At 7:30 Rupert casually passes the term "fMRI" into his lecture without any explanation but feels the need to explain that optics is a study from physics earlier.
Bull, shit and match.
Scopaesthesia getting an etymological breakdown but marshal artists apparently being trained to pick up on people approaching from behind gets nothing.
This is in there with crystals and shadow people and has no place n these boards other than to be mocked like all the bullshit writers who praise fetish sex over heterosexual fantasy norms in games.
bull, shit and match…crystals and shadow people and has no place…praise fetish sex
Dude…chill - whatever your problem is I don’t think it’s with panpsychism, Rupert sheldrake, or this video. I normally think of your comments as quite open minded - what’s got you upset here, beyond selectively choosing to define terms like fMRI?
Really? We see things by shooting eye beams out of our eyes? I mean if you want to convince people of the existence of a spiritual plane, there are better ways to go about it then by necro-ing extramission theory.
Such are the limits of graphical representation of (currently) invisible phenomena. I’m sure many in the past have reacted as incredulously as you towards the ideas of fields of electricity, magnetism, gravity, mass, and so on, yet that had no bearing on their truth
Panpsychism seems to be a better explanation of reality than the mainstream scientific paradigm of materialism
Panpsychism:
In the philosophy of mind, panpsychism (/pænˈsaɪkɪzəm/) is the view that the mind or a mind-like aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality.[1] It is also described as a theory that "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe".
Materialism:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are caused by physical processes, such as the neurochemistry of the human brain and nervous system, without which they cannot exist.
Obviously heavy concepts, not strictly “gamergate related”, but I think a beneficial discussion appropriate enough to take place here
By any chance was it The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot? That book was hugely influential on my thinking on subjects like this, but it always seemed like a rather obscure book and theory in terms of how much it reached the world, so it would be quite cool if you had come across it too! Small world and all.
But yeah absolutely, the theory of the holographic universe is an excellent candidate to explain much of these “non-physical” phenomena we nonetheless observe the physical effects of, glad you brought it up
Ironic coming from the guy who’s 4 downvote bots got reverted on the thread by the admin’s anti-shill detection system, but are unfortunately able to run rampant in the comments. Seems like you managed to shit and slide the thread up enough you got some legitimate support.
I only have the one account though, maybe people just think you’re a cunt?
That’d be a kooky conclusion to draw given my relatively infrequent posting and my relatively successful posts. I mean, how many philosophy of mind posts have there ever even been here?
Say, nice dodge though, any idea why my threads get these crazy vote patterns and the same small handful of pricks sliding them every time they don’t boil down to “yay trump” or “boo jews”? Why half the downvotes given to the thread were reverted by an automated shill detection system? Why you’re such an angry weasel with the character of a worm? Look up “rhetorical question” if you struggle with any of these
I think it’s incredibly telling that the hard sciences have practically stalled out in terms of advancement, only ever capable of spiraling deeper and deeper down their holes of “specialization”, while the polymaths, the true geniuses capable of bridging the gaps between these chasms seem to be so few and far between.
Rupert Sheldrake, if you haven’t heard of him, is unorthodox when it comes to the priesthood of science. A highly accomplished biochemist by training - but openly religious (Anglican upbringing) - he is one of the relative few in the scientific world who is capable of entertaining ideas without necessarily believing them which I think helps contribute to his ability to bridge these wide divides and come upon what could end up being the early markings of a paradigm shift (or even multiple).
The basic idea presented here is “panpsychism”, the idea that psyche, aka consciousness, exists in some form or another, infused throughout the entire universe. This would not only explain the “consciousness of degrees” that we observe in, for example, animals like dogs, whales, dolphins, elephants, etc (i.e. a more “limited” or different form of consciousness than our own) but also bridge a long-standing gap that has been created between “religious understandings” and “scientific understandings” of the universe, imo
I've gradually come to settle on the idea that some form of panpsychism is the best fit for the phenomenon of consciousness. It opens up the possibility that consciousness is a field phenomenon or a latent potential existing in all of what we would traditionally consider to be inanimate matter.
Except for certain figures like Philip Goff and Donald Hoffman etc. you don't see many scientists willing to wrestle with the concept of consciousness. (I have my problems with some of these guys' assumptions too, eg. I don't think the term 'simulation theory' is useful and I'm not convinced there is a 'hard problem' of consciousness at all.) But mainstream science is scared of examining it and has no idea how to. A thorough examination of consciousness might reveal that the phenomenon of consciousness differs even across the human race, including the revelation that people may operate at different levels of consciousness, thereby introducing the concept of people who are more human and less human according to the intuitive understanding that consciousness itself is what makes humans special. Very problematic.
Most scientists also don't want to think or talk about the possibility, even theoretical, of greater-than-human consciousness, even though if consciousness proceeds from a discoverable principle, and that principle depends purely on the arrangement of physical matter, then it should be axiomatic that matter can be arranged to optimise for consciousness. Hilariously, materialists accidentally end up in a very anthropocentric view of the universe when they instead take as axiomatic that we already represent that optimisation, and that possibilities for consciousness don't extend very far below or above the current human experience. I've also heard of technological singularity ideas getting angrily dismissed as 'creationism by the back door' by some scientists, because they anticipate the extrapolations and don't want to acknowledge any line of thinking that would challenge their atheist cred.
Whether or not extramission represents the best way to understand the way a consciousness entity comes together and starts to experience things, I don't know. It does however call to mind other spiritual ideas of how consciousness is constituted, such as the Buddhist simile of the chariot, if we hypothesise that our interactions with everything around us, including things we merely look at, are constituent parts of our consciousness in the same way that synaptic activity is, on a different level and scale. A conversation with another person could be considered a building block in a dual consciousness, where the information is bottlenecked through one extremely noisy, low bandwidth synapse.
Where does consciousness come from? Most people have been taught that consciousness only originates in small lumps of grey matter, such as the brains of humans and possibly other higher species, while the rest of the universe is devoid of this quality. But how can some forms of matter possess consciousness while others do not? After all, our brains are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the rest of the universe. More and more philosophers are approaching the theory of panpsychism, which claims that all matter has some form of consciousness or mind.
The British biologist Rupert Sheldrake has long proposed similar ideas. In his book A new Science of Life (1981), he introduced his well-known theory of morphic resonance, which suggests that all self-regulating systems in nature, such as cells, plants, and animals, inherit a form of collective memory called the morphic field. Patterns of behavior and organization are influenced by similar past forms and experiences, creating a non-local transfer of information and memory across time and space, known as morphic resonance. In his bestselling book "The Science Delusion" (2012), Sheldrake addresses similar topics in the chapters "Is Nature Mechanical?" and "Is Matter Unconscious?»
In 2021, he published a paper in the Journal of Consciousness Studies titled "Is the Sun Conscious?" Sheldrake admits that even asking such a question seems utterly ignorant, even childish. However, he draws on numerous sources from different fields of science to support his ideas. He argues that it is certainly possible that self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity, including stars and galaxies, might have experience, awareness, or consciousness.
But how can some forms of matter possess consciousness while others do not? After all, our brains are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the rest of the universe.
But seriously, have you got any thoughts on how consciousness arises from/in unconscious matter? I think people would be interested in that no matter their stance on panpsychism. It’s not called the Hard Problem for nothing.
He doesn't need to elaborate on the conventionally accepted theory. That's your responsibility to research and know when discussing alternatives. I think this topic is interesting, but you quoted this yourself in another comment:
According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are caused by physical processes, such as the neurochemistry of the human brain and nervous system
While not fully proven as the seat of consciousness, those mechanical processes are heavily studied and documented. It's not the mystery to materialists that you make it out to be. Your implication of "How come I can think and a rock can't? Nobody knows!" is completely false. Our bodies are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the sun. Why don't we make sunlight?!
Our bodies are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the sun. Why don't we make sunlight?!
