I feel like Im in one of the rooms in the classic and astoundingly forward thinking short story The Machine Stops. Just had to stop right at the beginning to say that. Please continue I cant wait....
This is actually not unlike Leibniz’s monadology in many ways. Also, I think the necessary indeterminism is the key to the freedom here, as it must be in any (true) theory of freedom.
I Must be able to envision multiple courses of action. I must be able to choose based on reasons I must be able to decide and intend and action I must be able to cause, control and execute… Besides the use of the word “control”, I think this is a fine compatibilist definition of free Will.
Global Workspace Theory (Bernard Baars et. al.), Integrated Information Theory (Tononi), Higher-Order Thought Theory (David Rosenthal et. al.), and Local Recurrence Theory (Victor Lamme, Ned Block, et. al). According to Block--and many others, I guess--these are the four main accounts of what makes mental states conscious.
Genius is simplifying in mind bending ways. This is part of why we don’t recognize it and ALWAYS misunderstand true genius. This is why a musician or artist can be a genius without any math. Pretty much all humans except me (my field, lol) don’t even know why humans use math and language in the first place. Or why the universe is intelligible. I feel like Powder-from that movie. People have a brain state that prevents them from seeing.
Not sure if this is explained in a more in-depth review of the material, however, I don't see how free will is afforded to an observer simply because they have processes like evaluating options, choosing an option, etc. This is just a physical surveyance of the network of weights in a neural network. A neural network has millions of options it "surveys", however, the act of choice is the one with the highest weights associated with the objective outcome. Similarly, a person will not choose any options they believe are exactly opposite its goals, unless it is under malfunction (mental illness, etc). The choices you COULD make are an illusion because you won't make most of them. Similarly, a quantum experiment says that many outcomes are possible, however, only one happens upon measurement. The fact that we are aware of our possibility spaces (the choices) is simply the ability to survey the weights along the way. If we were more primitive beings, decisions would still occur under the same mechanisms, we would just lack the symantic formalism to discuss them and "watch" the ideations along the way. This is very well backed up by the fact that there are studies that show that you can know relatively little about a person and determine which choice they are going to make or answer to a question they will give with shockingly high accuracy.
@@Gingnose a computer can be made with just pipes valves buckets and water. Go check out video it's cool. My question to you "Mr computers can be conscious" is.... how would I have to arrange a bunch of pipes valves buckets and water in order for all the pipes valves buckets and water to become conscious 🤔
@@mrbwatson8081 it is pretty possible indeed when buckets are arranged in that oder satisfies the prerequisite of consciousness to emerge, if not technical limitations. Though I doubt that you can't make neural network out of buckets. Computer must be neural network which is same model of our cerebral cortex.
@@Gingnose how can buckets pipes valves and water become conscious 🤔 😳 are you serious? at what point will the pipes valves buckets and water become more, then just pipes valves buckets and water..? How can adding pipes valves buckets and water to more pipes valves buckets and water ever going to get anything other then just pipes valves buckets and water? 😆
‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena and it is not difficult to show that one of the principal (& completely inexcusable) reasons why we have not so far come to any good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that we do not presently also have a good & proper - that is, we do not presently also have a clear & fully verifiable - understanding/science of ‘information’ itself. Although I have personally had the (altogether dubious) fortune of having been able to figure out ‘information’s’ correct (& fully verifiable) ontological identity, and although I’m not going to divulge its formalistic definition here in this CZcams comment (without which formalistic definition it is not possible to establish a full & accurate science of the phenomenon, but with it it is) nevertheless I can assure you that with it in hand - that is, with ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity within one’s investigative arsenal - the exercise of determining the ontological identities of all of the other directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list) becomes one of no great difficulty. Obversely, once ‘information’s’ correct (verifiably correct) ontological identity is properly recognised, not only do the correct ontological identities of all of its most closely related cousins (as above) become nicely elucidated, but so also does the woeful incorrectness - the hopeless & excruciatingly embarrassing incorrectness - of all of information’s current imposters, along with ‘consciousness’s’ own struggling wanna-bees too. So much so that it becomes fully & quite verifiably obvious that (i) digits are not information, that (ii) thinking is not a computable phenomenon, & (iii) that computers do not because they cannot, think. Let alone do so either intelligently or consciously. Even less so with full cognitive self-conscious awareness. And (iv) our own nature-built, real live flesh & blood, internal thinking machine is not a computer. Although it pertains to millions & millions of different things - things which we ourselves call colour, sound, taste, odour, texture, temperature, balance, love, hate, joy, happiness, the feeling of the need to micturate & defecate, vomit, sneeze, cough, choke etc, etc, etc in its generic form ‘information’ turns out to be a completely knowable, identifiable, measurable, quantifiable phenomenon & it is also simple. And our universe is chockablock full of it. It’s also something staring at you right in your face. Hiding in plain sight. Knowing information’s correct ontological identity allows any kind & amount of it to be both identified, & to be traced & tracked if moving (that is, if being transported by some one or another fast moving medium such as light) when- & wherever any of it resides & moves during transportation, here in our universe, including any of it being operated on inside our own internal, nature-given, flesh & blood thinking machine. Performing this identifying//tracing-&-tracking exercise on any of the information that eventually makes it into our own conscious awareness is not only a fully doable task, but it is the one which readily highlights the exact ontological identity of all of our mental phenomena - including ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’. ((Seeking a sponsor !))
The theorems of Integrated Information prove that Consciousness exists, but (going back to Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists), say nothing about Consciousness "In-Itself" as a substrate in the non dual sense. Bu no problem. we can directly experience Pure Consciousness (Sat-Chit-Ananda) when the mind is transcended in the state of Samadhi. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Dive and merge into Pure Consciousness.
Almost nobody denies the subjective phenomenology of free will (but listen to Sam Harris!). Translating experience into physics like Tononi does in this talk (and like IIT does in general for subjective experience) does by no means prove (libertarian) free will. Phycis does just not allow any physical change (movement, reaction etc.) outside of the laws of nature. If it comes to physical changes (of course, including behavior) the phenomenon is in principle completely explainable by the four known "powers" (weak, strong nuclear power, electromagnetic power, gravity/mass) just leaving neither need nor space for proper psychological causes. I totally agree that there must be some physical (neural) processes that share fundamental properties with subjective experience (to be identical or the "inside" and "outside" of the same "thing") but these physical entities will strictly follow the laws of nature. Subjective experience thus is an epiphenomenon of these physical structures with no causal power on its own; the "inside" only eventually participates in the causal power of the underlying physical process/structure, the "outside".
Sam Harris is nonsensical, so I don’t think I will. Consciousness being an illusion begs the question: who's being deluded, and why? Something he's yet to answer
The idea that the physical substrate must replicate the abstract properties of consciousness is so naive. My laptop does not need to physically replicate the abstract conceptual structure of all the nice programs I run in it, including my preferred computer games.
Big thanks Guilio. IIT proves brain determinism is a fallacy and therefore I hope this will bring relevant adjustments to social behavior contraining ongoing initiatives. Thanks GOD for all the hidden gifts you granted to humans, brain is only one among many.
it's not a classical deterministic like Newton and Einstein perspective. because we have the alternative intervals of options to satisfy a need(I do because) and one of this options will actualize after it was just potential. this looks like it has some quantum characteristics. this is why we can't say that it's detedeterministic in classical perspective.
As a lay man this helps me understand free will by linking it to consciousness . For me consciousness is a manifestation of my soul and is pristine and it is where true freedom resides. My will can be linked to that 'True' freedom and its ultimate expression. E.J.B.
As a lay man this helps me understand free will by linking it to consciousness. for me consciousness is a manifestation of my soul where where true freedom resides and my will can be linked to that true freedom in its ultimate expression.
Freedom is always the lack of casual knowledge in a given scenario, itself a constraint. You cannot stand layers of ignorance "freedom of this, freedom of that" and get knowledge out the other end.
I agree. Free will is an method of control invented by the judeo christian model of society. We are all constrain by previous actions taken or by previous models included in our brain. This doesnt mean that we should not be accounted for our actions if it violates moral or ethical values that society held in that moment.
The whole point of the IIT ontology here is 1) reality is not deterministic so, no matter how many constraints exist, there is always an openness to the future and constraints aren’t total. And 2) internal constraints are both real and yet free because they exist within a free consciousness which ultimately collapses the remaining indeterminacy. So even internal constraints can’t be total. But they almost can.
phi is just non-sense. A modern processor have an enormous number of transistors working together, hence a large phi. Nevertheless, the base algorithm (i.e. Von Neumann) is fairly simple, therefore the conscience is zero.
@@Enthalpy-- LOL... like consciousness is something someone understand. Probably I'm most in the oposite side of that effect. Most likely you are such epitome (or a zealot of the sneak oil sellers).
