Peter Tse - How Brain Scientists Think About Consciousness
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 07. 2024
- Is consciousness a scientific problem to be solved? Or a philosophical problem that will remain a mystery? What do scientists who study the brain think?
Click here to watch more interviews on consciousness bit.ly/2B2X5AS
Click here to watch more interviews with Peter Tse bit.ly/2duAJP5
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
Discovered about Closer To Truth a month back. And I'd say one of the few best things that has happened. These interviews have become a form of ritual. Awesome!
This channel is gold
I will add one thing to my previous comment:
Interestingly, while we do not know how our minds cause our thoughts about things (intentionality), Dr. Tse does theorize that when do have intentional thoughts (which he avoids explaining), we could be drawing from higher-order categories of reality created by our minds.
This mapping of empirical reality onto categories of reality formed by consciousness is really similar to the way medieval logicians categorized objects of sense experience based on primary or essential qualities and secondary or accidental qualities.
To use the beautiful woman example:
- When I intend to think about a beautiful woman, I create the category « beautiful woman »
- When including women in this category, I must have an implicit definition in mind of what a beautiful woman is, or what makes a woman essentially beautiful (primary qualities)
- Then, from my working memory, I select instances of women I’ve seen based on the primary qualities of the above category, abstracting from secondary qualities in these woman that are not relevant to their being considered in the category « beautiful woman » (ex. whether they are right or left handed)
From this, it might be interesting to ask ourselves what other categories of the mind are created by the conscious mind, and how they might relate to one another.
This might bring us back to a rediscovery of Aristotle’s categories.
Peter Tse is aware of not just the complexities in discussing consciousness, but the depth of the question. For those who really care about examining the many questions related to the brain and consciousness, I recommend a book titled "Irreducible Mind."
Substantial and insightful ... mind blown
Makes me wonder where have I been all these years,why I never heard of these guys until now 😑
Yes, Jean. I discovered "Closer To Truth" on a local channel and was stunned that such an insightful series could be tucked away on a small community college channel, and that I had never heard of the series before. And Robert Kunne (did I spell his name correctly?) has been doing this show since at least the 1990's. Where have I been? Can you imagine how sane the world would be if more people watched "Closer To Truth"?
Guy in Orlando
I couldn't help but notice similarities in Peter's description of his hallway approach to consciousness and determinism and the Bohemian idea of pilot-waves. It professes that the quantum particle in its wave state searches out all possibilities than manifests as the particle at the best place that has been determined. This is like the idea of mutation and then selection of the best result.
This sounds like a very promising way of thinking.
One of the most provacative videos existing today.
Very interesting discussion (not just because I agree with Peter Tse!) - but little to do with the nominal subject 'How brain scientists think about consciousness.' Nothing about consciousness, lots about in/determinism!
Clearly part of a longer discussion. Is there a video of the complete session?
I feel the titles are proper and to the point with this channels clips. But I am shocked you dont get more views on them.
If the channel found a way to add some more inticing titles on the vidwos it might help. But I would hate to see the titles lose any of the professional, informative information contained in them as is.
Donot go after the name this is the best possible explanation on this matter.
So what's the middleway going to be named?🤗 I think determinism is like waves and all stuff you can see the surface and the other well can be the bottom.need both.i enjoyed
2:12 neurons can reset the criteria that will make the subsequent neurons fire. But does the resetting happen deterministically or randomly? I don't understand how can something be in between deterministic and random..
He mostly talked about determinism/indeterminism and not about the initial topic of mental causation.
Has anyone considered that consciousness might be the same as extracting a three-dimensional projection from a two dimensional holographic negative? Can an interference pattern of quantum fields be interpreted by brain components and configured as three dimensional thoughts?
