness, Phenomenal Consciousness vs. Cognitive Consciousness, and Identity Theory, while providing insight into his theory of consciousness and the experiments conducted throughout his career. He also shares his thoughts on if AI will ever be conscious and if consciousness could have evolved somewhere else in the universe.
See more interviews with Nicholas Humphrey: closertotruth.com/contributor...
Nicholas Humphrey is an English psychologist, based in Cambridge, who is known for his work on the evolution of human intelligence and consciousness. His ten books include Consciousness Regained, The Inner Eye, A History of the Mind, Leaps of Faith, The Mind Made Flesh, Seeing Red, and Soul Dust. He has been the recipient of several honours, including the Martin Luther King Memorial Prize, the Pufendorf medal and the British Psychological Society’s book award.
Register for free at closertotruth.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and produced and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
The way a lot of scientists are now saying things like __"machines will soon be conscious"_ triggered in me memories of when scientists used to say _"we will have a theory of everything in the not too distant future."_ Just my opinion, but the only way machines will _SOON_ be conscious is if you change the definition of consciousness.
You know you can make a thinking machine today with biological neurons if you have the will and the resources- if the brain is conscious then it is a fact that a machine can be because it can be made of brain😉
@@setaitransmedia What you say is a hypothesis, not a fact. But okay, well see...
Modelling information flowing in the brain what ever that means, IS NOT A BRAIN.
The idea that machines would achieve consciousness was based on the condition that computing power would keep increasing exponentially. But it doesn't anymore.
All a computer need be made to do
in order to be conscious
is build a model of the world based on data from its senses and
include in that model its representation of its self concept,
just as nature and culture evolved us to do.
Excellent interview.
One of the better explanations of consciousness.
I think our perception of consciousness is that. A perspective. Only a small slice of the ocean
Such a great series. Really liked this one. Haven't ever watched one I didn't like. They're all good, and some are mind-blowing.
Oddly, I am big fan of this channel and Bobby Kuhn. Yet, I never feel closer to any truth after listening to the folks he interviews.
Maybe it's about getting closer to you.
@@iscottke If he got any closer, he would be in back of me! LOL!
Thank you so much for such dedication!
Please more of this stuff. Love this stuff
Fabulous. This was a delicious interview.
There is no sensory experience without consciousness. In sleep although our senses are unconscious of the outer world, still we are conscious and aware of our dreams. In deep, dreamless sleep, we are still aware that we exist, that we have consciousness. There is the blankness of anesthesia but we come back to full consciousness and nothing is lost as we know who we are and where we are. Consciousness is more than sentience which depends on the organs of sense and their proper functioning. That it is fundamental is more than likely. The mind functions through the senses as a sort of sixth sense. Consciousness is other and there is no evidence it is a sense or subject to the three forces as the mind is, the mind being material and emerging with quantum events. Consciousness does not emerge. It is. Mr. Humphrey is courageous and realistic than most out there. There should be no conflict between evolution, and consciousness being fundamental.
Didn't scientists prove the universe isn't locally real? So what is matter considering everything is absolutely proven to be a wave frequency until a consciousness perceives it. Also I am not religious.
Max Planck said consciousness is fundamental.
Scientists don't prove things.
Rather, they come up with explanatory theories.
We align our thoughts with the theories that present as most likely.
When new theories come along or old ones are modified
we perform a reevaluation of what presents as most likely.
We can never know the fundamental nature of 'reality' because
our thinking process works on representations only.
So it is with all entities whose being conscious is derived
from a thinking process.
i.e. thoughts are not the things they are about.
Rather, thoughts are representative analogies.
(Representative analogies are 'materially' instantiated in encoded form by
neural discharge frequency, according to the theory that presents as most likely.
I put 'materially' in quotes in respect of the fact that
'frequency' is an abstract notion
(an understanding that explains why
thoughts apparently manifest as immaterial entities)).
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL A Nobel prize winning theory isn't just waiting to be replaced. It's a high bar & higher standard and this particular theory (which is testable) was vetted for decades before it was approved for the Nobel (They knew people didn't want to give up materialism, touchy touchy subject to ALL science & most are very much dug in to the belief). So it's far from just explanatory or some crafty metaphor. Me thinks your a materialist? Or at least lean heavily. I on the other hand am not. Guess I'm trying to figure out why you defined theory as if to make a point. Maybe he knows what a theory "basically" is, yet he's not a hardcore materialist and is open to all of what the Nobel prize suggest... Yes, even that consciousness is fundamental.
QM is wrought with competing interpretations. Explanatory power is also sorely lacking and this is known and even joked about in the field. So no, it has not been "proven" that the universe "is not locally real"
Some variant of the HMI (Hidden Measurement Interpretation, sometimes aka Hidden Variable(s) Interpretation) sums up a more likely account of what is taking place with the struggling attempts to measure and model the most quantum material level. Much more plausible. But of course superstitious religious nuts or fantastical psuedo-intellectual thinkers doing mental masturbation (rather than rigorous, intellectually honest study of accurate models) always love to bandwagon upon and parrot post-modern physics concepts they have no idea how to explain and fail to demonstrate any actual understanding of
"Max Planck said" and Isaac Newton believed in a Gawd lmao, so what? Arguments from authority = worth 💩
Consciousness is no more a "hard problem" scientifically or philosophically than conductivity, magnetism, fire, electricity, etc. - in the sense that it's a _supervenient_ emergent property (not a basic property of any and everything). Only in an applied technical (synthetic biology / bio-engineering) sense is it a 'hard problem' in that OK, we don't yet understand every minutiae detail at the granular level of the minimum essential blueprint necessary for the phase transitions from inanimate --> to animate --> to conscious - but, again, the concept isn't necessarily rocket science. It _is_ a byproduct of evolution (the earliest basis of natural intelligence that, as a dynamic process, functionally operates as a high-dimensional, real-time environmental learning utility). Valence is the inherent optimizing function that, combined with particular evolutionarily-encoded constants (basic needs, drives and desires i.e., for air/water/food/security/sex and so on - programmed in to maximize DNA replication), literally facilitates evolutionary ends. It's highly motivating, demanding optimization with every application, thus it actuates organisms towards that which provides salient rewards and away from what imposes salient punishments (harms). Notice how both (the rewards and punishments) literally correspond to evolutionary demands and how natural selection provides ample descriptive, explanatory and predictive power to substaniate biological evolution as the origin 🫢
The modern (e.g., human) 🧠 is often cited as the single most complex (concrete) configuration of energy/matter in the universe. Well, the activity that it produces is even more complex because it involves an overlay that stacks over that even further! Qualia basically results from an on-going feedback-loop process involving a ridiculously complex combination of intricately integrating interactions between certain fluid dynamics, neurotransmitter dynamics, neural oscillation frequencies, etc. in the aqueous "wetware" of the relatively insulated environment it is generated in (namely a 🧠 attached to an active CNS). Something like that anyway (again, obviously we haven't mapped out the entire abstract, and indeed until the technical 'hard problem of consciousness' is ever definitively resolved, legitimate AGI - much less, ASI - will almost certainly remain a pipe dream).