The degree to which we understand nuclear processes and the degree to which we understand consciousness are literally multiple orders of magnitude off from each other.
Obviously no one needs to do anything. I posted a discussion piece though, you’d think some people would be up to actually discuss as opposed to just h8n
He doesn't need to elaborate on the conventionally accepted theory
What even is this “conventionally accepted theory”? No ones named one yet. One could imagine you’re referring to the theory of consciousness as an epiphenomena of the interaction of unconscious matter? Regardless of the specific one you identify, the point is that none of these are “conventionally accepted” - its known as the “Hard Problem” precisely because there is no conventionally accepted theory.
Bro I'm not sure if you are autistic or just obstinately argumentative. LibertyPrimeWasRight and BandageBandolier already elaborated on my comment enough, but I have no issues with your thread topic, only that comment and your defensive attitude in replies.
IMO RondoOBlongo's criticism of Sheldrake's attempt at sound like an Indian Guru WAS legitimate discussion and not 'h8n.' Your dismissiveness is rich when you're the one proposing an alternative theory in the first place. Pretending there is no mainstream theory comes across as disingenuous when other comments of yours show that you knew exactly what I was talking about.
I do think the ideas of panpsychism make a lot of sense from a philosophical point of view. One of the reasons I liked the 2017 Prey game was the allusions to pansychism as you got deeper into the story. It's also the only way I'd ever believe real AI could ever be achieved - when we "unlock" the correct combination of materials and the innate structure of the universe reveals it to us.
Depressingly, with enough reading you'll find that the common zeitgeist among materialists is that consciousness doesn't exist the way you are expecting. What you perceive is merely an artifact of cascading neuron activity. Biological creatures have awareness from the senses, and self-awareness is just numerous hidden layers of neural networks reflecting back at themselves. Thought is then an illusion that fades away on brain death when neuron activity stops. I hate the idea, I don't believe it, but I'm not going to pretend that The Science hasn't attempted an explanation because I don't like their explanation. Non-materialists don't exactly have the unassailable rational theories you're demanding from materialists either.
The “h8rs”, for the most part (certainly when I wrote that) weren’t in the sub thread where I wrote that. The haters were the people outwardly hostile and dismissive off the bat - what I was disappointed in and trying to improve in this sub thread were the opinions of the people who were merely dismissive with no justified rational other than “that’s not the mainstream view”. That’s why I wrote relatively long and not (on purpose) too “defensively” like i may have with some of the absolute cunts in other sub threads. In fact, that faggot at the bottom, Lauri, is literally downvoting his own comments {+0, -1} to try and frame me even more as a “defensive douchebag” - edit - crazy he just read this and went back and changed it. Doesn’t get more bad faith than that lmfao
In fact, I’ve mostly upvoted or not voted, despite the RAMPANT and BLATANT vote manipulation occurring ITT
Anyway - Thanks for sharing your views instead of just keeping up the dog pile, too bad though that there probably won’t be any discussion on them
Our bodies are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the sun. Why don't we make sunlight?!
The degree to which we understand nuclear processes and the degree to which we understand consciousness are literally multiple orders of magnitude off from each other.
Completely missing the point, which is that the same atoms and molecules arranged in different ways do drastically different things. The argument that “our brains have the same molecules as [any other thing], therefore [other thing] should be able to perform the functions of a brain” is vacuous. That was the point.
Ironically, arguing that the “point” was that “atoms and molecules arranged in different ways do drastically different things” misses the point of the thread (funny how many of you there have been in that regard), which is that the materialist framework is fundamentally unable to explain conscious matter.
Sheldrake’s point stands firm. Musta just gone over your head. Did you watch/read any of his lectures or are you just going off the conversation in this sub thread, which is just people ignoring the videos and crying about the description of the videos with zero context.
It’s a direct response to an argument put forth in video description you posted:
But how can some forms of matter possess consciousness while others do not? After all, our brains are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the rest of the universe.
