Nick Bostrom: Why Quantum Consciousness is a SCAM!

35 thoughts on “Nick Bostrom: Why Quantum Consciousness is a SCAM!”

1. Nick Bostrom knows pretty well that if artificial consciousness cannot be created and verified his simulation hypothesis becomes a failure.

2. Like Nick . But I think he should read the seminal work of Stuart Hamerhoff and Roger Penrose Penrose. They make a great case about microtubules generating quantum coherence and effects that may very well be the basic structure of what may resonate as consciousness. How else does consciousness arise in creatures without a single neuron.( lacrymaria e.g.). So would like to hear Nicks detailed analysis of penrose work on this before pushing it aside.

3. Maybe Quantum Computing is a scam?

4. Hi Brian, you are a very smart accomplished and educated man, and thank you for providing such valuable resources on youtube, but I think you are wrong here.

5. If we cannot create artificial consciousness I think that the Simulation argument is wrong

6. Nick’s so far off track on reality

7. Much sense talked there by Nick Bostrom. I agree with him entirely on all the topics raised.

8. I agree with Nick. Quantum Consciousness and Quantum Computers are a SCAM.

9. something about the constant cuts back to Brian got me rolling, it's funny but I can't explain why

10. Humanity was created to have very limited experience of the spiritual universes. This made them the perfect test vehicle to perfect the laws of reincarnation and Karma, making it possible to define corruption and decay much better than earlier chosen species, who did much entitled and loving damage to this planet, looking to make it "perfect" for their elite beautiful sinners

11. Most who claim celebrity incarnations are either resonating with DNA or cultural programming or part of the shapeshifting manipulators of humanity who have been playing for the adversary a long time, and feed divisive cult marxist programming narratives into movies. Those with real past life experiences won't have Hollyweird's glamorized revisionist visions, but recall the most traumatic moments from the most painful most readily. That's what makes it so risky to dredge up past lives, and why reincarnation amnesia is far more blessing than curse as you make your way in a new avatar

12. Typical gaslighting attack from an NPC character stuck in the adversary's atheist programming

13. The brain may not be noisy.
    The axions are very much like carbon nanotubes perhaps providing the needed isolation of entangled ions, from adjacent charges.
    The dendrites and axion terminals providing inputs and outputs while the cell body/nucleus could be providing the required logic (and,or,not).
    All together… sounds very quantum to me.

14. bostrom is an ai who dont get kardASHIan jokes😮

15. 📍4:11

16. If we assume "consciousness" exists as a complex function, then the subjective experience of qualia could be interpreted as an "imaginary" component whereas the brain could be interpreted as the "real" component. Since quantum phenomena has both real and imaginary components, it's not a stretch to argue consciousness and quanta are of the same nature.

17. i am wondering if your emotion state can modify the output of a brain interface?
    the neuralink demo was sort of of basic.— i think it could have been done with eye tracking and a breath controller
    i would not trust neuralink in tesla , but they are very well matched

18. Bostrom has ZERO sense of humor. Dry, dry, dry. Just…not much fun.

19. Mmmh,fine but the video talk doesn't match the topic, trying to find solutions?well it can be conscious with some new math

20. I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
    
    My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.

    Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.

    Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
    
    (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).

    From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.

    Some clarifications.

    The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.

    Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
    
    Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.

    My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.

    Marco Biagini

21. I disagree. We are electrically bond to everything around us.

22. I am wondering if Prof. Bostrom is aware of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacron-3. Arguably, this is the first modern (20th century) reincarnation of the Simulation Hypothesis. If the idea of the modern Simulation Hypothesis must be attributed to Daniel F. Galouye, then what is, in a nutshell, Bostrom's scientific contribution to this idea?

23. I agree that it’s a scam and I’m not even as smart as you guys .

24. If consciousness is just a large scale statistical computation then, terminator uprising is not a question of if, but when.

25. Brian, you look very distracted and keep laughing at jokes that chat (presumably) makes while your guest is talking. Do you not have a moderator that could collect questions for you from the chat, so you can focus on the interview instead?

26. Nick's arguments are always fascinating AND engaging.. The issue seems to be that simulation in the context of his theory requires a SIMULATOR, yes? So, with us at the bottom of the simulation pile, does it seem reasonable to say it is simulators (instead of turtles) all the way UP..?

27. It would be good to see Bostrom, Chalmers, Hoffman, Kastrup, Penrose and Henry Stapp all in the same room thrashing this out.

28. The quantum computer starts and ends with the mind..and if you're into mathematics your confined to numbers!! Lol the beginning language started off with symbols !

    You guys seen the picture of har nasa took during the eclipse? Lol look like the lotus flower!!

    Thoth?!? Is thoughts , thoughts are the beginning of action . But if your stuck in some ekes equation, well now you limit your mind and creation living by someone else's logic.

29. Is Nick Bostrom calling from heaven? Bro got me shielding my eyes from the white light

30. 0:20 I don't think we're gonna find credible evidence of quantum events shaping consciousness like that. I think it's gonna be by studying known neural phenomenons and discovering its relevance there. And it probably won't be a discovery so profound that the world would go crazy about it. Most people aren't going to care and it will not be proof of quantum mysticism at all. It's probably going to be in a pretty boring way in hindsight.

    All it will mean is that we have idenfied quantum events that seem to have a role in neural structures. Nothing more.

31. Lol jeezeus

32. Roger Penrose would like to know your location

33. For a second i thought this video was about quantum computing is a scam. 😂

34. Dr. Keating! Are you a member of MENSA? Also I love your channel 🙂

35. Good subject matter.

Comments are closed.