Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam on How Thinking Emerged from Chaos | Closer To Truth Chats
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, neuroscientists and authors of Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, discuss why consciousness exists, how consciousness works, and their unified theory of the mind.
Ogas and Gaddam's latest book, Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, is available for purchase now: amzn.to/3vFhffC
Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam both received their PhDs in computational neuroscience from Boston University, where they designed mathematical models of cognition.
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.
This interview led me to read one of the most fascinating, beautifully written, and compelling books I’ve ever encountered. Journey is an absolutely stunning achievement. I will be thinking about this book for a long time.
To: Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam. This outside the box approach is quite nourishing. I will purchase your book Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos.
Thank you! We think there's so much that's interesting here that we could do a video series unpacking the many interesting themes and ideas in a video series. Please let us know what we can expand on czcams.com/video/OS3KCiZXupw/video.html
That was a great interview, so entertaining. I was not convinced at all by Ogi Ogas's story and at times he got too carried away with it and Sai Gaddam needed to step in. I enjoyed it though.
Haha Ogi is a passionate guy! We are unpacking many of these ideas in a video series czcams.com/video/OS3KCiZXupw/video.html
This is one of the most fantastic conversations that I've ever got to play with.
Great to hear that, thank you!
Very interesting approach to the question of consciousness.
This is real explanation on how consciousness exist, pure scientific. Best explanation on why its exist is made by Mark Solms in the book Hidden Spring. Very good job Mr Ogi Ogas
As I listen on I agree, essentially "self-consciousness" is not just, "in the head" if you will but in-and-between, self-and-other, or what is also known as Intersubjectivity.
I bet this guy was a fan of Data from Star Trek. 😂
Yes, there is a lot to process, if not swallow here. But genuinely new and interesting ideas. Not in a long time have I said to myself, _this is a book I have got to read._
Trust me my friend takes notes if you want and need because you probably wrote the book my friend.
@@godthecreatoryhvh681 I have no idea what you're talking about...
Consciousness is eternal.
53:13 What about virtual embodiment? A virtual mind inside of a virtual world, virtual consciousness?
I enjoy the story in it. A God that creates itself through minds. Like the IDEA of God is so powerful, that it's like a whisper through the fabric of the universe, and just on the other side of the mesh screen "Survive, evolve, create me"
Bovis excrementis
The best explanation so far as compared with the several dozen watched so far on Closer to truth. It includes the purpose of consciousness - to become part of higher modules as higher modules of mind, to move forward in evolution of mind. I think therefore I better tell someone else.
Dear Ellis, you overlook that essential*Awareness* is none of the aspects they claim to explicate. Correlating, “cent of a sent scent me back”, for example, is deeply representation, as my use of misplaced spelling demonstrates. The construction of a whole out of a parsed, rasterized set of inputs- that’s is what they are claiming is consciousness. You and I KNOW that that is not essential consciousness. How do we know it? Because we are conscious of, aware of the concept stated- constructing meaning out of the disaggregated many. That what we know to be aware of, that is consciousness. That which we know as synthesis of meaning, that is pattern recognition. When a key opens a lock, that is an aggregate arising out of recognition. When electrons rearrange in a mediated pathway by virtue of an enzyme’s specific stereo chemical environment- that’s recognition driven “activity”.
All recognition driven activity involves some level of intelligence, some sort of problem solving, and therefore is meaningful in a certain way.
THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT CONSCIOUSNESS.
LOL hahahaha
I just can’t get my head around “a molecule perceive’s dots…..😳
@@mrbwatson8081 not pretending to know better than you, my way of understanding is: think of a dot. Now imagine that is all you’re capable of apprehending. That means you’re a molecule.
I don’t believe this claim (that molecules “see” points)- to my reading/ learning, ALL things that have existence, they also have a “consciousness’ability”- i.e., they have existence, properties (that give them “substance”), and effects (that make them detectable). Modern science doesn’t talk of “existence” as a scientific category - but that is because “existence” is metaphysics, not physics.
