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.

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then.... His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.show more

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,349 subscribers

14,034 views • 5 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

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 🇪🇺

31,662 views • 6 months ago

David Chalmers in 1998: Consciousness is the one thing we know most directly. Yet science has explained stars and subatomic particles more successfully than experience itself. “How does the water of the brain turn into the wine of consciousness?” Three decades later, we still don’t know.

David Chalmers in 1998: Consciousness is the one thing we know most directly. Yet science has explained stars and subatomic particles more successfully than experience itself. “How does the water of the brain turn into the wine of consciousness?” Three decades later, we still don’t know.

vitrupo

43,529 views • 7 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

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 • 5 months ago

#WATCH | US: At the ISKCON temple in New York, RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat says, "...In today's world, there are so many conflicts, so many dualities. The only thing that unites is consciousness. That consciousness is Krishna Consciousness - we are one and we have been having it through these dualities of this world with the strong understanding that though there are so many diversities, dualities, conflicts, really it is all Krishna...Everything is Krishna, - if that world reaches every heart, the world will definitely be a better world; it will not be the material world we see today, it will be a heavenly abode for every human being."

#WATCH | US: At the ISKCON temple in New York, RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat says, "...In today's world, there are so many conflicts, so many dualities. The only thing that unites is consciousness. That consciousness is Krishna Consciousness - we are one and we have been having it through these dualities of this world with the strong understanding that though there are so many diversities, dualities, conflicts, really it is all Krishna...Everything is Krishna, - if that world reaches every heart, the world will definitely be a better world; it will not be the material world we see today, it will be a heavenly abode for every human being."

ANI

86,830 views • 22 days 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

2,148,827 views • 8 months ago

ELON MUSK — 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 — 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"

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

16,161 views • 8 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

Elon Musk: I'll be long dead before we're really a multiplanet species. But at least I'd like to see us make great progress in this direction. “Why do these things? I think this is important for maximizing the probable lifespan of humanity or consciousness. Human civilization could come to an end for external reasons, like a giant meteor, or supervolcanoes, or extreme climate change. Or World War III, or, you know, any one of a number of reasons. But the probable lifespan of civilization and consciousness, as we know it, which we should really view as this very delicate thing, like a small candle in a vast darkness, that is what appears to be the case. We're in this vast darkness of space, and there's this little candle of consciousness that's only really come about after 4.5 billion years. And it could just go out. I think that's powerful, and I think a lot of people will be inspired by that vision. And so the reason you need the million people is because there has to be enough people there to do everything that you need to survive. The critical threshold is, if the ships from Earth stop coming for any reason, does the Mars city die out or not? We have to pass that. People talk about the great filters, the things that perhaps, you know, we talk about the Fermi paradox and where are the aliens, and, well, maybe there is various great filters that the aliens didn't pass, and so they eventually just cease to exist. And one of the great filters is becoming a multiplanet species. So we want to pass that filter. And I'll be long dead before this is a real thing, before it happens. But I'd like to at least see us make great progress in this direction.” Source: TED, April 6, 2022.

Elon Musk: I'll be long dead before we're really a multiplanet species. But at least I'd like to see us make great progress in this direction. “Why do these things? I think this is important for maximizing the probable lifespan of humanity or consciousness. Human civilization could come to an end for external reasons, like a giant meteor, or supervolcanoes, or extreme climate change. Or World War III, or, you know, any one of a number of reasons. But the probable lifespan of civilization and consciousness, as we know it, which we should really view as this very delicate thing, like a small candle in a vast darkness, that is what appears to be the case. We're in this vast darkness of space, and there's this little candle of consciousness that's only really come about after 4.5 billion years. And it could just go out. I think that's powerful, and I think a lot of people will be inspired by that vision. And so the reason you need the million people is because there has to be enough people there to do everything that you need to survive. The critical threshold is, if the ships from Earth stop coming for any reason, does the Mars city die out or not? We have to pass that. People talk about the great filters, the things that perhaps, you know, we talk about the Fermi paradox and where are the aliens, and, well, maybe there is various great filters that the aliens didn't pass, and so they eventually just cease to exist. And one of the great filters is becoming a multiplanet species. So we want to pass that filter. And I'll be long dead before this is a real thing, before it happens. But I'd like to at least see us make great progress in this direction.” Source: TED, April 6, 2022.

ELON CLIPS

36,807 views • 2 months ago

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.

Shruti

16,844 views • 3 months 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 • 8 months ago

––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."

––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

13,826 views • 1 year ago

Elon Musk just gave one of the most pro-humanity addresses you’ll ever hear — right in front of the Davos elites. It was inspiring. “We need to do everything we can to ensure that the light of consciousness is not extinguished.” Elon Musk said the mission of all his companies comes back to preserving and expanding human consciousness. MUSK: “the overall goal of my companies is to maximize the future of civilization.” “Like basically maximize the probability that civilization has a great future, and, to expand consciousness beyond Earth.” “So if you take SpaceX, for example, 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.” “I think we should always view consciousness, life as we know it, as as precarious and delicate. Because to the best of our knowledge, we we don’t know of life anywhere else.” “You know, I’m often asked, are there aliens among us?” “And I will say that I am one, but…they don’t believe me.” “I think if anyone would know if there are aliens among us, it would be me. And we have 9000 satellites up there, and not once have we had to maneuver around an alien spaceship.” “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 because we’re effectively, or the way I view it is, the image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness, 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 manmade disaster on earth, that consciousness continues.”

Elon Musk just gave one of the most pro-humanity addresses you’ll ever hear — right in front of the Davos elites. It was inspiring. “We need to do everything we can to ensure that the light of consciousness is not extinguished.” Elon Musk said the mission of all his companies comes back to preserving and expanding human consciousness. MUSK: “the overall goal of my companies is to maximize the future of civilization.” “Like basically maximize the probability that civilization has a great future, and, to expand consciousness beyond Earth.” “So if you take SpaceX, for example, 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.” “I think we should always view consciousness, life as we know it, as as precarious and delicate. Because to the best of our knowledge, we we don’t know of life anywhere else.” “You know, I’m often asked, are there aliens among us?” “And I will say that I am one, but…they don’t believe me.” “I think if anyone would know if there are aliens among us, it would be me. And we have 9000 satellites up there, and not once have we had to maneuver around an alien spaceship.” “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 because we’re effectively, or the way I view it is, the image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness, 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 manmade disaster on earth, that consciousness continues.”

Overton

55,795 views • 8 months ago

Dr. Sue Morter: "The foundation of our reality is a collective consciousness that we have created together" “This energy rises up and cycles through a toric field flow, then it projects a movie out in front of us, and we walk into that movie every day of our lives.” All physical matter is compressed energy. Research traces that energy with no interruption all the way back to the unified field of consciousness. There is nothing that proves we are separate from source. With each layer of compression we move closer to physical form. Energy hits the earth, rises, cycles, and projects the reality we experience. Science shows the foundation of that reality is a collective consciousness we have created and agreed upon together. We treat it as solid and fixed, yet we are the consciousness of the entire system. We stand as the doorway between the infinite and the finite, the formless and the form. What we allow to pass through us without interruption determines the quality of the movie we walk into. When we conclude we are not enough, that life is unfair, or that nothing will work, that conclusion becomes the reality we inhabit. We have input. The movie is not fixed.

Dr. Sue Morter: "The foundation of our reality is a collective consciousness that we have created together" “This energy rises up and cycles through a toric field flow, then it projects a movie out in front of us, and we walk into that movie every day of our lives.” All physical matter is compressed energy. Research traces that energy with no interruption all the way back to the unified field of consciousness. There is nothing that proves we are separate from source. With each layer of compression we move closer to physical form. Energy hits the earth, rises, cycles, and projects the reality we experience. Science shows the foundation of that reality is a collective consciousness we have created and agreed upon together. We treat it as solid and fixed, yet we are the consciousness of the entire system. We stand as the doorway between the infinite and the finite, the formless and the form. What we allow to pass through us without interruption determines the quality of the movie we walk into. When we conclude we are not enough, that life is unfair, or that nothing will work, that conclusion becomes the reality we inhabit. We have input. The movie is not fixed.

Interstellar

13,747 views • 1 month ago

.Elon Musk (worth $250B) answers why he’s still working: I think it's a good question you asked, because it goes to, like, at a foundational level, what is my philosophy, and why does it lead to this conclusion? So the reason is that when I was a teenager, I had, like, an existential crisis to try to figure out what's the meaning of life. There doesn't seem to be any meaning. For me, at least the religious texts, and I read all of them that I could get my hands on did not seem convincing. Then I started reading the philosophers. Be careful of reading German philosophers as a teenager. It's definitely not going to help with your depression. So reading Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, as an adult, it's much more manageable. But as a kid, you're like, “Whoa.” So then I was like, “Man, I'm just struggling to find meaning in life here.” And then I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And basically what Douglas Adams was saying is that we don't really know what the right questions are to ask. The question is not, “What's the meaning of life?” In The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Earth it turns out is a big computer, and its goal is to answer the question, “What's the meaning of life?” And Earth comes up with the answer “42”. This is where the 42 number comes from. And 420 is just ten times 42. In that book, which is really sort of a book about, it's an existential philosophy book disguised as humor. They come to the conclusion that, no, the real problem is trying to formulate the question. And to really have the right question, you need a much bigger computer than Earth. And so maybe one way, I think, of characterizing this would be to say, “The universe is the answer. What is the question? Or what are the questions?” The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multistellar species… we have a chance of figuring out what the hell is going on. And so this is why I think we should have more humans and both biological and digital consciousness. And why we should become a multi-planet species and a multistellar species is so that we can understand the nature of the universe. And then in order for that to occur, then we have to make sure that things are good on Earth. We don't want Earth to disappear, so sustainable energy is important.

.Elon Musk (worth $250B) answers why he’s still working: I think it's a good question you asked, because it goes to, like, at a foundational level, what is my philosophy, and why does it lead to this conclusion? So the reason is that when I was a teenager, I had, like, an existential crisis to try to figure out what's the meaning of life. There doesn't seem to be any meaning. For me, at least the religious texts, and I read all of them that I could get my hands on did not seem convincing. Then I started reading the philosophers. Be careful of reading German philosophers as a teenager. It's definitely not going to help with your depression. So reading Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, as an adult, it's much more manageable. But as a kid, you're like, “Whoa.” So then I was like, “Man, I'm just struggling to find meaning in life here.” And then I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And basically what Douglas Adams was saying is that we don't really know what the right questions are to ask. The question is not, “What's the meaning of life?” In The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Earth it turns out is a big computer, and its goal is to answer the question, “What's the meaning of life?” And Earth comes up with the answer “42”. This is where the 42 number comes from. And 420 is just ten times 42. In that book, which is really sort of a book about, it's an existential philosophy book disguised as humor. They come to the conclusion that, no, the real problem is trying to formulate the question. And to really have the right question, you need a much bigger computer than Earth. And so maybe one way, I think, of characterizing this would be to say, “The universe is the answer. What is the question? Or what are the questions?” The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multistellar species… we have a chance of figuring out what the hell is going on. And so this is why I think we should have more humans and both biological and digital consciousness. And why we should become a multi-planet species and a multistellar species is so that we can understand the nature of the universe. And then in order for that to occur, then we have to make sure that things are good on Earth. We don't want Earth to disappear, so sustainable energy is important.

Arjun Khemani

15,600,131 views • 2 years 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

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 • 11 months ago

Elon Musk reveals the single idea that explains why he keeps working despite being worth $800 billion "When I was a teenager, I had an existential crisis trying to figure out what's the meaning of life. It doesn't seem to be any meaning" "For me at least, the religious texts that I read did not seem convincing. Then I started reading the philosophers. You have to be careful of reading German philosophers as a teenager. It's definitely not going to help with your depression" "Reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as a kid you're like, whoa" "Then I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What Douglas Adams was saying is that we don't really know what the right questions are to ask. The real problem is trying to formulate the question. To really have the right question, you need a much bigger computer than Earth" "The universe is the answer. What is the question? Or what are the questions?" "The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe" "The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multi-stellar species, we have a chance of figuring out what the hell's going on" "This is why I think we should have more humans and more digital, both biological and digital consciousness"

Elon Musk reveals the single idea that explains why he keeps working despite being worth $800 billion "When I was a teenager, I had an existential crisis trying to figure out what's the meaning of life. It doesn't seem to be any meaning" "For me at least, the religious texts that I read did not seem convincing. Then I started reading the philosophers. You have to be careful of reading German philosophers as a teenager. It's definitely not going to help with your depression" "Reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as a kid you're like, whoa" "Then I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What Douglas Adams was saying is that we don't really know what the right questions are to ask. The real problem is trying to formulate the question. To really have the right question, you need a much bigger computer than Earth" "The universe is the answer. What is the question? Or what are the questions?" "The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe" "The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multi-stellar species, we have a chance of figuring out what the hell's going on" "This is why I think we should have more humans and more digital, both biological and digital consciousness"

Jaynit

1,297,081 views • 4 months 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 🔭

472,703 views • 2 years ago