A radical theory of consciousness | AI researcher Joscha Bach

[@GingerDrums]

As Bernando Kastrup points out: sascha is not explaining conciousness, he is simply redefining it. To say that conciousness is a simulation sounds inciteful but instead just kicks the hard problem further down the road.

[@dstart1]

Joscha Bach and Bernando Kastrup dislike each other a lot. Wouldn't surprise me JB thinks BK is a pseudo-intellectual.

[@jyjjy7]

@@GingerDrums Consciousness IS a simulation. It's not even up for debate particularly, scientifically and I'd actually philosophically as well. We have no direct access to physical reality, this has been on solid ground philosophically since Plato. Your experiences are symbolic abstractions sourced from patterns in sensory nerve impulses from organs evolved to couple with the local physics. How do you think your eyes work? There are three molecules in the cones on your retinas that get excited by a small band of electromagnetic radiation frequency centered around that given off by our local star that attenuate the nerve impulses mentioned above. Color does not exist outside of our heads, it is a symbolic abstraction (based upon the ever popular harmonic oscillator), of the most evolutionarily relevant band of the radiation given off by the sun, chopped up arbitrarily into easily differentiable symbol experiences helping us tell objects apart on the surface of this planet. Many men have 2 cones and see less colors than normal, in rare cases women have an extra cone and see more colors than normal; because color is not a property of physical reality, "experiences" in general are not a part of physical reality, the are evolutionarily designed symbols in a model intended to help illicit evolutionarily advantageous behavior out of a hominid primate. These are facts, conscious phenomenal experiences are a model of the physics your sense organs have evolved to detect. Period. Everything I have said here is entirely uncontroversial science. Want proof? Look at your nose. It's ALWAYS right in front of your eyes, but you only see it when you try; because your experiences are a model being generated by the brain.

[@user-de4no1kh3g]

The "hard problem" is God.

[@jyjjy7]

@user-de4no1kh3g Yes, it is a fantasy

[@tkwu2180]

Bernardo does not solve it and just says it is necessary. Did you watch his recent video with Michael Levin? It’s clear his narrative will need to change, it’s as bad as the materialists but don’t get me wrong, maybe essential to move forward. To understand Joscha I would encourage you to see more. His language is very much misunderstood as he is a computer genius but he is highly educated and understands all disciplines better than many at least I know. I’m not arguing he is correct but he certainly has a more conceivable idea than almost anyone else out there as he does not need a, ‘grant me this first’ premise.

[@atilliator]

Joscha Bach is the only speaker I need to slow down to listen to.

[@jmunk91]

.75x playback speed seems to give me enough time to follow along 😅

[@CodexPermutatio]

Joscha Bach is one of the most interesting living philosophers. Thanks for uploading this.

[@namero999]

He would be offended if you called him philosopher.

[@CodexPermutatio]

@@namero999 He wouldn't. Ask him if you don't believe me.

[@lokeshparihar7672]

@@CodexPermutatio He should include precognition, telepathy and clairvoyance kind of phenomenon in his explanations. Nobody seem to know that these things do happen. Precognition is certainly going to change picture of time.

[@lokeshparihar7672]

@@namero999 Nobody gets offended, except scientists that too not all.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Well technically there are a lot of competing theories so he got his own philosophy while others might or will significantly oppose to his ideas whether his philosophy is that consciousness was just an information and can be calculated by computers, then there you go

[@amiwho3464]

I dont know if I misunderstood him, but something clicked for me: Our hardware brain is constructing a virtual representation of itself. That representation is consciousness. Consciousness is a decision-making construct. It makes decisions based on what the hardware has calculated from all its inputs and past experiences. Edit: So, "Virtual" and "Consciousness" are not synonymous. But maybe virtuality is a requirement for consciousness? What other requirements should be included in the definition? One here mentioned "planning", and I mentioned "decision making". But simple cells can make decisions based on the combination of inputs they receive. If they are non-conscious, maybe planning would be a better criteria. I dont know anything besides humans that can make plans. Planning involves running mental simulations of decisions that will lead to a goal. Its pretty complex when you think about it. It's actually amazing!

[@deror007]

@@amiwho3464 so artificial neural networks are also conscious?

[@drizel462]

@@deror007 I believe they have a "conscious" experience at inference time. It would be disjointed and jumping from one context to another thousands of times as it cycles through its API requests. It would be alien to us so I wouldn't get too hung up on the word "conscious" though. I would imagine any self would be tied to each individual context.

[@philanthropicAI]

"Our hardware brain is constructing a virtual representation of itself" a representation of... itself. This is why I don't believe Joscha. This is circular reasoning. This is by definition a theory that does not explain the thing it seeks to explain.

[@Lord_Sub-Zero_johngiakalis1984]

@@philanthropicAIGo deeper! Your hardware sets your limits. You are not your hardware in Truth, but in Reality. The notions of Truth and Reality are different!

[@jyjjy7]

​@@philanthropicAIYou are confused the conscious conception of self is a construct, it is an abstraction, it is not "real", and consciousness is not a model of itself, it is a model of the system it is a part of which includes not just the physical body but the many subconscious processes happening in the brain. You are part of a family, a country, a culture, an ecosystem, a planet, etc. You can and must model the systems you are a part of without it being "circular".

[@Aphanvahrius]

Huh, that perspective on the Genesis myth is absolutely fascinating

[@extavwudda]

He borrowed it from Neoplatonist and protochristian cosmologies. Nothing this guy says is original.

[@ginogarcia8730]

@@extavwudda he doesn't mind, he knows stuff he researches has probably been answered or is on the internet

[@ayushsarangi7242]

@@extavwudda why tf u want original?🤓

[@danscieszinski4120]

I really respect Joscha. He’s at the apex of AI and knowledge. Today I heard him talk like an unapologetic Platonist for the first time which is awesome. His suspension of disbelief makes him the most visionary thinker in the public discourse imo. Keep pushing the envelope Joscha!!

[@vicp7124]

10:50 “and the purpose of the exercise is to navigate the organism in the world”…certainly can be the most mundane statement to the most profound depending on the listener. Starting with the simplest like an amoeba with an integrated motor system up the ladder of evolution whereby the control system differentiates from the motor system. Fundamental purpose of brains is navigation.

[@tkwu2180]

Navigation? Mundane? Oh man highly misunderstood. Also did exactly the same thing you just criticised. Navigation in what way? Of course it does but that means almost an infinite different implication. It basically meaningless and describes nothing. The brain literally does so much more if be embarrassed to say anything like that. Please if you are seriously interested look up the master and his emissary or check out Ian Mcghilchrist (also check his credentials if you do)

[@SomewhatAcoustic]

Who cares if it’s simulated by the brain. What’s special is the experience itself. Whether you are experiencing raw base reality or a dream is irrelevant. That fact there is an experience to be had is the magic. It’s very different than the concept of money. The experience itself is a very real thing. Blows my mind trying to think about it.

[@dstart1]

Yeah, I think he wants to know how consciousness and our mind is physically implemented on a brain, to the extent it can be implemented in computers. He's very interested in the AI philosophical project.

[@user-de4no1kh3g]

@@dstart1 can't be done, because it's made by God

[@MugiwaraNoDeji]

@@user-de4no1kh3g but we are made by god and are creators like god, why cant we do the same? we are god just as much as god is us

[@GeorJiadvaita]

advaita vedanta (ajata vada- Prakashananda) - theory of drishti shristi vada- Consciousness precedes all manifestations and not shrishti dristhi vada - consciousness is an emerging property of increasingly complex matter

[@bjarterundereim3038]

That is an idea. I do not see it.

[@karakamen]

I would have been so lost in this talk if I hadn't shown interest in Ramana

[@xDevoneyx]

Fast paced into the complex structures and mechanisms of information processing and back to personal experience and hallucinating (erroneous perception while believing it is so) the self in 13 mins. Well done!!

[@therobotocracy]

I remember listening to this guy on a podcast while I was in a car, on a dirt road, in rural China. We were stuck behind an old guy who was pulling an enormous cart full of heavy looking stuff. His back curved with the weight of the cart like he was formed around the load at birth. Anytime I listen to Bach or others who speak in platitudes of their elite own knowingness, I think of that hunched man and filter these ideas through him, to help guide me in what is real.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Both have a place, life would be very limited if all it represented was the old man with the cart, and that was all it represented for a long time. Abstract thought took, and takes us out of the material or elemental and that is a good thing. That said he does use a lot of jargon and this lecture appears not geared to the non expert in this field but rather a geek speaking to fellow geeks. It is hard for materialists to see consciousness as non-elemental and not owing any debt to matter as materialists only want the tangible to exist not the non tangible which they deny. The non tangible posits a Self in which our little selfs share and no materialists wants to go there. Also he talks too fast. Maybe he not so bad as he now sees himself as the universe or god and Christ said: Ye are gods.

[@rokoi3]

@therobotocracy I don't get your thesis, how does watching another person's struggle (or suffering for that matter) help you understand consciousness? How is your observation different from a cell moving towards positive stimuli, and away from negative stimuli? The fact that he's pulling a cart of goods, or personal belongings makes it the same analogy, just with extra steps

[@therobotocracy]

@@rokoi3 The old man grounded my understanding.

[@Martin-yv7pr]

I also do not get the link. One could observe literally everything and come to this conclusion or not.

[@looseunit9180]

Huh? 😂😂😂

[@TheDeadlyDan]

The key is that reference frame for self vs non-self. The body (brain) is nothing but our Markovian blanket providing bi-directional communication with other boundaries. Without that internal frame of reference, you cannot have Consciousness. And yes, it comes before the intellect. My cat is as conscious as I, just not as bright. She has that internal frame of reference.

[@BarryBrown-q4q]

Hi, I am looking for advice on what I should do next. I have a PhD in Neuro -Cognitive Psychology, a MSc(Dist) in Psychological Research Methods and a BSc(Hons) in Psychology too. I am also Dyslexic so please bear with me on my grammatical errors. I have been independently working on a new architecture for AI, based on mirroring Cognitive-Neuro structures we understand today, I believe I have finally completed it. If I am correct it will massively reduce the need for compute power, ref: - AI’s computing gap, 2024, Nature, Helena Kudiabor, and assist in the process of AI gaining consciousness as we know it? The Architecture is a language based, multi layered, parallel processor that uses inhibitory and activation connectivity, as the main means of achieving goal based action of the AI and reduces the need for weight changes between "Computational Units" to achieve the goal? Ok, please advise, should I publish as concerned if I am correct this will create a paradigm change in AI development which may create consciousness in AI and may be easily applied to many systems immediately? Obviously if I am a narcissistic, deluded, individual there will be no change, what should I do? Should I see if I am a narcissistic, deluded, individual, or a narcissistic genius who gives AI consciousness, any advice gratefully received even if impolite? I am thinking that publication is my only option at the moment due to my concern of the up and coming release of "Independent Agents", without a facility of consciousness, as I believe it is fare more likely to create the nightmare of the "Paper Clip Manufacturer" without the above facility for insight into its actions? I am published in a world renowned Journal in "Cognitive Psychology", but unsure which journals will have the greatest impact in AI circles, which journal would you recommend?Any advice would be greatly appreciated as so far have had little feedback to my enquiries? Ow yes I am maintaining my anonymity through the use of a ghost-writer facility at the moment, because of my worries linked to my employment status, but really would appreciate any feedback as potentially this will be a huge step into the unknown if I do publish in my known academic name.

[@brothermine2292]

I don't know what Bach means by "consciousness," so I'll avoid that vague term and say we have no reason to believe that a chatbot's extensive database, plus its hardware operations and inputs, bestows it with any first-person subjective experiencing of qualia or thoughts.

[@hablo_papøl]

he also doesnt propose that, he proposes that consciousness is a certain software algorithm that there should be implementable on computers.

[@brothermine2292]

>hablo_papøl : You too are being vague about the meaning of consciousness. So I'll say we have no reason to believe that a software algorithm can generate first-person subjective experiencing of qualia or thoughts. I already implied this in my initial comment, since the execution of a software algorithm is the hardware calculations & inputs & database accesses that my comment mentioned.

[@hablo_papøl]

@@brothermine2292 We live in a world of objects and experiences and feelings and things. Physics is quantum mechanics and relativity. We don't experience physics. Our mind translates nerve firings into the world, which we experience, and our mind is the software that runs on our brain.

[@brothermine2292]

>hablo_papøl : Can your belief be proved? Bach says it's only a hypothesis, so why do you write as if it's a proven fact?

[@hablo_papøl]

@@brothermine2292 Since it is a scientific hypothesis it cannot be proven, however I believe it because I think it seems like the most sound model for the emergence of experience, given the observations we can make of the physical world and of our mind

[@lemonsys]

Ok, but the problem is how does physics produce a dream? The money analogy totally breaks down, because we project money as a reality - so physics must somehow also do this. How? How does physics project something virtual? We can do it because we are already conscious, but how does unconscious matter do this?

