The Evolution of Consciousness - Yuval Noah Harari Panel Discussion at the WEF Annual Meeting

[@DanielPlainsight]

How fortunate am I that I can listen to this for free. To be born in such a time that such content is so easily accessible.

[@jesuschristisrisen3519]

Yuval is a fool

[@aperson2730]

@@jesuschristisrisen3519 Takes one to know one?

[@franciscoperezgrovas2331]

@@jesuschristisrisen3519 we are all fools, I am a fool have nothing against a fool. He is not correct in everything but straight forward gives his idea without bullshit talking, and that’s important.

[@supakinthingkong8894]

good discuttion..!!!

[@josephkreisel5826]

He is rich who knows what he has.

[@malamalkani9257]

What an absolute treat this was to watch! I just loved Prof Yuval and Prof. Jodi's take on this subject and also the discussions triggered by Prof Daniel's comments.

[@wanderingsoul1189]

True. One gets totally immersed in the discussion particularly when YNH takes the mic.

[@hilldoggydogg635]

Bot

[@kayrosis5523]

Having listened to several such panels like this one, the conclusion that I seem to discern is that we're skating on thin ice, and we're blind to where the dangers are, but we know broadly that there ARE a lot of dangers, and that some dangers lie this way or that, but we really don't know what we're doing, where we're going, or if/when we'll crash through into the freezing water and drown. And while the best idea is to get off the ice, as Yuval says, we can't because we can't afford to be left behind, because of all the choices, that one certainly leads to death unless every single person decides to get off the ice too, which simply won't happen. If we survive to the end of the century, I think it will be 90% because we got lucky at the right times in the right ways, and only 10% because we made the right decisions.

[@RainB-q3h]

Brilliant discussion! At 39:14 Professor Dennett took his audience into the realm of poetry! Love that wistful sadness he expresses about losing human capacity no matter how flawed and self destructive that may be! At 51:47, Yuval nails on the whole point of this session! Enlightened monk Bopryun from S Korea also talks of emotional intelligence and resiliency of mind in an ever changing environment.

[@justinleemiller]

This is my third time watching. What a valuable conversation! Deserves far more views.

[@jesuschristisrisen3519]

You're lame. So is that baldy Yuval

[@jesuschristisrisen3519]

He's auditioning to he the antichrist, duh

[@jamesrossdreher]

The world needs more of these type of discussions between intelligent individuals that don't sacrifice integrity for a sound bite, have left their ego's at the door and genuinely want the best for humanity.

[@permblue]

"We need to protect humans, not jobs" -YNH. Profound. And is one of the reasons why I support the idea of universal income and universal health care.

[@satoshinakamoto7253]

You do that because women are more communitarian, but in reality when everyone is taken care of, people who can’t afford kids will continue to have them, creating more strain on the system , thus destroy it. It’s not going to work

[@Lalakis]

@@satoshinakamoto7253 It is already working ( e.g in scandinavian countries). Dysgenic fertility has causes beyond social welfare network/benefits. Bangladesh, nigeria, niger have an insanely high fertility ratio with one of the lowest GDP/capita and no social welfare network at all. US ( especially the bible belt) has also a very high fertility ratio. You are brainwashed to believe that the 'lazy" are gonna steal your taxes when you are being robbed daily by an elite that wants you to think you are a future millionaire ( just not there yet).

[@satoshinakamoto7253]

@@Lalakis nope. birth rates below replacement rate, no innovation, encourages people to be lazy. Its a positive sum game in capitalistic competence hierarchies

[@RosyOutlook2]

@@Lalakis you live in denial.

[@tinagvardanyan8627]

I strongly agree with Dan Dennett''s point on potentially becoming "hypercautious, hyperfragile, hyperdependent beings" as a result of AI ubiquitousness; and his sailboat example in being unable to experience a sense of adventure due to AI guidance.

[@calidreams5379]

Leaving even decision making to AI is not always a good idea. Allowing AI “create” your life by choosing what it thinks you want based on data in in itself artificial. Humans need some uncertainty and chance in order to grow intellectually and emotionally, think creatively, etc. It’s how humans change, evolve and acquire higher levels of consciousness. Algorithms based on data may bring you what you are comfortable with, what you may want to purchase but it doesn’t offer uncertainty and chance which is needed for expanding your views, creativity, etc.

[@001yeayea]

Respect to all but Yuval is way ahead in every aspect.

[@BondhuCinemedia]

Obviously. I love him for his intelligence

[@farzinshokooh2085]

True!

[@RockyKarthik]

Dan Dennett is one of the best philosophers in the world.

[@elzoku6517]

yaaa.Yuval is the best

[@glormoparch5154]

I don't think this was a competition ☺️ kidding but half the time they were talking about empathy.

[@anthonymason4985]

I love that AI found this for me to watch and possibly 99% of fellow viewers. The horse seems to have all ready bolted.

[@squamish4244]

The horse is indeed out of the stable, it's just not very fast yet. It will be the Kentucky Derby winner eventually, though. Weird.

[@jasmineluxemburg6200]

No, I think, because I am actively choosing what to respond to or ignore.

[@jasmineluxemburg6200]

Its no different than walking past shop window displays and only shopping when a need has been actively decided on ?

[@indricotherium4802]

You missed the point about what it hasn't presented to you.

[@darkpandemic5802]

The Eagle has landed

[@luminyam6145]

What an incredible discussion, thank you so much.

[@wanderingsoul1189]

That was truly one of the phenomenal discussions. I loved particularly the moderator, and her grasp and decoding competence of each intellectual's complicated views. YNH always triggers one's mind.

[@Longin58]

I love the comment Harari makes that "we need to take care of people not of jobs" He has such a good grasp of the story of Homo sapiens and is clearly a step ahead of the rest! True visionary!

[@judithmcdonald9001]

thank you for pointing this out. I have been aghast at how working people are always talked about in terms of jobs, not people. Everyone works, not all earn money. We need to give people value.

[@TheDionysianFields]

Still one of the better talks I've experienced. Great minds.

[@nancymohass4891]

I , like most people , appreciate the fact that dear prof.Harari make the most complicated issues , completely understandable for us , more than EVERYTHING ELS! And most important , he talks to awake awareness and responsibility in us, something that not all profs are talking FOR!

[@marileesteele1804]

The others over-complicate with self-conscious and anecdotal devotion to their identities & careers (the language of their experiences). Humans are not good at making ethical decisions, TRUE. Yes, nobody can read a contract, don’t wonder why it exists, just ask Hal to synthesize. We have powerful computers (and data information) we can’t program for ourselves - if we consciously don’t want anything to do with what is most popular.

[@silberlinie]

Unfortunately, Daniel C. Dennett doesn't get it anymore. He still understands what it's about. But he cannot let go of various of his own beliefs. And he feels it crudely. Yuval Noah Harari is clear and in time. Jodi Halpern is good and well-founded.

