David Chalmers: The Hard Problem of Consciousness | Lex Fridman Podcast #69

David Chalmers is a philosopher and cognitive scientist specializing in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and consciousness. He is perhaps best known for formulating the hard problem of consciousness which could be stated as "why does the feeling which accompanies awareness of sensory information exist at all?"
This episode is presented by Cash App. Download it & use code "LexPodcast":
Cash App (App Store): apple.co/2sPrUHe
Cash App (Google Play): bit.ly/2MlvP5w
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website:
lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts:
apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify:
spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS:
lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
2:23 - Nature of reality: Are we living in a simulation?
19:19 - Consciousness in virtual reality
27:46 - Music-color synesthesia
31:40 - What is consciousness?
51:25 - Consciousness and the meaning of life
57:33 - Philosophical zombies
1:01:38 - Creating the illusion of consciousness
1:07:03 - Conversation with a clone
1:11:35 - Free will
1:16:35 - Meta-problem of consciousness
1:18:40 - Is reality an illusion?
1:20:53 - Descartes' evil demon
1:23:20 - Does AGI need conscioussness?
1:33:47 - Exciting future
1:35:32 - Immortality
CONNECT:
- Subscribe to this KZbin channel
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridmanpage
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman

[@lexfridman]

I really enjoyed this conversation with David. Here's the outline: 0:00 - Introduction 2:23 - Nature of reality: Are we living in a simulation? 19:19 - Consciousness in virtual reality 27:46 - Music-color synesthesia 31:40 - What is consciousness? 51:25 - Consciousness and the meaning of life 57:33 - Philosophical zombies 1:01:38 - Creating the illusion of consciousness 1:07:03 - Conversation with a clone 1:11:35 - Free will 1:16:35 - Meta-problem of consciousness 1:18:40 - Is reality an illusion? 1:20:53 - Descartes' evil demon 1:23:20 - Does AGI need conscioussness? 1:33:47 - Exciting future 1:35:32 - Immortality

[@younghyunoh8282]

One very interesting thing that I observe right now with regard to your previous podcast with Cristos, is that I'm Korean and whenever I watch Korean contents I get recommendations which are almost Korean contents. As contrast, when I listen English contents which are mostly about science or podcast like yours, I get recommendations like Jazz or the other English contents lol.

[@MaximeTrepreau]

I can't believe I'm commenting on KZbin. Awesome work. Keep it up.

[@Dontbustthecrust]

@@MaximeTrepreau we can't you believe it? Is this your first ever KZbin comment?

[@spencerm5913]

1:07:03 clones - Wouldn't the clone begin as a you and the diverge over time? Your experiences wouldn't be the same after the point of creation.

[@ghipsandrew]

This was an interesting video. The idea of consciousness instantiation / copying is not one I've considered too much. My current belief is that at some level of existence an intelligent species will evolve to be digital beings. At that point, any stimulation / experience becomes possible for the individuals, this leading to nihilism - because there are no more challenges to overcome or constraints. Any such species that gains access to digital existence, I posit, will thus seek to create simulations with constraints that allow for meaning to be found for inhabitants. These simulatios might be like MMO worlds where entities join in. I believe there's a strong chance our universe is one of many parallel worlds where digital beings come for a 'playthrough' in order to have diverse experiences and meaning. This is also why video games are becoming more and more appealing and realistic - because they impose some constraint/challenge and present an interesting environment where meaning is easily found.

[@younghyunoh8282]

Seriously, Lex you need a standing ovation for your ability, or your personal interest, in selecting a guest for your podcast. It has been outstanding, I almost quit another podcasts and only listen yours, because you always have superlative guest for most of whom I personally am interested (maybe the reason is that my personal interest is highly correlated with that of yours, which is "how the heck the mind works?")

[@abyteuser6297]

Lex doesn't push a agenda and listens even when disagrees with someone... whether is killing someone with a tie (Rogan) or the difficulties of computer vision (Jim Keller). Turning into a really great podcaster. Thanks

[@merrycanillas7586]

OMG! I am now 67 and I had this very same connection of musical tones equal certain colors. But this idea had come to me when I was in my twenties. I thought to myself, “Wow! I must be from another planet.” Little did I know it had a name. Thank you!