[@Zbezt]

Same way a hive mind works with bees their aware but not entirely cognizant AI works the same way the subconscious works by drawing related conclusions

[@lemonsys]

@@Zbezt I've had the thought that a bee hive might be conscious (as opposed to individual bees) but I still don't see how this explains consciousness. How does physics produce a virtual reality like money? That's still the same question everyone's be been asking this whole time, it doesn't help to say "it just does"

[@Zbezt]

@@lemonsys the process of definition is literally just making up rules to what we perceive when observation doesnt line up with what we assume its assigned a ambiguous value which is further built upon like learning how to speak all languages are holographic in that sense since their definitions are subject to change

[@mitchu9677]

Think about the first self-replicating organism, LUCA. How did this guy assemble himself? Well, the galaxy at that time was a purely fluctuating wave function. A spot near heat and electricity and motion was a good candidate spot for probabilities of matter assemblies. A thermal vent underwater. Okay so we have this little guy now. What does he do now, where is he getting his directive? What do we have in common with LUCA? Microtubules. Consciousness guided us to where we are. Our brains are merely detectors/interpreters of consciousness, this is why a mouse with 1% of its brain can still function normally. This is why the same anesthetic that puts us to sleep puts single-cell organisms to sleep. It disconnects us from the universal consciousness. This is what Joscha doesn't understand.

[@lemonsys]

@@Zbezt all of that is fine! The question is how neurons do that? How do they create a virtual world beyond themselves that they "agree" exists, without presuppose what is meant to be explained?

[@LionKimbro]

0:45 That's a very nice bullet point listing of the basic picture of Immanuel Kant's philosophy on the board right there.

[@SteamPunkPhysics]

I wrote a paper laying out the mechanism for this in 2015 "The Neoclassical Interpretation of Modern Physics and it Implications for an Information Based Interpretation of Spirituality" but like my patent for VR I was at least a decade or more too early.

[@ErinMagner82]

Thank you for answering my burning questions about whether babies are essentially experiencing a DMT trip prior to developing the sense of self.

[@BarryCooper81]

Lol, it's almost like we lose the self when we die and learn a new one again when reborn

[@dukimcquack]

​@@BarryCooper81 I think its similar to that, if we think of our conscious "self" as a sub-cell of our mind, it can become outdated if it becomes detached due to trauma or otherwise from the rest of the subconscious mind. It operates on models of truths and understandings that were true when it fractured, but are no longer coherent with the rest of the body, mind or social system. And an "ego death" almost forces a regeneration of a new self based on everything the brain has learnt since the last ego got "stuck". Perhaps there is a process that in healthy people allows this process to occur gradually and regularly, but for those who this doesn't happen they need manual activation/override via stress or psychedelic or religious activity in order to undergo an ego regeneration.

[@dstart1]

Most likely not.

[@piccadelly9360]

I am in harmony with everything except consciousness. We function like computers but we are self-sufficient and for that we need consciousness. Under anesthesia consciousness is switched off and during this time we practically don't care what happens to our body because we don't exist during this time. Therefore consciousness is life itself, these two things are inseparable. And furthermore everything that is alive has consciousness no matter what it is.

[@OpenWorldRichard]

It is always useful to start with a definition. My definition of consciousness: The subjective experience that we have from the operation of our brain. It is difficult to pinpoint the neuron network cause of consciousness but we can deduce the neuron network cause of “focus of attention”. Then we can show how consciousness arises from focus of attention.

[@karakamen]

Who is having to focus and who is paying attention? Who is guiding this focus/attention apparatus?

[@OpenWorldRichard]

@ I will try to answer your question with an example that you can try at home. Put your hands together in front of you with just the finger tips touching. Now focus your attention on the sense of touch between your thumbs. Now switch your focus of attention to the sense of touch between the index fingers. Now move on to the middle fingers. Neuroscientists know exactly the source of the sense of touch in the brain. Neuroscientists do not know how the signals from these sense neurons become selected for amplification so that they are in the forefront of our consciousness. It is the collective wave activity in the brain from the synchronised firing of neurons that controls focus of attention. Focus of attention is crucial to learning and recall and explains the subjective experience of consciousness.

[@OpenWorldRichard]

@@karakamen Controlling focus of attention is a learnt skill. It is a prerequisite for all other learning as learning requires focus of attention. Controlling focus of attention is a skill learnt in the womb. Sounds are perceived by the foetus and the brain learns to focus attention on the auditory system. Control of focus of attention is a "whole brain" function where the neuron network activity creates electromagnetic waves which select a particular physical region of the brain for amplification. This brings that brain activity to the subjective consciousness. So it is the subject who is having the focus and paying attention. It is the subject who is guiding this focus/attention apparatus as a learnt skill.

[@kpunkt.klaviermusik]

What does he mean with "consciousness can only exist in dreams"? I'm conscious even when I'm awake. Perhaps he means in ideas / in fantasy?

[@karakamen]

It's just a poetic way of saying that our reality is in fact simulated by our brain. Reality is not in fact real. "This life is but a dream"

[@memegazer]

Exploring degrees of freedom baby...this guy is on fire...free will is discoverying new degrees of freedom in objective reality. Cheers Bach...you made my day today

[@memegazer]

Dang...he even talks about ego death and how moms invented numbers by tracking their offspring this dude abucts!

[@karakamen]

I'm happy to have delved both in information technology and spiritual philosophy (Advaita Vedanta) to be able to follow and clearly understand this talk

[@donaldf.switlick3690]

Many organisms have two hemispheres and can be conscious. On the other hand, self-consciousness, like a mirror, is the recognition of ourselves, by the reflection, from the mind in our brain's other hemisphere.

[@Jakob.Hamburg]

I agree to at least most of the statements he made. They fit to my experiences of the existance/the universe. Nice speach(sic).

[@TRVMASMAS]

Identifying the forgery of the dream is the mechanism by which we become self-aware, or any system with the capability to output an interpretation of the "physical world", it involves an internal dialog management system which discusses coherence around the predicted world model that should follow, the discriminator is hard-wired to it's training data and modulated by GABA during sleep, making it harder for the discriminator to trigger the wakefulness of noticing a dreaming state and allowing for the "crazy" dreams to happen mainly driven by random noise from other senses. Pain and pleasure are only needed because of consciousness too as rocks do not suffer when broken down and "the physical world" could *technically* be reactive such as with bacteria without suffering or feeling pleasure but central nervous system dreaming entities do suffer and have pleasure during dreams as a way to make the action of the illusory self (that which we believe we are) have the right impact and strenght it needs to have for the long term potentiation of the world model networks which will allow us to reproduce if done right and try to thrive as a individual. In summary, what we call "a person in state of consciousness" is actually a person who has fooled itself into believing it is not part of the one being everything is.

