Hi. Good afternoon. So I managed to keep track of the lectures while I was away, but through the virtues of webcast. And I hope what I'm going to say is going to be on track. So after the fireworks last week, today's lecture will be one of those lectures that starts out slowly and then fizzles out altogether. So it is way of fireworks too. OK, but I want to look at, we're looking at Frank Jackson's thing, epiphenomenal qualia. And next up on Thursday, we'll look at, well, actually, on Thursday, we'll look at Huxley's article on the hypothesis that animals are automata and its history. That's for a seven-page article in the Chalmers Collection. For today, if you get interested in the Jackson, you don't need to do this. But if you get interested, then there are also papers by Lewis and Dennett in the Chalmers Collection. They are very much about the Jackson article. And you might find these interesting if you find the Jackson interesting. OK, so we should have essays back to you very soon. And on Tuesday, we'll give out topics for the next essay. So you can express yourself. OK, so let's just look at what Jackson's key argument is. The key, I think the key move in Jackson's whole argument is one that he doesn't draw a whole lot of attention to, is this statement. And I said many times in this class, there's one world and it's a physical world. Everything is physical. And one way of spelling that out is to say what Jackson does, to say the thesis of physicalism is that all correct information is physical information. Saying that there's only the physical world means if you've got all the true information about the world, if you've got all the true physical information about the world, then there isn't any more true information to get. You see what I mean? So first of all, can I ask you to put your hand up if that's pretty clear as a statement of what physicalism is? And can you put your hand up if, given that you get this, does that sound correct? Put your hand up if that sounds right. Many of you hesitated. Is that because you've got your fingers burnt so many times? Is that because you have a specific reservation about this? Yeah? Right. There might be more true information than the physical information. But that would be because dualism is true, because there's more stuff than the physical stuff. Is that right? Yeah. OK. Yeah? Yes, all you can find is true. Isn't science committed to something like this? Yeah. That's true. But the question is, if you have all the physical information about people, then is there any more information to get? Someone mentioned in one of the first lectures in this class this thing that's going on at the Gallant's lab here in Berkeley, where they are recovering what you can see from brain scans. I'll try and show it a bit. How many people know about this stuff? It's just, sorry, I can't remember. Someone in this class told me about it, and I just saw it to my own amazement the other day. I'll try and show that next time. If you have all the information about someone's brain, you can recover an astonishing amount about what's going on in their mind. Isn't it just that you don't have enough physical information at the moment? You see what I mean? And isn't science really committed to that? All the correct information is physical information. You can tell stories about ectoplasm or non-physical stuff, but that's not going to be correct if the scientific approach is right. So that's pretty powerful. Yeah? Put your hand up if you don't see why you would formulate physicalism like that. You're chance to get off the bus here. One, two, yeah. Dependent, yes. Social historical facts, yeah. Yeah, but there are two pictures you could have of the social historical facts. One is you could be a dualist and say, the social historical facts belong to a different sector of reality to the physical facts. But the other thing you could say is, the basic physical facts that are relevant to social or historical realities are very, very complex. But if you had all that physical information, you'd have the whole truth about what was going on. There wouldn't really be any significant information to add. You see what I mean? That's the dilemma that this way of setting things up is putting you to. Either you have this kind of... Exactly. They've got to translate somehow into physical facts. Yeah? If there's only one world and it's a physical world, there's someone else, yeah? That's very good. Without really the information properly speaking, that's physical, yeah? What kind of... Are there non-physical things? Okay, but that's the whole issue, right? I've been trying to persuade you that the mind is physical and that it is the refuge of the scoundrel to say that the mind is non-physical. Now, I hope there are no scoundrels in this class. I'm sorry. That's not what you'd call an argument. But you see what I mean? You can't take it for granted that the mind is not physical. Yeah, yeah. Is that physical information that one plus one is two? It doesn't sound physical, does it? I mean... It's not correct. So it's not correct? Yeah, it has to be correct. Surely one plus one is two? Yeah, so you might say, this can't be right because there are, after all, mathematical facts. Yeah? Yeah, no, that's great. But the question is, if you sit... I mean, that's already a bit puzzling, really. Are we really going to say there's some mathematical heaven out there where all the numbers are grooving together independently of anything physical? And we kind of act... How do we know what's going on in there? You see what I mean? Do we have some kind of extrasensory perception that gets us onto the numbers? That's really puzzling already. Yeah? And so, although that's puzzling, it's going to compound the puzzlement, if you say, but the mind is like that too. You see what I mean? Yeah, yeah. One, two, yeah. Yes, very good. One plus one is two is a kind of generalization. Every time you get one apple and one apple, you get two apples, you just notice that again and again. Yeah, yes, yes. It's certainly important that you can have some kind of imagery for lots of mathematical stuff. I don't see why that would make it physical or non-physical. How does that bear? Or whether it's... Oh, you've seen it? Aha, very good. Okay, I see who you're saying. Okay, so you're starting from perception, really. Maths is grounded in perception. And it's certainly true that the ability to count things seems to be really basic to your understanding of arithmetic. Yeah. So you might come back to the last commenter and say, yeah, but the math is physical too. Yeah, I mean, it doesn't seem right straight off because it doesn't seem like... I mean, if I say 101 plus two is 103, yeah, I just can't tell. I cannot put my hand in my heart and say I've ever done it. Got 101 objects together and I did two and then checked and it was, by God, it was 103. You see what I mean? On the face of it are faith and maths far outstrips what we've actually encountered in the world. But I agree it's an important position you're stating. The general principles, yeah. Okay, okay, fair enough. And that is important as a kind of model for what's going on with the mind that you could have these two pictures. Yeah, you could think the mental stuff is in some kind of heaven, some kind of vector-plasmic heaven and God knows what's going on there, but it's not physical. Or you could say, no, it's going to be rooted in the physical somehow and Jackson is right here. Okay, there was one last question and I forgot. Someone who hasn't asked the question yet. Oh, maybe, okay. We're not going to go very far from this stuff, so come back to this, okay. Okay, so that's Jackson's key move, that statement of physicalism. And now here's an example.  So let's suppose that from birth she's lived in this black and white room. She herself is always clad entirely in black and white. Before you ask, there is no mirror, so her eyes can't get, she doesn't get coloration of her own eyes. She never cuts herself, or as she does it is promptly mopped up by her black and white suiting, right?  Yeah, that's all right. That could happen. Yes? It's not that wild. I mean, this really could happen. Incidentally, I was explaining this idea to a bunch of students wondering what major they would do and one girl came up to me afterwards and said, but did that really happen to that poor girl? This is not imaginary, right? This is just something that one of these things that could perfectly well happen. It's not that someone's done this as an experiment, yep. But it's not that hard to envisage. Okay, so she spends her whole life in this black and white room, but let's suppose that she's very smart. She's unreasonably smart. She's very curious about the world around her. So from the isolation in her black and white room, she gets interested in the brain science of vision. She finds out all the physical information there is to get about what goes on when someone sees ripe tomatoes or the sky. She understands exactly the physiology of what's going on when you see a colored object and say that's red. All that scientific information that people have got about the way the brain works, she has got. So here's Mary. I picture her as a somewhat moody, wistful girl. Surrounded, did she but know it by the blaze of colors all around? But perhaps haunted by the thought that there may be something missing. Despite all the richness and fascination of all the science she knows, she thinks maybe life is more than this. If only I knew what, yep. Surrounded by all this stuff the whole time. But she reads through all her texts. She listens, let us say, to Jackson talking about the, what was it, the global workspace theory. So she knows all about this tahain and the cash stuff. She knows that this picture of the brain is having a long distance loops, connecting lots of neurons from different systems in a global workspace there, in a global workspace. So she knows about the idea that when you look at a brightly colored object, you're getting these neuronal cascades, some of which are going over threshold and connecting long distance to your global workspace. Mary's got all that. She knows everything there is to know about that stuff. Still, she feels kind of like the lady of Charlotte. She feels she is missing something.  And here we see her growing up. As you can see at this point, she's got a white coat and a dog. I'm glad to say the dog is, of course, a Dalmatian. And she is just packed with all this knowledge about the scientific study of the mind.  But then suppose that one day, one extraordinary day, Mary is released from the room. Mary steps out into the blaze of color for the first time. What's gonna happen when she first sees the blaze of color? Is she going to learn anything? At this point, does she find out something she didn't know before? That's Jackson's key question. Is Mary going to learn something when she looks at the rose? Peter, I wonder if you think the answer is yes. If you think the answer is no. Whoa. Okay. Well, there's a substantial majority in favor of yes, but by no means everyone, a significant minority. Okay, so isn't she gonna stare at the rose and say, gee whiz, I never knew this was going on? Yeah? Yes. That's right, yeah. She doesn't learn anything, yeah? It's a great analogy. I actually had that. I had undiagnosed needing a spectacle till I was seven and boy, I remember just how everything fell into place, all these things that had puzzled me. TV, I had never understood. I just could not see what people were getting out of TV. And then I just got it when I got spectacles. But I thought I learned stuff. I learned stuff I hadn't got before.  