Responding to something you posted is hardly “missing the point of the thread.”
This is all very easily made trivial if you just stop considering consciousness as some special property that has be imparted on things.
If it's just the output from parsing an incredibly complicated series of biological logic gates, then the materialists have nothing more to prove than the biological system simply exists.
If that was all it was, we would have created artificial consciousness decades ago.
I should have spent more time setting the stage and mentioned the details of the Hard Problem of consciousness. It doesn’t seem like 95% of the people commenting have heard of it, but I assumed most would have at least a vague understanding of the fact that modern science doesn’t have the first clue on the roots of consciousness
If there is no special property of consciousness to impart then the threshold for something comparable to human consciousness is system complexity comparable to the human brain.
We're still a long way off creating anything on that level ourselves, and a very very long way off doing that in a way that isn't more or less just copying evolution's homework on neural networks. We've poured billions of dollars and a sizeable portion of top level human resources into AI and LLM projects recently, and even at their peak they pale in comparison to the just complexity we currently understand about how the brain functions, nevermind all the parts we haven't even figured out yet.
So no we couldn't have created artificial consciousness decades ago, and we may not be able to do so for many decades hence.
As to the "hard problem", I disagree to the foundational assertion of it.
Proponents of the hard problem argue that it is categorically different from the easy problems since no mechanistic or behavioral explanation could explain the character of an experience, not even in principle.
Making that your fundamental axiom stems from a misunderstanding of the vast unplumbed depths of the mechanical complexity of the human brain. The stupid urban myth of only using 10% of our brain has an unexpected a kernel of truth to it, in that what we currently understand about how the brain functions could easily turn out to be only 10% of the total system complexity.
You're just trying to explain "God creates consciousness" without the "God" part, genius. We absolutely know what parts of the brain control what, and how it's accomplished. We see that animals without consciousness have smaller areas of the brain that show activity when decisions are made and larger areas that show activity when the subject reacts to something like a ball being thrown at them, e.g. subconscious instincts.
Just say it's God already, at least that's a valid argument.
Muh, SaMe AtOmS YoU cAnT ExPlAiN It nonsense is beneath you. Just because YOU don't understand how it works, doesn't mean it's not understood.
At 7:30 Rupert casually passes the term "fMRI" into his lecture without any explanation but feels the need to explain that optics is a study from physics earlier.
Bull, shit and match.
Scopaesthesia getting an etymological breakdown but marshal artists apparently being trained to pick up on people approaching from behind gets nothing.
This is in there with crystals and shadow people and has no place n these boards other than to be mocked like all the bullshit writers who praise fetish sex over heterosexual fantasy norms in games.
Yes we mustn't sully these sacred halls of science with psuedoscience and misinformation!
I like magic and imaginary things too.
I just like them in fantastical things like books, movies and computer games :)
Sheldrake is literally the man responsible for scientifically validating “the sense of being stared at”.
https://www.sheldrake.org/research/sense-of-being-stared-at
Dude…chill - whatever your problem is I don’t think it’s with panpsychism, Rupert sheldrake, or this video. I normally think of your comments as quite open minded - what’s got you upset here, beyond selectively choosing to define terms like fMRI?
Really? We see things by shooting eye beams out of our eyes? I mean if you want to convince people of the existence of a spiritual plane, there are better ways to go about it then by necro-ing extramission theory.
Such are the limits of graphical representation of (currently) invisible phenomena. I’m sure many in the past have reacted as incredulously as you towards the ideas of fields of electricity, magnetism, gravity, mass, and so on, yet that had no bearing on their truth
What the fuck are you even saying.
He's forum sliding even as he accuses people like yoisi and ger111 of doing so.
It serves two purposes: flooding this forum with crap, and making anyone who posts here look crazy by association.