@Tuco Salamanca Indeed, I'm not. But neuroscience have zero idea about how this works. Are you a computer architect to understand how a processor works to disregard my reasoning? I don't need to enter into de Dark Room problem, which renders IIT nonsensical labyrinth of words ridiculous (with even more ridiculous fake mathematical formalism).
From what I understand a computer uses “extrinsic” information symbols or code, requires a consciousness to make sense or attach meaning to it. The information in consciousness is “intrinsic” information can only be experienced to be known. I can look in a computer at any level and get all the information that’s there because computer is an instrument and contains only extrinsic information and it requires a consciousness to understand them. On the other hand if I look at your brain on a scanner the extrinsic information gained is NOT all the information. Tononi argues the experience(intrinsic information) that correlates with the extrinsic information is what makes a system conscious. A computer has no intrinsic information so computer can never be conscious.
@@mrbwatson8081 Sam wrote it, but he had no choice in the same way you had no choice in writing your comment. I think the question of free will is actually quite simple to answer actually, the problem is not in the logic but in the personal bias and "unwillingness" to accept that one is not free in this way. Regardless of the conclusion, it wouldn't make any difference because we would continue doing what we would do anyway whether one believe in free-will or not.
![Are Brain Organoids Conscious? AI? Christof Koch on Consciousness vs. Intelligence in IIT [Clip 4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fEULMhfzPeQ/mqdefault.jpg)
amazing video :) loved it
I feel like Im in one of the rooms in the classic and astoundingly forward thinking short story The Machine Stops.
Just had to stop right at the beginning to say that. Please continue I cant wait....
A great story everyone should read.
Awesome!!!
This is actually not unlike Leibniz’s monadology in many ways. Also, I think the necessary indeterminism is the key to the freedom here, as it must be in any (true) theory of freedom.
In CZcams suggestion. Full week now. Must watch. Can not resist.
I like your feed!
Thanks for the presentation. =)
That last question summed it up: sure, Tononi's work is essential; but it's about the contents of consciousness, more than about consciousness per se.
I Must be able to envision multiple courses of action.
I must be able to choose based on reasons
I must be able to decide and intend and action
I must be able to cause, control and execute…
Besides the use of the word “control”, I think this is a fine compatibilist definition of free Will.
Hey, what are the 4 basic theoretical vantage points mentioned (unclearly) in the intro? Anyone? Thanks so much!
Global Workspace Theory (Bernard Baars et. al.), Integrated Information Theory (Tononi), Higher-Order Thought Theory (David Rosenthal et. al.), and Local Recurrence Theory (Victor Lamme, Ned Block, et. al). According to Block--and many others, I guess--these are the four main accounts of what makes mental states conscious.
he is a genius
No, Einstein and Tesla were geniuses... this guy is very, very smart.
Super agree
Genius is simplifying in mind bending ways. This is part of why we don’t recognize it and ALWAYS misunderstand true genius. This is why a musician or artist can be a genius without any math. Pretty much all humans except me (my field, lol) don’t even know why humans use math and language in the first place. Or why the universe is intelligible. I feel like Powder-from that movie. People have a brain state that prevents them from seeing.
@@Intimatycal Ya. I know. I don’t think Dr Tononi would say he was a genius. Thanks 🙏🏻
@@IntimatycalTononi would impress Einstein. I promise you.
🤗
Indubitably.
❤❤❤❤❤
Not sure if this is explained in a more in-depth review of the material, however, I don't see how free will is afforded to an observer simply because they have processes like evaluating options, choosing an option, etc. This is just a physical surveyance of the network of weights in a neural network. A neural network has millions of options it "surveys", however, the act of choice is the one with the highest weights associated with the objective outcome. Similarly, a person will not choose any options they believe are exactly opposite its goals, unless it is under malfunction (mental illness, etc). The choices you COULD make are an illusion because you won't make most of them. Similarly, a quantum experiment says that many outcomes are possible, however, only one happens upon measurement. The fact that we are aware of our possibility spaces (the choices) is simply the ability to survey the weights along the way. If we were more primitive beings, decisions would still occur under the same mechanisms, we would just lack the symantic formalism to discuss them and "watch" the ideations along the way. This is very well backed up by the fact that there are studies that show that you can know relatively little about a person and determine which choice they are going to make or answer to a question they will give with shockingly high accuracy.
I am happy. Von Neumann architecture is outdated so state of the art computers have consciousness.
No computer can be conscious:) that's just stupid. What gives you the slightest reason a computer can experience anything?
@@mrbwatson8081 well, if you make the computer with exact same architecture, connections and interactions with brain, it will become conscious
@@Gingnose a computer can be made with just pipes valves buckets and water. Go check out video it's cool. My question to you "Mr computers can be conscious" is.... how would I have to arrange a bunch of pipes valves buckets and water in order for all the pipes valves buckets and water to become conscious 🤔
@@mrbwatson8081 it is pretty possible indeed when buckets are arranged in that oder satisfies the prerequisite of consciousness to emerge, if not technical limitations. Though I doubt that you can't make neural network out of buckets. Computer must be neural network which is same model of our cerebral cortex.
@@Gingnose how can buckets pipes valves and water become conscious 🤔 😳 are you serious? at what point will the pipes valves buckets and water become more, then just pipes valves buckets and water..? How can adding pipes valves buckets and water to more pipes valves buckets and water ever going to get anything other then just pipes valves buckets and water? 😆
‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena and it is not difficult to show that one of the principal (& completely inexcusable) reasons why we have not so far come to any good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that we do not presently also have a good & proper - that is, we do not presently also have a clear & fully verifiable - understanding/science of ‘information’ itself.
Although I have personally had the (altogether dubious) fortune of having been able to figure out ‘information’s’ correct (& fully verifiable) ontological identity, and although I’m not going to divulge its formalistic definition here in this CZcams comment (without which formalistic definition it is not possible to establish a full & accurate science of the phenomenon, but with it it is) nevertheless I can assure you that with it in hand - that is, with ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity within one’s investigative arsenal - the exercise of determining the ontological identities of all of the other directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list) becomes one of no great difficulty.
Obversely, once ‘information’s’ correct (verifiably correct) ontological identity is properly recognised, not only do the correct ontological identities of all of its most closely related cousins (as above) become nicely elucidated, but so also does the woeful incorrectness - the hopeless & excruciatingly embarrassing incorrectness - of all of information’s current imposters, along with ‘consciousness’s’ own struggling wanna-bees too. So much so that it becomes fully & quite verifiably obvious that (i) digits are not information, that (ii) thinking is not a computable phenomenon, & (iii) that computers do not because they cannot, think. Let alone do so either intelligently or consciously. Even less so with full cognitive self-conscious awareness.
And (iv) our own nature-built, real live flesh & blood, internal thinking machine is not a computer.
Although it pertains to millions & millions of different things - things which we ourselves call colour, sound, taste, odour, texture, temperature, balance, love, hate, joy, happiness, the feeling of the need to micturate & defecate, vomit, sneeze, cough, choke etc, etc, etc in its generic form ‘information’ turns out to be a completely knowable, identifiable, measurable, quantifiable phenomenon & it is also simple. And our universe is chockablock full of it. It’s also something staring at you right in your face. Hiding in plain sight.
Knowing information’s correct ontological identity allows any kind & amount of it to be both identified, & to be traced & tracked if moving (that is, if being transported by some one or another fast moving medium such as light) when- & wherever any of it resides & moves during transportation, here in our universe, including any of it being operated on inside our own internal, nature-given, flesh & blood thinking machine.
Performing this identifying//tracing-&-tracking exercise on any of the information that eventually makes it into our own conscious awareness is not only a fully doable task, but it is the one which readily highlights the exact ontological identity of all of our mental phenomena - including ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’.
((Seeking a sponsor !))
Well said.
The theorems of Integrated Information prove that Consciousness exists, but (going back to Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists), say nothing about Consciousness "In-Itself" as a substrate in the non dual sense. Bu no problem. we can directly experience Pure Consciousness (Sat-Chit-Ananda) when the mind is transcended in the state of Samadhi. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Dive and merge into Pure Consciousness.
Almost nobody denies the subjective phenomenology of free will (but listen to Sam Harris!). Translating experience into physics like Tononi does in this talk (and like IIT does in general for subjective experience) does by no means prove (libertarian) free will. Phycis does just not allow any physical change (movement, reaction etc.) outside of the laws of nature. If it comes to physical changes (of course, including behavior) the phenomenon is in principle completely explainable by the four known "powers" (weak, strong nuclear power, electromagnetic power, gravity/mass) just leaving neither need nor space for proper psychological causes. I totally agree that there must be some physical (neural) processes that share fundamental properties with subjective experience (to be identical or the "inside" and "outside" of the same "thing") but these physical entities will strictly follow the laws of nature. Subjective experience thus is an epiphenomenon of these physical structures with no causal power on its own; the "inside" only eventually participates in the causal power of the underlying physical process/structure, the "outside".
