Ned Block on Perception, Cognition, and Consciousness | Closer To Truth Chats

[@krabelpaan]

This was a GREAT interview. SO useful. Thank you

[@FigmentHF]

Over this 3 years or so, I’ve noticed some of us pivoting from dogmatically physicalist science like theoretical particle physics, and cosmology, to asking more questions about how active we are in the creation of our perceived universe. The work of people like Carl Friston, Anil Seth, Andy Clark, Micheal Levin, Mark Solms, Thomas Metzinger etc, have really made us ask ourselves if we are inhabiting our minds inferred, generative model of reality. Maybe this approach can help us to understand some of the odd artefacts, the fine tunings, the strange coincidences and symmetries and scale invariance. Maybe it’s us, maybe it’s more how our brain/mind works, it’s how we structure and coarse grain an otherwise chaotic and combinatorially explosive quantum maelstrom.

[@simonhibbs887]

I don't see how physicalism is in any way at odds with this active, participatory model. Looking at the brain purely as physical neurological system, whatever else it might be, it's definitely a massively distributed neural network. By their nature neural networks are highly integrated, highly self-referential, capable of incredibly sophisticated analytical and generative processes. It's clear that the learning neural network AIs of today generate their own high order representations and abstractions of the information they process. What is consciousness if it isn't a high order representation and abstraction? I don't think those systems are conscious, because I think consciousness is more than just that. It's also introspective in ways these AI neural networks aren't. Yet.

[@FigmentHF]

@@simonhibbs887 I tend to agree, I guess Ive started to feel quite vigilant against my intuitions, and can easily imagine that our base reality, outside of our perception of ourselves, is something quite different to how it presents to the conscious observer that is embedded within the whole. Our brains are what our minds have inferred that our minds look like. I can imagine all manor of things- aliens that have developed ways of sampling the universes quantum information in a way that produces an interface that we can’t even interact with for some reason, they could be operating within other dimensions. We might have a form to them that they would think is our true form. I can imagine that we are actually something like a more 1D/2D complex self organising, agential quantum systems playing out on some boundary, and the world and self modelling of these beings is essentially the 3D space time bulk as described by certain interpretations of CFT and holography. I can imagine we’re simply experiencing a kind of coarse grained, 3D approximation of far more complex and combinatorially explosive “quantum” systems. I can imagine that our minds are something like renderers of reality, and the quantum foam is akin to the code, and so it’s hyper participatory. This is all stuff I can entertain and can’t just intuitively hand wave away. But it’s mostly just entertaining and fun to think about when high. Im not sure if I think the moon exists when no one looks at it, or is interacting with it. Rather some information exists, and that information becomes a moon in the mind of a conscious observer with the ability to render it into such. Without a moon maker, it’s all just an ocean of interconnected information that doesn’t distinguish itself. You need distinguishers to carve out the things from reality.

[@TheTroofSayer]

7:20 - "Like you, I'm a physicalist". With Robert's subsequent insertion of his well-placed asterisk, I breathed a sigh of relief. Good to see Robert keeping an open mind in a controversial area of research with so many interpretations and untested conjectures.

[@hilmyahmed6446]

A brilliant interview... thank you. I'd love to get my hands on some of the "Closer to Truth" books covering your background...

[@AB-TennisFan]

Looking forward to this conversation.

[@b.g.5869]

The Turimg Test was never intended as a test for consciousness. It's intended to be a test for what Turing called machine intelligence, which means it can reliably respond to questions in a manner indistinguishable from a person. The question of whether or not a machine would have be not only intelligent but conscious in order to pass the Turing Test is a separate matter, which John Searle fabously explored with his Chinese Room thought experiment, which most agree persuasively demonstrates that consciousness is not necessary to pass the Turing Test. I'm surprised neither Kuhn nor apparently Block were aware of this because it's fundamental to the topic.

[@joecheshul9325]

What a great conversation . I subscribe to “Closer To Truth” and many other such podcasts . I am immensely intrigued by all the theories of consciousness , like so many others are , and one of my favorites is the Penrose / Hameroff theory . I wonder if there is a “ Consciousness Field “ , similar in essence as is the “ electron field “ etc. ?

