Video

So this recording doesn't work. There is a mismatch of video frames between the source test youtube video and this video such that letters actually are not appearing in this video. The A literally isnt here in this video at the beginning. But is clearly there if you watch the original. czcams.com/video/Si1nTnZIGI0/video.html

21:01 「特殊と一般」→中世哲学の「普遍と個体」問題が浮かんだが、、何か関係あるかな…？ワクワク☺️

不知道为什么会刷到，完全听不懂，但不明觉厉。四个博士读了文献一起讨论这篇文章吗？好有趣的形式。

great discussion, everyone! really enjoy this kind of stuff.

Fascinating insights! Wow. Great idea to use quantum models to explain how manipulation of groups (political, racial, religious, nations, etc..) can occur! We the people are the “atoms” subjugated to powerful laser beams by the “more powerful” mad scientists! Great insightful model - With the bonus of learning more about scientific theories! Top value! Great education tool! ⭐️🔥👌

Impossible to listen😢 bad bad bad audio quality? Why? How? 2025 and people still teaching without knowing how to use a microphone. Sad.

I would jump at stage 1. Consciousness is embedded in physical drive.

extremely well done. but my theory of conciseness is that counchis = adderalll

That's it goglesnot, slap it on

Does brain activity cause watermelons to implode inside a toy submarine?

Thanks.

Keisuke is so handsome and of course very interesting talk

thanks for this.

28:40 まで

Thanks.

とても興味深い………

Thank you for this paper presentation Alexandra!

I have heavy sleep fragmentation, low REM sleep and no apnea, can't seem to find solution for myself, still waiting for medical appointment to see what doctor has to propose.

Super interesting. Super important.

Where are the other parts of this conversation? I couln't find them. Carry on the great job! Thanks in advance

Thanks.

Thank you for that

Thank you for doing this research and sharing the data!

青森県の碧猫舎から→やって来ましたクオリアレクチャー！下條信輔先生!を信頼されたＳＯＮＹ創業者、井深大様が待ち望んだ「こころ感じる問題」出井伸之様が引き受けた、クオリア情報の真実が訪れました！懐かしい響きの「クオリア」未来がやって来ました。本当に有難うございます。【碧猫の尻尾研究所】2023/11/11

RE: Global Workspace versus ITT theory. What would be going on in the Global Workspace other than the Integration of Information? And for analysis any non-trivial problem, and one entailing significant fitness stakes to get correct, why wouldn't virtually the whole brain be involved? Moreover, I think it is vital to consider that the brain activity being measured in all these neural correlate studies is likely doing two separate but related things, (1) creating a constantly updated and relatively complete and objective NONconscious model of reality, which by definition generates no easily accessible phenomenology, and (2) creating and much more circumscribed and far more subjective conscious model of reality, which can be presented to social partners - one that is designed primarily for social navigation purposes. The construction of the conscious model would be informed deeply by the nonconscious model and would also be constantly updated mainly to maximize its social efficacy. Note if this is correct, a lot of brain activity devoted to generation of the nonconscious model will not correlate with conscious experience at all, especially over short time frames. Note that these two models may (are expected to) contain enormously contradictory representations of many aspects of reality, because the nonconscious model is trying to build a correct model (limited in scope, of course, by what in the real world is relevant, ultimately, to generating maximum expected lifetime inclusive fitness for the individual in question), while the conscious model is all about making the individual maximally effective within their social niche(s) in garnering, approval, status, help, forgiveness, etc.

Questions about IIT: 1) Is IIT part of computational functionalism ? In a sense it seems it is, as we could realise a brain with wires or biological neurons and IIT is supposed to conclude the same thing if the function is the same as long as we respect the "connecting structure". In a sense it seems it is not, as IIT seems to conclude that the simulation of a brain on a Turing machine is not something conscious, the function is the same but the physical structure is different. Did I got it right ? 2) Could you confirm that this structural postulate is by definition untestable ? because something like a simulation of a brain (on a Turing machine) will lead to the same external behavior and will have homologous inner workings than a real brain, so observations will be the same but the theory concludes 2 different things.

I don't the hard problem, to me the hard problem is not a problem at all, once we unlock the easy problem, we will rack the consciousness

Very interesting! I was wondering if there is any data on it being more common not only to have a third person perspective but also of frequently shifting between first and third perspectives in day dreaming? Also, did people have a certain difficulty telling when they had been daydreaming ( vs. just thinking or mind blanking)?

OISTの、子供を出張に連れていく必要経費が場合によっては出るという制度はいいですね。女性に限ったことではないのですが、夫婦で同じ国際学会に参加すると、小さい子供は学会に一緒に連れていく必要が出てくるし、日常的にも、休日に職場に行こうとするとやはり子供も一緒に連れていく必要が出てきます。しかし、少なくとも15年くらい前までは、日本ではかなりnegativeに見られていたと思います。「学会に遊びに行っている」だの、「子供にホワイトボードマーカーを使わせている」だのと。加えて、海外出張に子供を連れていって学校を休ませるということの切実さを小学校の担任はよく理解できず、子供が悪い扱いを受けるということもありましたね、学習発表会で悪い役を配されたり、授業中に手を上げても当ててもらえないとか、授業中の課題を先に仕上げても、他の子供達の後にしか受け付けてもらえないとか。そういうことがあると、少なくともウチでは、母親の研究者の方が、父親の研究者以上に、そういうリスクに敏感になりました。「母親が子供の世話をするのが当たり前」という考えを含む、日本社会に根強くかつ広く残る家父長的価値観が、当人の判断にまで影響を及ぼしてしまうのだと思います。ですので、こういう根深い価値観自体をupdateしていくことが、女性研究者のキャリアを考える上では大事ではないかと思います。そういう意味では中田さんの最近のCZcams大学の「日本経済再生計画」（だったかな？）はとても有用に思いました。

Things feel the way they do because of the biophysics of our nervous system. The way we feel and perceive is likely similar between individuals. If the mechanisms are the same, things feels different to different people because their brains are in different states.

It sounds like - from your summary - insight vs non-insight solutions depended on the test subjects self-reporting once, after dozens of trials, whether they were using “insight”or not? It sounds like the experiment is actually establishing whether working memory strain during a task correlates with a subject speculating that their solution strategy involved insight overall. How would the authors disambiguate those, I wonder? We can guess from the graph you show (5:17) that [the probability of subjects reporting “insight”] might correlate negatively with [the duration of each correct trial], but I’m curious: did the authors try to look at a correlation between the trial durations near the end of the set of trials to see if it correlated better with what subjects reported? Would the speed of the subject solving the last few trials correlate more clearly with reporting “insight” than the speed of all trials? (Is reporting at the end focusing on the last trials?) Is there reason to suspect that the same strategy was likely to be used across trials for a given subject? And what do we think it means when a subject reports that they used insight? Is there consensus in the field that this sense in the subject matches the notion of insight employed in the literature?

Very cool!

I met a guy with seizures solely triggered by "auto tuned rnb music" it was its aesthetic he thought. and yes hooked up to EEG, blasting him with kanye west.

When they refer to perturbation, I understand what it means in the astrological sense but I’m not a neuroscientist. So here, does it mean a stimulus sufficient to generate an action potential across a synapse? Thank you.

Funny that they’re talking about the telencephalon yet completely disregard that hydranencephalic children have no cortex whatsoever and are completely conscious beings who react to appropriately to stimuli both pleasant and noxious. Any theory of consciousness that relies solely on the cortex without regard for the brainstem is a bit shortsighted in my mind. Mark Solms’s work has shown that the brainstem is responsible for the conscious state of being. There have been experiments where PAG stimulation has caused the most intense states of affect that humans are capable of producing. Is the cortex at the center of our ability to choose? Absolutely. But the center of consciousness is in the brainstem, not the cortex.

Can i make my way understanding category theory along with prerequisites on my own, even if I don't go for phd in pure mathematics?

2:45 (4)

集合集積知の形成が、情報展開過程という宇宙の流れ。ブラフマン‐アートマン・モデル。 ネットはその最前線でしょうか？

サイコーに面白かったです．なぜかyoutubeに出てきて，それから，クオリア構造学の領域のところまで辿り着いて，少し意識研究と圏論をかじり始めました．地方大学院生より

i didnt see the Z but i saw the K which was before the Z

Hi, thanks a lot for this presentation ! You said you tried this experiment, could you tell me where I could try it or how did you do ?

It seems like "reductive explanations" means something specific? I am completely new to this and appreciate any explanations.

Hm. Contradictory logic indeed: A claim that nothing can be known about certain things claims to know that about them. Likewise, the claim that no properties can be attributed to something, attributes a property to that something. And the claim that we cannot conceive of something conceives that something to be that way. If it really were a contradictory state that underlies it all, why is the opposite - rule-based logic and math - so powerful in explaining virtually everything we experience?

Very clear as always! Great to see empirically oriented research (even if potential), thanks for uploading!

❤👍❤️

『現象学という思考』書店で見て、面白い！今までの私の思考や学びが整理された気がして、即買いしました！😊

İt was really nice to see this and the visualizations, thank you!

実在的な重みの部分から、田口先生の声だけ聞こえなくなったのですが、これはバグでしょうか？ それとも、、、？？？

相互作用ですか。