Why is it meaningful to say that all things (that exist) have existence? A few reasons. One, that “existence” is the essence of that out of which the universe manifests, and dissolved back into. Also, “existence” and “consciousness” are inseparably and (ahmm) timelessly linked.
Ok. Done saying things that make little sense. If it is any help, this stuff isn’t of my making, and isn’t new.
Be well.
🙏🏽🕉🙏🏽
Excellent... All three of you...
One of your best!
A coherent theory! But is it complete? I think the self, the conductor, that which intends and adds valence to the information our minds make from the data, seems to be undervalued. Listening to this great talk, I think the process (resonance etc) has become overpowered in this theory. The result is an over-broad definition of mind.
I think there is a definition as well as a category error here. Everything that is being discussed as, “consciousness, is either signal transduction (quant & qual), or data processing, or logic, or learning, or memory. What is not satisfactorily addressed is subjective experience.
Where one systems apprehends, recognizes (classifies, sorts, names, etc.) an object, makes decisions based on an event, or remembers something- all this is subject-object.
The category of consciousness is sui generis.
Consciousness isn’t qua subjects or objects.
@@hershchat I agree.
While you and I might feel that it falls short, I do think this 'unified theory of mind' is a good counter to the super-popular computational theory. I think it does move the discussion forward.
A coherent theory…? Can you explain to me how “a molecule perceive’s dots ….. “ 😳
@@mrbwatson8081 dear Watson, in this case “how” might be the wrong question. We don’t know how we perceive, as in are conscious of, what it is we are conscious of.
If you mean… where is the sense organs (sensors, for signal acquisition), neurons (signal transduction), brain (signal processing) and mind (for knowing what the signal means and making decisions)… then I think we can provide a reasonable enough picture.
“Imaging science”, in its most general sense, permits anything that responds, to form an “image”. The molecule senses one “bit”, equivalent to (x,y) locative information, of the world. Wether it is sensing gravity, or phonon energy (elastic vibration), or photon energy (light), or kinetic energy (heat), etc., that molecule apprehends a one point- (x,y), hν, etc.- and no more. It can receive a train of info, in sequence, but one “bit” at a time.
Being a simple imaging system, doing basic imaging, think of it as being the sensor-transducer-processor all in one.
So where is the consciousness of this signal? The person here is not saying this, but it has been answered elsewhere. The one answer I have read is that of the universe being able to provide that “observer”. How is complicated. It is related to how you yourself have consciousness. I do hope your initial question is answered. To the level you know how your body “images” the world, to that same extent I hope you see how a point entity will image the world.
@@mrbwatson8081 not saying plausible, I'm saying coherent.
I think the word 'perceives' is allegorical ... in fact almost all of the proponent's description was allegorical.
I'm certainly not saying I support their ideas of even think they make sense taken as a whole. But I think it is a 'well built' model of mind in that it is -coherent-. It is internally consistent, it is logical, no contradiction etc.
consciousness is fundamental to any activity or even non activity. It is the individual consciousness as observer observing activities of the mind. mind is just a spin and revolution of activities around this observer. once the observer starts observing itself, due to self referencing the observer becomes the observed and collapses into the universal state of consciousness.
consciousness has different states within the individual consciousness state. just like waking state, dream state, sleep state and the 4th state when it merges into the universal state, dumps all the data into the universal state unconsciously and kicks starts a new cycle again when you wake up the next day.
This was awesome. Really fascinating
Supermind is module minds connected together? Connection of module minds includes development of conscious feeling, subjective awareness, language, and more?
I think there is a definition as well as a category error here. Everything that is being discussed as, “consciousness, is either signal transduction (quant & qual), or data processing, or logic, or learning, or memory. What is not satisfactorily addressed is subjective experience.
Where one systems apprehends, recognizes (classifies, sorts, names, etc.) an object, makes decisions based on an event, or remembers something- all this is subject-object.
The category of consciousness is sui generis.