[@BobOort]

@@Yashua2Rule Probably never discovered except in manipulated computer simulations maybe, but the C7, G7 and F7 chords in blues are definitely blue, even on a red guitar 🎸😎

[@Myrslokstok]

No Lex is awsome and can play the guitar and sing as well.

[@neilhebert6429]

Good call on the adds at the beginning and not in the middle. Thanks for keeping the knowledge flowing I appreciate your hard work !

[@roberthodgins6584]

You’ve quickly become the best science interviewer caster imo thanks dude!

[@unRheal]

2nd only to Sam Harris, IMHO.

[@laplacesdemon45]

unRheal Sam is not solely focused on science, he is more of a philosopher, speaking about ethics, morality, culture etc. Lex is S.T.E.M. all the way! But I see what you mean, Sam is Sam :)

[@steveperryman8102]

@@unRheal Sam Harris is one massive arrogant ego. I used to listen but got tired of his arrogant "certainty" and constant pleas for money. I enjoyed watching him schooled by Sean Carroll.

[@unRheal]

@@steveperryman8102 Well.. frankly, I like a lot of what he says, and when I first noticed him on utube, then his sites and a few books.. It gave me an idea for how to write an AI. 1 in a million against all the billionaires, but I'm 53 now, and was pretty much depressed from my first memories, for the first 5 years of despising me and doing anything he could to make me feel like crap. We lived in the boonies, and so I literally had nobody else to socialize with except this demon and his 2 sisters, and my poor sister who was either "in the gang" or screwed.. the gang being all the kids but me. The parents ignored us literally as much as possible. Anyway, cut a long, awful store very short, and I'm still depressed and suicidal at 50 till I started watching Sam.. the app helps, and he gave me the idea to use my programming/AI skills to try to write something to help the world. Even that tiny hope made a big difference. I don't listen to all the podcasts, and Lex is super awesome too.. even more on my personal topic. Which one do you refer to with Sean Carroll? I like what Sam "preaches" about lies and he seems logical. I want to be right too, and will change my mind if proven wrong without hesitation. He's something like 6 weeks older than me, and I have to admit I'm jealous of his youth to adulthood. (except for the rat) And he gives $5k to charity a month... if I had $20k I could probably put together a prototype AI. Please let me know about Sean and Him.. Thanks.

[@andyc3012]

@@unRheal there are grammar error, excluding the internet shorthands.. How can you write "AI", when your english alone causes confusion? And it is not a virtue to just instantly change your when proven wrong. Being proven wrong can be a gift to be more insightful, so you can further develop your point. Maybe you were wrong because you didnt think deeply and widely enough to cover all the holes in your arguement, not because your argument or conclusion was incorrect. But you said you would instantly change your mind, so you will never find the truth in your original arguement because you stopped thinking and just adapted the other's arguememt which may also be wrong.

[@jladosky23]

Lex developing one hell of a guest catalog salute!

[@avi-ventures]

Lex your content is like mediations My morning commutes have been blessed with such wisdom and open minded questioning. From the bottom of my heart, thank you

[@thephilosophersjourney2595]

You're welcome, Avi.

[@korbandallas8931]

My meal prepping has been making me smarter, im hooked.

[@bautistabaiocchi-lora1339]

Amén!

[@everything777]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 or trust

[@jekonimus]

I love how he begins with some small talk and easy openers.... "do you think we live in a simulation?". This is why i love this cast.

[@raduantoniu]

When I first heard about David Chalmers and the "hard problem of consciousness", I thought he was just some new age thinker that didn't want to accept modern science. How wrong I was. I realize now David Chalmers is a very smart naturalist who honestly wants to understand consciousness and is willing to think outside the box to get there. I feel a lot of committed physicalist neuroscientists don't understand his position and just dismiss him as a guy believing in souls.

[@freedom_aint_free]

I've watched many videos from many thinkers on this subject, as I was trying to gauge how out of the mainstream thinking my impressions are, for I honestly think that consciousnesses does not exist more than the "red" or "green" color exist e.g. there's no physical property "color" just wave length of light to be absorbed or transmitted. I think that the so called consciousnesses is just a big, giant and complex bag of tricks caused by natural selection. So far, the only relatively famous thinker that does agree with me is Daniel Dennett, do you know any other?