[@monty3854]

When was this filmed? Dan Dennet has been dead for a while.

[@CloserToTruthTV]

While this is a new interview we hadn't aired before, it was filmed last year.

[@monty3854]

@@CloserToTruthTV Thanks.

[@upali42]

You are doing a fantastic service to those who eager and curious about these stuffs

[@thapaamir]

waiting eagerly.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

Consider this possibility: If the particles we call DIGITS in our minds (with which we calculate = perform arithmetic operations + - × ÷) are several trillions of times smaller than the photons that transmit EMR, then no NONLIVING instrument would ever be able to detect their presence in any object, yet be full of them. If the Capacity of particles to sense (= be moved by them) is what we call CONSCIOUSNESS, characterized by presence in an entity of unique threshold number of interacting compounds acquirable only from Plant sources (= food and air inhaled), then it is obvious no AI could ever become conscious.

[@nicholash8021]

I would surmise that in my present capacity (= my ability to understand wtf you're saying) that I cannot deduce the seemingly cyclical logic to a discrete state (= a non-self-referencing construct) and would kindly ask that you rephrase your postulation after a cold shower (= hard reboot).

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could subjectivity / experience have to do with perceptual of causation in back of brain, with consciousness having to do with time in prefrontal cortex?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might integration of time information in prefrontal cortex develop consciousness?

[@gerridavis]

I wish you would have defined the term “consciousness.”

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

awareness in human brain different than basic consciousness of time in quantum? but may develop from it?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

can AI plan for future? might planning for future test for consciousness?

[@ashmeadali]

If and when a "perfect" intellectual understanding of perception, cognition and consciousness is achieved, what is the next step? To personally expand in these "areas"? How about a simple safe experiment to expand right now? : Sing *HU* daily. Search how to sing *HU* . A sonic tuning fork to alter personal frequency.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what is biology? how can be base for consciousness / psychology?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might equations govern numbers?

[@JehovahsaysNetworth]

@CloserToTruthTV your on the right track

[@rossw1365]

block stumbled on an "idea of an idea" when he pointed out physics doesn't tell us what fundamental properties are but he quickly picked himself up and moved on, oblivious to the idea (of an idea) he just stumbled on the "structure and function" of physics he mentioned also happen to be how neuroscience tries to explain consciousness the 4 main theories of consc rely on this paradigm and just as physics can't tell us what things are in themselves, neuroscience can't tell us why we are conscious unfortunately, where physics can ignore what things are, neuroscience can't ignore what consciousness is bc what it is is subjective experience ie, it is the thing that needs to be explained so the paradigm that works for physics cannot work for neuroscience (when it comes to consciousness) any theory of consc must explain the subject what is it and where does it come from? panpsychism does this by assuming all matter are subjects and have subjective experience (of varying kinds) I don't think this is the right answer, but at least it puts the subject in the answer which none of the leading theories do

[@rossw1365]

funny enough, block also stumbled on a way to put the subject in the answer when he said "biology may be part of the solution" indeed, it surely is but he quickly pivoted right back to the physics paradigm by talking about "electrical-chemical signaling"! such is the power of the example set by physics in the natural sciences scientists need to get over their physics envy and realize biology is not physics and it is not enough to describe biological systems as objects if consc is to be explained my prediction: consc will be explained by systems biologists systems biologists understand organisms are not mere objects to be studied like particles and black holes organisms are alive and are active agents -- subjects this is the key to understanding consciousness

[@rossw1365]

note: I noticed block never once said the word "subject" in the hour-long talk this is the influence of physics, where the 1st person is avoided and everything is described in the 3rd person but if you can't even say what the issue is, how can you ever solve it?

[@simonhibbs887]

Meaning is an actionable process that relates sets of information. It relates a counter to that which is counted, a map to that which it is a map of, a key to the lock it opens. Many meaning relations are multi-way and highly complex. A word is related to the meanings of many other words, and they all relate to phenomena and processes in the world in various ways. For a complex set of meaning relations, that meaning is identical to those specific relations. Different relations have different meaning. So if consciousness is a class of perceptive, evaluative, introspective meaning relations, then any given experience will be unique to the specific set of relations that creates it. Each experience of red we have will be similar, because the meaning relations in our particular brain will be similar, but they will never be quite identical. Looking at a brain, and even understanding how it works, is a completely different set of meaning relations to those in the brain actually having the experience.