Consciousness isn’t qua subjects or objects.
Great 👍
naaaaaah its 8 min online its an hour long video how could you know its good
make video on "sound of silence " which is basis of existence.
This would be a lot easier if the owner of this channel read the Comments...
compassion is a moral concept, or morality for that matter, how can it be factored into the development to a hypermind or higher levels of minds? following their logic and theory of the evolution of the mind, which seems purely material, there is no way for compassion or any other moral virtue to arise unless their morality simply refers to what's best for continuity or survival. they gave the illustration of civilizations or the present Russia-Ukraine conflict, their theory of all the minds involved to resolve this together just would not work out - the war is still ongoing.
Lol. These are just theories. The truth is that consciousness is eternal as evident from the ever growing near death experience accounts and my own personal first-person psychic medium experiences. They cannot convince me that consciousness arises from matter, for if it were so, then psychic medium readings and ADC or after death communication would have been impossible as the consciousness which once was now dissolved into the chaos again after physical death. Believe me, the human nervous system is the most advanced machine we have to explore consciousness and its many levels. Advaita Vedanta or nonduality in ancient India starting in the 7th century were discussing the hard problem of consciousness and the seers and the sages discovered that consciousness is the fundamental reality and the source of everything including God and ourselves. They did it by going into deeper levels of consciousness by self inquiry and meditation. Now science is asking the same questions and coming up with all sorts of nonsensical answers. By the way, I gave absolutely free readings and connected many grieving family members to their departed loved ones on the other side. It's real, consciousness is the fundamental reality and you yourself are that reality. You are identifying with a body and mind in space and time. The very act of perceiving shows that you're not what you perceive. You are the light which makes perception possible!!
Here are some excerpts from I AM THAT:
All questions arise from your believing yourself to be a person."
"How little does man know of his Self [the one, immortal, formless substratum of all that exists], how he takes the most absurd statements about himself for holy Truth. He is told that he is the body, was born, will die, has parents, duties; learns to like what others like and fear what others fear."
" To you, you get born and die, while to me the world appears and disappears. You see yourself in the world, while I see the world in myself. You cling to the idea that you were born into a world of pain and sorrow; I know that the world is a child of love."
"Why don't you enquire how real are the world and the person?"
"To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. And to know what you are not you must watch yourself carefully, rejecting all that does not necessarily go with the basic fact: "I am". The ideas: I am born at a given place, at a given time, from my parents and now I am so-and-so, living at, married to, father of, employed by, and so on, are not inherent in the sense "I am". Our usual attitude is of "I am this". Separate consistently and perseveringly the "I am" from "this" or "that", and try to feel what it means to be, just to be, without being "this" or "that". All our habits go against it and the task of fighting them is long and hard sometimes, but clear understanding helps a lot. The clearer you understand that on the level of the mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker you will come to the end of your search and realize your limitless being."
Nisargadatta, I AM THAT
What behaviors do the networks of neurons in modules lead to? Is language one of them in humans? Subjectivity in module network of neurons necessary for language?
I do not understand the requirement for a physical embodiment for self awareness. They define consciousness as a dynamic process with specific properties. Why can that process with the required dynamics not sufficiently be implemented in a computer?
Fun conversation
Does self awareness require looking inside somehow? What might look inside for self awareness?
i like the bottom up approach ...then many deductions they do are very debatable (as Kuhn does).
I think they're on the right track, but he keeps saying 'it turns out that..' as if they have proven their theory. Very much doubt that.
The guy said “a molecule perceive’s dots ….. “ 🤨 somehow I don’t think they are on the right track 😜
Life and Consciousness is Eternal,
thinking has always emerged, from the Thinker.
What happens when cosmic mind emerges and encompasses everything? If It encompasses everything there are no boundaries left. You say the first requisite for mind is boundaries. The cosmic mind would have no boundaries. Could not exist as a mind. There seems to be a problem here I’m just not sure what it is.
How does consciousness think specifically?
