Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

🚨BREAKING: A cognitive scientist from MIT has mathematically proven that evolution guarantees we see zero percent of true reality, that most consciousness in the universe exists without a body, and that non-human intelligences with a wider window on reality than ours can reach in and manipulate it the way...

AlchemyAmerican's profile picture

Jesse Michels

129,262 subscribers

1,655,529 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Donald Hoffman: "Embodied consciousness like ours has a probability of zero." This is a new finding from the MIT trained cognitive scientist. The normal state of consciousness is not embodied. In the mathematics it registers as measure zero with a probability of zero. Hoffman told Jesse Michels the human condition as the worst possible interface. We are like a marathon runner with weights as well as terrible shoes and a backpack. We cannot move a cup with intention alone. We move our fingers toes and arms and from that narrow channel we have to scheme our way to doing anything physical. It feels low bandwidth and high latency. It is sort of like you can play the game of consciousness and move things around but you remain so restricted. This view dovetails with a lot of religious stories around the fall of man. The ideas open up profound questions about the true nature of reality and our place in it.
2:37

Donald Hoffman: "Embodied consciousness like ours has a probability of zero." This is a new finding from the MIT trained cognitive scientist. The normal state of consciousness is not embodied. In the mathematics it registers as measure zero with a probability of zero. Hoffman told Jesse Michels the human condition as the worst possible interface. We are like a marathon runner with weights as well as terrible shoes and a backpack. We cannot move a cup with intention alone. We move our fingers toes and arms and from that narrow channel we have to scheme our way to doing anything physical. It feels low bandwidth and high latency. It is sort of like you can play the game of consciousness and move things around but you remain so restricted. This view dovetails with a lot of religious stories around the fall of man. The ideas open up profound questions about the true nature of reality and our place in it.

Interstellar

22,769 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

MIT trained cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman says "embodied consciousness like ours has a probability of zero". This is a new finding discovered just weeks ago. The normal state of consciousness is not embodied. Hoffman frames the human condition as the worst possible interface. "We're like a marathon runner with weights, terrible shoes, and a backpack." We can't move a cup with intention alone. We move fingers and toes and arms, and from that narrow channel we have to scheme our way to doing anything physical. "The normal case for consciousness in this framework is not to be embodied." "In this mathematics, it's measure zero, probability zero." "It dovetails with a lot of religious stories around the quote-unquote fall of man." "To get to the moon, all I can do is move my fingers, my toes, my arms." "It's low bandwidth and high latency." "It's sort of like you can play the game of consciousness and move things around, but you're so restricted." Episode dropping today.
3:56

MIT trained cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman says "embodied consciousness like ours has a probability of zero". This is a new finding discovered just weeks ago. The normal state of consciousness is not embodied. Hoffman frames the human condition as the worst possible interface. "We're like a marathon runner with weights, terrible shoes, and a backpack." We can't move a cup with intention alone. We move fingers and toes and arms, and from that narrow channel we have to scheme our way to doing anything physical. "The normal case for consciousness in this framework is not to be embodied." "In this mathematics, it's measure zero, probability zero." "It dovetails with a lot of religious stories around the quote-unquote fall of man." "To get to the moon, all I can do is move my fingers, my toes, my arms." "It's low bandwidth and high latency." "It's sort of like you can play the game of consciousness and move things around, but you're so restricted." Episode dropping today.

