Integrated Information in Brains, Machines and Natural Language by Max Tegmark

Forum Moderator

Max Tegmark discusses his work on Integrated Information Theory and its application.

Explore more:

Max Tegmark on Steps toward building an AI physicist:Max Tegmark discusses how we can use ideas from physics to improve AI.
Thermodynamics of Agency by Susanne Still: Join Susanne Still as she explores agent behaviors derived from fundamental physical principles.
David Haussler - Self organizing neural complexity: Join David as he explores how cerebral organoids are revolutionizing our understanding of human brain development and neural circuitry.

Keywords: Tegmark, Integrated Information Theory, Natural Language

Lorraine Ford

Re this 2016 video, titled “Integrated Information in Brains, Machines and Natural Language by Max Tegmark”:

One of the most frightening things about humanity is that a large proportion of otherwise “scientifically-intelligent” people just can’t get their heads round man-made symbols. They really, really, really can’t get their heads round it. It’s like an inherent divide between types of people.

Man-made symbols. As in special squiggles on paper or screen made by people, special arrangements of sounds made by people, and special arrangements of voltages, transistors and circuits in computers, all made by people.

These otherwise “scientifically-intelligent” people are identical to religious believers in that they believe that man-made symbols (e.g. in the Bible; or man-made symbols input to, processed by, and spewed out of, computers) have intrinsic “meaning”.

They religiously believe that man-made symbols have intrinsic “Platonic” meaning. And this purported intrinsic Platonic meaning can be picked up by people. And this purported intrinsic Platonic meaning can be picked up by computers. They sincerely, but very foolishly, believe that computers know the meaning that human beings ascribe to the symbols that are input to, processed by, and spewed out of computers.

There is seemingly nothing much that can be done about these people. But these false religious beliefs about Bibles, and these false religious beliefs about computers, can only lead to endless trouble for humanity and the environment.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
It is 2024, and despite their online “research”, those people who are not day-in day-out year-in year-out professional computer programmers, don’t really know how computer systems, AIs and robots are made to work. So, like a sponge they soak up the latest nonsense ideas about computers, AIs and robots. Like worshippers at a megachurch, they are all too willing to believe in miracles.

And it is disappointing when physicists lose their formerly critical thinking minds down the rabbithole of fake beliefs, and become purveyors of mis/disinformation about computers, AIs and robots. These physicists are just amateur dabblers and researchers on the subject who simply have no idea of the practicalities of how professional computer programmers make computer systems, AIs and robots work.

And also, these physicists very, very clearly have no idea of the difference between the real world, and aspects of the real world (voltages, transistors and circuits) that are specially arranged by people so that they can be used as symbols of the world, symbols being a type of tool. Just like written and spoken words are aspects of the world (ink, paper, sound waves) that are specially arranged by people so that they can be used as symbols of the world, symbols being a type of tool.

And physics is not an appropriate profession to research computer systems, AIs and robots because physicists (rightfully) have a simple-minded view of the world, where in essence you systematically take before and after measurements and try to fit a mathematical equation to the curve of your results. But this approach doesn’t work when it comes to computer systems, which have an unseen inner logic (created by computer programmers), which CAN'T be represented by mathematical equations. This is very different to the low-level world that is researched by physicists, which has unseen inner mathematical relationships which CAN be represented by physics’ mathematical equations.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
The foundational basis for consciousness is necessarily the measurable physical world:

THE CATEGORIES, like mass and position, representable with man-made symbols. The categories are the only things that can be measured.
THE NUMBERS, representable with man-made symbols. The numbers are the result of measuring the categories, but the numbers themselves can’t be measured.
THE LAW-OF-NATURE RELATIONSHIPS between the categories, symbolically representable as mathematical equations/ statements using man-made symbols. As a result of experimentation, these law-of-nature relationships have been inferred to exist, but the relationships themselves can’t be measured.
THE LOGICAL CONNECTIVES, representable using man-made symbols, in statements like: “(category1=number1) AND (category2=number2) IS TRUE”. The on-the-spot time-place “IS TRUE” aspect, and the collatory “AND” aspect represented by these logical connective statements must be inferred to exist as a necessary foundational basis for consciousness. But what is represented by these logical connective statements, i.e. basic foundational consciousness of the surrounding world from a point of view, can’t be measured.

