Joscha Bach - Reconciling consciousness with physicalism

Joscha Bach speaking at the 6th International FQXi Conference, "Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World."
The Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) catalyzes, supports, and disseminates research on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology, particularly new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality but unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources.
Please join us at www.fqxi.org!

[@rutgermuller]

I'm on a spree of hitting like on all Joscha Bach videos so the algorithm won't bother me with nonsense anymore.

[@JimJoness619]

Same

[@EannaButler]

Another

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

That’s a really good idea!

[@andrewtaylor9799]

Yes. Bach does a really good job of integrating current ideas around consciousness. The Lex Fridman interview is more casual and last for 3 hours. It shows the astounding breadth & depth of Bach's knowledge and insights.

[@daarom3472]

@@andrewtaylor9799 the Fridman interview is excellent. However, Kurt Jaimungal's is even better, he really challenges him on his ideas and therefore forces him to be even more precise (who thought this would be possible?)

[@a.hardin620]

He was clearly given a 20 minute time limit for content that would normally fill half a day and he did his best to cover everything.

[@sealedwings6788]

yup, and this is not the way to go

[@buddyrichable1]

I’ve found when listening to Joscha that it’s helpful to click the three dots in the upper right corner and set the playback speed to .75, if you find he speaks too fast.

[@donaldzielke4124]

Wonderful suggestion! Thank you!

[@fronx1984]

Alternatively, if you regularly watch a lot of talks about consciousness, setting the speed to 1.5x might be appropriate

[@AB-or1yo]

Yo Lex talk brought me to binge watch Joschas vids

[@jenniferbrantley5931]

same

[@OfCourseICan]

Get this guy and you get life! 60 years I have been waiting for this genius. Thanks so much Joscha, forever grateful!

[@mariavictor4324]

Yes he rips to shreds our lazy perceptions and its lovely.

[@navskygupta5311]

@@mariavictor4324 Exactly! After my 2009 discovery of The Selfish Gene

[@PeterBaumgart1a]

Joscha's data rate (and information density) seems 10x of other mortals.

[@MiCHELLEannSPIRESmasterminedAO]

I love this guy!!!

[@Nexus2Eden]

Michelle Spires me too, weird huh?

[@e11e7en]

Wonderful wonderful! Love listening to Joscha. By far the most influential thinker about consciousness I’ve been lucky enough to hear. Thank you Joscha!

[@StephenDix]

"Hey Google. Rewind 2 minutes." That's me all day long with this guy. After a couple of months of machine learning, Google now automatically rewinds 2 minutes every time my face says, "whut?"

[@silkwesir1444]

And then when it comes close to the point where you said "rewind 2 minutes" you realize that you have been distracted again... oh wait, I should say "I", not "you" :D

[@0endofsilence]

Brilliant, fascinating mind

[@caricue]

When science declared that life was no longer a mystery, all it did was move the mystery up one level to consciousness. Consciousness is a feature of living things, so when we really understand what is going on with animated matter, we should also have a good handle on consciousness, or at least we will finally be looking at the right place.

[@gridcoregilry666]

thx for the upload, nice short form of his ideas regarding that topic

[@mitchkahle314]

Nice talk, thanks.

[@JimJoness619]

Woah reality put together so nicely makes sense. But fuck me right

[@snarkyboojum]

I love listening to Peregrin. I'm not sure if he was still speaking to Frodo at this point though.

[@etzenhammer]

Very exciting theory and one that absolutely makes sense to me.

[@patrickkathambana4112]

He solved the Hard Problem? Just like that? 20 mins? Damn

[@dundeedolphin]

So there you go.

[@petermartin5030]

If attention is like addressing at the read (input/sensory) side of the system, I think there needs to be something equivalent on the write (output/action) side of the system, which one might call routing. Anyone doing any work related to his?

[@mrbwatson8081]

If I could simulate the weather 🌧🌦 🌞 down to molecular level on my computer, would it rain in my house?

[@literallyfiction]

The only computer powerful enough to simulate the weather at the molecular level is the universe. So yeah, it would rain.

[@mrbwatson8081]

@@literallyfiction a simulation is not the phenomenon. The universe is not a computer 💻.

[@petermartin5030]

No, but the simulated you would act as if it was raining because you would also be modelling your reaction to and expectations of the rain. Then the physical you, which is just a bunch of cells clustered together, could behave as though the simulation was fact.

[@danzigvssartre]

"It would be very useful for a brain to be a human being?" As opposed to my shoe, who finds it more useful to remain non-sentient matter.

[@jonathananderson2647]

Think about evolution.

[@danzigvssartre]

@@jonathananderson2647 I can't, the random mutations of my genes did not lead to thought.

[@user-sb9ml1ef4q]

@@danzigvssartre I'm confused now... can NPC be aware that it is NPC?

[@pbohearn]

Does a tree have to know that it’s a tree to fully be a tree?

[@Intraphase1]

If the data is valuable, repeat the sequence wearing multiple lenses for each portrait and model.

[@shaneacton1627]

I love Joscha and his ideas, and I think he's on the right track. But one remaining unanswered question! Why does the model of the thing generate an experience of itself? Its the Hard problem of consciousness, or the Philosophical Zombie problem. Why couldn't we have every single mental function we have, but just without an experience? You could still have everything Joscha mentions, but without any experience generated?

[@ex-cursion]

Because the computer has to include itself in the model in some way, especially because it's contained in a body that moves around, etc - it's fundamental. I know that's a bit recursive. It so happens that our hardware and model produces the particular qualities of the things we experience.

[@shaneacton1627]

@@ex-cursion why does a computer modeling itself produce an experience, recursive or not. A model could model itself without the model experiencing itself.

[@ex-cursion]

@@shaneacton1627 Forgive me if this is incoherent - my intelligence is limited as is my knowledge of philosophy, at least as much as my ability to communicate 😂 I can't speak for Joscha here, but I'm looking for where he's covered it before and will come back to you if I can put together something useful. I see it as an epistemological/semantic issue. "Why" does the universe exist? I go a bit zen here and say semantically "why" presumes there's an answer, or at least a question. I know there's the whole a-priori issue with this, but that's the point. "Why" is there experience? "How" is the question that makes sense imo, which is the question Joscha is answering. Because (I think) he can answer the question coherently, there is no hard problem, and it's the meta problem that needs answering. I'm guessing the answer has something to do with naive epistemology and maybe Western cultural semantics around "why". It could also relate to the recursive nature of a model trying to attend to its attention mode - I think zen is evidence of this 'issue' and points to why we get bogged down in the hard problem. It's either all one big koan because of the models we run or our hardware limits, or I have no idea what I'm saying. Probably the latter. Apologies if I'm wasting your time 🖖🏽 my stimulated brain hurts

[@shaneacton1627]

@@ex-cursion your point is very valid. The questions 'why is there any experience' is very similar to the question 'why is there anything' And you're probably right about the question 'why'. The problem with 'why' is that no matter how many 'how' questions you answer, you can never truly answer the 'why' question. But saying all this doesn't really satisfy me at all. I still feel intuitively that there should be an answer to 'why can experience exist'. Or at least a 'how' answer which is so good, that it could pass as a 'why' answer. Just like at some point, I'd probably accept a theory of everything about reality if it's assumptions were minimal and self evident. And the mechanics were consistent and accurate. Joshas ideas are incredible as 'how' answers. But they just don't seem to get close enough to the 'why' to satisfy. But he's probably the closest human I've ever heard haha.

[@ex-cursion]

@@shaneacton1627 👍🏽🙏🏽 I'm with you. The urge to know is one of our most fundamental drives as a species. We want to minimise surprise as much as possible. I think that's probably part of the meta problem answer, along with your intuition. But I'm just not smart or specialised enough to do more than have a bit of a laugh. Check out his longer presentations - he's very consistent and pretty good with the broader detail. The bits around information, precepts and building a simulation via the cortical conductor seem so helpful to me. The bits on attention being aware of itself as a memory is really interesting. Hurts my brain too. I hope to see more of him, and under challenge from other great minds in this area.

[@vrilmaxxed]

I’m too dumb to watch him talk, but I gotta

[@goyonman9655]

NAH he aint articulate enough to be more accessible

[@eushef]

Is he saying that consciousness is not physical? Is he pointing towards strong emergence?

[@marianpalko2531]

2:11 That’s quite interesting, because that’s not what it feels like to me at all. I do not feel like I have "a vial of consciousness that I carry around in my mind", which would imply that there is a part of me constituted by something other that consciousness. His comment regarding language being removed from phenomenality implies this as well. Rather, I feel identical to consciousness, in other words, I feel identical to a certain phenomenal state. Everything I am is a part of this phenomenal state. My body, the feeling of sitting on a chair, the sight of the computer I’m typing this on, the intuition that I am a being inside my head looking at the world outside, the process of arbitrarily carving out a phenomenal state into different classes of phenomenal qualities, of which this process itself is one - those all constitute a phenomenal state I feel identical to in the strictest sense of the word, as in, there is nothing more to me other than the phenomenal state and there is nothing more to the phenomenal state other than me.

