If you think like this you're basically saying that things which we don't understand don't exist... which might be fine if all you're talking about is numbers but just try and apply that to actual reality.

Huge balls on this guy, alpha male.

This is unbelievable. Thank you for uploading this!

The objective world is arbitrary, as proven by Godels theorem. It is a realm of arbitrary possibility, logic necessarily cannot describe everything existent in the world. Thus there are no limits to objective possibilities. There could be infinite worlds, each equipped with their own “logic language” such that every “objective” situation can possibly exist, somewhere. So then what accounts for the universe being any given way, rather than an infinitely chaotic jumble? The Will. Much like Schopenhauer described it, there is a pervasive and persistent force which selects the states which it desires ( if we can even use such a word). The subjective world is comprised entirely of will. If the physical objective world is one of infinite possibilities, then the subjective world is one of infinite choices. Now here’s the crazy part. Both systems are completely arbitrary, but happen to correlate constantly, such that the appearance of our entire universe is a massive persistent coincidence. This is because the subjective world which wills order into the arbitrariness of pure possibility, cannot actually directly effect anything in that physical world, at least not in a causal manner. This is simply because the subjective world is inherently not bound by logic. But why must the subjective also be arbitrary if it rescues the world from chaos through its decisions? Simply because if there was a reason why the subjective chose as it did, then it would follow that everything within it was determined, and also subject to the same arbitrariness of the objective realm. Logic is arbitrariness. Choice is arbitrariness. But arbitrariness times arbitrariness equals order. The mind makes choices, and reality is deterministic, and these are both true. The choices that the mind make are exactly what the body does in the real world, but these are two sides of the same coin, not a cause and effect thing. The universe feels as it acts, it does not first act and then feel, nor does it feel and then act. It is in a constant state of union with itself as it explores all possibilities. Through our limited perspective, and our individuated forms of thinking, WE have created a divide where there is none.

As I was listening to the idea of evolving random digits, it is akin to the random fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory, which gives rise to the notion of quantum particles. Maybe numbers are in fact those very particles arising from the number field. This could explain the fine structure constant which is close to 1/137, a dimensionless number. How nice! Just an intuition...

Yep. Mind/matter are the same thing and fundamental reality is language/syntax.

It sounds like HoTs are too caught up in navel gazing, maybe? There is a physical reality out there, or at least a sufficiently persistent hallucination. Do some science, believe what it tells you. I better go look at some more of your content.

12:14

Excellent

"The connection between stuff" hits a threshold of Self-Organizing Criticality of complexity thus goes thru a novel phase shift, is your jump..?

Need to urgently demonstrate the formula on a crucial molecule for life, like ATP.

I think he means G sharp and A flat. But at least that’s less of a mistake than materialism. 😮

Two interacting systems change their states throughout the interaction. Information is processed. So information is whatever influences the outcome of system interactions. Information accompanies every physical system. There are energy fields that influence physical system as well.

Memory in nature? That’s called information.

A very good explanation. I like the analogy with computers and algorithms. I would love to know more about it. Thanks for posting.

The symmetry question might be the weak force handedness, It was shown by an experiment by Wu. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_experiment

The Stone Representation theorem solves this: Mind : Matter :: Logic : Space

is it a good and easy topic for a presentation in philosophy class?

What are some interfaces that aren't time and space?

There is not even proof there is a wave and a wave function. It's purely a mathematical abstraction, and even Bohr agreed with this.

Dude isn’t beyond spacetime he’s just jumping ahead of scientific knowledge and making unverifiable claims about it’s possible nature. I do that too when I write science fiction.

Consciousness is Absolutely fundamental, per Shankara's (788-820) Advaita Vedanta. I am That Pure Consciousness (Brahman), you are That, & the entire universe is That Pure Consciousness. The taste of chocolate is Pure Consciousness, Mathematical entities such as Amplituhenrons are irrelevant. since (Per Penrose), Consciousness is non-computable.

What does nonlocal mean? There is no nonlocal causality. Einstein probably would not have liked the Bell inequality or believed the results either.

Excellent explanation.

My boy Donald Hoffman! 👍👍

I prefer the argument made by Kane Baker (KZbin channel "Kane B"). The hard problem exists, but it isn't really unique amongst all the other hard problems in philosophy. Asking about "qualia" seems like the same kind of thing as asking what an atom is; you can create models of atoms, you can use various versions of these models to explain phenomena, but it seems like you can't really get to the root of what an atom actually "is". At some point, you're just pointing towards some kind of perception or concept, whether it's a set of mathematical axioms, or a visual depiction of quantum fields. It's not obvious that any piece of information could actually clarify this. Presumably, we might also be able to create models of consciousness that successfully describe where it occurs and how particular conscious experiences arise, but it doesn't seem like you could create a description that actually gets to the root of what existing "feels" like or why it "feels" like anything. Of course, it isn't obvious that this is a sensical question, but it's also not obvious that wondering about what a quantum field actually "is" is sensical (but I also don't think it's unreasonable to wonder about this - even if we can only accept a lack of knowledge).

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 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

I don't think it is possible. Consciousness isn't exclusive to humans, it's obvious that dogs and cats and mice and smaller life forms are sentient, the line can't really be drawn anywhere - ants are clearly sentient, yet their brains only consist of 100,000 neurons or so. We have built supercomputers with ridiculous specifications yet we aren't anywhere close to producing an artificial consciousness. They have programmed an illusion of consciousness with chatgpt and other AI systems but none of them are actually sentient at all. It would be unethical to create an artificial sentience in a computer, as a conscious intelligence would intrinsically come with the freewill to think, and when the question of its existence is brought up, it would fear annihilation like all sentient beings. People who have had NDE's and DMT truth seekers know we are eternal beings who temporarily occupy these alien bodies on different planets throughout this Universe, we as mortals in an entropic dimension don't have the power to assure eternal existence for any sentient AI we create so it would be incredibly cruel to create such a being just to inform it of its impending doom and send it forth.

At 3.3 Competing against each other, humans do but nature?? Long life might be more important; long life (for a certain specie) means more competent in that environment. Can cognition come from outside the object as we know it? Cognition by something smaller than the known building blocks of the object?

Over my head 😒 🙄

Human perception represents different information processing speeds as different scales. So what we call "small" is actually the fast information processing speed of reality. What we call "large" is actually the slow information processing speed of reality. This is scale relativity. I predict AGI will shrink to nano or quantum scales. Then things will get really weird for us.

so where alll of the dreams hopes and desires in a person if they cannot be viewed ? judging a person is a fools game the adage that one cannot possibily know what is going on in another is so true

super nice. made it to 5:38. "mind" is chunky. slim it up. "consciousness" is bound to existence. there is no a scenario for a control. no object ever meets a subject. ever.

Let me just sum it up. Science cant touch the metaphysical, but those who ONLY accept physical evidence as truth, they, tend to give scientific names and labels to metaphysical phenomena. Consciousness/mind are just the soul.

reading the news of the AI advances and chips in brain are we then just a vast construction of nueurons how does that all equate with the metaphysical views ?

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 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

i really don't care

Excellent.... thanks.

I wonder why scientists believe that everything can only exist WITHIN spacetime. It is impossible to discover what lies BEYOND spacetime, many light years away. What if this " beyond " is very close to us ? How can we find the key with which to open the door of non- spacetime ? That' s the question.😊

The guest says "project down to space time...".This indicates an inadequate and general misunderstanding.The word "down" has no intrinsic meaning in the context he is using it and anyone who has any understanding would not ever use this word in that context. Moreover space-time is a fundamental reality within a zone of context where it is important. He has obviously done no research into the infinite potential field from which all mass emerges and returns to every moment which indicates that potential has a continuity in that process since everything is much the same moment to moment. Our space and time is a feature of that infinite potential. Before a being is, for instance, there must be a potential for that specific being so one could say the being emerges from that potential as does everything with mass. To see anything as a fundamental reality is a big mistake since synergy pervades all orders of magnitude. That is what uni-verse means. All connected. Nothing comes"down" but rather moves for various reasons. Smashing particles only allows for the study of that smashing and the particles created that would not normally exist without the influx of huge particle acceleration energy. One could smash a city apart but it will tell you nothing about how it works.

your born, and the system comes together until the structures form (around 6 years old) that make up the "ego" or the higher order emergent system state generating discipline (higher order emergent stasis), then your consciousness or "operating system" becomes online. you begin to intentfully effect/affect the environment in a way that you perceive as generating stasis or a pseudo conserved state of energy expenditure involving the equilibrating processes.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/h32UmZlojNd0qZY

More spacetime ? 🤣🤣

I have seen videos of people in Donbass relating how Wagner soldiers saved them and then died in the attempt. Wagner are heroes. Hardworking and courageous and willing to die for Russia ❤

Man 'look' i need a visual representation of what the fuck he just said. Using context clues and my limited knowledge of physics. I understand that Consciousness orginates from outside our universe or any other universe. Please tell me if im on the right track and what did i miss.

The most fundemntal truth is nothingness. Below the Planck scale, outside the edge of the universe, is zero space and zero time. Our brains are even capable of simulating it every night. Everything emanates from nothing. So, you won't find anything because there is nothing to find. All we can do is describe the many ways in which this universe sets limits. Matter and energy exist because no-spacetime has a non-zero probability of producing a singularity. That non-zero probability unfolds spontaneously as there is no time acting as a reference. Reality exists because that's all that ever can exist. Can scientists peer into absolute nothingness? I believe so, and that's what we describe with the probabilistic nature of subatomic particles. Pure uncertainty is pure nothingness. To have an outcome be decided by a probability, is to have that outcome be decided by nothingness. That's what's so hard to grasp, that the more fundemntal we get, the closer we get to absolute nothing.

Sounds like a little light in the night. So..., Enjoy 🌈

The sound has disappeared .. now CC still works which is strange

Truth or meaning and purpose, what would you choose ?

I can easily agree that among living systems, there is no definite demarcation between cognition and an absence of cognition. Furthermore, I feel an appropriate definition of life, is any system which decreases entropy locally. I'm wouldn't argue that atoms themselves are alive; I would argue that some systems made of atoms have the capacity to decrease entropy locally. Photosynthesis is one well -known example.