Closer To Truth
Consciousness is what mental activity feels like, the private inner experience of sensation, thought and emotion. Watching a dramatic movie. Imagining your family’s future. Attending the funeral of a loved one. Consciousness is like nothing else. But what is consciousness, the essence of consciousness, at its most fundamental level?
Free access to Closer to Truth’s library of 5,000 videos: http://bit.ly/376lkKN
Giulio Tononi is a neuroscientist and psychiatrist who holds the David P. White Chair in Sleep Medicine, as well as a Distinguished Chair in Consciousness Science, at the University of Wisconsin
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: http://bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Source
Study first and thinking self either what we studied is correct or not.
Minus plus itself 0(zero)
0 itself plus and minus
0 means balance.
Just see computer computer operate by plug in plus minus electricity.
Phone is start from nothingness ness too.
Before invention of phone there was no phone too.
This guy gets it. SImulating something real, no matter how precise, does not make it real. It's still a simulation and not the real thing. So the claim that we can upload our consciouness (losely defined here) in a super computer or network and live forever, is nonsensical. Because, firstly that upload is not your consciousness but a simulation/mimicry of your consciouness. Secondly, after you have uploaded your consciousness you are still you and very much "in your body". So you will go on, live your life until you die, and the simulation of you that you uploaded will remain in the computer. Just like pictures we take today outlive us and future generations can watch those pictures we took. But the picture is not you. Just a representation of what you looked like at the point in time it was taken.
Following this theory will set humanity to commit all sorts of injustices towards sentient machines.
I agree. Consciousness isn’t a computation which is purely deterministic. Consciousness is being aware of ones thoughts. The thoughts might be computational but the awareness of them is not.
recovering from a mini stroke that affected only some muscles of my right ankle and buttock, at first things felt very segmented. My gait was very choppy and shaky. As recovery progressed it got smoother and smoother. It occured to me that brain walking commands, lots of fine muscle movements and control, are more like a continuous and complex wave than a series of commands. A very few dead brain cells chop up the wave, but the wave is what finds new pathways around the dead bits. Consciousness may be a bunch of such waves that need brain cells to propagate but the cells themselves are not the consciousness.
"Hi… My names Nick Clark… And I have consciousness above zero… It's great to be here. Let's party".
lthough i
00:33
never know
00:33
the precise answer because we can't
00:35
measure these things properly yet
imulation
07:22
is not the real thing to be conscious
07:25
you must be a physical
07:26
entity of a certain kind that can
07:28
constrain its past in the future in a
07:29
certain
07:30
way the simulation is not that kind of
07:32
simulation
Sometimes I wonder if multinational companies are the germ of something that could become conscious in the future. Like cells, humans seem to creating huge "multicellular" things that have their own concerns and orientations that don't necessarily correlate with the concerns of their their disposable humans parts (including the executive). They essentially run according to algorithms. Meanwhile, corporations have ever more simple AI networks operating in tandem within them that are making human employees redundant.
Tononi says, "aggregates of people or cells don't give rise to experience. You may have it. I have it. But the two of us don't form a superordinate experience on top of you and me". But isn't this wrong, given that "you" or "me" is in fact an aggregate of cells? And therefore isn't "my" consciousness the aggregate of the cells that comprise my body and brain?
Energy within you creates consciousness, as long as you are aware of your surroundings you are conscious. Because we are highest level of consciousness on earth we are able to make judgment, between reality and fiction. In animal kingdom that part is missing.
There is consciousness and then there is Consciousness.
So when I die,…I’ll receive total consciousness,…so I got that going for me!
Time will prove Tononi wrong.
The more science uncovers about conciousness, the more I'm inclined to postulate that it should be a stipulation akin to those in thermodynamics—perhaps conciousness, like energy, cannot be created or destroyed.
Tononi is a good communicator and marketer and thinker. I am not sure what his theory calls "consciousness" is actually what we experience. It might instead begin to sole the "pretty hard problem of consciousness", which is still a feat.
Very interesting and thought-provoking discussion. Tononi seems to be one of the rare scholars that actually try to define "consciousness" with precision before trying to discuss it. This must be appreciated. Nevertheless, I have the feeling that we are still putting too many different things under the one single definition of "consciousness" and that this confusion makes it very hard to explore this concept. Maybe, we even expect too much from "consciousness". Our excessive expectations make it even harder to study the concept.
Not saying I quite believe this, but it does connect to two things in my mind: 1) The notion that in quantum mechanics the preservation of nonlocality demands that everything in the universe is affected by everything else (a universal feedback system) and 2) the fact that many who have taken DMT swear that you can arrive at a place where you are conscious of the entire universe all at once.
∆³ ∆⁶ ∆⁹
It's becoming clearer that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
I love how Giulio Tononi approaches consciousness. From all scientists interviewed on this channel, if someone would figure out consciousness or at least drastically progress it would be Giulio Tononi no doubt
Consciousness is God.
