Can i be really honest ? Sean is great. He was always great. And im pretty sure he will be great. Have a lots of his lectures from Great Courses on DVD's. I just cant stand the other dude.
The whole “replace your brain one neuron at a time while simultaneously reconstructing it as you go” thing was 100% a modulated version of the ship of Theseus lol
Mr. Khun appears incapable of understanding the metaphysical bubble in which he finds himself, very well explained by the interlocutor. Mr. Khun starts from what he should prove, that is, he starts from the fact that there is an invariable (metaphysical) "I", as if the "I" were not a result of each experience of the organism in question.
Yea, and I go as far as saying that there are only thoughts and that experience, memory, knowledge, words, qualia, awareness and all that crap are just thoughts. One and the same thing.
@@HeavyMetal45 Well, if one were to use the term putz for one of the two, then the "putz" is Mr. Khun, who would have decided to choose an idiot to interview... Khun's contribution to science is nil, while the interviewee has earned renown in area.
So nice conversation between these distingused two gentleman! One don´t have to agree all the time. Robert really try to strech the question and Sean is just Sean.
If you were deprived of all your senses then how conscious would you be? If you couldn't see, taste, smell, hear or feel I suspect that your level of consciousness would diminish significantly. So sensory intake is probably critical to consciousness. It would be restricted only to your self awareness. But how long would that last with no sensory intake?
Exactly, I advanced deep into those topics and did in-depth examinations and posted articles about it on reddit. Look for the subreddit \thegonersclub to read my posts.
As a neurosurgeon he should know that with every thought your brain is in a completely different state of consciousness so two copies branch out instantly wioth he first thought.
What consciousness?! Where?! Consciousness and thoughts are just one and the same thing. Qualia and thoughts are just one and the same thing. All thoughts are just epiphonema, byproducts and aftereffects. With no meaning, purpose or truths to them, at all, whatsoever.
@@thegonersclub consciousness and thoughts are absolutely not the same thing. A thought arises and is noticed within the context of consciousness. You can experience consciousness without thoughts (often fleeting and the goal of serious meditators), but you cannot experience thought without consciousness. Therefore, they cannot be identical
@@Williamwilliam1531 So thoughts "arrise" from a different source than consciousness which merely "notices" the thoughts? And can you actually stop thinking while meditating, or are you restricting your thoughts by focusing on the meditative experience? If you aren't thinking at all while being conscious, how exactly are you aware of that?
@@JerehmiaBoaz that last question you’d have to ask the yogis, and thoughts and consciousness both arise from the brain but are fundamentally distinct processes/phenomenons. Meditation doesn’t train you to stop thinking or to ignore thoughts, rather it trains your ability to recognize thoughts as thoughts without identifying with them. It allows you to notice what it feels like to be dis-identified with thoughts that arise, which allows you to prove to yourself that attention is a much more intimate and inextricable part of conscious experience than thoughts are. There is an initial noticing of something, the pure experience of your attention focusing in on something, that is prior to the thoughts about the thing. I’m not a yogi or a neuroscientist, but it seems to me that, among consciousness, attention/awareness, and thoughts - consciousness is the most fundamental of the three and relates to the humming, thoughtless, purely experienced experience that a given brain is capable of (and of the three you have the least control over consciousness - in the sense that you generally cannot turn it off or change it at will); attention/awareness is higher-order, can only exist within the context of consciousness, and you have more control over your awareness than you do your basal conscious humming, but it is not always easy to control what catches your attention; thoughts are the highest order of the three and you have the most control over them (despite what many people’s behavior and opinions would have you believe). As far as I’ve heard, one thing meditation does is it allows you to train your attention to prevent distraction from thought, in the hopes that your attention will glimpse consciousness itself to find that it has no center - that the feeling of “self” that seems to be in the center of consciousness is just a knotted ball of thoughts that can be untangled.
Speaking of uploading identical things, I'm noticing you uploaded a "closer to truth" video without (that I could see) providing a link to the original video. Unless you are the "closer to truth" guy (or an exact duplicate of his "consciousness", lol), why would youtube allow that? Just curious. Does the CTT guy get a lion's share of the credit (streaming wise) every time someone streams this video? I mean I think your background comments are excellent, but essentially your video is a "retweet" of another video, right? BTW, I like Greg Egan's fictional treatments of these matters. He believes the uploading idea would be useful for allowing light-speed travel of sentient beings (sort of like Star Trek's transporter). It's always a convenience to have the original destroyed (necessarily) at the point of origin, although I'm not sure of this with Egan because, I seem to remember him talking about "backups" from time to time.
There was a miscommunication toward the end that I’m not entirely sure was rectified - your particular kind of consciousness is a consequence of the synaptic connections in your brain, but a copied brain, despite having identical synaptic connections, would generate another consciousness that is very you-like, but it would not fragment your experience of your own consciousness, nor would the copy be “you”. If you ceased to exist you wouldn’t magically wake up in the copy, and if we uploaded a virtual version of your synaptic connections you wouldn’t teleport into the cloud. Without an absolutely earth-shattering and profoundly unexpected discovery about the nature of consciousness, we will never achieve immortality by uploading copies of our neural structure.
Correct but if the copy was created by attaching your neurons to a second brain and letting it think through the pathways there's an argument to ne made that after its disconnected its still the same boat
@@GuardDog42 tbh, “attaching your neurons to a second brain” is such a strange and abstract idea that I’m struggling to follow. But no matter what the thought-experiment or procedure, the consciousness you identify with will remain instantiated in the brain you now have. Your subjective experience will change during the procedure such that you will not be the exact same “you” that existed before the procedure, but the consciousness that you identify with, the experience of being you - that can never possibly be relocated.
@@Williamwilliam1531 If the idea of having a second brain feel that abstract you probably aren't too familiar with psychology or neuro science to begin with, let alone understand the self referential quality of the beginning of the video. Essentially connecting the brain neuron by neuron and slowly integrating then replacing it is a theory to allow the "ghost" of the individual in question to survive the transfer into a data morph. Your single "brain" is already comprised of more than one brain working in tandem plus an underlying more base thinking structure in addition to the self referential quality. It's a thought experiment in the sense that the question is would this ship of theseus ACTUALLY be the original person, but the concept of what happens when you add or remove a "brain" aren't as unusual as you think, and in fact are grounding rod for all of neurology. Mammal, mammal, reptile, memories
@@Williamwilliam1531 If the idea of having a second brain feel that abstract you probably aren't too familiar with psychology or neuro science to begin with, let alone understand the self referential quality of the beginning of the video. Essentially connecting the brain neuron by neuron and slowly integrating then replacing it is a theory to allow the "ghost" of the individual in question to survive the transfer into a data morph. Your single "brain" is already comprised of more than one brain working in tandem plus an underlying more base thinking structure in addition to the self referential quality. It's a thought experiment in the sense that the question is would this ship of theseus ACTUALLY be the original person, but the concept of what happens when you add or remove a "brain" aren't as unusual as you think, and in fact are grounding rod for all of neurology. Mammal, mammal, reptile, memories
@@Williamwilliam1531 You're already thinking through at a minimum two mammal brains, one reptile brain, and one self referential memory set. How "abstract" is it when the normal process of evolution since we became mammals is just adding new and larger brains working in tandem? You're not the same "exact" you from one moment to the next, I think it's intellectually disingenuous to suggest this particular ship of theseus can't possibly retain your "ghost"
3 дня назад
Mr. Khun has grown old doing the same thing, and now he is increasingly impatient. Maybe he's not so interested in the "truth"... His impatience, expressed in interruptions that don't let the interviewee finish his idea, indicates a tendency to confirm his own point of view.
I am not the sharpest blade in the drawer, but I totally follow what Sean Carroll is trying to argue. Until we have some type of data indicating that there is something else in the universe besides physical and chemical laws, then one has to agree that there is nothing in consciousness that is outside the laws of physics.
@@prational Yes, no difference between thoughts, experiences, knowledge, memory, meaning, awareness, consciousness, words and language. They're all actually one and the same thing, just thoughts.
Yea, how could anyone possibly think, that we are not on a spinning, wobbling, titled, now pear shaped object travelling thru a infinite universe at around six hundred millions and hour. Why would someone even consider questioning that? Crikey did they not go to primary school🥴..
You can think of consciousness as the minds eye. If I create a replica of myself, it too will have a minds eye but it won't be my unique minds eye, yet both minds eyes can look inward and experience an awareness of 'something' that is identical. Guess what we call that 'something'?
Robert stammered like a desperate priest in the face of scientific arguments. He has long been trying to undermine science ,as if he were being paid by the Vatican. 😂 😢
@@thenacregod Being offensive won't help you understand and realise. it will only impede your understanding and realisation. So I advise you to at least not be offensive.
As a 30-year career cognitive neuroscientist I find it odd that more people don't find what physicists have to say about consciousness as uninformed, reaching, and completely removed from all that we know about the scientific study of the biology of the mind. Consciousness is squarely situated as a part of human brain function, just like attention, memory, language, executive control, visual spatial ordering, temporal sequential ordering, social cognition, metacognition, and motor function. When you get a highly intelligent person from one field to talk about one of the most complex problems of a field in which they have absolutely no research experience and no high-level conceptual understanding you get theorizing like this. The extreme example is Penrose claiming that consciousness requires quantum mechanics. Why? Because he doesn't know enough about the actual biology of the human mind to talk about other possibilities. It's like that cartoon that invokes a term in an equation called "and then the magic happens here." Folks, don't listen to philosophers and physicists about consciousness. And I promise not to pontificate about astrophysics.
