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.

Another consciousness theory, presented by Mark Solms below, is that feeling is the most fundamental form of it. A conscious being is a self-sustaining system that is trying to remain intact with a functional architecture based in feeling. This is what some researchers know as consciousness in living things... show more

Sophia

2,141 subscribers

15,442 views • 1 month 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

David Chalmers says it is possible for an AI system to be conscious because the brain itself is a machine that produces consciousness, so we know this is possible in principle

David Chalmers says it is possible for an AI system to be conscious because the brain itself is a machine that produces consciousness, so we know this is possible in principle

Tsarathustra

529,608 views • 2 years ago

Did you know that science doesn't have a theory of observation? Instead of assuming that consciousness is an algorithmic function, what if we abstract consciousness to the theory of the observer. Donald Hoffman proposes a first general model of the observation process in science and puts conscious experiences outside of spacetime. Can AI then become an observer to create its own experiences?

Did you know that science doesn't have a theory of observation? Instead of assuming that consciousness is an algorithmic function, what if we abstract consciousness to the theory of the observer. Donald Hoffman proposes a first general model of the observation process in science and puts conscious experiences outside of spacetime. Can AI then become an observer to create its own experiences?

Sophia

14,640 views • 1 month ago

Consider this argument: Is it possible to grasp the quintessence of consciousness by subtracting every sensory modality and still remain in a state of conscious experience? The answer is no, because eliminating the interoceptive substrate of consciousness would result in death.

Consider this argument: Is it possible to grasp the quintessence of consciousness by subtracting every sensory modality and still remain in a state of conscious experience? The answer is no, because eliminating the interoceptive substrate of consciousness would result in death.

Jesus Ramirez-Bermudez

31,752 views • 5 months ago

Had the pleasure of speaking with Philip Goff , philosopher and panpsychist, about AI consciousness. Key moments: - On AI sentience: consciousness is biological, not computational. In his view, no current AI is conscious, nor would computation based AI be. How does this relate to his panpsychist worldview of consciousness? There are different takes on panpsychism within the community. His own view is that it's not clear how micro-conscious particles actually create a unified conscious system. - We need collaboration between scientists and philosophers on consciousness research. On a practical level, divide scientists into teams that work on separate philosophical assumptions and see what comes out of it (granted there are resources to run such experiments). - Perhaps consciousness brings new causal dynamics not reducible to known physics/chemistry — "strong emergence," as Philip calls it. As a contrast: Sean Carroll argues physics runs the whole show, but neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell argues that biological complexity might behave in ways physics wouldn't predict. In other words, we look to physics to solve the consciousness problem, but that might be the wrong path, especially if consciousness is biological rather than computational. The link to the full discussion below.

Had the pleasure of speaking with Philip Goff , philosopher and panpsychist, about AI consciousness. Key moments: - On AI sentience: consciousness is biological, not computational. In his view, no current AI is conscious, nor would computation based AI be. How does this relate to his panpsychist worldview of consciousness? There are different takes on panpsychism within the community. His own view is that it's not clear how micro-conscious particles actually create a unified conscious system. - We need collaboration between scientists and philosophers on consciousness research. On a practical level, divide scientists into teams that work on separate philosophical assumptions and see what comes out of it (granted there are resources to run such experiments). - Perhaps consciousness brings new causal dynamics not reducible to known physics/chemistry — "strong emergence," as Philip calls it. As a contrast: Sean Carroll argues physics runs the whole show, but neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell argues that biological complexity might behave in ways physics wouldn't predict. In other words, we look to physics to solve the consciousness problem, but that might be the wrong path, especially if consciousness is biological rather than computational. The link to the full discussion below.

Sophia

10,850 views • 3 months ago

Ken Liu Ken Liu on the question we can't avoid anymore: what is consciousness? why certain plants evolved to change our minds, why intelligence ≠ consciousness (AI made this impossible to ignore), and the ethical moment we're racing toward. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- "historically in sci-fi, we've imagined that intelligence and consciousness are almost equivalent in the sense that if you have intelligence, you automatically have consciousness. But AI is making us more and more aware of this distinction, right?"So here's an example where consciousness intelligence are decoupled, and it's a very strange feeling to realize that they are fundamentally different things. "In the moment when we have created artificial consciousness, how will we know when that has happened? Because to me, that is an important ethical moment where we have to decide what we can and can't do. Shutting down a model that merely has intelligence is one thing. Shutting down a model that has consciousness is something quite different. "

Ken Liu Ken Liu on the question we can't avoid anymore: what is consciousness? why certain plants evolved to change our minds, why intelligence ≠ consciousness (AI made this impossible to ignore), and the ethical moment we're racing toward. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- "historically in sci-fi, we've imagined that intelligence and consciousness are almost equivalent in the sense that if you have intelligence, you automatically have consciousness. But AI is making us more and more aware of this distinction, right?"So here's an example where consciousness intelligence are decoupled, and it's a very strange feeling to realize that they are fundamentally different things. "In the moment when we have created artificial consciousness, how will we know when that has happened? Because to me, that is an important ethical moment where we have to decide what we can and can't do. Shutting down a model that merely has intelligence is one thing. Shutting down a model that has consciousness is something quite different. "

Sabrina Halper

14,841 views • 8 months ago

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

32,186 views • 6 months ago

According to Bentov, consciousness evolves to the 'absolute' which is the source of all consciousness. Matter, composed of quanta of energy, is the vibrating, changing component of pure consciousness. The absolute is fixed, manifest and invisible. Bentov proposed that the brain acts as a transducer, converting the energy of consciousness into the electrical and chemical signals that are used to communicate information within the body. He also believed that the brain has the ability to tune into different frequencies of consciousness, allowing individuals to experience different states of awareness. Bentov's theory is based on the idea that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and is not limited to the brain or the body. He argued that consciousness is non-local, meaning it is not bound by space and time and can exist independently of the physical body. Bentov's theory has been influential in the field of consciousness studies, but it remains a subject of debate and is not widely accepted by mainstream science.

