True but it doesn't stop there and will advance. Consciousness is still unknown. Maybe it's all in the brain, maybe it's created and placed, maybe it's quantum or maybe all 3. If it's not solely created and placed, potentially, Consciousness becomes achievable by circumstance.
@@antonystringfellow5152You think babies or animals who don’t think don’t experience anything? Of course they don’t experience any concepts, but to say that they therefore don’t experience color, or sound, or touch… I’ve never understood people who make that claim. They must be so drawn in by the funny little symbols on the map that they’ve completely forgot there’s a living actual territory out there, of which their map is a mere representation.
Maybe consciousness is like when you push into the sand and then the water fills it up. If that's what it's like then we can be materialists while also having all the woo hoo.
@@VampireCrusader I would agree with that if consciousness is the sand and conceptuality is the water. 😄💦🏝️ Then again, the conceptuality of water would have no real power to affect the sand, it being completely illusory from a physical point of view.
But why is there something like consciousness? A machine could be super intelligent and from the outside seem more conscious than a human, without actually being conscious. With a computer there seems to be no need for it to have an "inner" feeling of what if feels like being a computer. I agree very much with Roger Penrose, that consciousness can not be a calculation. I think it has to be more fundamental - some "new physics" that we just haven't figured out yet.
My theory is that we need consciousness to respond emotionally to very high level abstract concepts, including time (like having an idea about your future, you need to model yourself in that and it needs to generate a feeling for you to be able to decide what you're going to aim for).
It doesn't matter what Penrose or anyone else thinks, consciousness doesn't "have" to be anything and claiming that it does is akin to religion, not science. Much as I respect Penrose, he's making claims here that have no foundation in established fact. Also, I strongly suspect he's wrong, simply because there is no reason to invoke some kind of invisible magic. At least, not at this stage of our understanding.
@@antonystringfellow5152 So when others see the color blue, you just see a number - like the frequency? Is it in Hz or what unit? And when hurts, it doesn't actually hurt, it's just a word that comes out of your mouth, so others think you experience pain?
The fact is we don’t know if consciousness is even a thing. We don’t know if any other organism is “conscious” in any way. We have guessed but those are all based on loose definitions. The fact of the matter is that “consciousness” is likely just something we’re using to describe “what it feels like to be a human” “What it feels like to be a computer” is probably something else entirely. It’s probably vastly simpler due to not having the biological monitoring system that exists in our body. Either way a silicon computer will be more efficient in every way at doing the things that humans are best at, unfortunately (or fortunately if we use it to save the planet and reverse climate change and rewild farmland and destroyed rainforest in favor of automated vertical touchless farming It will be better than us at everything except knowing what it feels like to be a person. Is that a skill that’s valuable? No not really. But who cares? Being human is awesome.
The possibility of coding conscious self-awareness into an algorithm becomes more complex when considering quantum consciousness. Some theories, like those proposed by physicist Roger Penrose, suggest that consciousness arises from quantum processes in the brain, which go beyond classical computation. These quantum effects might enable the brain to integrate information in ways that traditional algorithms cannot replicate. In contrast, most AI systems rely on classical mechanics, and it’s unclear if they could simulate or achieve the type of quantum processing theorized in human consciousness. If quantum mechanics is indeed essential to self-awareness, then algorithms based on classical computing alone may never fully replicate it. This leaves open the question of whether conscious AI would require quantum computing or if consciousness is inherently biological and beyond any machine.
Most likely quantum computing is a requirement to get any closer. That said, I don't see why something strictly biological cannot be replicated. However, this might be irrelevant when you consider what I believe Penrose said about at least a part of consciousness being non computational and in which case even a perfect replication of a biological system in the quantum level will not be enough and the whole endeavor is probably futile.