Panpsychism seems to be a better explanation of reality than the mainstream scientific paradigm of materialism
Panpsychism:
Materialism:
Obviously heavy concepts, not strictly “gamergate related”, but I think a beneficial discussion appropriate enough to take place here
Kinda sounds like a book I read about the holographic universe theory. I’d need to watch his video further and analyze it more though
By any chance was it The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot? That book was hugely influential on my thinking on subjects like this, but it always seemed like a rather obscure book and theory in terms of how much it reached the world, so it would be quite cool if you had come across it too! Small world and all.
But yeah absolutely, the theory of the holographic universe is an excellent candidate to explain much of these “non-physical” phenomena we nonetheless observe the physical effects of, glad you brought it up
It was that book. Very fascinating
So what does this have to with (in order of narrowest to broadest):
Games journalism
The Culture War in video games
Journalism
The Culture War in general
In other words: Nice forum sliding, bro.
The illusions you name are outgrowths of consciousness, how could you possibly comprehend any of them fully if you can’t understand their foundation?
Post Reported for: Rule 11 - Spam (x2)
Post Approved: Not really, I think he just wants to have a discussion on consciousness.
What account was it other than Cato? You should mark that one down as a sockpuppet of his
Says the guy running downvote bots.
Ironic coming from the guy who’s 4 downvote bots got reverted on the thread by the admin’s anti-shill detection system, but are unfortunately able to run rampant in the comments. Seems like you managed to shit and slide the thread up enough you got some legitimate support.
I only have the one account though, maybe people just think you’re a cunt?
Maybe people just think you are a spammer?
That’d be a kooky conclusion to draw given my relatively infrequent posting and my relatively successful posts. I mean, how many philosophy of mind posts have there ever even been here?
Say, nice dodge though, any idea why my threads get these crazy vote patterns and the same small handful of pricks sliding them every time they don’t boil down to “yay trump” or “boo jews”? Why half the downvotes given to the thread were reverted by an automated shill detection system? Why you’re such an angry weasel with the character of a worm? Look up “rhetorical question” if you struggle with any of these
I think it’s incredibly telling that the hard sciences have practically stalled out in terms of advancement, only ever capable of spiraling deeper and deeper down their holes of “specialization”, while the polymaths, the true geniuses capable of bridging the gaps between these chasms seem to be so few and far between.
Rupert Sheldrake, if you haven’t heard of him, is unorthodox when it comes to the priesthood of science. A highly accomplished biochemist by training - but openly religious (Anglican upbringing) - he is one of the relative few in the scientific world who is capable of entertaining ideas without necessarily believing them which I think helps contribute to his ability to bridge these wide divides and come upon what could end up being the early markings of a paradigm shift (or even multiple).
The basic idea presented here is “panpsychism”, the idea that psyche, aka consciousness, exists in some form or another, infused throughout the entire universe. This would not only explain the “consciousness of degrees” that we observe in, for example, animals like dogs, whales, dolphins, elephants, etc (i.e. a more “limited” or different form of consciousness than our own) but also bridge a long-standing gap that has been created between “religious understandings” and “scientific understandings” of the universe, imo
I've gradually come to settle on the idea that some form of panpsychism is the best fit for the phenomenon of consciousness. It opens up the possibility that consciousness is a field phenomenon or a latent potential existing in all of what we would traditionally consider to be inanimate matter.
Except for certain figures like Philip Goff and Donald Hoffman etc. you don't see many scientists willing to wrestle with the concept of consciousness. (I have my problems with some of these guys' assumptions too, eg. I don't think the term 'simulation theory' is useful and I'm not convinced there is a 'hard problem' of consciousness at all.) But mainstream science is scared of examining it and has no idea how to. A thorough examination of consciousness might reveal that the phenomenon of consciousness differs even across the human race, including the revelation that people may operate at different levels of consciousness, thereby introducing the concept of people who are more human and less human according to the intuitive understanding that consciousness itself is what makes humans special. Very problematic.
