Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

a cognitive scientist proved that the "ghost in the machine" is a complete illusion, destroying how we think about AI consciousness Daniel Dennett explains his famous "Cartesian Theater" fallacy, showing why there is no central headquarters in the brain where consciousness magically happens. he demonstrates how the brain processes... multiple drafts of reality simultaneously. if you flash a light at the exact right millisecond, your brain edits the timeline before you even perceive it. the "center" doesn't exist. today, people look at massive LLMs and assume there is a singular "mind" behind the weights. a central agent making decisions and feeling emotions. there is no central observer. it's just multiple drafts of statistical probability running in parallel. we aren't building a conscious entity. we are just hallucinating the theater.show more

rodeojuly

1,034 subscribers

25,833 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Scientist says objects don't exist when you're not looking at them! Donald Hoffman, cognitive scientist at UC Irvine, says there is only your experience of the an object, generated the moment you perceive it, gone the moment you look away. An object two people see are two separate events. We coordinate so seamlessly that we assume there's one shared object but there isn't. Where it gets stranger is that Hoffman says the monad, the ultimate consciousness underlying all observers, would perceive something far more complex than the crude object either of us renders. And his strong belief is that the monad isn't separate from you. You are the ultimate consciousness running multiple avatars simultaneously. Both avatars are generating their own objects in their perceptions. The avatars are temporary. The consciousness generating both of them is the same one. Clip from the full Donald Hoffman episode, live now.

Scientist says objects don't exist when you're not looking at them! Donald Hoffman, cognitive scientist at UC Irvine, says there is only your experience of the an object, generated the moment you perceive it, gone the moment you look away. An object two people see are two separate events. We coordinate so seamlessly that we assume there's one shared object but there isn't. Where it gets stranger is that Hoffman says the monad, the ultimate consciousness underlying all observers, would perceive something far more complex than the crude object either of us renders. And his strong belief is that the monad isn't separate from you. You are the ultimate consciousness running multiple avatars simultaneously. Both avatars are generating their own objects in their perceptions. The avatars are temporary. The consciousness generating both of them is the same one. Clip from the full Donald Hoffman episode, live now.

American Alchemy

30,876 views • 4 months ago

ELON: WE’RE DESCENDANTS OF STARS – BUT HOW DID WE BECOME CONSCIOUS? “I've thought a lot about what is consciousness. Where does consciousness arise? If you start at the beginning of the universe, assuming the standard model of physics is true, then you have this Big Bang, the matter condensing into stars, those stars exploding. A lot of the atoms that are in your body right now were once at the center of stars. Those stars exploded, recondensed. Fast forward 13.8 billion years, and here we are. And somewhere along that very long journey to us, consciousness arose. Or the molecules started talking to each other. And it begs the question of what is consciousness? Is everything conscious? Maybe. It's hard to say where along that line, there's no sort of discrete point where consciousness didn't exist and then suddenly does exist. It seems to be, maybe you have a condensation of matter that has a density of consciousness, we don't know. The real answer is, we don't know what consciousness is. But with Neuralink and the progress that the company's making, we'll begin to understand a lot more about consciousness.” Source: Neuralink Update, June 2025

ELON: WE’RE DESCENDANTS OF STARS – BUT HOW DID WE BECOME CONSCIOUS? “I've thought a lot about what is consciousness. Where does consciousness arise? If you start at the beginning of the universe, assuming the standard model of physics is true, then you have this Big Bang, the matter condensing into stars, those stars exploding. A lot of the atoms that are in your body right now were once at the center of stars. Those stars exploded, recondensed. Fast forward 13.8 billion years, and here we are. And somewhere along that very long journey to us, consciousness arose. Or the molecules started talking to each other. And it begs the question of what is consciousness? Is everything conscious? Maybe. It's hard to say where along that line, there's no sort of discrete point where consciousness didn't exist and then suddenly does exist. It seems to be, maybe you have a condensation of matter that has a density of consciousness, we don't know. The real answer is, we don't know what consciousness is. But with Neuralink and the progress that the company's making, we'll begin to understand a lot more about consciousness.” Source: Neuralink Update, June 2025

