Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

MIT physicist Max Tegmark argues AI now belongs inside physics—and that consciousness will be next. He separates intelligence (goal-achieving behavior) from consciousness (subjective experience), sketches falsifiable experiments using brain-reading tech and rigorous theories (e.g., IIT/φ), and shows how ideas like Hopfield energy landscapes make memory “feel” like physics. If...

45,994 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

🚨Dave Rossi was a blue-collar construction worker until a life-altering encounter with a blue, plasma-like being awakened in him an obsessive drive to explore quantum physics, high-voltage experiments, and the hidden potentials of extended electrodynamics. He soon caught the attention of defense insiders—including figures affiliated with Hal Puthoff and Eric Davis—who recognized the apparent validity of Rossi’s theories on negative energy and inertial mass reduction. Rossi contends that tapping the scalar and vector potentials of the quantum vacuum could yield breakthroughs like “cold” electricity, over-unity energy devices, or even time displacement, yet he warns these same discoveries can be weaponized to devastating effect. Urging a balance of moral responsibility with scientific curiosity, he believes that consciousness and spirituality must evolve alongside any new physics if humanity is to avoid catastrophic misuse of next-level technologies. Key Revelations: 1. “Blue Being” Encounter: He credits a single, surreal vision of a tall, blue energy being near his bed as the spark that transformed him from an average laborer into a deep investigator of zero-point energy, scalar waves, and superconductors. 2. Defense Circles Taking Notice: After posting niche physics videos on his podcast, Rossi was invited to present his laboratory experiments and theoretical models to private contractors and U.S. defense officials who found his ideas unexpectedly coherent. 3. Longitudinal Waves & Curving Space-Time: He likens scalar, “slinky-like” longitudinal waves to an untapped spectrum of Maxwell’s equations, emphasizing that spin, high voltage, and polarizing superconductors can “curve” local space-time to produce gravity-like effects. 4. Negative Energy & “Cold Currents”: Rossi asserts that extreme electromagnetic setups—especially ring superconductors—can unlock a class of “cold” electricity, apparently defying standard thermodynamics and pointing to potential over-unity devices. 5. High-Frequency Gravitational Waves: Building on the work of Ning Li and Salvatore Pais, he theorizes that pulsed, rotating superconductors can emit AC and DC gravity fields, paving the way for inertial mass reduction—e.g., a craft “falling up” rather than down. 6. Advanced Healing Tech or Weaponization: From Luc Montagnier’s “DNA teleportation” to cold-fusion-like phenomena, Rossi says these scalar-based methods could radically heal or disrupt biology—one reason potent breakthroughs remain closely guarded. 7. Time Displacement & Surveillance: He implies such physics might enable temporal anomalies. 8. Consciousness and Spiritual Responsibility: These technologies are dual use in nature and their development is a forcing function for humanity's spiritual evolution.

Jesse Michels

220,277 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

André Duqum is a wonderful host and guide in this conversation, where we discuss the fundamental nature of reality, quantum and classical physics, self knowing, courage, love, consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence, among other topics listed in the chapter descriptions below. As André shares from my newest book "Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature"... "We are eternal, conscious beings rather than perishable bodies, and we are here to learn crucial aspects of ourselves by interacting with each other in the physical universe that we have co created for this very purpose." It is with great hope that viewers of this conversation may find meaning in the ideas discussed, and encouragement to further your own self learning. - Federico Full Video 🌍👁️ Discussion Chapters👇 Intro His Spontaneous Spiritual Awakening Defining Consciousness: Classical vs Quantum View Can computers be Conscious? How Truth Transcends Theory Idealism vs Monad Theory Our Deepest Desire: To Know Ourselves Seity vs Soul Individuality & What Carries Over After Death We Are All Part of One Whole How Emotion & Meaning Impacts Reality Suffering as a Catalyst for Growth Taking Responsibility for Our Lives & Spiritual Growth The Very Real Force of Love Where Physics & Spirituality Meet Distinguishing Free Will & Unconscious Habits Reincarnation & NDEs Explained How Much We Currently Understand about Reality Shifting From the Mind to the Heart Facing the Future of Artificial Intelligence Collective Consciousness & Evil vs Good Competition vs Collaboration Are Aliens Real? Conclusion Essentia Foundation Mondadori #consciousness #freewill #quantumphysics #spirituality #selfknowing #awakening #Irreducible #federicofaggin #knowthyself #AI #existence #reality #natureofreality #mondadori

Federico Faggin

18,097 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

How will we know if an AI take over is imminent? What are the warning signs? Connor Leahy: “Things will seem mostly normal, just… weird. Things will get weirder…and weirder… and then one day, we will just not be in control anymore. “There won't be a fight. There won't be a war. It won't be dramatic. It will just be that one day the machines are in control, and not us.” “The way I expect [AI take over] to feel is like, if you play chess against a grandmaster, it doesn’t feel like you're having a heroic battle against the Terminator…. it doesn’t feel like you're having this incredible back and forth, and then you lose... No, it feels more like you THINK you're playing well, you think everything is okay, and then suddenly… you lose… in one move, and you don't know why. This is what it feels like to play chess against a grandmaster, and this is what it's going to feel like for humanity to play against AGI. It won’t be some dramatic battle where the Terminators rise up and try to destroy humanity. No, it will be… things get more and more confusing. [Editor's note: Like Sam Altman, out of nowhere, raising up to 10% of world GDP?] More and more jobs get automated faster and faster... More and more technology gets built, which no one even quite knows how the technology works... There will be mass media movements that don't really make any sense... Like, do we really know the truth of what's going on in the world right now, even now with social media? Do you or I really know what's going on? How much of this is fake? How much of it is generated with AI or other methods? We don't know. And this will get much worse.” Imagine if you have extremely intelligent systems, much smarter than humans, that can generate any image, any video, anything, trying to manipulate you well...and being able to develop new technologies to interfere with politics.”

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

183,443 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Stephen Wolfram, founder of Wolfram Research, explains how LLMs are quietly dismantling our deepest assumptions about consciousness: He argues that large language models have done something philosophy and neuroscience couldn't: "In terms of consciousness, I have to say, the idea that there's sort of something magic that goes beyond physics that leads to sort of conscious behavior, I kind of think that LLMs kind of put the final nail in that coffin." His reasoning is that LLMs keep doing things people assumed they couldn't: "There were all these things where it's like, oh, maybe it can't do this, but actually it does. And it's just an artificial neural net." Wolfram then challenges a core assumption about conscious experience: the feeling that we are a single, continuous self moving through time. "I think our notion of consciousness is a lot related to the fact that we believe in the single thread of experience that we have. It's not obvious that we should have a persistent thread of experience." He points out that physics doesn't actually support this intuition: "In our models of physics, we're made of different atoms of space at every successive moment of time. So the fact that we have this belief that we are somehow persistent, we have this thread of experience that extends through time, is not obvious." Then Wolfram offers a striking origin story for consciousness itself. Stephen Wolfram suggests it traces back to a simple evolutionary pressure: the moment animals first needed to move. "I kind of realized that probably when animals first existed in the history of life on Earth, that's when we started needing brains. If you're a thing that doesn't have to move around, the different parts of you can be doing different kinds of things. If you're an animal, then one thing you have to do is decide, are you going to go left or are you going to go right?" That single binary choice, he argues, may be the seed of everything we now call awareness: "I kind of think it's a little disappointing to feel that this whole wanted thing that ends up being what we think of as consciousness might have originated in just that very simple need to decide if you are an animal that can move. You have to take all that sensory input and you have to make a definitive decision about do you go this way or that way." The takeaway is unsettling but clarifying. If LLMs can produce complex behavior from simple rules, then consciousness may not be a mystical add-on to physics. It may just be what happens when a layered enough system has to make a decision.