American Alchemy

489,077 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

MIT scientist says aliens are likely all around us! We just can't see them... Donald Hoffman says the mathematics indicates embodied consciousness like ours is a rare exception in the universe. The universe should be teeming with intelligence more advanced than humans, operating without traditional bodies. Hoffman calls our human form one of the cheapest, most restrictive "virtual reality headsets" in existence. The default state of consciousness, according to the math, has no body at all. "Embodiment is very, very small." "The universe would be teeming with life that is more advanced than humans and also doesn't have traditional bodies." "Our particular kind of view of the world, the kind of, I'll call it a headset, the virtual reality headset that we're using for our embodiment, is one of the more trivial kinds of headsets." "Our headset is one of the cheapest, most restrictive possible." "There are all sorts of variations that are far more interesting and complicated than what we've got." "Embodiment is the exception, not the rule." Full episode with Donald Hoffman out now.
2:18

MIT scientist says aliens are likely all around us! We just can't see them... Donald Hoffman says the mathematics indicates embodied consciousness like ours is a rare exception in the universe. The universe should be teeming with intelligence more advanced than humans, operating without traditional bodies. Hoffman calls our human form one of the cheapest, most restrictive "virtual reality headsets" in existence. The default state of consciousness, according to the math, has no body at all. "Embodiment is very, very small." "The universe would be teeming with life that is more advanced than humans and also doesn't have traditional bodies." "Our particular kind of view of the world, the kind of, I'll call it a headset, the virtual reality headset that we're using for our embodiment, is one of the more trivial kinds of headsets." "Our headset is one of the cheapest, most restrictive possible." "There are all sorts of variations that are far more interesting and complicated than what we've got." "Embodiment is the exception, not the rule." Full episode with Donald Hoffman out now.

American Alchemy

301,264 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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.
2:39

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

390,472 просмотров • 1 год назад

Donald Hoffman: : Reality Is An Interface, Illusion - Math Undeniable - Consciousness Creates Spacetime - Evolution Hid the Truth | Donald Hoffman | Mscs Media *327 Full Ep: Donald Hoffman, scientist, and professor, asks, do we see the world as it truly is? ⁠In ⁠The Case Against Reality⁠, pioneering cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman says no. We see what we need in order to survive. Our visual perceptions are not a window onto reality, Hoffman shows us, but instead are interfaces constructed by natural selection. Imagine we were all born with lenses, that put us in a video game, how would we know? The objects we see around us are not unlike the file icons on our computer desktops: while shaped like a small folder on our screens, the files themselves are made of a series of ones and zeros - too complex for most of us to understand. In a similar way, Hoffman argues, evolution has shaped our perceptions into simplistic illusions to help us navigate the world around us. Yet now these illusions can be manipulated by advertising and design. Follow Professor Hoffman: ⁠ ⁠ physics Drawing on thirty years of Hoffman's own influential research, as well as evolutionary biology, game theory, neuroscience, and philosophy, The Case Against Reality makes the mind-bending yet utterly convincing case that the world is nothing like what we see through our eyes. Donald Hoffman's books, and papers, are easy to read and understand. Books: ⁠The Case Against Reality⁠ ⁠Visual Intelligence⁠ ⁠Observer Mechanics⁠ ⁠Fusions of consciousness⁠, ⁠Fact, Fiction, and Fitness⁠, and ⁠Objects of consciousness⁠. Donald Hoffman Spotify Spotify Podcasts 🎙 #donalddhoffman #Spotify #Space #spacetime #podcast #Science #Physics #neuroscience #illusion #REALITY #Simulation #interface #CONSCIOUSNESS
11:01

Donald Hoffman: : Reality Is An Interface, Illusion - Math Undeniable - Consciousness Creates Spacetime - Evolution Hid the Truth | Donald Hoffman | Mscs Media *327 Full Ep: Donald Hoffman, scientist, and professor, asks, do we see the world as it truly is? ⁠In ⁠The Case Against Reality⁠, pioneering cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman says no. We see what we need in order to survive. Our visual perceptions are not a window onto reality, Hoffman shows us, but instead are interfaces constructed by natural selection. Imagine we were all born with lenses, that put us in a video game, how would we know? The objects we see around us are not unlike the file icons on our computer desktops: while shaped like a small folder on our screens, the files themselves are made of a series of ones and zeros - too complex for most of us to understand. In a similar way, Hoffman argues, evolution has shaped our perceptions into simplistic illusions to help us navigate the world around us. Yet now these illusions can be manipulated by advertising and design. Follow Professor Hoffman: ⁠ ⁠ physics Drawing on thirty years of Hoffman's own influential research, as well as evolutionary biology, game theory, neuroscience, and philosophy, The Case Against Reality makes the mind-bending yet utterly convincing case that the world is nothing like what we see through our eyes. Donald Hoffman's books, and papers, are easy to read and understand. Books: ⁠The Case Against Reality⁠ ⁠Visual Intelligence⁠ ⁠Observer Mechanics⁠ ⁠Fusions of consciousness⁠, ⁠Fact, Fiction, and Fitness⁠, and ⁠Objects of consciousness⁠. Donald Hoffman Spotify Spotify Podcasts 🎙 #donalddhoffman #Spotify #Space #spacetime #podcast #Science #Physics #neuroscience #illusion #REALITY #Simulation #interface #CONSCIOUSNESS

Mscs Media

3,482,416 просмотров • 3 лет назад

This MIT scientist just dropped a bombshell realization about extraterrestrial life. Donald Hoffman’s work suggests the universe is filled with “life more advanced than humans.” We just can’t see them. Why? They don’t have physical bodies. He suspects the physical world is not objective. It’s only a consequence of consciousness. And consciousness is fundamental, not the physical world. Hoffman: “The mathematics seems to indicate that embodiment is the exception, not the rule.” “And that our particular view of the world, I’ll call it the virtual reality headset that we’re using, for our embodiment, is one of the more trivial kinds of headsets.” “We often have the opinion of ourselves that we’re pretty much near the top of the food chain, here on Earth anyways.” “But when I look at the mathematics of this trace logic, it indicates that our headset is one of the cheapest, most restrictive possible.” “And that there are all sorts of variations that are far more interesting and complicated than what we’ve got.” Jesse Michels American Alchemy Donald Hoffman
1:37

This MIT scientist just dropped a bombshell realization about extraterrestrial life. Donald Hoffman’s work suggests the universe is filled with “life more advanced than humans.” We just can’t see them. Why? They don’t have physical bodies. He suspects the physical world is not objective. It’s only a consequence of consciousness. And consciousness is fundamental, not the physical world. Hoffman: “The mathematics seems to indicate that embodiment is the exception, not the rule.” “And that our particular view of the world, I’ll call it the virtual reality headset that we’re using, for our embodiment, is one of the more trivial kinds of headsets.” “We often have the opinion of ourselves that we’re pretty much near the top of the food chain, here on Earth anyways.” “But when I look at the mathematics of this trace logic, it indicates that our headset is one of the cheapest, most restrictive possible.” “And that there are all sorts of variations that are far more interesting and complicated than what we’ve got.” Jesse Michels American Alchemy Donald Hoffman

Holden Culotta

83,226 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨 A REAL PHYSICIST SAYS WE LIVE IN A SIMULATION (and he worked for NASA) 😱 💥He’s not an influencer. He’s not a conspiracy theorist. It’s Thomas Campbell, a physicist, former missile defense researcher, and author of *My Big TOE* (Theory of Everything). In an interview with Joe Rogan, he calmly explains: > “This physical reality is calculated. It is generated by consciousness.” According to him: - We are not humans. We are consciousnesses playing in a virtual universe (exactly like in *The Matrix*). - What we call “reality” is just a stream of data sent to our consciousness. - The purpose of this system? To reduce entropy (to increase order and the evolution of consciousness). He even goes further by citing the anthropic principle: the universe seems perfectly fine-tuned to allow the emergence of consciousness. As if it had been designed for that. And the most disturbing part: He says that logic alone is not enough to understand this. We also need to use the intuitive part of our consciousness. What do you think? Are we really in a simulation… or is it just an elegant metaphor?
2:49

