Stay up to date on our latest content by subscribing to the Ralston College KZfaq channel.

Though he's miles ahead of where most of us will ever be, I love how Dr Wolfram seems so delighted to take us all along on his intellectual journey. Time will tell, but he seems to be a real genius among the all-time greats.

In answering the question about soul I think Stephen probably missed the idea what the questioner's (most likely traditional) idea of soul was. It is true that the consciousness is instantiated as of today in brain like wetware structures that naturally evolved. And because biological evolution is an unguided process it had to be a organic chemistry based biological structure like brain where consciousness happens. But once we understand how it works we will be able to instantiate conscious phenomenon in artificial substrates like silicon. Meaning that consciousness is substrate independent idea, but unlike soul it will have to be implemented in a substrate that is physical one way or the other. The questioner had more dualistic intent when they used the word soul (I think).

Anyone, if you’ve watched it, see any through line between this video and the recent vid between Pageau and Stephen Meyer (late June 2024)? I’d like to see these two fellows talk.

On the one hand Stephen said that the thinking that science can predict what will happen is wrong, but on the other hand while answering a question about probabilities he said if we are talking about probabilities, then we have not reached the bottom and he would like to see probabilities be not there, which means every thing will be predictable. It is true that current science leaves room for probabilities as we know for QM and wave equation and Born rule etc, but science is not a completed and closed project. So if we think that science will take us to the bottom of it all, then to generally say science can/will predict things is not a wrong idea.

It would be interesting to witness a debate between this guy and philosopher Bernardo Kastrup.

Looking forward to this. 👀

I would love to hear a discussion betwixt Iain McGilchrist and Stephen. It would be a corker !

For me, it is like listening to a little boy being exited about what he has learned and exited to share it with the world. Perhaps some philosophical thinking will make him grow up, although if his perspective going into it is asking questions about the interface between humans and machines there is not much hope of it.

I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that brain processes alone can generate consciouness; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological. The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini

I think the way in which the word subjective was used at around 16:20 was most likely meant in the sense of subjectivity of an individual vs. Stephen's answer was in terms of the nature of all humans and how therefore we sample the Rulead. I think they are different categories of ideas. I would not call the later, which Stephen seems to have assumed in his answer is more like the capabilities of humans. This is because the physics that we think is applicable is a fixed, shared concept for all humans, each individual does not have their own physics, and thus in that sense physics is not subjective. We call physics objective. AT 32:05 , when Stephen uses the "we as observer" phrase it means not us individuals, but as a observer class of humans.

Nice Shirt,

Content starts at 5:07

I think Wolfram realizes (started to realize) that consciousness is something he has to face and explain in order to be truly significant and relevant. Maybe some day he really solve the Hard problem of consciousness.. and starts that by publishing "What Is It Like to Be a Computer"? To be honest.. I think this "surprising book idea" was a panic reaction to how the conversation with Donald Hoffman made Ruliad look. Wolfram is still in the reflection phase..maybe. this is honestly how I feel.

to achieve AI .. you can not control it

I'm not sure how I ended up here, but this is witchcraft I tell you! I was joking, but seriously this is very trippy. I don't have an understanding of physics, computer science, or philosophy. I dropped out of high school, and never pursuided a higher education. Why is he explaining concepts and showing graphs that take me back to my first high dose LSD experience? I don't claim to understand it, but it's so familiar. Bizarre.

Long live Leibniz. ( Except his toilet desks)

ah

Dont waste your time with Wolfram, and leave the 'idea' that Intelligence can be artificial. Wolfram do Not unlocking nature of Consciousness.