I mean, she says, this is why people give each other roses. This is why people care about roses. I never got it before because I've got this basic thing about color. Yeah? So did you? Very good, yeah. She already knows what's going on because she's got all your own stuff. Okay, but do you want to comment on that? Right, very good. But it sounds like you would do... Keep going. Keep going. But you would agree with that, yeah? Is that right? It is like Nagel, I agree. But Nagel's point was forcible.  There was something about the subjective experience of redness that she didn't know. And now she knows. So she is learning something. You might say she's not learning much, but isn't that a difference of emphasis? She's learning a bit. She's learning something about experience that she didn't know before. Yep, yeah. She knows what the experience of color is. Sure. Yeah, she is only kind of black and white meters. She can... Very good, yeah. She knew all the stuff about surface spectral reflectances and what they do to your neurons. And now she can reinterpret that in terms of people seeing the colors. Yeah, that's your point. Yeah, that's completely fair, yeah. I think Jackson would say absolutely, yeah. Yep, yes, yes, yeah. That's very good, right? There must be some reason why people keep getting on boats and planes and traveling to distant places to have a look when they could, after all, just sit at home and read all the books about it. Yeah, I mean, people like going and having a look at the pyramids or whatever. And it is because you do find out something. And this goes back to that first comment. There is this emotional change, but the emotional change is because of something you'd learned, yeah? So that's Jackson's take anyway. Jackson says, it seems just obvious that Mary is going to learn something about the world and about our visual experience of it. Right, that's the key point here. Of course you learn something, but is what she learns physical? She had all the physical information. All the physical information you can think of was written down and came through her black and white screen. She knew the whole lot, but yet she learned something when she stepped out from her room. So the previous knowledge she had was incomplete. She had all the physical information, there wasn't any relevant physical information she didn't have, but therefore, there's more correct information than physical information, so physicalism has got to be false. So that's a very simple argument, but when it's posed like that, it seems like there has just got to be something incomplete about the scientific picture of the world, because she had the full scientific picture. All that to Heine and the cash stuff, she had. She had everything about consciousness, but she did not know what it's like to see the flower. Yeah, yes. Yeah, she can reinterpret all that physical stuff, yeah. I mean, it's very powerful if it's a physical fact, you can write it down and send it through the black and white screen. You know, they print all these journals in black and white, you know, they don't say, well, of course, it would be in black and white were very limited. You see what I mean, you take it for granted that all the world's knowledge can be written down in black and white, all the scientific information. That really is an interesting line of questioning. If physics, if physical means what physicists do, yeah, then she can have all the stuff that the physicists have. Yeah, the physicists just talk about the wavelengths. The physicists let color drop out of their picture of the world, yeah. So she can have everything that a physicist has, yeah. You want to say, yeah, but there's more going on than that, yeah. And I agree, there's more going on in the physical world than that. And I agree, it's a very delicate point, this. If what she's finding out about is something mental, then it's not a physical fact about the world that she's finding out, yeah. But if what she's finding out about is the color of the object, then that doesn't seem like a mental fact, yeah. Well, I'm actually going to come on. Is it spending quite a bit of time on this? But that's an important line, yep. Yes, that's great. Okay, yeah, that's really great. So there's a whole bunch of these questions that are kind of coming together. So if you think of, is this a way to play it back to you? But you could say, well, ordinarily, when a scientist reads a paper about color spectroscopy or something like that, then you're actually assuming the scientist knows pretty much what these colors are, yeah. So an understanding of color is actually presupposed in the ordinary color science books. They might be written in black and white, but they presuppose your ordinary knowledge of color from your experience of color. And that's what people were saying about Mary having to reinterpret what she learned. Because now she's got to get, now she can achieve the kind of understanding of those black and white texts that scientists usually have. You see what I mean? Yeah. So actually, although it's all written in black and white, the usual understanding of the physical information presupposes an understanding of what color is. So if she already had the usual kind of understanding that a scientist has of all the findings and color spectroscopy, then she would already know what the colors were. Yeah. So that's another way of playing out this line that the facts about the color really are themselves physical facts. Yeah. OK, they're not facts of basic physics. That seems important. That seems something where Jackson is clearly right. Yeah, because you know what they talk about in basic physics? They talk about gluons and quarks. And what do they talk about in basic physics? Are there any physicists here? One, OK. I mean, nobody talks about color, right? They talk about gluons. What do they talk about? Gamma ray bursts. Sorry? Mechanics, right. No colors, right? No, none of that stuff. Yeah? Yeah. OK. So the thesis of physicalism was all correct information is physical information. If many, so Jackson's argument, sorry. I don't really understand this. This is a bit like an earlier commenter who was saying, well, of course she learns what it's like to have the experience. But apart from that, she doesn't learn anything. And you're saying, well, of course, something clicks. She now gets why people are reacting the way they do, what those color characteristics are. You know, when she looks at this for the first time, she's saying, wow, now I get what's going on, why people like the way they do. And you're saying, yeah, that's right, but that's not learning much. And Jackson's saying, well, if you're learning anything at all, then physicalism must be false. Because she had all the physical information. Well, you said she was learning. What's this click? What do you mean she's clicked if something clicks? So she's learned something. That's what you're saying. Well, what's learning if it doesn't mean getting more correct information? You were coming at this before, yeah? OK, but physicalism said, what is like to see it, all that comes to is the physical stuff. Yes, right? But then knowing what it's like to see is not a physical fact. Well, physicalism says the only facts are physical facts. There's one world and it's a physical world. So if you're saying what is like to see something red is not part of the physical world, then that's a bit that's over and above the physical world. OK, come back to this, yeah? Yeah, no, that's fine for it to be subjective, but the question is, are the subjective facts entirely physical? And remember Jackson's stuff about Tehane and Akash? Right, if I understood what was going on, then I mean, I was listening to this kind of trying to catch up with what is with current thinking. And what Tehane and Akash are saying is all the facts about subjective experience can be captured, can be analyzed in terms of these brain circuits. If you can explain lucidly what the global workspace is, what it means for neurons from all over the brain to be connecting together in this long-distance kind of way, if you can explain that, then you've explained consciousness. And if Mary understands the Tehane and Akash theory and they're right, then there shouldn't be anything more about subjective experience for her to find out. But what you're giving Jackson is, well, of course, Mary can know all that stuff about global workspaces, but still there's something left for her to find out, namely what the experience is like. And that just completely throws out the brain stuff. It says, well, the brain stuff, that was just talking about something different. That wasn't telling you about the subjective experience, because Mary knew all about that global workspace stuff, but she didn't know anything about what the color experience is like. Therefore, the brain stuff is not giving you an analysis of subjective experience. This is important, so don't be shy about coming back to this. Jackson, do you want to come into this? You don't have to. Do you think Tehane and Akash would dispute this? All correct information is physical information. They might, yeah. Yeah. So that's a key point. Everything Jackson's doing is built around this way of saying what physicalism is. OK, one last comment. There was somebody else. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, right. Boy, this is really funny. That's absolutely great. Yes, absolutely.  And she says, what is jealousy? What is the point of jealousy? I don't understand why people go through this. Well, I mean, you can feel that, right? Jealousy is a complete waste of time. Until it has you in its grip. Yeah. And she says, no, I know what all that was about. Yeah. I think that's, yeah, that's great. I just completely endorse that. Yeah. Is it somebody who hasn't asked the question that? OK. One, two, yep. Yes. Right. There's a really good way to think of it. I mean, a really interesting way to think of it. So would this be another example like, she might read all about riding a bicycle. Yeah. And have all the theory of how you ride a bicycle. But then when she actually rides the bike, when she gets her first bicycle, then it actually wobbles off on it. In a sense, she's learning something, but it's not new information. Yeah. Yeah. I feel like applications of how to apply the old information. Yeah. That is interesting. I mean, it's not that. If you look at Lewis's thing, Lewis is actually not a million miles from what you're saying. The thing is, just getting that blaze of color, it doesn't straight off feel like she now knows how to do something. It doesn't feel like an application. You see what I mean? It feels like a raw confrontation with a sector of reality she didn't know about before. But I agree it's important to think through the possibility of a kind of analysis. I just tried to bring out why it's not the most natural. It's not the thing that would force the car to you. Yeah. That's an important line of thought. I don't want to close that off. I just want to emphasize, it's not intuitive. You have some work to do, even to explain how that's going to work, but I agree. Bravely said, yes. So it's a very similar example, actually, to the last couple, actually, that one. You know the theory of soccer, as opposed to actually doing it. But it's difficult how you interpret that kind of example, because you're taking it here that she is learning something new. The last questioner was saying, in that kind of case, you're not actually learning anything new. You're just getting a practical ability to apply the knowledge you had already. So there's room for movement there. I'm not trying to push you back. But OK. OK, so that's Jackson's main point. That's been a very, very simple this argument. But it seems incredibly powerful just because so much can come down the black and white teleprinter to Mary. And yet, she's still be missing something. So literally, how many articles? Thousands of articles written on this. I mean, it's one of these things where no philosopher really wants to write about it, because everyone just starts to nod off when you get this example again. It's a very, very influential example. That's convinced many people that there's something wrong with physicalism. So because it seems so simple and so powerful, I want to spend a little time just going over it. One of the key issues that came up in all these questions, what exactly is she learning? What is the structure of her learning? And I want to just touch base with something Austin was doing. You remember this action-packed movie of Austin's? I mean, let's see. I had to watch this six times before I got what was going on blasted. I see that's the thing. It's one of these movies you don't know when it started. I think I started it, but I couldn't really swear to it. It's immediate enough to have a little message. Yeah, no, I saw that. On the other hand, I think it says here it is found. But we'll see. Anyway, you remember the point of this? Yeah? I watched this right after watching a James Bond movie. The plane had to say the contrast was marked. OK, but you remember how this went, right? And Austin had this thing about, is conscious experience sparse, or is it rich? If you don't notice the change of color, is there a change of color in your experience? Is it was that the right? That was the question, right? Yeah. So the austere view is there's no more going on in your experience than what you notice. And the rich view is there's lots more going on in your experience than you notice. And as you look around the room right now, then your experience is very rich. But you might notice only just little bits of what's going on. Yeah, but it's all there. It actually seems to me the rich view has got to be right. So I say this partly to provoke Austin, because he sounded, as I picked it up, he sounded quite sympathetic to the austere view. It seems to me, look, suppose you think of color vision tests. Here's a simple example with color. And I think this shows the rich view of consciousness has got to be right. So you get these tests for color vision, right? Statistically, can you guys see a figure five in there? Yeah? OK, I mean statistically, they're bound to be at least half a dozen people here who don't see a figure five there, right? But the whole point of this kind of test is that you're seeing a figure five on a dappled or brindled background so that the only systemic difference between the five and his background is the color. So if you can see the five, then you've got color vision. If you don't see the five, then you don't got color vision. That's the test. That's the way it works. OK, so if you see that five, if you could say that, that's a five, then you must have green and red in your visual experience. But you could see colors without noticing them, it seems to me. OK, children have color vision in place as early as two or three months. A child of two or three months should be able to see that five if it has regular color vision. But children are very, very slow to recognize colors. It takes children an amazingly long time to... You can take a child of two that has... I mean, there are anecdotes from experimenters of this kind of thing happening. You take a child of two that has hundreds of words in its vocabulary, you show it a red thing, you show it a green thing. You say that's the red one, that's the green one. You do that seven or 800 times and the child still doesn't get it. It's hard to attend specifically to color. Children find that difficult, yeah? Well, you're trying to teach them the words red and green and it really is difficult for children to learn color words. I mean, somehow in today's, color-coded... You know, children nowadays are always being bombarded with color-coded toys. And so they learn about colors much quicker than they used to. But around 1900, children were six years old before they had the basic six color words in place, yeah? Darwin thought that his children were color-blind because he tried so hard to teach them the color words and they just couldn't get it. There's even a word in German for it. Firmendumheit, color stupidity. Colors, you just go, duh, I don't get it. But that's consistent with you being able to see the five. You see what I mean? And when you think about it, if you think about an animal out hunting, then what the animal cares about color? Why do animals care? I mean, why have color vision in the first place? The basic reason you have color vision is not because you want to admire the roses. It's so you can distinguish your prey from his background or whatever's going to attack you from his background. You don't, nobody cares about color or actually only humans care about color for its own sec and attend specifically to the colors. Animals typically just care about the objects. So you could be able to see the five and have green in your color experience even though you can't attend to the green. So Austin's view must be wrong, right? Because you've got the greenness in your color experience even if you can't attend to it. I say this to provoke. Okay, yeah, I know who you mean, but yeah, yeah. Right, yes, right. So I'm saying this is an argument for the block overflow thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, right, very good, yes, yeah. So the picture is, the natural picture is you've got a rich conscious experience and then you're going to hook out bits of it to attend to and it's going to be there in order for you to have something to grapple onto when you're deciding to attend to this or to attend to that. Yeah, is that what you're saying, yeah. Okay, okay, yeah. So this would say the colors can be there in your experience in a kind of subterranean way. The great neurophysiologist Luria was in Uzbekistan and an Uzbek peasant said to him, us Uzbeks don't understand the colors of things and so we call everything blue. And he didn't mean that they were color blind, right? They could do this kind of test to get the experience of color, but they just don't know the names of colors. They can't pass it on to colors. And that really makes perfect sense. The ancient Greeks didn't have a color vocabulary like ours at all. They seem to combine names of colors with names for stuffs. So the Wind, Dark Sea, there's a kind of mix. It doesn't seem to be a pure color vocabulary in ancient Greek. So although we take it that color kind of pops out at you, you should really think of an ability to attend to the colors as hard one. It's something you really had to work at when you were two years old. You climbed a mountain to get there, but if you can see the five, you must have color in your visual experience. If you didn't have color in your visual experience, then, and that would be completely uniform. It doesn't make sense, you wouldn't be able to see the five at all. So color can be making a difference to your visual experience, even if you can't attend to it. So think again about Mary stepping out of her room. Mary might just find that now she can discriminate objects from their backgrounds better than before, but it's consistent with Mary having ordinary visual color experience that all she can do is she can now see a rose much more clearly against this background than she could before, but she can't identify the colors yet. She can't attend to the colors, right? So there are actually many phases in what Mary learns. I'm trying to freeze frame this, what happens when she steps out. So the first thing she finds when she steps out is she can now discriminate objects much better than she could before. That's what color vision is good for, but she might not yet be able to put her finger on why she can discriminate objects much better than she could before. She might not yet know what color experience is like because she might have no concept of color. All she's getting is the objects are popping out in a way they didn't pop out before, right? That's possible. She might be in the position of a Newsbeck peasant from Luria's story, yeah? So the next step is that that's step one in Mary learning. She can just discriminate objects better than she could before. The next step is when she can attend to the colors of the things around her, but what's going to happen? Suppose you try it now, suppose you attend to your current visual experience. Suppose you look at the tree, I mean, here's a quote from Harman, Gilbert Harman. When you see a tree, you do not experience any features as intrinsic features of your experience. Look at a tree and try to turn your attention to intrinsic features of your visual experience. Many people said, look what Mary learns when she steps out of the room is something about her visual experience. Harman says, if you try to attend to your visual experience, the only features there to turn to your attention to will be features of the presented tree. So I put a picture of a tree there so you can try this right now. So try this right now. Here is your task. Look, when you attend to your headache, if you attend to a headache that you've got, you can say, is there a dull throbbing pain? Is there a sharp pain? What is it in some particular part of my head or is it kind of diffuse? You can attend to all the features of your headache. You can focus just on what's going on inside your mind. But now look at the, think of the sensation of purple you get when you look at the tree. So here's my question. Can you try to attend to the purple but don't attend to the thing out here? The tree, yeah. Just attend to what's in your mind. Yeah, when you observe the purple-ness. You're getting a purple sensation. So I don't quite know how to put this. What's required is you kind of squint inwards. If you see what I mean.  Get the purple sensation. What's Mary's learning when she steps out of the room is something about her visual sensations, what visual sensations are like. Then she should be able to kind of squint inwards and say, I'm not really interested in what's going on out there with the tree. Think about just what's going on inside my visual experience. Now, I put it to you. This is a practical question. Try this right now. Focus on your internal visual experience when you look at the tree and not add anything out there on the screen. Can you do that?  Reading from the expressions, that is a general feeling. You don't totally get the question. Yeah. I'm not asking you to do any of these things. I mean, the reason this is a little bit difficult is that the point is it makes no sense what I'm asking you to do. Yeah. Okay, so the natural picture, what one picture you can have when you're thinking about this stuff is, look, there's a color out there, right? There's a color out there on the tree. And then there's my sensation of color. Now, is your sensation of color out there on the tree? No, your sensation of color is not out there on the tree, right? So if I say, attend to your sensation of color, are you attending to the tree? No, because your sensation is not out there on the tree.  Yeah, focus on it. It could well be, yes. Okay. Okay, I don't want to dispute that you could attend to all these resonances of the tree, yeah? But the thing is, if your sensation is in here, if your sensation is not out there on the tree, then you should, and setting aside the resonances for a moment, yeah? You should be able to cast your focus inwards and focus on the sensation itself. Forget about the tree out there. Just focus on the sensation itself, your visual sensation. Put up your hand if you can do that. No, wait a minute, I'm taking a poll. Put up your hand if you can do that. Okay, put up your hand if you don't know how to do that. Okay, great. Put up your hand if you have no idea what I'm talking about. Okay, a surprisingly small number. Okay, right. The key point here is, and it's really a basic point, is that you can't, there's no such thing as looking inward at your sensation, your visual sensation. So that picture of the tree out there, the color of the tree out there and the visual sensation in here, it makes no sense really. It's a very natural way to think of it, but it doesn't make any sense because if there were a visual sensation in here, then you ought to be able to focus on it. But there's no such thing as focusing in the visual sensation in here. I mean, you will find if you go on in philosophy that there are very many occasions when you and the person you're talking philosophy to just wind up staring very hard at the furniture. And it's because you're trying to look inside your mind and thinking about how to describe exactly what subjective experience is like, but you wind up just staring at the tree. And G.E. Moore put it like this. He said, that which makes the sensation of blue a mental fact seems to escape us. It seems, the mentality of the sensation of blue seems to be transparent. When you try to focus on your inner sensation, it's as if you just look through it and you just get the tree itself, yep. Yeah, you can imagine entirely blue sheet of paper, sure. Yeah, but that's a blue out there. The blue is out there on the paper. Yeah, you're not imagining blue in here. The imagining is in here, but what you're imagining is something out there. Look, if you think about ahead, yeah. This is a different case, right? For the moment, I'm just talking about what's going on in vision, yeah, when you see something. When you see something, you have a sensation. The sensation's in here, the thing is out there. So you ought to be able to focus in the sensation in here, but you can't do that. Therefore, the idea of the sensation in here is something, there's something wrong with it. That's not really what's going on, yep. Well, you can, you can't focus in the sensation without focusing on the tree. All it means to focus on the sensation is you focus on the tree. That's what nobody can do. Yeah, I said, don't look at the tree. Who cares about the tree? Focus on the sensation. That makes no sense. So, one, two, yeah. Illusion, yeah. Yeah, you focus on the lines and they seem different in length, yeah, yeah. Okay, so you've got a case where it seems like two lines are different in length, but they're actually just the same. It's a visual illusion, yeah. In that case, all you're doing is staring very hard at the lines. Yeah, there's no such thing as staring very hard at something in here, focusing very hard on something in here. The point is exactly the same for cases of illusion. It's not as if when you're looking at the lines out there in a case of illusion, what you're really seeing is a sensation. You're staring very hard at those damn lines and trying to understand what's going on, yeah. That's what I mean about staring at the furniture. You're staring very hard at something out there under the impression that this is going to give you some revelation about what's going on in here, yeah, yeah. Great. Yeah, yeah, right, right. Sure, absolutely, yeah. I think what you're describing is perfectly, of course that's recognizable. You can describe a scene and the scene induces a kind of mood, yeah. But the important point about that is you can attend to the mood that the scene is producing in you, yeah. So if you find the color, I mean, the reason I chose that is it's a nice picture, right? Evocative colors, right? So as an earlier question that I was saying, you can look at the color of the Jacaranda and it can evoke those happy days long ago playing with spot by the firelight and so on, yeah. But what you're attending to then is not the vision, is not what you're seeing, is not the specifically visual thing you're attending to. It's the mood, the resonances, the evocation, yeah. But the point here is specifically about vision, yeah. That when you attend to the color, you're always attending not to a sensation but to something out there. And that stuff out there might be producing all kinds of mood in you, yeah. And you can attend to that too. So that was the idea that visual experience is transparent. When you're trying to look at, it's like staring, it's like trying to see a window. If you say, well, look at the window. I mean, unless the window's kind of dirty, you can't actually focus on the window itself. Your gaze always falls through the window and you wind up looking at the stuff on the other side. And similarly, when you're trying to attend to a visual sensation, you always wind up looking through the sensation and getting the stuff on the other side, yeah. There is such a thing as a sensation. I'm not denying that.  Or if you take your own inner mood, you can focus very hard on that. That's true. But we're talking here just about vision. Yeah? You could do that, yeah. But you'd always be staring at something outside you. If you're using vision at all. That's right. But what about other sensations? I'm not denying that there are other sensations. That's what I meant. There's a contrast between the case of vision and the case of a headache, yeah. So the case of, I mean, I don't suppose that meditators usually just focus on their headache, but you could do that, right? I'm not denying that. And then you'd just be focusing on something inner. But in the case of vision, there doesn't seem to be anything inner to focus on, yeah. Okay, so here's another way to put it. This is just freeze framing what Mary learns. So the first step is she goes out, she can now discriminate the object's better, but she might not be able to put her finger on it. Now, people sometimes said that people with autism, the problem is that people with autism don't know anything about the minds of other people. You can be very, very smart, but you might just not care very much about other people's minds or indeed your own mind. Mary might be a bit like that. She might care a lot about physics and the physical world, moods, emotions, sensations. She could care less about that stuff. Maybe Mary only cares about the physical world. Maybe that's her tragedy, that's all she cares about. But when she steps out into the world of color and sees the rose for the first time, she's still going to learn something. She's going to learn something not about anybody's mind because she could care less about people's minds, but she's going to learn something about roses. She's going to learn about that property that the objects around her have. So there are two steps here. There's step one where she just sees objects better. Then there's step two where she focuses on color and she gets the colors of the objects. And then there's step three where she's at this point, she's got a new non-physical fact.   It's a fact about roses that she's now learned, what their colors are. So that would already show that she's getting more information than the physical information. But then, which does take the step of saying, and so this is what the experience of redness is, that's a further step. Three steps here. One, to just getting better object discrimination. Two, to getting knowledge that the objects have colors. And three, to getting knowledge about subjective experience. Yeah? That's what I'm suggesting anyway. It goes in three steps when Mary is learning. We've got a couple of review sessions coming up, and I'm going to come back to all this then. But since it's so important, that question won't Mary learns for that very simple example. It seems worth just taking a little bit of time on it and to connect it to these things about attention and richness. Yeah, step one is when she's got color experience, but all that's happening is she can now see objects better than she could before. She might not yet be able to attend to the colors. Step two is when she manages to attend to the colors, but she's only attending to the colors of objects around her, not to anything in her experience. And step three is when she's able to say, and now I'm seeing something red. And those are kind of a hierarchy. Each one builds in the previous one. Yeah, so it's important to freeze frame that if you want to get what this example is telling you about physicalism, yeah. I didn't say she could communicate about color at step two, because at step two, she doesn't do anything about the mind, but she gets it that the tulips do have redness. Yeah?  She has experiences of color already at step one, but at step one, all that's doing is it's letting her pick out the objects from their backgrounds as she can't attend to the color. Yep. Okay, I know, let me just try and whiz over a couple of things, finally. I want this, how this relates to Nagel. Nagel's argument is very similar structurally. The physical information doesn't tell you what it's like to be a bat, what it's like from another point of view. The way Jackson put it is his argument is about, Milmeri knows about the intrinsic character of color experiences, not about the point of view from which the experiences are had. And this is where this stuff about qualia, that idea of qualia that we had before with Chinese or Indian Burns or whatever it is, where that comes in. Jackson's talking about qualia, about those intrinsic characteristics of the sensations, the redness of the red sensation, the blueness of the blue sensation. Jackson's point is, you can have knowledge of all the physical facts without having knowledge about qualia, the intrinsic character of the sensation. Nagel's point was, you could have knowledge of all the physical facts without having knowledge of the other person's point of view. The things that preoccupy these two people are quite different. Nagel's big thing is this thing about point of view or perspective, not qualia. If you think about this guy, remember this guy? Yeah, there he is, still doing it. There's nothing puzzling about this guy's qualia. There's nothing puzzling about the intrinsic character of any one sensation he's having. Yeah, that's all just fine. What's so puzzling about him is what's the perspective, what's the point of view that he has in the scene? So the problem with a split brain patient isn't a problem about the qualia that the patient's having. It's not what kind of sensation is he having. It's how are they structured? How has he got a perspective on the scene at all? So you must never write this down and if you quote me on this I will deny it, but it's like the intuitive picture is there are two aspects to the mind. There's a point of view from which the scene is being surveyed, the perspective you have in the room right now, and then there are all the qualia filling up your perspective, yeah? These two different aspects to the mind and what Nagel is always banging on about is the perspective, the importance of the vanishing point from which you observe everything. And what Jackson is going on about is how you have knowledge of the qualia, that the qualia are non-physical. Nagel's big thing is it's hard to see how that understanding of a point of view can be explained in physical terms. Jackson's point is hard to explain how the qualia can be understood in physical terms. So the point about Mary stepping out is that the qualia are left out of the physical story. Well, actually, I'm gonna skip that. Okay, now, one last comment. This is all about how, these arguments are all about how there are aspects of the world, aspects that we really care about that are left out of physicalist or functionalist stories. But there is what you might call the revenge of functionalism here. There is always a kind of revenge coming from the point of view of functionalism or physicalism, which is to say, suppose that this is right. Suppose there are these sectors of reality that we don't know about with a bat or that Mary only finds out about when she steps out of her black and white room. Those sectors of reality aren't part of physical reality. So they can't make any difference to what's causing what. What's certainly true when you say there's only one world and it's a physical world is that all causation is physical causation. So if there is any more to the world than physics describes, it's not something that makes any difference to what happens. Jackson has this example of, you see here a familiar scene from a Western with bullets traveling across the screen.  Surely some things stand fast. This is not something that gets hit by the vagaries of fashion. Suppose you're playing Pong, right, and so you get a ball going across and you're honestly trying to battle across with your paddle and maybe put a little bit of spin on it. Then what's going on there is that the pixels are going across and they bounce into the bat and it looks like the bat is causing the ball to move back across the screen. But is one collection of pixels actually causing the other to move across the screen? No, that'd be daft of him, so it's a game, right? It's a video game. What's going on? The only causation here is something in the central chip. The only reason, I mean, I hope I'm not destroying anybody's illusions here, but the only reason this kind of game is fun to play is that it looks like one set of pixels is causing another set of pixels to act, just as here what it looks like that bullet traveling across the screen is causing this guy to topple over. But that's not really what the causation is. It's really all the work is going on in the chip, in the central processing of the game. So with your ordinary experiences, with your ordinary experience life, it feels like you're making things happen. It feels like your grief is turning to anger. It feels like your anger is leading to rage and so on. But actually, although it's very convincing, that illusion that you have, that your mental life has got as rich dynamics and is making things happen, that's all an illusion.  The only causation is physical causation. And these appearances of causality are just being spun off by what's going on in your central processor, in your brain. And we'll have more on that melancholy theme next time. Okay, great discussions. Thank you, guys.


Welcome everybody to the hyper ledger healthcare special interest group meeting general meeting on April 27th. This is the first time I'm leading it my name is Ray Dogum, and I'm the new chair of the group so I'm honored to be doing this and I'm very thankful for the group for selecting me. I'm going to probably first start off by just saying that this is a public forum, meaning that anything you say will be, you know, share will be recorded and hosted publicly. So if you would like to read more about that, go to the Linux Foundation anti trust policy to read that. Yeah, and any questions on that. Okay, I think first thing I'd like to hear just to make sure if there's any new people and they want to introduce themselves to the group. That would be fantastic if you do want to introduce yourself. Feel free to unmute or raise your hand and we can call on you. This is a very, you know, open public group so feel free to share what you know who you are, and what you're looking to learn from this group. Looks like everyone here is probably been here before that's fine or don't want to share. It's also fine. So, let's just jump right into the discussion for today and we have a few different industry news articles that I pulled up from the weeks prior to this. But before we go to that there isn't upcoming to upcoming events. What's happening today it's the T mobile 5g and healthcare panel discussion webinar. I thought this was interesting because there's some discussion about blockchain that could happen. Even that Dr Pierre vigilance was at a quitting health is going to be on the panel. So I just wanted to make you all aware of this event going on. If you're interested in joining will be a Q&A session. So that's one thing, and there is this Stanford event the science of blockchain happening August 29 that was on the agenda from previous I just wanted to keep in there. So, first up here is Microsoft has recently invested in the theorems consensus company. So, anyone in here has probably heard of consensus before. So it's interesting to see that Microsoft is spending a huge amount of money investing in them, along with soft bank and Temasek. So they're in total raising $450 million but was pretty significant, given, you know, the valuation of consensus now is doubled to $7 billion. Has anyone seen this take a look at this but it was pretty, pretty big deal for the industry overall. Yeah, I took a look at it. How does this affect consensus health, or is it still. Yeah, I wouldn't say it affects. That's a good question so I don't think it directly would it impact the quitting health. So putting health is right company of consensus health for anyone who didn't know. But it doesn't necessarily or not that I am aware of. But I did think that this chart was pretty interesting just in general the amount of funding that's going to blockchain startups. So, I think it's sort of eight fold in 2021. So, that's a pretty big deal from my perspective. Yeah, any thoughts. Yeah, I thought that's a huge increase. It's crazy. I know that like I'm part of a job that funds a lot of blockchain startups and I don't know if it's related to just like the Dow all the dows coming up and raising funds and distributing them to different startups. I think that they will probably be doing that. That one thing I did see in this article is they are converting all the money that they raised into ether. So I thought that was pretty interesting. That's a big bet. That makes a ton of sense. What I was always curious about is like, where's the money going is going towards more the institutional side of the business is going more towards the developer side of the business. You assume like, so they have this metamask institutional offering. Is that institutional offering like for the most part I'm not sure if like metamask institutional has the actual tools and plugins to make that valuable, or is it bit go and cactus custody on the back end that is actually making that like the real valuable tool for institutions to like getting to proof of state networks and other things like that. That's a question I truly have. I think that's a good question. I don't know if anyone in here has any insight into that but it does look like the funds will go into hiring 600 more employees. And they're going to be redesigning metamask later this year so watch out for that too. What can they redesign because they would just be focused on the institutional side because like the user and the consumer angle of metamask is, I mean, it's not perfect but it's probably the most successful on the market. Yeah, I mean, I feel like there is some design changes they can make to make it more friendly to new users, you know, I feel like if I didn't know how to navigate the web, you know, blockchain world. I feel like I'm risking something every time I'm signing a transaction like I'm not sure I'm doing this right so maybe just more educational material walkthroughs with metamask might be what they're doing. But we can find out maybe later this year about that. I'm going to move on to the next article actually. I thought this was pretty interesting too is published in Scientific American and a few other places as well. Basically, promoting this idea to endorse NFTs for basically health data and medical ethicists are endorsing it. So I don't know if anyone took a look at this one. I didn't read through all of it but it was pretty interesting from what I saw there's a full journal paper published in JMI are bioinformatics and biotechnology, where, you know, they talk about NFTs technology and how it could have avoided the problem highlighted by the Henrietta Lax story, which we may have all may already all know about. So yeah, just thought it was interesting because it talks about the medical ethical issues around health. I actually don't I don't know about that story personally. Could you give like maybe 15 seconds? Sure. So back, I think, yeah, since 1951 there was an African American woman who had cervical cancer, and her cells were harvested actually by doctors or researchers there at the time without her knowledge she wasn't aware of it. Her family wasn't aware of it. And those cells, they call them HeLa cells now. And they've been copied reproduced and used for research, you know, for decades now. Because the so called HeLa cells were able to survive and thrive in the lab, they became essential to a wide range of medical research. Henrietta Lax, her family were never given any, you know, reimbursement or funding or any sort of even acknowledgement that they were doing this. There's actually a movie about it is like a documentary movie. I forgot what it's called, but I didn't watch it. It was pretty good. I don't know was Oprah Winfrey might have been on it. Don't call me on that. So something took out. I thought it was pretty interesting. And just kind of validates this idea that NFTs do have the potential to bring health