Move your notes closer to the camera, or move further away. Your eyes wondering so much makes it to obvious your reading notes. Nothing wrong with that of course.
to me, and i'm working off of mostly intuition here, but i think consciousness is just an aggragate of all the layers of function of the brain put together....and there's two major layers. one is the conscious, what we know we are aware of, and of course the other is subconscious. the conscious is like a blend of all the information with ebbs and flows that go in either direction, depending on what the subconscious is processing. like massive flow charts of data.
@Drastam just as consciousness is not neurons. it's the interaction of neurons.
I never said consciousness was just information. but information interacting with other information...the result being a blend of that information and how each set of data, however organized, meets with other sets of data.
@Drastam@Drastam not. i wasn't specific enough, i meant different types of information. sending of information, receiving and processing of information. the information that informs the logic of the processing.
what is it about C being aware of information not make it it's own type of information?
think of mathematical functions and how they can calculate other functions, plugging in of data in and out of each other. all forms of information but on a hierarchical matrix of neural networking
@Thrashaero Hi. Equations are not conscious; just like a computer is not conscious; the analogy does not work.
You are thinking objectively...you are looking at these processes and examples such as equations...become aware of your subjectivity your awareness which is looking at the examples...that is consciousness...your pure awareness is consciousness.
The comparison at 2.24 is incorrect. Gas is comparable to glucose perhaps, not to the function or structure of cortical columns.
We must do the nuts and bolts work otherwise conceptual models will have no empirical reference or basis. How else are we to judge among them. Our models must be informed by the nuts and bolts of neurology.
That is what is so wrong with cognitive psychology and its computer metaphor.
I agree consciousness will not emerge in a computer simulation.
@Drastam I think his point is about trying to reverse engineer the mind by looking at the smaller parts on dead tissue or merely seeing regions light up in the brain with scans is not likely to produce results that are actually going to explain how consciousness comes into being. However, I do know that using conceptual models will also be very generalized, and there's probably hundreds of ways to make them that sound like they make sense, but not all are necessarily true.
Jeff's point is like a catholic cardinal telling Galileo we dont need to look at the stars to know the truth of the universe. Anyone who says we should not look at the brain in our study of consciousness is thinking in a radically anti-scientific way.
Human knowing (science) advances by a combination of empirical and rational (conceptual) elements. Any attempt to exclude or limit either aspect of human knowing is epistemologically invalid.
@Drastam no, that's a very false dichotomy way of looking at it. I don't really see him actively excluding the physical science of the brain. He's just saying it can't happen with just looking at how it's physically functioning. his point, to me, is that you must use both, which is exactly what you're saying is important, but that he's not doing somehow. Now, I think this is a bit simplistic/vague, but perhaps purposefully to try to not say anything to reaching without a legitimate reason.
"Meatware" VERY funny. I believe at 2:24 you make a false comparison. There are amazingly detailed, high powered simulations being carried out in supercomputers today involving on the order of thousands of human neural columns. These simulations exhibit a great many emergent properties, including gamma oscillations, found in human brain activity. There are also top down approaches producing similarly surprising results.
jeff; I loved your videos, because you explain things in concise terms and shave off all the trimmings. thanks.... pauline
paulettamary 1 week ago
my friend: Have you seen asdf videos on youtube?
Me: No but have you seen the theory of consciousness 3 part series?
My Friend: no. . .?
mateitsyourfate 3 months ago
good point
themhz 6 months ago
Dude, you can't stop there....where's the next video?!
amabodie 6 months ago
Move your notes closer to the camera, or move further away. Your eyes wondering so much makes it to obvious your reading notes. Nothing wrong with that of course.
MrJuno6 1 year ago
to me, and i'm working off of mostly intuition here, but i think consciousness is just an aggragate of all the layers of function of the brain put together....and there's two major layers. one is the conscious, what we know we are aware of, and of course the other is subconscious. the conscious is like a blend of all the information with ebbs and flows that go in either direction, depending on what the subconscious is processing. like massive flow charts of data.
Thrashaero 1 year ago
@Thrashaero Consciousness is not information; it is the awareness of information.
Drastam 1 year ago
@Drastam just as consciousness is not neurons. it's the interaction of neurons.
I never said consciousness was just information. but information interacting with other information...the result being a blend of that information and how each set of data, however organized, meets with other sets of data.
Thrashaero 1 year ago
@Thrashaero information + information = information.
or not?
C is not information; C is aware of information.
Drastam 1 year ago
@Drastam @Drastam not. i wasn't specific enough, i meant different types of information. sending of information, receiving and processing of information. the information that informs the logic of the processing.
what is it about C being aware of information not make it it's own type of information?
think of mathematical functions and how they can calculate other functions, plugging in of data in and out of each other. all forms of information but on a hierarchical matrix of neural networking
Thrashaero 1 year ago
@Thrashaero Hi. Equations are not conscious; just like a computer is not conscious; the analogy does not work.
You are thinking objectively...you are looking at these processes and examples such as equations...become aware of your subjectivity your awareness which is looking at the examples...that is consciousness...your pure awareness is consciousness.
Drastam 1 year ago
The comparison at 2.24 is incorrect. Gas is comparable to glucose perhaps, not to the function or structure of cortical columns.
We must do the nuts and bolts work otherwise conceptual models will have no empirical reference or basis. How else are we to judge among them. Our models must be informed by the nuts and bolts of neurology.
That is what is so wrong with cognitive psychology and its computer metaphor.
I agree consciousness will not emerge in a computer simulation.
Drastam 2 years ago
@Drastam I think his point is about trying to reverse engineer the mind by looking at the smaller parts on dead tissue or merely seeing regions light up in the brain with scans is not likely to produce results that are actually going to explain how consciousness comes into being. However, I do know that using conceptual models will also be very generalized, and there's probably hundreds of ways to make them that sound like they make sense, but not all are necessarily true.
Thrashaero 1 year ago
Jeff's point is like a catholic cardinal telling Galileo we dont need to look at the stars to know the truth of the universe. Anyone who says we should not look at the brain in our study of consciousness is thinking in a radically anti-scientific way.
Human knowing (science) advances by a combination of empirical and rational (conceptual) elements. Any attempt to exclude or limit either aspect of human knowing is epistemologically invalid.
Drastam 1 year ago
@Drastam no, that's a very false dichotomy way of looking at it. I don't really see him actively excluding the physical science of the brain. He's just saying it can't happen with just looking at how it's physically functioning. his point, to me, is that you must use both, which is exactly what you're saying is important, but that he's not doing somehow. Now, I think this is a bit simplistic/vague, but perhaps purposefully to try to not say anything to reaching without a legitimate reason.
Thrashaero 1 year ago
"Meatware" VERY funny. I believe at 2:24 you make a false comparison. There are amazingly detailed, high powered simulations being carried out in supercomputers today involving on the order of thousands of human neural columns. These simulations exhibit a great many emergent properties, including gamma oscillations, found in human brain activity. There are also top down approaches producing similarly surprising results.
LordSlag 2 years ago