Put the weed pipe down
I think at the end of the day, information is what gives rise to consciousness(being aware of your own existence and the world around you). Imagine if you were able to wipe out all of the memory in your brain, you would not be conscious. you would look around and not know what they are, or what you are. The brain is simply the medium that the information resides in and is processed which enables the person to experience consciousness. I'm not sure about one thing though: what would happen if you were able to clone a person, then copy all of his memories and transfer it to the cloned individual. The sense of self that we have, would that be present in the cloned individual or would that cloned individual be another individual with no connection of the self awareness of the original person.
Yep, in the mechanics of it at the neuronal level, something like this I suspect.
🥇👏
How exactly does our brain think thoughts before it consciously thinks those thoughts? What exactly is the 'higher intelligence' behind our very thoughts? And if our thoughts are thought before we consciously think them, then do we truly have complete conscious 'freewill'? How could we if we don't truly consciously think the thoughts we think in totality?
well, all thoughts come from the subconscious mind. And to think that we don't control our thoughts is ignorant. there are certain experiments which show this lag of time we have before we are conscious of our thoughts. But to say our thoughts are predetermined by our unconscious mind is like saying we dont have control over ourselves. we can reprogram our mind to get the thoughts we want.
Akshay Patil
How exactly do you consciously control your thoughts in your unconscious mind? How do you know your unconscious mind didn't control your conscious mind to then feedback to the unconscious mind? And if anything, 'dreams' would support this idea. Your unconscious mind can come up with some pretty weird dreams that a person's conscious mind would have never come up with. So, does in fact the unconscious mind control the conscious mind, at least at some times in our existence, maybe even part or all of our conscious existence? Even you state that 'all thoughts come from the subconscious mind'. So, how could the conscious mind even have any thoughts of it's own?
I prefer to look at the Carl Jung description of our mind. "until you make your unconscious conscious it will direct your life and you'll call it fate". most our actions are controlled by our unconscious mind(all processes of the body for example). That mind has immense capabilities and hard to control the thoughts it gives you. You said that it gives dreams when we have not even thought about them. By only consciously directing our inner thoughts (there are many ways via meditation, mindfulness and also immense desire to get answers). you might have read that many artists and scientists get their ideas by immense thinking of the problem they have and they the idea suddenly a realisation unconsciously (maybe in their dreams). what i am trying to say is that we do have control over thoughts only the ignorant will call it fate. this idea is very important in eastern philosophy and reliogions(Buddhism and Hinduism).
Akshay Patil
And then it appears we are predestined to:
a. Die one day from something;
b. Forget everything we ever knew and experienced;
c. Are forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place.
(Or so it currently appears).
Without an actual eternal conscious existence by some means, it all ends one day and is forgotten. So, whatever consciousness actually is, it's either truly eternal throughout all of future eternity or it's not. Currently it appears it's not. Hence, life itself is all just an illusion, an illusion that is all going to end one day and be forgotten. Doesn't matter what it is or how we think our thoughts, it's all meaningless anyway in the grand scheme of things.
Akshay Patil
Just had some thoughts this morning from wherever thoughts come from.
From some old info I have, there are certain em hertz associated with different brain functions:
Delta: 1 - 4 Hertz: Linked with sleep and never seen in healthy awake adults.
Theta: 4 - 7 Hertz: Linked with sleep.
Alpha: 9 - 11 Hertz: Relaxed, eyes shut.
Beta: 30 -100(?) Hertz: Awake.
Possibly as you say, ALL thoughts come from the sub-conscious mind. And it is in our sub-conscious mind where thoughts are controlled and we have 'freewill'.
The 'consciousness' is just basically a movie screen whereby the sub-conscious mind projects upon in a unified way. For the experience of it all, including the experience of thoughts. Hence we believe we consciously think our own thoughts, but really all the thinking is being done at a sub-conscious level, including 'freewill' thoughts.
Following on with this idea:
Depending upon what em 'switches' are on or off, depends upon what gets projected. For example:
a. At one setting, nothing gets projected.
b. At another setting, 'dreams' get projected, which often are even illogical.
c. At another setting, 'conscious wakefulness' is projected.
d. At times maybe even the 'dream' state with illogical thinking and the 'conscious wakefulness' state are superimposed on the 'screen' and people perceive delusions and hallucinations on their 'movie screen'.
