Hubert L. Dreyfus - Is Consciousness Entirely Physical?
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2022
- Here's the big question about consciousness, our inner experience of what things feel like. Is consciousness a product of the physical world alone? Because if consciousness is the output of the physical brain by itself, however complex, then consciousness as physicalism would defeat those who believe, or hope for, the existence of nonphysical realities.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on consciousness: bit.ly/2RsUqem
Hubert Lederer Dreyfus is an American philosopher. He is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley researching phenomenology, existentialism and the philosophy of psychology and literature.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn 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.
"Nobody has any idea and they should keep quiet until they do" Dr. Dreyfus just added another fan to his fan club, yours truly !
Only an intelligence ... makes, refines, improves & "fine tunes" ... abstract & physical FUNCTIONS.
A Function ... processes inputs into outputs ... has purpose, properties, form & design .. requires specific matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature to exist & to FUNCTION.
Law, time, mathematics & the scientific Method are abstract Functions from the mind of an intelligence.
A wheel, nut, bolt, hammer, nail, spring and any machine & its parts ... are physical Functions ... from the mind of an intelligence.
We know for a fact ... that Nature & natural processes will NEVER ... make, refine, improve, fine tune or operate ... the simplest of machines let alone a complex machine.
A machine is an abstract or physical FUNCTION composed entirely of functions ... from the mind of an intelligence.
The Human Body ... is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions.
The Laws of Nature are abstract Functions.
Everything in the Universe ... processes inputs into outputs ... and have clear purpose, form, design & Function and obey a set on Laws that can only come from the mind of an intelligence.
Science completely relies on the fixed Laws of Nature ... for Man ( an intelligence) to explain Natural Phenomena.
A Natural phenomena is simply a natural process or Function.
The Machine Analogy is a Natural Phenomena ... because a Natural process (eg Life) will always be like an unnatural process( eg a machine).
The facts about the origin of abstract & physical Functions is why Machine Analogies, Fine tuning & thermodynamic Systems are natural phenomena ... will always be observed .. and have a scientific explanation.
The Universe & Life ... were unnaturally made ... by a very powerful intelligence.
Man has always known the "supernatural" origin of the Universe .. because only an intelligence makes Laws ( of Nature) and Things (of the Universe) with clear purpose, form, design & Function.
Religion is also a natural phenomena .. with each believing they have identified the "supernatural" intelligence the made everything.
Atheism is also a religion which simply replaced "god" with the theories, ideologies & secular beliefs of Man.
We do know & have known for thousands of years. But Man has free will .. to think, believe, say & do whatever he wants with ... religion, theists & their deities.
Yep, I don't know why "I don't know" is so scary for people.
what he really said is that AI will never produce consciousness
Hubris is the hallmark characteristic of scientism
@@overtonwindowshopper scientists admit when they don’t know stuff. Religionists insist that they know stuff that they don’t. Which is hubris?
Federico Faggin, one of the fathers of computer processors. tried for years to produce an AI that was somewhat conscious and now he agree : AI and consciousness have nothing in common.
Consciousness has an history that spans across millions of years and this experiment lasted a fraction of this guy's lifetime.
@@miguelito2860 it took also millions of years for whales to be able to reach the depths of the ocean. It took a tiny fraction of that for humans to develope machines that could go even deeper than whales.
@@marcopony1897 and we have explored less than 5% of the full extent of the ocean. Just like we're just beginning to understand consciousness at a neuroscientific level
@@marcopony1897 *"it took also millions of years for whales to be able to reach the depths of the ocean. It took a tiny fraction of that for humans to develope machines that could go even deeper than whales."*
... That is a good point. Humans can quickly recreate what took billions of years to develop naturally in the universe. What took billions of years to create a natural diamond can now be done in under two weeks in a laboratory. However, our ability to recreate natural processes is not across-the-board.
We still cannot create as much as a simple housefly.
@@miguelito2860 i think the incentives are quite different here. We haven’t explored more ocean cuz.. what the heck for lol (yeah I’m ready to find out). Now conciousness my friend…that’s a different animal
He is on point ! There is NO reason to think that personal inner experience ought to accompany computation however complex.
"ought" meaning what in that context?-necessarily implies?-or it were better (or more likable) that...?
@@vhawk1951kl should / implies .... somehow automatically
@@realcygnus noted, thankyou, now re-phrase you point accordingly and see if it makes any sense.
@@vhawk1951kl There is no reason to think that inner experience should somehow just magically accompany computation, however complex. I should add, aside from the fact that we tend to believe that this is indeed the case with biological brains. However, "silicon" intelligence which can be quantified(to some extent) as merely a clever means of manipulating data, can in principle also be performed with just water pipes & valves(albeit the size of a city). So, precisely at what point would a computing pipe/valve system suddenly become "conscious" ? At just one valve or not until you add 10^x ? In either case, your either a panpsychist(which has its own flaws imo) and/or blindly appealing to complexity. The "quantities" of physics(mass, charge & spin etc.) can NOT bridge the gap or be mapped to the "qualities" of experience(red, toothache & love etc.) in a "non-arbitrary" way, even in principle. The two domains are incommensurable with each other. That is the core of the so call "hard problem".
Only an intelligence ... makes, fixes, maintains, fine tunes ... abstract & physical FUNCTIONS.
Law, mathematics, the scientific method are abstract Functions from the MIND of an intelligence.
Machines are physical Functions composed entirely of Functions.
Natural phenomena are Natural processes of FUNCTIONS.
Everything in the Universe ... is a function ... processes inputs into outputs ... and has set purpose, form, properties & design.
Nature & natural processes can never .. make, maintain, fix & fine tune ... and abstract or physical FUNCTION.
The Jews & Christians are correct .. that God created Man with a body & Soul .. and was to live forever until Man broke God's Law and the Body began to die
The Mind of Man is both physical (brain) & non-physical( soul) because Man was made to be Body & Soul.
The Body provide consciousness of the physical environment and allows Man to make physical things. All non-physical things are made through the brain & the soul.
And when the body of Man dies, then the Soul is only conscious of the non-physical environment and can only only think & do non-physical things. This is why Jesus, sent to save Man's body & Soul .. said to "Love God with all you mind, body & soul." God's son knew the Mind of man is physical & nonphysical.
I love these conversations because all these folks on Robert’s show, including Robert himself, are some of the finest thinkers alive today, some of whom I’ve never heard of cuz I’m not too bright myself; and they all make clearer in these conversations some of the most interesting developments and ideas in the world today. Right now! Very cool. So, thank you all.
You're absolutely right about these conversations being cool, but I think you're also pretty bright, otherwise why would you be interested in these kinds of questions? Curiosity is one key ingredient to being bright.
@@alittax yes
So true what he says.
It's like turning the ISO value of a camera to 1.0E+09.
You may take a picture in near dark conditions,
but you only enhance horrible lighting conditions and end up with a horrible picture.
His lectures are forever on my hdd...
At least he finally answered the question at the end
Fantastic episode thank you very much
Consciousness isn’t just the neurones in the brain, it’s all our senses.
consciousness is not a computation .
~ from Emperor 's New Mind
~ by Roger Penrose
"The best representation of the world is the world itself."
This is what Langan has also been saying for decades as part of his CTMU.