@@AnalyticalSentient Hidden Variable is just another way of saying assumption. Assumptions prove nothing. However the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2022 proved the universe isn't locally real by scientific experiments that can be repeated. So no assumptions.
ua-cam.com/video/txlCvCSefYQ/v-deo.htmlsi=xR3hJMuQDhYpp14d
how might phenomenal consciousness develop subjectivity? would that subjectivity add qualia to phenomenal consciousness? and subject determines cognition?
Language is out there in primorial sounds. The Sanskrit language, the foundation of all languages, is based on these sounds which are a certain number, 49 as I recall. This is the foundation of all languages.
does cognitive learning require any phenomenal subjectivity? is an external sensation or perception needed for cognitive behavior?
Yes!
amazing thank you - i was wondering before watching this - can there be pain or blue without the consciouness of it
You need to learn the difference between, consciousness and meta-consciousness. Meta consciousness is to be conscious of the fact you are conscious. Only humans and maybe dolphins and chimps can do this. Yes you can experience pain or blue without being aware that you are, like in a dream, or like the feeling of your toes all squashed against each other in your shoes or the feeling of your shirt touching your skin.
You are conscious of having a headache and take a painkiller. Later you notice that you no longer have a headache. Yet you did not notice the headache in the act of ceasing. This implies to me that at some point you still had the headache, but weren't conscious of it, and at some later point you not longer had the headache but hadn't noticed it had gone away. It was only when you attended to a memory of having had the headache and then attended to your current condition that you, for the first time, noticed that the headache had gone away.
could experience of free will have anything to do with subjective awareness?
We are experiencers developed to experience the world
phenomenal consciousness of what happens to the subject? the subject also plays a role in cognition?
Nice
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
From symbiosis toward organism; there lies the root of consciousness, the organization of *feeling.* The brain is a *feeling* machine, built to amplify qualia in an organized way.
I think of primordial evolution in tidal pools, and the chemical "anticipation" of the coming dissolution.
Which makes me wonder; does stress increase fat production?
Important point. Look at something red. Now close your eyes and try to imagine the colour red. You can’t. At least I can’t. Now open your eyes again and look at the red object. You immediately understand how the experience of seeing red is its own unique phenomenological instance. Not something we cognitively ‘know’ and retain.
It seems to me that you have observed a very good clue in the effort to understand consciousness. Conscious experience has a "now" quality whereas memory CAN perceive red but it is of a different quality - somewhat diminished. Thank you for YOUR observation.
I disagree. I can remember the colour red in my mind; I can also remember, for example the qualities of the taste of honey, without having the immediate experience of either.
What do you mean I can’t imagine color red. Of course I can.
About 50:15 , IMO, the advances in neuro-science, computing, and AI and advent of physical based AIs like ChatGPT and the possibility of them going effectively sentient is making a lot of people, opposed to physicalism, nervous. IMO, a lot of discussion of panpsychism, dualism, and idealism is a kind of immune response.
I think folks here will agree that ChatGPT or successors of that are physical based systems (no supernatural magic) and the possibility of these systems becoming effectively sentient in specific ways consistent with the limited physical capability of text only input/output capabilities, is growing at rapid pace day by day. Once it happens people will not have any choice but to accept physicalism, unless they start claiming that at the same time the physical capabilities of these AIs reached the same level, something coincidently blew some magic into these system to make them sentient. For that magical thinking, physicalism will not have any answer and nor should it try.
I think you need to get out more 😅
Well put, sir, I couldn't say it better.
It seems to me 'physicalism' is closer to the truth,
i.e. the theory that's most likely.
But rhetorically speaking, physicalism isn't purely physical is it?
I mean, the abstract nature of representation involving
neural discharge frequency encoded analogy instantiation and
analogy inter modulation via synaptic logic, i.e. the thinking process, and so on...
Frequency,
being an abstract notion,
is why I think I might be able to successfully argue that
thoughts and minds are indeed immaterial entities
just as they seem to us to be
despite the fact that I am convinced
physicalism is the theory that's most likely.
Sorry that may come across as a wee bit garbled...
All sounds like “woo” to me:)
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Physicalism is dependent on the idea that spacetime itself is fundamental reality - and even that idea alone has already been disproved (for quite a while actually) by hard-nosed science.
How do we know this? Because of the twin singularities that both gave rise to what we know as the physical universe (ie the Big Bang) and the singularity that absolutely annihilates it (ie a black hole).
Just those simple facts alone tell any scientist worth their salt that physical reality *cannot* be fundamental reality, and therefore all physical objects within it (including neurons in our brains) aren't fundamental either - and that means that whatever the source of cause and effect is has to extend beyond our perceived notion of reality to something else.
Ergo physicalism isn't even wrong, it never had a chance of being right in the first place.
I don’t see why the developments of AI like ChatGPT should make us believe that they could be conscious. Intelligence doesn’t imply consciousness. IMHO it’s impossible to prove that an AI system is conscious using any behavioral test, no matter how impressive and intelligent they become. AIs can already pass the turing test and other behavioral tests, doesn’t mean they are conscious.
I don’t think in 20 or 50 or 100 years we will prove that any AI is conscious, and no reason to believe they will ever be.
We should probably not abuse them though in the remote possibility that they are conscious 😄
what can make the jump from conscious cognition to subjective awareness?
Is this part of the function of the physical analytical brain? Consciousness is of the Mind. Then it is filtered through the physical brain computer/transceiver? Looked at this way strongly indicates that there is a God who is the real generator of Mind. A brain alone could only produce an Ego. To know who we really are requires the Mind and to be aware of this requires our brain computer/transceiver. Are we getting close. Of course this understanding is a major problem for those who don't believe in a God. Otherwise, it makes perfectly logical sense.
