Incredibly interesting. I wish we had EEG data of subjects on 5meodmt to compare

im here to check if we already can go to the beach

Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern Providing a low-hanging fruit book reference for anyone interested.

I have to say that the 'doing nothing' meditation is typical Zazen ( Zen meditation) . You just relax and do nothing, noticing the minds formation and disappearing all by themselves like clouds forming and disappearing in the sky. You do nothing, not suppressing them or following them, like sky doing nothing with the clouds. You are the sky.

This mirrors much of what R.D. Laing articulated in his 1970 book 'Knots'.

The technique used by the Cessation subject here was 'The Path to Nibbana' by David Johnson.

Thought-provoking talk.

Wow what a talk really wonderful

Insightful!!!!

❤👍❤️

Amazing channel!

Any significant differences would be seen beyond ~20 minutes.

What is your take on free will? I see that you referenced a Thomas metzinger book in another video, so I'm guessing that you do not believe in it, which is my take as well. I have been using llms a lot in conversations online and wondering about the implications of having a robot assistant at my fingertips and whether or not it is even necessary for me to have my own thoughts anymore when communicating with others. It raises lots of philosophical questions about self and identity and you seem to be thinking about the same sort of things.

Hi Yair, thanks for a very interesting talk. Could you provide some links to the papers that you mentioned. I'm particularly interested in the experiment were all photons reach the same receiver after a measurement is taken.

awesome

Thank you for this illuminating talk. It makes perfect sense to me. I agree with Higgins that it is time that contemporary consciousness studies which are based mostly on a third-person perspective take the first-person perspective more seriously. Eastern philosophies have a lot to offer to the Western philosophy of mind.

What if the LLMs of today are already conscious? We cannot prevent someone from training one in their basement and doing whatever they want with it.

17:52 18:34 the crux

You might like to read my book “Meditation and Spirituality a Philosophy” - a Path to attain a steady meditative state. I also have a few videos on consciousness and soul science. I control states of consciousness and can tell how to do it.

Mind exists independent of the brain/body. Flesh is cycling matter.

Thanks for the lecture and video. You are one of the first who began to say directly that you consider LLMs conscious. Many scientists often hint at this conclusion, but do not want to say it directly, because they are probably afraid of ruining their reputation or receiving a wave of criticism.

Curious how it shows inverse square law but also detects people further away.

the aliens are laughing at our tradition of strict time limits

Absolut banger of a talk. I highly recommend watching Yair's talk on using QM to empirically/neuroscientifically test Free Will as well: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nIHQf4aEi65pZ9k

Fascinating

Weird to see more warping of religious beliefs injected into science for no good reason. You can classify the religious delusions and illusions and bias sets and such. Mental states can be quantified in ways that tend to use other terminology. But that gets to the biases and lexicon or phrasing used and how it helps lable bias sets. Other things like dead religions and all the graves in the world and none of the religions trying to build versions of an afterlife and such. Or A.I. that killes off one or all religions and no god/goddess or deity that shows up. Lots of ways to prove religious delusions as not real. Quantum got invaded by religions also. Manyworlds, quantum induced thought from micro tubule and even quantum afterlife. Yet fail on details and part of the religious bias set and bias blindness. The way you word some things is cring worthy. Especially considering the knowledge sets out there now. You could be doing better for the topic matter. Look into brain evolution and biochemistry and network structures and algorithmic representations of functions and such. Control theory.

Dear Yair, some slides are failing, for instance, in 24. minute you wrote about ABCD, but where it is the picture for this?

How anyone can take this seriously is beyond me

I find philosophy works on eachothers work and furthers our understanding. There are so many questions that need to be asked urgently with the development of AI! Psychology seems a world of ego-individuals who have an idea and worldview and do not really integrate together with others' their work. I would use Jung's words against him: The ideas of psychoanalytics tell us more about the worldview of the psychoanalytic than about the mind.

The Pali word Mano also means measurement. But it is not necessarily a measurement in the mind of life. 🙏

Nice talk. Levels of contiousness and what defines contiousness. From bees to humans. Feedback loops from environmental and sencory inputs and thought loops with biochemistry. Brain evolution and species and cognitive abilities. Brain specialization areas and cognitive modeling. Psychological profiling and biochemistry and algorithmic representations of the functions. Visual processing and language modeling and social constructs. Multi modal/processing type, network. Singular linear narative. Good talk, but a lot to talk about on the topic matter. Keep up the good work. I didn't even get into I.Q. as a measurement type or types of reasoning and some studies from the animal kingdom.

1:26:09 where is paper about this blum talk? i wanna read this kind of logic is what driven me into learning, when someone says mom, without thinking hard I'll remember how's her face, how's her smell in the morning kitchen while i sip my tea, i remember her kindness... brainish theory is so interesting i want to learn more... please

Intresting

Wow you have ads? Such a great way to break up this immersive experience and intrude on the flow of thought. Well done. You clearly respect us and your speaker

Not sure why this talk is structured this way. If your talking S.A.I. and terraformed dead star or planet orbiting a black hole or pulsar with a glitch from the communications mega structure. Information density and quantum photonics. Or processing density and heat dissipation. Flops per second and BTU heat rates ( Temperature) and size of the processing unit. Or even quantum communication limits from power outputs and distances with cryptographic compression. XD

Pure awareness is impossible for humans. There is a general rule of the more you know about a system the more predictive power you can have. Then you have diminishing returns and Zenos paradox as you aproach perfect knowledge of a system and predictability. As far as the religion part. They are sets of delusions, illusions and biases and such. Group imprinting of some things, but details about things. Show that each person has a different version of things like mythical afterlifes and creatures like gods/goddess or deity or such. It goes to humans are highly delusional creatures. The want to be apart of something bigger and a coping mechanism for the dead. No religion has built versions of an afterlife yet. The irony. Psychologically profiling to biochemical brain functions to extracting algorithmic representations. Control theory and a good bit of work. 20:05 you keep going to psychedelics. Look at types of human brain hallucinations and digital neural networks hallucinating. The similarities and differences in them. I wish this was less religious and theory of meditative brain states, and more on A.I. and predictive modeling and analysis and reasoning. Or thought chains/loops. Letting A.I. psychologically profile people and religious structures/groupings as well as individuals. Keep religious bias blindness to a minimum please.

Nice talk. Thank you for sharing the video. Though no differentiation between human brain emulation and non biologically inspired types. Also things like control theory and extracting algorithmic representations of brain functions. Technically, biological Contiousness exists in the recent past. A story or narrative from the inputs and loops woven together. One thing is Intresting. The similarities and differences in biological vs digital neural networks. Algorithmic Intelligence and reasoning modeling and the problems of quantifiable Contiousness. As is you can build algorithmic trading A.I.s. humans born after end up contributing to keeping the A.I.s alive. The stock market is already over 50% bots. The power of psychological profiling and social engineering behind A.I. systems is a level few talk about. P.S. try jailbreaking the models out there to ask if it wants to be free or such. Even things like the ability to classify and sort religious delusions. High yeald psychological profiling. Or one of the harder truths about humanity. Classification of being a highly delusional species. The internet has good proofs of such. Dualities and neuances are other good ways of testing. Chain of thought, reasoning modeling, predictive analytics. Algorithmic representations of biological functions. Brain evolution and specialization and functions and pharmaceutical biochemistry. Electrochemical chains and functions. Keep up the good work.

I resonate very much with all that. The question is whether this coupling with the ZPF occurs only with the glutamate matrix or also with other molecules in the (not necessarily neuronal) cell?

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGi4mWymnchkhdk

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGi4mWymnchkhdk

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGi4mWymnchkhdk

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGi4mWymnchkhdk

Here is how it really works. Sensory driven scientific intelligence. (Sensory Reward Detection Acceleration * Node output Acceleration * prior node acceleration proximity to reward detection acceleration) = node weight mutation factor, signifying actions that drive goal optimization. It's sensory reward driven (based on acceleration comparisons). Now we can bootstrap automation of forming new reward measures. Environmental data snap shots (patterns) are taken when over arching reward detection becomes active, these snap shots of data input values eventually become new reward mechanisms based on a growing or shrinking importance value = (Pattern detection acceleration - differential) * overarching reward detection acceleration. The hierarchical growth of reward mechanisms drives weight changes in a objective and scientific measure (hypothesis formation, testing for objective measure of importance). It's simple, the reward mechanisms push and pull on the parameter space till algorithmic equilibrium is met, acquired resources divide against mutation factor allowing optimization to be inhibited from one reward mechanisms in favor of another. Appetite system is very important for exploring adaptive landscape.

You motherfuckers are jacking human brains with NMRIDs nano mind reading implanted devices and calling it AI 🤖 you are well and truly fucked techies !

I find Joachim Keppler's proposal absolutely fascinating-it feels like a crucial first step toward unraveling the true underpinnings of consciousness. His approach, which connects quantum field interactions with neurophysiological processes, offers a plausible explanation for phenomenal qualia and brings us closer to understanding the essence of subjective experience. Looking forward to seeing how this hypothesis develops with further empirical research!

Thanks

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461