I sometimes wonder if there's an entire thriving universe out there made of dark energy and dark matter, and those dark scientists are trying to figure out where the missing 5% of the universe is :)

“We need to make sure that something is actually looking back at us, and we’re not just seeing our own reflection” hell of a good quote

I always thought that stars could actually be living beings. They're born in stellar nurseries, grow to a fully adult form, have complex processes going on inside them, they grow old and die and upon their death they seed the surrounding area, producing offspring stars.

The 'Big Brain Universe' theory is something I've ALWAYS considered as extremely possible...

This is a photon, his name is Jim.

Im a biologist and we havent even figured out how photosynthesis works exactly. it appears superposition is involved... I think the most important thing is to keep asking questions even woo woo ones, and testing them...and be nice to your plants

The eye is a little more sophisticated than just seeing color and objects. There are certain mapping of the photo receptors that pre-interpret shapes before sending that information to the brain. Certain objects get priority - eyes, for example. If someone is watching us, we're hardwired to notice that.

I love this theory I once thought about it like what if each cell in your body is actually everything you see in space and vice versa and you’re basically looking at gigantic cells or organisms in the sky that seem to live forever but when you go down scale everything lives and dies fast and you are at the center of infinity and are ultimately large and tiny at the same time

I read a book called "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies, in the 'holographic universe' realm of theory, and something that stuck with me was the idea that 'thoughts' and consciousness neither originate nor store in the physical brain but the brain acts like a Receiver for consciousness that is transmitted from the universe. While the scientific world has moved on from the theory, there's something about that idea that resonates to me.

The idea that pure consciousness could exist in isolation without any mechanisms for memory, knowledge, or the ability to sort stimuli into qualia is Lovecraftian as hell

I've had this theory since I was 10 years old. It's so refreshing to know that my thoughts are not too crazy.

Finally, some scientists are beginning to see that consciousness is the basic stuff of everything.

😂It's funny, when I was a kid (I was a weird kid) I would thank lightbulbs for working, apologize to doors for slamming them, that sort of thing. I even hated throwing things away because I didn't want to hurt its feelings. So, I guess what I'm saying is, I KNEW IT! KNEEL BEFORE MY CHILDHOOD DISORDERS!

I remember a futurama episode where bender gets lost in space and becomes a god/planet. he ends up meeting a conscious cosmic cloud/being which he asks if the being considers itself god. That episode is probably one of my favorite, and the creators using a very interesting theory.

Joe I applaud your fearlessness in always bringing the woo-woo side of science to the masses. It gives me hope that one day we’ll figure out this universe we are in. We must entertain (& prove or disprove) everything to get to the truth.

HUH, I had no idea this had a name! I used to trip a lot on DXM (dissociative/psychedelic) and I would often spend that time thinking about myself, the meaning of life and other complex questions. I am not religious, I think maybe I was looking for something spiritual, but I remember seeing and coming to the conclusion that everything is conscious, just different levels of sophistication based on the complexity of the container (a human brain being more capable than say a chair). It made so much sense, it answered a lot of questions that I had and brought me peace. It made me feel calm about my fragile mortality, that my body would die one day but my consciousness would continue on. Even though I'm not religious, I have a hard time believing I simply won't exist one day. Existence is all I've ever known.

I once loved a short novel that described clusters of conciusness created by randomness as actual aliens. At some point I remeber one of them stating that their form of intelligence is common and organic conciousness is actually far rarer. Considering that the way they came into existence was determined by randomness among the information out there but it is still less conditional than organic life, it made a lot of sense. I love the concept.

Could we get a video about neuromorphic computers sometime? That sounds incredibly interesting!

I always question whether the universe's biggest mysteries has already been solved within the Earth as in a reoccurring pattern seen on Earth's natural environments such as trees being present in the galaxy some way or another.

I've given this a lot of thought and kind of fell into the conclusion that "it is relative". I personally don't like to use the word "consciousness" because people attach a bunch of stuff to it that is usually human specific and not actually required to create a general definition. However, if we use the word as it is constructed in the English language, meaning the word conscious and the suffix ness, then I like that definition since it basically comes out to something like "the ability to perceive and respond to one's environment". Dr David Wulpert has a nice definition of an observer and it is something like "an observer is a system that acquires information from the environment to stay out of quantum equilibrium" and a "natural system"(what the observer observes) is "a system that is always in a state of quantum equilibrium". Meaning a falling chunk of rock isn't an observer because it just basically follows the path of least resistance but if I want to remain an observer I had better move out of the way. Everything is a combination of something smaller and at every step it requires some sort of "self-other" recognition that is relevant given the scale. If we try to describe that in general terms it comes out to look fairly analogous to computation on both sides but one is reversible and the other isn't. Some fairly recent research seems to suggest that the edge of the universe may act as a sort of observer and black holes may also act as some sort of observer. What if consciousness is the opposite of light in some sort of fundamental way? Once an observer has observed it can't un-observe and that could be described using something like a light cone.

I like the idea of panpsychism because it has the beautiful implication that we are the sensory organ that reality evolved to understand itself.

It’s Monday man. Can I have one day without an existential crisis

Your gut bacteria thinks it is impossible for joe to exist.

The Double-Slit Experiment is simple: When unobserved, it shows all possible realities. When you put a sensor on it, you're effectively saying, "I want to know what happened in /this/ *specific* reality."

What if the system running the simulation doesnt have enough power to simulate every particle at all times so they just stay in a compressed indeterminate state until they are observed. Like occlusion culling in a video game.

I really enjoy the fact that Joe tackles all kinds of topics, even "far out" topics like this.

Honestly when you think of the universe, it makes sense that a conscious could be born out of anything of any size as long as the properties that builds it makes sense for them

"Guy in a coma? It's complicated." That was hilarious! I have wondered if perhaps the whole universe was broken up fractally into various conscious units. It sounds like panpsychism is the name for that general, or a very similar, idea. It's cool to know it has a name and that some presumably smart people think it's a viable enough idea to at least be worth investigating. And it was what I heard of the double slit experiment that made me wonder about that. That said, thanks to the hard problem of consciousness, it could be very difficult for us to confirm consciousness outside of animals, and especially outside of biological systems.

The idea that there was a recognizable state of being at every scale from small to large, was something I always liked about Madeline L'engle's books. In one of the books iirc the characters are even having their adventures inside the cell of another character.

Can't we proove the photons aren't "choosing" to be shy, since they do this 100% of the time reliably?

Thanks for making these concepts accessible to us non-scientists who are curious!

I’m a firm believer that “Every system is made up of subsystems, and every system is a subsystem of a larger system. We just have limits to what we can see and imagine.”. It’s clear that looking at the map of the universe, we are dealing with a very neuron like structure. Just because we can’t see past our universe, doesn’t mean that our universe isn’t just a cell of a larger system of universes. We very well could be the Higgs boson of that larger system.

Two comparisons to Toy Story: toys are moving until someone enters their room and observes the toys in their places. Buzz Lightyear’s explanation that he’s not actually flying but “falling with style” is like our own feelings of consciousness-we are just falling with style/collection of chemical reactions to our environment like less sophisticated life forms.

I've been thinking about the large astronomical objects and structures, and that they may be a type of lifeform that does make conscious decisions. But the spacetime scale is so unimaginably different from humans, that for us to comprehend its actions would be like trying to understand the human mind from looking at individual atoms in the brain.

There is no way to "observe" a subatomic particle without interacting with it. A photons behaviour changing after interacting with a detector is not that strange. The photon doesn't choose anything. It's like hitting one pool ball with another pool ball and deciding that the first ball is choosing to roll across the table.

this is the first video of yours ive seen, and youve definitely caught my attention!! im pretty woowoo but i also love science so it’s AWESOME to see the facts presented straight up and with a clear line drawn between whats been found with science vs whats woowoo speculation!! :)

Well it's been said that photosynthesis shows a rudimentary sort of consciousness while using entanglement, so things being conscious on a fundamental level may not be too much of a stretch.

Panpsychism has always seemed like a really far out idea, but consciousness emerging from unconscious material seems equally far out to me. So who knows🤷‍♂

When I was a kid people treated multiverses like a "woo woo" topic, nobody wanted to touch that subject and today, altough it's not proven yet, it's very well accepted, debated topic. It gives me hope when scientists come down from their pedestals and mingle with the mortals.

You're enthusiasm for science is contagious

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Penrose is still alive, so should probably be talked about in the present tense. Anyway, I think this is all woo-woo, or at least a high level overview of it makes it sound woo-y. Part of the problem is defining consciousness. Sean Carroll said in one of his AMAs that he thinks consciousness isn't just one thing, and as we get better at understanding the different phenomena that make it up, it will become less mysterious.

I never really understood the double slit experiment. If no observer, it's a wave. That's fine. But if observed, it's a particle. But if it's a particle, then it gets absorbed in your eyes or the sensor, so it never reaching the back wall. At least not the one you observed. So what exactly happens? It's not like you can observe a single photon and then let it go "thanks for stopping by, now go on your marry way as you were". It's also unlikely that the one photon you capture is shouting to the others "Hey guys, we're being watched, get into formation!". I know these animations tend to oversimplify things, but I feel in this case either everyone gets it wrong and even the people explaining don't really understand it, or it's way oversimplified to the point that it doesn't make sense anymore.

It just drives me absolutely crazy that I’ve heard this explanation of double slit experiment many many times in many many videos and they never reveal exactly how the detector works, because it’s well understood that when you try to measure something, you change it, and so if your measuring which of the slits the electron or photon goes through, then you’re gonna change its behavior and they just kind of skip over that !

I'd love to see you explain some of the cool stuff happening at CERNs antimatter factory. Their anti hydrogen experiment really drew my interest.

I think that before we can go looking for consciousness we need to define what makes consciousness in the first place. we know we are conscious but we don't know how it works.

In my understanding of panpsychism, I had never heard it presented this way. It was more so that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe even on a quantum level and as a system gets more complex and coherent then consciosness like our own is emergent out of that. This wouldn't imply stars can think and react the way we do. A star would be closer to the consciousness level of something like a cell, but still even lower than that.

“guy in a coma… *hesitates*” made me LOL

I don't know man, the photon can decide which slit to pass through all it wants, but unless it has the means to _actualize_ that decision it'll behave like a mindless photon. This kind of makes the psychokinetic power a necessity, and kind of makes it all coo coo for coco puffs.

Star Maker is one of my favorite books ever! The part about the conscious stars is one of the best parts. I really recommend every scifi lover to read this book.

The wife and I have been getting sucked into a ton of your videos lately. I dig the humor, and simple explanations of complicated topics. All the X's and O's, my nilla.

You know it's nice to hear someone say what I've known for 30 years. I don't feel so alone anymore

Back in 2020 I wrote a paper regarding this. Trust me, proving consciousness is hard coz we don't even know what consciousness is fundamentally. I used interaction of everything as shared information resulting to consciousness, but my prof was not convinced. He wanted me to utilize chemistry and biology

I was expecting some mention of the fact that for 99% of human existence, humans believed that rocks, stars, rivers, everything has consciousness.

That was crazy interesting. I'm going to have to watch more of your content. Thanks mate 👍

Has anyone else noticed that when you have lag or error message issues when playing a media disc, if you can gaze at the light from the laser reading the disc, it corrects the issue in seconds?

here's a twist: adding on to your suggestion that the universe may have consciousness, maybe life in the universe is the manifestation of said consciousness.

The obvious argument against that to me is the fact that the “decisions” are always the same. If we did the double slit experiment and sometimes got interference and sometimes none with the same setup, then perhaps the universe is consciously deciding which to do but since the results always follow predictable laws, not so much.

I am not in any way, shape or form a physicist, and may be showing my ignorance on this subject, but my theory is, it is not the observation that makes the two pattern groupings, it is the addition of the sensor. How far away from the slits is the sensor? If it is close enough to be anywhere within the vicinity of the protons, then the physical presence of the sensor disrupts the waveform pattern of the protons so they group into two lines.

The way I see it is that the Universe is at least partly conscious, since we are part of the Universe and we are conscious. As Carl Sagan said. "We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to selfawareness".

There's a difference between consciousness and being self-aware. A new born baby is conscious but doesn't become a self-aware person for roughly 1.5 to 2 years.

About the double-slit experiment… Occam’s Razor… it could just be the slight electromagnetic field generated by the observing the device collapses the waveform into particles. Observing does reduce the energy slightly. That could be enough.

Hey Joe, I am curious. I have never heard anyone ever talking about the problem with the detection method. From my understanding, its an intrusive test. Meaning the sensor has to send out its own signal to make a determination. My mind says "Well this seems like the active sensors are fudging the results". If I throw a ball perpendicular to uour ball throw, they would collide and change the trajectory of both objects. So if the results are automatically fudged, why do people use this as a means for anything? Love your show, btw.

To me I had always thought if we were able to shrink down to be able to stand on an atom it would feel exactly the same as being on Earth with near by electrons or other atoms being like nearby planets to Earth. "As above so is below"

One of my favorite explanations for existence is that we are in a dream of some greater being. When something comes into existence, it's part of that being splitting off, and then it rejoins it upon death/destruction. I compare it to the ocean. The ocean is THE ocean, it's one entity, but sometimes a splash creates water droplets. They come out of the ocean and then rejoin the ocean and cease to be a droplet. Even though they weren't the whole ocean for that moment. The greater being is conscious, everything is conscious, we as individuals do not hold the consciousness within us. We swim in the sea of consciousness and our consciousness is in direct relation to existence around us. Think of it like this, how can you be so devastated seeing a child be injured but someone saying, "Over one and a half million people have died from COVID in the US" doesn't really trigger anything? Because they're not within your observation. Your consciousness inside you is limited to your experiences. The greater consciousness that embues you with your own mini temporary consciousness relative to your surroundings within your body is still in everything else. You're just a droplet with its own experience of existence for a brief moment. And in that moment you're cut off from the consciousness of the entire ocean. In a dream, there is dream logic, and there are parameters within your dream even though you're not actively constructing them, and that's why flying can be just something you can or can't do, and the physics your brain conjures are just there. If you tried to examine dream physics in some way, I'm pretty sure it would be very much like what we observe in our reality. Which can be summed up as "UMMM WHAT???" That's like the thesis of modern physics. Yeah I just find it a really beautiful explanation that makes sense but is more thought provoking and makes you ask questions. The best kind of explanation. The simulation theory is basically this theory but a consciously constructed reality within a computer vs a result of imagination and creativity within the dream of a brain. Kind of fits with most major religions also, they have that "deliberate intelligent design" view as well, that's the only big difference. And I feel like the meaning of life and where we come from and where we go is captured poetically and accurately with the droplet of water from the ocean analogy. What does it mean, how do you define the droplet, how can you say that droplet ceases to exist despite still physically existing in a distributed yet connected state, what is it to be a droplet and the ocean, or come from the ocean to rejoin it. This works on a physical and spiritual level. We do just end up as redistributed atoms in the universe. You're currently partially made of stars. Part of you will eventually become part of a star again. But it applies to the soul as well. I think about this a lot lol. Yes, I'm just a writer who likes philosophy, but history does show that scientists get the ideas to test things from people like us, sci-fi has literally shaped our tech. It's not worthless.

I've been really considering panpsychism recently, but I really don't get this whole idea of things moving because they choose to. There is a big difference between being aware of your self and things happening to you, and being able to move yourself. We're self-aware and yet can't just move ourselves any which way, we're constrained by the laws of physics and our own physiology. Also, where I'm considering the idea of "everything is conscious", it's not so much that. It's more that consciousness is kind of a spectrum, and where we say "that's consciousness" is arbitrary. It's basically like life. There's a progression from the fundamental particles, to atoms, to molecules, to organelles, to cells, to multicellular beings. Where do you draw the line and say that's where life starts and before that it's not life? You probably have an answer, and that makes sense. My point isn't to say you can't draw a line, it's just that the term "life" doesn't mean a whole lot other than an easy way for us to categorise things.

4:57 I like the resonance theory - because once the resonances are built up, then you can accumulate and then have something come out of it!

The way you explained it makes it sounds like equating systems and reactions to higher levels of decision making, which i think is more what consciousness is

So, the universe IS fn with my life for giggles. Ok, now it’s personal

They often don't specify, to the public at least, what the "observer" actually is. Or the distance between the slits. I think I saw a video made by other physicists about this some time ago and the distance between slits should be pretty small. And the "observer", IIRC, was some sort of a lens that would interfere with the photon or even absorb it then re-emitting it. The "weirdness" of quantum mechanics seem to be cause by the fact that the energy of your measuring particle is very high compared with the measured one. That's like wanting to detect the motion of a snooker red ball by throwing the cue ball at it pretty hard and determine the red ball's position and speed based on how the cue ball bounces back to the observer. We know that the red ball will no longer be on its original vector after that.

It's actually not the weirdest thing in QM it's the expected behavior because you're interacting with the the photon via a particle that collapses it. It doesn't just collapse just because you observe it, it collapses because in order to observe it you must have something that interacts with it. It's really concerning there are so many people out there that keep parroting that this experiment is weird or shows that there's some kind of woo woo nonsense going on like that photons must "know they are being observed" or that we must be living in a computer simulation. Like, no, you either don't understand the double slit experiment or you intentionally misrepresent it to get attention.

I find the idea that things like particulars or atoms are conscious very hard to believe but the idea the universe, galaxies, nebulas, etc have a type of consciousness is something I'm willing to consider. Even something as small by comparison as planets is again something that I could see as true. If everything is conscious then it could be impossible to ever find out as the various particles etc that make up the devices designed to try and prove it might decide they'd rather humanity never got to know it and intentionally mess with the results. 😊

I really appreciate the enjoyably comedic and agnostic approach with which you explain some very controversial topics. Thank you for this video

It _is_ conscious. We're conscious and we're made of the stuff of the universe, so at the very least, that part of the universe that is us is conscious. Perhaps that's why we're driven to explore and try to understand the universe from the smallest things to the whole universe itself: We're manifestations of the universe trying to understand itself.

the fact that there is a negitive and positive to everything, if something goes good it has to go bad at some point, or maybe mostly bad enough to balance out, if the universe started with a bang who's to say its not gonna do something sort of the opposite we got matter and dark matter companies with good intentions go bad the fact that there is a negitive and positive to seemingly everything, frankly, scares me. a lot especially if ive had the best time of my life, and then forget to anticipate that it could cause me to have the worst time of my life, or a slow descent into pain I keep seeing this over and over, you could 100% chock it all up to anything else but so much of stuff we do and think about are bound to language and having to be or not to be something but when we evolved, it was just, well, the way it was, the weirdness, the way things happen, they just kinda happen that way, some things we may not ever be able to explain because, well, it just *does* what it does, or we are understanding it wrong. i feel like ANYTHING is possible but the something we are doing, is just, limiting it, we know we cant walk on water, or destroy the laws of physics but, what if we can? and just. did? its us preventing us but in a way we dont know why maybe? sometimes i think brute forcing physics may somehow break it enough for us to be able to do *something* right? then again im probably wrong, we dont know really anything about the universe and im just happy to see it as: it is how it is, because it is. regardless it can be fun to theorize about the universe and such, just- maybe not the whole questioning your own reality and instead of dissasociating it from real life (while it is actually real life) instead accidentally reminding yourself that you and the screen and things around you are a part of that, making it all feel big and open, more scary, less protection than thinking of it almost like fiction.

It's important to note that there are many theories of consciousness that don't require free will. Basic Panpsychism, by itself, doesn't posit that everything has free will. It is entirely consistent to consider that everything has consciousness while not having free will, and as such would not fill any "gaps" in our understanding of the universe. Rather, depending on the form, it would tell us about a part of the universe we may not have considered before.

Damn Joe, if all people were more like you, I wouldn't be a grumpy old man at 26yo. Thank you for all the intelligently enlightening content.

Since there are no absolutes maybe consciousness and awareness comes in different degrees. Like how aware someone or something is. I love thinking about this stuff thank you very much for the video which I will be watching multiple times!

This reminds me of the “cosmic imagination” concept from adventure time in which the multiverse is manifested from a consciousness that is dreaming and the universe is the dream with conscious creatures being the “dreamer” living billions of “dreams” at the same time meaning each conscious creature is a sliver of the cosmic imagination itself. If every conscious entity dies in such a universe, the universe blinks out of existence as there is no consciousness to collapse the quantum wave function through observation.

Ive been planning on writing a thesis about this stuff, I have a feeling that fields are a state of energy, that potential energy and conciousness both fall into that category, and that its a result of moving systems occelating in specific complex patterns. Ideas are your brain borrowing dark energy/field energy to create extra particles in the protons temporarily and form new patterns, effecting the wave collapse, which it then records. Im not sure how to prove it but I'm almost positive. The idea is precicated on the assumtion that the four fundamental forces/dimensions are void, motion, time and perspective, which fits in perfectly with the current understanding of physics and almost every ancient science/religion. The idea is that quarks are just the point at which energy becomes and flucates between matter, and that movement inside a proton generates microscopic amounts of consciousness as a field, that then resonates up, more so in different patterns. Most of the unnacounted for energy is a field of correlation being created by the pattern of everything moving and being relative to eachother

Hi Joe! Thanks Joe! :) I love this type of physics! I vote for a video on neuro-morphic computers.

Holy Photons Batman, you've really dialed in the video production. Impeccable. Content is brilliant as always, too. Way to go, Joe!

Actually observing the double split experiment blew my mind. Showing animations doesn't do it justice.

What happens if you turn the sensor on and then off? Does the pattern change instantly as a result?

Hi Joe! Do you think you could add links in the description to your previous videos that you reference here? In particular, I'd love to dig out the previous video on General Resonance theory, but I'm striking out just scanning the titles on your hundreds of videos.

i had many of these intuitions this exact morning. it's not the first time these pop up in my mind out of nothing. i credit youtube channels like yours for that. the level of divulgation here is way better than any other in the world. it feels like standing on the shoulder of the giants. i have a hard time understanding why nobody accepts the fact online education has gone way beyond classic systems and use it as model in european countries for example. keep up the good work!!

About GRT: Where's the link between perception and decision ? Redefining consciousness doesn't magically give particles the ability to make decisions. About IIT: A software can very well model a parallel neural network, regardless of the structure of the hardware it runs on. At best, parallel hardware architecture improves speed, which I'll admit may lead to a breakthrough, but just for the argument's sake: a virtual model's structure doesn't have to reflect the structure of the hardware it runs on. That's the meaning of the words "virtual", and "general purpose computer".

I'm not a scientist, but when considering the speed planets, stars, galaxies, etc., move, rotate through space, universe, BALANCE is maintained, look at how everything constantly maintains balance, to know exactly how everything balances throughout the universe, it must all be consciously connected, to imagine an omni present consciousness would be to realize the universe is an infinite brain balancing everything...Quantum entanglement experiment with the neutrons color changing over distance, this sparked the realization that everything is connected, all neutrons are in contact with the Big Brain, It knows everything and how to influence balance, an Omnipresent Intelligence.

2:00 Putting double slit experiment and black matter next to each other made me think. Like obviously it's not the same situation, but what, if our methods of observation of Dark Matter just make the information that could have reached us normally - interfered by the method itself. Like we can't see Dark Matter not because it is invisible/doesn’t produce light/something, but because the way we look hides the data pattern that exists in some form, that would be visible if we haven't "looked" at it. It still leaves that interference pattern - but it's just that we are in the "dark spot" between two light slits. Like we still see some effects of it like gravitation - similar to how we probably could detect the observation plate being heated by the laser.

Many years ago I watched a video by Ian Xel Lungold about his theories on the meaning of the Mayan Calendar. His lectures described everything as having a base level of consciousness, even the inanimate. Base levels have action-reaction, and higher levels move to stimulus-response. Everything reacts to rules of physics, and the reaction to those rules can be defined as being conscious of them. By that logic, all matter reacts to physics, and all matter is conscious at some level. This concept always stuck with me above anything from his lectures. Everything bound by physics is conscious of physics. That became my definition of consciousness. To me, current studies are trying to define "Intelligence", not "Consciousness".

I thought the double slit experiment conclusions were due to the electromagnetic fields of the cameras effecting the movement of the photons?

I worked out one of the reasons AI is not reaching a conscious state. Apart from the fact that the AI will require a set of survival instincts, thus creating risk, rewards and failure or punishment. It needs to learn how to forget. Humans forget 99% of what they see each day, we remember things that are important, fun, surprising, different etc. Going back to more basic instincts that might be closer to memories of what we can eat, where water and shelter are, what is dangerous etc. We all remember different slices of the same story viewed from different angles with individual experiences so Ai would also need to divide itself into many to be able to appreciate difference of opinion and group organisation which in a way it already does. Not long now! Teach them how to forget most of what they see in order to prioritise better, divide itself so opinions can be compared and or appreciated / argued. Obviously AI can record everything it has data for so it would need to find a way to separate the actions and recall any (data it was not aware of in the front system but can be related to as it would all be stored in the back system) as necessary.

What if no choice was made? What if the photon just did what it was supposed to do? What if there is no choice or consciousness but simply everything playing out as it has to because this is what it does and how it does it?

Strangely enough this is a theory that has existed for thousands of years- early meso American societies had the ‘teotl’ and the practices of Taoism in Asia also have similar ideas. Knowledge is cyclical.

Answers with joe finally talks about my favorite thing

I missed the woo woo alarm, it's nice to finally see another topic about this, it's fun to wonder at these weird science theories 😂

I might have said this a couple videos ago, but I love the Episode 2 Obi-Wan thing Joe has with his hair right now. So does that mean that the particles have conscious? Or is it the Force? Have we discovered midichlorians??

This reminds me of the Futurama episode titled "Godfellas" (Season 3, Episode 20), wherein Bender has a conversation with what appears to be a sentient, galaxy-sized being that he believes to be God. During the scene, Bender finds himself marooned on in space after being ejected from the ship. Feeling alone and desperate, he starts talking to the stars and asking for guidance. Suddenly, a passing meteor crashes into the asteroid, revealing a complex sequence of events that eventually lead to the creation of life on the asteroid, including a civilization that evolves and worships Bender as a deity. As Bender continues to talk to what he believes is God, he experiences the passage of time in a unique way. The conversation spans millennia in just a few minutes for Bender, and he learns about the universe's complexities and the challenges of being a deity. The "God" figure explains the nature of existence, fate, and free will. Eventually, Bender and the deity have a philosophical discussion about whether or not God truly exists, and whether the deity's role is more of a passive observer or an active participant in the universe's events. The scene is a mix of humor, existential contemplation, and a unique twist on the concept of a conversation with a higher power.

7:13 - Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's Orch OR theory of consciousness is fascinating.

Superposition postpones change. For large objects we call this steady state. Lack of change requires lack of interaction, not limited to lack of conscious measurement.