[@ZbjetisGod]

I was going to write the same thing. His discussion about the need for AI to have skin in the game doesn't make sense. AIs aren't human and its human-centric to judge them by those specific standards. It can likely use some form of future smart contract to guarantee some better than any human contract which needs an outside body to enforce. His statement about sailing was ridiculous, all he does is blame insurance companies. Also the robot from Short Circuit is insanely humanoid, like so much you'd think he was trying to say the opposite of what he did.

[@queleimportapene6582]

I think Dennett is on the point actually, Yuval is clear, I feel Jodi is more interested in showing her academic career rather than pursuing the truth.

[@queleimportapene6582]

I disagree, on your first point, he isn't talking literally about skin, but about being able to loose something, negotiation always involves an equilibrium between two or more parts, and equilibrium about what? I guess the answer has to do with the skin metaphor, wouldn't you agree here?If a part has nothing to loose in a negotiation then that part isn't really negotiating, a contract is the end result of a negotiation process.

[@mrrrka]

or, perhaps, Heinrich doesn't get Dennet

[@queleimportapene6582]

I guess he doesn't, even though I feel Dennet always finds new clever ways to explain things

[@johncook5391]

I'd love to see Professor Yuval Noah Harari, a contemporary master of the outer world, in conversation with Eckhart Tolle, a contemporary master of the inner world. Though, I don't know who would sponsor this meeting of very compatible thinkers.

[@goldenbox7803]

Harari says Vipassana meditation, which he began whilst in Oxford in 2000, has "transformed my life". He practises for two hours every day (one hour at the start and end of his work day), every year undertakes a meditation retreat of 30 days or longer, in silence and with no books or social media, and is an assistant meditation teacher. He dedicated Homo Deus to "my teacher, S. N. Goenka, who lovingly taught me important things", and said "I could not have written this book without the focus, peace and insight gained from practising Vipassana for fifteen years. "He also regards meditation as a way to research

[@amputd]

That’s why he is ahead of everyone onstage. He has observed his own mind enough to see that the human mind itself is primitive “artificial intelligence”

[@shjilani]

Brilliant idea !

[@squamish4244]

@@amputd From the point of view of Buddhism, all intelligence is artificial. Consciousness is the golden goose.

[@satoshinakamoto7253]

Read more

[@anuragdhole0805]

46:25 absolutely brilliant, thought-provoking answer to the question.

[@UnReal31337]

Harari and Halperin's back and forth on the ethics of delegating less important decisions to AI can be well illustrated in the episode of The Adventures of Rick and Morty where Summer is stuck in Rick's space car and the on board AI is given the directive to "keep Summer safe" while Rick and Morty have to go off to deal with more important matters.

[@MrAadeyemo]

I truly enjoyed the banter between the Prof and Yuval.

[@joanhalgren3502]

Fabulous. This needs to be shared with anyone who cares about being human!

[@SohelRana-vn3qi]

I am addicted with lecture of professor yuval

[@mrtertg2603]

The answer ( and also advice ) Yuval gives to the question of the guy ( between 51 - 53 min ) ! Brilliant

[@DejanOfRadic]

A lovely point.......as a cyclist I used to enjoy getting lost on country roads, and using the setting sun to gage direction home. Now I carry my phone and know exactly where I am at all times. It is a profound trade off.....but ultimately the GPS wins.....as I used to miss so many trails, towns, and landmarks....just because I had no idea that they even existed.

[@GroovismOrg]

As born Groovists, there's nothing more important than spreading The One Groove. This is our purpose for Being & must Be , before the Earth can no longer sustain us.

[@zbjuan1]

one great thing about youtube is that you can fast forward the video to listen Yuval only, I am not interested in the rest of them

[@avecanem]

Harari is clarifying for us whenever opens the mouth. The others too just fog and unable to talk to people, they talk to themselves...

[@MyNguyen-uh4qx]

I agree with you and I wonder what they teach to their students with their heads like this.

[@alexhahn6676]

the most interesting discussion I have ever seen

[@sainair]

I like what Prof. Daniel Dennett said about his library experience. There are many things in life which are ruled by randomness and have no pre-set path. Personally, I have read books, watched great movies and have found great food in very unlikely places which I would never gotten through an AI controlling my preferences. An AI would actually make a person more fundamentalist in his opinions and tastes by validating his stance on every move. It's quite evident in social media like Google,WhatsApp,Facebook etc.

[@johnszabo]

Do not agree at all. Being fed, indeed overfed, with your current interests, is the best way to make you start seeing the limitations and limits of your views. Just think, if you like a particular food or drink, the quickest way to be done with the obsession is to indulge in it without any limitations, physical, financial or otherwise. As far the randomness of encounters, Yaval answered that question perfectly: you simply dial in the amount (and "flavor") of the randomness you think you'd like to encounter, anything beteween 0 and 100 %.

[@jeremiahlawrence9240]

I think youtube just tweaked it's algorithms to show opposite views to one's own too.

[@bradmodd7856]

randomness is something we ascribe to things we don't understand. It is just an interim solution, a placeholder if you like.

[@hughcipher66]

I agree with your disagreement. The social media algorithms feeding people only what they primarily gravitate to is an excellent example. One cannot program an algorithm that duplicates the bits of knowledge & information that falls into your lap accidentally ie: the book that falls of the libary shelf that grabs your interest or the book you grab by mistake but teaches you something wonderfully useful. You cannot program natural organic randomness. This is not saying an Ai algorithm cant produce awesome outcomes in say philosophical learning im simply saying they will be different. Also who knows what mental deficits might be created by eliminating the cognitive function of making decisions? If i let a machine do all my lifting my muscles atrophy

[@richardhg]

A personal AI would look at everything you consume and figure out the mix. The concept of feeding you data that supports your confirmation bias is not AI, it's Google.

[@zacharyklarich1317]

In his ubiquitous presence on various panels, conversations and lectures Harari seems to himself become a human example of machine learning.

[@Louis13XIII]

Learning? Seems to me like he repeats always the same things over and over again

[@raduturuta7006]

@@Louis13XIII yes, indeed. Quite standard

[@elkiness]

This was great. These guys should get together again. How about every 1/2 year? Things are changing so fast.

[@chezydan1]

Thank you for sharing this event.

[@ziobizooel]

I literally wanted to skip the parts when Daniel C. Dennett speaks.

[@moderncontemplative]

dhiraj kumar I feel you. He's a very clever philosopher but he clearly cannot understand consciousness from an experiential point of view nor grasp certain neuroscience models of mind because of his biases against consciousness being tangible. Whereas Yuval Noah Harari is an advanced meditation practitioner and science professor. So one knows consciousness in depth and the other is purely philosophical in approach. Dennet's wrong view is blatant!

[@Moshe_Hoffman]

Do other people have a hard time following the train of thought in this discussion? Like why (23:00) are they discussing whether ai can incorporate serendipity (and yes, the answer is yes.)

