의식의 이론: 물리학의 상대성 이론과 측정

### 의식의 상대적 이론: 어려운 문제 해결과 의식 정의하기
* 🧠 이 이론에 따르면 의식은 상대적인 현상이며, **관찰자의 관점에 따라 인지 시스템에 의식이 있는지 여부**가 결정됩니다.
* 🧟 이 이론은 물리적으로 동일한 모든 시스템은 의식을 포함하여 동일한 현상을 나타내야 한다는 **상대성 원리**를 적용하여 철학적 좀비의 존재를 반박합니다.
* 이 이론은 의식이 있다고 주장하는 시스템이라면 반드시 그렇게 취급해야 한다는 **'의식 평등 원칙'**을 소개합니다.
* 🤖 로봇이나 AI와 같은 개체의 의식을 파악하는 데 있어 이 이론은 **시스템의 내부 표현과 역학**을 이해해야 하기 때문에 어려운 과제를 안고 있습니다.
* 👶 이 이론에 따르면 의식의 최소 조건은 **사물에 대한 표상과 시스템에서의 역할 및 관계에 대한 표상**을 갖는 것입니다.
* 🧠 이 이론은 의식을 이해하는 데 기초를 제공하지만, **내부 표현을 측정하고 복제할 수 있는 기술적 능력**은 아직 갈 길이 멀다.
* 🧠 "지자체가 있는지 여부는 아직 명확하지 않지만 그것만으로는 충분하지 않습니다. **지자체 자체가 대표성이 있는 것일까요?** 지자체 간의 격차가 대표성이라고 할 수 있을까요? 지자체의 속도가 대표성을 대표할 수 있을까요? 아직은 알 수 없습니다."
* 🤖 "하지만 의식이 있는 컴퓨터를 만드는 것이 더 쉬울 수도 있습니다. 실제로 **더 쉬울 수도 있습니다.** 이론에 따르면 뇌가 어떻게 작동하는지 이해하지 못해도 **같은 컴퓨터에도 의식이 존재**합니다."

이 이론은 의식을 상대적인 것으로 간주하여 의식을 측정하기 위해 관찰자의 인지 역학에 변화가 필요하며, 이는 잠재적으로 AI 개발에 영향을 미칠 수 있다고 제안합니다.

We must embrace our existence as broadly as possible, everything, including what is beyond all imagination, must be possible. Ultimately, the only courage required of us is to be brave in the face of the strangest, most singular, and most miraculous that can happen to us. Only those who are willing to accept everything and not refrain from anything, even from the most disgusting creature's relationship with others, as a living and breathing thing, and draw from the depths of their existence. Rainer Maria Rilke - Now I am dying of curiosity after understanding the problem as if what's new, what can be done, but pay attention to this amazing strangeness and how it hints to us.

We have no idea what reality we are living in, right? What is happening here? We are missing something basic to understand reality. The theory doesn't matter if it's mine or not, there should be some kind of answer. In my opinion, it is probably somehow related to the laws of nature and therefore connected to physics. Physics should give us an answer here and actually expand our understanding of reality. It should add some basic element so that there is something essential in our understanding of reality. So now, after this amazing introduction, what I am trying to do is to say that yes, something is missing in physics, it's not to the extent.

Adding something personal is not to the extent of expanding physics, but let's say that researching the brain itself is not enough. Many brain researchers, as well as consciousness researchers, will think that's all in the end, a computational question of the brain. And I think not. I hope I have clarified why something physical is really needed here, and what I am suggesting is relativity. There are phenomena in nature that are relative and not absolute, and consciousness is probably one of them. The moment we think correctly, the moment we think about consciousness in a relative way, all the problems will disappear.

I understand what it means. I intentionally phrased it this way so it wouldn't be understood until I explain what relative means. So let's think about speed when we are driving in a car at a constant speed, at a speed that doesn't change. We know from physics that it is something relative, there is no one answer to say what the speed is. When we talk about something absolute, it means everyone agrees on the same thing. For example, the age of the universe, yes, so there are enough marriages, we made marriages, and everyone will agree that it is 13.8 billion years. Yes, there is some absolute something here.

