The Deutsch Files III
Summary
TLDRВ данном видео скрипте обсуждаются вопросы искусственного интеллекта, творчества и свободы воли. Основные аргументы касаются того, что истинная творческая активность не может быть объяснена через наблюдение, индукцию или алгоритмы. Авторы подчеркивают, что понимание и развиток универсального объяснения в области математики, физики, психологии и других наук одинаковы с эпистемологической точки зрения. Обсуждаются также возможные последствия создания искусственного общего интеллекта и его потенциального влияния на общество, включая этические и политические аспекты. В заключение, авторы выражают свое представление об эволюции и ценности человеческого мышления и знаний.
Takeaways
- 🤖 Развитие искусственного интеллекта (AI) не может быть оценено с помощью традиционных методов, таких как математические доказательства.
- 🧠 Понимание человеческого разума и его способности к творчеству является сложной задачей, которая пока не имеет окончательного ответа.
- 🏗️ Творчество не сводится к простым наблюдению или перекомбинованию существующих идей; оно требует глубокого понимания и интуиции.
- 🌆 Прогресс и инновации человечества, такие как строительство небоскребов, являются результатом творческого мышления, а не случайных процессов.
- 🧬 Эволюция и изменение в биологии происходит не только через небольшие мутации, но и благодаря вариации и отбору.
- 🌌 Идея того, что все в мире может быть объяснено с помощью математических или физических принципов, является упрощением.
- 💡 Творчество и знания могут быть устойчивыми и долговечными, превышая физические ограничения других форм информации.
- 🧒 Важность воспитания и обучения детей, чтобы они могли развивать свою творческую способность и свободу воли.
- 📚 Подход к обучению и воспитанию детей должен быть более гибким и не должен ограничиваться принуждением или воспроизведением существующих знаний.
- 🌐 Возможности и ограничения, связанные с созданием и распространением ИИ и других технологий, могут иметь далеко идущие последствия для общества и культуры.
Q & A
Какие трудности возникают при попытке объяснить свою мысль?
-Объяснение мыслей часто сталкивается с проблемами понимания, особенно когда речь идет о сложных и абстрактных идеях. Люди могут иметь разные представления и знания, что затрудняет процесс общения. Важно находить подходящие слова и примеры, чтобы сделать свою мысль понятной и предотвратить недоразумения.
Какое значение имеет творчество для свободы воли?
-Творчество связано с свободой воли, поскольку оно предполагает возможность создавать что-то новое и уникальное. Если у человека есть место для творчества, у него есть возможность действовать свободно, основываясь на своих идеях и представлениях, а не просто повторять то, что уже существует.
Какие примеры творчества можно привести в повседневной жизни?
-Примеры творчества в повседневной жизни могут включать создание новых рецептов, решение нестандартных проблем на работе, изобретение новых игр или занятий для детей, а также любые другие действия, которые предполагают изобретательность и оригинальность.
Почему эволюция не может создать системы, такие как система отражения астероидов?
-Эволюция работает путем непрерывных мелких изменений, которые постепенно приводят к адаптации организма к изменениям в окружающей среде. Однако, создание системы отражения астероидов требует наличия сложных и непредвидимых изменений, которые не могут быть достигнуты путем постепенного развития. Такие системы не могут быть результатом эволюционного процесса, поскольку они не обеспечивают непосредственную выживаемость организма и не могут быть построены путем непрерывного изменения на генетическом уровне.
Какие различия существуют между математикой и другими науками?
-Различия между математикой и другими науками заключаются в предметной области, которую они изучают. Математика занимается необходимыми истинами и основывается на логических принципах и доказательствах. В то время как другие науки, такие как физика, химия, биология и психология, изучают различные аспекты природы и человеческого опыта, используя эксперименты и наблюдения для формирования теорий и гипотез.
Какие примеры из жизни Дэвида Декартera подчеркивают важность творчества?
-В жизни Дэвида Декартera можно привести примеры, такие как его страсть к изучению и созданию новых идей в области науки и философии, его увлечение музыкой и творчеством в области музыкального искусства, а также его работа над разработкой теории конструкторов, которая может способствовать созданию новых идей и решению сложных проблем.
