Yes, this is clearly explained by Anil Seth. He cites that the brain makes a best guess of the incoming data, based on prior experience (memory).
An excellent illustration is this qualia that produces an optical illusion, which cannot be overridden by conscious thought.
"cannot be overridden by conscious thought", it isn't easily overridden, but I would hesitate to say that it
can't. Maybe it's harder for this particular illusion since it gives such a strong indicator for the color of the shadow, but there are several illusions where it is easier to override the illusion or change the way the illusion behaves by conscious thought.
I believe the PGT3 learning process is the same text based process as humans, but not yet quite as sophisticated, due to storage capacity. But that is a problem which can be solved.
Not merely due to storage capacity though, there are structural differences evolved for millions of years in the brain where it has already connections established, also the structures themselves are thought to have a function in intelligence. You can't really compare it to AI at this time. Sophistication is a pretty general term though, but if computers could simulate the structural component, then maybe we could get somewhere close.
And how is this different from human brain making "best guesses" of incoming data?
It is only part of the story, the brain is much more complex than that and also much more just different than that, where it also relies on structures and how much oxygen different parts receives and chemical actuators and all kind of things that the AI just doesn't do. Today AI can very accurately recognize the difference between different animals for example, but change the image in just the right way and it could just as well deem it to be a car or something completely different than that which is shown. There are similarities in certain ways between AI and the brain, and that is obvious since AI from the very start was made to mimic what the brain did but right now there are far more differences than similarities. And we still don't know where in all of this actual conscious experience begin to arise. If we don't understand how consciousness works, then we can't attribute it to the AI even though it says that it is conscious (because that would be the overwhelming response in the data set that it has). It just isn't intelligently making the judgement, it just looks at the data set that we feed it. It is very unlike when I say that I am conscious and you believe me cause we are basically made the same and we share the experience. How can we do that with the AI when we know that it is much more different than us? Today we can know that we can't trust it, because we know that it relies on what is in the dataset. It isn't describing that it is conscious based on the experience of being conscious, like we do. There might come a day where we don't know if we can trust it or not and that presents a moral dilemma for us.
The universe needs no human verification, humans do.
I think it does need some kind of foundation that discerns it from nothing. Without any consciousness (doesn't need to be human, or even similar to the human level of consciousness) there is fundamentally
nothing since consciousness is the verification of existence and, to me, the closest thing that I can think of that is suitable as a foundation for existence. It is intrinsic to our own existence and by method of extrapolation could be intrinsic to all existence. There is a correlation but not necessarily a causation there, but it's still the best thing we have to go on. Seeing as we have no other alternative, this can at least be a world view that makes sense in many ways. I also see no way to test it, but having it as a alternative can direct us to how to test it when we become advanced enough to actually be able to understand consciousness and might find a way to apply a test to it for the universe and existence itself.
Evolution doesn't work that way, but Natural Selection does. The combination is responsible for all extant patterns in the universe. What you cite is a self-aware system, which is the ultimate evolutionary state of a self-referential system.
Newton's Law of Motion addresses its fundamental beginning; " for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" i.e. a fundamental self-referential process which acts in a non-random manner.
We know from the table of elements that all things have specific compound (atomic) values . It is logical and reasonable to propose that these values must interact with each other in a non-random way. Non-random = Mathematical = Quasi Intelligent (unconscious intelligent behavior)
I don't see any reference to itself. For every action is an equal and opposite reaction, but not a reference, I don't see how that reaction refers to itself, it is just the reaction (itself) propagating. But I'm not really familiar with the concept strictly physically the way that you seem to imply. I think of it, like the eye, has the ability to correct for light that comes in by adjusting the pupil. It is referencing the output of the input (the light) and adjusting to get a better image. Or better yet when the image is out of focus and it adjusts the lens until the image is in focus. It is referencing it's own output and adjusting for it. I'm not sure what to make of it in a strictly physical sense. To be honest I don't have anything particularly against it either, I just don't see the connection.
To me the proposition that fundamental spacetime unfolds in a fractal (self-similar) manner strikes me as an important consideration in any discussion of non-random self-organization.
Ok, well it was interesting.
I agree completely and is the reason why there is a hierarchical evolutionary ordering of greater and more sophisticated consciousness along with complex brains, starting with photo-sensitive organisms. ....more
https://webvision.med.utah.edu/2014/07/evolution-of-sight-in-the-animal-kingdom/
And evolving with each generation from single celled organisms all the way up the evolutionary ladder to highly intelligent conscious animals (octopus, whales, dolphins, humans).
I equate evolved sensory refinement with greater ability to analyze and identify (and internalize) external reality.
Since you see the basic "building block" of cause and effect as self-referential (still not sure how it applies but) do you then think that cause and effect is conscious in some primitive sense?
We really only know about our own consciousness, that's why we equate intelligence with consciousness, we also equate our complex brain to consciousness, but as we have no other example we should also look at the alternatives, we do know that low-intelligence people are also consciousness, and frankly I don't think it does anything to the level of consciousness that they possess. You can be "dumb" and very conscious. So...I think we shouldn't rule out any possibilities.
I don't think mathematics exist as a dimension, but more as a fundamental way things work. i.e. objects with specific values MUST interact via specific non-random (mathematical) functions.
As ex-bookkeeper, I don't bother with numbers and conscious counting. That's human stuff.
lol, a book-keeper is human too, but alright, let's continue...
I believe in universal "specific generic values" and "ordered algebraic processes" (mathematical functions).
I really cannot understand the resistance to this excellent notion that would establish once and for all the "way the universe works".
Well, things relate to each other, mathematics is a way to understand that relation. I'm not resisting per se, it's just that it has to have a discernable reality for me to call it something that exists. It exists as a theoretical concept, and the relations that it describes exist. I don't think we should be satisfied until we understand why the relations can be described by a certain mathematical function. Maybe we can never know? Then maybe, we should never be fully satisfied with our quest for knowledge.
Recently I found out that for any inverse square law the constant that comes before it partly consists of 4 times pi. So we have extracted some information even from the unchanging constants, and with the advent of quantum physics we also came to understand some of the other mathematical relations that before was only the mathematical relation (it is what it is) but now we know why it is. I expect more of this in the future as our knowledge increases.