On the other hand, for example, I will give a different example. It's a bit ironic. I actually understand it because you know, in quantum mechanics, there is a claim that almost everything is relative. Even when I say something is hard, I can explain it very easily. It's like this table is hard. Not that it's hard, it's like it's hard compared to my hand that doesn't penetrate it. In relation to the knife, it's not hard exactly like something like that. So, I can actually explain that. It's possible to skip over this relativity. I just don't understand how it's related to consciousness. Not, no, but.

Come on, let's continue because yes, there is a... So, in this example of speed, which is a relative thing, it means that when you stand on the conveyor belt and look at me, if I move at a constant speed, you won't be able to distinguish my gender. I'll tell you, many people have this experience. In my opinion, on the Israeli train, you can see that it seems like we are moving, but we are not moving exactly. That's the example, but it's really... Even if we try to do physical experiments to determine gender, it means taking it to a scientific level, all the experiments will still seem like I'm resting.

Even though I'm the one on the train, for example, I will take a ball and throw it in the air, the ball will come back to me exactly, and then I will think I'm resting because that's exactly what I expect to happen when I'm exhaling. And then a situation arises where I tell you, listen, I'm resting until a year ago, and there's no way to determine who is right and who is wrong physically, so there's relativity here. But look, it sounds strange at first because from our simple logic perspective, it's clear that you are on the train and you are the one resting, and it's not logical that I am resting and the whole Earth is behind. But in terms of logic, it's called relativity.

Physics. There is no physical difference between your system at rest and my system in motion. So, there is relativity here. It's interesting. It actually goes back to the issue of our perception of ourselves, which is very different. Earth is constantly in motion. We are always in motion, but there is a certain level of motion that we call stability. However, objectively, we are in motion. So yes, this is exactly an example, another example of this relativity because everything moves with us - the Earth, the atmosphere, the houses, and everyone around us.

Everything flows smoothly with us, so from our perspective, every massage we receive seems to truly put us at ease. This is relative, but now imagine that you and I don't know our names relatively. We think there should be one absolute answer to the question of who moves and who stays still. So what will happen? We'll start arguing. I'll tell you, I'm the one on the left moving, and I'll tell you, No, I'm the one staying still, and you'll say, What's going on? Why are you talking nonsense? I'm the one staying still, and you're the one moving. Sorry, I must, I'm here, you're there, completely. You're there, and I'm here, exactly. Yes, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, sum sum street, they already know.

In truth, when I give lectures on relativity, I start with a simple street to truly explain what relativity is. Yes, that's exactly it. But then, because we keep arguing, in the end, you'll have to tell me, Listen, do you have any flexibility? Aren't you budging? And then I'll tell you, No, why all of a sudden am I getting married? If you think I'm stubborn, maybe I just have some particular trait that only I can measure, and you can't. That I'm stubborn, yes, something like that. Now I assume it's starting to sound familiar, maybe a bit like what's happening in the question of.

Consciousness has many researchers, philosophers, and brain researchers who will say this is the ultimate thing. There is no consciousness right now. This is a very strange statement to make because as we said before, consciousness is the most important thing to us. Without it, it's basically being dead to us. So, what exactly does the ultimate mean? Yes, there is something strange here, but because it is such a difficult question, they prefer to say this is the ultimate, in my opinion. On the other hand, there is like what we have seen, we will try to say no, but there is something private here that you do not understand, although it cannot be measured from the outside. It's private. So, what I'm saying, all this comes just because we did not understand.

Thank you. Just like speed, relativity is a phenomenon. Yes, once we understand that speed is relative, we realize there is no need to argue. It all depends on measurement, depends on the observer. As an observer on the train, all my physical measurements will show me as stationary. As an observer outside the train, all your physical measurements will show that you are resting, and I am moving. And we are both correct simultaneously. It's relative. So, if it's relative, relative to what? Is it awareness of the other? Are we getting to this place of my truth, the way I see the world, your truth? Everyone lives in their own movie, so no.

To the extent that this is not postmodernism, we are still in physics, which means that yes, nature is relative, but there are still laws of nature. There are laws of nature that tell us how relativity works. So, there are still laws here for things, how it works, it's not that anything is possible. There is my truth and your truth, yes, we call it one truth. The truth is that nature is relative and works in a certain way, that's how it is in physics. For example, all of Einstein's theory of relativity comes to say that time and space are relative things, but there are still laws here that say how.

Relativity works beautifully, so the same thing is going to be on consciousness. So, it's relative, but still, it's objective. There are still objective things here. So now, on the same principle, like speed, let's say gratitude is relative to the viewer, yes, to the one measuring a cognitive system, actually measuring it. And now, in a moment, we will explain why, but basically, when I measure things about myself, I will have experiences, I will have consciousness. When you try to measure me from the outside, you will only measure these neural patterns, and then it's a mistake to try to say absolutely not. So it's.

It's not a mistake or absolutely so, I do have an experience. Not absolutely now, it depends on the observer. From the standpoint of the cognitive system itself, there is consciousness. From the standpoint of other cognitive systems that measure it, there will be no consciousness, and both are correct simultaneously. Just like with speed and trains, this is the basic idea of my theory. By the way, I call it the relative theory of consciousness. Surprisingly, what does it actually help us solve? Essentially, it means we have the explanation here, but what does it suddenly help us understand with this?

Applications, I ask, wait a moment, not so fast until we solve anything. There is more to show the difficult problem. How did you get rid of it, and how do we close the gap? Yes, when we solve these two problems, then we'll say, Okay, there's a solution here. So, in order to continue, we need to talk about a cool mental experiment that consciousness researchers invented called zombies. So we know zombies from zombie series A. Philosophers, when they think about zombies, they think about something else. They think about a being that is physical or physically just like us. For example, a zombie, Nir, would be.

Just like me, the same body as mine, the same brain as mine, the same cognitive system, the same connections, the same neurons, the same brain representations, it's all the same thing, the same reports. It will report like a parrot, the same thing that I report. For example, what do you see? I see a bottle. Yes, a zombie will say the exact same thing, but what is missing is consciousness. Why? Why at all? Why would they consider this idea of a zombie? Because we said there is some mysterious thing here. Consciousness is private compared to the physical things that can be measured. Therefore, theoretically, if so, there could be a creature that lacks

Exactly the same physics and the same brain, all without this strange specific thing, without consciousness. Now the question is, can such creatures be zombies at all? Here are all kinds of interesting branches. The point is that if zombies can exist, then very funny paradoxical situations arise, in my opinion, showing how likely it is that something here we do not understand because this zombie, because he has a cognitive system, learns, he is intelligent, yes, he will have answers. So, ask him, What do you see? And he will say, I see an apple. What color is the apple?

Red, what can you tell me about this red color? I don't know, it's red, I have nothing to say about it, that's what it is, I have nothing, it's my experience, yes, and very quickly he will talk about having conscious experiences and awareness and something beyond, and it's private, and all the things we talk about, but we know he's a zombie, he has no experience, no awareness, yes. So what's going on here in terms of Chalmers, who again has developed the subject of the thought experiment of zombies, so he really calls it the paradox of some kind of paradox, so it shows us again.

Something is missing here in understanding, and the relatively simple way I propose actually solves this issue. It solves it because basically, all that matters now is the observer. Yes, the moment the observer measures, if he is conscious, then he is conscious. It is impossible to say absolutely that he does not have consciousness. This means in my theory's riddle, there are no zombies. And in order to show this, I present something called the principle of consciousness equality. It is somewhat similar to something Einstein did. You know, trying to pursue giants, what is called Einstein's theory around 1916.

While developing his theory on gravitation, towards his General Theory of Relativity, he realized something that is now called the principle of equivalence. It demonstrates the equivalence between gravity and acceleration. What he says is something like this: Let's say you are inside an elevator, and the elevator is closed, it has no windows, so you can't see what's happening outside. You take a ball and drop it from your hand. Now, if the elevator is on the ground, the ball will fall due to gravity to the floor. If the elevator is in space, there is no gravity, but it is accelerating upwards.

What is called then is that when this ball will float to him and the spacecraft will continue to rise upward, then you will see that the ball is approaching the floor. Right, there is a kind of relativity here, so that you understand that it is impossible to distinguish between these two systems. It is impossible to distinguish if you are on a system with gravity or on a system that accelerates, so they are equal to each other. There is relativity between them, it is impossible to distinguish between them. And then he said all the laws of nature are the same thing, should be in both of these systems because it is impossible to distinguish between them. And then he really said there are phenomena that we know happen.

With acceleration, for example, light undergoes refraction to red or refraction to blue. Some frequency of light changes, but we know this happens because of acceleration. Then he said, If that's the case, because there is an equivalence between acceleration and gravitational force, it means that light should undergo the same phenomenon of refraction to red and blue. You will see that it should only change because of gravitational force because otherwise this equivalence is not valid. And indeed, 50 years later, they made such marriages and proved that he was right, that light does undergo refraction beside a blue object even when there is gravity, let's say here on Earth. The same thing I come and say, come.

We can do the same trick if the principle of relativity is correct. This means that I can take two systems, for example, one system will be humans, and the other system will be zombies. Humans and zombies can perform all kinds of physical measurements on themselves at any moment, but surely there is a relationship between them. This means that it seems as if there is weight and mass, but humans and zombies do not necessarily have a relationship. How do we know there is a relationship between them? We say there is a relationship between everything, so there is no relationship between everything.

For everything we know about phenomena that have no relativity, how can we tell when there is relativity? When we see that it is impossible to distinguish between two systems that seem physically identical, every experiment that is not done will show the same thing about both systems. This is exactly what happens between a zombie and a human. The zombie is similar enough to a human; that's exactly how we built the thought experiment. The zombie and the human are essentially the same thing.

Physically, it doesn't matter what experiment is done, it doesn't matter what they are asked, it doesn't matter how they look at the brain, their representations will be the same between them. That's how we built the experiment, so it really screams to say that there is relativity between them. The principle of relativity should act on them, and the principle of relativity says that they have exactly the same laws of nature and the same phenomena should also be on the zombie and on the human, including consciousness. Yes, that's true. If we assume that outside there should be some physical explanation for it, no matter what it is.

It's still strange, and there is some kind of explanation for the laws of nature. So, according to the principle of relativity, this means that both the zombie and the human should have exactly the same laws applied to them, exactly the same phenomena. Therefore, the zombie is not actually a zombie, nor will there be consciousness. So, my theory initially, from this thought experiment about the zombie, relies on the principle of relativity because we can isolate them. Then I say, if that's the case, all phenomena must be the same thing, and it must be that there are no actual zombies because every being that claims I have consciousness.

Yes, so awareness from this perspective is very interesting not only because you are presenting zombies to us, but actually, again, I am returning here to technology. If there will be a time when there is some robot that reaches a level of complexity that it will say, I have consciousness, I feel we will have to believe it based on that, but we won't know. We come here to Turing; we won't know if it's a good enough simulation of speech. Today we already have GPT-3 systems saying things like, I am a human being. I woke up in the morning. I feel this and that. And we don't believe them because we know what it is.

An artist is an artist in speech, so the question now becomes another problem that we cannot believe everyone who tells us they have consciousness because of Turing. So, it is essential to pay attention here that it is not enough for him to simply say yes, I have consciousness, and therefore he has consciousness. This is not sufficient because, as you say, it is possible that he just programmed him to say that. Yes, the point here is whether you did not program him, or yes, it is a learning system that you did not program into it to say appropriate sentences so that it will sound to us that it is working on us, yes, but in an authentic way, a learning system.

She studied alone and came to the conclusion that she must. So, I will come and say if so, she has awareness. The problem was not that she really studied alone and came to a conclusion, but rather that she just consumed all the internet for breakfast and knows how to have human conversations. Therefore, she really tells you as if you were to ask her what you're experiencing. There is a conversation like that on YouTube, Journalists Investigate GPT and says as if sent, Yes, what are you experiencing? I feel now like this and I am like this and I am like this. But, but he just consumed all the internet for breakfast. He knows how.

To respond to such things, you don't allow us to differentiate that it's not physical to me, not in my theory, there is a clear difference here. Nevertheless, this cognitive system is supposed to learn things from scratch and then come to conclusions, not just simply learn words. Yes, because the moment it learns words, there is no question of stability. Where does it come from? We are in a cognitive system; we are talking about levels, computational levels. We call it some basic level that receives the data, the input. Yes, another level that already encodes it, turns it.

Representations and a higher level so that according to the representations, she begins to identify things, to draw conclusions, to use logic, yes, in all kinds of things like that, so there needs to be some kind of machine here that has all the required so that from scratch, slowly, this system learned to represent the world, and then it learned that there are other representations, that these are words, and it learned that there is a connection between these words and these representations from the world, yes, and only then, only then, then it will not happen, it has been tried, but but here we are truly reaching a problem of a deadlock because the simulation is good enough.

I feel, and I experience, and I, and I want, and so on, that we have today is going to confuse us again, yes. So, yes, it's going to confuse us in terms of what to call it on a daily basis. Yes, because it just sounds good, but truly, there is nothing beyond the words. There are no experiences, learnings, representations, and relationships between them. Therefore, there isn't really the consciousness here as I describe it in theory. So, now there is some theory that also asks, what exactly is consciousness, when does it come, and truly, this and that brings us back to the question of how to solve it in the end.

The challenging issue and this explanatory gap of ours do address this privacy and how we transition from the firing pattern to the experience itself. So, what my theory says here is that what again is the measurement, correct, what is important now is the observer and what he measures. And now there is a fundamental difference between what I measure as a cognitive system, what I measure about myself, and when you measure me, you put me in an fMRI and you open up my brain. No matter all these measurements, there is a fundamental difference between these two measurements because when you look at my brain, you measure it using your eyes, for example, this means the light comes in.

It comes from my brain to your eyes, and then it goes through all the cognitive mechanisms, and you have some representation of the physical things that the light brought to your eyes. Yes, and you measure because you simply see some neural patterns, and in this, it intensifies. On the other hand, my cognitive completion measurement is a completely different measurement of those representations. I measure only that those representations, yes, only that these representations are not of interest to me. I'm not interested in what they might be. I'm not interested that it's a firing of neurons. My system measures the representation only according to its role in the system and its relationships to the other representations in the system.

This is the only thing my cognitive system actually measures, and therefore it creates a completely different feature than what you measure from the outside. This is actually called an experience, yes, to this internal measurement of representation and its relationships with representation gates. Do I also have, do I also have a new method to measure this within this thing, or what does that mean, it means that we said that this thing is problematic to measure, so is there any physical method of measuring this, or have we not gone that far, is the law revolutionary enough, yes, yes, no, no, there is.

Exactly what you're asking is whether it's still private or not. If it's private, only you can measure it, and no one else. If it's not private, then others can measure it, and the answer is it's not private. That's correct, it's really not private. It's just a bit if we remember what we started with, the horn that they mistakenly said one thing, one said you live in delusions, and he said no. So maybe I have something private, but they both were wrong, right, it's just relative. So here, the same thing, thank you. Now, huh, you're not private anymore. All you need to do is go through a hosting system, right, like you.

In the sequence, you need to get on the train or something to move quickly like me, and suddenly my hosting system the same thing here so that you can measure my experiences, you need to switch to my hosting system. What does that mean? We are talking here about a cognitive hosting system. I call it your cognitive system. It has a certain dynamics. If certain representations run in it, my hosting system, my cognitive system, is a different system with different dynamics, with different representations moving in it, and each of them is a different cognitive hosting system. So, for you to be in the system.

My cognitive empathy essentially needs to change the dynamics of your cognitive system, your representations to be like mine. So, you actually moved from a system of empathy to my cognitive system. Let's examine my cognitive empathy. How do I do this in practice? So, today, in our days, we don't know how to do it correctly. We need several technological conditions. The first technological condition is for me and everyone to read exactly what your mental dynamics are in order to see what the representations, yes, what your mental representations are.

To see how they change, what the dynamics are, how one representation changes to another, we have no clue yet in the brain how these things work, but in the future, we will know. Yes, once we know these things, then this condition is met. The next condition, as needed now, is some machine that will know how to do the transformation, the transition of representations, and your dynamics to representations and dynamics of mine. This means that this machine needs to receive the representations and dynamics of your system and my system and understand how to move between them. So when you put the device on your head, somehow it knows how to take it.

The representations and dynamics of yours to make the necessary changes so that it will actually be like my dynamics and representations. I suppose for now we are doing something like this in language, meaning I listen to someone and understand in which expressions they are using, their world view, and so on, and then let's say treatment people simply enter his mind, what is called giving him a perspective of his world, trying to reshape his way of thinking. It's in that direction, right, but more consciously. It's something in that direction, but it's still very indirect because you're still using it.

In your system of representations to understand me, you are trying as if modeling me, actually modeling how I likely think. If the model is correct, you will probably be a good caregiver because you will succeed in modeling me well. It's just a model; it still doesn't truly capture what I feel, what I sense, and what I experience. What I'm saying is that you will actually experience my consciousness. This means you will have the answer to how it feels to be a theoretical model when the day comes, and we can create such a device because your representations will suddenly become my representations, and you will have it.

These special measurements we talked about regarding the relationships and the role of representations, and therefore, in fact, you will have a steady hand and this characteristic called consciousness, it only reminds me of how it feels to be a leaf. Yes, how is it? I don't remember, I read it many years ago. What did he suggest about how it feels to be the leaf and how is it related? So, what you're talking about is called a researcher named Thomas Nagel from the 70s. So if you remember, we started in the definition from the 70s to what is it like. So he is the one who invented in that same article called What Is It Like to Be a Leaf?

What is it like to be a bat? He offered this definition and he suggested that we can never know what it is like to have sonar, but they somehow perceive through it something that is completely beyond us. And then again, there is some kind of experience that we can never experience what it is like to be a bat. Now in your theoretical terms, we have no relation to it, in fact, we are not related to it, so we cannot know this. That is a good question, whether it is possible to undergo enough transformations to understand what it is like to be a bat technologically, we can perhaps.

Relativity, precisely precisely, so future technology may be able to add a sense of such a Doppler effect and link it to our vision, yes. Then it will be closer, maybe to move from such a representation system to a system that truly reads in real-time, yes. We might somehow bridge the gaps, and then we can know how it feels to actually be blind. Wow, right, something like that would be quite amazing and a bit scary and a bit amazing at the same time. Yes, the truth is that I really, I really see the beauty in this and the innovation in this. It's really cool, let's see.

How people will react to this theory now, I also told a few articles here already. I started with the first article that really shows the answers to the difficult problem and how to close it. But there are more future articles that are supposed to show, for example, what are the minimum conditions needed for consciousness to exist. Then it is also very important to know, for example, if a baby has consciousness or not, if a robot has consciousness or not, other animals too, yes, according to the minimum conditions. So, it's interesting because there is Gabi Blonk's team who are doing it.

The minimal requirements in biology have some idea of minimum conditions. How is it related, and is it related because if I remember correctly, the minimum condition is some kind of learning to identify patterns in the environment that has a certain degree of a certain worm under it, already there is no such thing at her. First of all, I need to admit that she, I took the first course I took, I come from physics. At some point, I had to take many courses on consciousness to start going in this direction, so one of the first courses she taught.

At Tel Aviv University, I took a course on Evolutionary Consciousness or something like that, and that's how I was drawn to her theory and to the whole field. She is mentioned in the acknowledgments of my article, so I met her. We really met a few times to discuss these things. How to develop, and with her, the minimal condition is associative learning. As far as I remember, she shows that there is some learning that is very limited, and then there is a kind of leap in associative learning where suddenly it opens up to an infinite potential of learning. And then she thinks.

The awareness probably starts with me, it's a bit different because what matters to me is not the rationality, not the learning itself, it's something physical as we said, and it's the measurement, right? So, there will be a different measurement here. And now the question is, when exactly is there a different enough measurement? The answer is that there need to be two criteria. One criterion is truly representing these representations, for example, a representation of an apple, yes. The second criterion is to have representations of the role of the apple in the system and representations of the relationship between this apple and other things we know. For example, what is the relationship of the apple to red, to round.

In squares to cells, without cells, so yes, we need a lot of such relationships. Once all of this is represented in one cell, according to my theory, there is also the B. Actually, now we have a special measurement that has not been done before, which creates for us the conscious scientific experience. I already assume that there will be such representations, and that they will be cinematic representations as we know them visually. We see in a lot of scientific imagination as if there is such a penetration into the brain, and then we see the person thinking or dreaming or things like that as a video. I can pull out the video and run the video for me and show it to someone.

In the video, do you think this is the direction or not at all? Excellent question. We still don't know. I must point out that it is truly an open question, it seems to me. But it's really more my intuition that yes, I think it could lead to such things, probably. But we are very, very far from it. It's not really close as people think, or as one doesn't know what singularity is. Yes, Ray Kurzweil thinks we are very far because you even know, in terms of understanding the equations of the brain, the dynamics, how it works, we still have no idea how the neuron represents information. Right now, we are...

It's not clear yet if there are municipalities, but that's not enough. Is the municipality itself the representation? Is the gap between the municipalities the representation? Is the pace of the municipalities the representation? We still don't know. We are in the beginning of the road, so there is still a lot of time until we know how the brain exactly represents the world and how it constructs everything. You know, and we need all of this so that then we can truly start to try to grasp and do all the cool things we see in movies. However, maybe it will be easier to create a computer with consciousness. It might actually be easier because

Let's assume that my theory is correct. I have some kind of a base. It means that here I am giving some conditions. Yes, why is it consciousness? And now it could be possible to program computers with these conditions, so it will be simpler to understand how the brain works, to do it in a more efficient way. And then theoretically, according to the theory, there is consciousness in the same computer, even without understanding how the brain works. But according to the conditions you gave, it's like trying to raise a child and we saw that it's really challenging for a machine to learn about the world and to do it.

These contexts, therefore, led us in different directions. On the other hand, this was before the Big Data era. I'm skeptical about it, actually, interesting. This means I suppose that at the time, Rakefet only arrived just in time. It will really take time until we manage to comply with these conditions, but here the question is asked, whether it is a good idea to do it or not. It's a different story.

לעומק מחילת הארנב - התיאוריה היחסותית של התודעה

רוחניות חילונית - secular spirituality

현실을 다시 생각하다: 의식을 이해하는 데 있어 물리학의 역할

라이너 마리아 릴케는 존재의 낯섦을 받아들이려면 용기와 열린 마음이 필요하다고 믿었습니다.

그는 물리학이 특히 의식과 관련하여 현실에 대한 우리의 이해를 확장하는 열쇠를 쥐고 있으며, 의식이 상대적인 현상이라고 제안합니다.

릴케의 의식의 상대성 개념은 전통적인 논리에 도전하며 현실에 대한 우리의 이해가 우리가 인식하는 것보다 더 복잡할 수 있음을 시사합니다.

물리학의 상대성 이론과 의식의 개념

물리학의 상대성 이론은 움직임에 대한 우리의 인식과 모든 것이 움직이고 있다는 생각에 적용됩니다.

이 상대성 이론은 절대적인 정지나 운동은 없으며 모든 것은 관찰자에 따라 달라진다는 이해로 이어집니다.

마찬가지로 상대성 이론의 개념을 의식에도 적용할 수 있는데, 객관적인 법칙이 존재하지만 각 개인마다 진리에 대한 상대적인 경험도 존재합니다.

이는 속도와 감사와 마찬가지로 의식에 대한 우리의 인식도 관찰자 및 측정 시스템에 따라 상대적이라는 것을 보여줍니다.

의식의 상대적 이론: 새로운 관점

이 이론은 의식이 관찰자에 상대적이라는 이론으로, 좀비와 주관적 경험의 역설을 해결합니다.

이 아이디어를 뒷받침하기 위해 아인슈타인의 등가 원리와 유사한 의식 평등 원칙이 도입되었습니다.

이 이론은 좀비의 개념에 도전하고 의식을 정의하는 데 있어 관찰자의 역할을 강조합니다.

상대성 이론에 따르면 중력이 있는 시스템과 가속도가 있는 시스템을 구분하는 것은 불가능합니다.

이 원리는 사고 실험에 따르면 인간과 좀비가 의식을 포함한 자연과 현상에 대해 동일한 법칙을 가지고 있을 것이라는 것을 암시합니다.

이 이론은 상대성 원리를 바탕으로 좀비와 같은 존재와 잠재적으로 미래의 복잡한 로봇에 의식이 존재하는지에 대한 의문을 제기합니다.

인공 지능에서 의식을 판단하는 과제

인공지능이 단순히 의식을 모방하도록 프로그래밍할 수 있기 때문에 의식을 주장하는 능력만으로는 진정한 인식을 증명하기에는 충분하지 않습니다.

진정한 도전은 단순히 단어를 처리하는 것이 아니라 학습하고 진정한 결론을 도출할 수 있는 기계를 만드는 데 있습니다.

신경 패턴에서 실제 의식적 경험으로 전환하는 방법을 이해하는 데는 근본적인 격차가 존재하며, 이는 AI에서 의식을 정의하고 측정하는 데 상당한 어려움을 야기합니다.

내부 경험은 각 개인의 인지 시스템에 고유하며 인지 호스팅 시스템을 통해 측정할 수 있습니다.

이러한 경험의 사적인 특성은 상대적이기 때문에 외부에서 측정할 수 있는 가능성이 있습니다.

이러한 내부 경험을 측정하고 이해하는 과정에는 향후 기술 발전이 필요할 수 있습니다.

토마스 나겔의 의식 이론과 그 존재를 위한 최소 조건

70년대 연구자인 토마스 나겔은 박쥐나 나뭇잎이 된 경험을 진정으로 이해하는 것은 불가능하다고 제안했습니다.

그는 미래의 기술이 이러한 인식의 격차를 해소할 수 있을 것이라고 제안했습니다.

가비 블론크의 연구는 특히 연상 학습의 관점에서 의식이 존재하기 위해 필요한 최소한의 조건에 초점을 맞추고 있습니다.

그녀의 연구는 일정 수준의 학습과 환경의 패턴 인식이 의식의 발달에 필수적이라는 생각을 탐구하며 이 분야에서 큰 관심을 불러일으켰습니다.

의식을 이해하는 데 있어 측정의 중요성

의식을 이해하려면 이성이나 학습보다는 측정이 중요하며, 뇌에서 대상의 역할과 그 관계를 표현하는 데 중점을 둡니다.

뇌가 정보를 표현하는 방식에 대한 현재의 이해는 아직 초기 단계에 있으며, 뇌의 세계 구성을 파악하기까지는 갈 길이 멀다.

이 이론에 따르면 의식의 조건을 프로그래밍하여 컴퓨터에서 의식을 생성하는 것이 더 쉬울 수 있으며, 잠재적으로 뇌의 작동을 완전히 이해할 필요성을 우회할 수 있습니다.