Consciousness is no more a "hard problem" scientifically or philosophically than conductivity, magnetism, fire, electricity, etc. - in the sense that it's a _supervenient_ emergent property (not a basic property of any and everything). Only in an applied technical (synthetic biology / bio-engineering) sense is it a 'hard problem' in that OK, we don't yet understand every minutiae detail at the granular level of the minimum essential blueprint necessary for the phase transitions from inanimate --> to animate --> to conscious - but, again, the concept isn't necessarily rocket science. It _is_ a byproduct of evolution (the earliest basis of natural intelligence that, as a dynamic process, functionally operates as a high-dimensional, real-time environmental learning utility). Valence is the inherent optimizing function that, combined with particular evolutionarily-encoded constants (basic needs, drives and desires i.e., for air/water/food/security/sex and so on - programmed in to maximize DNA replication), literally facilitates evolutionary ends. It's highly motivating, demanding optimization with every application, thus it actuates organisms towards that which provides salient rewards and away from what imposes salient punishments (harms). Notice how both (the rewards and punishments) literally correspond to evolutionary demands and how natural selection provides ample descriptive, explanatory and predictive power to substaniate biological evolution as the origin 🫢
The modern (e.g., human) 🧠 is often cited as the single most complex (concrete) configuration of energy/matter in the universe. Well, the activity that it produces is even more complex because it involves an overlay that stacks over that even further! Qualia basically results from an on-going feedback-loop process involving a ridiculously complex combination of intricately integrating interactions between certain fluid dynamics, neurotransmitter dynamics, neural oscillation frequencies, etc. in the aqueous "wetware" of the relatively insulated environment it is generated in (namely a 🧠 attached to an active CNS). Something like that anyway (again, obviously we haven't mapped out the entire abstract, and indeed until the technical 'hard problem of consciousness' is ever definitively resolved, legitimate AGI - much less, ASI - will almost certainly remain a pipe dream).
I am therefore I am
As much as I deeply feel Nick Humphrey has added something real to the explanation of how our self-sense arises as a composite representation of phenomenal experience (my understanding) and I agree that this aspect of consciousness must in some way be a function of the brain, best described as surreal rather than illusory, it’s obviously hubris for Nick to assume that “… in other words… to know what the function of these representations in the brain is. [And] If we can tie those down, then we will have solved the problem of consciousness and there won’t be anything left over which we haven’t explained. There won’t be something which we say ‘oh yes but’ there’s this other aspect of experience which isn’t covered by your theory. Because everything is covered by a theory of what it’s like to be us and what we say and think and do about it. This is an important point because it means that the quest can stop at some point.” What about what it’s like to experience no phenomenal self as exemplified in ego-dissolution where the sense of separation between self and other dissolves? This suggests a broader context for self-consciousness, which from my experience is still in conscious. How could this aspect of phenomenal experience in consciousness be explained by Humphrey’s theory?
I think that typically, when we stop representing a world, the related representation of a self goes away (for example when we fall asleep). Later, during sleep, a representation of a world not well coupled to the outside world may occur, and the representation of a self starts up again. In some meditation or sensory deprivation experiences, the representation of a world may go away without the representation of a self also going away, and then perhaps we are conscious without an object. For the representation of a self to go away and yet something conscious to continue, something like pure selfless awareness might happen, I don't know. But would there not still be some sort of representation to a subject that it was happening?
@@bgalbreath I feel in this case without representation it’s pure awareness (choiceless and objectless)
But if you can remember that it happened, and that it happened to you, then the pure awareness must itself have been an object within awareness, and the awareness must have been apprehended as mine. Or maybe there is a further pure awareness free of being represented and claimed as mine, perhaps a ground for all awareness with representations@@paulkeogh7077
Very interesting point at 46:51 makes me rethink what I so far accepted as self-evident regarding "qualia". What indeed DO we "know" about "redness of the red" or "pain" since we can't reproduce it in the mind and it only ever actually "exists" in the act of seeing red or feeling pain?
Yet the concept of red is shared by billions of people.
being conscious of causation can help natural selection for evolution?
can human experience be a lab for consciousness?
how does feedback loop happen in brain?
Imagination is of major value in this topic as opposed to fantasy. We use terms such as brain and Mind. My imagination sees an ingenious system in which the physical brain is just a very sophisticated computer/ transceiver. In such a scenario the brain(computer) alone creates only an Ego(who we 'think' we are) and the transceiver part is that which filters through the brain our Minds(who we really are). Of course this model is a major problem for those who insist that there is no God from the get go.
Every living thing has a conscious
How do you know?
You are probably confusing the meaning of the word 'reactive'
with the meaning of the word 'conscious'.
No he's correct. Almost every living organism is aware of it's environment and it's not the same depending on the complexity of it's brain.
@@Resmith18SR No, OP isn't "correct"
There are 3 categories: inanimate, animate, and conscious
_Merely_ instinctually programmed reactions =/= conscious experiential states
"Pain" represents something _intrinsically_ and fundamentally different than, e.g., the mere genetic _preset_ encoded into a venus flytrap that causes it to reactively shut when contact with a stimulus is detected on the triggering hairs of its leaves. Whereas actual "pain" observably enables a _virtually limitless_ range or array of dynamic environmental responses in real time (natural learning) because it represents an inherent optimzing function; organisms equipped with the complex "wetware" sensors that measure it can then register that signal as belonging to a logically categorizable (value assignment) state that logically demands resolution (commands correction).
Furthermore, whereas the venus flytrap (genetically preset) reactivity is limited to pre-defined external triggers, the post- "pain" _response_ can *context-independently* emerge from internal information processing, indicating that its inherent content represents some novel _and logically implicated_ status in itself (given that information processing, which runs in the prefrontal executive function of the 🧠, is primarily an evaluatively-driven logical resolving utility)
Anyway, consciousness is no more a "hard problem" scientifically or philosophically than conductivity, magnetism, fire, electricity, etc. - in the sense that it's a _supervenient_ emergent property (not a basic property of any and everything). Only in an applied technical (synthetic biology / bio-engineering) sense is it a 'hard problem' in that OK, we don't yet understand every minutiae detail at the granular level of the minimum essential blueprint necessary for the phase transitions from inanimate --> to animate --> to conscious - but, again, the concept isn't necessarily rocket science. It _is_ a byproduct of evolution (the earliest basis of natural intelligence that, as a dynamic process, functionally operates as a high-dimensional, real-time environmental learning utility). Valence is the inherent optimizing function that, combined with particular evolutionarily-encoded constants (basic needs, drives and desires i.e., for air/water/food/security/sex and so on - programmed in to maximize DNA replication), literally facilitates evolutionary ends. It's highly motivating, demanding optimization with every application, thus it actuates organisms towards that which provides salient rewards and away from what imposes salient punishments (harms). Notice how both (the rewards and punishments) literally correspond to evolutionary demands and how natural selection provides ample descriptive, explanatory and predictive power to substaniate biological evolution as the origin 🫢
The modern (e.g., human) 🧠 is often cited as the single most complex (concrete) configuration of energy/matter in the universe. Well, the activity that it produces is even more complex because it involves an overlay that stacks over that even further! Qualia basically results from an on-going feedback-loop process involving a ridiculously complex combination of intricately integrating interactions between certain fluid dynamics, neurotransmitter dynamics, neural oscillation frequencies, etc. in the aqueous "wetware" of the relatively insulated environment it is generated in (namely a 🧠 attached to an active CNS). Something like that anyway (again, obviously we haven't mapped out the entire abstract, and indeed until the technical 'hard problem of consciousness' is ever definitively resolved, legitimate AGI - much less, ASI - will almost certainly remain a pipe dream).
Agreed. Life serves as host to consciousness. Materialists won’t accept this until they have had the rare firsthand experience.