[@takeuchi5760]

Then you're the exception, most people by default including me a few months ago completely are convinced with this notion of being "someone" in their head, most people do not feel identical to their experience they feel like they are an entity having an experience I used to be that way as well, still am, but now I'm able to recognise this better thanks to Sam Harris, Bach, and others. Did you always have a world view like this?

[@marianpalko2531]

@@takeuchi5760 Not always, because I used to not concern myself with such topics at all. But once I began thinking about philosophy of mind, I pretty quickly reached that conclusion.

[@silkwesir1444]

@@takeuchi5760 Well... you'll find that most people when you push them on it are willing to at least step back some of the way. At least if they were willing to engage in the conversation in the first place. There are also enough people who don't even get to that point and exhibit something which almost could be called disgust for even the attempt to talk about this in abstract terms. Which means that even the idea of being "someone inside their head" they would reject, even though that would seem to describe their worldview very well. But they somehow don't like to even think about it at all.

[@dylangarrett8133]

Maybe in another life I’ll be this smart..

[@enriquemartinez5647]

You are only about 100 books away and you could decunstruct his discourse and build on it. Two or three years of reading 6 hours a day. Start with the universals of humans, anthropology, logic, linguistics, anti-filosofy, brain functions, cognitive psychology, psychoanalisis,... you need passion, an idea of what you want. Some sci-fiction too helps. Just my opinion. Have a beautiful life amigo! Saludos desde México.

[@pbohearn]

@@enriquemartinez5647 I’m good with one of the competence areas. Back to school! Lol

[@ROBERTBROWN090564]

I can appreciate that awareness of self as an entity and autonomy to direct attention etc can be computational but what about the most fundamental and unique aspect of consciousness: feelings? How can computation create happiness, hope, despair, pain etc.?

[@petermartin5030]

The need to survive and reproduce mean one of the things the brain comes up with is scores of how we are doing against our desirable set points (thirsty, hungry, in pain,....). That creates an additional dimension of representation which is a fundamental driver of the calculations that feed consciousness. If valence is the positive or negative measure of how we are doing, then attention is focused on those inputs that are associated with the biggest absolute value of valence (most good and most bad outcomes) and action is selected that maximises valence (most good, least bad). Thinking of these as control systems, and consciousness as control-of-control can be helpful here.

[@ROBERTBROWN090564]

I agree a computer could maybe create set points for thirst, hunger and pain, though I’m not so sure about guilt, solace, contentment etc. But anyway this misses the point, even if a computer could provide reliable comparative scores for all our different types of emotions it will never know what they actually feel like. That’s my point I.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’

[@petermartin5030]

@@ROBERTBROWN090564 The mind pays attention to its own state as a thing-as-a-whole. That state includes what it has sensed, felt, generated as action options, and decided to do to optimise how it expects to feel. It is this access to ones own state in this sense/feel/do space that is the what-it-is-like, the qualia of the hard problem.

[@chantelleboutin]

Are these slides available anywhere?

[@vrilmaxxed]

Use screenshot

[@sergeitugov2221]

Yes

[@andrewtaylor9799]

Michael Graziano at Princeton has very similar ideas on consciousness and has written several books that are good reads.

[@muffinman2946]

They're all reading each other.

[@Zayden.]

I'm surprised Graziano and Bach don't cite each other. This actually an interesting process in the enterprise of science itself, a sort of convergence is taking place. A more thorough scientific theory of consciousness is emerging, thanks to accumulated experimental, observational knowledge, advancements in technology for research etc.

[@andrewtaylor9799]

@@Zayden. Surprising how many are still saying that consciousness is a complete mystery as others develop very credible framework.

[@TheBilly]

@@andrewtaylor9799 Eliminative Materialism is not a credible framework (no matter the disguise it wears)

[@BEATTECHN1QUE]

Yes it's possible!? What? What was that question of dualism? "Is it possible to affect anything on the physical domain, if the physical domain is causally closed" I shall listen on!

[@BEATTECHN1QUE]

Ah! He finished with it too

[@BEATTECHN1QUE]

We affect the perception of the physical realm I suppose

[@BEATTECHN1QUE]

This is so kung fu panda

[@BEATTECHN1QUE]

"Ah, but the seed may grow to be a peach tree or a plum"

[@dextrogyren]

An example of a causally closed physical domain please ??

[@theonetruemorty4078]

I want to eat mushrooms with Joscha.

[@beeshepard]

How does a (by definition) non-conscious physical system "pay attention" so that it may become conscious? Genuine question, not trolling.