So, can consciousness exist in man-made machines (i.e. computers, AIs, robots) where:

The “categories” “exist” only in the form of man-made physical arrangements of voltages, transistors and circuits that are meant to symbolically represent categories.
The “numbers” “exist” only in the form of man-made physical arrangements of voltages, transistors and circuits that are meant to symbolically represent numbers.
The “relationships” “exist” only in the form of man-made physical arrangements of voltages, transistors and circuits that are meant to symbolically represent relationships.
The “logical connectives” “exist” only in the form of man-made physical arrangements of voltages, transistors and circuits that are meant to symbolically represent logical connectives.

Clearly, consciousness can’t exist in man-made machines (i.e. computers, AIs, robots). When it comes to GENUINE real-world categories, numbers, relationships and logical connectives, only low-level real-world categories, numbers, relationships and logical connectives pertaining to physical voltages, transistors and circuits can actually exist inside computers, AIs and robots.

When will physicists ever get their heads around the difference between the real world, and mere physical symbols that human beings use to represent the world????????

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
Apart from the use of man-made symbols in computers, AIs and robots, a related issue is that physicists have come to religiously believe that a set of man-made symbols (i.e. symbols for categories like mass and position; symbols for numbers that apply to the categories; and mathematical equation symbols for law-of-nature relationships) can fully represent the world.

But in fact, the system of representation is actually physicists + their symbols. Physicists + their symbols is what represents the world. This would seemingly matter most when it comes to the extreme limits of science, i.e. the foundational physics of the world, but perhaps not in other sciences.

Perhaps, what physicists need to do is to make a scientific study of PHYSICS and PHYSICISTS. What are physicists actually doing with their models? I’m saying that this study would find that the models of physics don’t actually work without the consciousness and agency of physicists.

First, the symbols, that physicists use, are consciously identified by physicists; secondly, the symbols don’t actually have any meaning except the meaning that exists in the consciousness of physicists; and thirdly, the symbols don’t actually move except in the consciousness of physicists, or by physicists physically moving and changing the symbols. Without the consciousness and agency of physicists, the set of symbols don’t actually represent a viable, moving system.

Symbolic, scientific models of the foundational world don’t actually work as a viable, moving system, without the help of the consciousness and agency of physicists, who are doing the maths, where “doing the maths" necessarily involves the consciousness and agency of physicists.

So, physicists are “standing in” for: 1) the necessary aspects of the world that recognise/ are conscious of the real-world categories, relationships and numbers; and 2) the necessary aspects of the world that move the real-world numbers/ move the system.

To more correctly represent a complete, viable, standalone system requires the use of logical connective symbols that are used to symbolically represent the consciousness and agency of physicists, where the consciousness and agency of physicists is in turn “standing” in for the above 2 necessary aspects of a viable, standalone, moving system.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
Far from the physicists’ idea that what happens in the world is determined by the equations, what actually happens in the world (e.g. the war in Ukraine) is due to myriads of on-the-spot, time-place, unscripted logical connectives (the IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THENs of people and other living things) with the pre-scripted equations merely providing assistance.

Meanwhile, cocksure physicists continue to cause untold damage to the people of the world by telling people that what happens in the word (e.g. the war in Ukraine) was all determined by the equations.

But how did physicists fail to notice the logical connectives?

Because they failed to appreciate that they were using MAN-MADE SYMBOLS to represent the world, and so they failed to appreciate that, without the IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THENs provided by people using the symbols, the man-made symbols represent nothing at all.

Without the consciousness and agency of people, the man-made symbols (e.g. the man-made symbols used in computers) represent nothing at all, i.e. the man-made symbols have no meaning.

In the real-world on-the-spot time-place interactions that are continually taking place between particles, atoms and molecules, everything (i.e. the particles, atoms and molecules) has inherent built-in meaning, that physicists might symbolically represent in terms of numbers that apply to categories like mass and position, that “ARE TRUE” at that time and place. However, man-made symbols have no inherent built-in meaning at all.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
With man-made symbols, one is using the natural world in order to represent the natural world, i.e. using man-made ARRANGEMENTS of the natural world in order to symbolically represent the natural world.

These man-made ARRANGEMENTS are the ONLY strategy that people have to symbolically represent the natural world, because one CAN’T use one part of the unarranged natural world to represent another part of the unarranged natural world.

This is because each element or part of the unarranged natural world has it’s own inherent inbuilt meaning, i.e. its own categories and numbers, that are quite different to the categories and numbers that apply to another element or part of the unarranged natural world.

Man-made arrangements of parts of the natural world are a “neutral property” that has no inbuilt meaning, i.e. the meaning that people have given to these arrangements (i.e. these man-made symbols) is not dependent on the inherent inbuilt meaning (i.e. the categories and numbers) that is inherent to the part of the natural world that has been so arranged. Also, these man-made arrangements are not “known” to the natural world, because the arrangements per se are a type of “property” that has no categories and no numbers and no relationships with the rest of the natural world.

These man-made arrangements of parts of the natural world (i.e. man-made symbols) are a “neutral property” that can be utilised by people.

So, in order to symbolically represent ideas in human consciousness, or to symbolically represent parts or aspects of the world, or to symbolically re-represent other man-made symbols, people use:

Man-made arrangements of man-made sounds;
Man-made arrangements of ink on paper, or pixels on screens; and
Man-made arrangements of voltages, transistors, and circuits, together with man-made symbolic computer programs, in computers.

Man-made symbols have no inherent, inbuilt meaning.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
The categories (like mass and position), the numbers that apply to the categories, the lawful relationships between the categories, and the structural arrangement (e.g. the molecular geometry), of the small-scale integrated entities (i.e. the particles, atoms and molecules) is the foundation of all IS TRUE, on-the-spot, time-place meaning. This IS TRUE, on-the-spot, time-place meaning exists only from the point of view of the on-the-spot, time-place entities themselves. And this IS TRUE, on-the-spot, time-place meaning is necessarily the foundation upon which is built all meaning experienced by higher-level entities.

The world has inherent, inbuilt meaning: no miracles or Godlike entities are required to inject meaning into the world.

But the topology or arrangement of larger scale non-integrated non-entities, including man-made physical symbols, has no inherent meaning. The following man-made physical symbols have no inherent meaning:

Man-made arrangements of man-made sounds.
Man-made arrangements of ink on paper, or pixels on screens.
Man-made arrangements of voltages, transistors, and circuits, together with man-made symbolic computer programs, in computers.

Man-made symbols have no inherent, inbuilt meaning. It is human consciousness that ascribes meaning to man-made, inherently neutral, arrangements of matter (i.e. man-made symbols); it is human consciousness that ascribes meaning to man-made symbols.

When will physicists stop ascribing magical powers to man-made symbols?

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
Physicists and mathematicians religiously believe in a version of the following weird ideas:

The world is a mathematical system.
A mathematical system is a type of zombie that, without being conscious, magically knows its own categories, numbers and relationships.
A mathematical system is a type of zombie that, without free will, magically interacts and moves its own categories and numbers.

So, what is the problem?

The first problem is the jump:

From the fact that physicists and mathematicians can REPRESENT aspects of the world with man-made mathematical SYMBOLS
To the idea that the world is literally a mathematical system.

The second problem is the jump:

From the fact that physicists and mathematicians ARE CONSCIOUS OF their man-made mathematical SYMBOLS
To the idea that these mathematical symbols represent a self-contained system that doesn’t need to be conscious.

The third problem is the jump:

From the fact that physicists and mathematicians FREELY MOVE their man-made mathematical SYMBOLS
To the idea that these mathematical symbols represent a self-contained system that doesn’t need the ability to freely move.

Physicists and mathematicians are blind to the necessary existence of primitive low-level consciousness and primitive low-level free will in a “mathematical” world.

When will physicists and mathematicians wake up to the fact that their UNTHINKING USE OF MAN-MADE SYMBOLS to represent the world inevitably makes them blind to these necessary aspects, which are required for a functioning, viable world?