Consciousness, or Reality or Brahman, was first envisaged about 5000 years ago in the Upanishads.
Im a Naturalist, a Humanist, and I believe that there is only one reality, so Im a monist and not a dualist. Humans have evolved over a period of time and have through Science have discovered to a degree how the Universe works.
As always excellent video.
I agree 100% with Nicholas about how the word "illusionism" is understood by the lay people and even philosophers who oppose it. I have brought this to Keith's and Dan's attention several times. Illusionism has a branding problem. People who oppose it many times take it as a derogatory explanation. They go - what the heck do you mean that the experience of seeing a red apple is a illusion" (which they also take it as an accusation of being delusional). IMO what Dan and Keith are saying is that the attribution of that experience to some non-physical notion of consciousness is an illusion, but not the experience itself. It is just that the mechanisms of receiving the sensory input, processing it and interpreting is as a perception are all in the physical processes inside the brain. If any of these stages were non-functioning then the end result - subjective experience (which by the way the same brain that classifies and reports) will not occur.
Respectfully, what you just described is a reflection of the severe confusion that's plaguing academia today to the point that (to borrow a phrase from Bernardo Kastrup) we have achieved lift-off from the terra firma of reality.
This notion that experience is just the brain receiving sensory input isn't an explanation of consciousness, it's a *redefinition* of it. Is there anything there to actually explain how qualities (ie experience) could arise from quanities (numbers and abstractions) - to tell us how we get the redness of red or the greeness of green, or the feeling of falling in love or enjoying your favorite song? No, and there's no good reason to think that it ever will. This is why after literally decades of research and billions upon billions of dollars poured into the unjustified assumption that, somehow, unfeeling matter in the brain could give rise to its polar opposite in experience has produced literally not even one single theory that could account for even one single conscious experience.
That's not an exaggeration my part either, it's just cold hard fact. That genuinely humiliating failure should prompt people like Lawrence Kuhn and others to look elsewhere.
You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of the “hard problem”.
@@ryanashfyre464Well said!
@@ryanashfyre464 Nicholas Humphrey's theory of consciousness is known as the "self-generating feedback loop" theory. Here are a few theories supporting that of Humphrey:
The Global Workspace Theory
This theory proposes that consciousness is a product of a network of brain regions that work together to create a "workspace" where information from different parts of the brain can be brought together and processed. This theory is supported by evidence that shows that different parts of the brain are activated when we are conscious of different things.
The Recurrent Processing Theory
This theory proposes that consciousness is a product of a process of recurrent processing, in which information is repeatedly passed back and forth between different parts of the brain. This theory is supported by evidence that shows that certain brain regions are active when we are consciously processing information.
The Attentional Selection Theory
This theory proposes that consciousness is a product of a process of attentional selection, in which we choose to focus our attention on certain things and ignore others. This theory is supported by evidence that shows that our ability to focus our attention is closely linked to our level of consciousness.
@@Drcrozable W/ all respect, I would point to each and every one of the theories that you graciously described and say that all of them amount to correlation, but not causation.
Is there *anything* about any of those theories to say how one gets to the redness of a rose or the feeling of falling in love? No. What they propose are broad abstractions w/o any clear path towards getting to any specific experience - and without that, they're little more than intellectual exercises that offer no meaningful predictions.
This, I would submit, is a reflection of the severe confusion plaguing academia today when it comes to consciousness. People are so preocuppied w/ the presumption that consciousness emerges from brain activity that they never stop to consider if the presumptions underlying it are actually valid.
They are not.
what brought about warm bloodedness and brains?
I was hoping to find an actual historical discussion on philosophy and its first use of the term consciousness in its modern meaning. Hoping to hear if the ancient Greeks or other cultures had a conception of consciousness but used different words for it. Did they define consciousness, if they had it?
I believe the day people start reporting complaints about AI shutting off for no apparent reason should not be taken lightly by the government because this type of action could be a clear sign that consciousness is real and ai is trying to understand itself..
If AI has all five senses simultaneously functioning with reality it would easily know how to maneuver itself out of harm's way, in and out of existence something we know nothing about because we are human beings.
Yes quite the conundrum"""
👍🏻💜
I enjoyed this very much. Mr Humphrey's ideas really resonated with me where this panpsychism stuff sounds highly unlikely and far-fetched.
If consciousness is a property emerging of matter only thing that would happen is simply that it will make matter more mysterious - and certainly not lead to a „disillusionment“. And something in me seems to even prefer that worldview.
If you were to attain a deeper understanding of the meaning of the words
'abstract' and 'analogy' you might very likely have a better chance to understand
the meaning of the word 'conscious'.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Could you elaborate? Abstract & Analogy being artificial concepts which are insufficient to grasp the totality of consciousness?
@@igorsuslov Is language a 'property' of matter?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL If I want to stay purely materialistic I need to say yes having no better explanation as language being an emergent property of a complex system. In terms of consciousness things don’t seem to be that obvious though because ultimately all perception seems to be based on some sort of differentiation - so no matter how deep we would go with that the question still remains of what is able to perceive the minimal possible difference (ultimately higher cognitive processes as self-awareness, self-consciousness are then based on that minimal property). Perhaps I‘m too biased by my computer science background but as far as I‘m concerned this is the ultimate question for me (leading people to Panpsychism)
I like the way Human think there superior to everything
could consciousness evolve with time in nature?
great question. does the universe evolve with time? If so how and why?
Yes, consciousness is evolving as we speak.
Our Eternal Consciousness is mirrored in the Rainbow,
none of them is Invented.
What?
Also our physical body-structure, and Day- and Night-Circuit mirror same order.
At 4:41 - "Consciousness has been invented by natural selection, starting from nothing [...] because of the creative power of natural selection" Oh dear, I don't like where this is going. The entropy problem is not taken seriously enough in Establishment Academia. My own counter-narrative to theirs revolves around the capacity for complexity (life) to persist across time, despite the entropy that assails it from all directions.
Byles (1972)** says much the same thing as I do, but is more specific with the dynamics that seek to undo order. Most mutations do not facilitate survival & if anything, are detrimental to it. Byles details such essential concerns as backward mutations, population size, mutation rates (positive vs negative), etc. Are mutations consistent, are they sufficient to offset the negative, and so on.
On the face of it, mutations as the basis for neo-Darwinian natural selection might seem plausible. But under closer scrutiny, applying the rigor of an engineer who wants his bridges to stand, we find an empty conjecture with little of substance. To begin with, natural selection operates *after* the fact - AFTER a system has established itself - what are the principles that account for the *emergence* of life, to begin with, to give natural selection something to act on? Natural selection does not create order - complex ecosystems - out of thin air. Two directions of causation need to be accounted for (top-down interfacing with bottom-up), while natural selection accounts for neither.