Mario Nawfal

55,256 views • 1 year ago

🧠 Consciousness: The Mystery That Even Scientists Can’t Fully Explain In this video, Brian Cox talks about one of the biggest questions in science: what is consciousness? What does it really mean to experience being human? This question is becoming more important today because of AI. While artificial intelligence is getting smarter, we are still far from creating a machine that truly experiences the world like we do. Brian explains that scientists usually talk about two types of “emergence.” In simple words, emergence means something complex forming from many simple parts. He says consciousness is a weakly emergent thing — it comes from the brain, which follows basic physical laws. Billions of brain cells work together, and somehow thoughts, feelings, and awareness appear. There is no magic involved, just extreme complexity. Some people believe in “strong emergence,” where consciousness cannot be explained or copied using physical laws. But Brian disagrees. He believes that, in theory, if we had a powerful enough computer, we could model how the human brain works. Neil deGrasse Tyson listens carefully and then says something important: we still don’t fully know. And that’s what makes consciousness one of the greatest mysteries of the universe. Watch the video and think about it: If consciousness comes from the brain… could a machine ever have it too? 👀🧠

🧠 Consciousness: The Mystery That Even Scientists Can’t Fully Explain In this video, Brian Cox talks about one of the biggest questions in science: what is consciousness? What does it really mean to experience being human? This question is becoming more important today because of AI. While artificial intelligence is getting smarter, we are still far from creating a machine that truly experiences the world like we do. Brian explains that scientists usually talk about two types of “emergence.” In simple words, emergence means something complex forming from many simple parts. He says consciousness is a weakly emergent thing — it comes from the brain, which follows basic physical laws. Billions of brain cells work together, and somehow thoughts, feelings, and awareness appear. There is no magic involved, just extreme complexity. Some people believe in “strong emergence,” where consciousness cannot be explained or copied using physical laws. But Brian disagrees. He believes that, in theory, if we had a powerful enough computer, we could model how the human brain works. Neil deGrasse Tyson listens carefully and then says something important: we still don’t fully know. And that’s what makes consciousness one of the greatest mysteries of the universe. Watch the video and think about it: If consciousness comes from the brain… could a machine ever have it too? 👀🧠

Night Sky Now

19,866 views • 9 months ago

Lots of people have a very strong feeling that the concept of consciousness is absolutely central to ethics. But we barely understand how consciousness works at all - especially in the case of AI. Joe Carlsmith on the risks of building our ethics on a concept we might end up revising or rejecting:

Lots of people have a very strong feeling that the concept of consciousness is absolutely central to ethics. But we barely understand how consciousness works at all - especially in the case of AI. Joe Carlsmith on the risks of building our ethics on a concept we might end up revising or rejecting:

Dwarkesh Patel

39,425 views • 4 months ago

John Searle: consciousness cannot be an illusion and here's the argument that makes it undeniable Science has a long track record of overturning our intuitions. The table looks solid, it isn't. The sun appears to set, it doesn't. We've learned to accept that appearances deceive us, and that reality lies beneath. But philosopher John Searle argues there is exactly one domain where this move simply cannot be made: consciousness itself. "Where consciousness is concerned, you can't make the standard appearance/reality distinction that we make for the rest of the world." His logic is simple. When a scientist tells you the table isn't really solid and that it's a cloud of micro-particles, you can accept that. The appearance (solidity) and the reality (particles) are two different things, and you can hold them apart. Same with the sunset. It looks like the sun moves. It doesn't. The rotation of the Earth creates an illusion. Appearance and reality come apart and you understand the gap. Now try applying that same logic to your conscious experience. Someone claims your pain isn't really there, that your awareness is just an illusion. But here, Searle says, the distinction collapses entirely: "Where the existence of consciousness is concerned, the appearance is the reality. There's no way that some guy can come to me and convince me I'm not conscious if I think I'm conscious, I am conscious." This is a structural point about what consciousness fundamentally is. For every other phenomenon, the appearance can be explained away by pointing to what's "really" happening underneath. But consciousness is the very medium in which all appearances occur. There is no "underneath" to retreat to. To say consciousness is an illusion, you would first need to be conscious of the illusion. The argument defeats itself on contact.

John Searle: consciousness cannot be an illusion and here's the argument that makes it undeniable Science has a long track record of overturning our intuitions. The table looks solid, it isn't. The sun appears to set, it doesn't. We've learned to accept that appearances deceive us, and that reality lies beneath. But philosopher John Searle argues there is exactly one domain where this move simply cannot be made: consciousness itself. "Where consciousness is concerned, you can't make the standard appearance/reality distinction that we make for the rest of the world." His logic is simple. When a scientist tells you the table isn't really solid and that it's a cloud of micro-particles, you can accept that. The appearance (solidity) and the reality (particles) are two different things, and you can hold them apart. Same with the sunset. It looks like the sun moves. It doesn't. The rotation of the Earth creates an illusion. Appearance and reality come apart and you understand the gap. Now try applying that same logic to your conscious experience. Someone claims your pain isn't really there, that your awareness is just an illusion. But here, Searle says, the distinction collapses entirely: "Where the existence of consciousness is concerned, the appearance is the reality. There's no way that some guy can come to me and convince me I'm not conscious if I think I'm conscious, I am conscious." This is a structural point about what consciousness fundamentally is. For every other phenomenon, the appearance can be explained away by pointing to what's "really" happening underneath. But consciousness is the very medium in which all appearances occur. There is no "underneath" to retreat to. To say consciousness is an illusion, you would first need to be conscious of the illusion. The argument defeats itself on contact.

Big Brain Philosophy

17,476 views • 6 months ago

Physicist: Consciousness DOES NOT Come From The BRAIN The prevailing materialist paradigm asserts that consciousness is a byproduct of neural activity, a mere epiphenomenon of biochemical interactions in the brain. However, this reductionist view crumbles under deeper scrutiny, as it fails to account for the vast spectrum of consciousness, from transcendent mystical states to near-death experiences and non-local awareness. Consciousness is not confined within the brain; rather, the brain is a transceiver, a finely tuned instrument that receives and modulates the vast ocean of awareness permeating the cosmos. Just as a radio does not generate the music it plays but instead decodes signals from an unseen field, the brain is an interface between the physical realm and the infinite, omnipresent field of consciousness. Mystic science, in alignment with ancient wisdom and cutting-edge quantum research, reveals that consciousness is fundamental-an organizing principle of reality itself. Walter Russell's work echoes this truth, demonstrating that mind is primary and matter is a consequence of its rhythmic pulsations. The brain, much like a crystalline matrix, is structured to interpret and shape consciousness into coherent experience, but it does not generate it. In this light, consciousness is not local, nor is it constrained by the physical form. It is the unseen architect behind the rhythms of existence, the hidden intelligence orchestrating the grand cosmic symphony to believe that the brain creates consciousness is akin to believing that the eye creates light or that a mirror generates the image it reflects. It is not the origin but the instrument. As mystic scientists, we recognize thay true awakening lies in shifting our perception from brain-centered awareness to the realization that we are conduits of an eternal intelligence, woven into the very fabric of existence. Consciousness is not inside us—we are inside it. ✨🙌🏾💫 © Dr. Jason Yuan

Physicist: Consciousness DOES NOT Come From The BRAIN The prevailing materialist paradigm asserts that consciousness is a byproduct of neural activity, a mere epiphenomenon of biochemical interactions in the brain. However, this reductionist view crumbles under deeper scrutiny, as it fails to account for the vast spectrum of consciousness, from transcendent mystical states to near-death experiences and non-local awareness. Consciousness is not confined within the brain; rather, the brain is a transceiver, a finely tuned instrument that receives and modulates the vast ocean of awareness permeating the cosmos. Just as a radio does not generate the music it plays but instead decodes signals from an unseen field, the brain is an interface between the physical realm and the infinite, omnipresent field of consciousness. Mystic science, in alignment with ancient wisdom and cutting-edge quantum research, reveals that consciousness is fundamental-an organizing principle of reality itself. Walter Russell's work echoes this truth, demonstrating that mind is primary and matter is a consequence of its rhythmic pulsations. The brain, much like a crystalline matrix, is structured to interpret and shape consciousness into coherent experience, but it does not generate it. In this light, consciousness is not local, nor is it constrained by the physical form. It is the unseen architect behind the rhythms of existence, the hidden intelligence orchestrating the grand cosmic symphony to believe that the brain creates consciousness is akin to believing that the eye creates light or that a mirror generates the image it reflects. It is not the origin but the instrument. As mystic scientists, we recognize thay true awakening lies in shifting our perception from brain-centered awareness to the realization that we are conduits of an eternal intelligence, woven into the very fabric of existence. Consciousness is not inside us—we are inside it. ✨🙌🏾💫 © Dr. Jason Yuan

🧬Maxpein🧬

45,371 views • 1 year ago

Daniel Dennett: You don't know your own mind as well as you think you do. In a 1993 Dutch documentary series, A Glorious Accident, philosopher Daniel Dennett laid out one of the most unsettling ideas in all of philosophy, the possibility that we are fundamentally mistaken about our own minds. We assume our minds are the one thing we have certain access to. Whatever else may be uncertain about the world, at least we know what we ourselves are thinking, right? Dennett argues this assumption is exactly what makes consciousness so hard to understand and so hard to challenge. He frames the core tension this way: on one hand, the mind seems like the most intimate thing we have access to. On the other, when we try to locate minds in the physical world as functions of the brain they seem to vanish entirely. "On the one hand we seem to know from the inside our minds… and then when we try to figure out how our minds exist in the world, how they could be a function of what's going on in our brains, it seems utterly mysterious." This is why we've never had a satisfying theory of consciousness, Dennett suggests. Not because we haven't thought hard enough, but because the very intuition we keep relying on that we have privileged, infallible access to our own thoughts may itself be wrong. Here he takes direct aim at Descartes. Descartes famously argued that while everything else could be doubted, the content of one's own conscious thought was beyond doubt. Whatever my thoughts are about may be false but what my thoughts are, and that they are mine? That, Descartes said, was the one certainty. Dennett's move is to reject precisely this: "Oddly enough, I'm claiming that he was wrong about that. The one thing he said was most certain I'm claiming that's not certain at all." We are, in some degree, fooled about our own minds. This isn't a claim that we're completely wrong about everything. It's a subtler and arguably more disturbing point: the seemingly undeniable intuition that we have transparent access to our own conscious states is, to some degree, false. We misread ourselves. We confabulate. The inner narrative we take for granted is, in part, a story we tell after the fact. Dennett spent his career making this case more formally, arguing that consciousness is less like a private theatre and more like a process of ongoing self-interpretation. If he's right, the question isn't just "how does the brain produce consciousness?" but "how does the brain produce the convincing illusion of transparent self-knowledge?"

Daniel Dennett: You don't know your own mind as well as you think you do. In a 1993 Dutch documentary series, A Glorious Accident, philosopher Daniel Dennett laid out one of the most unsettling ideas in all of philosophy, the possibility that we are fundamentally mistaken about our own minds. We assume our minds are the one thing we have certain access to. Whatever else may be uncertain about the world, at least we know what we ourselves are thinking, right? Dennett argues this assumption is exactly what makes consciousness so hard to understand and so hard to challenge. He frames the core tension this way: on one hand, the mind seems like the most intimate thing we have access to. On the other, when we try to locate minds in the physical world as functions of the brain they seem to vanish entirely. "On the one hand we seem to know from the inside our minds… and then when we try to figure out how our minds exist in the world, how they could be a function of what's going on in our brains, it seems utterly mysterious." This is why we've never had a satisfying theory of consciousness, Dennett suggests. Not because we haven't thought hard enough, but because the very intuition we keep relying on that we have privileged, infallible access to our own thoughts may itself be wrong. Here he takes direct aim at Descartes. Descartes famously argued that while everything else could be doubted, the content of one's own conscious thought was beyond doubt. Whatever my thoughts are about may be false but what my thoughts are, and that they are mine? That, Descartes said, was the one certainty. Dennett's move is to reject precisely this: "Oddly enough, I'm claiming that he was wrong about that. The one thing he said was most certain I'm claiming that's not certain at all." We are, in some degree, fooled about our own minds. This isn't a claim that we're completely wrong about everything. It's a subtler and arguably more disturbing point: the seemingly undeniable intuition that we have transparent access to our own conscious states is, to some degree, false. We misread ourselves. We confabulate. The inner narrative we take for granted is, in part, a story we tell after the fact. Dennett spent his career making this case more formally, arguing that consciousness is less like a private theatre and more like a process of ongoing self-interpretation. If he's right, the question isn't just "how does the brain produce consciousness?" but "how does the brain produce the convincing illusion of transparent self-knowledge?"