_"Normally, languages are considered to be in the minds of people and they work on the basis of moving symbols around mentally, where said symbols represent things in the "outside world". By attempting to represent things in the "outside world" with language, one gets closer and closer in accuracy of description to the things one attempts to describe the more expressive/powerful the language is. What would happen if a language was so expressive that it contained every piece of information on the thing it wishes to describe, to the highest resolution possible? You would have the SCSPL "coding" of that object in the universe, which is identical to the object itself. Thought about in another way, if one asks themselves "what does the SCSPL coding of a tennis ball look like?"; the answer is the tennis ball itself!"_
why would I need to code a tennis ball? I have dozens of them in my closet.
@@scambammer6102:
The point is that those tennis balls are themselves the SCSPL codings of tennis balls. It's essentially the ultimate level of mapping, where your map becomes so accurate that it not only maps out every detail of reality, but even recursively maps out the map itself.
@@outisnemo8443 This seems contrary to the point of the interview, and your first sentence. If the best representation of the world is the world itself, a map cannot be a tennis ball.
@@scambammer6102:
Wrong, because Langan's entire point is that reality is precisely such a representation. A tennis ball is the part of such a mapping that models a tennis ball.
They should get someone who isn't so biased to host this show, or change the name, because he is averse to the truth that consciousness is fundamental and produces everything in experience.
Yeah he's an irretrievable naturalist.
Agreed, but nobody can fight the Truth.
What an enigma time for a dream.
Everytime I smoke weed I listen to you, and expand my conscience and understanding of the universe, also your clips are the exact length of my smoking session.😁
That’s real. May the universe continue to guide you
You ain't cool
Dark Star is a DRUG ADDICT. Thanks for sharing.
I think about it this way: if you want to embrace connectionism, where the actual substance makes no difference, it is only the connections between elements that make a difference, you have a tall order.
First you need to determine that the level that you split up the domain into parts that are connected is correct. Now I have no idea how you would go about doing this other than to say something like “the most fundamental level of existence is the the most fundamental level of existence”.
And now you have a conundrum because there is no extra layer you can refer all of your problems to.
I feel that the difference is, that AI doesn't have a biological motivation to reproduce/survive. It has no knowledge/burden of certain death - thus it doesn't develop any more value from the world around it, and other interactions - than what it needs to. Survival is a big catalyst for growth and change.
If you listen to your own conscience you will find the existence of God, it is your conscience within yourself calling to answer God's call. There are many video posted on YT, how people recognize this voice and answer the call.
There is an American posted video on CZcams, he just wanted to shut-up the voice popping in his conscience, he decided to read the Quran, just to shut-up his own conscience. It was calling him to read the Quran.
There is another British young man posted video, saying there is something eating me inside, it was his own consciences to call him to investigate Islam.
A former Jwish American Derrick Feinman on his video posted saying, it is the sheer fact I have been called to seek God, it is evident there is a God, which lead him to miracle in the broad daylight. All has to do with conscience.
Will you pay attention to Allah is calling you in your own conscience?
Quran 41:53 We will show them Our signs in the horizons and *within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth* . But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?
You seem to be using "motivation" or "burden" as synonyms for consciousness. That is, [ the difference is, that AI doesn't have consciousness... ]. This, while not false, lacks explanatory value.
We have famous math problems over hilariously simple things like 3x+1, give us time to understand the configurations of something as complex as the laws of physics. That's why I believe we need magnitudes more effort into "emergence" (but others are ruining that term lol)
His elderly voice is so refreshing. Now, how many experienced minds like this one will it take to convince physicalists that with consciousness, they are dealing with a completely different stuff?
There is another immaterial thing that we possess besides consciousness, one that has force beyond the scope of the quantum field, nevertheless has controlling influence on our body's chemistry/physics. I am talking about LANGUAGE. Do not confuse it with sound, the mechanical vibration of words but the meaning of the words. The meaning of a statement can trigger a chemical upheaval in a person's body resulting into instant death. That same statement could have no impact on a person who does not understand the meaning. It is not the sound wave but the the meaning that has the unbelievable power. I could even write something here, the meaning of which could make you sweat. The meaning of a statement could have a controlling power that could justify the detonation of a nuclear bomb. Where can you find the meaning of words in physicality? What is the mathematical equation for it? But look, how much force it exerts! Still language is different from consciousness. It only works with it.
You’re describing Plato’s “Forms”. The abstract world of numbers and meaning. Plato thought they were more real than anything physical.
“The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space; they exist in the Realm of Forms. Even though the Forms are abstract, that doesn't mean they are not real. In fact, the Forms are more 'real' than any individual physical objects.”
@@tbardoni5065 Well, I am not a philosopher, and I don't think there can be any mathematical equations to quantify the force that the meaning of words exerts on consciousness physical objects.
@ 3:53 He's mentioning Wittgenstein book, but it is "Philosophical Investigations" not "Logical Investigations" written by Husserl - I've tried to find it but Husserl work is from 1901
"Like your relationships with others, the world is showing you everything you need to know. The difference here is that it may be more difficult to personally relate to the world. The world does not have an individual personal mind. It has a collective mind, which is an impersonal mind. Its value here is very special for you because it shows you that you too must discover your impersonal mind, which is the greater mind of Knowledge within you. Discovering this greater mind within yourself enables you to become a real contributor in life. God has an impersonal mind because God is not a person. The mind behind your mind is an impersonal mind because behind your mind you are not a person. Being a person is a role you play in the world. This is very important, but it is not your Greater Reality.
When you learn to experience affinity with others, you will gain access to your impersonal mind, and you will see that it contains a greater love, a greater contribution, a greater comprehension and a greater expression than your personal mind. You do not need to create a complex system of beliefs here but only understand some basic ideas that are essential for right thought and right action."
A quote from *Relationships and Higher Purpose* - Chapter 4: Your Relationship with the World, a free online book by Marshall Vian Summers.
What is "the world" or what do you seek to convey when you speak of " the world"? Whose world?
"Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect, whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided, once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too.
A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonance and then to imagine that he has understood it.
To bring home what has just been said, an excellent example is provided by the word so often used by every contemporary man-”world.”
If people knew how to grasp for themselves what passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word ”world,” then most of them would have to admit-if of course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries no exact notion whatever for them
Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, world, I know what this is,” and serenely goon thinking.
Should one deliberately arrest their attention on this
word and know how to probe them to find just what they
understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said
“embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together,
that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling
the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they
will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they had
not thought of it before.
If one has the requisite power and could compel a
group of contemporary people, even from among those
who have received so to say “a good education,” to state
exactly how they each understand the word “world,” they
would all so “beat about the bush” that involuntarily one
would recall even castor oil with a certain tenderness."
Nope. The Jews & Christians were right all along. Man screwed up and God is simply saving the eternal souls of a very rebellious Creation.
Only an intelligence ... makes, fixes & "fine tunes" ... abstract & physical Functions.
Law, time, mathematics & the scientific Method are abstract Functions from the mind of an intelligence.
A Natural phenomena is a natural process or Function.
A machine & the Human body ... is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions.
Everything in the Universe is a process or Function ... with clear purpose, design, & form ... and obeys a set of Laws that only an intelligence makes.
C'mon. We have always known the origin of Laws of Nature & things of the Universe with clear form, purpose, design & FUNCTION.
But an intelligence ... has free will ... to think & do as he wants ... to think & do good or evil ... be right or wrong.