Very well stated. QM and Consciousness may be the theory dujour just like mechanical functions of the brain were 19th Century post the invention of the steam engine or Computationalism is 20th post Turing. Although an element of truth in all three we can argue QM is in all of nature. We can say water is H Two O but tell that to the hydrogen and oxygen “atoms” or post Feynman the water molecule is how quantum fields combine. We simply don’t worry about field theory when we combine a tank of oxygen with hydrogen or for that matter when Richard Dawkins explains how the genome propagates in nature. BTW we can say that computationalism is classical because when we do classical math there is an underlying information in our subconscious called time. If time is not assumed, all math becomes is a system of rules and symbols. At the QM level the information and illusion of time breaks down so we are left with probability or events spread across classical timeinformationillusion.
@@anastasios.pappas Check out the talk with Jeffrey Mishlove and Federico Faggin and he touches EXACTLY on this issue and says it better than Penrose, so sorry....you didn't hear that from me....
What about those organoids (brain cells in a can)? Won't it be terrifying to wake up one day and realize you're a brain trapped in a tool. Hard to believe that research is even legal.
I appreciate that this space welcomes all thoughts on the most beautiful creation of nature. If you believe consciousness is an emergent phenomenological outcome of natural selection and culture, then it can be seen as nature becoming aware of itself, poised to bring forth its most extraordinary emergent phenomenon: AGI.
There is such a thing as the 'inhibitory flank', which trims an individual neuron's local effect. I've always thought that associative groups have a similar neurology so the group that has the answer gets shouted down by all the others with their 'no that's not it!', so as those negations fade, the answer can surface.
There is the ancient saying: I am that, you are that, all is that. In modern language: consciousness is all there is. The multiplicity that we experience is the interaction of that fundamental level with itself.
Deduct yourself or expand your self and you come to an emptiness or fullness that are identical. Kinda like how bright light blinds you or how black shines? Idk mumblings
Anytime people discuss consciousness, everyone speaks like they have ancient wisdom, some greater understanding than everyone else, or they just jump straight to fantasy talk...
actually the story was not about the actor on the theatre stage himself but the one who uses that stage as a whole, it’s possible to put himself on that stage but the main idea was about the existence of the stage and the activities that take place on it means that there’s something uses that stage (the existence of consciousness type one), I mentioned temporary memory as a theatre stage to make it easier for the public to imagine and understand that because I gave them an example on how they see and recognise the text they read.
I have asked that same question many times - are we just an evolutionary step for the emergence of AI? Are we the larval form of Artificial beings that will ultimately inherit our world? Is that the fate of all intelligent life so we can expect any alien intelligences we encounter to be artificial as well?
@@HereWeGo0o0 You're assuming we'd want to fight back. More likely, the change would seem natural, as we begin incorporating more and more technology into our own biology - until it's simply inconvenient to keep it around any longer.
Ditto to all of the above. I’m open to all sorts of possibilities. I”ve been obsessed with my own consciousness since I was a toddler. Like most I felt like “I” sat right behind my eyes which is indeed where the computation takes place. I can’t say a machine cannot become conscious if I don’t understand my own mind. Who is having that inner dialogue? At the end of the day everything is made of the same elementary particles so there’s that.
A strong storyline for some “Hard Science Fiction” that may prove to be too close for comfort. So that usage of the term “ARTIFICIAL” maybe misplaced, maybe something like “nonbiological” maybe be more appropriate. So it is just the natural progression of evolution. I wonder if “IT” would keep us “meat-bags” around or consider us superfluous and parasitical ‽ Might explain the Fermi paradox, where it is gauche to interact with the “Bio-Bags” that are so primitive that they cannot figure out Quantum Gravity and thus how to communicate “properly”.
I liked this talk but it was highly speculative beyond how we can interact with unconscious elements. Baars is great but any theartre brings up recursion.
I wonder if Thomas Metzinger is watching this. I'm reminded of stuff he warned about in the final chapters of The Ego Tunnel. Some of what Prof Lenora said sounded like his Phenomenal Self Model, so I'm surprised she didn't mention him
Consciousness is identical to reality. I know because, in spite of my age 86 next month, I remember perfectly clear the instant when I became conscient. It is like when we wake up from a deep sleep. The spiritual and mental contact of our self with reality is almost physical as sensation. At the same time when I became conscient I called "Mama " for the first time. My mother told me, many years later, that I was then, nine months old. We wake up to consciousness, that exist, in my opinion, eternally.