[@iddo016]

For a profound guide to free will, consciousness and the nature of reality see ‘Finding Consciousness Within - The Essence Of Being’ by I A Gill

[@Dr.CandanEsin]

I will believe whether an AI is getting close to consciousness in total, when I see it create a video mimicking a gorilla's hand and its limited movements. This needs total perception. And regarding query about animals with perception and consciousness in 00:36:56; as far as I know there are animals see infrared or sense electric field and react unconsciously (reflexively) to that not conscious whether if it is a prey or predator.

[@nicholash8021]

But this would be a simulation, much as a video of someone doing something and which is played back could deceive a lesser-intelligent being into believing that the video itself shows a 2D rendering that is conscious but it's only a projection of the real thing. As a Master of Computer Science, I am not convinced that ANY sequence of bits can be conscious, and ultimately all AI today is nothing more than a sequence of bits in a specific order.

[@Dr.CandanEsin]

@@nicholash8021 "... all AI today is nothing more than a sequence of bits in a specific order.." totally aggree with you on this statement. 👍

[@controllerbrain]

If anyone's going to figure out consciousness it's going to be Robert Kuhn.

[@SandipChitale]

I am really surprised by what Ned said about the need for biological basis (substrate) for consciousness. In fact one of the older videos I recall that he was saying the final part of the consciousness aka qualia is an abstraction and thus can be produced in alternate substrate. Especially when he gave a misleading example of simulation of weather system. The goal of a weather is not to make it rain. The goal of a simulation is to predict if there will be rain, storm, or hurricane and what will be the number value of temperatures and pressures. So it is not surprising that simulation of weather does not make physical rain. But the qualia is not physical in that sense but the state of the brain state static and dynamic that we call is. So sure, the purely electrical systems will not produce the chemical processes and states. Duh. But the abstract state of the network can be reproduced in other substrates. I am not sure if Ned knows that an fluid circuit and be simulated using equivalent electrical circuits by using currents, voltage diff, resistance, induction, capacitors. Of course the fluid does not flow in electrical circuit, the electrons flow instead. But ideas equivalent to friction, potential energy, reservoirs have a counterpart in electrical circuit. Once again I am really surprised by seemingly naive take on this. For example the asthma attack which means obstructed air flow gets translated to the feeling of suffocation. So the obstructed flow of air is not important, but that final feeling of suffocation. A similar can be achieved in electrical or liquid/fluid circuit. I do agree that only neural networks may not be a sufficient architecture to produced full range of conscious phenomenon + knowledge + intelligence + creativity. But Neural Networks is half the story of AI. And people are not necessarily saying that LLMs will produce full range of conscious phenomenon but combinations of neural nets (LLMs) and other inferential, rule based AI (Deep blue), inductive AI, deductive AI and exhaustive search based AI (Alpha Go) may produce aspects of consciousness. Also not as Marvin Minsky has said, consciousness is a suitcase word for a class of phenomenon which we conventionally agree to classify as conscious. When a human with draws a hand touching a hot stove - we call conscious response. And Einstein thing a thought experiment we call conscious thought process. Or Gary Kasparov thinking a chess move and so on. And we already know each of these kinds of phenomenon are reproducible using various technologies/contraptions. I think that is the point about the talk of humans creating artificial consciousness. Sure, at the moment the discussions are centered around LLMs. BTW people do not appreciate how the extremely huge scale of neural networks has made those cross the threshold where suddenly interesting and useful (partly) behavior emerges. Even the original team was surprised to see how the scale made that possible. The shear brute force of scale made that phase transition. This should humble us and tell us that human consciousness is overrated. And that does mean I am denigrating it in any way. Humans have achieved a great deal. But if we are realistic about it we can deal with the fact that a phase transition is impending and if we are honest with ourselves and deal with it head on, we may be able to join them, because we may not be able to beat them.

[@attilaszekeres7435]

Let's not conflate the hard problem of consciousness with the easy problems of consciousness, sentience with intelligence/cognition. The hard problem is about understanding why and how certain physical processes in the brain give rise to qualia, the subjective aspect of experience. The easy problems, on the other hand, are about understanding the mechanisms that give rise to the various aspects of mental processes, including reportability, attention, and control of behavior. When Block talks about access consciousness, he's referring to the aspects of consciousness that are related to the easy problems-how information is processed, how it's made available for reasoning and action guidance, etc. while carefully avoiding the trapphilosophical rabbithole of the hard problem, the qualia at the end as you called it. He forgets accounting for the possibility that the infant's subjective experiences are not be available for the kinds of cognitive processes that lead to reportable behavior (see my other comment). He seems to argue against substrate indifference of cognition without distinguishing between the simulation of a process and the instantiation of that process. A computer simulation of a weather system doesn't produce rain, but it can predict weather patterns. Similarly, a computer simulation of a neural process might mimic the patterns of neural activity associated with consciousness, but that doesn't mean the computer is conscious. The question is whether the abstract patterns themselves are sufficient for consciousness, or whether the specific physical substrate of the brain is necessary. In my opinion, systems that don't participate in progressive spatiotemporal constraining of idiosychratic representations of non-obvious relationships relevant to themselves cannot be sentient the same way as biological systems are. The only way for a physical object or its multisensory representation to be sentient is to become an introject in the mind of sentient being. This the mechanism that gives sentience to characters in novels, humans, toys, cars and ChatGPT. Current machine learning models, including large language models, capture only certain aspects of cognition. They are very intelligent, but lacks intrinsic sentience. Contrary to common knowledge, they do not lack agency, as no intelligent system can be without such quality. The debate about artificial consciousness is indeed about whether and how we might create systems that not only behave in ways that seem conscious but actually have subjective experiences. This involves not just simulating the behavior of conscious beings but creating systems that have the same kind of integrated, adaptive, and self-modeling capabilities that characterize biological consciousness. This, in my opinion, requires integration of representations within an massively delocalised extended mind that connects localised representations (i.e. neural correlates) through less constrained ones (i.e. dark energy), with the wavefunction of the entire physical universe. The closest thing that comes to mind is Anirban's artificial brain.

[@SandipChitale]

@@attilaszekeres7435 I do not see why only the biological systems ( by which we really mean organic chemistry based) are the ones that can be conscious. It is true that, on earth, and by the nature of organic chemistry and the conditions of temperature, pressure gravity on earth, liquid water and specifically the nature of Carbon atoms, the simpler molecules which have potential of becoming complex, can naturally occur that are based on Carbon. And complexity is one of the key factors for initiation of life and the subsequent process of complexity ratcheting effect achieved via evolution and the very very long (evolutionary time scales are unimaginably long) , relatively (lucky fact) stable conditions on earth gave us complex and eventually intelligent life forms, humans, who can ponder about consciousness. So this is a very contingent fact. And biological is not a independent designator. We call the thing that happens on earth biological. Lee Cronin and Sara Emari Walker have a great theory called Assembly Theory, which talks about assembly numbers of object and it just so happens that carbon based chemistry can achieve high complexity naturally, given enough time. Silicon based chemistry could have been similar as Silicon is similar to carbon - 4 valency i.e. 4 electrons in outer shell. However with conditions of earth temperature, pressure and gravity Silicon chemistry is not suitable for for complexity. So nature chose what was available - organic chemistry. Arvin Ash has a great video on his channel about Silicon and possibility of life based on Silicon chemistry - "why not". The video title is: Why is All Life Carbon Based, Not Silicon? Three Startling Reasons! by Arvin Ash (I highly recommend this video, just on KZbin as I can not add direct link here) BTW evolution is not an agency laden intentional process, therefore it took 3+ billion years thru trial and error and a lot of luck to get to us. But now that we are here, who have agency and intentions and ability to manipulate the environment, we will be the ones, that may end up creating consciousness in silicon, using a totally different implementation architecture, and yet if we are careless, it may control us. So we should join them because we may not be able to beat them :)

[@attilaszekeres7435]

@@SandipChitale If we presuppose that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, then it's reasonable to assume that non-organic life forms could also possess consciousness, regardless of their substrate. The sun and geophysical anomalies such as Skinwalker Ranch may represent such "life" forms, as well as spiritual entities that are not organic either. Assembly theory is indeed a fascinating theory and very close to my line of thinking. Its current formulation, however, lacks retrocausation, without which it cannot be complete. The speed of evolution (especially in the Cambrian explosion) is not necessarily an argument for it being random. It is possible that an atemporal control mechanism, coupled with a weak interaction that influences the formation of complex structures, could be at play. This would suggest that there is a form of guidance or intelligence inherent in the evolutionary process. In any case, consciousness or life in any form - be it biological, machine, or even a higher-dimensional energy pattern such as the electromagnetic field of a planet like Jupiter - could arise if the right conditions for the emergence of those properties are met. By consciousness I mean cognition and phenomenological consciousness, as sentience, in my opinion, is a fundamental property reality. We are already witnessing the emergence of novel forms of cognition in our cities, which operate as superorganisms with their own metabolism and information processing capabilities. These systems are examples of how evolution can give rise to complex, intelligent behavior in non-biological substrates. It's only a matter of time before we develop artificial systems that possess properties we currently associate with consciousness. Whether or not these systems will have subjective experiences similar to ours, though, is an open question, something that we can only speculate about, not prove, by identifying even more refined correlates of consciousness. And if these systems happen possess sentience, it will be not a deliberate product of human engineering ingenuity, but carefully fine-tuned conditions that represent an invitation to the unknown. My perspective, in any case.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@attilaszekeres7435 Great thread, you both make interesting points. On simulations and consciousness, I think consciousness is more like a weather simulation than it is like weather. When we imagine a rainstorm, that's a simulation. In fact when we feel getting wet in the rain, the sensation of water trickling down your neck is not in fact itself water trickling down your neck. It's a representation of it in your mind. So I think consciousness is inherently simulative, or at least representational in a way similar to that of simulations, and this is also true of qualia.

[@BetterThanNada1]

Consciousness cannot exist without feelings.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

I don't know why consciousness is such a mysterious thing. The Platonists always acknowledged nous and mind; in Hinduism, it's Chit. The human vessel is like a computer(conscious) and is connected to the network. And by the intellect, man is able to explore these subtle realms and higher spheres of the network. Personally, I'm interested in this Nous, an unfoldment of light from the Divine.

[@chrisparker2118]

Welcome to the Enlightenment Gap. Platonism is making it's comeback, though.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@@chrisparker2118 definitely. Some need to push their vanity out of the way so they can see beauty.

[@chrisparker2118]

@@S3RAVA3LM Brilliantly said.

[@playpaltalk]

AI always will be too slow to be able to experience consciousness the way we do

[@simonhibbs887]

Slow? ChatGPT can produce an entire essay in seconds.

[@psuedonym8344]

Oh this is awesome ppl of equal age n we know the nuerologist is like" yea i know", given to yall in what ever age u r

[@SandipChitale]

Folks should watch YT video: Why is All Life Carbon Based, Not Silicon? Three Startling Reasons! by Arvin Ash The fact that the conscious entities on earth are based on biology - by which we really mean organic chemistry - is the contingent fact due to the specific conditions on earth for 3+ billion years. If the conditions were different on earth, or are different on other planet, where silicon chemistry could hold and create highly complex molecules, nature may choose that substrate for consciousness there.

[@Dr.CandanEsin]

It seems some of the contemporary scientists tend to slow down advancement/inflation in theory making and encourage to focus to create evidence for the available ones. So that science can breathe a little. Ref: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJu4fIh5jtmkrqM

[@2kt2000]

Most all Metaphysics questions or topics...Ned: "interesting", "impossible" , or "the question is flawed". OR the question is dissected for 2 minutes by Ned then...."I do find that interesting". Otherwise a good interview. I thought it was hilarious how Kuhn kept blocking the exits when Ned tried to veer off during metaphysics portions of the show...answer THE question Ned! lol. You wont be shamed for having an opinion other than..."interesting" for all things metaphysics. I think Ned said "interesting 100 times at the suggestion of anything non physical. At the end Ned said him and Kuhn were fundamentally on the same page.....uhh I dont think so * 😏 Maybe half the page. good talk.

[@krabelpaan]

You ought to make CLOSER TO ARGENTINA now and you would completely redeem yourself from that China thing you do. 😊 Best wishes, I really and deeply enjoy your work. Be well

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is electrochemical a biological process?

[@SandipChitale]

Brain is a electro-chemical machine. Chemistry is based on QM. So to say Quantum theory of consciousness is meaningless or superfluous or redundant idea. It is sufficient to say consciousness is based on chemistry.

[@dwilley8]

RGB behind Ned, is it on purpose, is it a test?

[@briangarrett2427]

Didn't Searle have similar ideas?

[@simonhibbs887]

Searle makes this argument that a computer 'simulation' of consciousness can't be conscious in the way that a simulation of a rain storm can't make anything wet. I think this is a misunderstanding of the nature of consciousness. I think consciousness is more like the simulation than it is the weather, that is, consciousness is an information processing phenomenon. Imagining what it's like to be in a rainstorm is more like the simulation that it is like the rainstorm. reasoning, imagination, and even experience itself are representations of external phenomena. They aren't themselves the external phenomenon. The experience of getting wet is not itself water tricking down the back of your neck.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

14:19 truth exposed.

[@JehovahsaysNetworth]

@CloserToTruthTV because magnetic polarity is constantly searching for gravitational attraction and gravitational repelling orbits or expansion

[@attilaszekeres7435]

Ned Block seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater when he generalizes lack of verbal and behavorial response to colors as lack of access consciosuness. He appears to disregard the very real possibility that the cognitive systems lacking access to phenomenal consciousness, as he defines it, are not the infant's "entire" consciousness (an incoherent notion itself, I'd argue), but rather the part of the infant's cognitive architecture that controls verbal and motor faculties, resulting in observable behavior. Skin galvanic response or EEG might reveal a different picture, not to mention funky equipment measuring all sorts of quasi-local correlations yet to be invented and discovered.

[@irena-rute-rutzvinklevicie3636]

Welcome thanks for this reguired video dialoge, your thoughts in our conciousness time watch on.// Rutereni Iren.

[@LuuLuong-bn8iy]

True or truth 4U... 😂😂😂😊

[@JehovahsaysNetworth]

@CloserToTruthTV conscious and cognitive is gravitational pull magnetic polarity

[@amourdesoipittie2621]

I was currently reading his book. Pretty good defense of non conceptualism. Sad McDowell Rorty Face.

[@LuuLuong-bn8iy]

Ai => art insulting 😂😂😂

[@JehovahsaysNetworth]

@CloserToTruthTV planetary alignment creates the illusion on intelligence

[@LuuLuong-bn8iy]

TruTV 😂😂😂 chat GPA 😂😂

[@SandipChitale]

Does Ned think p-zombies are even conceivable? I find conceivability to be the most ridiculous argument for hard problem of consciousness. JK Rawlings conceived of Harry Potter, I do not think that is an argument for existence of Harry Potter.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

Real immortality - NOT VIRTUAL - can be achieved if we can particle physically define what LIFE is and what changes in it causes AGING. For then we can specify the way each person could avoid those activities or substances that cause aging = sustain own life eternally in practice, without any artificial up- or downloading.

[@siminsalimi888]

🤓🤓🤓

[@dr_shrinker]

If perception and consciousness are altered by drugs, then consciousness is physical.

[@aidanhall6679]

If

[@dr_shrinker]

@@aidanhall6679if drugs don’t alter your perception, it’s probably baby aspirin.

[@aidanhall6679]

@@dr_shrinker you misunderstand. What I meant is that we cannot establish causal efficacy from physical to phenomenal properties.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@aidanhall6679 sure we can. If not then how could we set foot on the moon? Or type words on a phone screen? I don’t believe in that “we can’t know for sure” ideas. Also, I never conceded that consciousness is phenomenal, I maintain it’s physical. It has to be otherwise it cannot affect the physical universe. (Those are your words - physical cannot affect the phenomenal) well. That street goes both ways.

[@aidanhall6679]

@@dr_shrinker I agree, but I don’t believe the world as it is described by physics is what we take it to be, namely, wholly physical, so the causal problem isn’t an issue for me either.

[@krabelpaan]

Chabón te banco mucho, pero no seas tan comunista...