Rethinking Consciousness with Attention Schema Theory

Подписаться 46 тыс.

Просмотров 1,1 тыс.

50% 1

Attention Schema Theory is Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness. Graziano is a professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Princeton University. His scientific research focuses on the brain basis of awareness. He has proposed the "attention schema" theory, an explanation of how, and for what adaptive advantage, brains attribute the property of awareness to themselves. He is also a novelist and musical composer.
❶ Background
0:00 Highlights
5:10 Michael's background (Physics vs. Neuroscience)
11:35 Early lab work & his thesis
13:25 The Spaces Between Us book (Peripersonal space bubbles)
16:35 Personal space differences across cultures (Common misconception!)
❷ Attention Schema Theory
20:32 Rethinking Consciousness book
21:40 What is the Attention Schema Theory? Most other theories are magical...
25:25 The man who thought he had a squirrel in his head
27:55 Why the focus on "attention"?
33:00 How did Michael come to this realization? Movement control/body models/phantom limbs...
38:15 What is the most common definition of consciousness? Experiential...
45:30 Do sponges have consciousness? We are machines that think we have experience...
47:40 Organisms that start to have self-models... 250M years ago
50:00 We "think" we have this experience...
51:05 "Attention is something the brain does. Consciousness is something the brain says it has."
51:25 The costs of attention... pay attention!
53:50 The attention economy... social manipulation
❸ Rival Theories of Consciousness
56:25 Attention Schema Theory vs Modern Consciousness Theories
58:20 Global Workspace Theory (i.e. Fame in the Brain)
1:01:15 Higher Order Thought Theory
1:01:45 How does AST shorten the explanatory gap?
1:06:00 Integrated Information Theory
1:10:00 Relationship to Donald Hoffman's work?
1:12:35 There are no colors in the universe
1:13:25 "Experienceness is an inaccurate way that the brain describes what it's doing"
1:15:15 Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter
1:17:35 Steel man the other side of your theory?
❹ Final Thoughts
1:19:45 Consciousness is a matter of technology, not philosophy/psychology
1:20:50 Doesn't want to be around when we start uploading minds
1:24:18 Psychedelics informing research?
1:24:55 Relationship to dreams?
1:25:55 Any lessons from research you use in your day-to-day life?
1:27:15 If you could give your younger self one piece of advice?
🚩Links to Michael 🚩
Website: grazianolab.princeton.edu/
Channel: / @grazgorilla
Rethinking Consciousness: A Scientific Theory of Subjective Experience www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Con...
🚾 Works Cited
Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate (Tononi 2016) www.researchgate.net/publicat...
♩♫ ♪♩♫ ♪
Egmont Overture by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
🚀 What is this channel?
Exploring Truth in philosophy, science, & art. We'll uncover concepts from psychology, mythology, spirituality, literature, media, and more. If you like Lex Fridman or Curt Jaimungal, you'll love this educational channel.
p.s. Please subscribe! Young channel here. =)
#consciousness #attentionschematheory #science #evolution #algorithms #ai #computation #iit

Опубликовано:

16 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 26

@Carlos.Explains Год назад

❶ Background 5:10 Michael's biography (Physics vs. Neuroscience) 11:35 Early lab work & his thesis 13:25 The Spaces Between Us book (Peripersonal space bubbles) 16:35 Personal space differences across cultures (Common misconception!) ❷ Attention Schema Theory 20:32 Rethinking Consciousness book 21:40 What is the Attention Schema Theory? Most other theories are magical... 25:25 The man who thought he had a squirrel in his head 27:55 Why the focus on "attention"? 33:00 How did Michael come to this realization? Movement control/body models/phantom limbs... 38:15 What is the most common definition of consciousness? Experiential... 45:30 Do sponges have consciousness? We are machines that think we have experience... 47:40 Organisms that start to have self-models... 250M years ago 50:00 We "think" we have this experience... 51:05 Attention is something the brain does. Consciousness is something the brain says it has. 51:25 The costs of attention... pay attention! 53:50 The attention economy... social manipulation ❸ Rival Theories of Consciousness 56:25 Attention Schema Theory vs Modern Consciousness Theories 58:20 Global Workspace Theory (i.e. Fame in the Brain) 1:01:15 Higher Order Thought Theory 1:01:45 How does AST shorten the explanatory gap? 1:06:00 Integrated Information Theory 1:10:00 Relationship to Donald Hoffman's work? 1:12:35 There are no colors in the universe 1:13:25 "Experienceness is an inaccurate way that the brain describes what it's doing" 1:15:15 Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter 1:17:35 Steel man the other side of your theory? ❹ Final Thoughts 1:19:45 Consciousness is a matter of technology, not philosophy/psychology 1:20:50 Doesn't want to be around when we start uploading minds 1:24:18 Psychedelics informing research? 1:24:55 Relationship to dreams? 1:25:55 Any lessons from research you use in your day-to-day life? 1:27:15 If you could give your younger self one piece of advice?

@obsideonyx7604 Год назад

Hardcore materialist, this one is.

@footballfactory8797 11 месяцев назад

I know right Jesus

@givemorephilosophy Год назад

40 min The experiencing part is so important. And he beautifully explains it . This experience every single person can vouch for .. And that the one doing that is the body or the self that he so beautifully articulates😊😊.