[@off6848]

@@freedom_aint_free you can’t get around essence. Different colors, sounds, organisms, tastes and smells all have individuate essences wether or not they’re “tricks” created by the senses. Even though everything is ultimately connected (air molecules touching me are touching air molecules touching you wherever you are) everything is ultimately differentiated. Super interesting paradox

[@santerisatama5409]

@@squamish4244 On the contrary, the post-Cartesian exclusion of introspection is anti-empirical and hence anti-scientific. And to be more exact, Buddhist science is not focused on subjective mind, but what is usually called asubjective.

[@santerisatama5409]

@@squamish4244 'Asubjective' is a philosophical term for linguistic categories and/or experiences where subject-object division has not risen. For example in my language (Finnish) a verb in indefinite person (ie. asubjective) can form a full grammatical sentence without any subject and object. In this sense, subject-object is a codependent relation, but not foundational, as we can speak and experience also without that analytical division. This makes all the debates about whether subjectivism OR objectivism kinda silly. To comprehend European psycho-history, the horrible 'crisis of late middle age' (worth doing a search and some reading) and the consequent great which hunt, targeting and criminalizing shamanic experiences in every form, have been very formative collective trauma. The witch hunt did not really end, it morphed into the materialist psychiatry of enlightenment philosophy, ban of psychadelics etc. control mechanisms to limit what is allowed to experience and what not.

[@santerisatama5409]

@@squamish4244 Ah, a historian! :) I think a main cause of the crisis was unsustainability of Roman agriculture and ecological collapse of primary production, which was behind feudal land slavery of mining of fertile top soil also after it became unproductive. 'Civilization and Top Soil' is a classic work in this field, even though it does not discuss the Late Middle age crisis of the four horsemen running rampant. After the crisis, IIRC the system changed to 3-4 year rotation from 2 year rotation or no rotation. But doesn't seem we've really solved the unsustainability problem of permanent field cultivation, as it's now become very dependent from extensive use of fossil energy. Scapegoating comes with hierarchic class societies, that seems fairly strong universal. My tribe - Savo aka Forest Finns - were innovators of swidden / hack and slash, specialicing in old spruce forest (which is invasive monoculture in these parts), and that's at least possible to do in sustainable way. But the colonizing state structures banned our way of life. Forest is our home and temple, and I've also noticed the similarities between our shamanic and animistic world views, as they are preserved in our language etc., and Eastern advaita etc philosophies. A good general strategy is not to let some diagnosis to define the whole of you, but to turn your "weakness" into your superpower. Channeling that into some worthy cause and balancing with other features of your character. I've had couple of what Western psychiatry defines as bipolar psychotic episodes, I went through the second one without white coats. They are or at least can be deeply transformative spiritual experiences of facing and overcoming deep fears, etc.

[@sebastianrubio928]

This podcast needs to be shared more, this is an absolutely mindblowing conversation. I had to go through it twice, just ot enjoy the ride another time. (ok fine, I listened to it 3 times lol)

[@TurboGoth]

I top off my "lol" sentence endings with an extra "lol" for good measure. "lol". LOL ... ALL THE LOLS...

[@tiberiusvetus9113]

This is by far the best interview with Chalmers I have ever seen.

[@carlossegura403]

Ah philosophy and computer science, my favorite blend 🤗

[@johnharris3118]

think you would enjoy tom campbell "my big toe"

[@carlossegura403]

@@johnharris3118 Excellent recommendation, I looked up the book, and now I am reading it as we speak. Reading the preference alone was enough to get my attention. Thank you!

[@KMoscRD]

@@carlossegura403 Mind, nervous system and computation relationship leads to deep learning topic.

[@robertmontgomery2047]

I realize I’m asking for stuff without appreciating your channel. This is my favorite KZbin channel and exposes me to so much that I wouldn’t otherwise see! Thank you so much for taking time to do such a great job interview interesting people. It’s great how you are prepared to get as much value as possible from you guests

[@AssailantLF]

Chalmers looks and sounds so chill. Gotta love his flexibility of thought when it comes to all the possible likely (and seemingly not so likely) interpretations of the nature of consciousness.