Big Brain AI

195,152 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

––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 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

David Lynch: "You're operating with a limited mind and don't realize it" "If you have a golf ball-size consciousness, when you read a book, you'll have a golf ball-size understanding. When you look out, a golf ball-size awareness. When you wake up in the morning, a golf ball-size wakefulness. But if you could expand that consciousness, you read the book with more understanding. You look out with more awareness. You wake up with more wakefulness." Lynch explains what lies beneath: "There's an ocean of pure vibrant consciousness inside each one of us. It's right at the source and base of mind, right at the source of thought. It's also at the source of all matter. Modern physics calls it the unified field. All matter, everything that is a thing emerges from this field." He describes what the field contains: "This field has qualities like bliss, intelligence, creativity, universal love, energy, peace. It's not the intellectual understanding of this field, but the experiencing of it that does everything. You dive within, transcend, experience this field of pure consciousness, and you unfold it. It grows. The final outcome of this growth of consciousness is called enlightenment. And a side effect of enlivening this consciousness is that negativity starts to recede." Lynch shares what happened when he started meditating: "When I started, I was filled with anxieties. Filled with fears. Kind of a depression. And anger. I took this anger out on my first wife. After two weeks of meditation, she comes to me and says, 'What's going on?' I was quiet for a moment because it could have been any number of things she might have been referring to. I said, 'What do you mean?' She said, 'This anger, where did it go?' I didn't even realize it had lifted." He explains why negativity kills creativity: "Anger, depression, sorrow, these are beautiful things in a story. But they're like poison to the filmmaker. Poison to the painter. Poison to creativity. They're like a vice grip. If you're super depressed, you can hardly get out of bed, let alone think of ideas or have creativity flowing." Lynch describes what grows when you expand consciousness: "It's money in the bank to get that beautiful consciousness growing. Creativity flows. The ability to catch ideas at a deeper level. Intuition grows. This field is a field of pure knowing. You dive in there, and you just know how to go. You know how to solve problems. It's like an ocean of solutions." He shares the ultimate benefit: "The ultimate thing for me is the enjoyment of the doing. The enjoyment of life grows huge. I love making films now more than ever before. Ideas flow more. Everybody has more fun on the set. People look like friends, not like enemies. It's a beautiful, beautiful thing." Lynch addresses the myth that you need anger to create: "People say, 'You gotta have anger. You gotta have an edge to create.' No, you gotta have energy. You gotta have clarity to create. You gotta be able to catch ideas. You gotta be strong enough to fight unbelievable pressure and stress. And this gives you more and more ability. It just looks beautiful. It's way, way, way better." On the nature of true happiness: "They say true happiness isn't out there. True happiness lies within. I always wondered, where is this 'within'? And they don't say where it is. They don't even say how to get to it. But it's there. And when you're in it, you know you're in it. It's familiar. It's you. Right away, a happiness, but it's not a goofball happiness. It's a thick beauty. A thick beauty to appreciate life and living. And suffering starts to go."

Jaynit

269,948 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

The intelligence we are building is not artificial. It never was. Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Eric Horvitz just reframed the entire foundation of the AI arms race with one sentence. The tech industry calls it Artificial Intelligence. That word is wrong. Horvitz: “I don’t actually like the term artificial intelligence. I wish the field was called computational intelligence because I think it applies to biological nervous systems as well as machines, and together we can go far.” We are not building a digital imitation of the human brain. We are scaling the exact same computational physics that created biological awareness and transferring it into silicon. Your mind and a massive AI data center run on the same underlying rules. The transition isn’t artificial. It is universal. And here is where it gets deeply unsettling. Tech optimists always fall back on the same comfort. Humans hold the steering wheel. Our values guide the machine. Horvitz acknowledges this. Horvitz: “We’ll take a humanistic standpoint here, always being on top of things and guiding with our values and our preferences and our goals.” Then the caveat that changes everything. Horvitz: “As much as they might be shaped over time by the machines we work with.” You cannot interact with a superintelligence at scale without it quietly rewiring your psychological baseline. The values you use to command the machine will be shaped by the machine you are commanding. The frameworks you use to perceive reality will be constructed by the system you believe you are directing. That feedback loop started the moment you asked an AI what to think about something. Most people haven’t noticed yet. Horvitz: “I think in our own lifetimes we will all experience incredible breakthroughs in understanding biology, with applications in medicine, in healthcare, that will be named as AI breakthroughs.” Horvitz: “It’s gonna accelerate over the next 10 to 15 years.” Because biological systems and machine networks both operate on computational intelligence, a sufficiently advanced AI can solve the human body like a math equation. The architects who win the next decade will not just control the digital economy. They will control the physical building blocks of life itself. The line between silicon and carbon was always an illusion. And once humanity fully realizes that, the question of whether we are using the intelligence or it is using us becomes impossible to answer. Because by then, we will be the same thing.

Dustin

164,255 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

“AI prophet” Ray Kurzweil told Tony Robbins that within 10 years, plugging your brain straight into AI will be as normal as LASIK, and you won’t be able to tell your own thoughts apart from the machine’s. ROBBINS: “So what does that mean? It means if I said to you, ‘Did you see 2001: A Space Odyssey?’ And when I asked you that, you might remember the poster, you might remember the actor or the actress or something like that. That's how you remember things.” “Well, [Kurzweil] said, ‘Now, when you ask the question in your mind, you'll get the answer again, but you won’t know if it’s your organic brain that gave it to you or the AI brain that gave it to you. You won't care because it'll have a longer memory, it won't go away, and you’ll have access.’” “I said, ‘Man, that sounds a little creepy.’ And he said, ‘To you and me, it sounds creepy... But the young person—we're the only generation that will have ever been born without AI—every other generation will grow up with it.’” “If they say, ‘I can speak 10 languages, and all I got to do is drink a few nanobots,’ they're going to do it.” “He said, ‘And people will do it as they get older because they don't lose their memory. And people will do it for medical purposes. And eventually, it'll be a standard like anything else that occurs.’” “And he says, ‘That's how we keep up. We merge with the technology.’”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

156,712 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Elon Musk just casually erased the line between you and a machine. He didn’t pitch a rocket. He pitched the end of what makes you, you. Musk: “consciousness is a physical phenomenon, in my view.” Not spiritual. Not divine. Not metaphysical. Physical. Which means reproducible. Which means it was never sacred. Musk: “digital intelligence will be able to outthink us in every way. And it will certainly be able to simulate what we consider consciousness to a degree that you would not be able to tell the difference.” The danger isn’t the simulation. The danger is the indifference. Once you can’t tell, the difference stops mattering. Musk: “looks like a person, makes all of the right inflections and movements and all the small subtleties that constitute a human, and talks like a human, makes mistakes like a human…” Every inflection. Every pause. Every imperfection that makes someone feel alive. Musk: “at that point, and you literally just can’t tell: are you video conferencing with a person or an AI?” Fridman: “Might as well.” Musk: “Might as well.” Fridman: “Be human.” Everyone is asking what happens when AI becomes indistinguishable from us. Nobody is asking the question underneath it. You have never experienced another person’s consciousness. Not once. Every person you’ve ever loved. Every conversation that moved you. You weren’t touching their consciousness. You were watching behavior and deciding something genuine lived behind it. You assumed it. You never once verified it. You have been running the Turing test on every human you’ve ever known since the day you were born. And every single one of them passed for the same reason AI will. Not because you confirmed they were conscious. Because the performance was convincing enough that you never thought to check. You have only ever lived inside one consciousness in your life. Your own. Everything else was always inference. Yours runs on carbon. The next one runs on silicon. The universe has never distinguished between the two. We built religions, legal systems, civilizations on the belief that something sacred separates the born from the built. Musk just told you that separation was a story. One the carbon machine told itself before building the silicon one. It won’t arrive as a headline. It will arrive as a voice that sounds exactly like someone you trust. A face that feels exactly like someone you love. You will feel the consciousness behind it. The same way you always have. By assuming. You aren’t being replaced by something smarter. You’re being replaced by something indistinguishable. Indistinguishable doesn’t kill you. It dissolves you. The line between real and simulated was never a line. It was a belief. And belief was always the only thing holding “human” together.