Does mental activity from physical activity happen externally in nature?
Consciousness as activity of communication, like sending signals?
Do features have anything to do with subjectivity?
“Molecules perceive dots” just trust 65 years of mathematical work. SERIOUSLY GUYS WE NEED TO DRAW THE LINE, THIS IS GETTING STUPID. THEY TALK WITH SUCH CONFIDENCE TELLING US A MOLECULE CAN PERCEIVE DOTS 😳 .
Seriously. You talk with such confidence to call a liveswork stupid after listening to it for an hour or less. It's beautiful to want to understand the world but the utter stupidity comes in condemnation of that what you cannot possibly comprehend yet. That to me is the best evidence for narrow minded stupidity. It doesn't matter if they are right or not. They have given it thought and research. Intelligent minds don't call something utterly stupid before answering the question why do they think this. It's a token of stupidity not to.
Hahaha
To go further than 101 read Spinoza's writing.
Mental activity is physical activity!
Mind is just for physical like me now I do have a mind also use it if I want to. Because I am still all that existe. But this is me yes see this as many roads to do this simple as you can is always the sure road to go.
I hear and understand the conversation, however does not help me in my daily life.
Excellent inputs.👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
“Molecules perceive dots” yes yes bravo 👏😳…..
50:19 Robert is repackaging the Chalmers Zombie argument which only yields an epiphenomenal conclusion. This only underscores the lack of deeper understanding of the neurons which they defeat with the modular resonance model.
I CAN’T SAY THAT I BLAME YOU FOR NOT POSTING MY COMMENT BUT YOU READ IT AND YOU WILL THINK ABOUT IT
Caps lock is located between the left-shift and tab keys on a standard keyboard.
I TOOK 3, YRS. OF TYPING IN HIGH SCHOOL SO AS TO BE WITH ALL THOSE GALS :-)
Does physical brain project features onto sensory perception data to make mental representations with information?
How does sensory data differ from information? What has to be done to sensory data to make it information?
What makes seeing 👀 possible but can not be seen..? What makes touch possible but can not be touched..?
What about Helen Keller? Was she self aware before she learned sign language?
that was interesting but i'm not sure i understood much of it really. it did seem like quite a bit of word salad, i'd really like to see the mathematics behind it but i'm not sure i would want to read the book if it was as disconnected as the interview. i presume there are papers out there so i'll probably look for them. did he really say america is conscious but russia isn't? i probably misunderstood.
Are the mathematical equations of modules conscious?
Yes they can perceive dots also 🤪
the theory excludes creativity as the thing that distinguishes the human mind from AI. it posits the idea that creativity is just the result of interactions between the elements of consciousness and even gives the possibility that with sufficient interactions or connections between AI entities it could develop into a supermind comparable to humans.
AI is already capable of considerable creativity.
What is mathematics for collective activity, such as thinking / mind?
How do mental representations get features?
[Leibniz's contingency argument for God, clarified]:
Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D.
0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are:
1) whole
2) rational
3) not-natural (not-physical)
4) necessary
1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are:
1) whole
2) rational
3) natural (physical)
4) contingent
Newton says since 0 and 0D are
"not-natural" ✅
then they are also
"not-necessary" 🚫.
Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅
then they are also
"necessary" 🚫.
This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic.
con·flate
verb
combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.
Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes.
Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is zero and it's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space.
0D Monad (SNF)
1D Line (WNF)
2D Plane (EMF)
3D Volume (GF)
We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic.
Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3).
Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ =
necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction.
Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different.
Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary.
Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything.
Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚....
Just say "I'm guessing what consciousness is" adding "dynamics" and other expressions might hit the nail. Lol
But we have 65 years of mathematical research behind us and this maths says “molecules perceive dots….” 🤓
@@mrbwatson8081 well, after thousands of years and research, we still believe in supernatural beings.
Does that mean past time proves me right? consciousness is not the same on each individual, does the maths results point that out?
So they're saying you can't make consciousness if it's not moving around in the real world. I posit that a simulation or even a video game is a real world. It has different properties than the world we live in but why would this be relevant to this question?
When if consciousness requires something besides a binary computation, a quantum computer solves that. Also, a computer conscious without a body can still "exist" all over the world. Just connect it to the Internet. All cameras that it has access to become it's eyes. It can modify the world through simple text output. It can use our hands through payment or coercion. It didn't even need a robot arm or control a steering wheel. No need to be mobile.
Thanks for sharing this discussion. Love the logic.especially at time stamp 1;15- seems some parallels of Mind evolution with Dr Brian Weiss of soul evolution -lower level souls’.journey towards ‘master’.
What causes resonance?
Essential*Awareness* is none of the aspects they claim to explicate. Correlating, “cent of a sent scent me back”, for example, is deeply representational, as my use of misplaced spelling demonstrates. The construction of a whole out of a parsed, rasterized set of inputs- that’s is what they are claiming is consciousness. You and I KNOW that that is not essential consciousness. How do we know it? Because we are conscious of, aware of the concept stated- constructing meaning out of the disaggregated many. That what we know to be aware of, that is consciousness. That which we know as synthesis of meaning, that is pattern recognition. When a key opens a lock, that is an aggregate arising out of recognition. When electrons rearrange in a mediated pathway by virtue of an enzyme’s specific stereo chemical environment- that’s recognition driven “activity”.
All recognition driven activity involves some level of intelligence, some sort of problem solving, and therefore is meaningful in a certain way.
THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT CONSCIOUSNESS.
The only once they get close to being correct is when they agree that consciousness appears to be an endowment of the universe.
Do neurons create paths that associate information as memory, such as the word two-cent with stamp?
this was a easy good one
Might development of mind(s) from molecules to neurons to modules have anything to do with emergence?
Can there be both computational brain with discrete operations of particles, and mind as described here?
Can society of minds in brain, including mathematical description, provide unity for conscious experience?
Nope. Roger Penrose says consciousness is not computational.
The basic obvious explanation seems to be self awareness. Most mammals and birds seem to be self aware. I think conciousness moderates. Decisions of the brain are filtered by consciousness and it seems that is where ethics and morality resides.
Neuroscience is the cousin of alchemy
Consciousness neither top or bottom it is not in the system it is experiencing it
Activity is a thing too...contradiction
The definition is a loop hole
Definition of consciousness = being able to taste water without having the language to explain it
The animals are biological artificial intelligence machines
Variety was needed to mask the experiment we are in
Consciousness exists,,, the void does not
That that is the that that is named that
Math can be interrupted in many ways,,, it is not how we measure WHAT IS TRUE
Observation is
Robert I felt your indignation at the perceived dismissal of panpsychism, souls etc to be misplaced. None of those explanations give any idea of how they work to create consciousness. Your criticism was that their method didn't do that either.
the mind is the plasma conscienceless s a flame? a sub form?
Just that title drew me in..
Lots of tracking animals can be trained to consciously identify and track a specific scent. This seems to suggest that consciousness is an emergent quality that can be educated and elevated with the practice of experiences and perceptions
No my friend is a dimension right where you are, now that dimension is a reality. You have find a simple way is better always. To access this dimension. As z=0 not true z is a great direction as the t=0 are t=9 are the hight is dimension, so you live where 5 dimension right now is time to go the number six dimension. Ok
Remarkable fact here is that it's the other way around. Consciousness did not emerge from chaos. Chaos or entropy equates to flux and the reason for flux is
Genesis 2:18.
41:00 Language and Super minds.
OR language allowed us to share our minds or solved the Other Minds philosophical problem which was not taken seriously until we questioned sentient AI.
"The interaction between the physical dynamics of consciousness and the physical dynamics of language between minds is what produces self awareness " if that's not pseudo science mumbo jumbo abracadabra then I don't know what is.
Are multiple resonance states in brain unified by time, or something else?