[@williamshipley3483]

Lex, you ask fantastic questions. They are so well thought out, and phrased. You are very thoughtful with the questions, and although at times it comes off as non-candid, it leads to amazing conversation. Thank you so much for all you do and for asking the hard questions.

[@logical814]

Thoroughly engrossing. I want to say how much I appreciate your ability stay right with your guests intellectually, and further elevate the conversations. You consistently provide a very high quality learning experience. Much respect and appreciation.

[@amolvagad3970]

Hey Lex ! Thank you for these brilliant discussions that you share with us. We are indeed fortunate to have a dedicated person like you in the society who helps people understand AI , Philosophy , Economics and beyond by having such meaningful conversations. Be it doing dishes , or driving to work I love listening to your conversations. Your message of having a curious mind wrapped in a blanked of kindness is something we all should take a note of. More power to you and looking forward to more such talks. :)

[@e11e7en]

I’ve seen Dave in so many physics youtube videos over the years, it’s been wonderful to enjoy hearing an in-depth conversation with him for the first time. Thank you Lex and Dave!

[@oudarjyasensarma4199]

I actually went to sleep this time without checking youtube(which I deeply regret), but woke up to this!!!! What a start to the Day!!! Thank You Lex!!!!!!

[@publicshared1780]

Loving your podcasts Lex. Keep them up! The depth of your questions and your ability to dig deeper is something most interviewers don't have.

[@Fduthoy]

Been following your podcast for a while now, and this is by far one of the top contemporary philosophical "casual" conversations I ever heard in my life.

[@johndiem7815]

Holy crap you got Chalmers!? Thank you, he absolutely deserves the attention I hope he got from this podcast!

[@rowenab.747]

Thanks for this! Always a treat whenever the guest is a philosopher. Totally enjoyed this.

[@unocios0]

Please have Nicholas Nassim Taleb on your show, thanks for sharing these conversations with us. Good work, as always.

[@dimitrijknight]

Please. I've expected him to be on JRE or The Portal by now

[@avimohan6594]

@@TRLgoodvibesdotcom One good way to increase readership of said books is to *talk* about their contents in interviews. Also, I'm sure Lex's audience isn't so "lay" as to not understand _any_ probability theory at all. So yeah, I think Taleb should give an interview in this venue.

[@Gunnplay]

We need David back. I love listening to him. 👍

[@harry.tallbelt6707]

Whoa, such a great interview! The questions, the follow-up discussions, the production value, everything is on point. All the compliments to you and thank you for making this stuff :)

[@Axcellaful]

This was one of my favorites. Lex is doing a great job finding interesting new guests.

[@OriginalRiotGrrl]

Thank you for creating your channel and opening up a discussion about ethics, simulation hypothesis, consciousness and AI

[@BarcaFan420]

Lex, you are the man! Thank you for providing such insightful conversations. Your questions are always on point. You’re a true inspiration, cheers!

[@nutinmyass]

You just quoted Alan Watts while interviewing David Chalmers. These interviews are curing my depression.

[@georgemccaffery3260]

Wow. One great guest after another. Great conversation, Lex. Thanks!

[@gregoryn3780]

Lex, your podcast is unbelievably good! Do you have plans to interview physicist Carlo Rovelli?

[@cogean]

Also get Benedict Cumberbatch to narrate for him

[@chasecleary7921]

Carlo Rovelli PLEASE

[@itslightanddark]

David Chalmers in my top 10 favorite humans of all times

[@DarkPhantomSky]

Great listen, I totally forgot the time on this and flowed right through this. :) Thanks as always, Lex (and guests)!

[@user-mf5oc4qy7c]

Кайф, было очень интересно послушать Чалмерса. Его взгляды на фундаментальную теорию сознания любопытны, хотя и оставляют много вопросов. Неожиданно найти такой контент на англоязычном ютубе, канал - настоящая находка!

[@jaybrucker1234]

Love how you take your time to put your mind in the state that you think their mind is in. And then take the opposite view even tho it may not be what you think but you use it yon ask questions a skeptic or non believer would ask just to get more insightful or in depth answers. You are a master at getting down to first principals regardless of how hard it may be to do. Thank you sir. I am always impressed. Half the time I have no idea what it being talked about or if it even makes sense but at least you can get them to explain in terms some of us with low intelligence can try to wrap our brains around.