Sam Harris is nonsensical, so I don’t think I will. Consciousness being an illusion begs the question: who's being deluded, and why? Something he's yet to answer
The idea that the physical substrate must replicate the abstract properties of consciousness is so naive. My laptop does not need to physically replicate the abstract conceptual structure of all the nice programs I run in it, including my preferred computer games.
Big thanks Guilio. IIT proves brain determinism is a fallacy and therefore I hope this will bring relevant adjustments to social behavior contraining ongoing initiatives.
Thanks GOD for all the hidden gifts you granted to humans, brain is only one among many.
As we ingest light we become more aware and our ability to act is increased due to that increase of awareness that expansion of consciousness
By these definitions you have ‘free will’ but that doesn’t mean the word isn’t deterministic.
it's not a classical deterministic like Newton and Einstein perspective.
because we have the alternative intervals of options to satisfy a need(I do because) and one of this options will actualize after it was just potential.
this looks like it has some quantum characteristics.
this is why we can't say that it's detedeterministic in classical perspective.
As a lay man this helps me understand free will by linking it to consciousness . For me consciousness is a manifestation of my soul and is pristine and it is where true freedom resides. My will can be linked to that 'True' freedom and its ultimate expression. E.J.B.
As a lay man this helps me understand free will by linking it to consciousness. for me consciousness is a manifestation of my soul where where true freedom resides and my will can be linked to that true freedom in its ultimate expression.
We find constraints everywhere we look so any attempt to say our will is free is playing word games.
Freedom is always the lack of casual knowledge in a given scenario, itself a constraint. You cannot stand layers of ignorance "freedom of this, freedom of that" and get knowledge out the other end.
@@havenbastion There is no scientific evidence supporting your claims.
I agree. Free will is an method of control invented by the judeo christian model of society. We are all constrain by previous actions taken or by previous models included in our brain. This doesnt mean that we should not be accounted for our actions if it violates moral or ethical values that society held in that moment.
The whole point of the IIT ontology here is 1) reality is not deterministic so, no matter how many constraints exist, there is always an openness to the future and constraints aren’t total. And 2) internal constraints are both real and yet free because they exist within a free consciousness which ultimately collapses the remaining indeterminacy. So even internal constraints can’t be total. But they almost can.
phi is just non-sense. A modern processor have an enormous number of transistors working together, hence a large phi. Nevertheless, the base algorithm (i.e. Von Neumann) is fairly simple, therefore the conscience is zero.
To my understanding Tononi / IIT would agree that Von Neumann machines are non-conscious by design.
@@Enthalpy-- LOL... like consciousness is something someone understand. Probably I'm most in the oposite side of that effect. Most likely you are such epitome (or a zealot of the sneak oil sellers).
@Tuco Salamanca Indeed, I'm not. But neuroscience have zero idea about how this works. Are you a computer architect to understand how a processor works to disregard my reasoning? I don't need to enter into de Dark Room problem, which renders IIT nonsensical labyrinth of words ridiculous (with even more ridiculous fake mathematical formalism).
@@Enthalpy-- look who started with the ad hominem. I'm not red herring anything ... just that a processor architecture breaks the IIT "model". Period.
From what I understand a computer uses “extrinsic” information symbols or code, requires a consciousness to make sense or attach meaning to it. The information in consciousness is “intrinsic” information can only be experienced to be known. I can look in a computer at any level and get all the information that’s there because computer is an instrument and contains only extrinsic information and it requires a consciousness to understand them. On the other hand if I look at your brain on a scanner the extrinsic information gained is NOT all the information. Tononi argues the experience(intrinsic information) that correlates with the extrinsic information is what makes a system conscious. A computer has no intrinsic information so computer can never be conscious.
There is no free will as Sam harris proved in his book about it.
Or did he ?
If there is no free will can you really say Sam wrote the book?
@@mrbwatson8081 Sam wrote it, but he had no choice in the same way you had no choice in writing your comment. I think the question of free will is actually quite simple to answer actually, the problem is not in the logic but in the personal bias and "unwillingness" to accept that one is not free in this way. Regardless of the conclusion, it wouldn't make any difference because we would continue doing what we would do anyway whether one believe in free-will or not.
@@alexgonzo5508 so your saying I believe there is no free will except the the unwillingness to accept that there is no free will :)
@@mrbwatson8081 Thus the quotes.
Zero interest.