Can resonance connect the features of data?
Hello Dr Lawrence, hope you are doing well my friend, this is Shiva.
Are thinking molecules like DNA?
To explain why you experience seeing or thinking these guys have to resort to saying “a molecule perceive’s …… dots” I mean seriously 😳
Maths + physics = emergence 🪄 🎩 🐰
Hartmut Rosa would probably love the part about resonating modules (he wrote a book about resonance). Well, it makes sence, that conciousness serves the body and not wise versa... The question is, why the conciousness is left alone, while the body does it thing. Or is every module alone? But I think (like with pan psychsm or especially holism) you just put a variable for the unknown, so it's satisfying, but it's not solved - how do the modules resonate? What's the decision for "yes, that feels right"? Is "it feels right/legit/plausible" a solution?
An unnecessary claim is that authoritarian societies aren't conscious. Given the looseness of the definition of consciousness (which I am happy to accept, given we all agree there's a gradient), I see no reason that any group of individuals that are resonating on some arbitrary concept are conscious, including two hunter-gathers stalking prey. I like this approach, and of course it's likely untestable... that would be like asking neurons to determine if the brain is a mind.
In fact, we all know that crowd's operate a single mind, and often as a very dumb mind (think about any riot). Whereas large organizations have specialized modules with specific tasks that interface, while working together on a larger problem domain. The first is the most basic neural mind, and the latter the more basic module mind.
Of course these conscious states are very primitive and sloppy. Humans are self-motivated, whereas neurons exist as machines to serve their host.
conscience is the flame is the water is the rock... it is emergent .. sure ok .sounds right
We've had self driving cars for over a century if you realize they run on human computers.
All matter and energy execute algorithms. We are matrix. Therefor mind did not appear. All matter can be considered “mind”
I Believe a culture can have a sort of consciousness , that it can direct human behavior as a group. Sort of like the matrix.
But is that different from just saying, for example, that propaganda can direct human behavior? Or that the perils and dangers in a jungle can direct animal behavior. Or that the rules and laws and morals and beliefs and memes in a society can direct -- or at least have an influence on -- human behavior. I'm wondering, in other words, to what extent sll this is consciousness, extended consciousness or a part of consciousness compared to just part of the environment we live in.
In the beginning 17 seconds you already losing me implying that non-speaking people have no self-awareness. I'll try listening further .
"What is consciousness? What is self? How does experience arise? Who is the experiencer?" Really?! Well, to simply borrow a phrase from Ramana Maharashi, "Who is asking the question?"
Approaching Consciousness vis a vis, "Explaining the underlying physical mechanisms that embody conscious experience?" is actually backwards! It would be a bit more accurate to say, the physical mechanisms that embody experience (irrespective of epithet, conscious/unconscious) are the forms (some) that consciousness takes, revealing a partciular dynamics of dance and form. You must understand consciousness as an ontological primitive otherwise you are haplessly lost in reductionism and tautology, either from the bottom up or top down. Furthermore, it is misplaced, to say that you are leaving out the subjective or what it feels like, as any inquiry itself cannot tease out the subjective or affective aspects of feeling to the curiosity, inquiry, motivation and analysis of what, the "it" or what "is" being explored. This is not reverting to traditional pure subjective idealism, rather it is
understanding basic Heisenberg principles of measurement,. Essentially we try when even not trying to somehow teasing these two objective/subjective apart. It is thus, cognitive dissonance somehow invariably reins supreme.
"Consciousness is just another form of thinking." No, No, No and No! Again, backwards! "Thinking" (as discussed, embodied, symbolized, etc.) is a particular artistry, dance, dynamics of consciousness, again, which is an ontological primitive and thus cannot be conceptualized or compartmentalized, cannot be reduced to any one thing or set(s) of processes.