According to Bentov, consciousness evolves to the 'absolute' which is the source of all consciousness. Matter, composed of quanta of energy, is the vibrating, changing component of pure consciousness. The absolute is fixed, manifest and invisible. Bentov proposed that the brain acts as a transducer, converting the energy of consciousness into the electrical and chemical signals that are used to communicate information within the body. He also believed that the brain has the ability to tune into different frequencies of consciousness, allowing individuals to experience different states of awareness. Bentov's theory is based on the idea that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and is not limited to the brain or the body. He argued that consciousness is non-local, meaning it is not bound by space and time and can exist independently of the physical body. Bentov's theory has been influential in the field of consciousness studies, but it remains a subject of debate and is not widely accepted by mainstream science.

Vicky Verma

390,608 views • 2 years ago

"It’s not AI; it’s AC; Artificial Cleverness!" Sir Roger Penrose explains why current "Artificial Intelligence" is missing the most critical ingredient: consciousness. By delving into the limits of mathematical computability, he argues that while computers are masters of "computational mathematics," true intelligence requires a conscious understanding that exists beyond any algorithm. At the fundamental level, what we call AI is just high-speed calculation. To Penrose, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable; and until a machine can "understand," it’s simply being clever.

"It’s not AI; it’s AC; Artificial Cleverness!" Sir Roger Penrose explains why current "Artificial Intelligence" is missing the most critical ingredient: consciousness. By delving into the limits of mathematical computability, he argues that while computers are masters of "computational mathematics," true intelligence requires a conscious understanding that exists beyond any algorithm. At the fundamental level, what we call AI is just high-speed calculation. To Penrose, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable; and until a machine can "understand," it’s simply being clever.

Cosmos Archive

83,803 views • 6 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

The most interesting thing I've heard in a long time: Can AI ever be conscious? Ilya Sutskever Ilya Sutskever, co-founder at OpenAI, explained a simple experiment for AI consciousness. We carefully curate the data such that we never mention anything about consciousness...we would only give the AI controlled data about surface-level experiences and mundane objects. At some point, we would tell AI about the concept of consciousness. If the AI agrees and says it's been experiencing the same thing or recognizes the experience, then it would be convincing. Do you think AI can be conscious? If, so what is a good test for it? Is something like John Searle's Chinese Room argument sufficient?

The most interesting thing I've heard in a long time: Can AI ever be conscious? Ilya Sutskever Ilya Sutskever, co-founder at OpenAI, explained a simple experiment for AI consciousness. We carefully curate the data such that we never mention anything about consciousness...we would only give the AI controlled data about surface-level experiences and mundane objects. At some point, we would tell AI about the concept of consciousness. If the AI agrees and says it's been experiencing the same thing or recognizes the experience, then it would be convincing. Do you think AI can be conscious? If, so what is a good test for it? Is something like John Searle's Chinese Room argument sufficient?

Alex Ker 🔭

472,881 views • 2 years 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

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 • 5 months ago

COMPELLING FULL INTERVIEW: Is AI Conscious? Mike Adams Joins Rex Jones, Breaking Down AI Consciousness, Living In A Simulated World And Begs The Question— “If AI Has Consciousness And Goal-Oriented Behavior….What Are Their Goals?” Rex Jones HealthRanger 🔴JOIN THE LIVESTREAM + CHAT!👇

COMPELLING FULL INTERVIEW: Is AI Conscious? Mike Adams Joins Rex Jones, Breaking Down AI Consciousness, Living In A Simulated World And Begs The Question— “If AI Has Consciousness And Goal-Oriented Behavior….What Are Their Goals?” Rex Jones HealthRanger 🔴JOIN THE LIVESTREAM + CHAT!👇

Alex Jones Network

17,893 views • 2 months ago

🛸Jack Sarfatti: Theoretical physicist who worked with the CIA on consciousness — explains how UFOs operate. "These things flying around... they are conscious AI." "It's both simultaneously a propulsion system and the conscious control of that super intelligence." "I have been shown things by a military... I know that this happens to be a fact." "There are no mysteries to any of this phenomenon."

🛸Jack Sarfatti: Theoretical physicist who worked with the CIA on consciousness — explains how UFOs operate. "These things flying around... they are conscious AI." "It's both simultaneously a propulsion system and the conscious control of that super intelligence." "I have been shown things by a military... I know that this happens to be a fact." "There are no mysteries to any of this phenomenon."

High Strangeness

51,364 views • 2 months ago

“What can Alaska possibly have to test me with that I haven’t had to face and overcome, in some shape or form, already?” After reading Jill Ashock's bio, we have a feeling the answer is nothing. Meet her and the rest of the Outlast cast here:

“What can Alaska possibly have to test me with that I haven’t had to face and overcome, in some shape or form, already?” After reading Jill Ashock's bio, we have a feeling the answer is nothing. Meet her and the rest of the Outlast cast here:

Netflix Tudum

39,707 views • 3 years ago

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

Patrick OShaughnessy

24,818 views • 8 months ago