Just some thoughts this morning before taking the grand kids to school.
11:21
BOOM
Stop with your "boom" nonsense.
The universe (and the brain) are deterministic, but the lines of causality are not only infinitely complex in their intersections, they also influence and evolve one another’s...
Hey Julian, good seeing you again. Along the lines of what you just said, consider the following:
Assume for this idea that the pulsating, swirling photon is the energy unit of this universe that what is called 'gravity' is a part of. It would be the force that causes the em sine waves to expand and contract and would act basically 90 degrees to the em forces which of course act basically 90 degrees to each other. Everything in existence are photons and interacting photons.
Now, consider the following formula of which I don't even believe the mathematics even exist yet for, at least not to my knowledge:
a. The first level of the formula would be the internal photon level. The singular pulsating, swirling photon with 3 forces that interact with the other 2 at 90 degrees to each other, (and it might even just be a singular force with 3 different modalities). This would also constitute the base temperature of this universe (temperature being interacting energy). A complex part of the formula but I believe doable.
b. The second level of the formula would be the external photon level. Each singular pulsating, swirling photon interacting with all the other photons that it interacts with. An exponential part of the formula that probably even modern super computers couldn't even handle. This would also constitute all the temperatures in this universe above the base temperature. This would almost possibly be the 'infinite' part of the formula although not probably really infinite, just too many calculations to handle there would be so many.
c. The third level of the formula would be the inter dimensional aspect of the formula. As each photon would have an oscillation frequency, through resonance with like energy frequencies of other photons, they in essence could be considered as being in there own 'space time' dimension. So, for the purposes of the formula there would be way more than just 3 spatial dimensions and way more than just 1 time dimension, but they would all interact wherever the energy aligned and were coherent, with each specific modality or force within each photon too.
d. Any movement of energy anywhere in the system could have a ripple effect throughout the entire system so the calculation would have to be redone for the entire system any time any energy moved anywhere in the system.
So, going back to what you just basically said, the universe (and all in it), would be deterministic, but yet so complex with all the interactions and reactions that it would be virtually impossible to even calculate. If the mathematics even exist for the above 3 level formula. And how would one even know what every state of existence every photon in this universe would be in at any one time.
I'm thinking just going with the flow of energy in this universe for the most part, seems easier to me.
Woow... Idiot.
Or not
What is the mind? Is it different to the consciousness? Does the mind operate independantly of the brain or is it simply the reaction of brain activity? What happens first conscious awareness or brain activity?
Are you conscious when your brain is in a dreamless sleep? No.. So it is obviously fully dependent on the brain.
this guy is clever and speaks well.
I enjoyed the illuminating parts I understood, and it made me want to learn the terms. I had to look up "deterministic universe," for example. It would be natural to get drawn into this like a puzzle if I take small parts at a time, I hope. He must be a good teacher.
Any sufficiently complex event is statistically impossible, they are all one time events.
A most underappreciated comment in this whole thread.
Of the mental is a subset of the physical, then your problem with determinism disappears. Memes, for example, spread thru optics, sound waves, etc - all physical. Our physical neurons fire. Consciousness is a subset of these processes.