Most scientists also don't want to think or talk about the possibility, even theoretical, of greater-than-human consciousness, even though if consciousness proceeds from a discoverable principle, and that principle depends purely on the arrangement of physical matter, then it should be axiomatic that matter can be arranged to optimise for consciousness. Hilariously, materialists accidentally end up in a very anthropocentric view of the universe when they instead take as axiomatic that we already represent that optimisation, and that possibilities for consciousness don't extend very far below or above the current human experience. I've also heard of technological singularity ideas getting angrily dismissed as 'creationism by the back door' by some scientists, because they anticipate the extrapolations and don't want to acknowledge any line of thinking that would challenge their atheist cred.
Whether or not extramission represents the best way to understand the way a consciousness entity comes together and starts to experience things, I don't know. It does however call to mind other spiritual ideas of how consciousness is constituted, such as the Buddhist simile of the chariot, if we hypothesise that our interactions with everything around us, including things we merely look at, are constituent parts of our consciousness in the same way that synaptic activity is, on a different level and scale. A conversation with another person could be considered a building block in a dual consciousness, where the information is bottlenecked through one extremely noisy, low bandwidth synapse.
You'd enjoy this. I've had multiple OBE's. While hooked up to medical equipment. I believe.
https://youtu.be/2tpda3qYkec
'if'
this idea was defeated in the very first word you uttered.
>mfw the existence of conditional hypotheticals debunks panpsychism
Lmfao
Here’s another lecture on the idea and the accompanying description:
That's not how that works
Why won't my silicone spatula compute as fast as a 4090?!
I know, it must be magic.
Lol
But seriously, have you got any thoughts on how consciousness arises from/in unconscious matter? I think people would be interested in that no matter their stance on panpsychism. It’s not called the Hard Problem for nothing.
He doesn't need to elaborate on the conventionally accepted theory. That's your responsibility to research and know when discussing alternatives. I think this topic is interesting, but you quoted this yourself in another comment:
While not fully proven as the seat of consciousness, those mechanical processes are heavily studied and documented. It's not the mystery to materialists that you make it out to be. Your implication of "How come I can think and a rock can't? Nobody knows!" is completely false. Our bodies are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the sun. Why don't we make sunlight?!
The degree to which we understand nuclear processes and the degree to which we understand consciousness are literally multiple orders of magnitude off from each other.
Obviously no one needs to do anything. I posted a discussion piece though, you’d think some people would be up to actually discuss as opposed to just h8n
What even is this “conventionally accepted theory”? No ones named one yet. One could imagine you’re referring to the theory of consciousness as an epiphenomena of the interaction of unconscious matter? Regardless of the specific one you identify, the point is that none of these are “conventionally accepted” - its known as the “Hard Problem” precisely because there is no conventionally accepted theory.
Bro I'm not sure if you are autistic or just obstinately argumentative. LibertyPrimeWasRight and BandageBandolier already elaborated on my comment enough, but I have no issues with your thread topic, only that comment and your defensive attitude in replies.
IMO RondoOBlongo's criticism of Sheldrake's attempt at sound like an Indian Guru WAS legitimate discussion and not 'h8n.' Your dismissiveness is rich when you're the one proposing an alternative theory in the first place. Pretending there is no mainstream theory comes across as disingenuous when other comments of yours show that you knew exactly what I was talking about.
I do think the ideas of panpsychism make a lot of sense from a philosophical point of view. One of the reasons I liked the 2017 Prey game was the allusions to pansychism as you got deeper into the story. It's also the only way I'd ever believe real AI could ever be achieved - when we "unlock" the correct combination of materials and the innate structure of the universe reveals it to us.
Depressingly, with enough reading you'll find that the common zeitgeist among materialists is that consciousness doesn't exist the way you are expecting. What you perceive is merely an artifact of cascading neuron activity. Biological creatures have awareness from the senses, and self-awareness is just numerous hidden layers of neural networks reflecting back at themselves. Thought is then an illusion that fades away on brain death when neuron activity stops. I hate the idea, I don't believe it, but I'm not going to pretend that The Science hasn't attempted an explanation because I don't like their explanation. Non-materialists don't exactly have the unassailable rational theories you're demanding from materialists either.