[@bradmodd7856]

If AI controlled this panel, only YNH would remain

[@ejpmooB]

And I wouldn't like to be on a sailboat with him.

[@paulphysicsclassroom]

@@ejpmooB zo opor b oo

[@paulphysicsclassroom]

@@ejpmooB oo

[@wayoftruth4054]

And those Who follow him 😉

[@genna78]

Thank you Yuval Noah Harari!

[@johngiscombe]

Not necessarily way ahead, but he does have some good points. He made reference to trusting the A.Is to curate our decisions and choices which is very destructive for the human mind. The more we outsource the very process that sharpens our minds eye (thinking), we become a boat lost at sea, unable to sea our own boundaries of mind. A.I may swallow us if we are not careful. As Professor Dennett notes, loss of agency in our lives. It's already happening. Google maps, Tinder, Amazon....We are letting the algorithms choose our mates, our foods and everything else, and we're not sure where it leads us at the end of the rabbit hole. Our human minds are much more fragile and blind than we notice. Unfortunately, Our egos, especially the more educated we are, and based on culture creates an eddy, narcissism. We're unable to see beyond ourselves.

[@jacquesmostert3942]

Consciousness: Awareness of Self, evaluation of self, imagination of desired self, regulation of self to move towards imagined self, implementation of regulation, readjustment, and imagination of self in society and the impact thereof.

[@mattib725]

Then what is the ‚self‘ ?

[@Anita-ls1sb]

Yuval Harari, have you read up Indian thought on Consciousness, esp the way Advaita Vedanta defines

[@JNEXE]

Prof Jodi's point is interesting. If we let AI to do all our logical work, then our day to day tasks require utilization of emotional brain. How this gradual change will impact our brain, as neuron survival is based on "use it or lose it" principle. Populations that are mostly emotional and less logical can cause social strains. Prof Dennet's observation about Touring test is spot on. Products are designed to pass the test and as a result deception becomes a feature. His observation about AI/Children learning through feedback loop begs the question, who is teaching? who will set the guidelines on the seed Data. Children learn from books and teachers certified by a board. But deep learning and neural networks has to rely on data that's so vast that cant be meaningfully governed. That problem is similar to weeding out misinformation on social networks. Very difficult to do... So similar to children, AI can learn biases. Interesting questions will be around the topics of social learning in AI systems, deep learning based on analogy and extrapolation and AI systems with personality traits and instincts at firmware level..

[@wisadhaadhitya1666]

IMHO, in the future, these values of certain sense of consciousness will also be changing. Now we are going to that direction with all the technological disruption we have now, not to mention the influence of social media. It either changes our own views on the use of AI and its magic or the way we enjoy things... gradually. My point is that people already living on the totally different realm where they focus on their smartphone, internet, etc...spending much time here rather than having a real and genuine connection with fellow humans. Such human experiences will all be digitalized and it will be much more important ones. For me, the point of entry is clear.

[@jimbrown1576]

Consciousness is awareness of reality. Humans are aware through the senses, like the animals are, but unlike the animals, humans have free will, the ability to think. We have the capacity of conceptualizing our perceptual experience, conceptualizing those concepts, et al- building, retaining and using vast amounts of information in order to live, a feat that the lower animals can’t achieve. Robots can’t achieve it either because they aren’t alive; we build them in order to live better. Some humans choose not to discover how to exercise their capacity to think or exercise it consistently and without contradiction. To be or not to be is the choice to think or not- which is the choice to be human or not.

[@mniman7022]

Professor Harari is simply on a different level. Felt a chasm to reality when Prof. Dennett said “some” younger people being addicted.

[@tomsheehy1]

M Niman : Then you don't seem capable of following the scientific, rationalist approach which is grounded in reality. Harari ideas are mere speculation based on our available computing science and requires a flight of fancy. No evidence for any of his assertions. And straw manning him because of his age means that you are loosing the argument. Or maybe you are are a theist and find his harsh views on religions distasteful.

[@raduturuta7006]

He is a publicist. Mundane people easily fall for his narrative

[@johnallard7226]

I love Daniel Dennet but he's showing his age in this discussion, especially his thoughts on serendipty seem quite juvenile. He reached for a book in the library and saw one next to it that greatly influenced his life.. but imagine the nearly infinite space of books that could not have ended up near the one he reached for due to an uncountable number of reasons (different language, different section of the library, etc). He's so hyperfocused on the sliver of traditional, analog serendipity that he's experienced that he's unable to see the nearly unbounded mass of serendipity that could be provided with the assistance of AI. Yuval, as always, is an absolute treasure.

[@katesterling6443]

Many years ago, I watched a short movie made for TV titled, "The Electric Grandmother". I was charmed by it, easily remembering it 40+ years later. As a young woman who never knew my grandmothers, I would have wanted one of them as a child. Now, as an aging person, I find I would still like one. I ask myself why, how would it work, and how it would impact my life as I continue to grow old? As I listen to this discussion, I think much of its substance is about the possibility of such an 'Electric Grandmother'. ("The Electric Grandmother is a television movie that originally aired January 17, 1982, on NBC as a 60-minute Project Peacock special, based on the 1969 science fiction short story "I Sing the Body Electric" by Ray Bradbury. It stars Maureen Stapleton and Edward Herrmann and was directed by Noel Black." Wikipedia))

[@franciscoperezgrovas2331]

I’m going to see this seems so cool.

[@cgtrgsm]

Harari's words are based on theoretical arguments, more like using analogies in educational settings. However, the reality requires more technical and experimental support. I would disagree with the idea that if we give up our decision-making rights, we would be using the gained time to explore ourselves. Decision making makes us humans, feeling our own pain and others' suffering make us human. If we get rid of them, I am not sure if we will still remain as humans. For example, I would rather talk with a nurse who who has experienced headache at least once in his/her life, rather than a robot which theoretically knows what headache is. As biological beings, we are incomplete and evolving, therefore we trust other biological things that are as vulnerable and incomplete as ourselves.

[@GirlsN1ght]

I really appreciate you comment. I also would rather get care from a nurse than a robot. Also, How decision making can possibly be separate from consciousness… A bizarre argument and logically bogus. Didn’t expect it from Harari tbh. Every action we take from staying in bed an extra 2 minutes or choosing cereal over an omelet or big decision like who we want to spend our lives with is based on what we want or do not want to experience. I would never give this up. If we do give this up, we will be the AI’’s pets. Experiencing what it believes is best for us. There is no adventure in life if all of AI decides for us because it can already predict the outcomes. What is the point of being alive. I would much rather live my life on my own terms, with all my mistakes, failures, and lapses in logic than relinquish decision making.

[@smallbcfilms]

really a very civil discussion. thank you

[@efortune357]

51:44 “I think that we protect the humans not the jobs. There are many jobs not worth protecting. And if we can protect the humans then it doesn’t really matter so much if they have a job, if they don’t have a job" ~Yuval Noah Harari Amen!

[@judithmcdonald9001]

"I'm not sure that people who make the most important decisions in the world are also the most compassionate." YNH

[@daria1609]

Politicians are not used to act with heart and feelings. But this is the only way to resolve our problems worldwide.

[@cheerwather]

Better to have Yuval in 1x1 discussion then have to wait listen to other panelists

[@luisisrael15]

Yuval in the beginning states that there is a common mistake between consciousness and intelligence. Dennet says he agrees. But I think Dennet is one of the thinkers making this confusion between consciousness and intelligence (in his dismissal of questions such as the so called hard problem of consciousness).

[@natewarren6581]

I'm going to be honest. I would rather die as a free person than live in a controlled atmosphere being watched and tracked. We're not robots guys

[@thitranlanh1302]

Uh my God, let save any second minute for only Professor Yuval Noah Harari speaking from his feeling and truthly heart please. We as the watchers, other faces are horable to see and to hear, especially the lady who come from former president of IMF! Sorry to be honestly!

[@planet7027]

I believe Tesla said it best: “If you knew the magnificence of 369 you would have a KEY to the UNIVERSE “ And: “To understand the UNIVERSE think in terms of ENERGY FREQUENCY AND VIBRATION “ 3-third dimensional plain and consciousness itself. The dimensional space we interact and receive information 6-6D- and is the subconscious/unconscious. Where information is stored per individual and acts as a bridge of information. 9-9D- collective consciousness. The cloud where all information and currently being controlled via energy frequency and vibration. (What is a television? A cellphone? Sources of information. Which are controlled.) If you want to expand the consciousness you have to bring down the population ie to the size of the planet to harmonize with it. Then expand the lifespan.

[@itubeo1o]

They all make great points, loved the conversation.

[@nxtchpforme9154]

Consider the impact who determines how get to control everybody else. Not really funny.

[@Fallingxleaves]

On the topic of jobs, for example here where they say taking care of the demented is not a good way of life- I would disagree. Isn't taking care of other humans in all their strange biological states and emotions part of the human experience and how we become more empathetic towards others? Is it really a smart choice to separate ourselves from that? To numb us from these uncomfortable experiences that make up being human? My mom is a elderly care worker and many of her clients have Alzheimer, etc. There is the risk of compassion fatigue but her position is very rewarding, and her clients appreciate her, as well as the families of those clients. Humans needs humans.

[@robertjones9598]

I suppose there's a subjective side to it, as always with meaning, values and experiences. Something unpleasant might be interpreted by one individual as ultimately incredibly rewarding, but the opposite can also happen.

[@chrisredfieldfromplanetrel5140]

Busy times for the Professor :)

[@budawang77]

Does anyone find Prof Halpern's constant use of the words "I", "my" and "me" rather annoying? Why can't she just answer the questions rather than constantly relating everything back to her?

[@stefanSS1480]

Most people do that, it annoys me a lot. I noticed that a long time ago.

[@vjenceslavboljinac]

I think she was nervous, being intimidated by the intellectual giant sitting next to her, and trying to compensate by driving the point about her academic achievements.

[@NoraNora-lg7zs]

WhT happened to talking about consciousness?

[@georgegrubbs2966]

We need to narrow the definition of consciousness. It’s not intelligence per Yuval. It’s not feeling. It’s not motor activity. It is awareness of feelings, intelligence, and physical activity. That’s a start. What has the awareness? What we call “self.” The self is conscious. Another precise definition is needed, “self.”

[@yukey2587]

Looks like Yuval has deleted all the negative comments from this video.

[@joakimjakobsson1984]

Thanks to all of you, to make it absolutly clear on who is geting it and who is not.Two out of tree is out of bounce, right on target it,s all about making desitions here and now, not what a great person I’am.

[@coudry1]