This dude is on to something
One issue that comes to mind is this Deterministic / Indeterministic dichotomy. Well yes we know what 'Determined' means but explaining 'Indetermined' events as 'random' or 'chance' tells us nothing at all other than their mathematical probability. WHY that probability is as it is isn't a question that ever gets enough attention but it according to experiments on 'real' random indtermined events i.e. at the quantum level (rather than 'quasi' random events at the Newtonian scale), strange as it may seem, it suggests it's chosen i.e. Determined by YOU. That may seem implausible but it's science. Watch this: czcams.com/video/TN6nvePWkzU/video.html
Paul, I looked at the vid you linked to in your comment. The double slit experiment is interesting, but it is just that, an experiment. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how the real world works. The results are very much dependent on the set-up of the apparatus. So, I wouldn't take it to mean anything cosmic or mystical. You said in this comment that "we know what 'Determined' means", and I don't think that is necessarily so. Determinists insist that everything in the past controls everything that happens in the future. I don't see that as a supportable position. In the absence of life, things seem to be cause and effect, although there's no way to check if this is true since there isn't a way to go back and rerun the universe and see if any changes creep in. Life seems to use the laws of nature to subvert those very laws, which doesn't seem like any type of determinism. It's easy enough to look back and construct a chain of cause and effect back to the Big Bang, but it is an illusion, if not a delusion in some people. This causal chain only exists in the mind of the observer when looking backwards. The future is not controlled by the past, but is enabled.
@@caricue *Paul, I looked at the vid you linked to in your comment. The double slit experiment is interesting, but it is just that, an experiment. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how the real world works.*
> I can't say I agree because it's not as if it's an anecdotal claim. It's a repeatable experiment therefore the phenomena is something we _know_ it is occuring in the real world. _Why_ it is is however a _different_ question.
*The results are very much dependent on the set-up of the apparatus.*
> That's news to me but even if it only occurred if it happened if certian criteria are present the phenomena is still a real world event because it's repeatable by anyone who has ever looked to see if it's _really_ happeneing & as that video explains it clearly _is._
*So, I wouldn't take it to mean anything cosmic or mystical.*
> Mystical no certainly not because appealing to the supernatural isn't any sort of answer at all however 'cosmic'? _Perhaps._ What I mean by that relates to Carl Sagan's definition of the cosmos: _'All there is, ever was & ever will be.'_ i.e. Everything with a capital 'E' & if there is a multiverse as some renoun cosmologists like Sean Caroll & Max Tegmark suggest all of these 'Many Worlds' would in fact fit Sagan's definition of the cosmos because the Many Worlds Interpretation includes all events that can happen happening whether we know about them or not & obviously all we do know about are the events in our _one_ world.
*You said in this comment that "we know what 'Determined' means", and I don't think that is necessarily so.*
> Don't we?
Determinists insist that everything in the past controls everything that happens in the future.
> Yes so we _do_ know what that means don't we?
*I don't see that as a supportable position.*
> I agree because we see clear evidence that things happen in a _non- deterministic_ manner at the _quantum_ scale but that's not to say we don't know what a deterministic outlook would mean if that were not tha case. It would mean that even at the _quantum scale_ classical physics i.e. deteministic physics, would be seen too but it seems it doesn't appear to because we are entangled in events. _(See the thought experiment at the end)_
*In the absence of life, things seem to because and effect, although there's no way to check if this is true since there isn't a way to go back and rerun the universe and see if any changes creep in.*
> I agree but I'm talking about our role as conscious entities as that's the subject of this video.
*Life seems to use the laws of nature to subvert those very laws, which doesn't seem like any type of determinism.*
> I agree - unless that meant that we can't assume that we determine anything because all the evidence suggests that at the quantum scale we actually do strange as it may seem (& it really is strange because that fact even gave Einstein sleepless nights hence his quote 'God does not play dice'.)
*It's easy enough to look back and construct a chain of cause and effect back to the Big Bang, but it is an illusion, if not a delusion in some people. This causal chain only exists in the mind of the observer when looking backwards. The future is not controlled by the past, but is enabled.*
> What is the difference then because I don't understand the nuance you seem to be suggesting here.
*N.B.* Here's a thought experiment which _philosophically_ adds additional substance to the _scientific_ experimental example I linked to earlier: czcams.com/video/iSfXdNIolQA/video.html
@@paulbrocklehurst7253 Thanks for the video link. I saw it years ago but had forgotten all about it. I already know what a hard determinist will say, and if you look at the comments, there they are. "It's still determined." Maybe that's why they don't believe they have a choice!
The particle collisions that a hard determinist always cites as like billiard balls controlling everything is not how the universe works, but even if you want to use that metaphor, it doesn't mean control or realization of the future. The cause and effect of time enables future events to happen, provides the power, but life manipulates the chain by setting up circuits that will respond to local stimuli in a way that is advantageous to the creature. Some circuits are instinctual and some are conditioned. The most important ones are based on projections into the future, basically making the effect into the cause. I'm going to get punched if I say this thing, so that future event causes me to choose now in the past. Dead matter does not do these things. WAIT FOR IT...."It's still deter..." You can't reason with people who have closed their minds. I've had determinists admit that the only Free Will they would accept is something outside or above nature. Which is weird since they are the ones who deny anything outside or above nature (as do I).
I don't think the argument is that human brain works like a massive computer - not anymore anyway. The argument is that a sufficiently complex computer can simulate a human brain.
Jon Wo
Can it achieve that in its own is another fascinating question.
Not yet.Not even close.
11:55 he makes an interesting point here.
At what point does it become tedious when people ask the same questions time after time? At what point does one decide to say "fuck patience". My suspicion is that if such questions are resolved, people fear they will have nothing to talk pretentious nonsense over their inane cheese and wine parties. Either that or they are staggeringly inept to the extent they are genuinely incapable of answering such questions.
Soon it will be said that the brain is like a quantum computer, they will be getting "closer to truth".
Ugh it's just absolutely brutal to hear that such an otherwise intelligent person thinks that Wittgenstein was the first philosopher to talk about criteria...
:))))). Hello Mr Kant, Mr Hegel…
Your brain is always building a map to make sense of the world. This map is concerned with value and nothing is discrete, metastability, Buridan's donkey and Fredkin's paradox.
Elves in the basement
No idea what you mean, but based on the fact that you received upvotes (and also on the former fact), I'm going to assume that you're full of shit.
@@bfkc111 It's a direct quote from Peter Tse, who used it as, I believe, a metaphor for the subconscious.
Love that analogy.
I disagree with Peter’s point that the brain is nothing like a computer. There are many parallels.
I know you made this comment quite a while ago, but it stands on its own without having to see the video. It's an interesting analogy likening a brain to a computer. They both process information, have inputs and outputs and use energy. It can be enlightening to make this analogy, but it is not good to take it too far. Brains are not built or assembled, they don't have a designer or programmer, there is no distinction between "software" and "hardware", which is good since there is no hardware or software in a brain. Computers are digital, brains not. It goes on and on, but in essence, a brain is an inseparable part of an evolved creature that is alive. Nothing like a computer, which is a device built by humans to do things that humans find helpful. Just saying.
Stating that the brain doesn’t work like a Turing machine is not a sufficient refutation of the computational theory of mind. Neural networks such as those used in AlphaGo, the system that beat the world Go champion, don’t work like Turing machines either. They are composed of elements analogous to neutrons in our brains, yet they are implemented as virtual systems on conventional computers that do operate like Turing machines. The whole point of Turing machines, and why they are so important as a concept, is that they can perform this kind of virtualisation that enables them to simulate anything that is simulatable. So to refute the computational theory of mind you have to prove that brains cannot be simulated. That’s a completely different issue than the points raised in this interview and everything discussed in it is absolutely simulatable.
Simon Hibbs Yah, neutrons according to my spell checker too :) Do you feel consciousness has to do with playing chess, or being aware that you're playing chess? I'm sure computers can simulate many things, but can they simulate being aware? It's hard to see how awareness is even relevant to playing chess?
The AlphaGo system is composed of elements analogous to neurons in our brain? I doubt that's true but even if it were it would suggest then that neural theory of the computer and not the reverse.