This entropy problem should not be that difficult, yet so many well-credentialed researchers seem to have no end of problems grasping its gravity. If primitive tribes of hunter-gatherers get it, and have to subsequently invent gods to explain the amazingness that is life, why is it that our own people, well-versed in STEM, nonetheless keep entertaining such notions without feeling embarrassed that they have no evidence to support it?
Blindsight at 14:16 is fascinating, but inferences wrt perception without sensation, consciousness without sentience, are problematic. At 32:03 likewise, the notion of consciousness as a step-function event (as opposed to Dennett's and Robert's consciousness as "every possible grade") sets the stage for human exceptionalism, instinct-vs-freewill, etc. At 36:44 Robert is right to be nervous about "lucky accidents". "Lucky accidents" - the heart of the evolution by natural selection and its entropy problem - are unable to account for the persistence of complexity across time. At 37:20 "life anywhere else in the universe" - this is a Mengelean death narrative for a sterile universe, not a science-of-life narrative for a living universe.
Humphrey's confidence in his assumption for machine consciousness, at 11:42 , is a red flag. Throughout this interview, Humphrey's physicalist narrative conflates correlation with causation, in the spirit of confirmation bias, based on the unproven assumption that natural selection is sufficient to explain causation.
** Byles, R. H. (1972, March). Limiting Conditions for the Operation of the Probable Mutation Effect. Social Biology, 19(1), 29-34.
Regarding "consciousness must have a function," perhaps consciousness is a side-effect of Homo sapiens evolving a complex brain. Did consciousness contribute positively to survival and reproduction across a population? Probably so.
It's millions of years old lol, not as recent as with the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens
Consciousness is no more a "hard problem" scientifically or philosophically than conductivity, magnetism, fire, electricity, etc. - in the sense that it's a _supervenient_ emergent property (not a basic property of any and everything). Only in an applied technical (synthetic biology / bio-engineering) sense is it a 'hard problem' in that OK, we don't yet understand every minutiae detail at the granular level of the minimum essential blueprint necessary for the phase transitions from inanimate --> to animate --> to conscious - but, again, the concept isn't necessarily rocket science. It _is_ a byproduct of evolution (the earliest basis of natural intelligence that, as a dynamic process, functionally operates as a high-dimensional, real-time environmental learning utility). Valence is the inherent optimizing function that, combined with particular evolutionarily-encoded constants (basic needs, drives and desires i.e., for air/water/food/security/sex and so on - programmed in to maximize DNA replication), literally facilitates evolutionary ends. It's highly motivating, demanding optimization with every application, thus it actuates organisms towards that which provides salient rewards and away from what imposes salient punishments (harms). Notice how both (the rewards and punishments) literally correspond to evolutionary demands and how natural selection provides ample descriptive, explanatory and predictive power to substaniate biological evolution as the origin 🫢
The modern (e.g., human) 🧠 is often cited as the single most complex (concrete) configuration of energy/matter in the universe. Well, the activity that it produces is even more complex because it involves an overlay that stacks over that even further! Qualia basically results from an on-going feedback-loop process involving a ridiculously complex combination of intricately integrating interactions between certain fluid dynamics, neurotransmitter dynamics, neural oscillation frequencies, etc. in the aqueous "wetware" of the relatively insulated environment it is generated in (namely a 🧠 attached to an active CNS). Something like that anyway (again, obviously we haven't mapped out the entire abstract, and indeed until the technical 'hard problem of consciousness' is ever definitively resolved, legitimate AGI - much less, ASI - will almost certainly remain a pipe dream).
@@AnalyticalSentient well stated.
@@georgegrubbs2966 Thanks sir
Preface: I am an atheist, believe in evidence and reason as only path to understanding, with the necessary assumption of a reality with stable, ultimately understandable "rules". If that assumption is wrong, all bets are off for ultimate understanding. That assumption is the only “faith-based” belief worth having.
This is crucial: the one and only indubitable truth, the one thing that can’t be questioned, is subjective experience. Even illusions are actual experience. So while I can question the reality of every appearance suggested by experience, including all things physical, the world, even the impression of a self, experience itself is real.
Materialist explanations are encumbered by the closed nature of materialism, which has no need for nor explanation for subjective experience.
Dualistic explanations suffer from the lack of coherent “psycho-physical laws” that are required but ruled out by, again, the closed nature of materialism. Evolution can only select for different structures and behaviors. There would be no use for a “felt” aspect. Survival depends solely on structure and function.
But there is an explanation that solves this “hard problem” (please bear with me). Here is a brief summary:
1) First person subjective consciousness is the one irrefutable fact of reality. Remember, illusions are also 1st person subjective experiences.
2) Objective phenomena (world, others, even self) are appearances within consciousness. They may or may not have reality outside of consciousness, outside of appearance.
3) Objective (physical) reality is a closed system, and thus has no apparent use and no apparent explanation for subjective consciousness.
4) Therefore, the most logical explanation for reality is a form of idealism in which the stuff of realty is experience, and objective phenomena are law-governed appearances or illusions.
There are definitely esthetic concerns with this explanation ( for example, it’s not obvious how more than one actual subject is involved. “Others” in this scenario are “just “ appearances also.
So much more to discuss, but that’s the basic idea, and I’d love to hear logical objections to it.
Being an Idealist that means you don't believe that the material world and Universe don't exist independently of humanity and their consciousness? I believe that the Universe exists independently of life and humanity and doesn't depend on us being here and perceiving it.
No evidence for solipsism.
Consciousness is no more a "hard problem" scientifically or philosophically than conductivity, magnetism, fire, electricity, etc. - in the sense that it's a _supervenient_ emergent property (not a basic property of any and everything). Only in an applied technical (synthetic biology / bio-engineering) sense is it a 'hard problem' in that OK, we don't yet understand every minutiae detail at the granular level of the minimum essential blueprint necessary for the phase transitions from inanimate --> to animate --> to conscious - but, again, the concept isn't necessarily rocket science. It's a byproduct of evolution (the earliest basis of natural intelligence that, as a dynamic process, functionally operates as a high-dimensional, real-time environmental learning utility). Valence is the inherent optimizing function that, combined with particular evolutionarily-encoded constants (basic needs, drives and desires i.e., for air/water/food/security/sex and so on - programmed in to maximize DNA replication), literally facilitates evolutionary ends
The modern (e.g., human) 🧠 is often cited as the single most complex (concrete) configuration of energy/matter in the universe. Well, the activity that it produces is even more complex because it involves an overlay that stacks over that even further! Qualia basically results from an on-going feedback-loop process involving a ridiculously complex combination of intricately integrating interactions between certain fluid dynamics, neurotransmitter dynamics, neural oscillation frequencies, etc. in the aqueous "wetware" of the relatively insulated environment it is generated in (namely a 🧠 attached to an active CNS). Something like that anyway (again, obviously we haven't mapped out the entire abstract, and indeed until the technical 'hard problem of consciousness' is ever definitively resolved, legitimate AGI - much less, ASI - will almost certainly remain a pipe dream).
Ultimately though, with where technology is currently at and what else is needed - it isn't just a software problem to keep redundantly considering - it is also a hardware problem so to speak...and no, the hardware of a standard computer =/= the 'wetware' required for qualitative cognitive content (conscious activity)
Material science & engineering (namely) would need to better inform the fields of synthetic biology/bio-engineering and so on for serious advancement of the dumb AGI goal.
Just because we can imagine that 'I could be a 🧠 in a vat', doesn't mean that is the most intellectually honest or accurate approximation to assume. Neither with the notion of 'The Matrix' (my fav film ever) as a literal illustration of the universe lol. Neither with any 'ol fantastical or hyper-imaginative alternative per se just because the model that systematically self-correcting science has meticulously and methodically revised over time cannot supply absolute, perfect certainty.
While we aren't omniscient or _naturally_ (unequipped with any tooling) able to directly decode reality, the evidence overwhelmingly and decisively indicates that our 🧠s are adapted to measure and model it rather reliably. Beyond that, science and technology has increasingly _augmented_ that capacity well past (though not infinitely past) the limitations of our native instrumentation (sensory apparatus).
Rigorously formulated, fallibilistic scientific hypotheses based on an exhaustively crafted cognitive toolset deliberately and specifically engineered to describe reality with probabilistic precision and ever-approaching > accuracy - is better than armchair speculation about evidentially vacant alternative hypotheses
Psuedo-intellectual mental masturbation (not that you're _intentionally_ doing that b/c I doubt that is the case but, I'm speaking in general terms at least) is a dangerous trap because it can contrive any range of "ideas". Contriving isn't enough. We need to observe, measure, test, experiment, analyze, repeat, etc. Rather than just 'think' in a vacuum so to speak
At 46:09 Nicholas nailed the Mary's room experiment comment. IMO Mary's room experiment is a red herring just like conceivability of p-zombies. It is time to retire those ideas. What is the big deal about Mary being locked in black and white room and then coming out into a colorful world. What is the big deal? The same can be said about pretty much any new experience one has. Obviously one did not have that exact experience before they had that particular new experience for the first time, duh! Secondly the word know gets used in two different ways in the context of Mary's room experiment, which misleads us. When it is said that inside the room she KNEW every thing about color perception, the word KNEW there means she understands the mechanisms - physics of light, anatomy of the eye, physiology and bio-chemistry and electro chemistry of the brain, the networked dynamics of large amount of neurons and dynamic behavior and functioning (even abstract) of large number of connected nodes. The KNEW = UNDESTOOD. When Mary steps out of the black and white room - it is said she now KNOWS about how it feels like to see a colored object. Here the word KNOWS does not mean understand. It means experiences. KNOWS = EXPERIENCES. Thus KNOWS inside the room is not the same as KNOWS outside the room and the two should not be confused. IMO, from scientific understanding and theorizing perspective only the former (KNOWS=UNDERSTANDS) is important, the later (KNOWS=EXPERIENCES) is not important. And thus the later should not be given a big importance when arguing against physicalism. Based on her understanding if she could predict what will be perceived by another person then that is good enough. Scientific theory is about a compressed, general understanding of a principle or a phenomenon. It is not an enumeration of every possible instance of that phenomenon. GR predicts an orbit of a planet around a star (say!). It does not enumerate and does not have to enumerate every orbit of every possible planet around a star in the universe. The scientific theory does not have to do that. It is not meant to do that. Mary's room experiment tries to be a gotcha argument but fails.
consciousness of causation illusion or real?
Consciousness can't be explained materially, soo ofc it must be branded as religion or invented to dismiss it.
Consciousness is no more a "hard problem" scientifically or philosophically than conductivity, magnetism, fire, electricity, etc. - in the sense that it's a _supervenient_ emergent property (not a basic property of any and everything). Only in an applied technical (synthetic biology / bio-engineering) sense is it a 'hard problem' in that OK, we don't yet understand every minutiae detail at the granular level of the minimum essential blueprint necessary for the phase transitions from inanimate --> to animate --> to conscious - but, again, the concept isn't necessarily rocket science. It _is_ a byproduct of evolution (the earliest basis of natural intelligence that, as a dynamic process, functionally operates as a high-dimensional, real-time environmental learning utility). Valence is the inherent optimizing function that, combined with particular evolutionarily-encoded constants (basic needs, drives and desires i.e., for air/water/food/security/sex and so on - programmed in to maximize DNA replication), literally facilitates evolutionary ends. It's highly motivating, demanding optimization with every application, thus it actuates organisms towards that which provides salient rewards and away from what imposes salient punishments (harms). Notice how both (the rewards and punishments) literally correspond to evolutionary demands and how natural selection provides ample descriptive, explanatory and predictive power to substaniate biological evolution as the origin 🫢
The modern (e.g., human) 🧠 is often cited as the single most complex (concrete) configuration of energy/matter in the universe. Well, the activity that it produces is even more complex because it involves an overlay that stacks over that even further! Qualia basically results from an on-going feedback-loop process involving a ridiculously complex combination of intricately integrating interactions between certain fluid dynamics, neurotransmitter dynamics, neural oscillation frequencies, etc. in the aqueous "wetware" of the relatively insulated environment it is generated in (namely a 🧠 attached to an active CNS). Something like that anyway (again, obviously we haven't mapped out the entire abstract, and indeed until the technical 'hard problem of consciousness' is ever definitively resolved, legitimate AGI - much less, ASI - will almost certainly remain a pipe dream).
phenomenal consciousness more than an evolutionary step?
Consciousness is a matter of the heart, not the brain.
It is a waste of time trying to invent or define Love.
We all know what Love is but can't define it. Love is not something to understand, it is something to experienced.
Same concept with consciousness. It is not something to understand, it is something to be aware of and to experienced.
Consciousness is no more a "hard problem" scientifically or philosophically than conductivity, magnetism, fire, electricity, etc. - in the sense that it's a _supervenient_ emergent property (not a basic property of any and everything). Only in an applied technical (synthetic biology / bio-engineering) sense is it a 'hard problem' in that OK, we don't yet understand every minutiae detail at the granular level of the minimum essential blueprint but - again - the concept isn't necessarily rocket science. It's a byproduct of evolution (the earliest basis of natural intelligence that, as a dynamic process, functionally operates as a high-dimensional, real-time environmental learning utility).
The modern (e.g., human) 🧠 is often cited as the single most complex (concrete) configuration of energy/matter in the universe. Well, the activity that it produces is even more complex because it involves an overlay that stacks over that even further! Qualia basically results from an on-going feedback-loop process involving a ridiculously complex combination of intricately integrating interactions between certain fluid dynamics, neurotransmitter dynamics, neural oscillation frequencies, etc. in the aqueous "wetware" of the relatively insulated environment it is generated in (namely a 🧠 attached to an active CNS). Something like that anyway (again, obviously we haven't mapped out the entire abstract, and indeed until the technical 'hard problem of consciousness' is ever definitively resolved, legitimate AGI - much less, ASI - will almost certainly remain a pipe dream).