[@ryans3001]

I love Dave, he's always so cheerful and upbeat.

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

David is an incredible genius. His ideas are absolutely fascinating.

[@evanwillenson1398]

Lex - I love the breadth of topics covered in the AI series coupled with your ability to engage both technically and philosophically. Keep em coming!

[@EKDupre]

Love this podcast. It isn't candified whatsoever. Love the dry and natural format, the most enthralling guests, and Lex is a great host. Thank you!

[@sergeycleftsow4389]

Excellent. I got liked David even more than before. Lex is very nice and bright as well. And the conversation is just brilliant! Thank you, men!

[@lizbmusic11]

Love your questioning lex and so glad I’ve found your podcast. Love your open mind. Look forward to more. How about Don Hoffman. Or Ekhart Tolle. Love from nz

[@rickharold7884]

Awesome, excellent discussion on consciousness. I love it, thanks!

[@ReadMr]

Lex, many thanks for the awesome podcast and the great selection of guests. I'd love to see a conversation between you and Mr. Thomas Sowell, Naval Ravikant and Peter Thiel. Fingers crossed some of them might come true. Take care and seize the day!

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Lex is doing a terrific job I must say. The guests are super duper.

[@exponent8562]

SO GOOD! Love David Chalmers.

[@kidgoku96]

Really, really enjoying going through these podcasts. Thanks brotha 🤟

[@johngaltshank]

Absolutely brilliant work Lex. Tip of the hat to you in your work theses days. Please keep'em coming.

[@MathPhilosophyLab]

Lex your show is amazing. Keep it up man!

[@bjornerikstokland]

I would love to listen to a conversation between you and Nick Bostrøm. I deeply enjoy listening to your work!

[@fgkurehgyu2]

This was a great podcast. It is admirable how this guy can understand so clearly from multiple perspectives. That is something I definitely wish to master one day

[@TronicGames]

Lex, thanks for bringing this inmensurable amount of knowledge to us in such a calm, educated and constructive way.

[@dkyoungson151]

"We are the custodians of life's meaning." -Carl Sagan

[@Alex-kk8is]

My Movers Inc Moving your argument is written quite poorly.

[@mysticmouse7261]

Sagan is a parallel custodian in the universe in which he now exists that is not this one where he no longer enjoys physical existence.

[@richardfinlayson1524]

except trump

[@a13xdunlop]

@@TRLgoodvibesdotcom all words are human words

[@dazboot2966]

So glad he grew his hair back. Aids his clarity of thought, I feel.

[@davidmireles9774]

Thanks for the awesome interview Lex!!! Great questions. And David Chalmers. Man he is such an inspiration. Love this dude! Great communicator, extremely sharp, and the most down to earth in ever interview! Thanks for your existence David!

[@mrsconley666]

DUDE LEX! I think I have watched damn near every podcast episode you've had thus far, and by and large this was my favorite episode bar none! Great work! I always appreciate how you ask the hardest questions that so many people don't have the capacity to even understand the response, let alone comprehend the question itself. Joe Rogan may have critisized tyour way of doing this but I think it always comes off as totally honest and pure of intent. Thanks Lex!

[@dmtgallardo]

What is up with these awesome guests!! Great job Lex! 2020 here we go!

[@RitaTheCuteFox]

2023 here we go...

[@AS-fu1kd]

Lex Fridman has the best interviews, Hands down.

[@realkabecio]

Everyone has already spoken all your praises and I second and third them all. Bravo Lex to you and all your good works!

[@floatingdoor]

Dude, you are the shit. I just want to say I listen to two podcast, Joe Rogan's and yours. Keep up the great work!

[@nozfirat]

I jumped on this interview when just uploaded, like when I was a kid, I saw a just released new edition of Tintin at the book store and start jumping "I must read this".

[@shaown20]

Lex, your guest list is impressive. Also, thanks so much for bringing Dave for this discussion.

[@--OFFLINE-xd5ww]

This is going to be my favorite one so far, and I’m only 7 minutes in

[@garyfeltham302]

@@eliyahfeld i was here after 3mins lol .

[@tekannon7803]

Dear Mr Fridman and Mr Chalmers, I viewed the David Chalmers interview and already left a comment: but now; exceptionally, I’d like to add one more idea I have on consciousness. After the videocast, I had an additional idea on what consciousness is and I found it in the cell. In a human cell for example there is a membrane which holds the little factory together. Consciousness is literally a membrane that allows the thinking process to be contained, holding all the pieces in place so that it has a handle on the whole mind. In a cell, if one substance is needed on the other side of the cell, it will build an overpass to send the material. When the material has been successfully delivered the overpass dissolves away. Consciousness allows the mind to send and receive and evaluate all kinds of thoughts to the various parts of the brain. It’s a 'membrane' that reigns it all in so that we, as humans, get the big picture every time something needs our attention. It’s a theory.

[@terbial]

This is such a good interview, so many gems. Lex is on his A-game ⭐️

[@MihaiBadea24031992]

This whole conversation was like a game of chess of ideas. Myself being a big fan of the game, I can see how your mind work in that same way, the way you lead the conversation. Super cool discussion! Loved it, like always ❤ keep it up!

[@Vacidity]

It's turtles all the way down. Literally my favorite expression 😂

[@Vacidity]

@Strawchild I think it's an ancient Greek thing where one turtle was holding the world up and when asked who was holding the turtle up the response was another turtle!

[@JuliaKathleen]

@Strawchild "Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the problem of infinite regress. It's in reference to "The World Turtle" (also referred to as the Cosmic Turtle or the World-bearing Turtle) a mytheme of a giant turtle (or tortoise) supporting or containing the world. The mytheme, which is similar to that of the World Elephant and the Hindu World Serpent (not to be confused with the Norse World Serpent), occurs in Hindu mythology, Chinese mythology and the mythologies of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. The "World-Tortoise" mytheme was discussed comparatively by Edward Burnett Tylor. (see wikipedia for general background info)

[@empemitheos]

It astounds me that we are only thoroughly defining and asking these types of questions so precisely only at this point in history.

[@vitkovitsmate7281]

Wrong.

[@empemitheos]

@@mattbrown292 I was referring to formally asking these questions in an exact way, obviously humans have asked basic philosophical questions about consciousness since we evolved reasonable abstract abilities

[@empemitheos]

@@mattbrown292 I have yet to see anything exactly like the hard problem of consciousness as defined by Chalmers as done by any other philosopher or philosophy and I think that is pretty surprising more people have not seen this as important to study

[@contemplativepursuits]

One of the most remarkable discussions on the nature of consciousness and deep philosophical insights. I'm more puzzled than before.

[@jimbo4576]

This is just brilliant,two interesting and intelligent human beings discussing a fascinating hypothesis ,thank you to whoever gave us you tube .

[@davidferrer6771]

Awesome! Thanks 👌

[@ACFeelz]

David Chalmers, my man

[@satchy1000]

Awesome podcaster Lex. You know the right questions to ask, summise it for us and can keep up with these superb thinkers you have on. Keep up the good work 💪🤙

[@mortalkomment8028]

Lex, thank you so much for all your amazing effort to bring humanity a step forward.

[@pensulpusher2729]

Lex, I love your lack of pretension and taste in guests, keep it up!

[@kugelblitz8086]

I almost gave up on "nothing to watch". Thanks!

[@psytechs]

David and Lex Awesome Show, Great Job!

[@dinashufaniya3921]

Thank U, Lex Friedman.U r one of the best, if not the best interviewers, as well as a highly interesting, good and positive human being. U should become a teacher, and if so, I would become a pupil again.

[@LukaszStafiniak]

Hi! Could you interview Jesse Prinz and Peter Carruthers?

[@miscaccount9438]

I believe the game you're looking for is Roy, from Rick and Morty

[@Paint411]

That episode got me good

[@tomaszjagieo1100]

hey Lex! To me Your insight into the subject of vr looks as interesting as Your guest's. Keep up with good ideas and presenting them to the world - I see a brilliance of thought in it! Cheers!

[@montanagal6958]

You are now my favorite, thank you for the intellectual stimulation (didn't realize how "dumbed down" the internet has become)!!!