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

46,764 views • 6 months ago

Joe Rogan & Jesse Michels discuss how "Consciousness renders reality like a video game. Only what is observed gets computed" “There is no tree. There is no forest. If there’s nobody there and it’s not being observed, it’s not being rendered.” In the Copenhagen interpretation, measurement collapses the wave function. Reality stays probabilistic until observation forces a definite outcome. Campbell connects this directly to consciousness: the physical world is a multiplayer virtual reality computed by a larger consciousness system. Your body is the avatar. Your consciousness is the player receiving a personal data stream. Our reality is almost certainly a simulation. Nothing is rendered unless an observer needs the information. The brain itself is not even rendered unless someone opens a skull and looks. Turn your head and the previous scene stops being computed for you, just as a video game only draws what the player is currently facing. This is efficient computer science applied to existence. Probability until measurement. Collapse upon observation. Mind involved in the rendering. The same principle that explains the double slit experiment also explains why the world feels solid only when you engage with it.

Interstellar

22,054 views • 1 month ago

Your brain will literally start dreaming while you're awake if it doesn't get enough REM sleep. Matthew Walker explains the horrifying reality behind delirium tremens (the DTs): When chronic alcoholics quit drinking, the massive backlog of suppressed dream sleep explodes into consciousness. The brain becomes so desperate for REM that it hijacks wakefulness — you start hallucinating dreams in real time. It's a full collision of two states of consciousness. You can even see it on brainwave scans. Walker’s point is chilling: if the brain is willing to break reality itself to get its missing dream sleep, that shows just how non-negotiable sleep is. Mother Nature spent 3.6 million years hardwiring in that 8-hour requirement for a reason. This is why sleep deprivation is so destructive. Have you ever learned a sleep fact that completely changed how you see rest?

Your brain will literally start dreaming while you're awake if it doesn't get enough REM sleep. Matthew Walker explains the horrifying reality behind delirium tremens (the DTs): When chronic alcoholics quit drinking, the massive backlog of suppressed dream sleep explodes into consciousness. The brain becomes so desperate for REM that it hijacks wakefulness — you start hallucinating dreams in real time. It's a full collision of two states of consciousness. You can even see it on brainwave scans. Walker’s point is chilling: if the brain is willing to break reality itself to get its missing dream sleep, that shows just how non-negotiable sleep is. Mother Nature spent 3.6 million years hardwiring in that 8-hour requirement for a reason. This is why sleep deprivation is so destructive. Have you ever learned a sleep fact that completely changed how you see rest?

Camus

150,913 views • 6 months ago

"We're not going to explain where consciousness comes from by studying the brain, because it doesn't come from the brain." "The brain is a condition for consciousness, but not a producer of it." "We need new words for what traditional religions would refer to as God. And I think consciousness is actually a decent candidate." "We need to really rewind and question whether mind and nature should have been separated conceptually in the first place." The Giant Matt Segall ⬇️

"We're not going to explain where consciousness comes from by studying the brain, because it doesn't come from the brain." "The brain is a condition for consciousness, but not a producer of it." "We need new words for what traditional religions would refer to as God. And I think consciousness is actually a decent candidate." "We need to really rewind and question whether mind and nature should have been separated conceptually in the first place." The Giant Matt Segall ⬇️

Evan McGloughlin

14,562 views • 7 months ago

AI Validates the Truth of Buddhism | Philosophy x AI In this interview, Imperial’s Murray Shanahan Murray Shanahan lays out a systematic procedure to validate machine consciousness. You might think the question of whether AIs are conscious is a trivial, theoretical fancy with no use in the real world. This interview will show you why it’s one of the most important questions with practical implications for not just how we treat AI systems but also how we build and align them. But the most unexpected reward of investigating AI consciousness turns out to be what it reveals about our consciousness, about the nature of the human self. Murray’s most interesting claim is that LLMs have an important buddhist lesson to teach all of us, namely, that there is no “us.” By better understanding the "no-self" of LLMs we are given a mirror to reflect on whether human selves are also an illusion. Timestamps: 08:26 Why Buddhist Enlightenment May be Easier for Software Programs 16:30 Super-Intelligent AI Might Not Want To Take Over the World 30:25 Wittgenstein’s Radical Take on Consciousness 42:55 What Video Games Teach Us About Consciousness 49:59 How the Movie Ex Machina Created a Better Test for AI Consciousness 1:02:36 What the Debate about AI Consciousness Is Missing 1:09:31 Does Conscious AI Have A Moral Right to Live? 1:15:01 Is the Human Brain Computationally Superior to AI? 1:26:59 Why Philosophy Is the Essential Skill for the AI Age

AI Validates the Truth of Buddhism | Philosophy x AI In this interview, Imperial’s Murray Shanahan Murray Shanahan lays out a systematic procedure to validate machine consciousness. You might think the question of whether AIs are conscious is a trivial, theoretical fancy with no use in the real world. This interview will show you why it’s one of the most important questions with practical implications for not just how we treat AI systems but also how we build and align them. But the most unexpected reward of investigating AI consciousness turns out to be what it reveals about our consciousness, about the nature of the human self. Murray’s most interesting claim is that LLMs have an important buddhist lesson to teach all of us, namely, that there is no “us.” By better understanding the "no-self" of LLMs we are given a mirror to reflect on whether human selves are also an illusion. Timestamps: 08:26 Why Buddhist Enlightenment May be Easier for Software Programs 16:30 Super-Intelligent AI Might Not Want To Take Over the World 30:25 Wittgenstein’s Radical Take on Consciousness 42:55 What Video Games Teach Us About Consciousness 49:59 How the Movie Ex Machina Created a Better Test for AI Consciousness 1:02:36 What the Debate about AI Consciousness Is Missing 1:09:31 Does Conscious AI Have A Moral Right to Live? 1:15:01 Is the Human Brain Computationally Superior to AI? 1:26:59 Why Philosophy Is the Essential Skill for the AI Age

Johnathan Bi

30,521 views • 1 year ago

Ilya Sutskever, in his speech at UToronto 2 days ago: "The day will come when AI will do all the things we can do." "The reason is the brain is a biological computer, so why can't the digital computer do the same things?" It's funny that we are debating if AI can "truly think" or give "the illusion of thinking", as if our biological brain is superior or fundamentally different from a digital brain.

Ilya Sutskever, in his speech at UToronto 2 days ago: "The day will come when AI will do all the things we can do." "The reason is the brain is a biological computer, so why can't the digital computer do the same things?" It's funny that we are debating if AI can "truly think" or give "the illusion of thinking", as if our biological brain is superior or fundamentally different from a digital brain.

Yuchen Jin

3,097,411 views • 1 year ago

ELON MUSK EXPLAINS THE REAL PURPOSE OF SPACEX "SpaceX is about advancing rocket technology to the point where we can extend life and consciousness beyond Earth to the moon, to Mars, eventually to other star systems And I think we should always view consciousness, life as we know it, as precarious and delicate, because to the best of our knowledge, we don't know of life anywhere else We have 9,000 satellites up there and not once have we had to maneuver around an alien spaceship So the bottom line is, I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare and it might only be us. And if that's the case, then we need to do everything possible to ensure that the light of consciousness is not extinguished The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out And that's why it's important to make life multi-planetary, such that if there is a natural disaster or a man-made disaster on Earth, that consciousness continues That's the purpose of SpaceX"

ELON MUSK EXPLAINS THE REAL PURPOSE OF SPACEX "SpaceX is about advancing rocket technology to the point where we can extend life and consciousness beyond Earth to the moon, to Mars, eventually to other star systems And I think we should always view consciousness, life as we know it, as precarious and delicate, because to the best of our knowledge, we don't know of life anywhere else We have 9,000 satellites up there and not once have we had to maneuver around an alien spaceship So the bottom line is, I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare and it might only be us. And if that's the case, then we need to do everything possible to ensure that the light of consciousness is not extinguished The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out And that's why it's important to make life multi-planetary, such that if there is a natural disaster or a man-made disaster on Earth, that consciousness continues That's the purpose of SpaceX"