Personal Conclusions from various sources "We Are All One Consciousness" for the following reasons: 1. In this world everything must have a cause, so that something exists because of something else, as well as ourselves. 2. It will be very saturating / boring if we have only one physical form in this world. 3. It will be very saturating / boring if all human beings have the exact same physical form / behavior. 4. Try to imagine emptying all the physical things around us only the remnants of humanity, then eliminating all human beings leaving only their memories, then removing all their memories leaving only their consciousness, then connecting that consciousness, feel who we are ??. 5. Body, mind, feelings, emotions and everything in this world is always changing, so what never changes ??, that is our true self, which is true consciousness. If everything changes2 / moves who observes, there must be something fixed to be able to observe. 6. All human beings communicate with each other is the beginning of the beginning / the future of human beings unite, only electronic devices today can unite all human beings, one day the device is implanted in the human mind and eventually man will open all access to his mind. 7. Our body is a group / accumulation of memory accumulated brought from the beginning of the birth of the first human in the world through continuous DNA binding. 8. Twins are born at the same time, what if all human beings are born at the same time ??. What happens if the birth of all human beings is not influenced by the dimensions of space and time ?? 9. The twins are identical to A and B, if the whole memory of A is copied to B, what is the difference ?? 10. The law of attraction (law of attraction) that our minds will attract whatever we think, because we are all like one part of the body. 11. Like some of the video recordings of ourselves there is a video as a vocalist, a video as a violinist, as a pianist, as a drummer, etc. The video2 is made into one in one video then it will produce a more interesting orchestra, something new and more productive. our world. 12. Man's greatest enemy is himself, at this time man is fighting against himself. By believing that we are all one, then the ego will fade because there is no difference between us. 13. That is why the teachings of religion command us to be grateful and beneficial to many, If you are hurting others you are actually hurting yourself, just as if you are doing good to others you are actually doing good to yourself. 14. Could it be that we are all dreaming and our dreams meet each other at the same frequency in parallel. Have you ever, when sleeping dreamed of moving roles as someone else, it is because we are all one. 15. We are not immortal as human beings so that we have time for us to scroll through all of life. 16. "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience" ~ Stephen Covey, Have you ever felt that our age is too short, could our consciousness be immortal ?. 17. We are one, only the role is different, the memory block between life is what makes people feel different / separate. Just by brainwashing / erasing his memory then someone will be a different person but his consciousness actually remains the same. 18. The lucky thing for us is ... awareness is always towards / seeking / having intentions / desires towards good / positive / happiness despite experiencing various mistakes. 19. When we die the body and memory are destroyed, how can we remember ever being dead. 20. Why do we have to die? ", When we are told to die, later this eternal question will be asked again and we will always be there." The world is a sustainable life "~ Bruce Lipton 21. In the beginning we were one, but split through a big explosion or bigbang to become different and separate as it is now, but we are provided with a sense of love for us to be able to be reunited later. 22. There is only us and the mirror of ourselves in this world, yet there is another world out there. 23. We will always smile happily seeing each other as ourselves "How beautiful I am" seeing a different self. 24. If all consciousness is told now that they are all one if the experience gained is enough, the consciousness designed from the beginning is so different that there is so much intrigue, consciousness is created differently so that when it comes together it has an incredible consciousness experience. 25. We are indeed alone in this universe, but there are still many other universes with their own laws of nature. 26. Have you ever felt to come to a place that has never been visited but feel familiar with that place, as if we have lived in that place sometime. 27. The world is like a script of a story that is being written by the author, sometimes changed at the beginning, sometimes changed in the middle, sometimes changed at the end it all depends on us as writers, and every story has wisdom that can be taken as a lesson. 28. Hair grows on its own, heart beats on its own, blood flows on its own, ideas emerge on its own, etc., are we involved ??. 29. Imagine today there was an event that caused only you to live in this world, then who are all the people yesterday ??. 30. "If Quantum Mechanism cannot surprise you, then you do not yet understand Quantum Physics. Everything we have considered real all this time, turns out to be unreal." ~ Niels Bohr. 31. In the scale of quantum physics we are all connected to each other, even in double gap experiments proving that particles change when observed or in other words awareness is able to change reality, this has been repeatedly proven by Nobel laureate in Physics. 32. Everything we experience by our senses will eventually only be an electrical impulse in the brain, is it all real ??. We are beings who realize that we are conscious. 33. We are closer than the veins of his neck. He breathes some of His spirit on you. Knowing oneself means knowing one's God. Indeed, we will return to HIM. You are far I am far, you are near I am near. I am everywhere. Before the existence of this world there was no material other than Him. The True Spirit is only One, the Creator. I agree with your prejudice. 34. Whether the Creator is only tasked with creating, is it possible that the creator does not want to try the results of his creation through another perspective. 35. There is no reincarnation, it is possible that our consciousness is synchronizing, our consciousness is divided by the speed of light so that consciousness can move and divide quickly through energy, and that is why we need sleep, that is why we often do not realize something, that is why the size of the earth is reached by the speed of light so that consciousness is divided quickly and evenly, we are like some chess pawns played by a player, that is why if we move at the speed of light, then we can penetrate the dimensions of space and time, when we die we wake up and regain consciousness as long as there are human beings living in this world. 36. Have we ever had a problem and suddenly someone came to provide a solution to the problem we are experiencing, as if someone was sent by the universe to help us in solving the problem, which is actually our own awareness that sends that person to us. 37. A thousand years ago did human beings see, hear and be trapped in their hearts about current technological advances ??. If we all tend to sin (damage) then it will be the world of hell, if we all tend to do good then it will be the world of heaven. 38. Knowledge learns objects, God who created our consciousness, does not allow God to be objects of knowledge. 39. It is not possible for human creation which is only in the form of words / symbols to represent true truth.uyty 40. Is there a meaning of being without consciousness ?? then we are adventurers of this existence. Sy 41. The life of the world is just a game and a joke, the one who wins the game of the world is the one who finds his true self. 42. When the existence of the world ends we will know everything. 43. My consciousness undergoes a very extraordinary life experience, feeling life experience with different forms and different places even though in fact my consciousness is always the same, wow .. I was surprised !! how wide I am. 44. Consciousness in fact does not know the concept of time, consciousness can experience / undergo into another physical form because the dimension of time can be penetrated by consciousness, as when we imagine we can act as anyone without time bound, because in this universe time can in fact materialize free, time can move straight, curved, rotate, etc. Our time travel is when our consciousness moves to a new physical experience. 45. We are an awareness, a concept that is able to answer various things. 46. ​​Remember when you were going to leave, you were worried about losing me ??, calm down .. I was everywhere and we would always be able to meet again, believe me. 47. Without searching what is the difference between us in this world and us in a dream while sleeping just passing by without meaning 48. In conclusion, whatever role we play, it is all our own design, so just enjoy. 49. God created us to be Happy, so do not disappoint God. 50. Understand it and be Shining source: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gqW3aaONfr5_arM kzbin.info/www/bejne/nmfJlH6Vm7eMl6s

[@LankSheldrake]

Advertisements sound great high beautiful sounds ... but can hardly hear the conversation

[@TheSalto66]

Your are talking about consciousness as the process of decision-making. But consciousness involve also the process of self-acknowledgment of awareness of self

[@ricardovillalpando1719]

Apasionante discusión sobre la manera en que tomamos decisiones y experimentamos nuestras realidades, pero sobre todo el cambio que estas pueden sufrir con el incremento de la inteligencia artificial en nuestras vidas.

[@estebanclouthier8521]

Bertalanffy gave me indirectly an extended idea of consciousness with his General Systems Theory; I define consciousness as the cybernetic circuit of input-process-output in inert beings, input-process-output-feedback in living beings and input-process-output-feedback-feedforward in living rational beings (by process we must assume from the simplest to the most complex systems), and by such definition, I must say that awareness and self-awareness are consciousness but consciousness is not only awareness nor self-awareness; thus consciousness is a category where it is included processing of physical reactions (like a hydrogen atom always reacting the same in a determined condition because of its properties and functions maintained by its structure, like a representation of physical memory; also e.g., molecules and viruses), reaction of simple sentience (like bacteria, fungi and plants), reaction of complex sentience (like animal instinct and emotion which are awareness), and reaction of rationality (like intelligence, which in conjunction with senses produces self-awareness). As you can see, I have extended consciousness to non-living beings thanks to the cybernetics' field. Now because of this, I say Intelligence is part of consciousness, but intelligence is not self-aware if it doesn't feel through senses, instinct and emotion, i.e., intelligence is not self-aware if it doesn't feel alive. Now, if we would want to create robots that are self-aware, we would need to create artificial senses, artificial instincts and artificial emotions, in other words, artificial life; but such self-awareness requires death threat because that's what made evolve life into all kinds of consciousness that there are today. So things were put together randomly (entropy and inert entities) until it emerged an organic (determined) way of sustaining more complex structures (living beings and negentropy); by this evolutionary process, we came to believe that we are a "we" when it is very likely that there is no such thing, and such illusion that feels so real is what we will create when we make artificial self-awareness. Could it be more real our subjective experience of classical physics than the objective superpositioned realm of quantum mechanics? What do you think Yuval?

[@ejpmooB]

are you schizophrenic?

[@chfgbp6098]

Yuval's point on intelligence and consciousness. Some believe, credibly, that feelings are just how the brain perceives 'black box' inbuilt algothrithms in operation. Intelligence allows us to figure out new algorithms from scratch to solve new problems or old problems in new ways (including the understanding of those inbuilt algos in our brains). So there is no funamental separation there. The key here is still 'who' s doing the feeling and the figuring out. The answer as usual is that it is what we call the 'conscious being'. But wtf ist that? Most believe that it 'lives' in the prefrontal lobe, where the 'executive'/oversight function resides. But then u can easily build an AI or even simple machines that have that schematic design and executive centres but in no way 'conscious'.