[@j.vdubois5074]

The confusion stems from difference of "attention" as concept in machine learning and "attention" in colloquial language. They are somewhat related but not the same. Of course this confusion takes place all over the science as scientific terms are often more precise exactly to distinguish between border cases while colloquial language is more about ability to express multiple meanings.

[@timdavis2008]

@@j.vdubois5074 Thank you for that clarification. Presumably there are machine learning programs that focus resources on important data while reducing the need to concentrate on less important areas, i.e. systems that use attention in the technical sense, which are NOT conscious. So to answer Bee Shep's question, I think Bach would say that while attentional learning is a pre-requisite of consciousness, it is the extra layer of the protocol which allows us to remember "having been conscious" in the past that is the necessary and sufficient condition of consciousness. (I still find this sudden awakening of a simulation into consciousness hard to reconcile with the depth of experience of my lived reality, but Bach's analysis has tied together so many loose ends that I am willing to consider the possibility that my intuition just needs time to catch up :)

[@jenniferbrantley5931]

@@timdavis2008 it "get's access to language" and voila here we are messaging each other over the internet

[@dennistucker1153]

I agree with Joscha Bach's points. I think he is brilliant! In my studies of consciousness, I came to the same conclusions. Within the models I've done on this, I do not relate to areas within the brain. I also simplify the representational graphics. It is Who is the girl at time index 9:40?

[@jenniferbrantley5931]

She's Josha's handler, Lol :-)

[@europa_bambaataa]

please fix auto captions to English! I know his accent is kind of strong but wow wtf

[@jenniferbrantley5931]

Mic Drop Yo!!!!

[@StephenDix]

5:08 "matter and energy are just ways to talk about the exchange of information." - JB I don't deserve this knowledge. My life choices deserve punishment and not reward . . . Unless this insight and the accompanying existential burden. . . is the punishment? I feel very seen.

[@pbohearn]

Your deservedness has nothing to do with it. Get off it.

[@dextrogyren]

Editing a video is an art. Well, I guess the editor in this one just want to make us feel how fast is 10 nanoseconds by leaving the slides visually appearing around that laps of time. Fortunately, there was a voice but still, the output was at the speed of light. Try better next time because the theme is mostly interesting.

[@Bilbo4123]

I find it useful to reduce the speed to .75 or even .5, which allows me to pick up more of the points and be further dazzled by the material. Afterward I watch again and make notes on items on the slides and google a bit to acquire a foundation. Well worth it!

[@viadharmawheel]

Mysticism...

[@thenewwaydevil]

This guy is our buddah

[@bobbyevans8496]

The eyes of the gentleman shown at 6:46 gave me a shock!

[@MalAnders94]

why?

[@paramsb]

19:50 Joscha is clapping for himself in the audience. Now we know why he says the self is a fiction. The guy on stage is virtual.

[@jenniferbrantley5931]

it does look like his doppleganger. no wonder he's brilliant, there's two of him!

[@hellol4045]

Lmaoooo

[@bpanthi977]

physical system cannot be conscious?

[@hoangtoonnt]

He is basically a physicalism.

[@petermartin5030]

More like dual aspect monism.

[@takizeghida4303]

he's a functionalist-computationalist

[@charbelbejjani5541]

Idealism is not really that our consciousness lives in another plane of existence

[@garetcrosman3628]

Racing through it. I hope he managed to catch that last bus home.

[@hammerstrumm]

he got 20 minutes for the talk, and he ended it at 19.59. hmmm....a computer would assess that as sloppy. Definitely a glitch in the system somewhere.

[@BulentBasaran]

A pity that there was so much haste. Why not focus on three key points, slow down, and deliver them with more care?

[@Stadtpark90]

@@BulentBasaran You can rewatch the video as often as you want, you can slow it down, stop it at the slides etc. He already condensed it to the minimum: where he arrived at and what lead him there, including all the usual starting points of western philosophy, mathematics and computation. (Well, there may have been 3 jokes in there, but even those he added to cover more bases from where to pickup the audience.)

[@jenniferbrantley5931]

19:59 is perfection if he started a 0:00

[@gamerlegend8529]

Smart smart smart

[@silkwesir1444]

Please please please do sth about the subtitles. It's not German, even though he has a strong German accent. This really is a problem. If it at least tried to make it English, it could all be dealt with, even if riddled with errors; but like this, it's mangled beyond repair.

[@theflamingsword]

He certainly seems to have himself convinced that consciousness is explained.

[@racecondition3176]

You don't agree with him? he gives logical arguments though.