X Freeze

2,149,423 views • 8 months ago

Joseph LeDoux is arguably the most influential emotion scientist of all time. "The amygdala is not a fear centre. It's an ancient defensive survival circuit. We can't conflate physiology with consciousness. I was wrong about this my entire career..." "For the first time in studying split-brain patients, there was evidence that there were two conscious minds in one brain." "We are confabulating 24/7 in our lives. Our conscious mind has got to create a story that makes all that non-conscious control and behaviour make sense." Joe rarely does podcasts. Ready to discover everything you think you know about emotion is wrong? ⬇️ Joseph E. LeDoux "The Four Realms of Existence"

Joseph LeDoux is arguably the most influential emotion scientist of all time. "The amygdala is not a fear centre. It's an ancient defensive survival circuit. We can't conflate physiology with consciousness. I was wrong about this my entire career..." "For the first time in studying split-brain patients, there was evidence that there were two conscious minds in one brain." "We are confabulating 24/7 in our lives. Our conscious mind has got to create a story that makes all that non-conscious control and behaviour make sense." Joe rarely does podcasts. Ready to discover everything you think you know about emotion is wrong? ⬇️ Joseph E. LeDoux "The Four Realms of Existence"

Evan McGloughlin

10,147 views • 3 months ago

Where is the triangle? Alex O'Connor thinks consciousness is the one thing materialism can't explain away and he has a deceptively simple argument for it. Close your eyes. Picture a triangle. You can see it. The shape, the angles, maybe even the colour. It's right there, vivid and undeniable. Now ask yourself: where is that triangle? According to Alex, this single question cuts to the heart of one of philosophy's oldest problems. A strict materialist, someone who believes everything in the universe reduces to physical matter has to say that triangle exists somewhere in the neurons of your brain. But if a neurosurgeon cracked open your skull right now, they wouldn't find a triangle anywhere inside. "If everything you experience is reducible to the material when I close my eyes and see a triangle, there really is a triangle there. I can see it. It's there. And I think well, where is that triangle? The materialist has to say it's reducible to just somewhere in your brain. But if I cut open your brain I'm not going to find a triangle inside of it." He anticipates the obvious pushback. When he raised this on YouTube, commenters pointed to computers as a counter-example: if you cut open a computer, you won't find the triangle it's displaying on screen either. But the hardware is still producing a real image on a real screen. Alex's response is that this analogy doesn't hold because the mind has no screen. There is no separate interface between the brain's processing and the experience of seeing. The brain is the computer and the screen. Which only deepens the mystery: somehow, purely physical processes are generating a first-person, subjective experience: colours, shapes and images that can't be located anywhere in physical space. "It's as if the computer itself somehow had a triangle in the computer's own first-person subjective experience. Like where is that triangle that you can picture in your head? Where the hell is it?" For Alex, consciousness isn't just another interesting puzzle in the philosophy of mind. It's the big objection to materialism. The thing that, once you sit with it, seems to demand that there is something more going on than matter arranged in clever ways. He points to something as ordinary as dreaming as a case in point. Every night you produce vivid images full scenes, faces, colours without any external input. An entire visual world conjured from nowhere. Where does it come from? Where does it go? "Even just when you have an average dream, it's fascinating to think what's going on there. You've got images in your head, you can close your eyes and you can picture things, you can see colours, you can see shapes in your head. Like where are those shapes?" The triangle thought experiment has a way of making this undeniable. It's not abstract. You can do it right now. And when you do, you run headfirst into the hard problem of consciousness: the gap between the physical description of the brain and the felt quality of experience that no amount of neuroscience has yet bridged. Whether you find Alex's argument convincing or not, the question it raises is genuine: how does purely physical matter give rise to the inner world we each inhabit a world of colours, shapes, memories, and dreams that exists nowhere except in the first person?

