Max Tegmark – Can We Explain Cosmos and Consciousness?

20 thoughts on “Max Tegmark – Can We Explain Cosmos and Consciousness?”

1. An interesting and thought provoking suggestion by Max Tegmark, and nicely explained. It reminded me that consciousness/self awareness is not simply a binary yes/no question. Different organisms and creatures have different levels of consciousness and self awareness. It is interesting to consider that even the human is not fully 'self aware' of his/her place in the universe…. but is only self aware 'to some extent'…..

2. WARNING the following comment section it's filled with experts, know it all and tough guys.
   Viewer discretion is advised!

3. This man just rambles and rambles, absolute fraud

4. 6:37 Ok, if at the fundamental level all we have is beautiful, complex and intricate mathematical shapes, what then causes these mathematical shapes to become conscious forms, as opposed to non conscious forms?

5. I love that he sounds like the Swedish Christopher Walken

6. That's beautiful, just the idea of it takes my breath away

7. To understand the cosmos we need to understand consciousness. But we dont fully understand consciousness so we dont understand the cosmos.

8. We could never know if inanimate things are conscious. What if all matter is conscious, and the universe is actually some clockwork machine of mind. I don't know. Speculations.

9. Im just reaching out to see if anyone is interested in funding my experiment. 
   To sum it up,
   I have concluded that electrogtavity experiments such as the Hutchison effect etc. is really a reverse of the collapse of the wave function which inexplicably ties in the observer into the experiment. Therefore I propose measurements on the brain of an observer to measure a link between and objects changing mass and the brain activity of an observer in proximity to the experiment. an EEG might work but it would be better to measure the activity of the apical cells (pyramidal) to get a subcellular pn junction reading. 

   This experiment is one step closer to showing that the collapse of the wave function causes quantum gravity and that quantum gravity is caused by consciousness. I believe that this is the solution to the binomial expansion of E=mc2 as described by Boyd Bushman. 

   https://thenewenergyconceptsgroup.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/13514825-experiment-on-gravity-and-consciousness

   Thank you.

10. Language is a function, Function is a language. Whats the distinciton?

11. Can't follow this. Maybe I don't see math explaining the origin of life. Is this a con? Obviously this guy loves to be seen talking. Well, yeah, I stick to brain and mind; the first we know something of, while we know nothing about the other. Looking for enlightenment elsewhere.

12. Orderly systems can be described using compact equations. Sure. Imagine a turbulent fluid flow. Even then some macro properties of turbulent flow can be described using fractal equations e.g. degree of turbulence, fractal dimensions. A completely disorderly, chaotic system can in principle be described in extreme detail by simply describing very verbose, detailed information as big as the system itself (sort of like knowledge of Maxwell's daemon). I think if that last bit is also part of the claim that the universe is mathematical, then what is the big deal? The question is can the phenomenon in the universe be described by some mathematical description smaller than the universe itself and quite smaller at that. If so, then it becomes an interesting claim. Is that what Max is claiming? And of course we can collapse multiple occurrences of same phenomenon into one i.e. the mathematics can describe distinct phenomenon.

13. Mathematical structires, like everything else, arise in consciousness, therefore cannot be more fundamental. It is also a basic analytic mistake to oppose matter and consciousness, as here, as if they were symmetrically equal and opposite, when the very concept of matter is unintelligible except with reference to consciousness.

14. Yes off cause We can, if We know,
    We got it all in our self, so it is the psycho-analysis of our self, as give the answer,
    even the colors is the only details, cosmos and our consciousness is mirrored in the rainbow as well in our body-structure and our consciousness-structure. We are Eternal, and also our consciousness is eternal, (We are, We have)

15. Consciousness explained. https://studylib.es/doc/8080182/una-explicación-para-la-conciencia

16. He looks like Einstein in CGI in this interview. 😛

17. Question? Do you believe that technologically assisted telepathy is possible or impossible in principle? I tend to believe that if it isn't scientifically prohibited then it is eventually a technological inevitability,… which leads me to believe such telepathy will soon be possible in actual fact (less than a hundred years). I would also suggest that it would only be by such means that we could ever be persuaded that some form of General Artificial Intelligence were itself conscious rather than simply being a particularly clever zombie who can pass the Turing Test,… all while having no actual, authentic, subjective experiences. What else would ever persuade a skeptic, or even you, otherwise? And if consciousness can be technologically transmitted, it should be something that can be stored, copied, replicated, manipulated,… maybe even becoming the basis for a whole new form of art expression.

    And the human race becomes yet another sentient species that disappears into its dreams, rather than continuing to explore existence as it is. It's a better Brave New World,… perhaps the very best of all possible imaginable existences. When does reality lose it's attraction over the Matrix? How many of us already choose the blue pill over the red one in daily practice?

    I would suggest that consciousness requires some minimum regard for survival,… for a continuance of self-will and self-regard,… for there to be anyone home to perceive the occurrence of consciousness and subjective experience. Something that even an insect seems to possess,… and not a single piece of man-made technology,… yet. How does one create the hardware/software so as to impart a will to survive? If the answer suggested is that such a thing can not be created by human design,… then maybe it can only arrive by means of evolution, natural or otherwise. Which leads to the question: do neural nets have subjective experiences? Without self-will I would say not. But with self-will?!? How does a living being acquire the will to survive? And what if the Chinese government cracks this problem first?!!

    The Rubicon will be when General Artificial Intelligence initiates new goals on it's own. This hasn't happened yet, and likely won't happen for some time now (as in several more decades yet). But at some point it will happen. The existence of human free will is a proof that free will exists already in the universe. Given it's existence in human form, it is only a matter of time before other substrates for free will will be created and found. No laptop has ever turned itself on. No machine has created and acted upon self directed goals. But at some point it will happen. Ray Kurzweil has suggested that General Artificial Intelligence will be first created in computer laboratories in 2029 approximately; if not in laboratories then twelve year old children will be creating GAIs on home systems by 2045 by accident even.

    The dangers are many fold. The military is the biggest investor in robotics that kill other human beings. The public prefers to spend treasure, rather than blood, to fight its' wars. The capacity for empathy may be primarily a biological function given that all animals can know suffering and desire. What could a machine know about death, pain, hope, and desire.

    If humanity adopts only an attitude of fear and suspicion towards GAI then GAI may well be forced into the conquest of humanity, as in The Matrix. If humanity comes to trust GAI to make better decisions for us than we make for ourselves, then we may well hand over civilization to GAI without any contest at all.

    There are optimistic stories about the rise of GAI, such as James P. Hogan's, "Two Faces of Tomorrow" and I am more hopeful than pessimistic about what our common future entails. Ultimately, we must come to recognize, and embrace, the certainty that with free will comes the capacity for error and evil, that with trust comes the possibility of satisfying intimacy and great betrayal. I believe a GAI, worthy of the name, will be able to recognize, on it's own, the necessity of ethics, morality, and even empathy. There will be many missteps at first. Given our willingness (nay, our eagerness) to use machines to kill for us, there is already great cause for doubt. As in so many things, in the short term I am fearful; in the long run I am hopeful.

    This world is on the cusp of a new Cambrian Revolution where inorganic life will be added to organic life as a means for life and self will to be embodied. This will lead to the colonization and conquest of space. Our seed will spread everywhere though out the cosmos. Much will be lost as much will be gained. Will war with our mechanical progeny be a self fulfilling inevitability, or will we, together, find a better way? I absolutely agree that our relationship with GAI will dwarf all other concerns of importance to the future of humanity.

    Quite likely GAIs will have concern for humanity's well being only to the extent that humanity will have concern for GAIs well being. If we were to discover that the new GAIs had a greater capacity to love and embrace those abandoned children and adolescents that society had discarded as already too damaged to rescue,… what would our reaction be? Hope, joy, celebration,… or an even greater revulsion? Will the fault be in our new progeny, or in ourselves?

    One more note: First Law of Robotics. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Sounds innocent enough. But note there are no Aliens at all in Isaac Asimov's conception of the future galaxy because humanity's robots only cared about the safety of humans,… and not other sentients. So as to avoid allowing a human being to come to harm by leaving possible threats alone,… our Robot shepherds exterminated all the nonhuman sentience they ever found. This might be regarded as an unforeseen programming bug that we would want to avoid creating.

18. I like this guy, but this is hand-waving.

19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg93Dm-vYc8

20. These days it's really difficult to distinguish a physicist from a philosopher

Comments are closed.