[@Censeo]

I loved this interview. Sorry for being one year late to the party (1 year). My thoughts as an armchair philosopher. 1) If it is argued that we are more likely to live in a simulation than in the "world 0", the most likely outcome is solipsism. It takes less computational effort to convince one mind to think their world is real than billions. The good news if that is the case is that you in original form had some important impact and they are just studying your behavior in another universe. 2) I like the analogy of your brain being outside your character in a video game. The character doesn't control their movements. You make them move. They tell other characters in the game why they did those things. Experiments have shown us we almost always know why we do things but it is post hoc explanations. Kind of like our characters in video games with no brains. 3) I believe we are all sentient, and that we live in a "real" world. But philosophically, that creates another problem. Can a part of the universe begin to map the universe in a truly accurate form? I would answer no, but we can do much with the distorted view of reality that we do experience. 4) I guess pansphycism theory is one of the few theories that make us really experience what is there more than other theories. I think the theory was developed because that is what we hope to be real. Many theories have originated that way and have been smashed. This theory can't be smashed but recognize the reasons for it even being there.

[@ibperson7765]

And maybe their way of telling me is via point 1) in yt

[@ibperson7765]

On 4), wanting a theory to be true is also not evidence *against* it either

[@mrcollector4311]

Look up Bernardo kastrup's analytical idealism

[@halllithorien]

you should get bernardo kastrup on your podcast

[@uvi6344]

Lex is extremely impressive. I'm thankful to find this channel and yes please get Donald Hoffman next

[@PodcastWhore21]

This is my new drug.. love the way you are able to communicate so effectively.

[@Iightness]

When I dream at night and find myself in a strange world nothing like my own, I don't really question my surrounding, my motives and why I got there. I think that would be the closest that we can get to a split consciousness. Maybe in the future, we will have the capability to tap into that stream or mode of consciousness.

[@JaneDoe-zk4uk]

Do you mean like Dissociative Identity Disorder? Bernardo Kastrup has some interesting views on that subject. That somehow we can split our consciousness and experience different realities, that studying people with DID can give a hint as to the nature of consciousness. I wonder what views David Chalmers might have?

[@mark1952able]

Seems to me, know one is sure of anything.

[@iseezden167]

@@mark1952able I haven't listened to the whole interview yet but I get that sense too(Coming from the reality of soul identity).

[@lkkrtch6237]

Great interviews. Just one thing: "phenomena" is plural. The singular form is "phenomenon". ;)

[@khhanthology8696]

Very fun conversation!! Thanks for this!

[@khhanthology8696]

Love this still the second time around

[@davidmilton900M1]

Thank you for this Lex and David!

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini

[@youtubecom5478]

Wow! Chalmers!!!!!!

[@embodiedauthenticity]

"What is consciousness?" "Subjective experience. What it feels like from the inside to be a human being or any other conscious being". Beautiful definition!

[@ElaineWalker]

I just met David Chalmers and he’s a super sharp, friendly, approachable guy. And his voice is truly superb… just talking normally, he sounds like he’s on the most expensive tube mic.

[@nyworker]

Two chickens were having a conversation in the chicken coop. "I wonder if this is the real world or a simulation." The second chicken replied, "That question has been eating at me too!"

[@jordanescorcio2802]

Lex "I have a deep connection with robots" Fridman

[@garyfeltham302]

One of the best Interviews ive seen so far Lex .

[@frankdinies5111]

Ah, this podcast is so a refresher. Parts remind me of my first encounter with "Second Life from Linden Lab".

[@Trantaloid]

Need Tom Campbell on the show PLEASE!

[@hiuller]

Pleeeease

[@roystonsbailey]

Didn't Leonard Susskind claim a 3d space can be represented in 2d (on boundary)? That would make simulation a lot less costly...

[@77solsken]

Maybe a 3D space and a 4d space can interface on a 2d boundary...(3-------4). With a point of interaction sitting both inside and outside the Bi-Universe, a zero-point if you will.

[@Inertia888]

Yes, all of the data would be available. I think there's a way to go quite a many more dimensions than 3d, although I don't understand the math.

[@jakesimmons5578]

Holographic universe

[@Sarah-gv3ln]

I am so impressed by your Podcast, Lex!

[@jbaker91585]

Wow! Thank you! That was an amazing conversation. Thank you to infinity for exposing us to this level of thought. Priceless.. You're doing an ineffable positive thing for humanity and consciousness or whatever it is that I intrinsically feel is important. Bless your heart and or soul (or just me[?]). Love u bud