But, our ego degrades it, and makes us feel helpless.
The last point was good about mass, did I get lucky my consciousness is that of a human or can that go any deeper?
To me, in order to define consciousness, concepts like information and non-determinism need to be in that definition.
someone irrational wrote consciousness theory! it must be a miracle!
the irrationals must understand that there is no consciousness without
self concept (consciousness type two) which generates and consciousness
type one (the one the irrational wrote an irrational theory about!)
even so-called awareness is a side product of consciousness type one.
the irrational must know that consciousness type two is more
complicated, and to decipher the mystery of consciousness type one it
will take thousands of years, this is if humans became rational
intelligent entities else they have no chance even after a millions of
years!
the irrationals even do not differentiate between the personal identity
and self concept!
the irrationals want to transfer side product of self concept into a metal scrap!
the irrationals and science! tragedy! it is a real dilemma!
another word, would an Childe come to the world with a conscious ?
would we still have conscious without all the information we have in our brain?
Best background ever
Realize the Krishna consciousness within
In my mind Russelk analyses mind thinks guys are saying obvious.Conclusion : they are saying nothing. Tautology.
The "Hard Problem" of Epistemology.
The trap of Reason?
Epistemologists have not made an adequate distinction between the information with meaning that the use of language gives us, and that which the senses give us when, for example, we eat a fruit, see a color, hear a dog bark, etc.
The "hard problem" of Consciousness is a fallacy that arises as a consequence of not making the aforementioned distinction.
We use Reason every time we use Language.
The Being is an Entity created by the unconscious, which arises in early childhood as a consequence of the use of language. The action of Being is conscious action. The Being, like Little Red Riding Hood or Santa Claus, is made up of Information; it does not have a material body. The Being is given, like Little Red Riding Hood or Santa Claus, to carry out actions in "timeless and immaterial worlds." Due to the genesis of the Being, the unconscious associates it intimately with our material body. (This association can never become a fusion because our material body only carries out actions in the material world, in the Present).
Through the action of the Being (conscious action), we can “mobilize the Being” through “timeless and immaterial worlds”. The "reality" of the "timeless and immaterial worlds" that we access when using language has a dynamic that can be very different from "the reality" that we access through the senses.
Philosophy has also failed to adequately study the aforementioned difference.
For more details, see here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hlu4DiKhcc1Ro1lQGmos5z8cTSJ42LLC/view?usp=sharing
how could you remote even begin to prove an idea like this?
"The perception of beauty is a moral test." Ralph Waldo Emerson. This is the real IQ test. This test also determines if one is alive (conscious) or dead (unconscious).
Sanction, starve, torture, murder and bomb (wheeeee)! Ignorance (hate) is bliss for vampires (greed). But not much fun for the humans (love) who they are sucking the joy out of.
Light and truth (love) cause vampires (greed) great pain and suffering. That's why the words society (socialism), "care for all" and "green new deal" cause the evangelical counting corpses that rule US such misery.
Like bats that fly around in the darkness of caves…
vampires (greed) are "blind" and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war).
The evangelical counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming this paradise planet lifeboat into a polluted pig pen.
The evangelical monsters are "desperate" to control a darkship called the Whitehouse. Because working in the dark to suck the joy out of life and devour earth is the only way that the loveless, lifeless parasites can survive and thrive.
Unlike earthling poets, artists, musicians, mystics, human beings and creators of joy…the evangelical counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are ignorant (dead)
How long will a belief in the sacredness of human life endure, once most of the prominent members of society truly believe that suffering or joy are nothing more than particular patterns in the movement of particles?
From the thumbnail I thought this was an interview with Adam West.
Now:
If animals have a consciousness like ours or one to a lesser degree it begs the question
Do animals have an afterlife?
Considering they share experiences the same way we have them or at least to a lesser degree
Which then begs the question:
Do all living things have an afterlife?
Considering all living things are conscious some little to none, some medium or medium-high and one high
Would anyone like to answer these questions?
NOTE 1: Not looking for a debate or to argue vehemently, sure this is debatable but don’t push it too hard and ridicule or mock
My personal exploration during meditation revealed that this existence, both physical and non physical is a play between conciousness and energy as Master and Student, vice versa ..
I doubt we will ever have a scientific explanation for consciousness, not even in a million years from now…
Me theory (and gut feeling) is that consciousness is not limited to brain matter. It is I guess some sort of separate non-measurable entity which flows throughout the brain, but does not reply on matter to exist.
A good starting point is a book by Dr Pim Van Lommel about "non-local consciousness". It's fascinating.
The comments on simulation run into the question of truth in fiction. It is true that Winnie the Pooh lived in the hundred acre woods in the context of those stories. Thus a simulation could be conscious but only in the context of the environment of the simulation.
There's no one else like RLK on the planet!
The background is amazing.
I want everybody to hit the subscribe button. Let's try to build the biggest and best channel on YouTube!