I'm happy I frequently check the internet for videos and comments from Giulio Tononi so I don't miss treasures like this video.

I don’t know if he’s right with IIT but I’ve always found him to be very clear & making sense. Here he’s once again spot on with saying that even if from a materialist point of view every human, dolphin & bird pales in significance, being infinitesimally minuscule compared with the cosmos, from an existential phenomenological point of view we’re absolutely dwarfing every cosmic structure out there.

That’s was lovely

Thanks, Prof. Tononi! It is true that we should start from the Intrinsic perspective.

Love it. All that the senses can but imperfectly comprehend, all that is most awful in such romantic scenes of nature, may become a source of enjoyment to man, by opening a wide field to the creative powers of his imagination. Impressions change with the varying movements of the mind, and we are led by a happy illusion to believe that we receive from the external world that with which we have ourselves invested it. Humboldt

Thanks so much professor Tononi ! I was wondering if you are an analytical idealist like Bernardo Kastrup, or do you remain a materialist / physicalist? Is the brain and matter what the mind "looks like" as seen from our "dissociative barrier" as he claims? How would consciousness then relate to the brain and DNA? Thanks again for this lovely talk! 🌿

Giulio Tononi adopted a prophetic air, typical of anyone who wants to found a new religion. In what he proposes, not only the human species, but the individual, has returned to the center of the universe. The disorientation both spreads and deepens. We live in dark times.

How can come from the theory the free will? Can this be explained better? According IIT also a non biological machine, with the right architecture, could have consciousness. All mental processes are determined. Where free will comes from in the theory? Any mathematical founded explanation?

I love listening to Tononi. He’s a brilliant man and the work he does is well beyond what the layperson will consider much less comprehend, but I have to say this particular hypothesis seems nakedly egotistical and self-serving. It’s natural to wish to be the most important and highest of all organisms but this doesn’t appear to square at all with reality as we’re given it. I think as folks age, they begin to give themselves a bit more leeway as it regards the possibility of some eternal, transcendent state of being that nullifies the coming inevitability of their own end. It’s understandable, but this veers too comfortably into the realm of woo woo fantasy to be taken serious, in my opinion. It’s okay that we are not important and lack objective “purpose” for the briefest of time in a nondescript section of an unimaginably vast and uncaring cosmos. That’s miracle enough. We don’t need to sugar coat that to make it any more spectacular than it already is. Just try to enjoy the ride while you’re on it.

Selection isn't blind.

Thanks, for the good explanation of IIT. But. You should start from the very bottom, as we do in IT with boolean algebra and logic gates. When you understand the unconscious brain, then the rest is obvious and simple. Otherwise, good luck.

Mumbo jumbo by NPD

He couldn´t make it more clear that he is clueless when it comes to explainng consciousness. If he had at least stopped att 4.30 all had been well but he went on stating totally misguided speculations. I am truly dissapointed. I thought he had at least a clue what IIT in fact entails.

What is this meaningfulness fetish? There doesn't have to be any "ultimate" meaning for something to be meaningful to ME with respect to certain goals or desires. I don't think this guy is totally wrong but he is dragging some mushy concepts into the discussion for no reason except that they have been popular mushy terms for eons.

full of pseudocience

Pseudoscience.