[@danzigvssartre]

@@racecondition3176 Your consciousness is a simulation made by your brain? That is not logical. That's literal meaningless non-sense.

[@danzigvssartre]

@ka3imir_ I'm perfectly aware of work in cognitive science, Bayesian theories of perception and cognition etc. Fact is, no theory in neuroscience or cognitive science shows that your conscious experience "is a simulation made by the brain." Again, taken literarily (rather than as just some kind of metaphor) it is unscientific, non-sense.

[@danzigvssartre]

ka3imir_ Simulation Theory is as old as Descartes, probably older, old as Plato, or Vedic philosophy. That is not non-sense. Saying “consciousness is a simulation by the brain” is non-sense.

[@batou5178]

He thinks, that we exist inside the story that the brain (model of mechanical system) tells itself, but he will never accept that this explanation is only part of a story that his brain is telling himself.

[@umaikeruna]

I think his comment about chomsky is a little unfair. It can be reasonably argued that the hard problem of consciousness as stated by David Chalmers, is a mystery, and simply beyond the human cognitive capacity to understand (like trying to visualize 4d, or 11d (string theory) for example, or even the contingency of existence). I think Bach is very good at reframing questions and I love to here him speak. But I don't see any solution, or explanation of consciousness here. Does anyone else here feel unsatisfied with this?

[@stephenl9463]

Yes agree with your point of view. He champions computation mathematics, his cognitive scientific expertise as the meanings to our understanding. He should read McGilchrist’s work which would frame this as the propensity of our left hemisphere brains to reduce everything down to algorithms that can be computated. But this leaves out all that which can’t be captured or simulated because it’s not causal. There is value in feelings and these can’t be computed as they are themselves infinite in variety for an infinite array of factors. The speed of talking is a distraction and obfuscates his logic from one idea to the other. For example, he is correct with his point on attention, and that follows from something that leads it. He says the story or dream we are living. But what we can follow is the living dynamic image, which necessitates interpretation. This is not available to algorithm because you cannot capture every interpretation. His models and language is entirely constructed machine like. Poetry clearly allows for contradictions, paradoxes and other things that provide us with other sides of our humanity that can’t be computed. I would say to him, Joscha algorithm that!

[@SamirPatnaik]

For anyone looking, Here is Ian McGilchrist's book that Stephen is refering to www.amazon.in/Master-His-Emissary-Divided-Western/dp/0300188374

[@prathyusha5393]

@@GM-hk5bz Agree with the egocentricity obstructing acceptance of illusion here ... Thanks for those insights ..

[@prathyusha5393]

@@GM-hk5bz Agree... It is humbling.. It does help us figure it out for ourselves looking into his research fully .. I have yet to look into Chalmers. :)

[@prathyusha5393]

@@GM-hk5bz speaking of arrogance ... It's almost like a disease.. most of us are not even aware .. do nothing to fix it .. It is a hard process of demystifying notions .. and Bach, surely helps with some of it ..

[@show_me_your_kitties]

I know he's like a serious genius science guy but I think he is adorable and I want to kiss him

[@steveflorida8699]

"Physical systems (i.e. the brain) cannot be conscious," therefore the mind is on a higher plane/level/consciousness.

[@halllithorien]

it not the dream brain that knows the dream... it the dreamer....

[@danzigvssartre]

@ka3imir_ Like to explain how a physical brain "creates the simulation" which is a conscious, subject experience? After explaining this, please go collect your Nobel prize.

[@mrbwatson8081]

@ka3imir_ how can potassium and sodium molecules passing through a membrane, make me experience the taste of ☕..?

[@2CSST2]

@@mrbwatson8081 Of course you will never be able to get an explanation if you reduce the whole complex thing to the most simple part. Consciousness is an emergent phenomena, and it's the most complex one we know of in the entire universe. Therefore it will never make sense when talking about it through the lens of the simple elements, it would be like asking "how can Coulomb's law create a lion life". It can only be explained by considering what the whole process does altogether. Hence, I don't pretend to have the answer, but for starters your question should at least be modified to "how can a network of billions of potassium and sodium ions** (not molecules) passing through a network of membranes to affect the states of countless neurons linked through countless different routes create the subjective experience of coffee taste?". Probably even then the question is not quite right...