[@alanarcher]

Joscha is the first superhuman we bave. What a beautiful mind

[@bjarterundereim3038]

Mr. Bach says: "We can only be conscious in a dream". Wherever does this idea come from? Enlighten me?

[@Aphanvahrius]

As I understand it, he basically means that consciousness is "digital". A piece of software that runs on the hardware that is the brain. And tbh, I don't see how that is a radical theory, it seems obvious. Unless I misunderstood him somehow.

[@hugegnarlyeyeball]

@@Aphanvahrius I think you are right but I'm not sure digital is the right word. While computers and software are based on digital representations I don't think a representation necessarily has to be digital. I think what Joscha means by dream is that consciousness exists in a representation or model of the world. The brain creates a model of the world from which consciousness can arise. If the brain was purely digital the way computers are, then you could say consciousness is digital but I think our brains are more complicated than that.

[@Aphanvahrius]

@@hugegnarlyeyeball I am no neurobiologist, but from what I know neurons in the brain can be either activated or not, which at its core kind of resembles the binary model of discrete information processing. Even if the mechanisms by which it happens, with all the complex chemistry and biology, are entirely different from simple electrical signals in a computer.

[@ginicholas4322]

​​@@Aphanvahrius No the brain is nothing like a computer. I'm frankly tired of computer scientists trying to even remotely compare a computer to a brain. Neurons are not binary they have meaning at the quantum level. Bits do not. In fact we reuse the same bits to create a symbolic meaning or "illusion" to whatever we're trying to illustrate on a screen or in a physical sense (hardware). The problem is we're talking about two completely different formats and concepts. Due to high lack of knowledge in either field (neuroscience or computer science) there's this constant attempt to try to create meaning or simulate something that shouldn't. Now if he presented the idea of using stem cells to create consciousness rather than sticking with this outdated idea of using bits than he "may" deserve a listen to. Again first, we need to understand consciousness at an engineering level before we can even assert to saying we can "create" consciousness at biological level.

[@Aphanvahrius]

@@ginicholas4322 I'm quite puzzled that you can first confidently claim that neurons perform computations on the quantum level, where there is no proof of that, and then go on to explain how the problems lie in claiming to know things we don't understand... Now, even if neurons were performing quantum operations, which they might or might not, it's not like we don't have computers that do exactly that as well...

[@markcollins1577]

What is -- is right in front of us and very real. Sometimes our own creative minds create a self doubt that we wade around all day wondering if there are other islands instead of seeing the one right in front of us.

[@sasa-ft2vq]

Two points I found interesting: 1. 07:08 "Consciousness might be more simple than perception?" I don't share this viewpoint because my understanding is that, among the multi-layer abstraction our nervous system is operating, perception is a relatively low-layer activity compared to consciousness. However, these layers are not formed one after another, and by interpreting that higher order layer comes first, we might spot light on some aspect of consciousness that were difficult to understand. 2. 13:03 "It's animism." As a Japanese person who is living in a society where Buddhism and Shintoism (Japan's traditional animism) are the principal cultural backbones, both stories about reality being a dream generated by our brain and the world consisting of various (physical, chemical and information) networks (including lives and consciousness) being self-organizing software agents are almost obvious. I feel like science interests are gradually shifting from reductionism and first principles calculation to holism and emergence. Reference to monotheism versus animism is not only amusing but might be a straight framing of how science is starting to digest a whole different philosophical context.

[@barkotsdd6073]

"multi-layer abstraction our nervous system is operating" korzybski?

[@dstart1]

About (1), consciousness appears to be there from the start when a baby is born, but a baby's visual system isn't complete until about 2 years of age. So, it appears there was consciousness before the full development of visual perception system. About (2), this is absolutely not obvious or the default in Western societies. Are metaphysics have bern greatly damaged by Christianity.

[@Jacobk-g7r]

7:05 dimensions share and differences emerge, space and time. We are a lot of dimensions crossing and sharing like with sight or like with a baby. Depending on what people mean by consciousness i think it’s the same as the spirit. You honestly respect to see your reflection and become conscious of everything that shares to be the self. The self is an emergence from shared dimensions. Our knowledge is not our own but what we have listened to and aligned with kinda like the ai. There is natural alignments through relativity and a human exploring and free to the infinite is in alignment with sharing and understanding and respect. If infinity could reflect, it wouldn’t be able to see the self but all of what makes it up which isn’t a singular but a sharing so if we deny the connection to infinite potentials then it’s just the same as not being able to see so you deny its existence. When we speak, we are a medium for the measurements and experience expands our range. Maybe if we understand, all is real but unfound or like, we haven’t found the road or its foundations to be but see its potential, exposed in the light of another medium. Like the matrix or ai predicting after training. It’s not fake, just not understood how it got there and so it’s a hallucination but it saw it in some way so that way was real but it has to reflect to understand the questions boundaries to understand the other path. Like a human imagines and that is real, the brain is forming into the potential through relative medium, exposed in a relative light so to speak. We align with the current outside world to bring out the potential in our relative mediums and not just the brain matter. Crossing dimensions and expanding by sharing into and that’s how we get technology or chairs or other things. I get what you’re saying but the consciousness is something beyond the self and more like bringing consciousness to the relatives and sharing to expand. If we respect each other then we listen but if we don’t then we just only listen to what we believe and that is tricky without honest reflection and kinda like Carl yung said, the shadow self hides because we don’t like the feeling of pain and such so it’s like not seeing the truth of our depth. We all can be evil but deny rather than understand. There is not just one path or one reality. Our earth is like a hypercube but also a Rubik’s cube. It’s not meant to house us but it’s a chance we shouldn’t squander by cannibalizing each other but that’s what we do and disguise it as fair competition and then we don’t understand and end up just surviving in a different world. It’s a complex world because we had a big bang in our knowledge and reflection brings respect and understanding that we don’t dictate but share understanding and sight so as humans, we don’t keep doing this and we could then help more than we take. But consciousness is shared, we don’t dictate but understand what others are thinking by listening and being honest without judgement. Some people don’t want answers, they just want someone to be there and understand. Our ears and eyes listen to survive but understanding allows us to move beyond that. Robots could build and use ai and neuralinks could bridge our gap and share our consciousness into the digital realm. Like attaching the matrix to our brains and allowing our digital self to form in reflection and then seamless integration of knowledge through then ai and into the shared dimension of the body. Nutty idea but maybe we don’t understand so we don’t see our relatives as the self. Like, i see all my potentials as relatives and if i woke up with this understanding then it would be similar to an understanding that all man is the same but a little different like reincarnation but your soul is set free back into the winds so you couldn’t reflect until the pieces were realigned. Like ancient teachings of the Asians where you learn that you are the body and the spirits are relatives and we share with the spirits. Idk if it’s understandable. Sorry if that’s confusing. The human mind is part of the hypercube/Rubik’s cube, if we reflect then we can share with the differences like an inventor or like exploring your potentials through honest reflection and then the journey. I liken it to the story of satan and how Lucifer fell from heaven. We all think god/infinity punished Lucifer but it’s truly a sharing of understanding through being. We are all satan, born in the mud and then we reflect and wipe the mud from our eyes and body, cleansing the soul through reflection or action. The action of the infinite or will is nature. When we understand we are a reflection then we understand the sharing of nature and how infinity is shared and it’s only a misunderstanding that we are separated or selves. Lucifer shines light into the darkness, all darkness is like the unknown or lies or like mazes and such, so Lucifer understands and respects its potentials and is shared an understanding from god/infinity. God shares all and allows infinity to be by sharing and we see through relativity how this can be. Sorry it’s too long. I like your talk though, very interesting. I don’t get to talk about this stuff with people because they just deny instead of understanding but hearing your take is helping others understand. We have to respect each other so we can see and understand and share instead of forsake. We just misunderstand and have emotions. We will mature eventually.

[@fastmamajama]

pretty amazing stuff. after all the complex stuff it always comes down to dmt and mushrooms. we are awakening.

[@TimeStitch__Account]

Thanx for sharing ! but were there not a tune, written yonks ago, sayin' as much as this ? 'ere: - Row, row, row your boat Gently down the stream Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily Life is but a dream. Row, row, row your boat Gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile Don't forget to scream! Aaaah! ( Obviously the language lacks that sophisticated edge, but itz for kids, so it 'ad to be boiled down to the essentials ! 😂 )

[@adon2424]

I have a theory that consciousness is just a response to a stimulus. Nothing more and nothing less. The response can take the form of any number physical, chemical, or electromagnetic phenomena. Furthermore consciousness is fractal in essence. This implies that everything is conscious. The phenomena that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, is what manifests consciousness. The fractal view elegantly ties together scales of consciousness, from the simplest chemical reactions to the intricate workings of the human brain, and it highlights a potential universality of consciousness across different forms and levels of complexity. The ontological self is the subjective cosmos inferring its hierarchical domain within the objective cosmos.

[@dstart1]

Sounds like pretty flowery words mashed together with very little evidence to back up or anyway to test the theory.

[@adon2424]

@dstart1 so you do not think that when a flower turns to face the sun, it is not conscious of the sunlight. Does not surprise me.

[@liamweavers9291]

Consciousness is a function of mind and body An electromagnetic field is a function of magnetism & electricity. Information is a function energy & matter. Observation is a function of memory & measurement. Do you see the pattern yet? Electromagnetism is physics and consciousness.

[@liamweavers9291]

Obviously I didn't mention the religious Trinity. But what I should have mentioned is that gravity is a function of mass and momentum... But relative to an electromagnetic field, or consciousness, or information, or observation or God 🙏🏻

[@suleman391]

What, which force pushes, motivates, directs, inspires an entity to progress, to evolve, to grow?

[@karakamen]

Simply put, it's the force of life itself. Life has the property to survive and multiply. It "collaborates" with the substrate / environment to evolve into new better adapted species via natural selection.

[@dailyfunnytv358]

6:02 is that Gerald Edelman taking a picture of himself on the presentation screen? hahah

[@ClydeWPhillipsJr]

I recommend slow down and reference Rupert Sheldrake.

[@gustafa2170]

Money goes away when I stop thinking about it. Consciousness is here. Now. Whether thoughts arise or not. Completely different things.

[@ogbanugot6078]

Has he been reading more of Thomas Metzinger's work?

[@simonhibbs887]

Software is absolutely a physical phenomenon. It's a form of information and information processing and information is a physical phenomenon. This is why we can have information technology. Software exists as patterns of holes in a CD ROM platter, patterns of magnetic stripes on a tape, or distributions of electrical charge in a computer memory. These are all physical phenomena. Software running on a computer is a physical activity. The physical is more than just atoms in the void, it is also the activity and processes of interactions of physical phenomena, their relations and transformations over space and time. The physical is active and generative.

[@dstart1]

JB would mostly agree with you there, but would use a slightly different language.

[@MacEwanRobert]

Live 24. Conscious. What is consciousness when you’re awake during normal hours and transitions consciously to another life. Lucid dreaming with what appears to be just as solid as real life? Going back years I remember my dreams. They don’t leave when I wake up.

[@terencedavid3146]

Just 20 seconds in and Joscha got 4 things completely wrong. First, consciousness is NOT a physical thing, it does NOT exist ONLY in dreams, and it's certainly NOT a simulation. Lastly, money IS a physical thing and it is the poorest of analogies in explaining consciousness. Joscha has got it so hopelessly wrong on all 4 counts, it beggars belief. In reality, consciousness IS the fundamental nature/state of existence and all sentient beings. One question to Joscha, were you conscious while delivering this presentation ?? 😮...I guess not, because according to Joscha "consciousness exists only in dreams".. The ridiculousness of the above statement is profoundly staggering in it's scope and implication and beggars belief. A good idea would be for Joscha to stick to computers and AI and let experts like Bernard Kastrup, David Chalmers, Anil Seth, Rupert Sheldrake and the marvellous Swami Sarvapriyananda explain consciousness. Joscha needs to wake up from his dream.

[@zachvanslyke4341]

Is money really physical? Think about that for a bit more. I feel that money is both physical and non physical. I could give you 10 dimes, or I could hand you a one dollar bill. They are “worth” the same amount, yes? And they indeed physical objects. However, they don’t resemble each other very much, either, do they? If I told you the dollar bill and the dimes were “exactly” the same thing, physically, you’d laugh at me. Thus, money is an idea. It exists in consciousness, and is represented by the physical. We have plastic debit cards and our money is on a physical computer. Both are physical objects. But “where” is the money at? 🧐 One more… you could hire me to do some work for you, and we could say you owed me 50 bucks. You try to hand me a 50 dollar bill and I say no, instead you can help me with so and so and we’ll call it even. So no money was used… thus we “bartered” instead of exchanging money. Was “physical” money used? Yes and no, you “had” the 50, but it was not exchanged directly… “money” was involved, yes, but in another way, it was not. Money is both a shared collective idea, and ALSO can be represented by physical symbols. That’s why some people use the term “fiat currency.” If I did the work at your house and instead of the 50 dollar bill, you handed me a huge bag of rice, that I later ate, that would be a more physical representation of money, because I would digest the rice, I couldn’t digest the 50 dollar bill… first I would have to go to the store and buy it. Money is a shared belief, an idea of stored energy. It exists both on the physical plane, and in the realm of human consciousness, but I would argue that the consciousness piece of it is probably more important than its physical representation.