Какие трудности возникают при создании ИИ и какие возможные пути их преодоления?
-Трудности при создании ИИ включают не только технические проблемы, но и философские, такие как определение самосознания и творчества. Возможные пути преодоления этих трудностей могут включать разработку новых алгоритмов и методов, исследование работы человеческого мозга и его абстрактного мышления, а также создание среды, способствующей творчеству и обучению ИИ.
Как важно избегать утверждений о доказанности в науке?
-В науке важно избегать утверждений о доказанности, поскольку они могут привести к застою и прекращению поиска новых идей и решений. Научные теории и гипотезы должны быть постоянно проверяемыми и открывающими новые возможности для исследования, чтобы продолжать развитие науки и техники.
Какие примеры показывают, что творчество не является просто рекомбинацией идей?
-Примеры, которые показывают, что творчество не является просто рекомбинацией идей, включают создание новых технологий, таких как смартфоны и искусственный интеллект, развитие новых стилей искусства и музыки, а также создание оригинальных теорий и идей в науке, которые отличаются от существующих знаний и представлений.
Какова роль знания в обеспечении устойчивости и выживанию?
-Знание играет ключевую роль в обеспечении устойчивости и выживания, поскольку оно позволяет людям принимать обоснованные решения, адаптироваться к изменениям в окружающей среде и создавать инновационные решения для решения сложных проблем. Знание также может передаваться от поколения к поколению, что обеспечивает долгосрочную устойчивость и прогресс.
Как можно стимулировать творчество и свободу мысли у детей?
-Для стимулирования творчества и свободы мысли у детей необходимо предоставить им доступ к различным знаниям и ресурсам, поощрять их интересы и увлечения, а также создать среду, которая поддерживает эксперименты и нестандартное мышление. Важно также учить детей критическому мышлению и развивать их способность к самообразованию и самовыражению.
Outlines
🤔 Размышления о творчестве и интеллекте
В этом параграфе рассматриваются вопросы творчества и искусственного интеллекта. Обсуждаются примеры, когда люди пытаются понять и моделить творческий процесс, а также когда алгоритмы создают новые вещи, но не могут повторить то, что сделал Mozart. Рассматривается идея того, что люди могут быть удивительно творческими, и это не связано с наблюдением или рекомбинацией. Автор выражает мнение, что научные открытия и технологические прогрессы могут привести к большему творчеству, но это не будет бесконечным ростом, а скорее увеличением возможностей для творчества.
🏙️ Творчество и его проявление в архитектуре
Автор приводит пример изменения Манхэттена на протяжении тысячелетий и отмечает, что создание необычных сооружений, таких как небоскребы, не может быть объяснено без творчества. Обсуждаются различия между эволюцией и творчеством, особенно в контексте того, как люди могут делать крупные интеллектуальные прыжки, в то время как биологические изменения происходят поэтапно. Рассматривается также вопрос о том, почему люди могут быть более творческими, чем другие формы жизни, и как это связано с нашей способностью к абстрактному мышлению и объединению идей.
🌟 Творчество, знание и интеллект
Автор обсуждает, как люди могут моделировать любую систему в своем воображении и создавать новые идеи, которые могут преодолеть разрывы в пространстве знаний. В отличие от биологического эволюционного процесса, наш виртуальный интеллект работает как программируемый компьютер, что позволяет нам совершать творческие скачки. Рассматривается также вопрос о том, что знания могут быть более устойчивыми, чем физические объекты, и как это связано с творчеством.
🧬 Творчество, генетика и воспитание
Для этого абзаца автор обсуждает различные аргументы против того, чтобы принимать детей всерьез, такие как нежеланием предотвратить необратимые действия, связанные с наркотиками или беременностью, и необходимостью изучения основ в раннем возрасте. Обсуждаются проблемы, связанные с пластичностью мозга и тем, как образовательная система может подавлять творчество и интеллект. Автор предлагает идею о том, что вместо того чтобы настаивать на соблюдении и репродукции существующих теорий, лучше позволить детям самостоятельно изучать и развиваться в соответствии со своими интересами.
🧠 Пластичность мозга и обучение
Рассматривается вопрос о том, как обучение и опыт влияют на пластичность мозга, особенно в детстве. Автор отвергает идею о том, что с возрастом учебные возможности уменьшаются, и предлагает альтернативное представление о том, что люди могут учиться и развиваться на протяжении всей жизни. Обсуждаются примеры людей, которые учатся и достигают успеха в различных областях, даже если они не соответствуют стандартным представлениям о том, что должно быть изучено. Автор подчеркивает важность индивидуального подхода к обучению и развитию, а не принуждения к выполнению стандартных требований.
🌐 Творчество и определение человеческой природы
Автор завершает свой разговор о творчестве, обсуждая влияние генетических и окружающих факторов на формирование человеческой природы. Он подчеркивает, что, хотя генетика может определять некоторые аспекты нашего существования, это не ограничивает возможности для творчества и индивидуального развития. Обсуждаются результаты исследований о двойниках и влиянии окружающей среды на формирование интересов и предпочтений. Автор утверждает, что все люди обладают потенциалом для творчества, и это не зависит от их внешнего вида или поведения в определенных ситуациях.
💭 Специфические мысли и идеи о творчестве
Автор выражает свои мысли и идеи о творчестве, включая возможность создания AGI (искусственного общего интеллекта) и его потенциальных применений. Он также обсуждает идею того, что AGI может быть разработан не с помощью огромных вычислительных мощностей, а с помощью творческого подхода. Автор выражает свое мнение о том, что AGI может быть создан на основе уже существующих компьютеров, и выражает опасения о том, как регулирование AGI может ограничить индивидуальные возможности исследований. Затем автор обсуждает свои идеи о том, как создать творческий музыкальный инструмент, который может генерировать новые произведения, а не просто имитировать существующие.
🌌 Существование, сознание и их неизведанное
Автор завершает свой разговор, обсуждая фундаментальные вопросы существования и сознания. Он подчеркивает, что наука не преследует цель обеспечить окончательное объяснение всего существующего, а скорее продолжает исследовать и открыть новые аспекты реальности. Автор выражает свое убеждение, что сознание и существование - это сложные и многогранные явления, которые не могут быть полностью поняты или объяснены. Он также отмечает, что, хотя религиозные и духовные традиции могут предложить свои ответы на эти вопросы, они не являются исключительными или окончательными. Вместо этого автор предлагает оставаться открытым к новым идеям и исследованиям, которые могут помочь нам лучше понять нашу реальность и место в ней.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Summarizing complex ideas
💡Misunderstandings
💡Proof and conjecture
💡Concentric circles of understanding
💡Creativity
💡Free will
💡Quantum theory and Turing conjecture
💡Necessity and truth in mathematics
💡Explanatory knowledge
💡Evolution and creativity
💡Resilience of knowledge
Highlights
The discussion emphasizes the challenge of communicating complex ideas clearly to avoid misunderstandings.
The conversation touches on the limitations of using the term 'proof' in fields outside of mathematics, highlighting the difference between necessary truths and conjectural knowledge.
The importance of creativity in driving progress is underscored, with the assertion that true creativity is not merely observation, induction, or recombination.
The discussion points out the misconceptions about creativity, particularly the notion that it is merely recombination, a metaphor that keeps coming back due to influential figures like Steve Jobs.
The conversation delves into the nature of creativity, suggesting that it is not just about scientific discovery and cannot be reduced to simple observations or recombination of existing ideas.
The discussion highlights the unique aspects of human creativity, such as the ability to make leaps in knowledge and form interconnections between ideas that are not possible through biological evolution.
The conversation explores the idea that human creativity, being explanatory in nature, can leap over gaps in knowledge space that cannot be traversed incrementally.
The discussion addresses the concept of knowledge as resilient information, which can outlive physical objects and is a testament to the power of human thought and understanding.