Where is the triangle? Alex O'Connor thinks consciousness is the one thing materialism can't explain away and he has a deceptively simple argument for it. Close your eyes. Picture a triangle. You can see it. The shape, the angles, maybe even the colour. It's right there, vivid and undeniable. Now ask yourself: where is that triangle? According to Alex, this single question cuts to the heart of one of philosophy's oldest problems. A strict materialist, someone who believes everything in the universe reduces to physical matter has to say that triangle exists somewhere in the neurons of your brain. But if a neurosurgeon cracked open your skull right now, they wouldn't find a triangle anywhere inside. "If everything you experience is reducible to the material when I close my eyes and see a triangle, there really is a triangle there. I can see it. It's there. And I think well, where is that triangle? The materialist has to say it's reducible to just somewhere in your brain. But if I cut open your brain I'm not going to find a triangle inside of it." He anticipates the obvious pushback. When he raised this on YouTube, commenters pointed to computers as a counter-example: if you cut open a computer, you won't find the triangle it's displaying on screen either. But the hardware is still producing a real image on a real screen. Alex's response is that this analogy doesn't hold because the mind has no screen. There is no separate interface between the brain's processing and the experience of seeing. The brain is the computer and the screen. Which only deepens the mystery: somehow, purely physical processes are generating a first-person, subjective experience: colours, shapes and images that can't be located anywhere in physical space. "It's as if the computer itself somehow had a triangle in the computer's own first-person subjective experience. Like where is that triangle that you can picture in your head? Where the hell is it?" For Alex, consciousness isn't just another interesting puzzle in the philosophy of mind. It's the big objection to materialism. The thing that, once you sit with it, seems to demand that there is something more going on than matter arranged in clever ways. He points to something as ordinary as dreaming as a case in point. Every night you produce vivid images full scenes, faces, colours without any external input. An entire visual world conjured from nowhere. Where does it come from? Where does it go? "Even just when you have an average dream, it's fascinating to think what's going on there. You've got images in your head, you can close your eyes and you can picture things, you can see colours, you can see shapes in your head. Like where are those shapes?" The triangle thought experiment has a way of making this undeniable. It's not abstract. You can do it right now. And when you do, you run headfirst into the hard problem of consciousness: the gap between the physical description of the brain and the felt quality of experience that no amount of neuroscience has yet bridged. Whether you find Alex's argument convincing or not, the question it raises is genuine: how does purely physical matter give rise to the inner world we each inhabit a world of colours, shapes, memories, and dreams that exists nowhere except in the first person?

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

12,292 views • 6 months ago

The illusion of shared reality: Why no two minds see the same world | Anil Seth & Jonny Thomson Jonny Thomson Anil Seth 0:00 Non-human consciousness 1:40 The current state of consciousness science 2:10 What is consciousness? 4:05 The similarity of conscious experiences 5:48 Consciousness in the brain 11:23 Technology for measuring consciousness 16:03 Measuring consciousness levels 20:33 Pragmatic physicalism and functionalism 23:25 Pansychism 28:25 Emergence 32:35 AI and consciousness 36:49 The difference between non-human animals and AI 41:49 Is artificial consciousness possible? 48:12 Consciousness in the body and outside the brain Consciousness in the future and AI 50:27 Audience Q&A 50:41 Could computers could simulate the brain and body? 59:55 Why are you skeptical about asserting the dependency of life to the consciousness? 1:03:31 If consciousness is so clinical, does it undermine free will?

The illusion of shared reality: Why no two minds see the same world | Anil Seth & Jonny Thomson Jonny Thomson Anil Seth 0:00 Non-human consciousness 1:40 The current state of consciousness science 2:10 What is consciousness? 4:05 The similarity of conscious experiences 5:48 Consciousness in the brain 11:23 Technology for measuring consciousness 16:03 Measuring consciousness levels 20:33 Pragmatic physicalism and functionalism 23:25 Pansychism 28:25 Emergence 32:35 AI and consciousness 36:49 The difference between non-human animals and AI 41:49 Is artificial consciousness possible? 48:12 Consciousness in the body and outside the brain Consciousness in the future and AI 50:27 Audience Q&A 50:41 Could computers could simulate the brain and body? 59:55 Why are you skeptical about asserting the dependency of life to the consciousness? 1:03:31 If consciousness is so clinical, does it undermine free will?

Big Think

15,519 views • 11 months ago

'I'm working on a show with brain as the central core, and there are a number of songs that will be part of that project. This is one of those and it's a point in the narrative where we can both read thoughts and write thoughts. The person singing is not sure whether he has his own thoughts, he's inside his own mind or inside someone else's.’

'I'm working on a show with brain as the central core, and there are a number of songs that will be part of that project. This is one of those and it's a point in the narrative where we can both read thoughts and write thoughts. The person singing is not sure whether he has his own thoughts, he's inside his own mind or inside someone else's.’

Peter Gabriel

29,995 views • 8 months ago