@hansenmarc Месяц назад

51:14 attention is something the brain does; consciousness is something the brain says it has 58:23 global workspace theory of consciousness 1:10:03 Donald Hoffman

@givemorephilosophy Год назад

37 min The I that Michael refers to is something beyond the brain that is not something that science can decipher but every human being can understand. What is it that gets separated from the physical body? What is the gap between the dead body and the live person. The life atom with 1 particle in the centre and 60 particles in the order 2,8,18,32 just like the physical atoms. This ontology explains many missing pieces

@givemorephilosophy Год назад

56 min This is very interesting. The attention manipulation stems from the axiom that attention is limited. Understanding the infinite capacity of having thoughts desires and aspirations is something that we should explore. Is there a limit on the capacity to understand... What is it that we want to understand..

@givemorephilosophy Год назад

53 min. The price and value need to be understood seperately. Human values are beyond quantification and price economics . Understanding the same is possible by studying my tweet deeply on this human understanding.

@givemorephilosophy Год назад

The life atom / soul as a saturated atom with 1 particle in the center and 2,8,18,32 particles which is the one that experiences..

@petevenuti7355 Год назад

I came away wondering what was that patients definition of what a squirrel is ..

@mathewdenboer Год назад

This actually seems like a fairly standard physicalist account of what Graziano is calling consciousness. It’s pretty much an inevitable conclusion if you see matter as fundamental and wish to explain experience from that perspective. Physicalists generally regard the sense of being an agent as a useful illusion cooked up by biology to help genes propagate. That’s more like a denial of experience than an explanation. But it is valid within physicalism. It can be easy to overlook the insufficiency of this framework, but it becomes apparent when one notices that even if consciousness is illusory, the illusion is being experienced. Others have said - and I agree - that a lot could be cleared up by distinguishing between mind / self, and awareness / consciousness. I think it is mind / self that Graziano is talking about here. I wonder if and how his views might change if he were to inhale 40mg of vaporized N,N-DMT…

@omatty 10 месяцев назад

1:19:00 if you can't steelman the other side. . . . usually you get accused of being closed minded. But when you are a materialist, you can get away with it! lol

@S.G.Wallner Год назад

I'm shocked. his introduction to Attention schema theory was so confidently stated, but it is founded on deep speculation and unverified assumptions. "Information IN the brain," "information CREATED by the brain," information processing in neurons, all we are is information in the brain, etc. These are bold claims. Then he attributes information to the mind in addition to the brain. And he defines the mind as an abstract quantifiable model, in this case as a cone..."with things in it." What do you think Carlos?

@kevpatguiriot Год назад

Michael does not understand what the "hard problem of consciousness" is.

@KevinFlowersJr Год назад

I'm inclined to disagree. In "Consiousness and the Social Brain", Graziano does go into some detail about Chalmers' formulation, but his main point seems to be it's a misframing of the situation (which he alludes to with his caricature of "how did the squirrel get in the brain?"). If I understand his position correctly, Graziano thinks the formulation of the hard problem is presupposing a scientifically untenable (ie, unfalsifiable) claim that "awareness and information are distinct from each other" which, he believes, makes the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" not just hard, but actually impossible to resolve (in a physicalist world view) Mind you, it's not as though Graziano's position is beyond reproach, but it would be unfair to simply dismiss him as simply not getting the point of "the hard problem of consiousness"

@KevinFlowersJr Год назад

Ah, I recalled something else that might be helpful in understanding his point of view: he draws a parallel between light and consciousness. That is, how we *experience* light (as a subjective experience) is very different from how we *understand* what light is (as a physical phenomenon). If I recall correctly, his point was something like assuming our experience is correct (ie, that light has no color and is pure luminescence) misleads us in discovering the true nature of light (as a combination of wavelengths which our brain processes as transparent). Similarly, it's important to get a handle on what consciousness/awareness *is* (as a physical phebomenon) before we tackle the question "Why is it the case that we experience consciousness/awareness in a way that's fundamentally different from how it actually is?"

@ChristianSt97 Год назад

great interview even though I completely disagree with this guy. what does it even mean that we think we have experience? if you are thinking about it then there is no doubt you have experience....and btw we are not machines...

@eric_montag Год назад

Right, thought is an object in experience.

@Carlos.Explains Год назад

Thanks for the comments, Christian and@@eric_montag! I do think there's a gap between his explanation and my understanding. I tried to gently push this, but we weren't making headway so I moved on. I think the analogy between our conscious experience and the man with the squirrel in his head is flawed. I'm not saying Michael's theory is wrong, but this analogy still doesn't make sense to me.

@S.G.Wallner Год назад

@@Carlos.Explainsit's ok, you can say his theory is wrong (and maybe you should). Or, we can say it for you because you have to be a polite interview.

@Carlos.Explains Год назад

@@S.G.Wallner I'm not sure... might be something I'm missing. Will let it stew. :)

@gustafa2170 14 дней назад

This is an eliminativist position, so should be immediately laughed off. Consciousness is the only thing that we know for certain exists. I don't just say I have experiences, I actually do.

@footballfactory8797 11 месяцев назад

Rubbish materialism

@zardoz7900 Год назад

His theory falls apart with the measurement problem. What is commonly described as the wave function colapse.

@petevenuti7355 Год назад

I wouldn't say that. I think what he is saying is superficial. I agree with you, as in the chemistry of neurotransmitters some quantum random noise is introduced. There is the chaos introduced from the feedback loop of self awareness.. What he's talking about can give some insight into some of the mechanisms that helps keep the randomness confined and stabilized instead of descending into complete craziness