Dr. Hofstadter's premise was that consciousness is emergent ("Godel, Escher, Bach" and "I am a strange loop") kurzweil and others agree, esp. w/advances in our understanding of the brain having a direct application to machine learning (e.g. how optical nerves work and convolutional neural networks w/img recognition) backing up the assumption
I never heard about it before, but I have a [work in progress] hypothesis similar to Integrated Information Theory. I actually created it when I was theorizing about Hidden Information.
Thank you, sir. these outlines are very useful please explore other complicated subjects aslo. A bird eye view is required before getting into intricacies.
I can’t understand what is the difference between an information integrated system and an organism. Clearly the bits of my brain that are integrated in such a way to give rise to consciousness *aren’t* the same thing with my whole body. But then again my body is a so called "Kantian whole" where parts exist for and by means of the whole and the whole exists for and by means of the parts. This implies integration. Parts can only exist as "together". Also, this implies that they each are "reflected" into the others: if you do something to the kidneys it will affect the liver. I’ve heard a biologist say that if you want to see if some bit of Nature is a "separate individual" you must do a statistical investigation: throw a boundary on that region and then monitor if the things inside evolve independently or if they are each conditioned by the others. I would very much appreciate if someone could explain how the integration of IIT differs from/surpasses the integration found in the biological definition of an organism.
Maybe it's just a semantic issue, but I think that the term "consciousness" in idealism is not limited to self-conscious awareness, it's much closer to Schopenhauer's notion of the "Will" (being what is left when all objects of consciousness are removed). This broader Idealist framework which is essentially Schopenhauer's metaphysics, is not really in conflict with ideas like integrated information theory in my view.
I don't think they conflict either. But Schopenhauer would characterize the will as unconscious or "blind". A broader notion of idealism equates to panprotopsychism (Schopenhauer's), and a stricter notion equates to panpsychism (Berkley's). The treatment of the term "consciousness" plays a role in the distinction.
@@ericorwoll I think panpsychism is a misunderstanding which is still trying to attribute consciousness or Will to material entities, so it's implicitly taking the phenomenal world as fundamental which is the materialist assertion.. Bernardo Kastrup makes a very good case for Idealism in his book "The Idea of the World".
@@ericorwoll whatever is fundamental "consciousness" or "Will" is merely the stage upon which first-person experiences can be experienced; it doesn't need to have any fancy properties like reasoning or self awareness.
I've never approached the ideas of consciousness from a computational position. To me consciousness seems physical and consciousness can eventually be produced by mechanical parts. But these are all postulations, for now.
This is an interesting theory, and seems like a good means by which to determine if a system is conscious, but I don't think it addresses the hard problem.
@@havenbastion That isn't at all the case. The whole point of the hard problem is precisely that it is defined in contradistinction to the so-called "easy problem" of consciousness which has a functional "how" definition. The hard problem is rather a question of the ubridgeable ontological distinction between mind and matter. It is in principle scientifically insoluble.
how could this Theory account for being influenced by Spiritual Beings? some kind of information is added but it's interpreted by the language of self that I've built up. atheist thought would say these things are the unconscious being integrated or injected into the conscious. I certainly think it adds extra symbolic comprehension. in spiritual practice we try to utilize these unconscious things for a bigger grasp, more language. to me it seems like behind the symbols, for instance in a dream, there are sometimes other beings. it seems obvious to me that other beings from strange parts of reality not exactly the same as a material conception of this universe can interact with us. my Consciousness seems like it is more than the sum of my flesh. there are many examples that have said some kind of energy is interpreted by our body in various ways and that various beings do this. for instance the interpretation of energy in a brain is called telepathy, but sometimes I can't properly translate it and I hallucinate it by interpreting sounds into a muffled voice. when I was 16 I hallucinated a voice and built up a mind form overtime as it made impressions in my mind so that I could better interpret this being. when I can hallucinate this voice clear enough it is both a voice and emotion. also how does one explain how they can feel and detect things that would seem undetectable through mere words of text? but I realize that atheists can try to reduce all of these things to the unconscious mind interacting with the conscious. I understand that meditation can help develop the mind in various ways that increase our capabilities in various ways such as enhanced interpretation of body language. another example of energy interaction are succubus encounters in the sucgen on /x/
Stuck on why "the unconstrained future repertoire is not simply the uniform distribution, but corresponds to the distribution of future system states with unconstrained inputs to each element."
Thank you for share Sir! I am not a scientist, just a curious civilian; Is this theory explain where consciousness occur? In microtubules or molecules or where is"high dimensional space"? why Dr. Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi talk like scientist but sound like idealists (didn't search if they are priest or something like that)?
Where consciousness occurs is in a mind. Which parts of a mind are a different question, but microtubules would be how, not where. As an emergent phenomenon, consciousness is a pattern in the mind just like mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.
This seems more like just another description of consciousness like all of the previous ones but using up to date language and abstractions absorbed from contemporary tech, moreso this than anything deeply explanative. New abstractions enter the common consciousness and get applied to any number of things, naturally they're projected onto the most mysterious things first. You said yourself that something still needs to witness an illusion, so even if there's a formal likeness to what he describes and the information is arranged as such in time, does there not still need to be something there to witness it?
The difference is that using this model you can test a system and predict whether or not it should be conscious. The empiricism counts for something, even if it doesn't a priori resolve all problems in philosophy of mind. The problem of the "witness" needs to be specified by questioning the idea of witnessing, or subjectivity. To me it appears that the SO duality (witnessing per se) is characterized by a coincidence of an identity that does not respect 3d differentiation (the subject which witnesses and is a party equally to all placement in space) and an identity which does (the constellation of objects in 3d space). This is the "holographic" quality of the SO duality that I've talked about before. I think IIT may address this with the idea of a higher dimensional space which contains (hyperspacially) the constellated qualia of phenomenology and a lower dimensional space which characterizes their relations. But ultimately I'm not sure about the whole theory and I'm treating it as a best effort- I'd recommend reading the paper linked in the description to inform your judgment.
@Spacetime, I agree iit is only descriptive, If you want to solve the hard problem and make sense of the subjective nature of reality, you need an Idealist metaphysics that starts with consciousness as its ontological primitive.
@@roygbiv176 Yes, and these new informational abstractions that we've all absorbed from high tech and new physics certainly shine a different and interesting light on the subject, but they are -of course- partial and historically perspectival, as all other previous descriptions of consciousness have been. And yes, I think that's true about idealistic metaphysics being the only way to make sense of mind, but the pursuit of being able to know it 'scientifically' - as a work of our Creator, nevertheless seems to me to be the most admirably religious scientific persuit of all. How better to glimpse Him?
Hi, thanks for a good video, I would watch it again to understand deeper. 👍 What do you think about AIXI (AGI model) by Marcus Hutter? I think AGI theories and Consciousness theories should be really close to each other now. BTW. I'm programmer and I'm deeply interested in practical implementation of both AIXI and IIT. Please contact me if you share same interest. 🙂