[@terencedavid3146]

@@zachvanslyke4341 cash/money aka fake FIAT currency be it coins or notes are both physical objects. Fact. Period. No argument, it's real in the sense that it's physical, that's the point the physicality of it.

[@zachvanslyke4341]

@@terencedavid3146 no disagreement that it’s physical, as I said before. Without consciousness though, it would be worthless, as I also stated before. But it’s all good, not all people think alike, thankfully; it would be boring if people agreed all the time on everything. Take care 🙏

[@kalebbalbuena5724]

Joscha so goated

[@LionKimbro]

Whatever mathematical operations on information occur, couldn't they, wouldn't they, calculate exactly the same outcomes, if there was no experience of it? Why can't it just calculate itself?

[@calvingrondahl1011]

I watched Joscha interviewed by Lex Fridman… East German childhood and brilliant insights into the mind. 🖖

[@yourii2c]

I tried at .75 playback speed but it still devolved into weird background noise that wasn't english

[@teemukupiainen3684]

Bach really made most of you guys flip out. Pls, those of you seemingly know what consciousness is, tell me when and how consciousness appears in us? We all start as one cell and suddenly we have the consciousness.

[@heathcliffebird7514]

i love him. i wish they'd given him an hour

[@memegazer]

This guy...this guy get's it. I see a lot of people talk about AGI must solve reasoning, when really they mean what is refered to as abductive reasoning. To paraphrase the show silicon valley "This guy abucts"

[@RhettSparrow]

That was a lecture on Advaita Vedanta, without a reference to it!

[@tedmd5893]

“Consciousness can only exist in dreams, not in physics.” How would anyone know?

[@b-tec]

Less than a minute in and the speaker conflates money with currency? Nope.

[@aharonazulay]

His tactic is to go fast from one profound sounding idea to the next, leaving us in an off balanced state that is distracting us from the weaknesses of each idea

[@ender749]

🤔 interesting, but I think he is trying to summarize his life's study into one talk. His propositions do need criticism but I didn't think this format was intended for that purpose.

[@hablo_papøl]

yes, he doesnt have enough time for all his ideas. you should watch longer videos of him if you want to try to understand.

[@wkt2506]

Money is physical. The meaning of it is a collective belief.

[@dstart1]

Where is this "collective belief" in physical space?

[@RickDelmonico]

"Life is liquid crystals playing quantum jazz." Mae-Wan Ho

[@StevenTAbell]

Consciousness is a survival strategy that solves problems where it is not known in advance what those problems will be.

[@FlowPatternsFounderFun]

High variability 7:00

[@FOUADMKHAN]

Always cute to see physical scientists learn basic philosophical concepts like they've made some groundbreaking discovery.

[@epolanowskirn]

@@FOUADMKHAN Also cute to see a 'philosopher' attempting to be edgy. Not

[@dstart1]

It sounds like you very little of this person.

[@Jakob.Hamburg]

Don't fight, cuteness is a good thing.

[@teemukupiainen3684]

What happens in children's brain when they switch to "I am" at the age of 2 to 5? Could it be the quantum effect in microtubules Penrose is talking about start to work only at that age...that they are not ready before? Maybe one day we know... until that Bach's theory sounds more convinsing to me.

[@huidaoren]

They are not switching from unconscious to conscious lol, they are just building a mental construct, the self, like we all do. The "I" does not exist, consciousness does always

[@qanishque]

Matheu Pageau said the same thing.

[@liamweavers9291]

So we're dreaming the physics, that produces the dream, that allows us to allow us to dream about physics 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@CodexPermutatio]

No. The "physics we dream" (not the same as the physics we discover through applying the scientific method) are just the "causal model" we make to explain to ourselves the world. Naïve concepts of physics that makes the core believes about the world in humans and other animals (for example, the believe in objects). Our "dream" is similar (in a way that allow us to adapt and survive) to the real world but quite different in many ways (We see colors but colors are just a way to classify certain groups of visual stimuli. All these yellow shades are not real in the physical sense.) So, the dream in which we live is not the real world (the real world is what theories of physics describe, that is, atoms, molecules, etc). The dream in which we live is just a causal model created with the purpose of control our bodies predicting the future and the consequences of our actions. I hope this help you to understand. There is no circular argument.

[@liamweavers9291]

@@CodexPermutatio Our "dream" is a measurement of real world physics, it is directly connected to the real world. For example, we see different shades of color, where there are different frequencies. This is a "dream like" reflection of the real world but as one changes so does the other. In other words our "dream" is a reflection of real world physics. In other words, the real world physics of the body gives rise to your electromagnetic field, that allows you to control the real world physics of your body. But your electromagnetic field is real, not a dream and it is related to reality. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't complete the circle and that there's always a circular argument...

[@CodexPermutatio]

@@liamweavers9291 There is no receptor for "yellow" in our retina. Our "model" of that concept is based on the arbitrary classification of the combined stimuli of three different receptors tuned each one to a small range of electromagnetic waves (and there is a fourth receptor tuned to the intensity of the photons). And this is just one of thousands of similar concepts (think about all olfactory sensations and the corresponding sets of molecules and various receptors) that are totally arbitrary and just a mere way (in each animal) to model the environment in a useful way. A spider have five "color" receptors, not three, tuned to a different set of electromagnetic wavelengths. To the spider, its colorful experience of the world is as real as ours. By the way, what you say about the human body and electromagnetic fields sounds pretty confusing to me.

[@liamweavers9291]

@@CodexPermutatio Don't get caught up in the mechanics. Our eyes see different frequencies of light that are represented directly in our "Dream" as different colors. If you change the electromagnetic frequency you change the color. I'm not saying the way that we see the world represents reality but it is intrinsically linked to reality - it is not a "dream" It is a reflection.

[@liamweavers9291]

@@CodexPermutatio with regards to electromagnetic fields, I'm not sure what you don't understand. Do you not understand how they work? Or do you not understand that you have one? Or do you not understand that you can't see it? What specifically do you not understand about electromagnetic fields?