[@mrbwatson8081]

@@2CSST2 with all due respect the materialist explanation is as ridiculous as a religious explanation. What happened to plausibility in all this? Why is it when it comes to consciousness plausibility goes out the window? Materialism clearly states matter can only be exhaustedly defined in terms of properties (spin charge mass length a long list of numbers) materialism says all what you experience is inside your skull. So materialism says when I look at the sky 🌌 the inside of my skull is beyond the sky. Because my brain creates what I see so technically the inside of my skull is just beyond the horizon. 😜 materialism says there is a world beyond your skull 💀 this world has no taste no colours no melodies not even concreteness the colours and concreteness you experience exist only in your head. The world outside your skull can not even be imagined because the moment you try to you will apply Qualities. Materialism says the best way to try and visualise the world outside your skull is to imagine a void full of equations.🤪 materialism has then the impossible (in principle and by definition) task to emerge raw experience out of a void full of equations.. where is the plausibility in this line of thought…? Religious peoples say all comes from god. Materialists say all comes from a void full of abstractions and numbers. 😜

[@Pulchism]

I didn’t understand any of that

[@Stadtpark90]

I‘m actually not offended whenever he makes fun of Chomsky or Penrose, when he finds that they gave up when they grew old or hadn’t thought it through to the end: in a way he is acknowledging that they really tried, but failed. If at all, it’s slightly sad. The good thing is, that he isn’t stuck in their ways. 8:37 Philosophers getting Gödels incompleteness theorem backwards... 10:35 that slide... - rofl 17:33 self-report about memory of awareness is being interpreted as awareness in actuality

[@CalvinHikes]

How you doin? 9:40

[@goranjohansson2495]

He often refers to an "I", but gives no explanation to what it is or how i comes to be.

[@Jukau]

These are the guys we need to do DMT studies with...let him trip 1000 times and write down what his conclusions are..

[@Jukau]

@nate rand Reality ,the unknown and science consist of 99,99 percent novelty. Dmt is Not about artful colors. ITS about Reality.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

I will ask my doctor for some DMT next time I see him. I've tried LSD. It produced an intense, awesome, extraordinary, educational experience. Because of it I know hallucinations can appear indistinguishable from normal. So realistic I had to stick my hand in to test for existence and I was very impressed that my brain could perfectly maintain the illusion even then, like agent Smith's hand plunged in Neo's chest. Subsequent experiments were reminiscent but always less impressive. So I stopped. Here's some good advice for all LSD virgins intent on the experiment... do it in a great environment, in natures garden for example, among good friends. And it might be a good thing if you've never seen a catastrophically dead body.

[@stephenl9463]

(Reposting) Joscha has some good ideas but they are bits of an understanding and don’t hold together. He champions computation mathematics, his cognitive scientific expertise, as the meanings to our understanding. He should read McGilchrist’s work which would frame this as the propensity of our left hemisphere brain to reduce everything down to algorithms that can be computated. But this leaves out all that which can’t be captured or simulated because it’s not causal. There is value in feelings and these can’t be computed as they are themselves infinite in variety for an infinite arrays of factors. The speed of talking is a distraction and obfuscates his logic from one idea to the next idea. For example, he is correct with his point about attention, and that follows from something that leads it. He says the story or dream or narration we are living (cf Julian Jaynes in The Origin of Consciousness). Past that though it falls apart for me. We have more than one story in us. Infinite number as they are generative, constantly changing sometimes moment to moment. This can be put in terms of a living dynamic image, which necessitates interpretation. This is not available to algorithm because you cannot capture every interpretation. His models and language is entirely constructed machine-like. Poetry clearly allows for contradictions, paradoxes and other things that provide us with sides of our humanity that can’t be computed. He seems to want to limit us as simulations only. A world without uncertainties where we are all knowing. Actually take the ‘we’ out of the equation, because we would all be reduced to an All-mighty Algorithm. There is lots of things wrong with his ideas, but his trick is talk fast and dazzle with sophistries, half truths and unqualified opinions. He is though, much more substantive than J Peterson who is just all blabber and finger wiggling.

[@KnThSelf2ThSelfBTrue]

How can the universe represent infinitely complex information within our minds if it is pixelated? And how would one prove that something is "not causal"?

[@SamirPatnaik]

@@KnThSelf2ThSelfBTrue Brilliant question, Isaac!

[@tulkaswarrior]

He has told in another talk that he thinks that neurobiology has nothing to contribute to AI development since the '50s. So I think maybe he has read too fast some hard literature that needs to be digested a little more, and he needs to update his libraries on this topic. I think he is wrong because he is outdated. The language he uses about perception I think it's from the '50s, so if he starts from outdated knowledge, obviously his vision seems to be avant-garde. He is way more intelligent than this, perhaps he was nervous because of the limited time, I don't know. But particularly this talk I think is nothing but old fashion reductionism.

[@stephenl9463]

Isaac Lee They would study quantum indeterminacy.

[@stephenl9463]

Ricardo Andrés Moreno Pelizari Yes and this reductive metaphor is pervasive in AI. We should produce complex machines but not under the delusion that we are replicating human intelligence. It is becoming clear in theoretical physics and philosophy that material reductionism is limited and wrong-headed.

[@steveflorida8699]

Joscha touts computational language as the yardstick of understanding patterns, then want is the mathematical formulas for love, altruism and goodness? Algorithms convey meanings, but seem to fall short on values.

[@danzigvssartre]

Haven't you updated your computer with the latest software so that your computer can feel love?

[@jakeoleson]

Specific formula? No. Function? Yes. All human emotions and values serve a function to help humans survive, procreate, and increase complexity in the universe. It just seems nuanced and complicated to us humans because we’re too dumb to understand this.

[@danzigvssartre]

Jake Oleson In my home country suicide is the biggest killer of men aged 18-35. Where’s the “survival” function in that? Meaning is not something you can encode in a computer algorithm.

[@jakeoleson]

​@@danzigvssartre Not everything humans do today is in the name of survival anymore - we've created a world where it's easier than ever to live. Downside is this new world is nothing like the one we spent thousands of years living in. Perhaps suicide is a symptom of our monkey brains living in conditions we were never meant to live in. That and whatever is causing the chemical in-balance in our brains that leads to depression. Either way it's a tragic and nuanced problem that isn't that simple.

[@jakeoleson]

But Joscha's concept is pretty simple... Evolution designed us with all of these nifty tools that serve different functions. But ultimately we're not much different than any other organism on this planet. Homo sapiens just won the lottery and evolved to be more intelligent than other animals. Is it facing this fact that makes it scary to believe him?

[@cvan7681]

Classical Mathematics has been, historically, a method by which humankind has been held back, not made to advance

[@parityviolation968]

are you hinting at Robinson's non-standard (vs. classical) analysis or are you merely exaggerating the non-zero potential of mathematized sciences "holding back" humanity ? I would certainly agree that "mathematics" helped conceal the scientific and logical errors at the foundation of macroeconomic theory, which clearly contributed to widespread idiocy at the level of political decision-making across all ideologies. But, generalizing from there to saying that mathematics held humankind back in general, would be a very long way I would not go.

[@jennymisteqq695]

parityviolation I have no idea what you guys are talking about. However, i find it in intriguing. Thanks for leaving so many names, theories, etc. in your comment that will allow me to look further into this. I even took a screenshot of your comment so I can keep it and refer to it at my leisure. I know you were just trying to show the original poster up. You pointing out that his idea was unoriginal by cleverly (you think) pointing out sources from which the original ideas came. I don’t like how you used this opportunity to show you’re smarter than the guy who posted the comment, and by doing so, showing your superiority over anyone that reads your comment. Why act that way? You’re a smart guy, find a different approach. Begrudgingly I have to thank you for your source-filled remark.

[@corinneharrison1091]

Math is studied in competing silos; political-peer review dictates the bread crumbs allowed to be dropped for any given year.

[@parityviolation968]

@@jennymisteqq695 *1.* So far, we weren't talking about anything, I was asking him a question because *2.* my confusion was as genuine as was my interest in getting a genuine response. My confusion originates from the word "classical", which suggests there might be a non-classical type of mathematics which is not culprit of holding back humankind. That being said, *3.* I am not quite sure as to how you would arrive at your conclusion about my intentions for writing the comment, besides utter *projection.* You seem like someone who is quicker to judge than to read & drill (e.g. by asking questions, which is a more successful approach to understanding other people's way of thinking, let alone motives). Given my previous comment, there is next to no way to _"look further"_ into anything, besides "non-standard analysis" maybe. I merely wanted him to clarify his deliberate placement of the term "classical" and tried to get him to elaborate on the entire "holding back humanity" thing by stating my own opinion, which - sure - I believe to be correct. I never wanted to _"show the OP up",_ let alone _"point out that his idea was unoriginal"._ How would I even do that, when I'm not even sure what exactly he tried to convey ?!? Like I said, it's all projection and I'm gonna refrain from trying to find an explanation for your behavior. *4.* Even less sure I am about how I should feel about you keeping a screenshot as a reference for whatever you think you caught me doing.^^ But, hey, why bother when there'd be nothing I could do about it. *5.* AFAIC, _"Leaving so many names, theories, etc."_ does not _"show being smarter than anyone",_ at the very best it demonstrates _being knowledgeable._ I would give reasoning skills, humility (esp. in the context of one's own judgemental urges) and skepticism much more relevance to "being smart" than having knowledge.