@@cortical1 Oh so physics has no play in human cognition despite the fact that biology was evolved to suit that physical reality first? The fact you're so willing to segment different types of information and ignore what polymath have to say on the subject shows you're unqualified to even talk on the subject. If you were objective and sincere you would admit at best your science is a tentative "we think" about consciousness. You don't understand the subtext of their conversation either. Step down off your rocking horse and recognize that pondering and philosophy is necessary. If the field was nothing but prickly utility, consciousness would be reduced to the few things we can explain about it. It's as much about searching internally as externally.
@@GuardDog42 You'll notice I never claimed that physics plays no role in cognition. Physics underpins everything in biology, of course, including the biology of the mind. But if you know anything about the neural underpinnings of cognition, you know that, for example, one neuron does not produce human cognition, even though one neuron is underpinned by physics. Put another way, one neuron cannot do anything like what is meant by cognition. Cognition is accomplished through the interactions of large populations of neurons from different brain regions and structures, each contributing different component processing operations to the whole function. This is widely known and well established through multiple sources of empirical evidence over more than a century of study. The level of organization that is required to map onto high level cognitive constructs like attention, memory, language, etc. in anything interpretable is at the information processing level. There is no physicist on Earth who can use physics alone to explain how children acquire their native language, but we actually have a really good understanding of how this takes place in terms of systems-level neuronal functioning, from phonemic discrimination through discourse. Remember, if physics was the only analytic level needed for explanation, understanding, and interpretation, there would be no field of chemistry. Some chemical phenomena are best characterized at the chemical level because they occur at the chemical level. And chemistry is much more closely situated to the level of physics than cognition is. So there are multiple spatial and temporal scales and levels of organization and phenomena between physics and consciousness that can be discussed in a meaningful way, if one is versed in this quite deep area of human understanding. My argument is that any scientifically meaningful and valid explanation of human consciousness will come from the study of human neuroscience, not from thinkers and researchers, smart as they may be, from fields that have never solved any of the problems about the biology of the human mind. If you disagree, that's great. No need to get emotional and denigrate qualifications. Now if you'll excuse me, I have another evacuative craniotomy to perform for subdural hematoma. First step: Make the patient lose consciousness. Final step: Make the patient regain consciousness. We do this every day. Cheers.
@@mreese8764 You make a really critical point. Starting with simple, tenable definitions is absolutely key! And even better if those definitions invoke the principles we already know from the science of the mind and brain and not some of the semantic slipperiness that comes from fields without such knowledge. 👍🏻
The physicist say we are just a mechanical collection of matter. The religious say we were created with a soul. The truth may lie somewhere in-between.
Well... Most scientists actually believe in the religious/spiritual crap, in the religious concepts of consciousness and freewill. Most scientists just say and sell whatever the status quo demands and benefits from. Their big bang and survival of the fittest theories are all invented by literal religious priests. Parading with PhDs Disguised as "scientists". Most scientists are just priests on a payroll and their religion is this so-called illusion affirming system benefiting crap they label as science.
The mind employs a set of a’ priori modes to systemically align and thus, synthesise with the order and symmetry of things. Adding is an obvious mode to most. You can’t add up what I am about to relay without it. We can’t add up the variables of evolution without it. It’s not just there for adding up the pennies in your purse. Categorisation is another mode. We categorically define the world we are of. I categorise adding as a mode of thought. We move in and out of categories continuously. Identification is another mode. Identify the structure of the cell. Identify our root on the evolutionary ladder. Identify categorisation as a mode. We can’t seem to be able to identify our own nature as human in a fixed way. Just can’t ground the predicate. Configuration is another mode. When things don’t figure, it’s because the mind hasn’t combined with the correct configuration. Unification is another mode. To unify what we are searching for. To add it up and unify it. There are many more modes. Considered together as a constellation set; as a concatenation of modes, the mind can be seen as a systemic tool. A tool prior to ego and experience. A tool for systemising and synthesising its place in the order of things as I said. You are employing them right now as you engage with me. This set is in everyone. It is a universal set and thought is impossible without it. Language by extension is impossible without it. From a phenomenological perspective, this set is what we are until we know more. It is this set that allows us to abstract and see that appearances are not what things are. It is this set that allows us to see that the body has no fixed predicate so it is a loose idea at best. In essence, we are a set of systemic modes floating in an ocean of dissipating variables and until we can say more we are that. This set is responsible for all knowledge structures. Science and philosophy are impossible without the systemic lens/eye whatever. I have often pondered the possibility that this is the eye of consciousness/god/spirit/logos, call it what you will. In a million years we will still be employing it to systemise our positions on the evolutionary ladder. The modes are huge in us. Adding is a phenomenal mode and if there is a god then perhaps it needs the mode of adding to add itself up. It needs unification to unify itself. It needs evaluation to evaluate itself. It needs precision to be precise about what it is and so forth.