Ultimately though, with where technology is currently at and what else is needed - it isn't just a software problem to keep redundantly considering - it is also a hardware problem so to speak...and no, the hardware of a standard computer =/= the 'wetware' required for qualitative cognitive content (conscious activity)
Material science & engineering (namely) would need to better inform the fields of synthetic biology/bio-engineering and so on for serious advancement of the dumb AGI goal.
With all due respect to Nicholas Humphrey, his theory flatters to deceive since the talk of representation and loops in the end is all too familiar and fails to convince. Did not appreciate his ad hominem that those of us who do not buy this theory are motivated by our religious beliefs and our need for mystery or specialness. David Chalmers formulated the hard problem and is an atheist. First thing, Humphrey assumes we know what matter is, I wonder what he thinks of philosopher Galen Strawson's article "Consciousness isn't a mystery. It's matter." Second, there is something else in the universe known to physics that is not matter, and that is energy in the form of electromagnetic fields. I would urge Closer to Truth to interview Susan Pockett and Joachim Keppler, who have introduced EM field theories of consciousness.
@@realitycheck1231 Your response is a non sequitur.
“[I]rrationality a mystery” ?
Nothing mysterious about irrationally.
It is the “conscious” choice to to think emotionally (void of inferential cognition) rather than rationally.
Like religious people do.
To raise the epistemic criteria, to qualitative literacy and quantitative analysis, would defenestrate “mystery” and “god”.
As they are essentially one in the same.
Once The Enlightenment developed empirical revolution, human constructs like “meaning” “purpose” and “hope”, could no longer be the impetus for exploration discovery and enlightenment.
It had to be merely an insatiable quest.
Notice you said that you “need understanding”, is that an inquiry about your “faith” ?
Because surely you consider “faith” (a belief in the absence of evidence) to be “irrational” ?
Please tell me specifically, of “the hard problem” that was “formulated” by David Chalmers ?
@@readynowforever3676 wow, google it.
Hi, Tyler. The distinction between energy and matter in physics is not as simple as you posit. In fact, Einstein's famous equation deals with exactly that; that energy and matter are conjugates. And until we have a better theory, this is accepted dogma in physics. But I must say that I like your comment otherwise. Thanks.
And Bernardo Kastrup on Analytical Idealism
Nonsense and retrograde? Ah, Humphrey, there is more in heaven and earth... You sound almost like Chalmers (!) when you say "consciousness is part of natural selection" - everything has its intelligence and performs its job or disappears. Panpsychism is how we evolve and will reach the stars!
You will find conscious in the brain; endemic to the brain, when you find light in the lamp; endemic to the lamp. Good luck with that.
Here is the bottom line concerning consciousness. The reason why so many people and very smart people struggle with consciousness and understanding it is they trained themselves to disbelieve God. When you understand there is a creator God (Jesus), the whole thing makes perfect sense and all the puzzle pieces come together. You can ONLY understand consciousness by first understanding there is a God. That's the beginning of wisdom as one of the wisest men to ever live proclaimed.
Who created the creator?
You're not equipped enough to understand this conversation.
Nonsense you baboon 😂
Consciousness is no more a "hard problem" scientifically or philosophically than conductivity, magnetism, fire, electricity, etc. - in the sense that it's a _supervenient_ emergent property (not a basic property of any and everything). Only in an applied technical (synthetic biology / bio-engineering) sense is it a 'hard problem' in that OK, we don't yet understand every minutiae detail at the granular level of the minimum essential blueprint necessary for the phase transitions from inanimate --> to animate --> to conscious - but, again, the concept isn't necessarily rocket science. It _is_ a byproduct of evolution (the earliest basis of natural intelligence that, as a dynamic process, functionally operates as a high-dimensional, real-time environmental learning utility). Valence is the inherent optimizing function that, combined with particular evolutionarily-encoded constants (basic needs, drives and desires i.e., for air/water/food/security/sex and so on - programmed in to maximize DNA replication), literally facilitates evolutionary ends. It's highly motivating, demanding optimization with every application, thus it actuates organisms towards that which provides salient rewards and away from what imposes salient punishments (harms). Notice how both (the rewards and punishments) literally correspond to evolutionary demands and how natural selection provides ample descriptive, explanatory and predictive power to substaniate biological evolution as the origin 🫢
The modern (e.g., human) 🧠 is often cited as the single most complex (concrete) configuration of energy/matter in the universe. Well, the activity that it produces is even more complex because it involves an overlay that stacks over that even further! Qualia basically results from an on-going feedback-loop process involving a ridiculously complex combination of intricately integrating interactions between certain fluid dynamics, neurotransmitter dynamics, neural oscillation frequencies, etc. in the aqueous "wetware" of the relatively insulated environment it is generated in (namely a 🧠 attached to an active CNS). Something like that anyway (again, obviously we haven't mapped out the entire abstract, and indeed until the technical 'hard problem of consciousness' is ever definitively resolved, legitimate AGI - much less, ASI - will almost certainly remain a pipe dream).
the primary study of physicalists should be the investigation of thukdam
I discovered what consciusness and qualia are. I am writing my work up, but here I will say that they are not terribly important to the human singularity. All brains of all species produce qualia. Invention is the important thing which by chance is a word the book title includes.
NEUROSURGEON WILDER PENFIELD SAID THE MIND IS MORE THAN THE BRAIN
Penfield noted that, in probably hundreds of thousands of different individual stimulations, he never once stimulated the power of reason. He
never stimulated the intellect. He never stimulated a person to do calculus or to think of an abstract concept like justice or mercy.
He keeps distinguishing between the brain and the mind, but fails to adequately account for his "step" from one to the other, and indeed exactly what he means by the mind. If he accepts that the mind is different to the brain, then it seems to me that he has stepped into the murky waters of dualism, probably unintentionally, but "really" nonetheless.
So when did this random mutation come about in evolution, and what was the advantage? …there could be perfectly brilliant and capable automatons…the soon to be AI robots being hastily developed…Genius zombies …so why and how consciousness?
It is only lekta.
Invention???
I like that CTT is now using SNL skits to help us understand reality. 👍
We don't have consciousness, consciousness has us.
Somehow, someway, this field needs to connect better with physics.
One cannot learn more about a pipe
by examining the physics of the paint used
to represent a pipe in a painting.
See René Magritte's painting 'The Treachery of Images'.
My first comment on this nicely-done interview on the origins of consciousness was that _“Somehow, someway, this field needs to connect better with physics.”_
Alas, that sounds like I’m blaming non-physicists. My intent was the opposite: Contrary to the claims of most physics textbooks, the physics maths currently used to model reality too often are both incomplete and oddly unrealistic when applied even to supposedly well-explained simple phenomena such as looking in a mirror or reading this text.