The conversation brings up the topic of AI and the potential for AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) to be superintelligent, but also the limitations in proving such claims without a comprehensive theory of AGI.
The discussion challenges the notion that creativity is limited by brain plasticity, arguing that the potential for learning and innovation is not confined to early life.
The conversation suggests that the current educational system may suppress creativity by focusing on obedience and replication of existing theories, rather than fostering individual exploration and innovation.
The discussion advocates for a more liberal approach to education, emphasizing the importance of treating children as individuals with their own rights and potential for creativity.
The conversation explores the potential of AGI to expand creativity by creating multiple instances of a mind, although it acknowledges the practical limitations and ethical considerations of such a scenario.
The discussion addresses the philosophical implications of AGI, including the concept of identity and the potential paradoxes that arise when minds are replicated or transferred to different substrates.
The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the nature of consciousness and existence, suggesting that science can contribute to this understanding by uncovering problems and exploring the big picture.
The discussion critiques the idea of ultimate explanations, arguing that the pursuit of knowledge should not be hindered by the belief in a final truth or a single, all-encompassing theory.
Transcripts
on exactly that the fact that the more
that we summarize what I think is a
exceedingly clear body of work in the
fabric of reality in the beginning of
infinity when nonetheless you explain it
to people as POA says you know it's
impossible to speak in such a way as to
not be misunderstood I was just reading
today on Twitter someone claiming that
you have said quoting you and they've
put it in quot marks you have apparently
said pop up proves AI can't be super
intelligent and you know I sort of
respond you know he never even speaks in
those terms that he wouldn't rely upon
the authority of Puba to begin with he
wouldn't say proof so there just another
example that you go out there and as you
say these concentric circles of people
that you bring in trying to understand
your worldview the misconceptions
compound I don't know what you think
about that have you said anything like
POA proves that and this was from a
journalist by the way I think a
reasonably respected journalist was
saying this no of course not so as you
say I mean as soon as you see a claim
that somebody has proved something then
you know proved it from what this isn't
going to be poer it isn't going to be me
I've proved that if quantum theory is
true then the Turing conjecture is true
in physics you know that's what you can
do with the proof proving something
about AGI is inherent ly impossible if
we don't have a theory of AGI that you
know you can't prove something about
something that you can't Define and
anyway proof isn't what these kind of
things are about these kind of things
are about argument and POA I can't
recall POA specifically saying anything
about AI it wasn't a thing in those days
this word proof is something we haven't
talked about during our conversations
but you do hear it deployed quite often
you know such and such has been proved
as if to say this stands in contrast to
our notion of conjectural knowledge or
fallibility after all once something has
been proved can't we carve it into stone
and there it sits for all time is the
notion of proof on a different level to
the rest of our conjectural knowledge
because it sounds I think to the typical
lay person as if it is yeah well it
isn't the difference between mathematics
and other fields as I've often said is
not in the way we find knowledge about
them but in the subject matter the
subject matter of mathematics is
necessary truth so when we make a
discovery in mathematics we're making a
conjecture about what is necessary truth
so we're making a conjecture that
something or other that we have defined
is a necessary truth but there isn't a
difference in the way we create
knowledge in our minds about mathematics
or computer science or psychology or
physics they're all the same
epistemologically one topic that I kind
of want to get into a little bit if I
can switch for a moment is the topic of
creativity and I know that it's uh very
poorly defined and something that we
don't quite have a grasp of and on air
chat yesterday I was talking to people
and I made some comment about as long as
you have room for creativity you have
room for free will because we don't know
where creativity comes from and so that
you know allows you to have this freedom
of operation
based on their creative theories I was
making the point that true creativity is
not from observation it's not from
induction it's not from some algorithm
that we know yet how to run and it's not
just mixing things together and
immediately the response was someone
said well can you give me some examples
of this creativity you're talking about
right I think to people they feel like
when we talk about this form of
creativity we're just talking purely
about scientific creativity like