🚨 A REAL PHYSICIST SAYS WE LIVE IN A SIMULATION (and he worked for NASA) 😱 💥He’s not an influencer. He’s not a conspiracy theorist. It’s Thomas Campbell, a physicist, former missile defense researcher, and author of *My Big TOE* (Theory of Everything). In an interview with Joe Rogan, he calmly explains: > “This physical reality is calculated. It is generated by consciousness.” According to him: - We are not humans. We are consciousnesses playing in a virtual universe (exactly like in *The Matrix*). - What we call “reality” is just a stream of data sent to our consciousness. - The purpose of this system? To reduce entropy (to increase order and the evolution of consciousness). He even goes further by citing the anthropic principle: the universe seems perfectly fine-tuned to allow the emergence of consciousness. As if it had been designed for that. And the most disturbing part: He says that logic alone is not enough to understand this. We also need to use the intuitive part of our consciousness. What do you think? Are we really in a simulation… or is it just an elegant metaphor?

Paul White Gold Eagle

17,811 просмотров • 12 дней назад

––Charlie Barnett: "Consciousness and the computability of it. It sounds like, or at least in the past, that you've implied that consciousness is computable. Some, like Roger Penrose, have argued the opposite, and he's argued that consciousness is non-computational, and he uses Gödel's incompleteness theorems to argue that the mind can see truths that a purely algorithmic system can't derive, and therefore the brain must be using some kind of non-computable process when it comes to consciousness, something beyond what machines can do. What would you say to a view like that? David Deutsch: Yet again, it is using an impossible conception of what knowledge is. So Penrose thinks that when we see a proof of a mathematical theorem, we are touching certainty, we are god-like entities when we're mathematicians. But that's not true. Our mathematical knowledge is conjectural, just like our knowledge of physics. It's even more removed from our senses, because it's not true that the interior of our brains and the interior of our thoughts is more accessible to us than the world we perceive through our senses, or the world that we perceive through our theories, the center of the sun. We know lots about the center of the sun, even though no one has ever perceived it, and perhaps no one ever will. So mathematical truths are based on conjecture. What Gödel showed is that there is no firm ground underneath mathematical theories either. There's no way of proving that the standards of proof that we currently use are perfectly rigorous. And there have been cases in history where they have shown not to be rigorous. I think Pernot, who was the first to axiomatize the principles of the natural numbers, his first attempt at that was wrong. And it's interesting that he did not say, well, I've axiomatized them, therefore there's nothing to them other than my axioms. No, he said, oh dear, my axioms don't correctly represent the real number, the natural numbers, so I have to change them. So he was grasping, conjecturing for a reality, an abstract reality, just like scientists try to grasp physical reality. So the same epistemology applies to mathematics as it does to science."
2:31

––Charlie Barnett: "Consciousness and the computability of it. It sounds like, or at least in the past, that you've implied that consciousness is computable. Some, like Roger Penrose, have argued the opposite, and he's argued that consciousness is non-computational, and he uses Gödel's incompleteness theorems to argue that the mind can see truths that a purely algorithmic system can't derive, and therefore the brain must be using some kind of non-computable process when it comes to consciousness, something beyond what machines can do. What would you say to a view like that? David Deutsch: Yet again, it is using an impossible conception of what knowledge is. So Penrose thinks that when we see a proof of a mathematical theorem, we are touching certainty, we are god-like entities when we're mathematicians. But that's not true. Our mathematical knowledge is conjectural, just like our knowledge of physics. It's even more removed from our senses, because it's not true that the interior of our brains and the interior of our thoughts is more accessible to us than the world we perceive through our senses, or the world that we perceive through our theories, the center of the sun. We know lots about the center of the sun, even though no one has ever perceived it, and perhaps no one ever will. So mathematical truths are based on conjecture. What Gödel showed is that there is no firm ground underneath mathematical theories either. There's no way of proving that the standards of proof that we currently use are perfectly rigorous. And there have been cases in history where they have shown not to be rigorous. I think Pernot, who was the first to axiomatize the principles of the natural numbers, his first attempt at that was wrong. And it's interesting that he did not say, well, I've axiomatized them, therefore there's nothing to them other than my axioms. No, he said, oh dear, my axioms don't correctly represent the real number, the natural numbers, so I have to change them. So he was grasping, conjecturing for a reality, an abstract reality, just like scientists try to grasp physical reality. So the same epistemology applies to mathematics as it does to science."

Deutsch Explains

13,825 просмотров • 1 год назад

Elon Musk said the most important thing anyone has said this century. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. Not one signal from any of them. That silence is the loudest data point in human history. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That is not poetry. That is a threat assessment from the only person on Earth building the response. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. The universe has been running for 13.8 billion years with no awareness of itself. We are the only known point in all of that time and all of that space where matter woke up and understood what it was looking at. Every law of nature ran in complete silence for billions of years. Gravity pulled. Light traveled. Elements fused. None of it meant anything. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk is not building rockets because he likes engineering. He is building an escape route for the only thing in the universe that knows the universe exists. If consciousness disappears, the stars keep burning. The physics keeps running. But the universe is no longer a universe. It is just matter moving through space with nothing to call it that. The most profound thing Musk said is not that the candle is small. It is that without the candle, there is no such thing as light or darkness. Just physics performing to an empty room for the rest of eternity. One man looked at that and said no.
0:33

Elon Musk said the most important thing anyone has said this century. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. Not one signal from any of them. That silence is the loudest data point in human history. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That is not poetry. That is a threat assessment from the only person on Earth building the response. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. The universe has been running for 13.8 billion years with no awareness of itself. We are the only known point in all of that time and all of that space where matter woke up and understood what it was looking at. Every law of nature ran in complete silence for billions of years. Gravity pulled. Light traveled. Elements fused. None of it meant anything. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk is not building rockets because he likes engineering. He is building an escape route for the only thing in the universe that knows the universe exists. If consciousness disappears, the stars keep burning. The physics keeps running. But the universe is no longer a universe. It is just matter moving through space with nothing to call it that. The most profound thing Musk said is not that the candle is small. It is that without the candle, there is no such thing as light or darkness. Just physics performing to an empty room for the rest of eternity. One man looked at that and said no.

Dustin

60,013 просмотров • 5 дней назад

You have a quantum computer inside your skull. The most efficient biochemical electromagnetic computer ever designed, with a wider array of processing capability and adaptability than any digital supercomputer ever made Not only this, you have a consciousness with the spark of life which is not just an observer experience, but is increasingly demonstrated to exert a foundational force in the construction and projection of physical reality through interactions with probabilities in the energy fields of this universe. The latent untapped potential inside the human consciousness and mind is far more powerful than we can possibly imagine, and we are still barely leaving the stone age
0:28

You have a quantum computer inside your skull. The most efficient biochemical electromagnetic computer ever designed, with a wider array of processing capability and adaptability than any digital supercomputer ever made Not only this, you have a consciousness with the spark of life which is not just an observer experience, but is increasingly demonstrated to exert a foundational force in the construction and projection of physical reality through interactions with probabilities in the energy fields of this universe. The latent untapped potential inside the human consciousness and mind is far more powerful than we can possibly imagine, and we are still barely leaving the stone age

⟠Palis⟠🐍

158,712 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?
2:45

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?

Ricardo

1,283,550 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Why quantum theory could have a fractal structure: explained in 83 minutes. The notion of true quantum nonlocality is absurd. In the latest episode of the Quantum Foundations Podcast, Prof Tim Palmer from the University of Oxford suggests that there is a hidden assumption in standard quantum mechanics, and dropping it will save us from this absurdity. Namely, the reality of counterfactuals: the physics of what could have happened but did not. Inspired by chaos theory and the fractal structure widespread in atmospheric physics, Palmer has developed a new underlying structure for quantum theory, with radical implications for our fundamental principles of quantum physics; the limits of quantum computation; and perhaps even the search for quantum gravity. Watch on my YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!
1:34

Why quantum theory could have a fractal structure: explained in 83 minutes. The notion of true quantum nonlocality is absurd. In the latest episode of the Quantum Foundations Podcast, Prof Tim Palmer from the University of Oxford suggests that there is a hidden assumption in standard quantum mechanics, and dropping it will save us from this absurdity. Namely, the reality of counterfactuals: the physics of what could have happened but did not. Inspired by chaos theory and the fractal structure widespread in atmospheric physics, Palmer has developed a new underlying structure for quantum theory, with radical implications for our fundamental principles of quantum physics; the limits of quantum computation; and perhaps even the search for quantum gravity. Watch on my YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!

Dr Maria Violaris

18,259 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Donald Hoffman: "Spacetime is not fundamental. This is not the final reality. We are just observing this reality through a VR headset" At the Planck scale, spacetime falls apart. No operational meaning to distances or time below about 10^-33 cm and 10^-43 seconds. Physicists like Nima Arkani-Hamed and David Gross agree: Spacetime is doomed. Our perceptions evolved for fitness payoffs, not truth. Objects, space, and time are a user interface hiding something far deeper: consciousness as fundamental. "Death is just stepping out of this headset." Whatever is beyond is utterly unlike spacetime. UFOs & The Paranormal are perhaps glitches in the matrix from outside the game.
7:07

Donald Hoffman: "Spacetime is not fundamental. This is not the final reality. We are just observing this reality through a VR headset" At the Planck scale, spacetime falls apart. No operational meaning to distances or time below about 10^-33 cm and 10^-43 seconds. Physicists like Nima Arkani-Hamed and David Gross agree: Spacetime is doomed. Our perceptions evolved for fitness payoffs, not truth. Objects, space, and time are a user interface hiding something far deeper: consciousness as fundamental. "Death is just stepping out of this headset." Whatever is beyond is utterly unlike spacetime. UFOs & The Paranormal are perhaps glitches in the matrix from outside the game.

Interstellar

29,869 просмотров • 26 дней назад

The CIA has a declassified document proving reality is a hologram and your consciousness can leave your body. In 1983, Lt. Col. Wayne McDonnell evaluated the Gateway Experience: a program using sound to push consciousness beyond spacetime. His 29-page classified report, released 20 years later, confirmed: the universe is a hologram, your brain is a radio tuning into consciousness, and you can exit the projection with training. At the quantum level, you're not solid. You flicker in and out of existence trillions of times per second as a standing wave pattern. The Gateway Process uses binaural beats to synchronize your brain hemispheres, turning consciousness from noise into a focused laser. The report maps Focus levels: body asleep/ mind awake (Focus 10), expanded awareness (Focus 12), no time (Focus 15), and the edge (Focus 21). At the deepest state you reach the Absolute: the zero-point field where all reality originates, what mystics call God and physicists call the quantum vacuum. Mystics discovered this through meditation. The Monroe Institute industrialized it. The military weaponized it. So why is society built to keep you in ordinary consciousness? Because a population that knows it's eternal is ungovernable.
3:01

The CIA has a declassified document proving reality is a hologram and your consciousness can leave your body. In 1983, Lt. Col. Wayne McDonnell evaluated the Gateway Experience: a program using sound to push consciousness beyond spacetime. His 29-page classified report, released 20 years later, confirmed: the universe is a hologram, your brain is a radio tuning into consciousness, and you can exit the projection with training. At the quantum level, you're not solid. You flicker in and out of existence trillions of times per second as a standing wave pattern. The Gateway Process uses binaural beats to synchronize your brain hemispheres, turning consciousness from noise into a focused laser. The report maps Focus levels: body asleep/ mind awake (Focus 10), expanded awareness (Focus 12), no time (Focus 15), and the edge (Focus 21). At the deepest state you reach the Absolute: the zero-point field where all reality originates, what mystics call God and physicists call the quantum vacuum. Mystics discovered this through meditation. The Monroe Institute industrialized it. The military weaponized it. So why is society built to keep you in ordinary consciousness? Because a population that knows it's eternal is ungovernable.

Kyle L

149,560 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

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.
2:45

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 🇪🇺

31,628 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

President William Ruto: I have just come from a meeting with the Ambassador of the US and she came to tell me that the President of the US has invited the President of Kenya for a state visit, one of a kind. In 20 years, no African president has had a state visit in the US. Kenya is going to be greater than what you see and it is because we believe in the living God
0:51

President William Ruto: I have just come from a meeting with the Ambassador of the US and she came to tell me that the President of the US has invited the President of Kenya for a state visit, one of a kind. In 20 years, no African president has had a state visit in the US. Kenya is going to be greater than what you see and it is because we believe in the living God

Citizen TV Kenya

581,768 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Physicist Federico Faggin reveals his groundbreaking theory of consciousness: "We are going to be taken over by artificial intelligence" "Every single one of us is a field that is both the observer, the observed, and the actor. This field does not exist in space and time. Space time exists within these fields that we are." The inventor of the microprocessor explains that we are part wholes connected to the totality of existence. This is why epigenetics works - Each part accesses the knowledge of the whole. The same pattern repeats across scales. This changes everything about how we understand reality, free will, and our place in the universe.
1:46

Physicist Federico Faggin reveals his groundbreaking theory of consciousness: "We are going to be taken over by artificial intelligence" "Every single one of us is a field that is both the observer, the observed, and the actor. This field does not exist in space and time. Space time exists within these fields that we are." The inventor of the microprocessor explains that we are part wholes connected to the totality of existence. This is why epigenetics works - Each part accesses the knowledge of the whole. The same pattern repeats across scales. This changes everything about how we understand reality, free will, and our place in the universe.

Interstellar

39,753 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

"Everything you're seeing right now is an illusion, it's like living your life inside a virtual reality headset." These were the words from Donald Hoffman, a world-renowned cognitive psychologist who has dedicated his life to answering one of humanity's biggest questions: What is reality, and is the world as we see it even real?
1:29

"Everything you're seeing right now is an illusion, it's like living your life inside a virtual reality headset." These were the words from Donald Hoffman, a world-renowned cognitive psychologist who has dedicated his life to answering one of humanity's biggest questions: What is reality, and is the world as we see it even real?

Steven Bartlett

14,482 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

“Iran is not going to declare an end to the war while Israel is still attacking Lebanon. It has to be part of the deal. And of course, Bibi won’t play ball because he doesn’t want the war to end. And Trump is just waking up to that fact three months into the war, and he’s not happy about it.” “A lot of what he’s saying is that Bibi should do everything that he says. And now he’s learning that that’s not the way the world works. So constantly over the past three months, Trump is confronted by reality, which totally contradicts the made up story he has about the Iran war in his head. And guess what? In the end, reality is winning out.” “And that’s why we’re in the quagmire we’re in. Because Trump won’t accept the reality. He only wants the world to bend to what’s in his head. In this case, he’s not getting what he wants, so he’s throwing a tantrum.”
0:41

“Iran is not going to declare an end to the war while Israel is still attacking Lebanon. It has to be part of the deal. And of course, Bibi won’t play ball because he doesn’t want the war to end. And Trump is just waking up to that fact three months into the war, and he’s not happy about it.” “A lot of what he’s saying is that Bibi should do everything that he says. And now he’s learning that that’s not the way the world works. So constantly over the past three months, Trump is confronted by reality, which totally contradicts the made up story he has about the Iran war in his head. And guess what? In the end, reality is winning out.” “And that’s why we’re in the quagmire we’re in. Because Trump won’t accept the reality. He only wants the world to bend to what’s in his head. In this case, he’s not getting what he wants, so he’s throwing a tantrum.”

Josh Rogin

13,207 просмотров • 1 месяц назад