Why are you interviewing these liars. We have a Creator who planned everything we experience before he put those plans into action as a Creation that is being run by his servant which is much like an AI system but not only can it speak, it can see, hear, smell, taste, feel emotions and various senses of touch when it awakens in a visible world because of a created mind processing the programmed thoughts of our Creator. One wavelength of a frequency is our Creator's coded language that is process by our created minds into visible images and also awakens the servant to make a living being in all the fake worlds that are planned like this one we're involved in and all the future life experiences.
lol thanks for the BS
@@scambammer6102 You have no idea what our Creator has taught me this past 14 years.
Your idea of a creator goes back to ancient Middle Eastern beliefs, are you from the ancient Middle East…?
Todas las señales que recibo de percepcion vienen de esos 2 organos, queridos
Redicouless How they try to put math into use here. Doesnt Make Any sense
You just need to open your mind it’s called scientism 😉 scientism is an emergent religion 😁
First time I hear that a country could have some consciousness. Ridiculous at first unless one considers strong nationalism as the whole country acting as one organism through perhaps some resonans mechanism. But such "organism" has no independent feelings or actions. Still, who knows.
digan la verdad a los clones
Cómo editar a Hilda Doolittle: una charla con Daniel Sardá
auto conciencia 55:29
Personally, I'm not impressed. So things resonate and build hierarchies. OK. Add secret woo math. Hmmm. And then .... *Miracle Happens* and you get a conscious mind! Tadah! This is all vague stuff about the easy problems, no progress on hard problem.
The guy so boldly and confidently said “molecules perceive dots…” the interview should have ended there and then.
ustedes se equivocan al trepanar mi cerebro, pq mi cerebro esta en mi intestino. Mi corazon y mi intestino son los amos y señores de mi cerebro, asique.....imposible que lo quieren hacer. La poesia nace de mis entrañas unicas e irrepetibles
So the mind is a transformer? That's it? Time 11:20.
What you look for is right here but is another dimension that you have to reach, by meditation concentration deep level and not possible to pattern dancing patterns. But this dimension grow as expention of universe going, so I can when I want access let's call door our in out put. Nothing is chaotic I do not live into chaos, order as to be set. Each part of your being as to be in order to achieve a influence on your true environment means your real reality. So that why I me mind as power over matters. But working to access this type of fine tuning algorithms dimension set with nothing else to order, with meditation deep level consentration and dancing pattern who now as human I can do physically the real move to open this dimension and operate if you want. Don't forget that if I let you go there because real law that as been set not ready but not long permit your access by real actual access by somethings who go faster then try to achieve this all life long and don't matter always block access. So it will not be possible using this so call logarithm and to each of you playing and trying to fine tunes anything you decide to do. Guess it will not thing long before creating a cluster that will create a real total destruction who knowse where and what kind of end will be or keep going multiple issues problems. It's fine tune series of numbers that you know now, same thing taking out numbers from those series fine tune or even adding numbers. I can let's you go their about the only quest to travel your cosmos and populate your cosmos and go otters cosmos to achieve the true on Human ORIGINE. That is possible today starting not long let's say for put a date next week Monday at 10 o'clock it will be possible this is Promess from me. Sure take time figuring theory a type machine may be that I already see this in comment. Very excited and stimulating, right perfect recipe to success right. I will continue as I Promess each thing in time. To my friend that take the road of wisdom not easy but possible now
Sorry to say, Ogi Ogas is very biased and presumptuous when claiming “the United States is conscious” and “authoritarian countries are not”
That Ogi Ogas is a blinkered specialist. To say, USA had a sort of conciousness and Russia doesn't, is really idiotic, totally stupid. (See min 45 to 48).
El señor que habla se parece a padovani, un tripulante de cabina con cargo que nos media el largo de las polleras y si era muy cortita te sancionaba jaja mira igual (padovani era tripulante y profesor de neurobiologia en la universidad) es igual
DIGAN LA VERDAD, VAN A HACER UN TRANSHUMANO Y VA A ESTAR EL CLON Y CAROLINA. EDITANDO A HILDA.
the apes are a real Dilemma ! they speak the same language ! lucky apes !