data back to the patient and allow them to own it in a way that we couldn't before so I think today, and I want to shut up because one of the people to give their thought but I think today NFTs and the whole ownership and distribution of them is is a highly taxable event. And like one to mint an NFT to your origination is a taxable event, then every time you distribute it either on a marketplace or to another user that is viewed as a taxable event. So unless like, unless the user and the NFT is in distributed for a very high and large amount. It probably wouldn't be worth it for most people to create an empty because then it wouldn't be worth like the hassle and the taxable like write ups you have to be able to follow in order to stay compliant and everyone in healthcare So like, I think for and I've said this many times on this, this gathering that like, unless you're dealing with like superstar athletes, or you're dealing with chronically ill patients. You know, like the extremes of the bell curve of what data actually health data actually matters to people. I'm not sure if like, creating NFTs really worth it unless someone just is really like a data ownership advocate, and I really wants to be able to be ahead of that I think those are kind of the maxims and the motivations. I also think like the what molecule and the IP NFT group of like distributing the access in the NFT, when you pull people together to then if that NFT is very beneficial to a specific subset of medical data or therapeutic. That's where it gets a little bit more interesting. I agree with you the idea that every transaction NFT or cryptocurrency is taxable as a taxable event that is a huge barrier for entry, but you can imagine some countries or some territories, we don't have those laws or regulations and maybe it's more open. Would it be more, would you be more inclined to use it if you were living in one of those countries, for example. No, it's the taxable stuff to but then also the minting of the gas process to if you're trying to do it full decentralized way. Otherwise, if you do it in more the centralized way than the centralized company kind of like can dictate the price and the cost and the percentage ownership of that NFT a little bit more, so you get less of a financial benefit to like in a lot of catch like in Africa in particular, they're creating NFTs to own different digital assets of yourself right. Not medical data as much but there is research going on in that field, but it's the centralized companies are creating the platform and service for that that are taking the burden of the fee but then also taking a higher percentage of the ownership of it. And part of that thinking was actually in Meta's like idea of like why they want to charge so much for digital assets in the metaverse, like I don't know if anyone saw that but they're charging like 47% of a fee to take if you are like selling things in this. And part of that was because of the thinking of NFTs and taxable events and and all things like that that it wouldn't be worth it for them to be able to create these artifacts these assets, unless it was that high of a fee due to the risk and other compliance they would need to adhere to. Yeah no that's a good point I think the decentralization of it is important, but also you could imagine in the future a side chain or some sort of, you know, second layer where the costs, the fees are really minimal, and it doesn't cost too much to mint NFT or share or move it around. So, I think we'll have to see how this evolves but yeah I think those are really good points. Hi Ray Mike and sorry, apologies but I'm traveling at the moment so I'm not going to turn my camera on but one thing I'm thinking about is what what kind of medical data are you talking about data generated by personalized devices or are you talking about medical notes and like what is the practical implication to like providing or making a medical like notes like how, how are you going to do it day to day like doctors are already already overloaded. The system that we captured the data in is that the NFT, or is it just going to be a photocopy of the patient's notes as a JPEG on OpenSea. So like, I think the idea is there, but I just think the practical implications of actually doing it with a face to face interaction with the patient is somewhat limited I think we're quite far away from that personally. That's also a good question like what discrete elements do we consider the NFT is it the entire medical record as one NFT or would it be each specific field considered like your blood pressure is in separate NFT. I don't know. That's a good question I think here in this article they're sort of saying medical researchers and companies are purchasing large and randomized data sets to find novel Microsoft disease trained diagnostic algorithms and create risk calculators. See how that. Yeah, one of the values. Oh, God. I'm just thinking out loud I said one of maybe one of the ways to do it with the ICD classification so then you classify your NFT according to your disease state but that's maybe a distant thought but yeah that's that's just a thought sorry. Yeah, so I think just the way in my concern is more about the copyright or the bill consent. So my own experience either at Vanderbilt or outside of Chicago is the consent to treat also includes the consent to do research. And that research is totally owned by the health core organization. And in fact, there's specific clauses at state that the patient can't know nor it has no right to any information gleaned from the derived data. So I think it's an uphill battle as far as like I think the technology of minting an NFT that represents some aspect of the data or a derived algorithm or approach to the data a new insights I guess is I think it's more of a legal question. I think the notes is very clearly share with the patient but it's owned by the copyrighted by the provider who wrote them. It's my understanding of legal aspects mentioned medical notes are messy there there is natural language it's medical language it's hard to parse and I think we have a really good mechanism to understand natural language. So there's a lot of processing of it for extracting tokens and concepts, but not the usefulness so that any member also to remember that the purpose of the medical note is for Johnny for the physician to have a place to jot down their ideas and to remind themselves about what's going on. Number one, number two is share those thoughts with other providers, and then it's really an excuse not to pay providers when they haven't documented enough. Like that's the purpose of documentation or you could say that that's more justification for reimbursement but my flip side of that is my own experiences it's an excuse not to pay the doctor when you haven't documented it enough. So I think so I don't know if the medical notes per se is going to be helpful. Now I think I also did point out the what happened with Henrietta Lacks could happen today. And so there's nothing preventing like medical if you look at some of the legal jargon in the consent to treat and I know I was on the IRB when I was at Vanderbilt and there's a whole bunch of controversy of you assume that the first clause of the consent to treat is that, you know, we are an academic medical center doing research and we have the right to use your leftover blood and genomic information to put into our synthetic derivative or our databases to do research. It's really hard to actually have an opt out model like that to enable patients so you can imagine Henrietta Lacks which is like it's leftover blood or sampling that was immortalized. And the legal jargon right now is my understanding is that doesn't prevent that from happening today. Great points. Yeah, anybody else have comments to share on this one. Thanks for that discussion everybody. Next here is an article about Coinbase launching their NFT marketplace. You know we all might have heard of OpenSea and others, but it's interesting to see Coinbase launching theirs, not frankly surprised, but it is something to be aware of. This is one of the largest exchanges for crypto. And now that they're in NFTs for policy, another huge uptick in the marketplace. Not too much to discuss here just wanted to mention as an important thing. I don't think they're selling medical NFTs at all it's probably just still images and collections, but who knows. But less than ideal numbers when it comes to activity on this marketplace, it is, it has been very quiet, would say on the Coinbase NFT marketplace. Yeah. All right, this other article here the next one 22% NFT project so I was actually I don't know how I first found these guys but it was, it's a project run somewhere in Europe. It's a university project. And what they're doing is trying to the quick they've already created a collection of NFT art based on the prevalence of different diseases globally so each NFT is an image, you can see here and they're randomized in terms of which diseases the individual has so this person you can see has, I guess diabetes type to want each individual NFT can have up to six different diseases so comorbidities, and the prevalence in the NFT matches the prevalence in the real world which I thought was pretty interesting. The purpose of this project is to raise awareness of different types of diseases around the world. And they are planning to donate some of it to charity as well so I thought it was interesting. Giving block the giving block put this together. It looks like they're referencing the giving block so we want to donate to organizations that help people, giving them new perspectives in a transparent way using platforms such as the giving block as much as possible, and making our donation transaction ID public. I did invite their group I'm on their discord channel I don't know if there's anybody in here specifically that's would like to talk about the group about the project. Actually, I'm here. Sorry, I'm in the gym and therefore it's a bit. No problem. I don't know if you can hear me. We can hear you do you want to give kind of a brief overview of any updates you have on the project. You have many NFTs you've sold so far with what's your plan. Thanks. As mentioned, the goal of our division of the project is really to create awareness, especially in the NFTs space where there are a lot of data that are not real. Therefore, we want to really to put some real data into the space like created a collection. And therefore we choose finally 60 more than 60 diseases and based on the prevalence of those diseases. These were put in a random way into the into the collection. And it was quite tough actually we launched an interim in the beginning of the year. We we struggled a little bit with marketing and maybe you know better than me but marketing is really a tough thing in the NFTs space and therefore we sold the maybe 40 NFTs. And we tried to relaunch now also on Solana. And now we sold maybe 15 NFTs out of 10,000 therefore it was a success because we were able to to put this on place and put everything together so that we could have a collection. But finally we didn't sell everything, but we are planning to to do more a community driven project out of this. And therefore, our next step will be we will go in the direction if you're part of the community and you are active in the community, you will receive NFTs. And with those NFTs, you can make a change because you are creating awareness. Exactly. And as you mentioned, we are donating or we donated already through giving blocks on the first page you you you see it. And also this transaction that we did with with the different projects. If you go a bit further down to the organization that we donated. There are those links where we did it. And therefore, that's about our project and I'm really thankful that you gave us this opportunity to be part of this. And actually it sounds really interesting what you're discussing here. Also, Rafael, thanks for joining us from the gym and sharing more about 22% project. Thank you. Health is wealth, man. That's awesome. And getting in the gym while we'll take a call. I do it all the time too. Good question. How much, like, obviously giving blocks a for profit entity whereas like someone like endowments the nonprofit entity, like, how much of the actual total ghost, like, how much do you as a operator and giving block have to take of the total to then give it to the actual organization. Actually, basically, we don't know exactly how much giving block is taking away from what we are donating. But we what we donate is at the beginning was 22% of what the sale was. This because we wanted really with the other other percentage of money, we wanted really to grow the project and to evolve it by do a breeding collection or something like this. But actually, yeah, we didn't sell out so far, but we still believe in the project. Now we we took a little break, but actually, we think by dreaming out by involving more the community. And now it's also not a really good time for NFTs in general, we think that we can anyway reach our goal to create awareness. So what we did, or what we do is that every three months this percentage is increased. Therefore, now we are already donating 24, almost 25% of what the income is, and then up to 99% of the income and all the royalties on the different platforms and things like this. Thanks Rafael. And I actually have one of the FT's I'm using the image as my Twitter profile picture so I think it's pretty cool. And I like supporting this project myself. Any other comments questions on this project. Okay. I do like, I love the project this is great like, and I don't want to take away from like the great like the good that you guys are doing as a group. But does any of this become like, like, and maybe I'm speaking I turn here on this but like isn't this like hippo identifiable information that like but someone's consenting that they have this like viewable right like other concerns are things that you've had to think about when it comes to like too much medically identifiable information on these IDs. So, actually, I didn't fully understand the question. Yeah, go ahead. I was going to say so Mike's asking if there's any regulatory issues with patient data being shared. But really Mike these images, you know any, any person can buy any of the images so they don't have if they have, you know, skin cancer they don't have to buy an FT with skin cancer they can buy any of them so there's no, I don't know where the risk would be for compliance but what were you thinking? Actually, it's a good question is something that I thought also about it was to use the information about VHO and but finally it's the purpose is not to make money but it's really to create awareness and if they shared the data and we share the data. I don't think it's a big issue. And if people are buying those NFTs with specific diseases it's up to them but I don't know maybe in the US there are some specific regulation that I was not aware or we were not aware. Can I answer your question Mike? And here I'm just showing the open sea, one of the listings you can see the different diseases as tuberculosis. My opa and it tells you how many, what percentage of the NFTs have this trait so 23% of these the NFT collection has tuberculosis and that corresponds and problems, I believe to the Actually, actually here I have the problem is that not the whole collection was minted and therefore the information there it's not yet 100% correct, let's say like this. Yeah, you guys both definitely got as close to my question as possible I think it's still gray area in the space so we're all trying to think about it as well. Thanks guys. Next year, putting the me in the health care metaverse I thought this was pretty interesting. This is a post by ever heard, sure, he's actually the president of the health foundation, which is a blockchain health app health company, and they're working on many things including identity, and being able to really monetize our patients data as well so very similar to what a lot of companies are doing in the space. But a couple things that just felt we're interesting. He identifies some specific to put the digital twins data to work there are some prerequisites for the me to be part of this medical metaverse talks about identity as being one of them first our digital twin means an identity that is connected to reality. And I feel like that's a huge challenge for us right now as an industry as a group. In the real world, a patient identifier is essential because it allows matching treatments and health status to a person saying that watching technology can take privacy to the next level. So the key that is usually connected to a wallet and endless number of sub identities can be derived in a deterministic way. The reality of me today's health system is that data points are pretty unconnected as we can all agree. I see Jim St. Clair has his hand up. Hey, good morning. I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to read this but since I saw you scrolling through it about digital twins I would just go ahead and share with the group that Linux Foundation Public Health is doing a press release with the digital twin consortium which is part of the object management group probably this week or next we're launching a joint initiative we're also bringing on the University of Miami Medical Center as a as a member. Specifically on on digital twin technology and will be establishing a health care digital twin center of excellence at LFPH, which will include consideration of differential privacy and federated learning and decentralized identity to awesome. It's good enough thank you. So looking here. So, another part of this article is about users, user control data repository so to control the data representing me I need to have decentralized a decentralized repository to store my digital twins data. The health care industry tends to store data in a centralized way. Maybe that has its historical roots traditionally health care is organized medical centers. I did see this quote, which I thought was pretty interesting. The sentiment in the healthcare IT industry that is responsible for storing data medical data becomes apparent when we look at an exchange in 2017 at a meeting of cancer moonshot. A man who had lost a son to a brain tumor told the CEO of Epic systems that patients should accept should have access to the medical records. And then the CEO of Epic Judy Faulkner replied, Why do you want your medical records. There are thousands. There are 1000 pages of which you understand 10. I didn't look to verify this quote, but I thought it was interesting that she would say that. Yeah, the rest of the story is that by responded well I want to print it off and wallpaper my walls with it doesn't matter it's it's it's about me. I think just gets my point as far as like well who really does own that document I know it's about the patient. But it's in the EHR system. And this is the whole challenge with implementing the 21st century cures act is is how to really implement this and where the patient is in control. I think, you know, I think Pierre vigilance talked a few weeks maybe a month ago. Talking about how to flip the script on consent and with this idea of a consent receipt. And it's not it's also about explicitly opting in rather than this opt out model. And so for example in the consent for use of information in your EHR or leftover blood. And that's what like the Henry and a lack story is that nothing prevents that from happening today. It's now explicitly conditioned in your consent to treat that they're allowed to use your your blood and leftover sampling explicitly now. And you give given up that control. But if you flip the script where the the consent is now given from the patient and allowed for the health care system. Then you've now changed the dynamics where I'm now a shopper of health care where they respect my privacy. And I have options and I think the challenges in our health care system at least in the United States is that a lot of people just don't have options. They go to the closest place that actually has care. And they're willing to give up the privacy and or control over their information in hopes of just, you know, of getting their care and getting their health care. Yeah, it's a good point Jonathan and I mean I know we can't seem to have a meeting where we don't discuss, you know, patient ownership of data consent that sort of thing and I like to consistently bring up all of these things are governed by state laws we have 50 states that we have to sort through I'm working as part of a consent utility project now in with the Bronx regional health information organization around sharing like welfare agency data and child child welfare agency data and the like as part of social services which also fits into like the HL seven project and the challenges what the state of New York laws are for consent and what consent, what degree or notice of informed consent you can have is different than it is in New Jersey which is different than it is in every other state and in fact, on the issue of renewing consent with that with that opt in opt out model came up in discussion yesterday. You know Bronx Rio said, I don't even want to do it more than once a year. I don't want you know conditional consent models I can't I can't deal with that burden the individual can't either. California is opt in by default, unless you specify surprisingly often health information exchange. So you know we, we talk about hey patients want to control this and a we should give consent. We need this to be an issue at the state legislature level first and we need, you know, coordinated efforts to do that on a national basis, and organizations like epic and the ACLU aren't helping any and I'll stop ranting. You make a good point I think, you know, each state does have different laws and even if you move from one state to the other now we have to reconcile how your data is being managed to so it's pretty confusing. And just the last point on that too is the quote from Judy Faulkner was that epic isn't the focal point of data blocking. It's the health care systems that want to block to prevent competition. So it's like you have a health care organizations and it's a Nashville and there's seven of them. They wanted to make it difficult for you to go across the street. Epic is has care everywhere. So they're just selling each our systems. They're not necessarily the focal point of health care data blocking and just understanding the dynamic there. That's absolutely the case and and as a and as somebody from a company that worked with epic for a year around a centralized identity. If customers don't ask for it epic doesn't sell it. So, you know, we can come up with all these great ideas we want if a health care system isn't interested in enabling, you know, decentralized identity user consent, etc, etc, then it doesn't happen. Yeah, all good points. I'm going to move on, just because we do have a few more here that I want to cover so the next article is on. Just about a 16 z forms a crypto research and coding unit to help web three startups. So just another indication that the, you know, space is growing. If they were raising. Well, if you don't know already. And reason Horowitz has grown into one of the largest investors in crypto ranking 2.2 billion dollars for its third crypto fund last summer so that's pretty big. This is a pretty short article on coin desk. I'm excited to announce the creation of their a 16 z crypto research group, a new kind of multidisciplinary lab that will work closely with our portfolio and others towards solving the important problems in the space and toward advancing the science and technology of the next generation of the internet. So, VC is screaming at web three. Not a bad thing but that's what's happening in this case. All right, and it looks like you got some red in here in the markets today Bitcoin down there and down to next on my list is this article from MIT technology review that I thought was pretty interesting and that it kind of explains why maybe the crypto revolution. May not be for everybody. So, recommend this to anyone who likes this sort of devil's advocate perspective but they do say that there are some value there is value in it as well it's not all negative. And I thought it was I want to bring it up as they do mention many ledger in the article itself. So here, I'm skipping a little bit but the most, the most industry transforming use case so far, although perhaps the one with the least sizzle, meaning that it's a very sexy use case might be the many ledger network and it's custodian organization chronicled. So, you don't know already many ledgers working to improve the drug supply chain and you know they're doing pretty good job from what I'm seeing. They're growing CEO is Suzanne Somerville. It is a private blockchain, however, so that is something to consider it's closed permission. But yeah, I think there are pharma companies interested in this sort of model. They're experimenting experimenting with it but some of it is actually in production as well so I don't know if anybody has anything to add to this one. They also talk about ripple a lot in here so. Okay. Those are the articles I had in terms of news and projects there are some five other articles related to like educational nuggets here so more technical. But I think definitely worth a read the first one here is about zero knowledge proofs. You know, this is by a 16 Z, they published this goes into the history of zero knowledge proofs. And it also talks about clocks. So clock is case you all don't know the first big breakthrough was that clock only requires a single universal trusted setup. The initial ceremony in which a common reference string used by provers and verifiers for given zero knowledge proof system is performed. Yes, there's a lot of detailed technical information here that some of you might be interested in I don't know if any of you had the chance to look into it more, but good back on to now. The first one I had here for educational nuggets was related to Ethereum's centralization dilemma so there is talk in the space about Ethereum staking being getting centralized so there is this conversation in the space about how are we going to make the ETH staking more decentralized. So leto one of the one of the most used staking services. So here you can see this graph showing the percentage of staking. I think something is detecting my voice and playing it but apologize that. So here you see leto and orange basically dominating. It's got the most staking balance so this is a concern for theorems for some people. Anyone have any comments on this. I was just going to comment on the fact you had problems with your robot overlords. Yeah, I apologize. Yeah, it looks like leto leads liquid staking with 25% of you to deposits. You can see here some details as well. Next article actually also related to that is about leto's roadmap for decentralization. So this was published April 14. And you know we all know the Ethereum merge is approaching sometime in the summer I think is the target for that. And they are, you know, talking about different ways to make sure that they are decentralized and they're a good validator. Really good stuff in here if you're interested in the technical aspect of staking and theorems decentralization. The next thing here is just actually the last podcast episode I published with Everardo Barajas, he's a CEO of Prescripto, focused in Latin America, and he's been working for a number of years on digitizing prescriptions using blockchain. So it's interesting that his company is using Rex chain as their blockchain portable or consensus mechanism. So I'm not too familiar with Rex chain but I just thought it was interesting and wanted to mention it. And it's something that you guys can listen to in detail if you're interested, especially if you are from, you know, Mexico or Latin America, which is where they're focused. So actually the last item here I had was another a 16 Z article by Jocelyn Pearl about it's a guide to decentralized biotech. So this is sort of like an overview of biotech and how it, you know how some of these companies are trying to make it more decentralized. So it's a platform by the science exchange platform launched in 2011 has greatly improved access to and usage of CROs. Through its marketplace companies can source order and pay for scientific services for more than 3,500 providers, while also reducing the lift, the contract lift normally required. And it does mention lab down, which you may have heard is a, we might have talked about earlier, or, or something that affect our similar company rather lab that was another company working to fill the research access gap. It's building a marketplace where smaller startups and academic researchers can find a micro CROs or contract contract research on a smaller scale to provide services such as bioinformatics analysis, automated cloning and construct design. She admits we're still a long way off from having something like an AWS for biotech, which would be really awesome, I think. And, you know, feasible, I think, but platforms like science exchange and lab now are gradually improving access to contract based research. And to talking about empowering people and talent talks about the decentralized science movement. And how tech PCs have ramped up their investments in biotech, especially startups with younger or less conventional founders. Yeah, so there's definitely an increased interest in investing in these smaller companies. I don't think that will increase. Let me pose a question to the group. Do we think that the level of investment in riskier biotech startups will continue to increase our will there be some sort of, you know, drawback or slow down. So the few companies listed here I think this is pretty good content if you're interested in, you know, decentralized science biotech. It's a good article I thought so wanted to make sure everyone get a chance to look at this, you know, she talks specifically about doubt funded projects, including molecule which I do believe you mentioned today. And yeah, by the doubt as well. I've heard a vital doubt I've heard a molecule I don't know the current status of what what they're working on but it's another good one where, you know, there's a there's a huge regulatory framework around clinical trials in the first place, as well as IP law concerning molecules and how to do it so it's a it's right for decentralization. There is still a lot of regulatory tape they need to like work through. I'm going to read here a major draw of biotech dows, like vital doubt is how quickly they can get work done in the 10 months since its launch of beta Dow has evaluated over 60 research proposals proposals and financed almost $2 million worth of research across 10 projects. That's like taking an NIH research project grant which normally gives one lab $250,000 a year for five years and splitting the money across projects at 60 labs. Another advantage is that dows don't have the same hiring restrictions as traditional biotech companies. This means people with diverse experiences at different stages in their careers can get involved with a Dow, or several if they want, since there's no expectation of exclusivity. The benefits of employment differ from those of a traditional day job, you might be paid in tokens or Ethereum, or even just gratitude versus receiving a salary in us dollars. Those who have the time working for a biotech Dow offers a playground for scientific input teamwork and innovation, and even a place to learn new skills like content in marketing. Interesting. So I do think that most of the research that are using these types of dows are younger researchers, maybe they aren't able to get traditional grants and this is one way they think they could get some funding and they now go for it. So, I think we'll be seeing more of these types of organizations in the future. Thanks so much for sharing this way I haven't had a chance to take a look at it yet, but I'm going to look at it after the meeting looks interesting. Yeah, absolutely. Happy to do it. And that was the last article that I pulled from the last couple weeks. Is there anything people wanted to share with the group here that we didn't talk about yet or maybe something we missed in the last few weeks that you want to share. Open to discussion. Okay. Well, in that case, we can probably give everyone a few minutes back of their day. I think this was a great meeting. Great discussion. Thank you all for your inputs and feedback. And again, the agenda and the links to all the articles are available in the hyperledger conference space. So feel free to reach out. Reach out to me if you can't find it and or you could just probably Google it and find it. So, again, there is an event later today, a T-Mobile 5G and healthcare panel discussion webinar. That might be interesting to you all. So, yeah, really appreciate it and looking forward to. Oh, actually, we, Eric and I were discussing earlier this week about the next meeting and we might both not be able to make it. So the next meeting in two weeks might be canceled. So we might reconvene in a month, but look out for an email from me just to confirm that. And yeah, just wanted to let you all know about that. So thank you. Say again. Is your hand still up? Yeah, I see Jim's hand is still up. I don't know if that was from before. As an accident, they should, they should time out after a while. No worries. All right, well, again, thanks everybody. Appreciate it. And we will look forward to next time. Great job, right? Thank you very much. Thank you all. Take care. Have a great day. Thank you. Take care. Thank you. Thanks so much. Bye. Thank you. Thank you.