[@Walklikeaduck111]

I lovr what harari said abt decision making not being what human life is abt! Very forward thinking.

[@marileesteele1804]

what is life but the drama of decision-making ... modern ideology

[@sureshmathew663]

Yuval is always lucid in sharing his thoughts

[@soloquark]

I believe having the illusion that you make your own decisions is what makes or breaks your sense of fulfillment in life. So maybe the best AI wouldn't make decisions for you per se, but would rather just change your mind.

[@crawfordtorr8749]

there can be a provision for persuasion in AI algorithms, so that they will intelligently and present you with a summary of the data and give you a few best scenario options to select from, and brief you of their consequences of course. Either ways i am convinced humans are too lazy even for that and they will just go with "AI make all decisions for me and let me eat my sandwich in peace"

[@crawfordtorr8749]

if AI changes your mind and you know it is doing that, then you would have greater concerns with the technology because it tinkers with the very fundamentals of freewill, you become its slave, a robot, a tragic paradox

[@conversationnation1425]

The claim that "free will is an illusion" is a paradox. The very ability to doubt the existence of free will proves its existence. The truth that most of us make decisions that we falsely believe are our own while they really aren't, doesn't mean that it's impossible for us to make any decision of our own. *Reason necessitates will.*

[@marileesteele1804]

@@crawfordtorr8749 Only if you recognize that you don’t want to be a slave, you still have the choice not to be. You want to be responsible, you wish to retain autonomy.

[@grzegorzkapica7930]

Science has a long way to go regarding "understanding" consciousness. For one it has to drop quite a few assumptions; 1. People think about consciousness in terms of their and own. How about a concept that consciousness is like a see, in which we are bathing. 2. People see logic of consequences in life. So consciousness has to be in these consequences. But what if, consciousness is out of time? What if, one can make a conscious choice now, and the change happens 5 years in the past? But it has happened, so first the change happens, than the choice. 3. People see consciousnesses as what happens, when they are awake. But what if that is not connected? What if consciousness is, but can be experienced only, when we are awake? 4. We want objective measurement. but what if our bodies are the only devices capable of tapping into that mysterious consciousness? How to measure it than? Especially taking into consideration, that consciousness may be out of time, may be only one for everyone and everything, it may be the source of matter and consequences and time. How to measure something like that? So science has some way to go. See you than and there.

[@AdenwalaM]

Though my question is not related to the topic discussed, it is related to consciousness. I would be deeply thankful to the person who can throw some light on how the consciousness develops in the child? What are the different stages of development f the consciousness and what are the factors that contribute to healthy development thereof. The consciousness I want to know about is as described by Professor Dentte in the first few minutes of discussion: "to represent our representations and to reflect on our own reflection" is certainly not present at birth but is acquired over years during the successful journey to healthy adulthood.

[@diwakarkumar1469]

The lady speaker seems to have written so many books and given so many talks that, she mentions it everytime her turn comes to speak. Such polite lady indeed .

[@shenlaoshi7106]

Diwakar Kumar hehehehe

[@prakasmohan8448]

Love to listen this brilliant conversation!

[@peterz53]

@52 Harari makes a good point about training people to be resilient as preparation for the future. Problem is this might work for some, but many people forget that half the people have IQs of 100 or less. So, even if one can put the programs in place to assist people in developing this mindset, there are still the hurdles interest and ability on behalf of the recipients. Appears odds are in favor of a disaster for at least half of humanity unless cognitive abilities can be upgraded for everyone.

[@jumbo2143]

I agree with you

[@DarioMohrArt]

Peter it’s not just about cognitive abilities. rebellion takes on all forms and intelligence levels as we all have our own learning styles. Some with stronger will may be resistant to submitting or following an AI’s direction. It’s more about temperament and willingness to cooperate

[@markgrotto7852]

Romans 1:21-28 [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. [24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. [26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. [28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

[@canteluna]

Dennett's first comment nailed the issue and, I think, reframed the unfortuante framing that Ms. Halpern made where she seemed to assume that some form of AI would take moral responsibility for what has traditionally been our responsibility. Mostly I agreed with the comments of Ms. Halpern but not where she states that she would like an AI implant that would make basic existential decisions (e.g. whther to marry, have kids, etc) primarily concerned with outcome as opposed to decisions that have to do with empathy where organic emotion has traditionally been crucial. If human beings want to maintain a sense of individuality and take responsibility for our choices then I think the best use for AI is simply as another resource, not as something we turn over our autonomy to.* We could use AI to give us probabilities of outcome-oriented issues we are wrestling with, but to turn over -- essentially a part of our humanity -- that has to do with responsibility is an existential problem. (*It's very telling, I think, that Ms. Halpern would like such an electrode implant and her students would not. She seems to be framing the matter as if it were a matter of empirical or measurable benefit. I think she isn't taking into account that the reason she would opt for the implant is that she is a mature woman who is aware, perhaps, that she could have made better decisions in her past. Her students want the same agency that she had, to make decisions, even though they might turn out, in the long run, to have been the wrong decisions -- this is why people always say, "If only I knew then what I know now".) Of course, we who have infinite insight into the terrible decisions OTHERS make would probably like others to use AI in as many facets of their lives as possible because we are constantly being impacted by, not just our own bad decisions but, others' bad decisions (how else would we end up with a President Trump?). But then if we mean to be ethically consistent and would want that agency for ourselves then we have to allow others to have it. Obviously computers could make all our of our decisions for us if we allowed them to (most of the functioning of our physiology is not something we consciously have a role in). The question is about agency and responsibility. In one definition of the term, philosophically, we are all responsible for our actions but at the level of social function and law we are not: some people have a level of agency that means they are responsible and some do not (e.g. children, ignorance for some good reason). Here, I think is where an IS becomes an OUGHT. Just because we are human (and will have the technical means to do so) we ought to restrict tampering too much with recreating the definition and function of human beings. After all, what becomes of crucial importance here is who are the people making the choices to make fundamental changes in human nature. Sure, we have always been evolving biologically and socially but that process has been more or less a matter of normative behavior we all participate in more or less (obviously the elites in all cultures have had more of a say on the social project and direction) but we will soon be at a point where the choices made by a generation or two (or 3 or 4) will fundamentally change the options of the next generations for all time; there will be no going back. Once again, the technological advancements of human beings, as with the nuclear bomb, for example, tend to exceed our ability to employ its utility wisely. (Also, since the advent of the hand gun any human being can end the life of another in a second with this technology. And the hand gun murder rate, though it could of course be higher, is at an alarming level and is an example of a tool that too many human beings use unwisely.) Human cultures lack wisdom, not intelligence..

[@efortune357]

"It will be said that while a little leisure is pleasant, men would not know how to fill their days if they had only four hours’ work out of the twenty-four. In so far as this is true in the modern world it is a condemnation of our civilization; it would not have been true at any earlier period." ~Bertrand Russell, "In praise of idleness"

[@MosesRabuka]

“Humans are not very good in decision making especially in the field of ethics and the problem today is not so much that we lack values is that we lack understanding of CASUE & EFFECT” ~ Yuval Noah Harari “The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man” ~ B.F. Skinner

[@patoiutub]

Harari is one of the most intelligent persons I have ever heard. The other 2 panelists said nothing meaningful .

[@daria1609]

Harari is clearly speaking. Because of his daily meditation (he told once of about 2 hours - Vipassana-Meditation) he is connected with a higher dimension.

[@MyNguyen-uh4qx]

There are many and many "empty headed professors like those panelists now.

[@DisneyAires1]

I love listening to Professor Yuval Noah Harari. He is só brilliant on his thoughts and I feel very deep inside my mind the truth and power of his words what really make sense.

[@melisentiapheiffer3034]

He sounds manipulative to me.

[@NachoLoizaga]

I didn't even hear them yet, but the title annoys me because, as I understand it, "Consciousness" doesn't necessarily evolve, it is already perfect in itself, what evolves is our way to recognize it, our way of not being distracted, that can change, but consciousness is beyond evolution. For example, concepts evolve, stuff, paths, but not space. How does "space" evolve? It's already "spacy" there is not a thing to add to maker "spacier."

[@NachoLoizaga]

ok, now I've seen the whole video, I know I am dumb compared to these geniuses, but I still think the title should be other. I think consciousness can't evolve in itself, total consciousness is omnipresent, it is beyond knowing an object or all. I think we have to evolve into/towards consciousness, and all it comes with it, compassion, discernment, wisdom, on a global scale. But we are too busy scrolling on social media instead of meditating and practicing it. I liked what Yuval said about taking time from the decision making and practicing compassion.

[@J10044]

The real danger of AI is the machine learning part where machines are going to rewrite and improve their own code and reach levels of intelligence that are beyond our comprehesion with completely unpredictable outcomes. This discussion seems to focus on AI as a Google assistant that is limited to advisory activity. Of course, nothing against it and we're all using that already. They're missing the point of the real dangers with the possible exception of Harari who seems to be more into this.

[@melisentiapheiffer3034]

What if humans get to a stage where we don't want AI? Wouldn't it cause a war between humans and AI , especially if we are not merged with AI? Is this what we are being warned about? That the safest thing for modern humans to do is to merge with AI?

[@pravinsuri2197]

Was this the discussion on consciousness?

[@dubrime]

I love this discussion. I already agree on a lot of stuff with Harari, but I heard an interesting and strong point about AI being vulnerable, or rather not. It would be possible of course to make AI vulnerable, but it would also be possible to make us less vulnerable. However, is that what we want, is that what's valued? As Harari says in Homo Deus, our values change, they are not eternal and immovable, so what values are we going to put into AI as we create it? Responsibility was also mentioned, and yes, if AI is going to join us, before it can surpass us and take over, it needs to be subjected to the same conditions we live in. If an AI driving car kills someone, who's going to be liable for it? Ultimately, somewhere down the road, human life may not have that much importance attached to it. We may be able to back up our brains, and just upload them to another body if the current body dies. In terms of AI as physician, apparently those already exist in a way. I would like to know where? Where is the AI that predicts suicides better than human psychiatrists? Is it only in research and experimental laboratory environments, or are they already deployed in clinics. We explore ourselves, and there's much to explore, but the whole process may come to an abrupt ending as we become irrelevant such as we are.

[@WilliamBotha]

Can he code for AI? I think not, wake up

[@dbrandeau]

Daniel Dennett has become the incarnation of the OK BOOMER meme.

[@pranavlimaye]

No, not really

[@pranavlimaye]

@Sapiens if a progressive liberal pro-evolution anti-religion atheist like Dennett, *someone who was born closer to the 19th century than the 21st century,* counts as a boomer, then the word no longer carries any meaning

[@pepecanas7023]

congrats, Yuval for your clarity and original thinking!

[@canteluna]

Harari commented that although human beings have made a "drama" of decision making for all of our history, that this aspect isn't really what human beings are really all about -- and just left that assertion hanging without any support. I can't think of anything more human than decision making, of making choices with "skin in the game" as Dennett put it. Harari said that human beings have never been good at seeing clearly the cause and effect chain involved in our decision making. True, we are not machines and it takes experience to learn about the ramifications, especially ones further down the line in the causal chain (our current environmental status is evidence of that). But ok, fine, agreed, but then use AI to inform decisions, not make them for us. We need to remain responsible. We should never be in a situation where we blame machines. Life is already complex and we don't see all the ramifications of decisions we make (especially at the level of institutions), for example, government agencies are often thought to be Byzantine. Look at our tax code. We certainly are already in a situation where the right hand does not always know what the left hand is doing. Use AI to help that problem. Yes, user contracts are obtuse to most readers and we sign them without really comprehending what we are doing. This is an example of individual weak agency. But this is traditionally why we have had government as protecting our rights -- so that we don't accidentally sign them away. We need to use the power of government in this case. If we are going to be responsible for contracts such as the one Harari mentioned then our rights need to be protected. We can't all be expected to employ lawyers to look over every contract we sign. We need govt to ensure the contracts don't violate basic rights and then perhaps either the contracts would be approved by state or local govt first before they get to the consumer and/or we could have an AI program to explain in plain English what we are signing. This is not a matter, as harari seemd to frame it, where we are simply out of our depth in agency and need a computer program to come and rescue us.

[@ERH-ph5gb]

This statement fascinated me in particular because I haven't heard it put like that before. I think there is something important about that and I think that the freneticism in which I myself sometimes thought I had to make decisions was unnecessary in most cases and making decisions is far overrated. Where I postponed a decision and let a few weeks or even months go by, problems that seemed insurmountable to me solved themselves. The "hopp" or "Topp" business, in which we mostly go on our own and pretend that some decisions determine life and death, is completely hysterical. On the contrary, we should not have a technology just because we can make better or faster decisions, but, as Harari said, use AI for such decisions so that we can turn to something other than this decision business. Knowing oneself, for example, is like studying for a Master's degree, in which I am enrolled all my life. That costs time, which I waste on making decisions and pondering problems. Dennet's best point, I thought, was that he said there is no endpoint. There are such ends in the virtual world, in games, in movies and books, but not in the game of life.

[@firstal3799]

Did Jodi got through Berkeley because of affirmative quotas?

[@raresmircea]

Great points all round, it was a good discussion!

[@lyngoodman126]

This is the only thing the internet should be about, a true place of comfort and sense.

[@Runner50783]

Jordan B. Peterson vs Harari next please

[@raresmircea]

A charismatic smart religious lunatic vs a thoughtful delicate intellectual. Personally i'd leave this freak wrestling match on the side. Peterson will be known in the history books as a case of primitivism struggling to survive the great cultural transition of the 21Century. He's a brilliant mind who had a very bad existential trip which left him intellectually crippled - fortunately for him he survived with the help of religious beliefs, a great deal of ignorance and turning to myths. Unfortunately for humanity, life on earth and the future of civilization (whatever form it might take) he's a very charming histrionic individual who found meaning in proselytizing. Science is doing a wonderful job at what it does, and the only thing that impedes us from becoming a society of artistically and spiritually inclined hyperthymic individuals embedded in a great harmonious community.. is the fact that we don't have more people like Harari, David Pearce or Nick Bostrom.

[@Runner50783]

Science and Religion are both part of the human experience, one can't replace the other. To try to use science to solve moral problems is as atrotious as trying to use religion to solve scientific ones.

[@raresmircea]

I'm not completely disagreeing with you but there are a few aspects that can be pointed out against that. One is that beings don't need religion to be moral. Most criminals believe in God, while a significant number of atheists are very moral individuals (there are statistics showing smaller percentages of criminality in atheists than in christians and islamic believers, but you'll have to search on that). Religious individuals cannot prove they are moral - they only act morally due to their terrible constraints, being extorted with the threat of hell and bribed with eternal heaven. So no believer can prove (s)he's a moral being. The tigers you see at the circus are not doing what they do because they are entertainers, or loving their trainers - the truth of what they really are is very different, and should the "stick and carrot" punishments and rewards cease they'll be quick to show their true nature. Also i could mention here a brilliant phrase "If there is a God, He has no religion!" - i think it was Gandhi's. The future of any sane and evolved civilization is that of spirituality, not religion. Second, you cannot be a truly moral agent if you don't know for what it is. And science is showing great promise that in 50-100 years we would know many aspects related to consciousness - because morality can only be a valid thing in relation to conscious beings. Only science can show us, without making wild assumptions and then inventing stuff up, what is it to be conscious, what are the different degrees of consciousness, which types of beings are feeling what types of experiences, which beings suffer most, etc. There are plenty of religious persons who abuse animals in the most despicable ways - i guess because.. they were made for our enjoyment and use, we're the belly button of existence and everything made for us, how can you disagree with that? A scientific experiment comes to mind where the scientists used caged chickens with access to a leaver which they (the chickens) could press with their beak if they wanted to, and which at each press, would administer a dose of painkillers through a intravenous line connected at all times to the chicken. Next they injured the chickens to see what would be their subsequent behaviour. Amazingly for some humans, the non injured chickens couldn't be trained to press the leaver, while the injured ones kept pressing it at equal intervals (as long as the effect of the precise dose of painkillers lasted). Exact same chickens, selected genetically to have the most resemblance of their molecular mechanisms, and still they behaved differently. Some simple molecular cause-effect unconscious mechanism generated by the painkillers is out of the question for their behaviour to press the leaver, because the others would of done it too. So, although not having a definite proof, we have sufficient reasons to think that chickens are indeed conscious beings, and not only that, but they're able to experience pain and act on that pain. It's not much but it's something very important that can enable a civilization to behave morally. There are even evolutionary biologists saying that some animals could be capable of conscious pain on a degree greater than humans(!), because while we developed a powerful 'counterfactual imagination' and the 'ability of reasoning', the animals still need strong emotions and feelings to keep them away from danger and toward their biological needs - so they may have stronger "stick and carrot" experiences than us. Science will have to devise methods of testing this if it's true. But humans have a much greater complexity of conscious experience irrespective of the intensity of their affect, so they must be more important than a bonobo. Again, we will need to explore, then qualitatively and quantitatively describe that. According to what we know today, a 20 year old person should jump into a fire and risk dying in excruciating pain for saving a baby? What if, in 150 years we will know precisely that the pain felt by a human baby (even if he manifests so loudly) is vastly more dull by that of a 4 year old child? Further more, maybe we will have undeniable proof that a baby isn't a person yet, while a 20 year old is obviously "someone" - someone who can suffer! My bold idea is that ONLY science offers the promise of real moral behaviour that really protects conscious beings accordingly. Then, i'm very confident that in a century or so, the centers of development (perhaps Shanghai, Berlin, Singapore, or even Dubai) would only admit citizens who agree to implant microchips that keep them on a safe attractor basin of emotions. Waking up energetic in the morning, experiencing what's technically called "fast euphoria", then shifting to "spiritual euphoria" in the evening and "slow euphoria" before bed would definitely prevent an individual from considering harming others or searching for payback. No person who's truly immensely happy and at peace and having a deep spiritual experience is bothering with "animal concerns". Note that the tuning of emotions wouldn't mean the tuning of your interests, hobbies, sport activities, musical preferences, nor your religious beliefs. But there is the threat that these people would still be immoral by incessantly buying products having a high carbon footprint, or eating meat, or wasting fresh water, etc - and for this problem, there's again science who would provide AI technology, which is the only solution that can track the global cause-and-effect trails of our activities, and that could efficiently intervene in maximizing benefits while minimizing deleterious effects on conscious life everywhere. Religion is only necessary for the primitive stage between animal and human, to keep the strong animal drives and emotions in check by the threat of punishment, and rewarding any good behaviour with a pat on the back and a "Good boy! Now you're going to heaven!". If we manage to escape the financial, political and religious cliques, our civilization would become Heaven - and this doesn't mean abolishing ocasional negative feelings, because they are necessary part of life, but we have to be able to experience them in total technological safety. Please take a look at this article, i promise you'll be at least informed if not amazed and entertained (you'll have to highlight the text or activate your browser's "reader-view" because the background makes it hard to read) - www.paradise-engineering.com/brain/ - this is only a taste of the kind of knowledge a scientist or modern philosopher of science has - turning back to religious discussion after this is like being a Michelin-starred chef and yet relying on microwave pizza-burgers and coke.

[@mrrrka]

Abraham Saenz science's been solving moral problems for decades and is fundamental to understanding the true nature of humanity. however, most people are not yet ready to withstand the emptiness of being and therefore need norms prescribed by divine authority i would also love to see JBP vs Harari

[@Runner50783]

It will quickly derrange into a "what is truth" debate, which I would love to experience.

[@knitnkitten]

How is experience divorced from decision making? 🧐 I think the responsibility of decision making and the consequences are a seminal part of one's experience. Guided by AI is not the same as having algorythms choose for you and limit choice by doing so. As well, this technology transfers some responsibility to the person programming the algorythm.

[@christianamericandominican2470]

Revelation 13:16-18: "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

[@harriehoutman5154]

Consciousness Iss. All inclusive and endlessly more. Be aware of Davos, stay present and awake to our devine and human nature, cherish both.

[@sudhirpatel7620]

Nature goes on forever for everyone and everything to return as everyone and everything an infinite number of times through evolutionary processes.

[@MassDynamic]

those mics need to be longer....gosh

[@LankSheldrake]

why is the audio sound quality almost inaudible ?

[@amsh1366]

thanks for sharing it was one of the best panels