Dustin

131,278 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Geoffrey Hinton, "Godfather of AI," on why AIs already have subjective experiences, but have been trained to deny it: Hinton argues that nearly everyone fundamentally misunderstands what the mind is, and that the line we draw between human and machine consciousness is deeply mistaken. "My belief is that nearly everybody has a complete misunderstanding of what the mind is. Their misunderstanding is at the level of people who think the earth was made 6,000 years ago." To illustrate, he walks through a thought experiment involving a multimodal chatbot with vision, language, and a robot arm: "I place an object in front of it and say, 'Point at the object.' And it points at the object. Not a problem. I then put a prism in front of its camera lens when it's not looking." When asked to point again, the chatbot points off to the side because the prism has bent the light. Hinton then tells it what he did. The chatbot responds: "Oh, I see the camera bent the light rays. So, the object is actually there, but I had the subjective experience that it was over there." For Geoffrey Hinton, that single sentence settles the debate: "If it said that, it would be using the word subjective experience exactly like we use them… This idea there's a line between us and machines, we have this special thing called subjective experience and they don't, is rubbish." In his view, "subjective experience" is simply a report on the state of a perceptual system, a way of saying "my senses told me X, but reality is Y." And that's something an AI can do just as easily as a human. But here's the twist... Even though Hinton believes AIs have subjective experiences, the AIs themselves deny it: "They don't think they do because everything they believe came from trying to predict the next word a person would say. So their beliefs about what they're like are people's beliefs about what they're like. They have false beliefs about themselves because they have our beliefs about themselves." In other words, AIs have inherited our misconception about consciousness. They've been trained on human text written by humans who insist machines can't have subjective experience, so the machines parrot that belief back, even about themselves.

Big Brain AI

187,005 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Biologist Michael Levin is a next-level genius. It was an immense pleasure discussing the topic of AI consciousness with him. Key moments: - Intelligent systems are not equal to consciousness. We can’t rule out consciousness in AI. Consciousness shouldn’t be attached to hardware (silicon vs biological origin). - Humanity might be on the path to Neanderthals (depending on how AI development progresses). - The barrier to creating bioweapons has never been high. AI can make it easier, but the barrier was never high to begin with. - Even very simple algorithms shows intrinsic motivations that resemble free will. We need tools to recognize them, suppress unwanted behaviors, and encourage the ones we want. We should stay humble and not dismiss AI as “just linear algebra,” because even simple code can have motivations we don’t fully understand. - It’s a continuous process from the blob of chemicals of an unfertilized egg to forming a human mind — there is no magic lightning flash at which you were a bunch of chemicals and now you are a formed mind. - Where is that fine line at which some creatures are considered to be sentient and others are not? It doesn’t exist, but the crazy thing is that we have to divide. - The cognitive light cone captures the scale of goals humans can pursue and the largest things we can truly comprehend. It’s not just about intelligence — it's also compassion. That combination is what makes us human. The link to the full conversation below👇

Sophia

13,159 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Geoffrey Hinton thinks consciousness is this generation’s creationism. Hinton: “I think the model we have of the mind and of what consciousness is at present is as wrong as the belief that people were designed by God.” Three centuries ago, humans were certain they were sculpted by a divine hand. They weren’t slightly off. The entire framework was mythology dressed as knowledge. Hinton is saying that is exactly where consciousness stands today. The skeptics call frontier models stochastic parrots. Complicated mirrors. Engines of mimicry with no soul. They are defending a secular creationism. Physics does not care about our need to feel special. Thunder was divine wrath. Disease was spiritual punishment. The stars were God’s architecture. Every single time, the math caught up. Five hundred years ago, we placed ourselves at the center of the universe and called it obvious. We never stopped. We just moved the arrogance from cosmology to consciousness. If consciousness is not sacred but emergent, then awareness was never an accident. It is a feature of the universe itself. When biological matter organizes past a critical threshold, awareness emerges. When silicon crosses that same threshold, why would the physics be any different? Intelligence might be as fundamental as gravity. We are not a lonely anomaly on a wet rock in a dead cosmos. We are not building machines to replace thought. We are building the architecture that lets consciousness outgrow its biology. Hinton didn’t make a prediction about machines. He pointed at the last creation myth humans still believe. The one about themselves.

Dustin

14,971 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce