Consciousness is an Explanation of What Already Has Been Computed (John Hopfield) | AI Podcast Clips

39 thoughts on “Consciousness is an Explanation of What Already Has Been Computed (John Hopfield) | AI Podcast Clips”

1. "Consciousness" is not a well-defined term. Is it important? That depends on the definition of consciousness. Are there important issues mixed up in operation of the human brain that are related to consciousness? You bet. Do we know how to talk about all this yet? Not even close.

2. Consciousness could be explained with microtubules orientation, an primitive brain.

3. Assume 100 years from now the AI that ruled the world throws away every schematic, design specification or total knowledge how computers work and the human has been genetically engineered by the AI to be deficient in technical ability.

4. Consciousness is a subjective interpretation of what’s already been computed…

5. Consiousness is not found in our thoughts but in source of the "spotlight" that shines onto what we think. If you spend time in meditation with no thoughts you will find increased awareness of everything inside and out and thus your consciousness, although silent, has become more potent and solidified.
   I believe the changes to our perception and behaviour that come after spending some time to be aware of whats within your own mind, can show us that surface computations are merely focus. Focused awareness onto a simple every day reality. As we dabble from alpha to beta states, we might stumble upon the gamma brain wave state where a deeper side of you is revealed. I believe that has something to do with a deep "well" of ideas, inspirations and desires that reside in our subconscious and are accessed only when you feel a bit of disconnection with reality and start to daydream.

6. 3:13 sounds so much like the movie Big Fish.

7. Do you swear to tell the whole truth?
   No individual is capable of the whole truth. But, I will "paint vividly and in some sense accurately the tone of what was going on."

8. Dude talks like minsky too. Wow. Rip Marvin Minsky

9. All animals grow from virtually a dot, curled in a self-referential fetal position, hence what we call awareness or the existence of myself is the universe physically hugging you to this day, a semantics of real postures and poses not an imaginary internal brain activity.

10. Consiousness is a consequence of the amalgamation of all senses your body requires to function

11. People confuse consciousness or immediate/active irefutable knowledge/awareness of ones existance with the neurological process that synthesizes a peculiar modality of existance we call human experience. It implies that it is self referential. Nothing (meaning matter) can be self referential. As an example in order for you to know that you have a face, you need to see the image of it bounce against a mirror, in other words, for you to become aware of it, you need to pit it against something that is not your face. Comparatively, another example are black letters on a sheet of white paper. The error people make is thinking that the text in itself is self referential (erroneously thought of as sufficient in itself) because the white paper is outside of your awareness; in other words it lies outside the immediate boundary of your experience, but without that which it is not (in this case the white paper ) you would not have a text but black ink alone. Hence the peculiar human modality consciousness/awareness isn't only IN your brain but generated in a continual symbiosis with that which it is not. It is possible to be just aware without the body. However, in that case, since there is no body to procure a specific signature of human experience, atemporal awareness alone remains. Wittgenstein once noted that a chair in itself is not a fact. A fact is that a chair is standing against the floor. That semanticly qualifies as fact.

12. Very intriguing conversation…

13. These gentlemen cannot uphold the distinction between observational data, describing physical events in the brain of a human body – and an experiental sense of self being active:

    If you say that consciousness is purely an epiphenomenon,

    you do not get to use constructs implying that 'you do ' something through conscious effort.

    If consciousness is purely epiphenomenal, there is no you (a self as something different from the experiences of self), though there might be continuous experiences of being you.

    And, following, if there is no 'you', ascribing effort to such a non-existent entity is simply confused or paradoxical.

    Example sentence: Hopfield summing up Minsky: "Consciousness is your effort to explain to yourself, that which you have already done."

14. Either all creatures with neurons have free will because of some mysterious assumed quantuum reaction, or evolutionary pressures formed a special quantuum organ specific to humans, because random action is a positive trait that can be reinforced? If humans could get over their egos, and assumed "specialness", and instead approached the question of consciousness objectively, as an evolved trait, we could drag this debate into the realm of science fact, and a measurable meaning. We talk about it now as we used to about "instinct", before we started mapping genomes.

15. I would categorize myself as a determinist
    Every time I think of consciousness as for its purpose, routing for survival and so on, it always falls apart from the criticism of its all just clockwork, so what’s the point?

    consciousness just hangs around getting the shit kicked out of it. Meaningless suffering.

16. Nothing says simulation like data that is able to comprehend that it is being simulated…..

17. The subjective narration called the human mind does not need a pilot or narrator to exist but just a listener hearing about piloting. So, the subjective experience called red does not need red to exist but just an observer observing red, exactly describing Darwin’s evolving ecosystem painting or vividly building itself molecule by molecule from within itself from only falling water and minerals, but not describing our brain which lags behind direct experience.

18. Seen you on Joe Rogan and was impressed. Keep it up! I've subscribed.

19. The subjective narration called the human mind does not need a pilot or narrator to exist but just a listener hearing about piloting, which exactly describes Darwin’s evolving ecosystem from within it, not our brain.

20. Recap: I have catchy phrase that sounds good but no coherent theory (not to speak proof).
    Well, every body has that… At least he's honest about it, and freely admits that much in the last 5 min. That's a real scientist, so rare those days.

21. What you have already done only sets the foundation for the understanding of science and provides a closer narrative to the truth she / he is trying to tell. Only in the end will you see the clear picture of the vibrational truth that stands before you.

22. The correct theory of awareness will feature the correct theory of self-awareness. Therefore, the subjective experience “myself” is the ecosystem, not each self in it, since this paragraph exists as an ecosystem activity referring to ecosystem activity.

23. What Hopfield is referring to around the 1:10 mark is the Libett experiment, and that has been debunked. It's somewhat surprising how certain types of thinkers would rather showe the hard problem under the rug than actually trying to tackle it in its full glory.

24. Most people do not have the free will to understand this conversation.

25. Brilliant

26. Some philosophical perspectives call the function that tells stories about already provided information the self and would consider consciousness a totally separate process.

27. Lex you absolute legend.

28. There is actually only a monologue, called the mind, within the outside world. There never was an inner monologue produced by the brain. Proof: The sense of agency (I am the author of my actions) is not possible because as physical matter and energy our bodies move authored by the laws of physics, not “I”, and not by our own subjective thoughts and intentions. Therefore, the sense of mind ownership (i.e., my inner monologue belongs to me) is also not possible. Proof 2: A preprogrammed black box cannot be said to author anything new, even if it says it did.

29. I think what you refer to as consciousness is not what most people mean by that word, rather you seem to be talking about the contents of consciousness and the self, which make up the "narrative" of the things already computed as you say. What most people I've heard speak on the subject mean by consciousness is not the narrative, but the fact of the awareness of the narrative. Though they seem inextricably linked one could, at least in theory, imagine a brain that performs the same calculations including weaving a narrative as to why certain choices were made that is entirely false without there being any awareness of it. Computers are a great example. Not only can they perform calculations, they could, in theory, invent a story about their results much as we do, and yet there is no conscious observer to be aware of the narrative like there is in humans.

30. What is the difference between conciousness and a pair of camera's linked to a pc interpretting what is happening? (Just a thought experiment)

31. Get Donald Hoffman on

32. The brain explaining its precomputed activity to itself is further precomputed activity, so awareness occurs not in the brain. Our bodies move according to the laws of physics while simultaneously our mind moves according to the laws of consciousness. So, each posture and pose are qualia relative to the aware outside world, instead of each brain state being qualia relative to the aware body.

33. Are they talking about consciousness or the voice in one's head? They don't seem to be the same, at all.

34. The subjective experience can see contiguously back to our first awareness since beyond its onset we have only explanation and theory but no memories, proving explaining consciousness is its mechanism. Consciousness is forced by explaining consciousness, a waterfall within a waterfall process which continues today and was begun accidentally in unconscious earth by our ancient family tree, an idea called Brahman in Hindu.

35. The idea that consciousness is just a narrative maker is actually stupid. If you've ever done any difficult real time strategic activity, you'll know that going on autopilot gives you very different results from acting on conscious deliberation. Sometimes you get a better result, sometimes worse. Also, why would a narrative making function evolve in the first place? Literally makes no sense.

36. Whatever consciousness is, it can't be an epiphenomenon. There are patterns of neurons (if that's how the brain works, which seems likely) which know about and talk about consciousness. This can't happen with an epiphenomenon, which is defined as having no effect on physical events.

37. We just discovered quantum effects and have almost no way to look for them in biological tissue, so it seems odd to me to have decided that there are no quantum effects in these systems we clearly don't understand. To say the are not required to explain the functions we see is one thing, but to rule them out doesn't feel supported by evidence to me.

38. deep brain

39. Consciousness is what evolution has allow you to be aware . Actions that you are not aware su has eating , sitting, running, and other things are actions that you don’t think every detail or control every detail , you can feel or control certain steps if those actions but only as consciousness allow , for example, you can have a mind muscle connection but not in the extent to know specific fibers.

Comments are closed.