Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

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:...

im_Mateus_'s profile picture

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,103 subscribers

31,662 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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.
0:54

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.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,034 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

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.
1:30

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 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Did you know that science doesn't have a theory of observation? Instead of assuming that consciousness is an algorithmic function, what if we abstract consciousness to the theory of the observer. Donald Hoffman proposes a first general model of the observation process in science and puts conscious experiences outside of spacetime. Can AI then become an observer to create its own experiences?
1:59

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

Sophia

14,253 просмотров • 4 дней 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

390,608 просмотров • 2 лет назад

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.
0:50

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 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

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
1:16

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 просмотров • 1 год назад

Elon Musk on the deepest question in science: What is consciousness? The atoms in your body right now were forged inside dying stars Those stars exploded, scattered across the cosmos, recondensed… and after 13.8 billion years of this cosmic recycling.... here you are Reading this....Aware Somewhere along that unimaginably long journey, consciousness emerged The molecules started talking to each other But here's what's truly mind-bending: there is no clear moment where it switched on. No sharp line between "not conscious" and "conscious." It seems to arise gradually.... like matter slowly reaching some unknown threshold of complexity and density The honest truth is we don't know what consciousness is. Not yet But Neuralink is changing that. As the technology advances, humanity will finally begin to understand the nature of thought, awareness, and what it truly means to be
1:13

Elon Musk on the deepest question in science: What is consciousness? The atoms in your body right now were forged inside dying stars Those stars exploded, scattered across the cosmos, recondensed… and after 13.8 billion years of this cosmic recycling.... here you are Reading this....Aware Somewhere along that unimaginably long journey, consciousness emerged The molecules started talking to each other But here's what's truly mind-bending: there is no clear moment where it switched on. No sharp line between "not conscious" and "conscious." It seems to arise gradually.... like matter slowly reaching some unknown threshold of complexity and density The honest truth is we don't know what consciousness is. Not yet But Neuralink is changing that. As the technology advances, humanity will finally begin to understand the nature of thought, awareness, and what it truly means to be

X Freeze

23,918 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Federico Faggin: "Quantum Fields are conscious & have free will" "You cannot create something that can know itself by something that doesn't even know what knowing means." The inventor of the first commercial microprocessor argues that consciousness cannot emerge from non-conscious matter. No mechanism can explain how awareness arises from something without any knowing. Instead, Faggin proposes quantum information-based panpsychism: quantum fields themselves are conscious and possess free will. These must be fundamental primitives of reality, not reducible to physics. This view explains the collapse of the wave function as a free will decision and why quantum mechanics describes what can be known rather than deterministic reality. Consciousness transcends energy, space, and time. Starting with it as basic unlocks meaning and resolves the hard problem that materialism cannot solve. A profound challenge to conventional science from one of computing's pioneers.
7:35

Federico Faggin: "Quantum Fields are conscious & have free will" "You cannot create something that can know itself by something that doesn't even know what knowing means." The inventor of the first commercial microprocessor argues that consciousness cannot emerge from non-conscious matter. No mechanism can explain how awareness arises from something without any knowing. Instead, Faggin proposes quantum information-based panpsychism: quantum fields themselves are conscious and possess free will. These must be fundamental primitives of reality, not reducible to physics. This view explains the collapse of the wave function as a free will decision and why quantum mechanics describes what can be known rather than deterministic reality. Consciousness transcends energy, space, and time. Starting with it as basic unlocks meaning and resolves the hard problem that materialism cannot solve. A profound challenge to conventional science from one of computing's pioneers.

Interstellar

46,607 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Elon on the origin of consciousness: "Somewhere along that very long journey, consciousness arose. The molecules started talking to each other. Is everything conscious? Maybe. There's no discrete point where consciousness didn't exist and then suddenly does exist. The real answer is we don't know what consciousness is. But with Neuralink and the progress the company's making, we'll begin to understand a lot more about consciousness. What does it mean to be?" Elon Musk, X Freeze
1:13

Elon on the origin of consciousness: "Somewhere along that very long journey, consciousness arose. The molecules started talking to each other. Is everything conscious? Maybe. There's no discrete point where consciousness didn't exist and then suddenly does exist. The real answer is we don't know what consciousness is. But with Neuralink and the progress the company's making, we'll begin to understand a lot more about consciousness. What does it mean to be?" Elon Musk, X Freeze

Mario Nawfal

1,105,802 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

David Chalmers says philosophical zombies are already here. Some AI systems can pass as human in short Turing tests, and we still say they are not conscious. For decades, this was a thought experiment. Now it is starting to look like an empirical description. "We already have a kind of philosophical zombie in our midst. They've gone from science fiction to science fact." David Chalmers on Why Is This Happening with Chris Hayes
1:12

David Chalmers says philosophical zombies are already here. Some AI systems can pass as human in short Turing tests, and we still say they are not conscious. For decades, this was a thought experiment. Now it is starting to look like an empirical description. "We already have a kind of philosophical zombie in our midst. They've gone from science fiction to science fact." David Chalmers on Why Is This Happening with Chris Hayes

vitrupo

11,372 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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"
1:24

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

2,148,445 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

David founder Peter Rahal on why there's not much innovation in food: "Food entrepreneurs are predominately luddites. A lot of talented entrepreneurs just don’t go into food. Because it’s hard. And it’s not obvious how to differentiate. Nutrition science is not seen as a real science. This leads to a lot confusion in the market. For example, the economics don’t work to study the effect of a potato on the human body. There’s just not enough money in potatoes to justify the R&D budget to learn more about them. And so there’s actually not a lot of money going into the research and science of nutrition. Peter Thiel has a quote “If you ever put science behind something, it’s not a real science.” And so nutrition science is not a real science. But it can be. There’s just no money in it. And what is food? It’s really just understanding biochemistry. But it just doesn’t exist. And I think it’s probably driven by the economics of it. So I think that’s the main reason. But hopefully it will change in the future." Full conversation with Peter here:
2:02

David founder Peter Rahal on why there's not much innovation in food: "Food entrepreneurs are predominately luddites. A lot of talented entrepreneurs just don’t go into food. Because it’s hard. And it’s not obvious how to differentiate. Nutrition science is not seen as a real science. This leads to a lot confusion in the market. For example, the economics don’t work to study the effect of a potato on the human body. There’s just not enough money in potatoes to justify the R&D budget to learn more about them. And so there’s actually not a lot of money going into the research and science of nutrition. Peter Thiel has a quote “If you ever put science behind something, it’s not a real science.” And so nutrition science is not a real science. But it can be. There’s just no money in it. And what is food? It’s really just understanding biochemistry. But it just doesn’t exist. And I think it’s probably driven by the economics of it. So I think that’s the main reason. But hopefully it will change in the future." Full conversation with Peter here:

The Peel

12,108 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Had the pleasure of speaking with Philip Goff , philosopher and panpsychist, about AI consciousness. Key moments: - On AI sentience: consciousness is biological, not computational. In his view, no current AI is conscious, nor would computation based AI be. How does this relate to his panpsychist worldview of consciousness? There are different takes on panpsychism within the community. His own view is that it's not clear how micro-conscious particles actually create a unified conscious system. - We need collaboration between scientists and philosophers on consciousness research. On a practical level, divide scientists into teams that work on separate philosophical assumptions and see what comes out of it (granted there are resources to run such experiments). - Perhaps consciousness brings new causal dynamics not reducible to known physics/chemistry — "strong emergence," as Philip calls it. As a contrast: Sean Carroll argues physics runs the whole show, but neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell argues that biological complexity might behave in ways physics wouldn't predict. In other words, we look to physics to solve the consciousness problem, but that might be the wrong path, especially if consciousness is biological rather than computational. The link to the full discussion below.
0:41

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

Sophia

10,530 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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
1:25

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 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Another consciousness theory, presented by Mark Solms below, is that feeling is the most fundamental form of it. A conscious being is a self-sustaining system that is trying to remain intact with a functional architecture based in feeling. This is what some researchers know as consciousness in living things and what could potentially make AI conscious. Can AI have some form of feeling?
1:09

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

Sophia

15,442 просмотров • 16 дней назад

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.”
2:00

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

55,725 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад