This Physicist Has A "Relativistic Theory of Consciousness"

The default assumption for most people in the West is that the brain generates consciousness.

So something brainy neurological happens, neurons are firing, and then consciousness pops out like

steam from a kettle. Now you think this is not just wrong, you think it's confused. Before we get

technical, what's the short version of what you think's actually happening? What actually is happening

here is a physical process and not only in computational process, because of relativity that

from the outside we can measure neural patterns and from the inside we measure a new physical

entity which we call consciousness. So this is like a one line of the theory.

Okay, explain how most people, most of your colleagues who aren't educated in these matters,

think of consciousness. I guess, so if we take people from the street and ask them what do you

think about consciousness? Most of the people, including me when I was a child, would think that

consciousness is separate than matter. It's something different, very dualistic way of thinking.

I guess maybe because of the influence of religion, we tend to think of a soul or something like that,

right? But then we saw that actually there is not only great correlation between consciousness and

the brain, but also causation. If we are stimulus, an area in the vision cortex, for example,

we can create a conscious experience of seeing, even though there's nothing there, not just because

of the electricity of the stimulus that we gain. And in a different area, if we will stimulate,

the person will say that they feel, for example, humor, that there is something that is funny

all of a sudden, right? So we have this causality between the activity of the brain and consciousness.

So we would think that consciousness is just something that emerges from our brain. And if we know

enough neuroscience, and we understand enough the computations of the brain, then we will explain

the emergence of consciousness. But it's not the case. I mean, in philosophy, for millennia,

and in recent years from let's say the 70s, we know that there is a very hard problem here. There

is a big mystery about consciousness. I think that most of scientists and neuroscientists don't

appreciate enough this hard problem. But it's there. There is a really big mystery here. We cannot

just say that consciousness is computations of the brain. Look, for those who are just tuning in,

we'll go over your relativistic theory of consciousness, which has over 100,000 downloads.

By the way, and it will be explained extremely simply to the audience with intuitive analogies. I'll

even explain your own theory back to you to ensure that I understand it. And then I'll tell you

what troubles me about it. Sure. Excellent. Anyhow, you said something super interesting. If I heard

you correctly, it's that it's not just a computational process, it's a physical process. So many viewers

of this channel may have heard of the church-turing thesis. Maybe they've even heard of the physical

church-turing thesis. Are you not accepting the physical church-turing thesis? Do you think there's

more to physical processes to physics than what's computational? So I think that there are two

questions, separate questions here. One is about the computations. And the church-turing hypothesis

is about the ability that if something can be computed, then we can build a computer or

like a chewing machine that will compute it. With that, I have no problem, I'd say.

But it doesn't mean that our brain only creates computations. Of course, our brain creates lots

of computations. This is what a cognitive system does. It gets information from the outside world,

manipulates it with computations, and creates representations, and in the end of the day,

creates outputs. What I'm trying to say is that it's not enough in order to create consciousness.

Now, soon we'll see why. I mean, the problem here is the proper name for this problem is the

explanatory gap. Now, because of the explanatory gap, it's not enough just to speak about

computations. Now, so what do I mean by that? The explanatory gap is because, let's say that

you are feeling happiness right now. Because talking with me, it's such an amazing event.

Right? You see, I know everything. Now, let's say that I can check your brain.

And I will find the neural pattern of your happiness. But I will not know that this neural pattern

is all about your happiness. I need to ask you, what do you feel right now? What do you

experience? And then you will tell me, oh, I feel happiness, which is already a bit weird that

it's not public. I don't know what you feel. I don't know what you experience. I need to ask you

in the end of the day. But then it's not enough because we think that the brain create our conscious

mind. So I would expect to find in your brain all the process of creating your experiences,

like creating your happiness, for example. Oh, you know what? Let's take even a simpler example.

Let's say that you see now my glass here. And you have experience of this glass, right? And I'm

again, I will check your neural patterns until I will find a representation of this glass.

But this representation is not the actual experience that you have of the glass,

because this representation is a state in our brain, right? So when we look at the brain,

we try to understand how it works. And we can check like the space of all states that the brain

can create, you know, our neural network. It's a vast neural network. So it's a vast

state space. And then one of those states will be the state that represents the experience of

this glass. Now, when you experience it, you experience, you know, something that has a bit of a

blue color and some kind of a height. And it's a 3D shape, right? But then when I check on this

state of this representation in your brain, I will see something completely different.

Because this state space is composed of the variables of how your brain works. For example,

maybe it will be one of those variables will be the voltage of the membrane of your neurons,

or maybe another variable will be which chemicals are being released right now over there.

So we have lots of physical processes. And all of them together create this state that represent

the glass. But in the end of the day, what you experience is something completely different.

You know, it's something with colors, with height, 3D shape. So where is it in the brain? How can

the brain create it? Right? We assume that the brain needs to create all those properties that you

actually see, you know, that you actually experience. But then the representation that I see in your

brain has a completely different kind of properties. So where in the brain, you know, we can see the

creation of the actual experience of the actual glass. And the answer is that nowhere, nowhere in the

brain because the brain can do one thing. It can create neural patterns. And it can create more

and more neural patterns, more and more complex emergence of complex neural patterns.

But it always stays with neural patterns. So how can those neural patterns be translate into the

actual experience of a glass? Okay. This is in a naturally hard problem. And you know, the

explanatory gap. You know, there is a gap here between the first person point of view,

the experience of a glass. And the third person point of view, when I look at your brain and see

only in your representations. And it's not clear how can there be even a reduction between,

you know, the experience of the glass to the actual patterns in the brain. Right? So that's why

we cannot say it's not enough to say that, you know, the brain just may make computations.

Because all those computations, this is exactly what we what I described before with the state

of, you know, of neural patterns. And it's not enough in order to explain how the conscious

experience is being created. Right? And that's why it hints that we need more than just computations

in order to understand this, you know, mystery of consciousness. Let me see if I got this correct.

In a third person scientific point of view, there's something of a neural state. Let's call this

P for your brain. And then there is something that some P's, so some neural states correspond to,

or they seem to produce like a Q. Let's call that the first person qualia or the first person

phenomenal consciousness. So if P then Q, but if P then Q doesn't seem to follow from logical

necessity, it just seems to be something extra added on. And the question is, well, where does

this if P then Q come from? And are Q and P of a completely different nature? Are they twins

of the same coin? Some a limit of this will just say that Q is equal to P. Some illusionists will

say that Q should be replaced with Q star is some diminutive version of Q that in fact, there is

no qualia. That's a Daniel Dennett type phrase. So there are various responses. And then a Bernardo

Castro may say something like, well, the P comes from the Q. Right. So one way of looking at the

explanatory gap, at least for me is to think in terms of this conditional if P then Q. And then

what's the relationship between P and Q and the truth value of this and where it comes from?

Tell me if I'm wrong. No, you're right. It's a good, good, good way to present the explanatory

gap and the hard problem. I think that it's not enough. If someone is here for the first time and

here, you know, this hard problem for the first time, I think it's not enough. In order to understand

why there is a problem here, I think the deeper layer is to understand that we cannot identify

between the neural patterns and the computations with the experience just because they are very

different from each other. They have even opposite properties. For example, again, your neural

patterns are public. If I really want, I can, you know, open your brain and see your neural patterns,

but your experience is not public. So we have a property that is actually opposite between the two.

So there cannot be identity because of that, right? If there is an identity, then everything should

be the same. But it's not the same. Actually, we have a property that is the opposite between

neural patterns and computations and your conscious experience. So they cannot be identical. They

cannot be the same. And then also it becomes much harder to explain how those experiences

can come about from, you know, and your patterns. How can you do this reduction? If they have

such different properties, even opposite properties, I think this is the essential part here.

You know what, I have another example for that. People sometimes ask me, isn't it a bit like a

computer like the brain is like in the computer, we have zeros and ones. We have machine language,

the machine language. And this is if we take the brain as a computer, we have the machine language

of the brain, all those neural patterns. But then in the end, you can see the screen of the

computer, some images. This should be consciousness. This should be our conscious experience. What is

the problem with that? The answer is that with our brain, we cannot find the screen, the screen of

the computer in this analogy. We only have more and more machine language, more and more neural

patterns. And somehow, miraculously, from those neural patterns, boom, you have the screen. But

where is it? You know, we think that with science, we need to explain everything, right? With

physical mechanisms. So what is the physical mechanism that takes us from the language of the brain

to the actual screen where we can see the experiences? And there is none. The brain only

have those neural patterns. So this is the hard problem in another world, at least how I see it.

Okay, now what is your response to the hard problem? What is near-leave, physicist, near-leave?

What is your theory of consciousness? Okay, why is it called a relativistic theory of consciousness?

But you know, before that, we didn't speak about what is consciousness to begin with because

for many people, it can be something different. So just let me say very briefly that consciousness,

you know, there is a canonical way of thinking about consciousness from Thomas Nagel in the 70s,

that consciousness is, if the creature has something that is like to be the creature,

then this creature has consciousness. So for example, when we awake or when we are dreaming even,

we have something that is like, you know, again, you have something that is like to see this glass.

You can, you know, for you, it's like, I don't know, it's a round shaped and so on, right? But then when

we in deep sleep or under anesthesia, we have nothing that is like. It's all black, right? Nobody is

home and that's why you don't have consciousness then, right? So this is what we try to understand.

This is something that is likeness, right? And the problem is that we cannot find how the brain,

how can we can do a reduction from this property that we have, something that is like to experience,

ourselves and the outside world, how can we do a reduction from it to brain patterns, okay?

So just to be clear for what we are talking about here. Sure. Now one of the reasons why I used to

ask for people's definitions of consciousness and then I stopped, one because many people had

different definitions and another was because I kept hearing what it's like and that never

satisfied me because people would propose it as a definition as if it's not circular.

So if I said what is consciousness and then you said it's experiential, you experience something.

Then I could just say that's a synonym of consciousness and it's circular. But then someone says,

well, what is consciousness? It's what it's like. And then I say, well, what the heck do you mean by

what it's like? And you couched yourself into some experiential element anyhow. So you're just

two nodes deep of a circularity rather than one node deep, which isn't much of an improvement on

circularity. What do you make about it? So I think that it doesn't capture something

important about consciousness. At least it captures what it's not. Because it captures the fact

that when we in deep sleep with no dreams, for example, we have nothing that is like,

it's only black, even to say black, of course, it's just a metaphor. We are just not there.

And all of a sudden when we wake up, boom, everything comes back. So I think that this definition

to have something that is like at least capture that, you know, this difference.

But of course, it's not ideal. But it gives us something to work with, where a starting point.

Because without that, as you said, different people can define consciousness vastly different.

And then we will speak about different stuff and we cannot make any progress. So we need to start

somewhere, right? Even if it's not a very good definition. And in physics, by the way, we don't

really use lots of definitions. We use much more the relations, like equation. If you can think about

an equation, it's more about the relations between different properties like F equal MA. So you have

those properties of false, matter, acceleration, and what are the relations between them?

No one asks exactly, okay, but what is the definition of an S? It's actually not to that simple.

What is the definition of energy? Right? Because you can say, yeah, we know that mass is an energy

equal to M C square. Einstein showed us that mass is just a form of energy. But then, okay,

so what is energy? Okay, this is a wider question, right? It's not exactly clear what energy is.

So again, definitions are not that important. It's just a good starting point. So we will be on

the same page here, okay? And that's why for me, it's good enough. Most of my best ideas don't

happen during interviews. They come spontaneously, most of the time in the shower, actually, or while I'm

walking, until I had plot, I would frequently lose them because by the time I write down half of it,

it's gone. I tried voice capture before, like Google Home, and it just cuts me off in the middle.

It's so frustrating. Most of my ideas aren't these 10 seconds sound bites. They're ponderous. They're

long-winded. And I wind around. They're discursive. They're five minutes long. Apple notes, even Google

keep the transcription. There's horrible. But plot, let's me talk for as long as I want, and there's

no interruptions. It's accurate capture. It organizes everything into clear summaries, key takeaways,

action items. I can even come back later and say, hey, what was that thread I was talking about

regarding consciousness and information? In fact, this episode itself has a plot summary below,

and I'm using it right now over here. My personal workflow is that I have their auto-flow feature

enabled, so it sends me an email anytime I take a note. Look, the fact that I can just press it,

and it turns on instantly, like right now, it's starting to record without a delay is extremely

underrated. This, by the way, is the note pro, and then this is the note pin. I have both.

Over 1.5 million people use plot around the world. If your work depends on conversations,

or the ideas that come after them, it's worth checking out. That's plot.ai slash T-O-E,

use code T-O-E for 10% off at checkout. I actually have a video about how global energy

in general relativity isn't a well-defined concept. That is something that the audience can

click on if they like. I'll put a link on screen. Anyhow, it seems like most of the groundwork

has been laid. Let's get to your theory, and it's going to be developed slowly over the next

two hours, what is relativistic consciousness. If you're listening, and you're not getting it,

just keep listening, because I want to make sure all the conceptual scaffolding is there,

I imagine that'll take a couple hours. So now let's get to your theory. Okay, so because

it seems like a neuroscience cannot really solve this explanatory gap. It will always stuck

in the third person point of view, right? So we need something completely different.

Now, to be fair, it seems like physics also will not do the trick here, because physics also

tells us about relations from the third person point of view. But the thing with physics is that

it's very unintuitive, and it has lots of

explanatory power, which is very intuitive. For me, let's say, it's a bit like,

you know, there is this Plato cave analogy, you know, for Plato more than 2,000 years ago.

He said, maybe all of us are in this cave. We cannot see what is out there or what is the real

reality. We see all need those shadows in the cave, and we think this is it, but it's an illusion,

right? We need to go out of the cave to understand what is going on there. Now,

if Plato is right, and we do live in this sort of illusion, right? It's the only shadows of

the real thing, then it means that when we will walk out the cave slowly, but surely, we will see

surprises. We will see things that we are not used to, right? Because we are stuck in the cave,

our common sense is developed for the cave. So when we go out of the cave, our common sense will

fail us, and everything will be weirder and weirder and more and more abstract. Interestingly,

this is exactly the situation with physics. We try to understand what reality, we try to understand

the theory of everything, and then we found ourselves, understand how reality is much weirder

than we thought, and very not intuitive in our common sense breaks over and over again.

Even think about Newtonian mechanics, over there, already it was weird for people that

actually we are moving, although we cannot fill it on Earth. Later on Einstein,

with special relativity, time is both dimension, past and future coexist, wow, it's like it's

crazy, and then general relativity, the big band, we started from there, and space time actually

created in the big band. So many weird things, and then of course, quantum mechanics, don't let

we start with quantum mechanics, superpositions and everything. So it's become weirder and weirder,

and because of that, we can hope that maybe there is a trick here or something that we can use

in order to explain also consciousness, because physics is much more than just to speak about

matter, what is matter? Now according to our most advanced theory, if we think about

matter as mess of particles, this is not something that is the elements of the universe,

the elements are fields, fields which possess properties like energy, like momentum,

and then those fields can rotate and create something that looks like particles for us.

So when we think about the brain and we think about materialism and reduction,

it's too simplistic, we know that nature is much more beautiful and deep and weird than that.

So then I ask myself, what can we use from physics, maybe in order to understand consciousness?

And the idea is that we can use the principle of relativity.

And this is for me, it's a very important principle. So maybe before we go into my theory,

maybe let's talk about this principle of relativity, from a physical point of view.

A lot of people ask, your theory, so the name of my theory is the relativistic theory of consciousness.

So people ask me, does it mean that it's about Einstein's relativity? Is it about space, time,

Lorentz transformations, and so on? And the answer is, no, this is not about that.

It's about the principle of relativity, which is the philosophical principle you can say

in the basis of Einstein's relativity theory. So the Einstein's relativity theory is just

one case of a much broader concept called the principle of relativity.

And it started much before Einstein, already with Newton, actually already with Galileo,

the father of our modern science, he already noticed that you cannot distinguish between someone

that moves with constant velocity and someone that will be stationary.

No, it does not move at all. All physical experiments that we can do, we not show us any difference

between the two. So if we try to use physics, we try to use experiments, we cannot distinguish

between them. For example, a canonical example, let's say that I take this paper ball and I throw

it in the air, it will go back to my hand. So I'll say, okay, great, I'm stationary, right?

But then a friend of mine can do the same experiment on an airplane that moves with constant

velocity. He will also throw something in the air and it will also go back to his hand,

right? Because of inertia, objects, moves, you know, continue to move there, you know,

their constant velocity. So it will go back to his hand as well. So he will conclude that he is

also stationary, right? So this is an example. So Galileo understands, there is something interesting

here. There is relativity here. There is no one absolute answer for the question, what is your

velocity? It depends now on the observer, on the frame of reference of the observer. So the

observer will always measure that they are at rest. But other observers, maybe, you know, going

backwards or something like that, right? So this is the first case of relativity. So the principle

of relativity states that there is nothing, there's no absolute frame of reference. And because

there's nothing absolute, we left with observers, what the observer measures, defined reality,

you know, defined the physical properties. So if we have two systems, with two observers,

different systems, but both of them do experiments and see that all the results are the same,

then we cannot distinguish between them. They are equivalent. There's no absolute property

somewhere that can distinguish between them. If we did all the measurements that we can do,

in principle, we did everything that we can, all kinds of experiments and all the results are

the same. So it means that they have the same laws of physics and they are just equivalent.

And this is exactly what Galileo understood. Both me as a stationary observer and someone on the

airplane that moves with constant velocity, both of us will measure the same physics, the same

results that we are at rest. And that's why we are equivalent and we cannot be distinguished.

And that's why there's no absolute property that can distinguish between us, right? So we can,

if we ask, who is right here? Who is really a, you know, at rest and who is really moving?

Because when I see my friend on the airplane, I will say, hey, you are moving, but you will say,

no, no, I'm at rest, you are moving, right? So who is right? Both of us are right because it's relative.

There's no absolute answer here, right? So Galileo started with this principle of relativity.

But then there is another important part of this relativity, which we call relationalism.

Now relationalism means that the properties that we see around us, you know, the physical properties,

they are not absolute as well. They are a manifestation of the relation in the system.

So let me give you an example, what I mean by relationalism. In the days of Newton, there was

another genius, another huge mathematician and philosopher, Leibniz. Now Leibniz and Newton argue

between them about space. If space and time actually, are they absolute or relative? So Newton thought

they are absolute. Leibniz thought they are relative. So in his mind, in his mind view,

he saw space and time as something relational and not absolute because we have objects,

the relations between the objects manifest space, relations between events manifest time.

Okay, so this is an example for relationalism. If Leibniz is correct, then space and time are

relational, you know, they are not absolute, they are manifested because of relations between the

objects and relations between events. Now we don't know, by the way, if Leibniz is correct,

like his space relational or is it absolute, it's still under debate. So for example, Newton thought it's

Newton thought it's absolute and he had the good arguments for that. Einstein showed us that

actually space and time relative to the observers, but still in his general relativity, space has some

absolute, how to say like absolute property as well because you can have a space and you can have

curvature even if you don't have any energy, momentum or mass, you know, and still you can have

solutions for the, for his exactly even without space, time can have curvature, exactly,

exactly before dimensions, they can have curvature even if you don't have any energy, momentum

in the universe. So is it relational? Now it seems like absolute, all of a sudden. So it's still

debatable, you know. But in any case, the principal relativity goes hand in the hand with this

relationalism and Einstein had another excellent example for, you know, the principle of relativity

and for relationalism. This is his equivalent principle. I think it's a very important example.

So let's go into it before we go to my theory. Before you go to your equivalence principle,

the reason your theory is titled relativistic consciousness or relativistic theory of consciousness

is not because of special relativity, but because of the guide that allowed Einstein to come up with

the theory of special relativity, which is thinking relativistically. And then another guide Einstein

now for GR for general relativity was the equivalence principle. So you're going to talk about that.

But both of those were guides for Einstein to develop physics theories. And you're not looking at

the physics theories and then coming up with consciousness theories, although you do want them to

comport, but you're looking at what guided Einstein and then being guided by that, but in the

consciousness realm. Exactly. To be even more exactive that, what guides Einstein, Einstein,

what guided Einstein was the principle of relativity, as I said before. And out of that,

you know, in order to show that relativity still holds this relativity that only inertia,

frames of reference are actually relative to each other or equivalent to each other.

And he developed special relativity. And then he continued to develop general relativity.

But in order to develop general relativity, he needed to use the equivalence principle. So

the equivalence principle is another example for the principle of relativity.

Now, I think, by the way, that the principle of relativity is a very basic and important principle

in order to understand the reality. I think that we only scratched the surface, let's say,

about the principle of relativity. And we can use it much more in order to explain

most of the deep mysteries and questions that we have today in physics, not only consciousness.

So, you know, for me, it's only the beginning. Consciousness is one example of how we can use

the principle of relativity. Right? So for me, like the name of your podcast, the theory of

everything. So for me, the principle of relativity is like the principle of everything.

This should guide us in order to go to the theory of everything.

Interesting.

Right? So my theory about consciousness is also guided from this principle of relativity.

And later on, I plan to continue and, you know, I'm already now, I'm writing papers that will be

published about, you know, the quantum measurement problem and other interesting questions

and how the principle of relativity can help us there. Right? But now let's go back to Einstein

and the equivalent principle and let's see how I used it to understand consciousness.

So, in 1907, Einstein realized, you know, he described it as his most

happiest thought of his life. And this was this equivalent principle. He understood

that we cannot distinguish between system under acceleration and system under gravitation.

You have, again, relativity over there. So for example, let's say that I'm here on Earth

and I will take, again, this tissue paper in my hand. Luckily, I have this tissue paper here.

And when I release it, it will fall because of gravity.

Now, let's say that my friend is an astronaut. She is in out of space, far away from every planet,

every star. So she doesn't feel gravity at all. And now she is accelerating, you know,

let's call it accelerating upwards towards, you know, the ceiling of her spacecraft.

Now she's doing the same experiment. She releases this tissue paper from her hand.

And the question is, what will happen with that? Because she's accelerating upwards

and she released the paper. So now the paper continues with the same velocity that

that the spacecraft had before she released it. So it will continue with the same constant velocity.

While she and the spacecraft continue to accelerate, so gain velocity. So from her point of view,

she will see how this paper goes down and down and down until it will hit the floor. Right?

Exactly what would happen if she would be under gravity, under the influence of gravitational force.

So I understand realize here that you cannot distinguish that all the experiments that we can do,

we're not distinguish if we are under acceleration or under gravitational force.

So we have here again a form of relativity. Now let's say that there is another astronaut that

look at her at my friend at how she accelerates. And now they, if they don't know about

this equivalence principle, they start to argue between them. He will say, hey, you are accelerating.

And she will say, no, I'm not, I'm stationary. I have here gravitational force. And again,

who is right? Both of them are right because it's relative to the observer, to the frame of reference

that we are in. But notice that now we can speak about relationalism. There is a relationalism

here in the sense that for her, in her frame of reference, the relations that she measures,

manifest gravitational force. For the astronaut outside of her spacecraft,

what he measures, you know, manifest just accelerating spaceship with no gravitational force,

right? So we have two different physical properties that were manifested because of different

relations that you know that those frames of reference can measure. So this is, I think, a brilliant

example for both relativity and relationalism. When I'm deep in research, reading papers on say

the philosophy of mind or quantum gravity, it may seem sterile, but I still don't want my ISP

logging every single page that I visit. Express VPN prevents exactly that. Your internet service

provider, your ISP, can see, they can log and they can, in the US, legally sell a record of everything

you do online. Express VPN encrypts all your traffic and reroutes it through secure servers,

so your browsing history stays entirely yours. I travel for interviews and conferences constantly

and connecting to a hotel airport Wi-Fi without protection is something I'd often kick myself

for afterward. Express VPN's encryption makes those public networks safe. It can be used to

totally unlock geo-restricted lectures and content by changing online location to any of 105

countries. There's no compromise on speed either. It's consistently among the fastest VPNs out there.

The fribility of hunting for work around just banishes. Find out how you can get up to four extra months

by clicking the link in the description box below. ExpressVPN.com slash theories of everything YT.

That's ExpressVPN.com slash theories of everything YT. And now how this relates to consciousness.

Okay. It can help us with two major problems. The first problem is how can we get into physics

different perspectives? Because in consciousness we know that we have different perspectives.

We have your perspective. My perspective, we have the first person, third person perspectives.

Now using relativity, we see how we can implement those perspectives. Now those perspectives

will be different frames of reference. For that I defined a cognitive frame of reference.

So just one note here, a frame of reference, usually in physics a frame of reference means

a coordinate system. Where is the origin of the coordinate system? For you, you are the origin

for me. I'm the origin of the coordinate system. So those are different frames of reference.

Now I take this definition to be too narrow. A frame of reference is any observer actually that has

causality relations. So it has causal power with the world and the world has causal power

with him. So for example, an electron is also an observer, also a frame of reference because

it has causal power, it can influence a proton for example. And the proton influences back

on the electron. So that's why an electron is a frame of reference and an observer. And also

the proton is a frame of reference and a different frame of reference and a different observer.

And then, and now, you as a person in space time, you have your own origin of where is the origin

and from this origin of your own space time. Again, you have causal power and that's why

to speak about coordinate system as a frame of reference is it's fine but it's only a special case

of frames of reference. Frames of reference for me are any entity that has some causal

relations. So now we can define cognitive frame of reference because if we take a cognitive system

and again, a cognitive system means it's a system that can learn it, get inputs, represent the

world, do some manipulations and create outputs. So this system is a frame of reference now because

it has causal relations with the world. It can do something in the world and the world can do

something back to the system. So a cognitive system is another kind of frame of reference and

I call it a cognitive frame of reference. So now those cognitive frames of reference are

you can think of them as having different points of view if you like.

Because they are different observers. Of course, nothing about consciousness yet.

For now, it's just how it can help us maybe. So it might help us with that. It might help us

to find how to implement in physics different points of view. It can also help us how to create

new properties with relationalism. So now in order to have physical properties, I need to measure

relations and those relations will manifest different properties for me. So maybe we can find

what are those relations that create phenomenal properties. And then phenomenal properties will be

actual physical properties. So this is why it can help us with those two properties of

relativity and relationalism. So in my first paper, I try to show that it's plausible. The

hard problem might be not so hard. There is a plausible way how to explain consciousness using

relativity and the principal relativity and relationalism. But now, I finished writing my

second paper and soon I hope I will submit it and publish it. And over there, I try to build

the actual case of what kind of relations we need to measure in order to manifest phenomenal

properties or consciousness or quality. I know all those fancy names for something that is like.

Okay, so let me see if I got this correct. The hard problem of consciousness,

which is why the physical process has produced subjective experience at all. Or as I said earlier,

that no physical law or equation seems to entail that system produces subjective experience.

That to you comes from a false assumption. The assumption that phenomenal consciousness is

absolute. So observer independent. So then you say a system is supposed to be thought of relativistically,

a system either lacks phenomenal consciousness or has it with respect to a cognitive frame of reference.

Exactly. This is correct. Just as with velocity, if we ask the two persons on the ground,

on the station and the other one on the train, and we ask them, who is correct here? Who

is moving and who is stationary? It seems like they could predict each other.

The one will say, I'm the resting one. The other is the moving, right? But the other will say,

no, no, I'm resting. But actually, it's fine because it's relativistic, right? It depends on

the observer. So you can have opposite properties with relativity. Interestingly, this is exactly

what we are stacking when we think about consciousness with the explanatory gap.

Because let's say that I try to find your phenomenal consciousness. I will not find it in your brain.

I will only find neural patterns. So I will conclude that you're just a philosophical zombie.

You don't have any consciousness at all. But I, of course, have consciousness. I have all those

experiences. But then, of course, you will say the opposite. You have your own experiences. So

you have consciousness. And you don't find my own consciousness when you look at my brain. So we

have here, again, a lucky contradiction or opposite properties. But again, if we think about it

from a relativistic point of view, then it makes sense. Because from my cognitive frame of

reference, I measure that I have consciousness. But I cannot measure that you have consciousness.

And from your cognitive frame of reference, which is different, you measure that you have consciousness.

But I don't have consciousness, right? So all of a sudden, it makes it

much more plausible. I can understand how can it be that we have this seemingly contradiction.

You see, so this is the starting point of the argument. And we cannot, we don't need to go to

illusionism. Like Dennis did, for example, illusionism, we don't need to go to illusionism anymore.

Because illusionism is to say that we privilege one kind of cognitive frame of reference.

We privilege the third person frame of reference. But we don't need to do it anymore.

Now we understand that with relativity, we understand that it's wrong to privilege one frame

of reference. All frames are equivalent. It's just the matter of which frame you are in.

And we can do transformation from one to the other.

All right, now we've set the stage. And I have a variety of questions.

Okay. So firstly, let me, let me see, from a first person frame, a cognitive system observes

that it has qualia. But from the third person frame, you just see the neural substrate. So that's

the easy problem. And that neither is more fundamental or privileged, as you said. So Angelina,

who's on the platform, observes Brad on the train. And it's not that Brad has the true velocity

in Angelina's truly at rest is that none is privileged. Okay. Allow me to push on this

relativity analogy. So in special relativity, there are transformations, certain transformations

that you could do to compute precisely what everyone else will measure from where you are,

from your own measurements. So there's a transformation there between the first person or the

the observer's frame and then the third person. But in yours, it's as far as I understand,

just a delta function or something like that. So same frame will give same measurements.

It's the identity. It doesn't predict anything new. So I'm wondering, I could be wrong. What is

the relativity in your framework actually doing here besides serving as a metaphor? The fact that

you cannot measure from the outside that I have consciousness doesn't mean that we cannot

calculate or we cannot do a transformation to my frame of reference, right? Exactly as Angelina

doesn't measure that Brad has that Brad is stationary still, right? If you do the transformation

from her frame of reference to his frame of reference, all of a sudden because of this, the law,

how to do this transformation, we will see that now Brad measures that he is stationary,

okay? Same thing happening here. I developed a transformation. So we can start,

let's say from my cognitive frame of reference where I measure that I have consciousness,

but you don't and then the rules of this transformation will preserve that when I do this

transformation to your cognitive frame of reference, all of a sudden you will say I have consciousness

or you will experience consciousness, but when you try to find my you will measure that I don't

have consciousness, right? So this is exactly part of why relativity is so powerful. We can create

those transformations from one frame to the other and if those transformations are good enough,

then we get exactly what you will measure, right? So it's and then again in my first paper this

is exactly what I try to show. Now another thing about that in physics in order to say that something

is relative, it means that as we said before, when we take those two frames of reference,

they are equivalent, so they have the same laws of nature. So it means that if I do the transformation

from one frame to the other, same laws should exist. So the equations that describe these laws

should be the same, right? We call it invariance. So the laws of physics should be invariant under

transformation of other frames that transformation, right? So this is exactly what I showed in my first

paper that we can, I defined those cognitive frames of reference, I defined how to do the

transformation between them and show that those transformations are invariant, you know, and preserve

how to say preserve the equation, you know, of this transformation actually. And then after the

transformation, you, you know, we will, it will describe what you will measure and not what I will

measure, okay? Sure. In special relativity, the transformation is a Lorentz transformation,

what group or what transformation is it to transform between a cognitive structure and then a third

person, sorry, consciousness, first person structure, and then a third person physical structure.

Ah yeah, this is a very good question. So yeah, Lorentz transformations are a continuous

transformations. It's a continuous group. And in my case, it's not, so it's over there, it's

continuous group because it's about space and time, which are continuous. But here it's not

continuous anymore. It's a discrete group. Because now it's discrete, we move from one frame,

cognitive frame to another, cognitive frame. So it's a discrete group. Now over there in Lorentz

transformation is also how do they call it non-compact transformation. It means that you can reach

infinity. It's the limit case when you go to the speed of light. Here we don't have any, you know,

case of infinity or something like that. So it's much easier, let's call it transformation,

it's discrete, it's compact, and you know, it's abstract. It's much more abstract than, you know,

the group, the Lorentz group. So the thing here is that I'm not familiar with any name that

describe this kind of a group. You know, it will be a good idea to ask a mathematicians, you know,

to ask mathematicians that are specialized in group theory. Maybe they know which kind of

group is it. But at least I know it's a group. And how can I know it's a group? Because

in mathematics, in group theory, we have specific conditions in order to be a group.

And the my transformation meets those three conditions. So the first condition is a closure

that, you know, this transformation always create a new frame of reference, a new

Cognitive frame. And you can always, you always stay inside this system of Cognitive

frames of reference. And the second condition is that there must be an identity element. So like

you that if you use this element on the frame of reference, you stay on the same frame of reference.

That's why it's an identity. And then the third condition is that you will have an inverse

element. So for example, let's say that I start with my Cognitive frame of reference and

do it transformation to your Cognitive frame of reference. Now I can use the inverse

element in order to go back in order to the frame of reference that I started with. So again,

I show how those three conditions are met with this transformation. That's why I know it's a group.

When I'm wrestling with a guest's argument about, say, the hard problem of consciousness or

quantum foundations, I refuse to let even a centilla of confusion remain unexamined.

Claude is my thinking partner here. Actually, they just released something major, which is Claude

Opus 4.6, a state of the art model. Claude is the AI for minds that don't stop at good enough.

It's the collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow, thinks with you, not for you,

whether you're debugging code at midnight or strategizing your next business move,

Claude extends your thinking to tackle problems that matter to you. I use Claude actually live

right here during this interview with Eva Miranda. That's actually a feature called artifacts and

none of the other LLM providers have something that even comes close to rivaling it. Claude handles

interalia, technical, philosophy, mathematical rigor, and deep research synthesis,

all without producing slovenly reasoning. The responses are deckerous, precise, well-structured,

never-sick of fantic, unlike some other models, and it doesn't just hand me the answers.

The way that I've prompted it is that it helps me think through problems. Ready to tackle larger

problems? Sign up for Claude today and get 50% off ClaudePro when you use my link

Claude.ai slash theories of everything, all one word. So there's a mapping between a first-person

observable and a third-person one. And is there some invariant quantity that they'll all agree on?

Like in special relativity, you have a space-time interval. Is there something else that they'll all agree on?

Yeah, not exactly. Notice that we used to think about relativity theory, Einstein relativity theory,

so we used to think about the need for some anchor like the speed of light.

But let's take Galilean relativity over there. We didn't have any anchor like the speed of light

or something like that. So it's not, you know, it's not part of the definition of the principle

of relativity that we must have some kind of an anchor, know something that is invariant all the

time like the speed of light. Maybe in the future we will find that there is something like that

also with cognitive frames of reference, but for now I didn't see it. You need to remember also

so that, again, this paper, the first paper was more about to show the plausibility of that.

To show that the hard problem might not be so hard if we take into account the principle of relativity.

Because then we can think, ah, okay, now it's a bit like a coin. Now we have the head and the tail

of a coin. And both of them are just to different side of the same thing. And the same,

now with relativity and with cognitive frames of reference. So one side is when you measure my

brain from the outside and you see neural patterns and the other side is my first person

point of view. But now the question is how can we move on from

to speak about plausibility and to actually show them mechanism, how it can work, how it works.

Let me give you an example what I mean. Let's say,

okay, two two things, two two examples here. The first example, let's think about the

equivalent principle, again, the astronaut from the outside of the spaceship and the astronaut

inside the accelerating spaceship. And again, they have different measurements, right? And

he will measure that she is accelerating and she will measure that she has gravity, right? Now

reduction means if we will try like to explain her gravity from his measurement of acceleration.

Then we can say, oh, we did a reduction from gravity to acceleration. Now of course this is not

the case. We don't need to do reduction here, right? Because it's just two different frames and both

of them are right. And there is no reduction here, right? We cannot do a reduction from head to tail.

So we cannot do a reduction from her frame to his frame. Same with consciousness, we cannot do

a reduction from me measuring, I have consciousness to you measuring, I don't have consciousness from

first person point of view or first person frame of reference to third person frame of reference.

There is no reduction here, okay? So this is first thing that we need to notice here.

The relativistic theory of consciousness is not a theory of like reductive materialism.

There is no reduction here, okay? Just two sides of the same events, let's say. Yeah,

suppose it's true. These are two sides of the same. Now on one side of the coin is what people would

associate with physics and on the other side is what people would associate with consciousness.

Then why do you say that your theory is a physicalist theory of consciousness? If no side is to be

privileged, then it doesn't seem to me that you could reduce it down to physics,

that any argument you could make that would be reducing it down to physics, one could make to

reduce it down to consciousness. Right, excellent question. This is the reason that it's such an

excellent question is that this is exactly what I wanted to speak next. So

first of all, the short answer for your question is relationalism. I will, I claim that consciousness

is also a physical property. And it manifests just because of relations that we can measure

from our own cognitive frame of reference. Those measurements, those those relations are different

than the one that you can do from the outside. And that's why

there are different physical properties that are manifest here. I'm confused as to why it's

called a physical property. Why are you calling it a physical property and not something else

ontologically, some other entity? So what's the difference here between a property and then

just something else? Okay. Another excellent question.

So if we take the principle of relativity, serious enough to be a basic principle of reality,

then all properties and all entities that we can see are just manifestations in a specific

specific frame of reference, like we saw before, gravity or acceleration and so on. Right?

So so now we start from not from entities, not from properties, we start from something else. We start

from causal structures, from causality, actually, you know, something that cause change for

another thing, like a changes B, right? This is causality for me. And now we have some causal

chains, a changes B, B changes C, C changes D, we have those causal chains. And and and now different

frames of reference will manifest those causal chains differently according, you know, to the

relations that they can measure. So not all frames of reference can measure the same causal structures,

you know, one frame will measure a causal structure of a spaceship that is accelerating, right?

Another frame of reference measure that she is actually stationary and she has gravity, okay? So

so properties and entities now is something very fluidic, if you like, you know, it's like

it's relative now, it's all relational, okay? But all of those are part of physics now.

And the claim is, so I'm a physicalist, but maybe it's a new kind of physicalist that say that

physics, you know, the basic principle of physics is the principle of relativity and relationalism.

And with that we can explain everything that we see, including consciousness. So consciousness now

will be part of physics using relationalism, using relativity, okay? We just need to show which

kind of relations can create this physical property that we call consciousness of

phenomenal properties. So let's dive in how I try to show it in my second paper. Actually,

please, this is cutting edge. Yeah, exactly. It's still not in the air, it's not out there actually.

It's bleeding edge, okay? Even more like I finish writing it and now, you know, I'm submitting

it to John Aloff, consciousness studies. So I expect it to be published in a couple of months,

maybe a half a year or something. So we're actually going to hear for the first time

what, you know, the next stage you can see. So now we need to specify what is going on inside

our cognitive frame of reference. Just to make, just to be clear, it's much easier to understand

what is going on when I look at your brain, right? When I look at your brain, I need to use my

sensory system like my eyes, ears and so on. Let's make this intimate. Let's say when you're

looking at the listener's brain or the viewer's brain. Okay. I'm looking at the brain of our

listeners using my eyes. And because I'm using my sensory system, the only, the relations that my

sensory system measures are the substrate of the brains of your listeners.

And that's why when I use my sensory system, I will always manifest the third person frame of

reference, you know, the substrate of neurons and their dynamics. This is, let's call it the

easy part. Okay. We just need to understand that our sensory system designed, was designed in

order to catch the substrate of the world in order for us to survive. Now, what is going on

from the inside from our own cognitive frame of reference? Over there, we don't have sensory

system or sensory devices. We don't have an inner eye. We don't have some kind of a device in

order to see the substrate of our own brain. So this is not the measurements that we can do. These

are not the relations that we can uncover over there. Those relations are completely different.

And that's why it manifests the completely different physical property.

And now I will try to show you that this physical property has to be consciousness or has to be

something that is like, you know, something that is likeness. Okay. So this is, so now I set up

the frame. What we are going to do? Okay. We're going to go inside our own cognitive frame of

reference. Try to understand what are those relations. We know that they are very different from

the sensory system. And that's why it's different from just seeing a third person point of view.

But we don't know what they are yet. Right. So now let's see what they are. So in order to do that,

we need to extend the principle of relativity to study it more and more than what we use

today, you know, and what Einstein did in order in the end to extend it enough so we can understand

what are the relations that manifest phenomenal properties. So in order to extend it,

let's use three scenarios. In the end of those three scenarios, we will have

phenomenal properties. Phenomenal physical properties? Yes. Phenomenal

properties as a physical property. Okay. Okay. So the first scenario is about

emergence. For example, let's think about water. So water is the canonical example for emergence

in the micro scale, we have H2O, and then in the macro scale, we have water that have wet, you know,

wetness. So a new physical property has emerged here. Or is it a limited list? We'll say,

it's only a convenient way of describing the complexity of molecules of H2O. It's not really there.

You know, there is this kind of philosophical argument, let's say, let all the really,

all the really is, are just those elemental particles, whatever they will be. Maybe quarks and

electrons. Is it true that it's only a convenient way of speaking? So if we take the principle

of relativity, we can find an answer for this question, or an answer what is actually

emergence to begin with? What I mean by that is if we were tiny creatures that can measure the

micro scale, we will not measure water or wetness at all. We will just measure a complexity of

molecules, lots of hydrogens and oxygens that have got it, that have some kind of very complex

interactions. But no water. So let's call it the micro frame of reference. And why we can call

it the micro frame of reference? Because we assume a causal closure. Now all the interactions that

we measure show us the existence of molecules, but not water at all. That's why we have a causal closure

over here. All the causal chains are just of the molecules. That's it. So all the relations that

we measure manifest for us a hydrogen and oxygen molecules and no water. Okay, so this is the

micro frame of reference. Okay, but now we can think also about another causal closure of the macro

like something like what we know from our day to day life. Let's suppose that we can find this

causal closure where what we measure are only water. We cannot measure the actual molecules

of the hydrogen and oxygen molecules. And all the dynamics, all the causal structure that we

can measure about water will be only of the continuum hypothesis that everything is continuous.

Hydrodynamical, you know, only about the fluid mechanics. Nothing about the molecules themselves.

So now we can call this a macro frame of reference. And in this frame of reference, the relations

manifest for us water and continuous hypothesis, fluids, all the macro properties like entropy,

you know, and so on. Okay. So it means something very interesting about emergence. It means that

emergence is also a relativistic property. Because in the micro frame of reference, if you ask

someone from there, they will tell you, there's nothing like water. I don't know what we're talking

about. It's not real, right? And from the macro frame of reference, they will say, water are real,

molecules are weird. I didn't find any more because at all the elements of water are just water

droplets. Okay. So now, all of a sudden, emergence is also dependent on the observer. It's not

something that is absolute anymore. So this is the first scenario. We extended a bit the

principle of relativity to see how emergence is also relativistic. And now another interesting

example, it's still about water. Let's suppose that in the future, we can create artificial

molecules. It's not hydrogen and oxygen, but artificial molecules. But we create them such as

they create the macro properties of water. So we cannot distinguish when we look at the macro

properties of this artificial water, it's exactly the same like natural water, right? But the

molecules are completely different. Let's say that we can do something weird like that.

The question, the philosophical question is, is it the same? Is it still water or not if the

elements are different? And again, now we understand that because emergence is relative,

it depends on the observer, right? In the macro frame of reference, when all we measure are just

water. Over there, the answer is, yes, of course, it's water, right? It's the same.

So it means something for us about emergent properties. In order to measure them,

we need to be in the correct frame of reference. So are you calling these functional

descriptions or causal descriptions? What was the word that you used? Closal closure.

Okay, so I imagine there are several different levels that your brain tracks causal closure.

It could track cells. It could track a circuit. It could track behavior from other people.

There are various levels. What level of granularity is the one that's identical to consciousness?

Because it sounds to me like there may be a version of the preferred basis problem,

but for the cognitive frame of reference here, what chooses the basis? You could be too coarse,

you could, you're just tracking temperature. And then you could be too fine and you're just

tracking precise physical implementation of everything. So this is a very good question,

but we are still too far away from the answer from how to create phenomenal properties. It's still

not about just an emergence, you know? So you need to wait with this question a bit

because it's still not relevant for consciousness. Although I started with emergence and it seems like,

ah, okay, it's just another consciousness, it would just be another emergent property.

It's not that simple. If it was that simple, we did it need a relationalism and the

relativity. So hold with this question a bit longer.

Something else that is very important here to notice that, of course, now we are speaking from a

physical point of view. It's not about perception, right? It's exactly like when we spoke about

velocity or Einstein equivalent principle. It's not about perception, it's about the physical laws.

So we assume that we do all the experiments that we can do, right? It's like in principle. We did

everything we can. And we know about all the experiments that there are. And if there is no

experiment that shows us that molecules exist, then for us, the molecules don't exist.

Right? If we, the relations show us that water exists, then water exists.

It's even, you know, I said show us. So it seems, again, like I'm speaking about

perception, but it's not. Right? I'm speaking here about the laws of nature, about, you know, the,

what are the actual elements of reality? It depends now on the frame of reference that you are

in, right? So in the macro frame of reference, the actual elements are the droplets, not the molecules.

Sure. Okay? Regardless if there are humans there or not, just to make sure, yeah, that,

okay. It's, you know, this is a very important point here.

And I know that you're in the middle of an explanation, but just as people are listening,

they may wonder, well, why doesn't a droplet count as an observed, a conscious observer? What

about an electron? So they may have that in the back of their mind that's preventing them from

fully listening to the rest of what you're about to say. So can you please address that?

A conscious observer? What do you mean by a droplet as a conscious observer?

Does an electron have phenomenal consciousness? Does a droplet of water have it? I see. Yeah, so,

so yeah, this is very good point. They don't have it. We start from purely third person

point of view from regular physics. And from that, we need to extend the principle of relativity

until we can get to consciousness and phenomenal properties. So, in physics,

observer has nothing to do with consciousness. It's just another word for frame of reference

as we discussed before. So, electron does not have consciousness. Water does not have consciousness.

Later on, we see what are the conditions for consciousness. And then we can understand

which entities can have consciousness. But, yeah, for now, nothing has consciousness yet.

Nothing has consciousness yet. So, now we can continue. So, we discussed a bit about emergence.

Now, let's think about the second scenario. Let's take it even further away.

What if we can create a simulation, even a simulation of water, to begin with?

And now, we cannot distinguish between the simulation of water and regular, you know, natural water.

What's then? Will we say that the simulation of water is the same like the regular water?

In order to do it even more accurate than that, let's assume that we can create a simulation

of the universe, not only of water, because water has so many causal interactions with other

stuff. So, let's just take all the causality that there is. Let's say that we are in the future

and we know how to do it. We know about the theory of everything.

Court is out of job. And we create a simulation. We code all the equations,

hits, the run, the enter button, and let it run. Okay? So, now, in this simulation,

the question is, is it real? Can we say it's real like our real world, or is it just a simulation?

Right? Now, according to the principle of relativity,

again, we can think of another causal closure. Now, this causal closure will be about the

causality within the simulation. What I mean by that is in order to create a simulation, it means

that our computer has now represent, you know, has now all those equations running. So, it has

variables. Some states of the computer are the variables of the equations. And those states are

changing. This is how the variables are changing. So, we have now states in the computer that

carry information, carry content about those variables. Okay? So, now, I can find a new frame of

reference where those variables, those are, you know, the causal chains that I measure. Okay?

How the variable changes, I don't know, in the equation of gravity. How the variable changes in

the equation of electrons and so on and so on. Right? So, now, I found this new frame of reference

where everything I measure is just those variables and those causal relations. So, according to

the principle of relativity, according to relationalism, now those variables are the manifested

physical properties. And they are real, exactly like our own real world. We in our own real world

measure causality and it manifests entities and properties, but also in the simulation, in this

frame of reference of the inside of the simulation. The causalities over there are those variables

and now they are real. Now, they will be our physical entities and properties. And because we

put the equations to be exactly like our universe, then the simulation is real and is exactly like

our universe. From in the frame of reference, okay. So, if something has causal efficacy,

then it's real. Yes, exactly. If you remember, we discussed before that if we take the principle

of relativity to be the basic principle of reality, we start our elements now will be causal chains.

Okay. And different frames measure those causal chains and according to these causal chains,

altitudes and properties will be manifested like acceleration or gravitation and so on.

So, now I extend it. It might understand that if something is real, then it is also causal

so that it's an if and only if statement. Exactly. According to the principle of relativity again,

something real is something causal. Something that has causal

relationship, let's call it, with other entities. If there is something that has no,

so in we choose a frame of reference, first of all, in this frame of reference. If there is

something that has no causal power at all and nothing change it. So, no causal relations at all,

then it cannot be measured. And then, because of that, it just doesn't exist, it doesn't manifest

in this frame of reference. It can be existing in a different frame, right? Okay. Yes. Okay,

quick questions. So, we're in this universe. Conceivably, there's another universe that is

causally disconnected from ours. In fact, there are many theories of physics which posits such

universes and even in principle, not just in practice, but in principle, in some of these theories,

we can never know about this other universe and they can never know about us. I would still say that

if those theories are true, that those other universes exist and they exist to us and we exist to

them. It's not just, sorry, it's not just we exist to them and they exist to us or we only exist

to ourselves or something like that. It's that they exist and we exist. But according to this,

you would say, no, what is real is observer dependent that our universe is real to us and that's

all we could say. It's more than that. What I would say is that we have most likely infinite

number of universes, each of which has its own causal closure, its own bubble of reality I like to call

it. So for us, our bubble of reality is real. For them, their own bubble of reality is real.

But because there's no absolute frame, we cannot privilege our own frame. So we cannot say that only

us is the real bubble and they cannot say that we are not real because only they are the real bubble.

So everything exists. So we got now like a reality according to this principle of relativity.

If you take it far enough, it will say that reality composes of all those infinite number of

bubbles. All of them are real, but it's relative. They are real because there are at least two

observers, there are at least two observers that can measure each other and they have this causal

closure. And that's why it's a real bubble. It's a really universe. So each bubble exists because

of the measurements from within, let's call it. So this is the idea. And one of my papers, my

next papers, will show that one of the results of the principle of relativity is that the vacuum

cannot be empty. The vacuum cannot be empty. It must contain all those different bubbles of reality.

It cannot be the case that only us exist, only this bubble. If it was the case, then it was

an absolute property, only us exist. So if we take the principle of relativity to be

basic principle of reality, the vacuum, what we cannot measure, actually full with all those

different universes, different bubbles that we cannot, we just cannot measure them.

So this is one of, you know, and then I show it mathematically and you know,

this is what I will show in my third paper, more or less. So, okay. Right.

Now I don't remember what, what, what, how did we reach this question? What did you ask? Well,

I was saying that what disturbs me is that much of this framework from what I recall from reading

your papers that a cognitive frame of reference is defined by the dynamics of the system. And then

I was wondering, well, at what scale does a single neuron get a cognitive frame? Does my

cortical column or one of them or my left hemisphere? And if there's no principled way to draw that

boundary, then, then how do we know what is conscious and what's not? To the physicist listing,

there's a preferred basis problem in physics. It seems like there's a cognitive preferred basis problem

or frame problem. This is a very good question. So your question is actually from an absolute point

of view. You know, you try to understand absolute answer here to get an absolute answer

which scale is the correct scale. But what we saw with the emergence scenario and with the

simulation scenario, actually, is that we need to think from a relativistic point of view.

And then what matters are the causal relations, as you said before, to exist is to have causal

relations. So one neuron exists because it has causal relations with other neurons in the brain

and other stuff right in the brain. Cognitive system also exists. Now we need to remember what

is a cognitive system. And one neuron most probably is not a cognitive system just because of

our definition. Our definition is that a cognitive system is a system that, you know, can get inputs,

learn, create representations, do information manipulations and create outputs out of them.

If a neuron can do that, then one neuron can be cognitive system already.

If one neuron cannot do it, then it cannot be a cognitive system. And let's suppose that it cannot

do it. Let's suppose that we need a bunch of neurons. Now this group or set of neurons,

they together, they have causal power, they react to the world and the world react to them as well.

So that's why now they are a new entity. Okay, according to relationalism, this is now a new entity.

And that's why this entity I call a cognitive frame of reference. No consciousness yet.

It's just about a learning system. Okay, but already we know, okay, already we know from the

example of water, for example, that there is an emergency of a new entity, even though it's not

about consciousness yet. Okay, so we call this entity a cognitive frame of reference. Okay,

now we need to continue because we are still not, we didn't reach our destination, we didn't

reach phenomenal properties at all. But we did some, you know, some steps towards it already.

And let me show you why we did some steps. Our last scenario that I described was about the

simulation and how we can choose an intrinsic frame of reference inside the simulation.

Right? In this, in this intrinsic frame, they will, let's say that someone, you know,

that there are humans over there, right? And I somehow can communicate with them and I ask them,

what do you see? Again, not about consciousness. Okay, I don't want people to be confused here.

But let's say, you know, what's inside the simulation? What do we see in this frame of reference?

And, you know, the measurements are measurements of everything that we see here in the universe.

They have stars, they have gravitational force, electromagnetic force, and so on.

But for me, I'm from an external frame of reference. I see a computer that runs a simulation.

I just see a code. I don't see stars inside the computer. I don't see gravitation inside the

computer, you know? So it seems, if I don't know about relativity, if I think everything is

absolute, it seems like there is an explanatory gap here because from the inside of the simulation,

they have stars in gravitation, but from the outside, from the external, I don't see them,

you know, and I cannot understand how entire star, you know, with huge mess can be inside my

computer. How can I do a reduction here? It doesn't make any sense, right? So there is an explainer,

we created an explanatory gap here, not because of consciousness, just because of this weird

situation with the properties inside the simulation and outside the simulation. But it's only a

seemingly explanatory gap because there is an explanation here, there is no gap. The explanation

is relativity, the principal relativity and the relationalism. From the outside, I measure the

substrate of my computer and part, and then I, you know, I measure those electric, electric current

that moves in the logical gates and a spot of those states that are moving in my computer,

they have some content about the variables of the equations, okay? So it's a very complex

causal structure here. Some of the causalities about the electricity, right? Some of the causalities

about the equations, the variables of the equations, but the variable of the equations is just one,

let's say, has some causal power, but very small causal power from, in my frame of reference,

you know, it doesn't, those states, those variables, doesn't change, for example, the location

of the currents inside my computer, you know, it does some work, let's call it because it changes

the equations, you know, the states, but it doesn't do a lot of work, it doesn't change the electricity

movement, I don't know, you know, inside my computer, okay? So from my frame of reference,

this is what I measure, just a computer runs some algorithms, but from the inside,

from the frame of reference of the simulation, the measurements are completely different,

over there all they can measure are only those variables. So the variables now has much bigger

causality, causal power than what I can measure from the outside. Over there all the causalities

exactly what they do in the equations, you know, how they change other variables. And because of

that, of those relations, all of a sudden, you know, over there there is a manifestation of a space,

a manifestation of stars, of gravity, okay, just because they have much less complex causal

structure, you know, all the causality over there is just because of how the variables interact

with each other in the equation, that's it, no causal structure of the substrate, of, you know,

of the electricity, no that. And that's why, because it's such a narrow causal structure over there,

the properties and entities are so different that what I measure from the outside, you know,

and that's why they actually measure stars and electricity and gravity and so on.

So now we have an explanation, there is no gap anymore, there is an explanation why we measure

such different properties in the intrinsic simulation frame of reference in the extrinsic frame of

reference, you know, of where I see the computer. I think it's a very deep point because we actually

created here like an artificial gap, explanatory gap, but according to, you know, relativity and

relationalism, we can bridge this gap, right? And if this is understood, then we can take, you know,

it means that we did some steps towards understanding the how to bridge the gap with consciousness.

Okay, let's get to how consciousness has any bearing to cognitive range. Okay, so now we finished

with the second scenario and we saw how, you know, there is a seemingly gap and we bridged it.

So it can give us some hope that on the same way we can bridge the gap, the explanatory gap

of consciousness. Okay, so for that now, finally, we have reached the third scenario.

So now we can use the same tactics, we saw how simulation can create or can manifest

completely different physical properties and entities than what we measure from the outside.

So let's use that. Maybe our brain creates its own simulation. You know, maybe we are stuck

in a matrix, if you like, we are stuck in our own intrinsic frame of reference, our own intrinsic

simulation. What we measure inside the simulation, again, are the variables of the simulation.

And again, those variables now will have all the causal power and that's why those variables now

will be the physical entities and properties. Now, it makes sense actually that the brain

will create a simulation because the brain needs to predict, needs to do two things actually,

needs to understand now, what is going on now? You know, what do I see? What do I hear?

And then also to predict, after our understanding what is going on now, to predict what will happen next.

In order to do that, a simulation is a very good idea. If you have a simulation, it means that

you know, the cognitive system understood this structure, the causal structure of what is going on

here, and then it can predict what will happen next. So that's why it makes sense for the

from an evolutionary point of view, for a new point of view, that the brain will create

this kind of simulation. It gets inputs from the outside wall, the external wall,

and build representations of those, you know, of this external wall, and learn slowly, step by step,

what are those, what is the causal structure of the external walls, you know, and can create a

simulation of the external wall inside our, you know, cognitive system.

But we need to remember, of course, that this simulation tries to mimic the external wall, right?

We have the constant flow of information, of inputs inside, and though these, those inputs,

I can say like dictates, dictates, those inputs dictate, you know, the simulation, what is going

on in the simulation, right? So it's an interesting scenario where we have, we created a simulation

that tries to mimic the external wall. But again, from, you know, with the inter simulation,

in the frame of reference of the simulation, all those variables, you know, have the

all the causal power, so they are now will be the entities. But those variables are exactly what

we are mimicking from the outside wall, right? So the simulation actually mimics all the entities

in the simulation, what we see outside, you know, trees, stars, other humans, right, gravity and so on.

So we actually created a good enough simulation, good enough for us to survive, you know, a good

enough simulation of the external wall in our cognitive system. But again, we need to remember

that the fact that now I see you in my computer and the fact that now all of the audience actually

can hear us and see us, it's because we have a simulation, they have a simulation in their own

brains. And the simulation has variables that are mimicking, you know, the external wall.

So all those, so, you know, in the simulation, they have variables, you know, that mimic me,

for example, and mimic you, for example, mimic the sound, right? And that's why all of those are

now manifested as real properties in the simulation of your audience and in my simulation, in your

simulation, okay? So, but it's still not enough, it's still not consciousness, okay? Because for

consciousness we need something that is like, what is this something that is like? It's a new variable,

it's variable that each of us has, you know, in our simulation. This variable comes from the question

of when I get an input, is that input good or bad for the system? For example, I see a lion,

is it good or bad for me? Right? I see a fruit, is it good or bad for me? We call it effective

balance in neuroscience. Now, okay, so this is just, it's like a spectrum of answers, you know,

like from one to ten, you can think about it. One, very bad, ten, very good, right? And like a

spectrum. And so this is another variable that that we have now in the simulation.

So, when now I simulate the outside world, I simulate all the inputs from the outside. That's why

I can create, you know, the outside world intrinsically inside the simulation. But now I have

another variable that is not out there, variable that just, you know, my cognitive system uses

to understand if the inputs from the outside are there good or bad for me?

Now, so this, so for example, when I see an apple, this apple now will have all the properties

that, you know, are coming from the inputs from the outside, like the frequency of it, the shape.

But it will have another property. The property of, is it good or bad for me? Okay?

Now, this property is also being manifested just like all other variables. So this variable

are now manifested in the simulation as yet another physical property.

You see, now this physical property is exactly what is it like this? What is it like for me

to have the apple? It's very good for me. For example, what is it like to see a lion?

You know, it's not good at all, right? And let's dial it back. I want you to repeat that part.

So simulation looks at all the actions it could take and all the objects in the scene

or what have you. And then suppose it labels them, sorry, I'm a bit sick. Speaking of redness,

say it looks at the redness of my nose. Okay. And it says that's neutral to me or maybe that's

negative to me. I don't want to get sick. Okay. Right. It labels that. Go from there from that

labeling of good, bad, neutral or what have you to then the felt like again. Okay.

So we need to remember here to, we need to remember here two things. One thing is that

we have the variables and then the variables, you know, manifest as a physical property, right?

inside the simulation. So now, let's say that my cognitive system

gets an input of an apple.

And my system learned from the history, you know, from my history, that an apple is good,

it's good thing for me. It's good for it. So it will, so this variable of effective

balance will label the apple as good. No, this is good for me. Now my cognitive system knows

that if the label is good, then I should do some outputs in order to get this apple. For example,

I can reach my hand and pick up the apple. Okay. So effective balance is a variable that is very

important for the cognitive system. It has a causal power, you know, on my cognitive system.

If it's good, I will react. I will try to get some more apples. If it's bad, like very bad,

I don't know, I see a tiger, then again, it will cause my cognitive system to react by running.

Run very fast. Okay. Okay. Now, now, but okay, but now we know that this variable will manifest

inside the simulation as a physical property. And it's a physical property of the apple, right?

The apple now has a property of is it good or bad for me? The tiger now has a property. Is it good

or bad for me? Everything has a property now, a physical property of is it good or bad for me?

Okay. Okay. This physical property is exactly the, what is it like? What is it like

for the, for my cognitive system to see an apple? It's like something good. It's good for me.

Okay. What is it like to see a tiger? It's like something bad for me. Okay. This is how we start.

Like we start from something very, very basic. But now, notice, or you know what, another example.

With time, we can create more elaborate effective valence. For example, when I see a fire,

if I go and touch the fire, it's very bad for me. So effective valence will say, oh, bad,

bad, right? But then I'm a bit cold. So when I go near the fire, all of a sudden it's good for me,

right? So I have this spectrum or more complex effective valence. It's bad if I touch it,

it's good if I near it, you know, and so on. Okay. So I have a complex, again, causal structure here

of, you know, how good is it for me? How bad is it for me? I just have a quick question. So

you pointed out something interesting. Most of the time people will say, tiger, bad. And then

apple, good. But you just said some of its contextual, even the tiger itself is bad when it's

biting you. But then it's good if you're behind it and you're just going to hit it with the

spear because then you get to eat the same with the fire. The fire is bad. If you touch it and

keep your hand there, the fire is good. If you're close to it for warmth, it could even be good if

you're touching it to cauterize something. So I imagine that phenomenal experience, which we

haven't yet gotten to, but I imagine that phenomenal experience is far richer than simply a single

good, bad axis. So are you just right now saying that the beginnings of phenomenal experience

are where the seeds of good and bad lives, just as unidimensional? First. Exactly. Exactly. It starts,

the consciousness starts from a very basic experience, experiences of good and bad. And then

because of learning and context, it becomes more and more complex, elaborate, you know, more

and more like we can have new feelings that will cope better with this complexity, for example.

So it starts from very rudimentary consciousness, let's call it. And during our life and experiences,

you know, we can get a much more elaborate consciousness. Now, you asked about the

phenomenal properties. So this is exactly phenomenal property now, because now for each

element, each, not element, sorry, each entity that we have in our simulation,

may it be an apple, a grass, I don't know, or my grandma, you know, all of them has all the regular

physical properties, but also a physical property of what is it like to have it? And what is it like?

This, what is it like? This starts from a very rudimentary good for me, bad for me, you know.

And with context, it will become more and more elaborate. Now, what is this context? This is

exactly more causal relations, right? More causal relations, fire can hurt me, but it can

war be up, right? So I get more causal relations into the simulation. And again, those causal

relations are exactly what manifests the properties, right? So it will manifest

this, what is it like property, which will be more and more elaborate, I guess I will call it.

As I have more and more causal relations, you know, attached to it. So now physical properties

are actually a physical property. Okay, this physical property is exactly like any other

physical property inside my simulation. Okay, so in this simulation, again, from all the

causal relations, the shape has manifested, but now also from all the causal relations and

effective balance, this property of what is it like? Is it good or bad for me? Also has manifested.

Okay, so just another physical property now. But again, only in a frame of reference that

is inside my simulation, right, from the outside of the simulation, you can only measure

my substrate, but sorry, my subs, yeah, my, yeah, you can only measure my neurons and my brain.

Right, you can, so you cannot measure what I can measure from the inside of the simulation.

Exactly like in the previous example, right? Inside the simulation, they had like stars and everything

outside, we can, I can, I can measure on the computer that runs some algorithms.

Also here, from the outside, you measure that I have neurons with some dynamics,

but from the inside, I'm inside the simulation and I measure all those variables as the

actual physical properties. Okay, and one of those variables is effective balance.

I imagine David Chalmers would say something like, okay, so you have a simulation on the

outside, you can look at the simulation like your CPU or your hard drive and you just see zeros

and ones in the running and then you could go from the inside of the simulation and you can

observe, although that's a loaded word at this point, causal relationships differently.

But then the question is, why is it that being on the inside of a cognitive frame turns information

processing into something that's felt? It seems that what you've done is restate the hard problem

using new symbols rather than solved it. So where's Chalmers going wrong here?

So it's fun to say, well, Chalmers is just wrong. Or my simulation of Chalmers is wrong.

Yeah, the simulation of Chalmers is wrong. Let me think for a second.

We started from give some kind of definition of what is consciousness and what is the phenomenal

consciousness is, right? And it was, if you have something that is like,

but now we didn't know how something that is like can be part of physics, can be an actual property

of a physical entity. But now I actually showed you a way how we can do it. We use relationalism,

right? If you remember how we started, we started from the point that I made that relationalism now

can manifest new physical properties. We just need to understand what are the relations

to manifest phenomenal properties, right? And then it will be a physical property,

right? Because any physical property is, according to the principle of relativity,

every physical property, like gravitation, is just a manifestation that was right, measured,

like relations that were measured, like in the spaceship, the relational manifest gravity,

right? Now here, we see that we have a frame of reference intrinsic inside the simulation.

And it manifests all those variables of the simulation as real physical entities.

Now one of those variables give me something that is like, it gives me, you know,

something that I cannot find out in the outside world, right? When I, in the outside world,

the apple has some kind of a shape, some frequencies, and so on,

amount of sugar, right? It doesn't have a property of, is it good or bad for me?

So now, inside the simulation, I added a property that you cannot find in the outside world.

And this is exactly the, what is it like? Is it, what is it like?

I say, no, is it good or bad for me? This is the beginning of what is it like?

So that's why now, this, what is it like? This phenomenal property is just like any other

physical property, just manifested because of relations, you know, the relations that I can measure

in the simulation. Does it make it a bit more, a bit more clear?

This is not different than functionalism. The difference is that you're deriving functionalism

from something more primitive. Is that correct? No, no, it's, it's, it's true that I derive here

functionalism, or at least I derive here the most prominent result of functionalism,

which is that the substrate is not important. They will say that function is what important,

right? But what is function is just, you know, the causal relations. So in the end of the day,

it's the same, you know, it's the same like what I try to say, but I say it, as you said,

I started from physics, from the principle of relativity, right? And because of the principle

of relativity, because it starts from causal relations, and then frames of reference,

manifests entities and properties out of those causal relations, it means that you know,

the substrate is not really important. What important are all the causal relations? If we have

two systems, and the two of them measure the same causal relations, then, you know, they're

equivalent, then they will, the same physical properties will be manifested there. It's very

important to give you an example, you know, for the audience. It's exactly what we saw with the

emergence of water and artificial water, if you remember. We have two different systems,

because they are different because of the artificial molecules and the real molecules, right? But

both of them create the same causal structure of water, so they are the same, they're equivalent,

both of them will measure, will manifest water, right? This is it. So the substrate is not

important anymore, like in functionalism, but the difference here is that in functionalism,

you don't have this manifestation, right? You don't have this way of creating new physical properties.

In functionalism, it's a bit like illusionism, it's a bit like to say, you know, it's just a function,

it's just another way to describe it, it doesn't, it's not real, you know? Here, the causal structure

manifest a real physical property because of, you know, the principle of relativity and relationalism.

So this is the main difference between functionalism and what I do here. That's why we need physics

to begin with, in order to create, in order to have manifestation of physical properties.

And only then we can show how we take relations, causal relations, of effective

balance, and it will manifest in the right frame of reference inside a simulation as a real

physical property that has something that is like. Let me ask you something funny. How many

consciousnesses are there inside you right now? Wow, yeah, this is a very good question.

Okay, so you know what, before that, let's summarize then, what are the conditions to have

consciousness? What we saw is that in order to have consciousness, first of all, we need a cognitive

system that can learn and create all those representations, and then it needs to create a simulation.

Okay, so we will have this intrinsic frame of reference.

And then we need effective balance. Effective balance is one of the variables in the simulation.

And this effective balance will be manifested then is something that is like as a phenomenal

property. Okay, so we need a cognitive system that creates simulation and one of the variables of

the simulation is effective balance. Then any frame, oh, and another one, oh, of course, I forgot

something very, very important actually. Effective balance tells the system what to do, right?

Is it good or bad? And then the system can, let's say, decide what to do. So for that,

we are inside the simulation. So in order for that to work, we need to simulate the system itself,

not only effective balance. So we simulate all, you know, the outside world.

We simulate the system itself. Okay. And then we simulate also effective balance. Like, is it good

or bad for me? So inside the simulation, let's say inside the simulation, there is an apple.

Effective balance gives it a number, very good. And then the cognitive system that is

simulated inside the simulation, right, can use it in order to create appropriate outputs.

Okay. Okay. There is, yeah, as we said before, there is like a causal power here. Effective

balance actually do something and changes the cognitive system. So the cognitive system must

be also, you know, represented, let's say, is a variable in the simulation. Okay.

So we have then four conditions to have a cognitive system that creates simulation. And inside

the simulation, we have a variable of cognitive balance and we have a variable of the cognitive system

itself. Okay. And then it must be because of the relationalism in the frame of reference inside

the simulation of the cognitive system. It will have a phenomenal property. What is it like

to eat the apple, right? Bad or good? Okay. Okay. Okay. Let me see if I got it. Okay. So number one,

you need a simulation, but not just any simulation counts. So you need some other conditions.

The simulation needs to assign some loss landscape, some good and bad. Okay. Okay. So that's number two.

Then you need to simulate yourself somehow, simulate the system. The system needs to simulate

its own simulation or the universe. No. So it's not a, it's not infinite recurrent here or

something like that. The system, so why do we need to simulate? Why does the system need to

simulate itself? Because the simulation tries to catch everything that is out there, right?

The cognitive system is part of the world. So if we try to understand the causal relations

of the world, we need also to take into account ourselves to take into account the cognitive system

itself. Okay. But we don't need, okay, but, but, but, you know, it's not, we don't need it to be

very sophisticated. It can be only something that, you know, that get, get, how to say,

get information from effective balance, you know, the effective balance, you know, that will say

it's good or bad for you, right? And, and then it needs to decide what to do with it. So this is

what need is needed to be simulated, cognitive as a cognitive system inside, you know, the simulation.

The fact that, you know, it's a system that gets the information from effective balance and

decides what to do. Okay, that's it. We don't need much more than that. Okay. So condition three,

which is that it needs to simulate itself as necessary in order for it to determine actions to

take and the ability to take actions as condition number four. So the ability to actions,

you can say, yeah, it's also a condition, just the thing is that we need causal relations here,

right? Cousality, this is what will manifest in the end of the day as physical properties,

right? So the simulation lands the structure of causality from the outside world.

And then we have this effective balance. Is it good or bad for you? And it has causal relations

with the system, right? It says, it's like dictate the system. Oh, it's good for you. It's bad for

you. And then the system can decide what to do. And these decisions are also another causal

relations with other properties, you know, other inputs that are outside in the world, like you take

the apple, for example. So we need to take those into account as well, right? You need to take as much

causal relations as you can in order to create, you know, a stable simulation, a simulation that

all always can run, you know, that will never break. This is very important. A simulation needs

never, you know, to never break to always, that can always run, you know, and then because of that,

you need to take into account, you need, you know, to simulate the system, the collective system

itself, effective balance itself, how they cause an effect each other, you know, how this,

how the collective system does, you know, has causal power on other inputs, right? So all those

needs to be part of the simulation. Now, near has how many consciousnesses inside him.

Ah, right. So another to answer that, we need to check how many simulations my collective system

can create. If it can create only one simulation with effective balance and with the simulation

of itself, then I will have one conscious frame of reference, the frame of this simulated

cognitive system. If for some reason we have a couple of those simulations,

then we, then I will have couple of, you know, consciousnesses, you know, those experiments with

the split brains. It's very interesting. We were right in the 50s and 60s. I think Gazinga was

the first one that did it. People that had very severe epilepsy and they cut the corpus colosum,

the part that connect the two hemispheres. And then they saw, you know, that most of the activities

of those person, you know, most of the activity was okay, but they had some weird consequences.

And it seems like each hemisphere has its own consciousness even. It's a bit, it's hard to know if

this is the case, of course, but this is how it seems like. You know, one, you can ask the left

hemisphere, what does it see? And it will tell you because the speech areas are in the left hemisphere.

And you can ask the right hemisphere that cannot talk. What do you see by, you know,

painting, drawing something. And you can show them different things and they will say different

things, right? And by the way, some people have speech areas in both hemispheres. And then

some of those that had this brain split, they can actually ask one year, what do you

would like to do when you grow up? And then the same question in the other ear. And each time

they will have different answer. So it seems like that maybe the two hemispheres have their own

consciousnesses. So each of us has at least two. If it's true, then it means that we need to find,

you know, if my theory is correct, then there is two simulations that simulate the actual,

you know, simulate effective balance and the cognitive system one in hemisphere, left hemisphere

and one in the right hemisphere. And if even more, who knows? What I think, I think that it might be

that we have couple of simulations, but all of them are integrated into one big simulation. Because

when you think about it, as I said before, the simulation needs to be stable. It cannot be that,

you know, it will break for some reason or, you know, it doesn't know what to do with some kind of

inputs. So it needs to be very sophisticated. And we know that in our brain, we have different

areas that control different aspects, one area for vision, one area for, for, um, auditory and

area for colors for movement. So then all of them needs to coordinate together in order to create

this simulation. So it sounds, it seems like there will be only one simulation that takes

all those areas together to, you know, integrate them together. So we can have one good simulation

that doesn't break. Maybe two, you know, maybe each hemisphere can do it by itself.

This is something that we need to check. So this is something that actually can be, we can do a

prediction here and check if the theory is correct or not, using such, you know, those conditions

for, for, for consciousness. Now we can also answer other questions, deep questions about which

animal has consciousness, for example, or does babies or newborn babies or fetus do they have

consciousness? And oh, of course, about GPD or AI, right? Do they have consciousness? Can they have

consciousness? And in the case of LLMs, your answer is, so LLMs, the quick answer is no, they don't

have consciousness. The reason is that, so LLMs learn the causal relations between worlds. You know,

you can say that, you know, each world has some causal power of other worlds, right? And the

context and the sentences and there are the grammatic rules. So, so GPD and LLMs needs to, they

need to learn this causal relations. And theoretically, they might create a simulation of those causal

relations. So we are in a good direction, right? I mean, it's met the, at least two, you know,

two conditions to have consciousness. You have the cognitive system and it created a simulation.

But then what about the two others? They don't really have any simulation of themselves inside

and they don't have any effective balance just because we, this is not how the function, you know,

this is not how they work. They don't use effective balance and they don't have any

representation of themselves inside the simulation. We don't even know if they have a simulation,

let's say, you know, you know, I remember reading a paper two years ago, I think,

the showed that if you take LLMs, they, they sound very intelligent. They sound that they have

understanding, you know. But, but then if you change enough the problem, they will stack.

So they don't really understand the, all the relations, you know, all the causal relations,

all the structure, all the causal structure underlying the, you know, the question and the problem.

If they would understand it, then they will not stack. They will know what to do in order,

you know, to cope with the changes that you did in the question, you know, but for now at least

they stack. So it means that maybe they don't even have a simulation, you know, but even if they do,

they don't have any simulation of themselves and any effective balance. So that's why they cannot

create this, what is it likeness, physical property. So they don't have, but of course that

in principle, we can create AIs with consciousness. We know what to do, right? We know now all the

those four conditions. So if they, if they, if they will meet them, they will have consciousness as

well. They will have something that is like very rudimentary, maybe in, you know, in the beginning,

but then, you know, they will continue to learn and they will create much more elaborate consciousness

just like us. So in principle, we can do it. You know, it's a bit like what we see in sci-fi movies,

right? In principle, now we can take your brain or the audience brain, understand the dynamics

of it there, mimic the same simulation that is created in their brain, but do it now in a computer.

So if it's exactly the same simulation, then again, inside the simulation, we'll have the exact same

variables that simulate effective balance and that simulate the system itself.

So then, you know, this the frame of reference of this simulated system will have consciousness,

right? It will have the same exact physical properties that will be manifest there. One of them

is this what is it like? Is it a good or bad for me? And with all what, you know, all this simulation,

with all the relational, you know, all those causal relations. And in the end of the day, we will get

the same simulation with the same properties, the same phenomenal properties as well. And then we

actually copied ourselves and our consciousness into a computer. Near I have so many more

questions for you. I have to get going soon. So I have to choose my questions carefully.

There will very likely be a part two. So if you're watching this, then please leave a comment

for questions for near for the second time because this podcast was more an introduction to the

ideas of near and then we can get into even more questions about his particular theory in part two.

But anyhow, what do you make of Chalmers zombie argument?

Yeah. So the zombie argument, we actually I wrote about it in my first paper.

The zombie argument. So maybe let's say quick, what is the zombie argument? So maybe first of all,

let's let's state quick, what is the argument? Because we saw that phenomenal properties are

different. You cannot reduce them to any physical dynamic dynamics. Then it seems that

you can think of a creature, this philosophical zombie, that is identical to me, for example,

in its physical shape and all the physics of the brain and all the neuroscience of the brain.

Everything is identical to me, identical body as well, but with no consciousness. Again,

because it seems that consciousness is just independent from the physical. If you don't take into

account the principle of relativity. So then, so Chalmers argued that if we can think of those

zombies, zombies that are exactly like us, but have no consciousness. Now, the thing is that

when we take the principle of relativity seriously enough, then zombies cannot exist.

Because if you remember the equivalent principle, it seems like we talked about it so long ago,

you know, time is relative. And we can do an equivalent principle here,

equivalent principle of consciousness. By saying that the argument of zombies is they are

completely the same, they identical physically to us. But then, according to the principle of

relativity, if all the measurements that we can do show us that they are identical,

then they are really identical. There is an equivalence here. There cannot be an absolute

property that will distinguish between them, according to the principle of relativity.

And we did all the measurements that we can. Those measurements include everything that you can

think of, measurements of, of course, what is the behavior of the zombie, measurement of what is

going on inside their brain, the dynamics of their neurons, measurements of what do they say,

what do they report. And we see that it's all the same. This is part of the argument, right,

of the zombie argument. So there is no way how to distinguish between us and the zombies.

And because of that, if we respect the principle of relativity, it means that they must have

consciousness as well, just like us. Because if they will not have consciousness, then the principle

of relativity will break, right? Although we measure that they are exactly the same like us,

then there is no difference. There actually is a difference. They don't have consciousness.

So the principle of relativity would break. So we need to choose. I choose the principle of

relativity, right? This is a principle that is the basic principle in reality. And that's why

zombies cannot exist because we cannot distinguish between us and the zombies. They must have consciousness

as well. Okay. Two thoughts occur to the listener. One is you keep saying that consciousness

and non absolute property is a relative property. They may be thinking, near, are you saying that me,

the listener, that I am not conscious or that my consciousness as the listener depends on someone

else's consciousness and vice versa. So it depends, consciousness, yeah, because it's not

absolute, it depends on the frame of reference, right? And what we saw is that the frame of reference

that manifests consciousness is the simulated cognitive system inside the simulation, right?

So the answer for the audience is that inside your simulation, inside, you know, quote, quote,

your brain creates a simulation and in this simulation, there is a frame of reference of the simulated

cognitive frame, which and then this is where consciousness is manifested. Because as we said before,

the simulation, you know, all the causal power of the simulation is the causal power that comes

from the variables that create the simulation. And those variables are the external world, but also

the simulated cognitive system and effective balance, right? And because of that, now we have

physical properties of the outside world and a property of, is it good or bad for me? This is the

what is it likeness property. And the one that measured this property is exactly the frame of

reference of the simulated self of the simulated cognitive system, you know, inside the simulation.

This is the frame that measures the effective balance. Let me remind you, let's say that I see an

apple. I see an apple. What it means, what it means is that there is a real apple outside light

from the apple. Meet my eyes. It starts all those causal dynamical, you know, processes.

In the end, it will influence the simulation. So now all those variables of the simulation will

will have all this causal structure of the apple. Part of this causal structure is also

effective balance, you know, this variable that state is it good or bad for me, right? So the

apple now has this, oh, it's good for me, right? But effective balance it interacts with, you know,

with the cognitive system. The cognitive system is the one, you know, that get this information.

Is it good for me or bad for me? That's why we need to have the cognitive system as part of

the simulation, okay? And in the simulation, this cognitive system get the information from the

effective balance. Is it good or bad for me? Get the information about, you know, the apple.

So that's why the cognitive system inside the simulation manifests all the relations.

So manifest, because of all the relations, it manifests all the physical properties of the apple

and also all this is it good or bad for me? This, what is it likeness for me to have the apple?

Okay? So the answer is that the audience consciousness, your consciousness comes from your own

simulation that your brain created. And that's why from any other frame of reference that is

outside of the simulation, we cannot measure it. That's why we see, remember that we spoke about

the coin, head and tail. This is exactly why we have the head and tail here. Only in the frame of

reference of the cognitive frame, of the cognitive system inside the simulation, only there

there will be a manifestation of what is it likeness of the effective balance. Any other,

any other frame of reference will not have this, will measure different relations and we

not have these relations of effective balance and will not measure this, what is it likeness?

Okay? Let me ask you this, relativity requires two frames to be meaningful. So velocity is

relative to something. If consciousness or one's own consciousness is ever observed from one's own

frame, from one frame, the system's own frame, then it doesn't seem in that case to be relative to

anything. It just seems to be an absolute first person property, but we just use the word relative

to describe something absolute where there's no second relateum. So we need to distinguish here

between, there is a bit of a problem here of names, you know, labeling stuff because we started

from a cognitive frame of reference, which is our brain. And then we went into the simulation,

right? We discussed that inside the simulation, you have lots of frames of reference that for them,

all because of power are the rivals of the simulation, right? So for them, the rivals are the entities.

One of those frames of reference is the frame of reference that represents our brain,

represent our cognitive system. Okay, it represented inside the simulation, right? This is the frame of

reference that measures, measures consciousness. It measures all the variables, right? And all those

variables now are entities like apples and gravitation, but now one of the variables is also what

is it like? Like is it good or bad for me to have gravitation to see an apple and so on, right? So

so this is the frame of reference, this simulation of a cognitive system. This is the frame of reference

that measures consciousness. If it will not be inside the simulation, there will be no frame of

reference that that will measure consciousness. You see, so that's why it's not an it's not

absolute property. You need a frame of reference inside the simulation to measure consciousness.

Okay, without it, nothing can measure this effective balance. You need a frame of reference

inside the simulation to measure consciousness or to experience consciousness or to be like

your measuring consciousness inside the simulation of yourself. And so when you measure something,

then it can be manifested, right? When you measure all the relations, like the someone in the

spaceship measure measured her surrounding and gravity was manifested, right? So now we are inside

the simulation. We have a frame of reference inside the simulation, right? Of our brain,

let's call it, so it will be a bit easier. Okay? Now, it's inside the simulation,

but again, this frame of reference has causal power with all other variables of the simulation,

right? Those are the measurements, okay? And because of that, physical properties will be

manifest like an apple and so on. And one of them is the effective balance. One of them is that

is it good or bad for me? What is it? Like this? Let me jump in here. Here's where I'm confused.

Why is there a what its likeness associated with the good and the bad? It seems to me that that's

exactly what the heart problem is. So we can state that measuring this good and badness is a what

it's like property, but that's precisely what the heart problem is asking. Why does this good and

badness measuring a why does a loss landscape or what have you? Why should there be any feature of

what it's like associated with it or entailed by it or implied by it or whatever? Okay, in order to

answer that, let's think of another property. Let's think of location in space, okay? So let's say

that now we are inside the simulation, there are lots of variables, lots of entities, and all those

causal structures will manifest a location in space for each entity, for a tree, for the apple,

for myself, right, for my body, and so on. Now this location, it was a causal relation,

but now it has manifested as a property, as location in space. Now each entity has a location in

space because of it, like the apple has a property of a location in space, where is it in space?

Right, because of the causal structures to other variables. Okay, so now, okay, so now we can

attach to each entity a property of a location, where is it? Same thing is happening with effective

balance. So now we can attach the, so now we have the our brain inside the simulation, right?

And this brain is part of the interactions with all other entities, like the apple,

has now a property of about the apple, is the apple good or bad for me? Okay, so now it's like,

just like a property of location. Now the apple has also another property of is it good or bad for

me, but notice that this property wasn't there to begin with, it's not like what we would call a

proper physical property. It's not a location, a velocity, it's not in a frequency.

It's something new that wasn't there before, but now it's part of physics.

And so what is this something new? Well, just like location, it's just like you can think of it as

a number that tells you where, you know, where the apple is in space. This effective balance is

just like a number that tells you that this apple is very good for me. Okay, but now it's a physical

property actually. So we manage to add the physics, a property about is something good or bad

for me. It's not something that, you know, that exists outside in the world. It's something that

exists only in the simulation. And this now, this is exactly what we would expect from

qualia or from phenomenal properties. Because phenomenal property seems like it's very

different from every canonical physical property, like I don't know location and so on.

And also this is it good or bad for me? It wasn't part of the outside world. It is something that we

added to the system. And it's related to my cognitive system itself. It's like a subjective point

of view. Is the apple good for me or bad for me? Now it's a subjective point of view.

But it's part of physics, this subjectivity. It's now a property that the simulated brain

measures about the apple, right? It's part of the apple now is that it's good for me. It's like

it has a subjective value for me. Okay, this subjective value is it good or bad? So this is exactly what

we would expect from phenomenal property. Now we have something that is like in the sense that it's

a subjective relation between the simulated brain and the simulated apple, right? This subjective

sorry, this subjective relation now has manifested as an actual physical property.

Okay, so subjectivity now became part of physics. So that's why

we can say, you know, that we have something that is like now as part of physics. We have

phenomenal property as part of physics. Okay, just because it adds subjectivity.

We didn't have subjectivity to begin with, right? Without the simulation, without this

subjective balance, all there are, yeah, I mean in the simulation, without the fact,

let's say we have a simulation with no affective balance, but we still have a simulation of the outside

world. All those variables of the simulation will manifest stars and everything just like in our

previous example of the simulation, but there is no subjectivity. But now with affective

balance, added subjectivity. So now all these apples and trees and what's not, all of a sudden

has a like a meaning for me, you know, it's like good or bad for me. For me, I mean for this brain,

the simulated brain, okay, inside. So that's why now all of a sudden we have, we added a new

physical property that wasn't there to begin with. And this is exactly about what I, or what is the,

what is the cognitive system, how to say, how it relates, right, how it relates to all other

inputs, right? This is the subjectivity, how it relates to them. And then again, it can, you know,

it starts very rudimentary like good or bad, but then it can become much more sophisticated,

you know, when you take more relations into account. Near, I appreciate you coming on the show,

I appreciate you spending over three hours with me when I think we're both not well, we're both sick,

and so I very much appreciate your time. And I would like to speak to you at some other point about

your upcoming papers and any theories of physics in particular today's episode was about

consciousness slash observers. I want to know, the audience wants to know, where can they find out

more about you? That's the ordinary audience. Let's say the bulk of the people. And number two,

there are many researchers who watch this channel in cognitive science philosophy, et cetera,

blah, blah, blah. They may want to know, how can I collaborate with you? Learn more and collaborate.

And number three, there may be people who have some funds who want to test your theory. How can they

fund such research? So where do they find out more about you? How do they contact you to collaborate

with you? And then how do they contact you to potentially fund some of these experiments?

Yeah, we, okay, so let's start from the first question, I guess. You can find me in Facebook.

Usually I, you know, I love to explain science, so I do it in Facebook and in Instagram,

and I even have YouTube channels where I upload some videos. I'm originally from Israel, so

for now, most of my videos are in Hebrew, but you know, I will gradually, I will also do,

you know, do some videos in English. And of course, you can read my first paper and hopefully in

a couple of months, my second paper. So this was the first question about the two other questions.

It's, it's a very good idea, actually. So I come from physics, and I do something here that is

very multidisciplinary, right? It's like philosophy, physics and neuroscience altogether.

So it means that collaborations will be very good, very much good idea.

So if there are philosophers that would like to collaborate with you, for example,

Zach, the Korean email, was the philosopher that I wrote within my first paper. And now I would

like to write a couple of more papers, for example, how to solve the Chinese room argument. This

is something that I think we can solve with the relativistic approach as well. It would be nice

to do it with a philosopher that actually knows much deeper than I do all the fine details of,

you know, the Chinese room argument, right? So if there are philosophers that would like to

collaborate with me, it can be great. And if there are a neuroscientists that have the experience

of analyzing, you know, FMRI, EG and so on, it can be great. Because again, I'm not, I'm not

a neuroscientist. So I need a collaboration with that. These days, I'm in the consciousness and

cognition lab in Cambridge University. In order to try and understand, you know, I try to build

a new testable predictions and then to build the actual experiments in order to check test the theory.

So for that, of course, also, I need, it will be helpful, you know, to have collaborations. And as

you said, the third point is very important as well. I am the new kid in the block. I have a new

theory of consciousness. And it's hard to get funds for, you know, for new theories, especially

in consciousness, especially something that is multidisciplinary. You know, so like physicists will

not understand why consciousness is so mysterious. And neuroscientists don't really like the

physical point of view that I bring. So it's like in the middle, you know, so it's really hard

to get collaborations and funds. And you know, usually there are not lots of funds. It's interesting

that in Academy, you have two opposite forces that battle each other. One force is the ideal,

you know, we know that that that reality is bigger than what we can imagine, right? So we know

that we need to think outside the box and be creative, right? But then the other force is that

no one has money. No one has funds. And the outcome of that is that even if a research

chair do have money, they need to invest it only in what they do, only in the experiment that

will give them the results that they need in order to continue, you know, with their own research.

They don't have the funds to do this exploration, no to do this out of the box thinking and so on.

So that's right, it's very hard to get funds. So if someone has have means and would like

to help us to fund those, you know, the experiments and, you know, all this postdoc that I do,

then please, by all means, get in touch with me because it can lead for an amazing result,

right? Amazing results. So you can find my email, of course, in my papers and just send me emails

and we'll take it from there. Thank you, Nier. Thank you very much. It was amazing to be in your

podcast. I love to hear your episodes, by the way. I want to feel friends. Fantastic.

Hi there, Kurt here. If you'd like more content from theories of everything and the very best

listening experience, then be sure to check out my substack at KurtGyMungle.org. Some of the top

perks are that every week you get brand new episodes ahead of time. You also get bonus written

content exclusively for our members that's C-U-R-T-J-A-I-M-U-N-G-A-L.org. You can also just search my name

and the word substack on Google. Since I started that substack, it somehow already became number two

in the science category. Now, substack for those who are unfamiliar is like a newsletter. One that's

beautifully formatted. There's zero spam. This is the best place to follow the content of this

channel that isn't anywhere else. It's not on YouTube. It's not on Patreon. It's exclusive to

the substack. It's free. There are ways for you to support me on substack if you want and you'll

get special bonuses if you do. Several people ask me like, hey, Kurt, you've spoken to so many

people in the field of theoretical physics, of philosophy, of consciousness. What are your thoughts,

man? Well, while I remain impartial in interviews, this substack is a way to peer into my present

deliberations on these topics. And it's the perfect way to support me directly. Kurtjimungl.org

or search Kurtjimungl substack on Google. Oh, and I've received several messages, emails and

comments from professors and researchers saying that they recommend theories of everything to their

students. That's fantastic. If you're a professor or a lecturer or what have you and there's a

particular standout episode that students can benefit from or your friends, please do share.

And of course, a huge thank you to our advertising sponsor, the economist.

Visit economist.com slash toe to go to get a massive discount on their annual subscription.

I subscribe to the economist and you'll love it as well. Toe is actually the only podcast that

they currently partner with. So it's a huge honor for me. And for you, you're getting an exclusive

discount. That's economist.com slash toe to go. And finally, you should know this podcast is on

iTunes. It's on Spotify. It's on all the audio platforms. All you have to do is type in theories

of everything and you'll find it. I know my last name is complicated. So maybe you don't want to

type in jimungl, but you can type in theories of everything and you'll find it. Personally, I gain

from rewatching lectures and podcasts. I also read in the comment that to listeners also gain

from replaying. So how about instead you relisten on one of those platforms like iTunes,

Spotify, Google podcasts, whatever podcast catcher you use. I'm there with you. Thank you for listening.

The economist covers math, physics, philosophy and AI in a manner that shows how different

countries perceive developments and how the impact markets. They recently published a piece on

China's new neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants,

creating an entirely new field of medicine. But it's also not just science. They analyze

culture. They analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region.

I'm particularly liking their new insider feature. It was just launched this month. It gives you,

it gives me a front row access to the economist's internal editorial debates where senior editors

argue through the news with world leaders and policymakers and twice weekly long format shows.

Basically, an extremely high quality podcast. Something else you should know about is that

if you go to their app, they not only have daily articles, but they also have long form podcasts

with their editors and writers. This is also available online. Whether it's scientific innovation

or shifting global politics, the economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines.

As a toll listener, you get a special discount. Head over to economist.com slash T-O-E

to subscribe. That's economist.com slash T-O-E for your discount.