@@abelincoln8885 Who told you that "man screwed up" and what in blue blazes does that mean? - How did "man screwup" and which man on what exact date and time?
Who told you that particular bit of gibberish and of what did this famous and obviously imaginary "screwing up" consist?
very very good.
Physical life could be like a radio. The radio is not alive but, when working, it is a physical vehicle through which "life", which is non-physical, can manifest. Not sure where or what the source of that life is, though.
I find it hard to believe that many people believe that consciousness is just going to appear in computers/robots by mere complexity.
On the other hand, if consciousness is explicable, then it can be described by cause and effect and is deterministic. Anything that can be so described ought to be defined as physical.
Human mind is excellent for connecting thing from one pattern to other. Computer AI is excellent for recognizing and grouping same patterns even those patterns are not really connecting to each other (not comprehensive).
He ended by saying that nobody knows and they should keep quiet until they do. However, earlier in the talk he mentioned the idea that consciousness depends on real world interactive experience which is something that most AI researchers have ignored. This is something I've been saying for quite a while. Build your best AI model with full sensory input and place it in the most advanced Boston Dynamics robot and then put it in a situation where it's continued existence depends on interacting with and learning about the world around it.
One of the defining characteristics / aspects of consciousness (especially human consciousness) is the awareness of its own continuity / existence.
The concept of "continuity" is, by definition, an integration of TIME.
The problem is that existence always exists right NOW. Any "now" that existed in the past is irretrievably gone. Without comparing a past "now" to the current "now", there appears to be no way to develop the concept of "continuity".
It appears that the only way to preserve a past "now" is through some kind of representation in a memory structure. With the past "now" stored as a representation in memory, the current "now" (sensations) can then be juxtaposed against the past "now" (memory), and so the concept of "continuity" can be developed.
All memory structures to store the representation of the past "now" are material structures.
Unless there's some magic involved in consciousness ... i.e., in the form of non-material memory ... then it appears that consciousness must rely on material structures in order to exist at all.
What does it even mean for an experience to be physical ? I cannot measure it, weigh it, or even describe it in any mathematical way whatsoever. While there are things in our experiences that can be described in these ways, and so appear to be physical, the experience itself cannot. For example, I can measure the height, length and width of a table, but those descriptions are the measurements of the physical properties of the table itself, not a measurement of the properties of my experience of the table.
What about an electric field? You cant measure that directly. The best you can do is to detect it using something that responds to it like a moving conductor that gets a voltage induced across it. Is an electric field "physical"? Many would say yes.
So can consciousness be "physical" if you cant put a tape measure on it? Or detect it with another physical object? I dont know. But I do know that something emerging from a physical object (ie the brain and its neurons all firing in a certain way) can exist because I have first hand experience of it but soon I'll go to sleep where my brain's neurons will fire in a different way and my consciousness will disappear.
Can those neurons firing be replicated in a computer? Yes. Will this also produce consciousness. IMO, yes it will.
@@medhurstt First of all, thank you for your opinion. Second, the topic of this thread is what it means to describe an experience itself as being something physical. While you might have presented an example of a thing -- an electric field -- that is considered to be physical yet cannot be directly measured, this example does not tell us what it means for a thing to be 'physical' in the first place. Typically, we have found that 'physical things' or things we consider to be 'physical' can be measured in some way. The old view is that these things were essentially material -- or composed of matter. This materialistic view goes all the way back to Thales' assertion that all things are essentially forms of water. Of course, Thales was long ago refuted on the 'water' part, but his view of an essential material as the basis of all things persisted well after him. Later, more advanced views took forms of energy as being no less essential for physicality than matter. Is the physical essentially matter or energy -- or something more fundamental ? I don't know. I simply know these are the two basic forms of what it means for a thing to be physical, and that they are both -- matter and energy -- forms that, in principle, can be measured, and, so, quantitatively described mathematically. Is it possible that experience itself can be mathematically described. I don't know. But what mathematical description will suffice to describe a person's experience of happiness, for example ? Even if you can correlate this experience with neurons 'firing' in the brain, the experience of happiness itself cannot be reduced to a mere quantitative description. Because there is a correlation between the neurons firing and the feeling of happiness, you can infer that the happiness has a relation to the neurons, and since the neurons are physical, the feeling must be physical as well in order for them to be related. I think the problem here is that we would at that point, no longer know what it was we meant by the 'non-physical' in the first place ? What does it even mean for a thing, an event, an experience, to be non-physical ? If we can't answer that question, then we do not even now what it really means for a thing to be 'physical' in the first place. After all, it is only meaningful to describe something as 'physical' if we know what it would be for it to be 'non-physical', and vice-versa. To simply say that a thing is 'physical' without knowing what it would even mean for something to be 'non-physical' is meaningless,. I believe a 'physical thing' is distinguished from a 'non-physical thing' by the 'physical thing's' mathematical description, or quantitative existence. If a person had never experienced happiness, I doubt he could understand what happiness was simply by looking at a mathematical description of neurons firing in the brain. This mathematical description could not help in the least understand the experience of happiness itself. Instead, he would actually have to experience happiness for himself to even know what it was in the first place. The actual experience of happiness, as with all experiences, seems to be something distinct from those things that exist quantitatively. Matter and energy, including an electric field, are 'things' that exist quantitatively, I don't think you can say the same thing of an experience itself. What quantity suffices to describe an experience ?
Computers and AI, most likely combine and enhance those capabilities which took 2,000 years to develop. This probably is the fundamental difference which may achieve this breakthrough. Previously what took a lifetime can now be reiterated or remodeled with new assumptions with a click of a button. We may not be too far away from making our way into understanding consciousness as Mr Robert suggested. Thanks for producing such captivating content.
Yes
9:45
keep quiet until they do
9:47
because i mean i think it is the hardest
9:50
question how in the world matter which
9:53
is this third-person material stuff
9:55
could ever produce consciousness and ai
9:59
and the use of computers is not helping
10:01
us understand it one bit
You're content makes me think.. Why are so many afraid of that?
Focus is what consciousness is for. Memory of recent(?) and valuable social constructs, enabled education, & society building. The physical world, somehow materialized, to enable construction of many things, most importantly musical instruments. Thus allowing conscious music lovers, the ability to Groove on tuned instruments, regardless of singing abilities. We now can Groove globally & have The One rehabilitate the planet. The known magical, curing, abilities of music, will unite populations across the world, through simply Grooving by bangin' on a drum, we can entrain. Groove energy is The One, when properly energized, will evolve us.
Having enough people alive on the planet, is needed. It's believed & found in most religious practices, that dozens are a recognized sacred amount, from a variety of parables. Ten to the twelfth power is ten billion, apparently the number of people that are needed, which would maximize our population on Earth, as well as, consecrate our purpose of evolution.. Insuring that all are sufficiently living their lives, within a peaceful environment, where each can find solace to Groove. Dozens are most prominent for a reason. 12 tribes creating a number progeny, algorhythmically correct, to Be raised in a society capable of enabling a full planet of ten billion people Grooving. Technology has evolved our communications to go global. Globalization of our music instinct, has Been foreseen. We currently know of some mystical connections made with entrainment, mob mentality, & "Flow". These found powers, have told true stories of enabling super human powers from ordinary folks. Groovists believe that the powers of Earth entrained, will instigate the foreseen epiphany through miraculous Grooving unity!!
Please join us in today's global community drum circle: czcams.com/video/avARGUJxs20/video.html
although all of your guests are interesting and extremely intelligent, Dr. Dreyfus is on a different level, alongside Dr. Chomsky
What? There actually someone studying real philosophy in U.S.? Blew my mind 🤯
Two thousand+ years of thought discipline demands a bit more respect :) very fun discussion, indeed...
What sufficient processes are there from object credit giving to mindless matter?
How might oxygen be used in processing of information for consciousness?
I see it not as a mechanical connection process, rather a biological one. Essentially, is you could replicate what nucleic proteins and amino-acid retrofeed from physical energy, information stimulus, then, basically, one can create a self conscious metaphysical entity. That will be the processing units. About the storage unit, these could be any electromechanical process.
He is definitely correct in what he says - trying to emulate the human brain with computers will never work because the brain is not a computer and works in a completely different (and not entirely understood) way from a computer.
That's the same argument as saying a violin is not a computer and works in a completely different way so emulating a violin with a computer will never work.
Is not asking that question like asking where is the edge of something? Is it not true that the more accurate the measurement of a coastline becomes,the longer the coastline is?
So is it not true then that the more one tries to find a finite definition of consciousness the larger consciousness gets? Its definition and description accelerates ahead in proportion to the number of questions about it.
One fact is definitive and that is if one creates a show that asks that question then one is guaranteed a series of shows about that question, guaranteed.
This is so because like the measurement situation,the more questions one asks the more there are to ask.
A perfect formula for creating a series of shows and a clever approach to the entertainment venue.
All the guest had to say is that is it not true that the length of something is in direct proportion to the accuracy of the measurement and that there are no distinct finite edges anywhere?
The idea that a computer could generate consciousness is based on the assumption that human consciousness is just a function of computation. But if consciousness is not just computation then a computer could never be conscious or understand anything. It would at best be an empty copy just like a three dimensional mirror image that emulates without understanding.
I think that humans first need to understand how to recognize consciousness on someone else.
How to define it.
If you cant define it, you cant recognize it, if you cant recognize it, how would you know they have created it?
But once humans have a clear goal, then i think it WOULD be possible.
Not long ago people thought souless computers cant create art, like music or paintings, and now we have the "Dall e-2" AI which is jaw dropping.
About AI consciousness - im optimistic.
Or pessimistic, if you take any sci fi movie seriously.
Penrose argues that consciousness has its origin in noncomputational quantum processes in the brain, and that while a classical computer for that reason can't ever become conscious, a quantum computer could.
@@outisnemo8443 what do these terms mean?:
1. Noncomputational?
2. Quantum processes in the brain?
@@adarwinterdror7245:
Both noncomputational and quantum processes in this context refers to how the resulting state vector is not a deterministic function of the previous state. Unlike the Schrödinger equation, which is deterministic, the selection of a particular subset of the previous state, known colloquially as "wave function collapse", is not; it's frequently assumed that it's somehow probabilistic in nature, but the truth is that we have absolutely no idea.
@@outisnemo8443 Pardon in my lack of understand (And not-that-great english) but it kinda seems like what Penroze is saying is that consciousness comes from some "perhaps random" quantum processes.
If that's the case, what does it matter if those processes are random\probabilistic\deterministic or not?
Is there a lecture he made about this? (Not that he's a brain expert) Maybe in a Closer To Truth episode somewhere?
Was there a definition of consciousness here? I think I missed that.
we must specially plead "consciousness" so that it makes humans special. - humans
A functional definition of a conscious thought process: Consciousness emerges at the point when we become aware of our own awareness of the information continuously generated by our tactile senses. As with all feedback systems, once that awareness-of-awareness loop closes, it becomes a persistent, irreducible neural circuit that dynamically monitors the stream of sensations that triggered it.
If we did not have that inherent ability to become aware of our own awareness, we would remain unconscious of our own living existence - a biological automaton capable only of instinctive reactions. That is the type of machine AI researchers are attempting to engineer - a "neural" network, capable of statistically emulating the observed behavior of conscious beings, that by design has no awareness of its own awareness (or existence for that matter). The mystical notion that such a machine, by sheer multiplicity of mechanical complexity, could ever produce anything more than a simulation of consciousness is an example of a faith-based belief in the inexorable advance of technology.
@@FallenStarFeatures It sounds like all that you are saying is that consciousness requires a sense of identity. If the self is simply an evolved construct in the brain used by the organism to focus attention, organize, grapple with past, present, and future, and to direct choices, then I don't see how such a construct, however complex, cannot be recreated in artificial intelligence.
@@callmeishmael3031 - No, a sensory feedback loop is not the same as "a sense of identity", it is a reprogrammable neurological circuit that forms spontaneously at subconscious levels of brain/nervous system functioning. You are not consciously aware of the mechanisms that produce consciousness, any more than you are aware of individual synapses firing. To understand how closed loop neurological circuits function as irreducible kernels of conscious awareness, you need to study feedback control theory in order to grasp its relevance to modern attempts to engineer simulations of "intelligence" (yet another undefined term).
It is not the case that such neurological feedback mechanisms cannot be produced outside the brain/nervous system, as it is after all, a physical mechanism itself. The reason AI research cannot produce anything more than a statistical simulation of conscious behavior is because they are not even attempting to produce anything more than that. The Turing Test is not so much a measure of Artificial Intelligence as of human anthropomorphic gullibility.
‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena and it is not difficult to show that one of the principal reasons 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 to the simple fact that we do not presently also have a good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of ‘information’ itself.
Presently we not only do not have a correct and accurate definition of 'information', even less do we have an all round science of the phenomenon, without which it will be essentially impossible to establish a science of any of these other directly information-related phenomena to boot.
We need answers to the following questions : Exactly what is 'information' (its ontological status) - what are its defining features, aspects, properties & capacities; what is its function here in our Universe - what is its standing - is it fundamental along with time, space, matter & energy; can it be observed, measured, located, counted, quantified - if so under what circumstances do we see it existing &/or either actively & powerfully operating on the things with which it is associated, or alternatively, itself being passively & inertly operated on by any of the other powerful & agential things with which it is associated.
Although I've had the (altogether dubious) fortune of having been able to determine 'information's' correct - & fully verifiable - ontological identity, & although I’m not going to divulge it here in its fully formal terms at this particular juncture - as I'm saving that revelation for another time more suited to my own personal purposes - with 'information's' correct ontological identity firmly ensconced with one's investigative arsenal not only does it become eminently possible to determine the correct & fully verifiable ontological identities all of the other directly information-related phenomena such as 'thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’, but of more or less equal importance it becomes eminently possible to distinguish both 'information' itself as well as all of these other directly information-related phenomena, from, well, from everything else - including being able to distinguish 'information' from 'digits'; 'computation' from real 'thinking' (all mental phenomena//from all information-using phenomena); & also distinguish any (mere) computational machine, system, gadget or device from any real thinking (any real information-using) machine, system, gadget or device animate or inanimate alike.
Like the one inside our own bodies.
EVEN LONGER COMMENT FOLLOWS !!!!!
It's as if they're too close to the problem to see it as it truly is. As we use to believe the earth was flat because it looks that way from our viewpoint. The word " Information" is a concept created from the human mind about stuff we observe in real time. Information is language which is symbolic representation of "in the moment" reality. It's kind of an anthropomorphism. It's simply a way of talking about things, but the talk is not the actual things. Information is not a real thing in the same sense that "nothing" is not a real thing, rather it is a concept. All this is the product of the nervous systems of Homo Sapiens generating a lot of "blah blah blah." That being said, I love it. After all, I too, am a Homo Sapiens.
Excellent observation, that science has no verifiable concept of what "information" really is!!!! You can count the letters in a message, which will measure how much language information is being used to communicate that message, but there is no way to determine the amount of intangible information CONTAINED IN THE MESSAGE.
Is consciousness entirely dependent on physical states?
Physicality is a byproduct or consciousness not the other way around as most would assume.
Consciousness is a byproduct of physicality.
@@kos-mos1127 There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the "particle" of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the MATRIX of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Physics
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness."
@@kos-mos1127 if you truly believe that, then you have allot to learn.
@@cryptowhale1615 well said. 🙏
There being - supposedly, several billions of beings on this planet, are you seriously suggesting that you have canvassed more than 50% of them - most of them?
Is it not a truism that what appears to be physical(Or whatever) appears to be physical(Or whatever) to whatever supposes whatever to appear to be whatever?
Please please please define consciousness before discussing it! Every time! Semantics is a huge hindrance in this realm of study!
That said, I'm surprised Kristof Koch hasn't been mentioned or appeared on this series regarding consciousness, meaning self or state awareness, (and AI). I agree that CS approaches to AI won't help with the consciousness question...it feels like mathematicians got a hammer (AI) and they beat every problem with it. Fundamentally, the CS AI approach has the connectomics limit to contend with, where dynamic or state-dependent pathways cannot emerge (driven by chemical stated in the body). Exceeeedingly curious to know what they think of Koch's model of consciousness here!
I would define consciousness as 'the knower' the blank screen on which everything appears, it is essentially 'no thing' but that by which all things are known. No amount of computational power can ever create it because it is not emergent but fundamental, the background of everything, that from which everything is known, the very basis of everything.
Would evolution by natural selection "favour" our ability to see the truth of the world, in other words to perceive the world, via consciousness, as the world is in itself? - Dr Bernado Kastrup.
The whole idea is they thinks it's measurable ,computable so once we have strong AGI we can replicate it .
Problem lies somewhere like computable ,observable but our mind behaves like quantum world ,you can't predict it .
There is something beyond neurons which is creating all this .
This is why conciousness is the hardest problem to be solved .
Except there is absolutely no evidence that there is "something behind neurons" at work.
The mind is always evolving to a higher state, so are programmed computers always behind, unless the mind is at a point were it knows how the processes of consciousness functions and can instruct a computer with all the needed informations it requires. Remember no one is born conscious, it developed slowly but steady gathering more and more informations which, it independently configured and prepared for use.
The main task of consciousness is to make an individual understand.
But there are millions of steps needed to complete a healthy conscious mind.
The human brain has not evolved or changed in at least the last 100,000 years. We're no more intelligent than we were in the stone age. We have learned much since then and the development of writing between 5000 and 6000 years ago enabled knowledge to be more easily passed on. Writing developed first as simple marks to hold a record of an amount of something. The growing populations and many people living close to each other, the birth of town and cities, civilization, created economic systems where written records became necessary. Writing developed in different parts of the world where these criteria were present.
@@Gjerrild2 everything evolves, every second every moment, we just don't take note of it, because we are taking part. People think one should see the changes, there's nothing in slow motion or high speed, only in decades, centuries, millennials, are traces and structures of differentiation among existences to be observed.
Too many wrong interpretations confuse people arguing stone age were intelligent as today, in no way were they as conscious as average people of today. It took thousands of years till enough gathered experience led to technical skills.
Evolution keeps going on at a daily basis.
@@owencampbell4947 I'm only repeating what is know about human intelligence, what is standard and accepted. I'm not writing a private opinion. We're no smarter or dimmer than we were 100,000 years ago.
@@Gjerrild2 its only about 10% of what they knew 100tsd yrs ago from what we know today. Can you imagine how fast everything is developing nowadays?
I mean, 100tsd yrs. that's a very long period, and they were just learning to walk correctly, to communicate, and understand each other, nowadays we discover the smallest particles, we know almost all materials, and in an amazing steep upward trend.
The beginning of human life was very slow, but through evolution we developed speed, it's the concentrated knowledge that we gathered along the last years.
@Phoenix you contradict yourself in your statement. First of all, consciousness is born in each human being. It's the natural defense weapon of human beings for survival and domination among all other living species. We all exist and consciousness makes us understand our position and our surroundings in this cosmic world.
But, it is very important how individual consciousness develop's through the teachings and experiences that influences the way of thinking of an individual, causing a division between believers and science based theories.
Both sides have deficits in their explanation because they are missing facts, evidence to their theories.
All kind of assumptions are being spread and falsely adding consciousness to the universe and other deities.
It's the humans and only humans that have the ability to think in all directions and learn from failures, and create studies about our nature and the cosmos.
All biological functions in a human body underlays an evolutionary development that is on its way to a higher state of existence.
Of course, everyone has the right to think his own version to the topic, but most dont know that how they think is influenced informations, and not their own thought.
artificial intelligence would need to access and program nature for consciousness?
Conciseness and intelligence are two completely different things.
Absolutely. We equate the two but subjective experience is an entirely distinct phenomena from computational ability.
Lack of answers, at least we have the questions
consciousness is something totally different You are talking about development of the 'Thoughts' and ability to think and ask questions. You are either conscious (means you are aware of your surrounding or your are unconscious". We are talking about ability to Think.
I am just missing the date this video was recorded. Dreyfus died in 2017
In Robert's interviews I've seen, he always pushes ahead the physical option. Why can't he consider consciousness as a non-physical force instead of trying to bring consciousness into the physical world? Why does he consider that consciousness should be as he would make it, a giant mechanic which equations scientists have to crack? Why not considering that our universe is firstly consciousness with some material manifestations? Or why not asking open questions?
I have the feeling that this guy is only talking about ‘old’ AI, which is based on programming rules. That is indeed a dead end. But we now have huge self-learning neural networks like GPT-3 or Google Deepminds Gato. That is the new AI paradigm. These AI’s get more intelligent by the day. They are completely incomparable with the old ideas that he is talking about. Or did I miss something?
Yes, I actually missed something. Hubert Dreyfus died in april of 2017. So this interview, although posted in may 2022, was actually at least 5 years ago. So Dreyfus had not witnessed the huge leap in AI of the last few years.
Dreyfus actually did acknowledge a new paradigm in AI that rendered some of his old arguments moot - though his enthusiasm for the new AI was qualified. You can read what he wrote by searching the article “Watson Still Can’t Think” from the New York Times (co-written with Sean Kelley).
Yes but no matter how complex the computational power of AI becomes it is still essentially a dead thing which can at best imitate consciousness even if it becomes vastly superior to humans at problem solving it's still essentially a number cruncher with no life or consciousness of it's own.
Consciousness is fundamental. It no more owes its existence to forms than electricity owes its existence to the lamp through which it transmits light. Whether a lamp, a computer or a physical brain there is nothing produced other than by the addition of electricity to the computer and lamp and likewise consciousness to the brain.
Is Robert had a death anxiety?
“One’s purpose not to be alone” - Wald Wassermann, Theoretical Physicist.
🤣 again!!! So you have changed your user name for 3rd time in 24 hrs! You going to keep deleting the threads I call you out on?
Soul.
It doesn't matter how abstract or artificial is the domain of mathematics because it is still the result of the human mind conscious cognitive process.
Mathematics represents only an algorithm process, a logical process.
The mathematics created as such follows only algorithms.
Human consciousness is much-much more than that, in the sense that it can shuffle very quickly between full logical and completely non-logical, thing that "mathematics" can't.
Biological consciousness, at its highest, has the instant possibility to both, follow ( =create ) algorithms, and to not.
For example, the human consciousness can create, and it does it always and continuously, completely artificial, non-algorithmic, non-rules at all, non-mathematical, illogical, non-real imaginary, phantasmagoric visions and pseudo-non-concepts.
As a consequence of this existent concrete-real based material process, creating a full Artificial Consciousness ( subject that is seen here in this CZcams material of being mostly the interest "of knowing how to" of many other people and "entities" around the whole world ) exists in two real directions, two methods, as such :
1) A non-important one ( non-important because it is not the proper one, so it is just a simulation, an intelligent simulation that can be externally controlled, etc, case that is desired by "entities" on Earth ) with which Artificial simulated Consciousness can be created as a logical mathematical algorithm that only approximate the real one; this is created on a very much improved and advanced "AI algorithm" scaffolding. It is not an independent conscious process, and it just mimics the real one.
2) The correct one, that it is created with just reduced complex function generators that are self-replicating, self re-generating in an aleatory open-closed "rudimentary" "algorithm" ( in fact a "pseudo-algorithm", a "semi-open loop" ). The result is a complex, emergent, full autonomous, full independent, real material-conscious process.This is the real deal that it is completely free of any kind of external control, that it has the capacity of fast continuous auto-self-improvement.
This is the real Full Artificial Consciousness that's not desired by "entities" because they can't control it absolutely at all. It is exactly like the real biological consciousness, absolutely indistinguishable from the real human one, but much more faster, being helped by the speedier AI ( the initial AI interconnected will not be the final one continuously used by the full AC , for a completely different and improved one will be automatically built by the AC being ). /
If the right person has everything that's necessary at hand, full real AC can be created and started in a few hours ( or less; the power of the computing process is not that important in this ). /
Good luck!
What happens to oxygen in brain, and what does it do, if anything?
It is the most naive to think that a computer can have consciousness just means of possessing a huge amount of compute power but there are people who actually thought that way as I found out in the early 90s at Cognition/AI research labs in some leading universties such as MIT and Rutgers.
the conscious mind does what the subconscious mind tells it.
Wake me up when someone post-Koch and Chalmers says something confirmed on consciousness.
you have to mix chemical and electrical to get a thinking thing. Pure energy cannot amount to mind
"Is Consciousness Entirely Physical?"
Put it another way: "Can you have thoughts without a physical brain?
Put it another way: "Can you think without a physical brain
with a memory program to remind the organism that
it is the same 'I' that is thinking?
Is a house just walls? Put it another way: "Can you have a house without walls"?
terry boland already illustrated well the false equivalence between the formulations, but to briefly expand on the central confusion, even if thoughts were necessarily connected in some way with some physical entity (such as a brain), this wouldn't mean that consciousness is reducible in its entirety to the physical.
@@iMJBNi Exactly!
@@iMJBNi the physical basis condition is already telling you
what consciousness is: pure actuality, pure activity of the brain.
Consciousness is not a thing, it is a process, an activity.
This material process or activity has a physical constitution
because it has like any other organ a function. What is the function
of consciousness? Why nature selected it? Here science and philosophy
are proposing options:
a) Because consciousness makes the organism feel unique, special.
As consciousness allows the organism to feel numerous qualia, this
may have given the organism the power to resist more and fight more for survival.
Cf. Nicolas Humphrey, Seeing Red, Soul Dust.
b) Because consciousness allows the organism to prepare for its advantage
what other organisms like itself think or may do, and therefore it allows the
organism with consciousness to act in a more advantageous way for itself.
Consciousness allows the organisms to virtually rehearse what it will do
in the future and so correct any factors that minimize success. This is also
done when errors are committed and then inserted in the memory for
future actions. Consciousness would be the virtual theater to practice.
We know this happens, for example, in piano players, who do not need
to be seated and playing in front of the piano to practice. Many practice
in their minds, in their consciousness.
@@Hermes1548 My comment was aimed at showing how the equivalence you made between two formulations ("Is consciousness entirely physical?" and "Can you have thoughts without a physical brain?") is false.
To this latter comment you've written, I'll just have to say that you're making many assumptions here. Already from the get-go you're just asserting that "the physical basis condition" tells us what consciousness is. Let me ask you this: would people who have no idea what a brain is be able to tell they are conscious? If yes (which I think is fairly evident), how could you possibly assert that knowledge of consciousness reduces to the physical level?
I'm not denying that consciousness and the brain are interrelated. I think that they clearly are intimately connected. I'm not even denying that at some point in the development of the sciences some coherent reductive scheme could be proposed that would show us how the level of consciousness can be "translated" to physical states. What I do think is that at this point we basically don't even have a coherent idea of what such a scheme would look like: how could states of physical matter, which standardly aren't taken to have "internal", representative and qualitative elements, ever bring about consciousness? Saying at this point in time that consciousness reduces to the brain (or other physical organisms/states) amounts only to declaring an article of faith. People are, of course, allowed to speculate as wildly as they like but some humility in the face of the perplexing question of consciousness is in order, I believe.
Can you make lemonade out of Descartes? I don't think so.
Consciousness arises from the dance of electrochemical and electromagnetic energy with nanomachines comprising a whole , of infinite number and complexity.
The non-conscious subsystems all work "below the threshold of awareness to support awareness", linking sensory input, motor function, and memory.
Robots will become more responsive as they learn by exploring their environment, but, as Freeman Dyson explained,cellular processes can never be "computed" (the Emperor's New Mind) neither can what brains do.
LOL this guy is awesome, "the latest idea, which sounds like sh--eer madness"
its very simple, consciousness is what exists.
Do you mean ONLY consciousness exists?
Is intelligence entirety divine?
Consciousness is entirely physical, but physicality is a concept that arises from consciousness. So your mind cannot leave your body like a ghost, but your body is just an image created by your mind in its effort to define its own identity. When you say, "it's all in your mind," though, some people get the idea that reality isn't real, that all claims are equally true, and you can control the world with your thoughts because it's all a dream-- but that isn't so, a dreamer does not control his dream. You are not separate from the flow of thought, it is not a thing that you possess, it is identical with yourself. You can't grab hold of it and manipulate it any more than a tooth can bite itself.
I don't know....Is it consciousness that's not real, or is it "reality" that's not real? If I had to choose I'd say "I think, therefore I am."
The degree of appreciation of the potential complexity of hierarchically layers of the function of the human brain isnt comparable to the speed or number of bits, for such speed and bits are nothing without its programming. The brain has multiple regions that are involved in pattern recognition associated with memory for predictive pattern recognition of the future and are not hierarchically arranged yet have complex inversely tangible functions associated with sensory input, memory which is split up over multiple regions and satisfactory predictions of the future dictate the functions of such parts which is inversely tangible to memory and so on. Despite the sheer naive nature of my limited knowledge of the brain I can understand that just this one part of the brain couldnt be currently mathematically programmed into ai.
What is consciousness? What does it mean to be conscious? Answer these questions first without bias,then discuss whether something is or isn't conscious.
Consciousness resides outside of the Brain .
And it affects our Brain .
(not the other way around)
.
The limitations of Science is that We can't explain things that are not Empirical like consciousness , feelings , emotions , love known as "the hard problem."
Everything in our universe is energy, vibrating in a harmonic coherence that creates the great cosmic symphony. Physicist Dr. Theresa Bullard reveals that our power of observation determines how our reality manifests, making us players in a masterpiece of universal proportions.
A conscious entity capable of generating information by observing. Matter doesn't exist until we observe it . (Frank Wilczek)
I’d argue this is wrong, and consciousness emerges out of the brain but isn’t reducible to it.
Just because they are abstract, doesn't mean they are not generated in you in brain. Your feelings are just brain manipulation to get you to breed successfully, directly and indirectly.
If you please, exactly what do you mean by - or seek to convey when you use the word, " consciousness"?
*Whose* "consciousness", and *of what*?
*How* does (whatever you mean by) " consciousness "affect" *Your*(and *Only * ***Your***) brain?
What do you prescribe for *Our* headache?
Why is *Our* left shoulder blade itching since you are so expert on *our* sensations?
Perhaps you can help me with this: If *you* overeat, does*Our*stomach feel empty?
Try another one if your love is unrequited is *our* love unrequited? And, by the same token, if you are dead is *your* death the same as*our* death? - Yes, or No?
How do we expect to recreate consciousness when we have no idea what the hell it is? It's like trying to create a colour you've never seen. Only once we understand fully what consciousness is could we ever have a hope of recreating it.
We also have have no clue what quantum mechanics is doing but we’ve been able to practically apply it in our everyday lives
@@xobx5340 Yes, but the reason we can apply quantum mechanics in our everyday lives is because we can describe its effects precisely using mathematics and test them experimentally. Integrated Information Theory has attempted to describe consciousness mathematically but the equations are very complex so it has only been applied to simple systems with debatable results. You can hardly draw a comparison between the two.
consciousness is an emergent property of brains.
Excellent from Iran I am listening from iran with ai .
translation of yahoo
His description of "AI" seems to be a version of GOFAI (good old fashion AI). Rules based. Symbolic. "Expert systems" in the 1990's were somewhat trained this way (e.g. Prolog). But these systems tended to be labor intensive (didn't learn), were "brittle" (cannot deal with an imperfect information environment). Bayesian AI (which Microsoft was very much into, e.g. early spam filters), tried to remedy dealing with uncertainty, with probabilistic models, also around this time, early 2000's.
Today's "AI" is highly influenced by "deep learning", the ability to train deeper layers of artificial neural networks. The revolution came in 2012, when huge accuracy jumps were made, in vision recognition. This was due to availability "big data" (for training), and computational resources (such as GPU's). The accuracy was competitive with humans. This was neural-biologically inspired by the work of Hubel and Wiesel, though a very a very cartoonish version of what goes on in the biological system. Yet it still worked. Today's AI is largely "perceptual AI", pattern recognition systems.
As for "being in the world", this is taken into account in reinforcement learning algorithms. This is a version of "agent in environment", learning, and acting, with an overall optimization objective. DeepMind has pioneered this with artificial agents, in artificial (game) environments. These systems that learn to play Atari games from scratch, and become experts in the game of Go. In the latter, it even displays what we call "intuition" (wholistic pattern recognition?) and "creativity". (Lee Sedol felt it was a bit "uncanny".)
Recently, there has been a lot of cross pollination between the fields of machine learning ("AI") and neuroscience (e.g., "Brain Inspired" podcast). It's a lot easier to tinker with machines, than with brains (both technically, and ethically). Some computational neuroscience ideas can be tested, in computer simulations. And the success of AI in industry, from the various architectures, can be used for form hypotheses, on the neuroscience front, test ideas out (though things move much slower in the web lab).
It is generally recognized that machine systems maybe fundamentally different from biological systems. We do not understand self assembly very well. We don't understand "bottom up" self organization very well, in much of what we call "life". For e.g., given DNA, how an organism, how it develops a body plan, to develop into a whole complex organism (given the right environment). Probably something similar goes on with the formation of neurons, and Hebbian learning. The whole thing is rather "organic", in a way we don't understand. One can't say this about machine learning, which is more engineered "top down" in terms of a learning framework, even if it's general. There will doubtless, be some differences in phenomenology.
The hope of many machine learning researchers is that machines will develop its own version of "consciousness". The analogy oftentimes used, is an airplane vs. the bird. To fly, one doesn't have reproduce all the biological characteristics. One only needs to reproduce the essential (functional) features.
Machine "consciousness" will not be the same as human consciousness. But then, human consciousness, is not the same as ant or bee consciousness. And this is within biological systems. So in the end, the problem maybe definitional, where to draw the line, what particular features one wants to pick up.
While some ideas here, none of what you said applies to consciousness. And while saying that AI consciousness may differ than human consciousness, it's not clear why consciousness should exist at all.
Is oxygen necessary for consciousness, as the brain uses oxygen?
Never mind trying to make AI like humans, make an AI that thinks differently to figure out how to either travel to or contact interstellar life, who will in turn have much to trade.
Essence of consciousness is consciousness!! You "Exist and are Aware" - only on that ground, can thinking and articulation of question "what is the nature of consciousness? " can arise. The fundamental problem with this question is trying to objectify something that can never be objectified!! You are THAT unless you are doubting your own existence and awareness, which would be preposterous.
I have some doubts that a machine can become self aware
Fantastic! I agree completely with Dreyfus... computers and AI are "not helping us one bit" (to understand consciousness... pun clearly intended). The best line in there was Dreyfus saying how the AI guys "inherited a lemon" meaning the whole Cartesian-Kantian-Husserlian paradigm of mind and knowledge... indeed they did.
What's truly unfortunate though is that Dreyfus doesn't seem to be aware of the whole world of embodied mind cognitive science, the biology of cognition, enactivism, and the tons of work there that has been going on now for the better part of three decades. This is the lineage of Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, and the pioneers (such as Chilean biologist-philosophers Maturana and Varela) of the marriage of biology with philosophy, linguistics, anthropology, psychology, and yes, even AI. Cognitive science went through its representational brainbound symbolic processing computer-based paradigm up to about the 1990s when the embodied mind paradigm began to gain ground. To be sure there are still adherents of the old AI-cogsci paradigm (Christoph Koch, e.g.) but it's becoming clear that the embodied mind approach has way more potential and is gaining ground.
Another fact however is that computers and AI have gotten much smarter and faster with "machine learning" and algorithm development so, along with robotics, they are now SIMULATING things that mental-conscious-biological organisms can do, but simulating consciousness is not consciousness itself. So there's all this hubbub around the gains made in machine learning and hopes are up that they'll somehow break into a new level that is truly conscious. If Dreyfus is right, there's not a chance of that, and I wholly agree. It all has to do with the nature of material organization - biological organization -v artifact organization. Machines will never be organisms. To understand why, you have to understand the difference in the nature of material organization which, in the case of conscious organisms, has to do with thermodynamics, circular recursive processes, open system structure, and coupling relationships with the environment. The mind is not in the brain or in a thing - like Heidegger said, it's in the world... the organism in the world is the mind. The mind is a relationship between brain, body, and environment. THAT'S consciousness.
Nice assessment. Good attempt at defining consciousness also. I agree, mechanics will never duplicate the consciousness of a living entity.
"Understanding is outside of computation" - Sir Roger Penrose
@Mystic One My last reply was somehow scrubbed, maybe because it had a link in it? Who knows. Anyway, I'll try again: An excellent book on these topics is Evan Thompson's "Mind in Life" or Humberto Maturana's "From Being to Doing"... better yet, check out my "Embodied Cognition" book list on the Goodreads website. There you'll find a list of over 100 books on 5e cognitive science: embodied, embedded, extended, enactive, emergent. Life is mind; mind is life - no need to mystify mind and consciousness; it's right there in the organization of living things! In fact IT IS the organization of living things.
@@nuqwestr Very true. And consciousness doesn't arise from computation inside the brain.
@@blainesnow1476 I believe your take may be CLOSER to the truth than brain science has come, but don't believe consciousness is anywhere near being understood. Anyway, tks.
Consciousness cannot be generated by AI.
Computers are created in such a way that they always avoid eternal loops.
In Basic you coud risk that your program went into an eternal loop using GO TO Line nr. xxx statements.
A brain has a lot of interconnected neurons which are stimulated from external inputs.
Sometimes a "generator loop" is initiated. It keeps running until one of the neurons stop firing.
In that period, we are conscious about all the aspects covered by the excited neurons.
This theory was published at the conference: "Toward a Science of Consciousness" in Copenhagen.
Sir Francis Crick heard about it and went into the lab to demonstrate it using a microfone/loudspeaker system. If you turn the amplification up, it starts oscillating.
This will create consciousness if the loop involves a number of neurons.
Why might anything but new creatures be generated by Artificial Insemination, A good deal of confusion is caused by idle abbreviations-or just idleness generally.
Define " consciousness.
Whose " consciousness and of what? using consciousness in vaccuo with out being thus specific is gibberish and you would be better off just saying stuff for al you would convey.
You are about to confirm that you have not the faintest idea what you mean by consciousness, which will come as no surprise to me because it is a silly meaningless word. Just say stuff and you would be as far forward.
Computational AI is trying to recreate the phenomena of subjective experience without creating a 'subject' or having any idea how a 'subject' could arise.
"Because if consciousness is the output of the physical brain by itself, however complex, then consciousness as physicalism would defeat those who believe, or hope for, the existence of nonphysical realities."
I think this is incorrect. Assuming that you could determine that the physical alone is sufficient for consciousness (which I believe you can't), it does not follow that the physical is NECESSARY for consciousness. It would still be possible in principle for nonphysical minds to also exist. The existence of man would not exclude the existence of angels or ghosts.
Technically, yes
In the terms of the inner-verse, no
#rotaercmai
If consciousness is the “cloud” to which we, as biological computers, are connected to the cloud via our consciousness, then that might explain the earth as one of the few, if not the only place inside the universe that can support these biological computers, the same way computers need to be keep in clean cool and climate controlled environments and supplied with electricity, then that would explain why we sleep. In the same way that computers must stop from time to time for uploads and downloads and updates, then we too must do the same when we sleep so that we can upload our daily experiences and feelings and upload our updates that make us one day older. Does anybody else see the same correlation or is this just a coincidence, like the sun and moon appearing as the same size in the sky which allows for eclipses?
Verrrrry interrrrresting.
If I was recruiting for the army, I would say: "you are our boy - you are in".
If it comes out of the netherrrrrr end of a bull, it is what?
I think consciousness might be something like light, it has no mass And moves faster than physical objects
Is it me or does this guy sound like Stephen Hawkings voice transmitter
Wikipedia has Dreyfus passing away in 2017.. AI simulation has indeed come far.
Processees? Do you say dressees?
There’s a lot more to this story !!! Explain neural correlates !!?? How did they evolve? Why did they evolve? What do they represent?
AlphaZero is the world champion of chess by teaching itself how to play in under 4 hours.
AlphaGo is the world champion of Go. A game more complex than chess.
AGI will happen like it or not, and it will be orders of magnitude more intelligent than a human brain.
Give AGI the problem of consciousness and see what happens.
And the necessary hardware is coming - Quantum computers and artificial neural networks and analog processing.
Santayana said that «locomotion -the privilege of animals- is perhaps the key to intelligence» and in his last major work he wrote that «as to the emergence of ideas and feelings, it seems to occur only in animals with locomotion; for in a medium full of dangerous and of edible objects, such animals are able to avoid their enemies and to pursue their prey at a distance, anticipating eventual contact and preparing for it to their own advantage», an idea this of intelligence derived from movement that is sustained by EP today, for instance by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, when they write:
Organisms that donʼt move, donʼt have brains. Trees donʼt have brains, bushes donʼt have brains, flowers donʼt have brains. In fact, there are some animals that donʼt move during certain stages of their lives. And during those stages, they donʼt have brains. The sea squirt, for example, is an aquatic animal that inhabits oceans. During the early stage of its life cycle, the sea squirt swims around looking for a good place to attach itself permanently. Once it finds the right rock, and attaches itself to it, it doesnʼt need its brain anymore because it will never need to move again. So it eats (resorbs) most of its brain. After all, why waste energy on a now useless organ? Better to get a good meal out of it. ~from my work in process Mind in Action: Evolutionary Psychology, Philosophical Naturalism, and Critical Rationalism.
special pleading for animals with locomotion. It is hotly contested whether plants have consciousness. "Plant neurobiology was officially established as an area of research in 2006. Its proponents draw parallels between the pathways of electrical signaling found in plants and the nervous system found in animals, to argue that plants are capable of acting in a purposeful manner." - Science Focus
(9:50) *HD: **_"How in the world matter, which is this 3rd-person material stuff, could ever produce consciousness?"_* ... Consciousness is just a trendy word for _"information that's able to analyze its own information."_ For 13.8 billion years, *information* has been evolving in complexity from rudimentary data (the number 1), to mathematics (geometry), to physical structure (matter), to biological structure (life), and ultimately into complex lifeforms with self-aware brains capable of self-analyzation (humans).
A computer will never become self-aware until it is able to contemplate, comprehend, and experience what it is like to be a physical representation of the number 1 (Existence).
I think it is clear that through evolution the brain produces consciousness. It has evolved over several billion years, going back to primitive life forms. It has had this time to develop organic problem-solving and organic processes for interacting with the environment. These internal processes are not predictable algorithms - they are dynamic and what's more they change in unpredictable ways. So AI has no chance of creating a truly conscious machine because the brain is vastly too complex. The best AI can do is to create a stiff, algorithmic simulation of consciousness.
Maybe with better quantum computers we will be able to create conscience
Extraordinary people over here, but It is very difficult and unfathomable to imagine consciousness with out matter. It begs a question of egg or chicken first. And it looks like following your tail. As the Indian yogis put it the knower will never know itself.
I don't think it's clear at all. It's only one theory among many others.
If our brain can produce consciousness via a process of gradual change. Why can't software?
@@Dexp22 If your talking about evolution. It is one of the most successful theories in all of science in terms of the sheer number of predictions.
I would like to see this guy debate Elon Musk on this topic.