Einstein and I think some of these
examples that we use are so far out
there that people think well they're not
talking about creativity they're talking
about scientific discovery which is not
what they're talking about and so most
people seem to automatically fall into
this trap that creativity is observation
or
recombination and I wonder if we can
just explore what creativity is some
real world examples that are just more
down to earth and just kind of I'd love
to once and for all put to bed this idea
that is recombination I think you've
done a great job showing that it's not
observation but I think the
recombination metaphor keeps coming back
frankly because of authorities like
Steve Jobs who authoritatively said
creativity just mixing things together
and that's a quote you find on posters
everywhere yeah well it's only the word
just that is false there so like I said
yesterday you know it's like saying
humans are just atoms we are just atoms
in the sense that there isn't any magic
thing in addition to atoms that makes us
but that's not to say that we are just
atoms if you take a snapshot of North
America thousand years ago and then take
another snapshot today the difference
between the look of Manhattan Island
then and now cannot be explained without
invoking
creativity nothing but creativity could
have produced that there are no natural
processes that will ever produce
something like a skyscraper so to
explain the phenomena that happened on
Manhattan Island you need to invoke
creativity but now somebody will say now
point to some
creativity and I can zoom down on a
particular architect with his
old-fashioned draftsman's board and his
paper and his ruler and his compass and
his brain and I can examine those with a
microscope and uh somebody will ask me
well at which point did creativity
happen what was creative about what that
architect did that was not just atoms
and if you like bringing together ideas
that had happened before well if all our
ideas are just recombinations of ideas
that have happened before then there's
nothing new about the skyscraper that
wasn't already there when our ancestors
were banging rocks together but there is
they didn't and couldn't build
skyscrapers and we can and do least I
can't but the human species can the
other side they'll say well yeah you
can't go straight from banging rocks to
skyscrapers but they went from banging
rocks to figure how to shape rocks to
build tools and then they recombined
that knowledge of building tools and
digging and so on and so forth so it was
just all it was stepbystep recombination
almost like an evolutionary process well
an evolutionary process is also not just
recombination it's variation and
selection so again it's it's the same
thing if you look at the DNA of
successive generations of you know
dinosaurs and they turned into Birds
each one of those steps is not
evolutionary and yet the whole sequence
is but it would be absurd to say that
the design of a pterodactyl was already
in the DNA of non-flying dinosaurs or
that the pterodactyl is just a
combination of different things that
were in the dinosaurs it's just not true
the pterodactyl
functionality was nowhere
until it evolved and it wasn't anywhere
in the past and not in the dinosaurs and
not in the single cells organisms that
were the ancestors of dinosaurs it just
wasn't there it was new when the ability
to fly evolved in the lineage of
dinosaurs in the pterodactyl case there
was one or a series of random mutations
that turned out to be adaptive for that
set of genes yes and those mutations
were essentially blind they were broken
DNA strands or just new DNA strands and
in the human case that's not quite
what's happening the search space we're
going through is larger and we're
searching through it faster to make
these creative leaps is that an
intuition that you have is there any
learning or knowledge behind that I'm
not trying to solve the problem of how
creativity works I know that's a
unsolved problem but for example could
one say that humans are narrowing the
search space faster because the ative
mutations to coin a term that we're
making are not random they are more
directed or perhaps they're random but
they're random in our minds and we cut
through them so fast without having to
implement them in the real world that
perhaps we narrow the search space
faster is our process faster and if so
why it's not only faster it is
explanatory which means that because
it's explanatory it means it can leap
over gaps in the knowledge space that
couldn't be traversed incrementally so
when evolution is not only millions of
times slower it's inherently different
in the not only can it only make small
conjectures in the form of mutations but
it can only improve on things
incrementally so you can only make you
know pterodactyl Wings if you previously
had limbs or if you previously had
something that could be incrementally
changed into Wings such that every
microscopic change was still viable as
an organism so that's why we can't
expect biological
evolution to my favorite example again
to evolve a system for deflecting
asteroids that is because there is no
incremental problem situation where the
expenditure of energy or whatever to
deflect I mean you know the asteroid hit
is once every few million years and it
cannot exert evolutionary pressure so