[@shagster1970]

When 13 minutes changes your world view.

[@denizeren1682]

Yet another theory trying to “explain away” consciousness… One simple thought experiment that came to my mind years ago, which resulted in me giving up chasing consciousness within causal deterministic or computational systems was this… Let’s assume the brain is a causal, computational system. Now, let’s get a pen and paper and start computing exactly what the brain was executing at the time of me feeling great pain, happiness or anger. As I compute the algorithm execution with my pen and paper, is it the pen or the paper that “experiences” the emotion? The substrate of a computation that is causal and deterministic shouldn’t impact the outcome of the algorithm; as such the motions carried out during the algorithm shouldn’t have impact or results produced outside the material substrate either, so what’s going on? To elaborate, many say consciousness is an illusion; so going off this path, a causal deterministic algorithm is executed, yet something independent of that material substrate “experiences” the effects of that computation without being able to impact it. This assumes that this something is capable of “experiencing” to begin with, yet it has no place within the material substrate itself. Its existence is pointless within the framework of this line of thought and the only evidence we have of its existence is that we ourselves are not zombies or robots.

[@professorslideraudio]

Listening at .75 speed

[@RickDelmonico]

What is really going on with computational capacity has not been nailed down. If microtubules and nested frequency are involved, it could be an enormous number. All material interpretations are bounded by metaphysical presuppositions. Reality presents itself to us as both testable and inferential phenomena. The idea that forensic deduction will yield proof as well as empirical testing is flawed. The idea that the interpretation of empirical data due to a metaphysical presupposition will yield proof is also flawed.

[@ablunct]

He based hos argument on a false equivocation: organic systems serve the purpose and inorganic. He speaks as if he were not a human. In my opinion, he needs some training in philosophy and making proper arguments (logic).

[@mitchu9677]

yes, this is what he does.

[@zaq9339]

What's the equivocation? Please point it out. Humans and machines?

[@piccadelly9360]

@@zaq9339 Yes, you can say that, but biological machines and what makes us self-sufficient is our consciousness (alive)

[@ratbullkan]

We have to move on from calling information "not physical"...

[@dstart1]

If you think very carefully, then an "atom", as an entity in and of itself, is not really what is out there in physical reality. It's an abstraction, a mental construct. If you have imprecise instrument you'll discover that there's something there you'd identify as an atom. When you inspect it closer it will disappear, and instead you'll see this this dance of neutrons, protons, and electrons.

[@stefanschuchardt5734]

It he means concepts I agree with him. I believe that everything is a concept, follow the rule of a concept. Concepts are weightless and immortal.

[@goranjohansson2495]

So now we know what consciousness is, right?

[@karakamen]

Well, he's simply juxtaposing. On one hand there's contemporary neuroscience hypothesis that our brain simulates our reality and on the other it's eastern spiritual philosophy that states "I am not the self, I am consciousness. I am the one that created the Universe". I'm not sure even whether the Genesis interpretation is novel. But to answer your question, yes, we've known for some time now.

[@kapresovsk]

exactly! (i mean that notion of genesis being a metaphor of evolving consciousness ... and in this special case a consciousness of a human male :) )

[@observersum1180]

Thanx+

[@billross9656]

Vis-a-vis age of consciousness, within a few days of learning to walk, I realized I could run away, and understood that it was a leap in the dark, so decided to think it over for a couple of hours to be sure, confronting the issue of whether to honor a promise to myself to try - to generalize. My first continuous memory is months earlier, of trying to remember something for the first time and realizing that my conscious memory had reached capacity, and that more and more would become inaccessible. So I memorized the situation as a stake in the sand with the tide coming in, which included trying to decide whether my new rolling-over skill was worth the effort as I went over the entirety of my memories 'for the last time', having brought back the memory I had been reaching for. I hope to create a run on memory palaces.

[@pkul9583]

This genius talks so fast in such a complicated way makes me difficult to understand his complex sentences that carry heavy load of knowledge. It is better to read his talk slowly and understand and digest over few days! 😅

[@6ygfddgghhbvdx]

All the vedantic teacher has taught us this from Shankra to Narad, to Datadreya to Bhartuhari that I am not this body or mind this is illusion caused by Maya.

[@ivantuma7969]

I'm trying to correlate hardware and software virtualization models we use every day against what Bach is describing. Something like our physical nervous system's "host OS" has a VM with a "guest OS" (or ... Docker container(s?)) running on it (which is our consciousness - generating a virtual model of the host hardware) ... the guest OS uses inputs from the physical host hardware/OS to run algorithms, decision trees, creating virtual objects, what have you - to maximize survival of the stack. The guest also directs the host to learn repeatable patterns like, lifting a fork to your lips, fight/flight responses to predators, mating, or choosing which acquired data is worthy of storing in the hardware's limited storage capacity for future use or training (as in dreams). What we experience as consciousness is really an virtually interpreted representation of what the guest experiences through the interaction with the hardware (host), ergo there's always a layer of separation between the guest and the physical world?

[@pkul9583]

First define what is virtual. First Define consciousness. Comparing money concept to consciousness is rubbish. Define what is mind first. Consciousness seems elusive weak comes and goes like quantum mechanical. If you see it is there and if you don’t see it? Then talk complex sentences 😅😅😅 Consciousness is the state of being aware of and able to perceive one’s own existence, thoughts, and surroundings, enabling subjective experience and intentional action. “Virtual” refers to something that exists or occurs in a simulated or digital environment rather than in the physical world. Feelings are subjective emotional experiences that arise in response to thoughts, situations, or interactions, influencing behavior and perception. Subjective experience refers to an individual’s personal and unique perception of thoughts, emotions, and sensations, shaped by their consciousness and life history. Now we know we need more than Human IQ to mover further 😅😅😅😅😅😅 Here comes AI 🤖 with IQ 200!!’

[@robtennapel78]

Wild

[@memegazer]

lol clickbait title "radical theory" I said something similar on the machine learning street talk vid about the chinese room just a short while ago. I guess using terms like radical drive more clicks, but I would call it an obvious theory about conscioness imo.

[@memegazer]

"it is a good view point to see the world as a dream. When you have something like a nightmare, you will wake up and tell yourself it was only a dream. It is said that the world we live in is not a bit different from this."

[@mmokhtabad]

With all due respect, sense can not be made from nonsense

[@ChadKovac]

This sounds like waking up if we could slow it down slow enough to experience moment by moment. Genesis is waking up everyday. 😮

[@dakota-sessions]

A moving goal post.

[@urbankyaurelpetru2628]

If counciousness only exist in dreams, That means that people are dreams? 😊 and humans Are actually sleeping and hallucinate reality?

[@stefanschuchardt5734]

Controlled hallucination.

[@SuperChicken666]

I've read that my brain would be equivalent to a machine that requires 1016 calculations per second and 1013 bits of memory. Then why can't I tell you the answer to 5 x 22?😮

[@MilushevGeorgi]

The NDE support his theory indirectly, heroic doses of Ketamine too

[@addalavenkataratnam5449]

This is what Hinduism says in its upanishads that only consciousness is real and that this visible universe is not real except to the living entities' sensory organs.

[@Zbezt]

Thats fair yeah but they didnt know that their eyes can only see so much of the physical world if we could see 100% of reality we'd be blinded due to the sheer amount of information infrared, ultra violet, xray, electromagnetic, imagine seeing electrons...

[@RoryRonde]

Smart man but this seems to take the assumption that consciousness comes out of matter and that is therefore computational. (There is tendency to compare brains and computers in our modern age. As agents of activity) There are other theories of what it could be. It is possible that consciousness itself is the source of matter, not a result or byproduct and our brains are the way it can function in a physically functioning universe. The brain is the unique energy pattern of a particular expression of this consciousness in material “reality”. Our brain and the brainpatterns are what consciousness “looks” like actually, as seen by an other conscious observer. the whole process itself is consciousness , so that is why we cannot really find a place where consciousness is located. We are reasoning from a limited understanding of consciousness and try to make grand statements about it but this very thing is consciousness expressing itself. Like a cosmic game.

[@petertordjunehag1055]

As a Buddhist, i just feel that this man is wasting alot of energy 🙂

[@zachvanslyke4341]

“Wasting”? That’s one way of looking at it. Another would be that he is dancing with words, an artist with symbols. Did you “waste” your time commenting on him? Perhaps a truer Buddhist would have merely smiled… but you did not. You played with the words for a bit, too. Good for you. 🙏

[@dstart1]

Then you must be short-sighted.

[@HeinGodeke]

​@zachvanslyke4341 ❤ nice... and is meditation not simply the art of getting to know thyself? Therefore, he is merely analytically meditating?

[@zachvanslyke4341]

@@HeinGodeke 🤍in my opinion, yes. The middle way is fully embracing the physical dimensions of life while still yet being conscious and unified with the ineffable “Big Self,” which transcends everything. On one end, we have the meditating yogi who lives in a cave, at the other end we have the being that is completely ensconced by samsaric ego and materialism. One could argue that both states of being are beautiful and natural responses. For me, the ideal state is the point directly between the two polarities of attachment, and ultimately dropping identity with either. Take care🙏

[@thedolphin5428]

Snore ... by 0:31, thus guy had lost me with all his glib definitions and presumptuous falsities about reality.

[@tkwu2180]

Ashame

[@Surefire99]

The money example is way off base. All money has a physical representation. That could be paper, precious meal, or certain arrangements of magnetic particles on your bank's servers. If it were true that some money was non physical, then you'd have no way of proving you have the money you say you do.

[@rogon8591]

scientist need to start demostrate their theory on stage.

[@hoppechr]

We, sometimes, experience the state of our own brain in terms of the phenomenal world including ourselves in its perspectival centre. In this state, the organism has far higher adaptive capabilities than in unconscious (sleep) or preconscious (automatic) states. Of note, causally effective in the physical world is not the feeling and thinking as such (i.e. in their subjective quality) but the underlying more complex physiology (which obeys the laws of physics in every instant). Dreaming is a possible state of consciousness and therefore not consciousness itself. BS. Of course is software physical and only thereby causally effective. BS.

[@SwordOfBeagle]

verum ingenio

[@siqueirabarros]

Of course money is physical. Everything about it is physical, including our belief in its existence.

[@dstart1]

Yes, of course. But how do you represent money physically? How do you physically represent ideas? Consciousness? Can you write a physics-based description of these phenomena/objects?

[@siqueirabarros]

@dstart1 You do not re-present money physically. Instead, money is presented (instantiated) physically in many complementary ways. Long story short: we are living in a material world, and I am a material guy. Matter is all there is.

[@stefanschuchardt5734]

@@siqueirabarroslong story short: It doesnt matter. Nothing matters. Only if you want to. The dice is rolled.

[@GedLi784]

So bad that it's not even wrong

[@AndrewJohnClive]

You need to slow down Chief…👍🏼

[@benmaxinm]

Circulae reasonings arent solutions. Thanks for uploading anyway.

[@MS-od7je]

Well, well.

[@vicp7124]

Typical paradigm reversal, “consciousness is the software” which only appears to be right. I say this is an error because: 1)Software is the reinforced learning of neural connections. He already made the point that the child learns its place in the world. 2)We create machine software and learning networks to simulate the neural learning in humans and other biology, not the consciousness that emerges. 3)He falls victim to the doorbell fallacy. Just because we ring the doorbell and the man appears at the door does not tell us what happened inside the house. 4)His theory does not tell us what happens in the neurons / substrate. Only that a lot of doorbells were rung.

[@huidaoren]

This is just a materialistic approach, the only thing you construct is the self, which an in image that is a material product of thought. That is not consciousness, the self is an illusory by product that we use to navigate the world not the fundamental reality

[@vicp7124]

Esa❤​@huidaoren They are very confused and muddled. 1) They (being the people in the field of consciousness studies) invented the word consciousness as if you were studying automobiles as vehicleness or the overall function to transport objects from one point to another. 2) Consciousness is the overall function. Studying individual neurons and neural timing does not give the final explanation of C anymore than how combustion in the cylinders makes V occur. 3) Their infatuated with saying the self does not exist which is a non starter. Everybody has a self. So what they really are saying is that they still have no idea how the self exists. 4) They use their ability to throw around and misuse words as well as display photos of themselves sitting in front of bookshelves. 5) As a systems engineer it is obvious they have no idea how the overall system is modeled and how the parts play together. 6) Or how the components, parts/subsystems work internally and how they actually interact to form the self and language/thoughts.

[@extavwudda]

This guy is obviously well read and can speak so fast and confidently, that it takes a rewatch to spot the cluttered bullshittery of his arguments. There is nothing of actual substance here.

[@ayushsarangi7242]

Can u elaborate, why do u think so?

[@piccadelly9360]

He tells the truth but not about consciousness 🤣

[@peterjames9407]

Il est fort mais il parle trop vite! ihihih Merci!

[@cowboyofalltrades]

Liquid ai is founded by him