[@porkchopTopHat]

jenny misteqq come on bro reply to his comment I am on the edge of my seat here.

[@mandyshanks2327]

Extremely clever and clear person Joscha. But, go slowly because you are human and don’t know, can’t know what you are doing, where your profound insight is leading. Humans cannot forecast (see Nate Silver’s book). Who will use this knowledge? How can it be used for the good of this planet - please be cautious and build in kindness and compassion and blocks against misuse.

[@subplantant]

Insofar as kindness and compassion are English language symbols of tendencies emergent from the physical universe, any true conception of reality will contain them whether or not an individual is cognisant of it.

[@eldhoselife6412]

He doesn’t have a Clue about Idealism

[@thomasj4370]

Such a delight to understand. But you are talking way way way way way to fast. Wait for it please so your awesomeness can close up.

[@etienne7774]

For the truth, read the holy Bible

[@marktomasetti8642]

He seems to be lacking good teaching techniques in this video. Perhaps he lacks the intellectual empathy required to model his listeners’ minds so that he can more clearly connect the parts of his view of consciousness; and those parts to what people already think they know. Or maybe his live audience is well acquainted with most of this, so he can just speed through it. They key seems to be the "side effect of attentional learning’ which gives a hook to evolution. It seems odd that he says that physical systems cannot be conscious. In his view, consciousness arises from the simulations which "run" on physical systems. So in that sense consciousness runs in the simulations that run on the physical system, and so, the physical system is conscious via it’s simulations. My viewing of this talk made me unconscious 3 times. Perhaps the newness of it was overwhelming and I had to take it in pieces. Or perhaps discussions about consciousness short-circuit the simulation and cause consciousness to naturally breakdown. 😁 (months later) Listening to it again, it sounds like he was told to keep it to 20 minutes and he wanted to get through all the slides. It goes by quickly. Seems brilliant. So I’m a self aware being resting in the brain of an ape - probably explains much of my biography. Not a brain in a bottle but an imaginary person simulated by and inside a simian physique.

[@dja1924]

He is known to speak at the level of scientist and not break it down for laymen to understand. That is what I like about him, he speaks like a scientist and does not dumb himself down to speak at my level.

[@leyzei7745]

He self-proclaims as a nerd, most probably with some Aspergerish features. To my mind, he just cannot show any intellectual empathy , I think it is beyond him, that is the limitation of the condition. What is strange about him compared to normal nerds is that he is so poetic and deep. even if one does not understand 80% of what he says, the remaining 20% just strike you with brightness Lex Fridman's podcast with him is particularly interesting in this respect

[@Nexus2Eden]

ley zei you can’t make those assumptions, you. don’t know Joscha. He is empathetic, he was raise in isolation in wilderness with only books to read. His socialization skills are excellent considering. He isn’t teaching-he is giving a lecture to a rarified audience.

[@muffinman2946]

@@leyzei7745 I think a little deficit in social skills is a price we can all pay for an IQ of 160.

[@tekkertruth1256]

This guy doesn’t understand the concept of a full stop, comma, or taking a breath when speaking.

[@jonathananderson2647]

Think faster.

[@tekkertruth1256]

@@jonathananderson2647 Yes everyone in his audience should think faster, good idea!!!!!!!!!!! Smh

[@ekekonoise]

It is here where all the biological robots meet to discuss the illusion of consciousness? Are we feeling happy as robots? Sorry, that's not a meaningful expression, I'll power myself out

[@mrbwatson8081]

Reconciling consciousness with physicalism... 😒 that's one of the most stupid things you could say. Physicalism denies the existence of consciousness by DEFINITION! How can you reconcile with something you deny existing!

[@mrbwatson8081]

@Ubermensch physicality is a description of reality. Physicality is NOT reality itself.

[@mrbwatson8081]

@Ubermensch show me an example of a "non physical " simulation..?

[@mrbwatson8081]

@Ubermensch my friend all simulations are 100% physical. Your mind is non physical therefore can NOT be a simulation.

[@mrbwatson8081]

@Ubermensch with all due respect all simulations are 100% physical. You can not give me a single example of a non physical simulation yet you are convinced the mind is a simulation...? You sound deluded

[@mrbwatson8081]

@Ubermensch show me something non physical in my phone

[@DSAK55]

You need to speak slower

[@Known-unknowns]

DSAK55 Change the playback speed to 0.75

[@Gringohuevon]

gibberish

[@danzigvssartre]

Agreed