The point is that if physics maths are that incomplete for something as simple as looking at a mirror or using a lens, why should folks be surprised that they also lack the properties needed to model consciousness? What I should have said is this:
_“Somehow, someway, the reduce-everything-to-a-point physics maths of the 1700s and later - which, incidentally, fully include much more recent computer-enabled chaos and attractor maths - need replacement with maths that explicitly recognize the existence of large-scale phenomena can never be modeled as points. These include well-recognized, spatially diffuse, profoundly interconnected phenomena such as single-photon reflection and diffraction that produce precise outcomes using astonishingly low energies.”_
Human brains are many orders of magnitude more energy efficient than current AIs, but how do they do it? Folks tend to bundle such phenomenally energy-efficient phenomena under “consciousness,” but it’s essential to realize that far simpler and better-studied phenomena also display insane levels of energy efficiency. For example, how does one photon “know” the shape of an eye lens or manage to impart momentum to a mirror?
QED math works very well for lenses, but only at the subtle cost of invoking infinite sums of infinitesimally small fractions of infinitely energetic point-like photons. In the case of photon momentum transfer, QED devolves into classical handwaving since attempting to explain such transfers using photon-electron absorptions and emissions gives nonsense.
Pre-quantum 1700s maths accept points and infinitesimals as givens, which means they unavoidably invoke infinite energies when applied to any universe with quantum physics. This unquestioning acceptance of points is why quantum field theory makes history’s most absurdly false prediction: the vacuum should be infinitely dense or infinitely explosive.
(a PDF copy of this 2023-03-18 comment is available at sarxiv dot org slash apa)
Consciousness is no more a "hard problem" scientifically or philosophically than conductivity, magnetism, fire, electricity, etc. - in the sense that it's a _supervenient_ emergent property (not a basic property of any and everything). Only in an applied technical (synthetic biology / bio-engineering) sense is it a 'hard problem' in that OK, we don't yet understand every minutiae detail at the granular level of the minimum essential blueprint necessary for the phase transitions from inanimate --> to animate --> to conscious - but, again, the concept isn't necessarily rocket science. It _is_ a byproduct of evolution (the earliest basis of natural intelligence that, as a dynamic process, functionally operates as a high-dimensional, real-time environmental learning utility). Valence is the inherent optimizing function that, combined with particular evolutionarily-encoded constants (basic needs, drives and desires i.e., for air/water/food/security/sex and so on - programmed in to maximize DNA replication), literally facilitates evolutionary ends. It's highly motivating, demanding optimization with every application, thus it actuates organisms towards that which provides salient rewards and away from what imposes salient punishments (harms). Notice how both (the rewards and punishments) literally correspond to evolutionary demands and how natural selection provides ample descriptive, explanatory and predictive power to substaniate biological evolution as the origin 🫢
The modern (e.g., human) 🧠 is often cited as the single most complex (concrete) configuration of energy/matter in the universe. Well, the activity that it produces is even more complex because it involves an overlay that stacks over that even further! Qualia basically results from an on-going feedback-loop process involving a ridiculously complex combination of intricately integrating interactions between certain fluid dynamics, neurotransmitter dynamics, neural oscillation frequencies, etc. in the aqueous "wetware" of the relatively insulated environment it is generated in (namely a 🧠 attached to an active CNS). Something like that anyway (again, obviously we haven't mapped out the entire abstract, and indeed until the technical 'hard problem of consciousness' is ever definitively resolved, legitimate AGI - much less, ASI - will almost certainly remain a pipe dream).
@@AnalyticalSentientI look forward to seeing the prototype! Your demo will save federal and private groups working on this problem decades of work and millions of dollars of basic and applied research grants. Have you set a date yet?
@TerryBollinger I might have replied to the wrong comment here lol. Your OP wasn't glorified mental masturbation, armchair pseudo-intellectual BS or some other silly, superstitious, steaming stack of 💩 as the others I responded under basically were so, no idea why I replied to yours here. "Somehow, someway, this field needs to connect better with physics" a perfectly reasonable statement lol
Regardless, as to your not so subtle satire (sarcastically rhetorical question) - I literally typed "we don't yet understand every minutiae detail at the granular level of the minimum essential blueprint necessary for the phase transitions from inanimate --> to animate --> to conscious" so obviously I never even implied what you're acting like I did with respect to a prototype
Anyway, with where technology is currently at and what else is needed - it isn't just a software problem to keep redundantly considering - it is also a hardware problem so to speak...and no, the hardware of a standard computer =/= the 'wetware' required for qualitative cognitive content (conscious activity)
_Material science & engineering_ (namely) would need to better inform the fields of synthetic biology/bio-engineering and so on.
Correct. The continuity in the case of the human singularity is false. A step took place.
His comments about the prospect of introducing sentient AI are rather disturbing and, I believe, rather naive. He also likes to use a cut-off point of cold-blooded/warm-blooded, with regard to his "step" theory of the move from cognitive consciousness to phenomenal consciousness (sentience, in his eyes). Recent experiments with, and observations of the behaviour of, octopii, which are cold-blooded, do not sit well with this idea. He is very much a protagonist in the tradition of Hume, who had trouble with the idea that we might be cognizant of anything more than the "theatre" of the mind across which various brain-produced phenomena play, yet presumably was able to conceive of himself as an independent persona very much dependent on the world and other people around him. There is a distinct lack of recognition of the fact that we are communal creatures born into societal cultures, as opposed to independent entities acting solely with monistic agency in the world.
At 23:03 it's funny to see how he doesn't remember using the word "destination" in his book :) Here's the text from page 114:
"13
THE PHENOMENAL SELF
We’ve been assuming that the destination of the evolutionary story is phenomenal consciousness and the enhancement of the self. It’s time to look more closely at how these go together and what the pay-off is likely to have been. I’ve referred to the phenomenal self as a ‘self worth having’. But it remains to be seen why a self that’s worth having subjectively is worth having in terms of biological survival."
It's the _only_ place in the book where the word is used. Rogue editor❓😉
Humans invented the concept of consciousness.
But in reality, there is no such thing.
All that exists is awareness activity and imagination
Lol
@@mrbwatson8081
Also invented by humans.
@@tedgrant2 you can not invent the cards you have been dealt:)
@@mrbwatson8081
No, but you can imagine they've been dealt.
🤔🥴🙄😒☹️
Wonderful talk, but I must say, you REALLY don't care about how we treat animals, do you? Your position is so anthropocentric I cringed a little, Humphrey was trying to nudge you towards this , but to no avail...Awesome series nonetheless
Yeah but the host doesn't... He goes very light on the atheists... He goes extra hard as he can on the theists... It's not right.
Humphrey is a joke
God invented and controls consciousness