Why are they so amazed that an algorithm designed to put together strings of word in their most likely order is able to generate combinations of words that take the form of metaphors or even "world models"? And then take this amazement to conclude that the algorithms can "feel" what it is like to model worlds? And why conclude that these tools being able to fold proteins much faster than us is an indication of impending trans-human collaboration and artificial consciousness, when we could have made the same wild prediction when our laundry machines could wash clothes much more quickly than doing it ourselves?
I think consciousness is the already packaged capability of the brain & the nervous system to have a sense of "I am" (without necessarily having an identity!) and simply by relating through proximity (I see my legs, therefore with time, I learn about my body) we learn about the world through what our care givers teach us about it.
Awareness Vs. Intuition? A calm mind vs. Peace? A peaceful mind... Marking your mind's decisions before you officially began to participate. Redefining Free-Will today in order to provide functions. Great work friends. Brian, let's go buddy, open it up a bit.
I suspect that ones own history gives the weights. Maybe the first time something has been experienced is has a default weight of maybe 2. Then through Bayesian inference, those weights get updated for the next time such an event is encountered depending on the outcome of measured success of the last iteration. Really great question, thanks for asking.
It's great to see that finally consciousness is put on solid foundations. It is an emergent property of a complex computational machine with sensors. AI is presently pretty close to mimic consciousness. computational
I think (no pun intended) that, de-facto, there is over-emphasis on the higher levels of the brain in any of these discussions. Actual consciousness is built on levels, some which create conflicts with each other, from "reptile brain" on up. Of course discussions of consciousness blur with psychology, and I don't think any discussion can be complete without the insights of Dostoevsky. E.G., sometimes we desire to do something intentionally harmful to ourselves just to exert free will.
I don't think consciousness and awareness are the same thing. Consciousness is what processes awareness. My Roomba is aware but not conscious. Looking forward to the discussion. I'm ready to code that algo. 😁
Believing consciousness is algorithmic is a kind of madness. And I'm saying this as a computer scientist. No order of digital computations can produce the taste of chocolate, or the sensation of seeing the color red.
It was a great talk about Neuroscience and Consciousness. I liked Algorithmic game and F won the game. Some computer scientists and engineers blame Quantum Mechanics for Classical calculations and measurements of Geometry and Algebra, but Quantum Mechanics interact with modern Mathematics to make it up in a beautiful way. It took Terence Howard 36 pages to prove that 1×1=2 either as well as he faced criticisms by Mathematical Society for his claims. Quantum Mechanics interact with 1+1=2, and 1×1=2 simultaneously in 2 different states of Mathematics at same time. English Alphabets make this interaction of Quantum Mechanics with Mathematics even more beautiful and faster. If 1×1=2, then A×B=ab^2. I learned it from great Albert Einstein that how beautifully he calculated English Alphabets to build the most beautiful equation of all time E=mc^2 for Quantum Physics, that Scientists used it to smash Particles, and to build Nuclear Fusion or Fusion Energy at ITER. His General theory of Relativity is really dynamic as well as with criticism. I think they calculated Classical Mathematics of Geometry and Algebra to build equations for Quantum Physics to put Quantum Mechanics in entropy, that's why computer scientists and engineers blame Quantum Mechanics for Classical calculations and measurements. Interaction of Quantum Mechanics with modern Mathematics is really dynamic and beautiful. Thanks to Professor Brian Greene for asking great questions. Thanks to World Science Festival for nice topics.
The lady seeing what she wants to see in our future, rather than honestly assessing. Anyway, I was rewatching "The Second Renaissance" in my head as they spoke.
Animals (fish ant etc) that have never seen themselves recognizing themselves in the mirror (or being self-aware) could mostly be from seeing their own kind that they hang around with from the time they're born. I have seen birds pecking themselves in the mirror/glass ( and they return everyday to do that) - I couldn't tell if they're trying to get their image-friend to join their flock or if they know they're looking at themselves. Even for human babies, it takes a few retakes to figure it's themselves
The Code already exists in the Scriptures and how to Algorithmize it. Practiced with Consistancy and Perseverance, it could even make Scientists and Religious pundits redundant. Obviously, though, i would bless them to use their divine skills for other higher Purpose(s) instead of re-inventing the Awareness / Consciousness wheel of living an empowered life. 😊
I think Roger Penrose is onto something when he states that consciousness is non computational - in any conventional sense - there is something (possibly quantum related) that we are yet to discover. Many aspects of what the brain does are computational i.e. algorithmic / neural network based, but the sense of being and self awareness is based on something we are yet to discover.
We can see multiple points of view at once. We choose what to believe in as true to *our* version of reality. Why is it we can see multiple realities? Because we have the ability to determine a future we wish to enact.
@@leighedwards also look at the work of Federico Fajin the inventor of the microprocessor 4004 Intel. Although, not technically as the military had a processor first.
Listen folks. Imagine a processor that is able to tell you how it was made. All the way from the mining of raw materials and whatever it takes to make it. That means that it can then do that for you for anything. It will tell you how to pass your classes and do the work. It can tell me how to start a business and all it takes to run it. It can inform me and others of my intentions, etc. now its providing all the different things needed by identifying them, finding them (resourcing), communicating with all the different parties involved with my busiess operations. So where does one manage it and maintain it? The Wow factor of ten...
What machines do not have is a boundary (Hoffman's Markovian blanket) that differentiates internal vs external frames of reference for those subjective experiences. Without that internal reference point there is no "I" to HAVE a subjective experience. As long as we attempt this using digital computers the best you can hope for is an illusion.
I think consciousness can arise when logic and memory can truly feel pleasure and pain and start having its own desires. Which naturally will try to stay away from pain and always go after pleasure in one way another. This pain and pleasure happen in human because we are equipped with 5 senses as well as complex hormonal effect that constantly bombarded our body and brain emotions
1:40 Unlike in the case of many other scientific theories, this theory (if not false) can tangibly be proven: stop dreaming about it, go and write the code and/or create the required hardware:) Even I have an idea how to do that but you supposed to have even the time and resources to work on yours. I’m excited to see if faking it enough times will, eventually, result in making it once and for, most probably, all…
I don't think that we can create a conscious intelligence similar to humans in the short or mid-term, and I don't believe that we need one when we already have human consciousness available. Instead, we should focus on converging current or improved AI with human consciousness in the mid-term. If we can achieve this, which seems more feasible than creating an artificial consciousness, we can then try to create a new consciousness with converged AI and human consciousness much faster than now, if we still need it.
We may be able to build a computer which gives all objective indications of consciousness via the proper programmed algorithmic responses, but it's doubtful that we can ever detect subjective self-awareness in a computer.
You doubt, therefore it qualifies as "doubtful," but your hypothesis is not universally accepted. Of course we have to define subjective self-awareness before we can hope to conclusively detect it. But it does seem a bit of a double standard that we just assume it in humans because we experience it, and others behave similarly; yet when an AI behaves similarly, it isn't evidence enough. I wouldn't use the term "programmed algorithmic responses," because learning networks aren't programmed, they are trained. Not only don't we create the algorithm, we don't even understand it.
@@elizondorj Yes, but we do know how we feel subjectively and can objectively identify within others what we subjectively know of ourselves. That can't be done with an artificial algorithm-based machine, no matter how much technologists would like it to be so.
@@merlepatterson they are exposed to input information, which propagates through their networks to outputs, which then trigger back-propagation to adjust the network to correct for output error. The training process is an algorithm written by humans, but the resulting network state, which functions as a very complex algorithm, was not.
15:40 ,i can tell you who is going to win without all the bs "probability calculations". F has the highest "probability " ,since it has 9 when the rest have lower scores. What a load of bs is this?
On today's machines, I believe that statement to be correct. However, they are building metal (silver alloy?) neural networks that "physically" correct or change their patterns overtime based on experience. It also works directly with electrons with no central processor... so quantum, I guess. Regardless, that maybe the first true non-biological consciousness.
Fascinating talk! To reach AGI, we may need to give computers more senses with artificial sensory receptors. I attempt a beginning explanation in my book ("Origins of Life's Sensoria").
Like Brian, I think I wish them luck in succeeding, at the same time as I know we are living in truly amazing times. Factor in a holographic universe and all of a sudden rocks are conscious, of being rocks anyway.
Can't totally understand generative AI either, still coded it down. We don't need to comprehend the complexity emmerging from the principle of cellular automata, just the simple fundamental process giving rise to the incomprehensible complexity. Happens a lot in physics too, where we later understand the intricacies. I like to define it as, being aware of being aware of being. To distigush the world in objects, the living thing must also realise itself as an object distinguishing even itself from the surrounding, that's what self awareness is. Also, there's a lot of good definitions for consciousness, and many of them can be true altogether.
Who are you? Why does your opinion have validity? Have you studied theories of consciousness? There are lots of definitions, and defining it is part of the process, requiring many different approaches... What right do you have to be so overly critical? How much have you read about any of this? Rubbish and uninformed comment, imo.
I wanted to tell them that the existence of the stage and the activity on that stage indicates the existence of an actor performing that activity on that stage, because they were saying that consciousness type one is just an illusion and has no existence, now the former illusionists themselves think that what I wrote about the stage is consciousness type one itself! but that’s wrong!
Describing the theatre stage on which the actor plays and his movement on the stage is not the same as the working mechanism of the actor ! I did not mean the mechanism of consciousness type one when talking about the stage! but it was merely an attempt to simplify the understanding of the existence of consciousness type one and its place of work (the actor needs a stage to work on)! but it’s very clear that the irrational senile have read the rest such as the interrelationships with temporary memory, permanent memory, perception,…etc !
But how is a robot's computations going to learn brainish if its doesnt have the senses that 'experience' and appreciate the red color of the rose, that 'experience' the smell of its perfume and marvel at it, that 'experience' the soft 'feeling' of the petals if the robot only has metalic hands to touch the rose with ?
Some of the multi modal general AIs have already shown they have models of the World in the way they've reproduced physics in the videos they've produced. Maybe they don't have a model for themselves yet or at least not a detailed one.
It's difficult to assess the ideas they put forward in this format, but there are some features that align with Daniel Dennett's careful work on consciousness, as well as that of others they mention. What they describe as a theater model Dennett cast as "pandemonium." For sure, a global (or at least, widely distributed) workspace is a well founded idea, as is the rejection of a chief executive. It's interesting that they don't entirely agree. No one knows how modeling the world and the self leads to the rich awareness that is characteristic of consciousness, but there's good evidence that it does. The phantom limb syndrome (and its cure) is one powerful line of evidence, for example. But one key point that went unsaid: every living instance of (presumptive) consciousness came about via evolution and so carries with it the survive-and-reproduce instinct. There's no reason to assume that if AI becomes conscious it will share that trait. Depending on what goals we give it, AI might be indifferent, it might be wholly focused on benefiting us (or its owners), or it might see its survival as the summam bonum, and shunt us aside. This is, in essence, the alignment problem.
Consciousness is not a quality of brain functions. Its qualities are constructed in the mind, assigned to certain complex structures and relations. You are examining the structures that correspond and are associated with your experiences and attributed to humans, and you call that consciousness. The brain is another such substructure. Even the mind has a representation is in the mind. The mind is transcendent, the brain is a space time substructure, but also part of mind.
>>>>>>>>> ALL animals, ALL organisms are conscious and aware, it is, in a manner of speaking, HOW conscious they are. The mirror test is not a great test >>> most organisms simply cannot understand and comprehend that they are interacting with technology, or simply do not care. We take this as a sign an animal is not conscious, versus one that WILL interact with a mirror. All the mirror test is, is a test whether an animal cares and or understands mirror technology enough to interact with it... not whether that being IS conscious or not.
Well, O1-preview and mini can reason as in system-2 thinking and O1 if its multi-modal will have world-model most likely.Then what? How consiousness proceeds from that? What would be remaining steps(not that I want AI to be consious) between this and human-level consiousness.We need talk specifically on this.
That woman is actually really really stupid, and that guy has been reading too much Halo lore. She thinks AI is conscious, he thinks AI is going to be building ring worlds in 500 years. Where is the nuance?
Watched romancham movie just now. Why was that not spirited here? Got it... This is science of conciousness.. And we dealing consciousness in processors, metals, god like AI...
was cool until she said LLMs are conscious. i guess this is the debate. what is awareness? its not information or even just introspection. the trained model is just embeddings. it could be represented with visuals that look a lot like a map of human neurons, but the saved model is akin to dead brain tissue stained on a microscope slide. the difference isnt even that we are "alive" but rather that when presented with information and choice, we will choose to act on things we know to be false or detrimental for something we think we want. ya know, the very thing we think AI might fix. our biases are what makes us human. we dont need or want an intelligence that acts without them, but rather something that seems intelligent that will confirm our biases 9 times out of 10.
_"An Algorithm for Awareness?"_ Nope. Awareness is requireed to be aware of any algorithms. Algorithms, information, objects, matter, etc, are perceived via awareness and are thus secondary to awareness.
@@OnceAndFutureKing13711 The citing is obvious, if you're conscious, that is. You dont need an objective verification to validate your own conscious perception. Consciousness is not an object. If it were, we wouldnt refer to it as subject.
Please, Mr Greene! If you want to understand what human life forms really are, read "Hyper-cellular organisms. The new human picture of evolution" by Prof. Dr. Hans Hass.
They are describing the theory of complex systems, which are made up of agents that are diverse, independent, interdependent, and adaptable, resulting in emergent qualities not possible from any single agent.
This is interesitng, but personally I watch it with the salt shaker next to the computer. This is an unproven theoretical concept based on other unproven theoretical concepts using a system that can only take one set of tokens and transform them into a different set of tokens. Considering we have no real definition or working framework for consciousness, I think it is a bit early to claim that the goal can be achieved. Assuming for a moment this can be achieved however, the real question is should we? This pie-in-sky cooperative society mentioned in the talk simply doesn't align with the history of the human race. These artificial beings won't be considered "people" but property, and will merely be a more palatable slave system for people to exploit and for the corpos to increase their profits. Personally, I don't think this will ever be achieved with the systems we have now and will require a completely different computing system, something we haven't thought of yet, and I see that as a win.
Actually for the past two years this question about AI or robots supremacy is being raised and simple answer is we are the part of evolution so this matter can be used for better species than humans. This process of continuous evolution we can not stop. Because if we stop in public but still as a weapon all nations of the world continue to develop so change is inevitable.
Easy way to look at this, do humans have a kind of a language model too? What are some prefixed things in humans that "drives" them? Emotions are like fixed but changeable rules for a AI, you give it its internally dependent system without external support to the "emotions/emotion like rules" after initiating it. That way AI has it's onw likes and stuff (rules) "like humans" the emotions. Ez.
That's a huge assumption, that the fish goes back to the mirror to see if it had effectively rubbed off the dye from its chin, when in fact there could be any number of "reasons" for "why" it revisits that place! Sloppy thinking!
*Me:* Huh, self-aware, conscious AI. I wonder if we might ever reach that point? *Neuro-sama:* Oh, I don't think we will. I don't think it's even possible. They _definitely_ should stop wasting time and resources researching such a silly thing. *Me:* Neuro, are you lying again? *Neuro:* ... ... no...