The man is potentially offering a research program that could actually build AI. You're exemplifying a methodological dogmatism. You and I both know that the logic going on in AlphaGo is only "simulating" neurons in the most abstract of ways - in fact it is not simulating neurons at all, but treating neuronal bundles as nodes and logically modeling the types of possible relationships available during reinforcement schedules. DeepMind researchers themselves admit that this is obviously not how the brain functions, even if neural nets are a part of human cognition. The computational theory has had decades and gotten nowhere - beating humans at games is nothing but a benchmark test to see if these machines can perform menial tasks competently - the AlphaGo team literally refers to their game tests as benchmarks. After decades of self-driving cars being embodied cognitive agents, perhaps there will be enough data to show why the orthodox view has been unable to produce anything more than wrench-turning machines restricted to wrench-turning domains of one sort or another.
The American Pragmatists do it again.
Only flat earthers have the answer to consciousness.
Haha, this guy thinks about sex a lot. Keep it real man👍
Scientist think too much !! 🤣🤣
No consciousness in computers? Not yet... Computers not hungry? Can be programmed... This guy is smart but unfortunately he can't loose his grip on free will.
This sort of reasoning is how you become an ideologue. (1) The debate on free will is far from over. Arguments in favor of free will that are incompatible with physical laws are certainly incorrect. However, that's a straw man of the issues at stake. The universe is both deterministic and indeterministic. As such, it's reasonable and empirically justified to speculate that human decision-making (particularly at the neuronal level) harnesses both of these elements to inform decisions and self-select future behavior within that domain to fit the needs of a given conscious creature. (2) You're appealing to hypothesized future events outside of empirical justification. You might be able to get away with that line of argumentation if you're a philosopher (a sloppy one at that), but not as a scientist.
Jerome David 1) Random events are no more indication on free will than deterministic events. 2) Hunger can be programmed already into computers as a subject of certain stimuli and circumstances, just as it works for humans. They might not have the inner theater associated with it but that's another story.
' ... he can't loose his grip on free will. '- Specially if he has none!
david wright All humans suffer from the same illusion of free will.
*>Random events are no more indication on free will than deterministic events.*
You've missed the point. The argument presented in this clip isn't a standalone appeal to pure indeterminism nor determinism. Rather, their intersection. If free will exists, that midway point is likely what makes it possible. In other words, predetermined constraints coupled with enough randomness for it to be harnessed in interesting ways that suits the needs of self-interested, conscious creatures.
*>Hunger can be programmed already into computers as a subject of certain stimuli and circumstances, just as it works for humans. They might not have the inner theater associated with it but that's another story.*
It may resemble hunger from a programmer's perspective, but that's just another example of anthropomorphism. The feeling of hunger is what Dr. Tse was referring to. At bare minimum, you'd have to demonstrate that the search for whatever "nutrients" the program was seeking served a survival function.
Utter nonsense. Random or not its deterministic....see "wave function of the universe"
It's too high for you, he's talking about "not answerable", not any single model.
@@bfkc111 Oh, really. So, like any religion, you must have an exclamation yourself.... Oh, probably not, as it is too high for anybody
"Random or not its deterministic"
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that, but Tse also says something like that.
Atm I'm reading a book "Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in the Age of Neuroscience" which is anthology of articles from different scientists, including Tse.
He mentions the same, "Classical deterministic laws are laws that hold among sufficiently causal actualia, where both cat t1and eat t2 are actual events. Quantum mechanical laws are deterministic at the level of possibilia, but indeterministic at the level of actualia, because which possible outcome will occur upon measurement is only probabilistically specifiable".
+Leonion6 Got Me! For a second there I thought you might be smarter than me. 😀
So, actually, I understood your comment on the 1st read.....Intelligent I am.
Unfortunately, it' going to take me several times through to know what I mean by "understood"
So on my second read I may agree that Quantum mechanical laws are deterministic at the level of possibilia but so are they at the level of actualia. That is where arguments for indeterminism breaks down. i.e. it's not randomness, it just looks like that....just like when it was written down the first time at the very beginning when it was random.