The “h8rs”, for the most part (certainly when I wrote that) weren’t in the sub thread where I wrote that. The haters were the people outwardly hostile and dismissive off the bat - what I was disappointed in and trying to improve in this sub thread were the opinions of the people who were merely dismissive with no justified rational other than “that’s not the mainstream view”. That’s why I wrote relatively long and not (on purpose) too “defensively” like i may have with some of the absolute cunts in other sub threads. In fact, that faggot at the bottom, Lauri, is literally downvoting his own comments {+0, -1} to try and frame me even more as a “defensive douchebag” - edit - crazy he just read this and went back and changed it. Doesn’t get more bad faith than that lmfao
In fact, I’ve mostly upvoted or not voted, despite the RAMPANT and BLATANT vote manipulation occurring ITT
Anyway - Thanks for sharing your views instead of just keeping up the dog pile, too bad though that there probably won’t be any discussion on them
Completely missing the point, which is that the same atoms and molecules arranged in different ways do drastically different things. The argument that “our brains have the same molecules as [any other thing], therefore [other thing] should be able to perform the functions of a brain” is vacuous. That was the point.
Ironically, arguing that the “point” was that “atoms and molecules arranged in different ways do drastically different things” misses the point of the thread (funny how many of you there have been in that regard), which is that the materialist framework is fundamentally unable to explain conscious matter.
Sheldrake’s point stands firm. Musta just gone over your head. Did you watch/read any of his lectures or are you just going off the conversation in this sub thread, which is just people ignoring the videos and crying about the description of the videos with zero context.
It’s a direct response to an argument put forth in video description you posted:
Responding to something you posted is hardly “missing the point of the thread.”
H2O and OH- have the same atoms, but are completely different. That's not how atoms and molecules work.
Where 👏 does 👏 consciousness 👏 come 👏 from 👏 then 👏 genius 👏
This is all very easily made trivial if you just stop considering consciousness as some special property that has be imparted on things.
If it's just the output from parsing an incredibly complicated series of biological logic gates, then the materialists have nothing more to prove than the biological system simply exists.
If that was all it was, we would have created artificial consciousness decades ago.
I should have spent more time setting the stage and mentioned the details of the Hard Problem of consciousness. It doesn’t seem like 95% of the people commenting have heard of it, but I assumed most would have at least a vague understanding of the fact that modern science doesn’t have the first clue on the roots of consciousness
If there is no special property of consciousness to impart then the threshold for something comparable to human consciousness is system complexity comparable to the human brain.
We're still a long way off creating anything on that level ourselves, and a very very long way off doing that in a way that isn't more or less just copying evolution's homework on neural networks. We've poured billions of dollars and a sizeable portion of top level human resources into AI and LLM projects recently, and even at their peak they pale in comparison to the just complexity we currently understand about how the brain functions, nevermind all the parts we haven't even figured out yet.
So no we couldn't have created artificial consciousness decades ago, and we may not be able to do so for many decades hence.
As to the "hard problem", I disagree to the foundational assertion of it.
Making that your fundamental axiom stems from a misunderstanding of the vast unplumbed depths of the mechanical complexity of the human brain. The stupid urban myth of only using 10% of our brain has an unexpected a kernel of truth to it, in that what we currently understand about how the brain functions could easily turn out to be only 10% of the total system complexity.
God dumbass
Great answer, one of two id accept (the other being “I have no clue”) - any leads on the how of the matter? Aka the subject of the thread?
You're just trying to explain "God creates consciousness" without the "God" part, genius. We absolutely know what parts of the brain control what, and how it's accomplished. We see that animals without consciousness have smaller areas of the brain that show activity when decisions are made and larger areas that show activity when the subject reacts to something like a ball being thrown at them, e.g. subconscious instincts.
Just say it's God already, at least that's a valid argument.
Muh, SaMe AtOmS YoU cAnT ExPlAiN It nonsense is beneath you. Just because YOU don't understand how it works, doesn't mean it's not understood.