basically the creative guesses that
humans make because they're explanatory
in nature they can leap through the
entire idea space and form
interconnections between any two ideas
or any two states whereas biological has
to Traverse through the physical world
limitations and what the organism is
capable of right now yes and it has to
Traverse it while staying alive it has
to be a v orm all the way through
whereas if you want a new design of
airplane and you say maybe it would be
better to have the tail plane as a
single object rather than this thing
with wings then you know I've just said
that in one sentence and if that's a
good idea it could be criticized by an
aeronautical engineer and so on but to
make that change
incrementally will probably produce a
whole series of airplanes that won't fly
so is this a consequence of being
Universal in nature we can model any
system in our head and therefore we can
connect any part of it to any other part
of it yes I mean that's what really what
we mean by being Universal we can get to
any idea and criticize it for whether it
is a good idea or not so the
aeronautical engineer doesn't have to
test every single airplane that in his
wild ideas you know maybe has a wild
idea driving to work one day that maybe
wings should be made of paper so in that
sense the biological system is a highly
focused analog computer that's running
sort of a single algorithm and the
virtual system in our head is more like
a digital programmable computer so the
DNA system is entirely digital this
incremental thing is not a continuous
change so one mutation is still a
Quantum difference if you had a
difference that involved less than one
base pair then the whole DNA would fall
apart if you try to replace adenine by
glucose then the whole thing wouldn't
work as DNA at all although we speak of
evolutionism happening incrementally
it's incrementally in discrete steps so
both thinking and biological evolution
happen in discreete steps biological
evolution happens though in very small
steps which are undesigned so there's no
designer that designs the Next Mutation
it's random it strikes me that the setti
project is looking for biomarkers
they're out there searching for evidence
of biology but the way you've poetically
framed this idea of well there are
billions of asteroids out there right
now Across the Universe crashing into
billions of planets right now but here
might be the one place where if you had
the T escope pointed from another planet
towards us you would see the repelling
of asteroids this would be an indication
of intelligence there's no other
explanation there's no biological
explanation there's no random chance
there's no magic it must be explanatory
creativity that does that thing and
talking about Manhattan before
everywhere across the Earth are rocks
being eroded and inevitably being eroded
by weathering and rain and whatever but
in some places the cities of the world
there are rocks call them buildings
which are not being so eroded or in so
far as they are they're being constantly
repaired Again by explanatory knowledge
and so that introduces this idea of
knowledge as resilient information the
very thing that will outlive even the
Rocks so long as we can continue to
survive then the knowledge that we have
will continue to survive outlasting the
longest existing things in the cosmos
yes uh they very nicely put and
Shakespeare by the way also said the
same thing in his uh son new so so long
lives this and this gives life to the so
he's saying that his Sonet will outlive
anything and he's right right shall I
compare thee to a summer's day though
art so fair yes or so temperate forget
yes that that was a great one yeah it's
also similar to azim mandas if you read
that one by
yeah where it's the artist's uh
conception that survives the Empire and
the King yes exactly and and it's simply
literally true that knowledge Laden
information is more resilient than any
physical object so not to get personal
for a moment but is this an argument for
spreading your ideas rather than having
children well as David fredman says if
the world is worth saving it's worth
saving at a profit and I would
generalize
it's if the world is worth saving it's
worth saving with fun so I think youve
talked a little bit about AGI or or
rather forget even AGI or just people
uploading their brains into a computer
in the future and if their minds are in
the computer if same software is running
then that is a living being that is a
mind that is the definition of a person
and this brings up all sorts of
interesting paradoxes and situations
which many sci-fi authors including Greg
Ean have explored what if you were to
replicate this mind a billion times what
if you were to shut it down what if you
were to run it back in slow motion what
if you were to pause it and I think I
don't know how far we are from that
probably still quite far Neil Stevenson
also talked about it in his book The
Fall there's also cloning coming up I
mean people are now successfully cloning
dogs it's only a matter of time before
we're cloning humans where do you think
this leads in terms of the number of
people I mean in theory couldn't we have
then infinite people or close to
infinite people running in a silicon sub
substrate and does this lead to even
more of an explosion of creativity yes
it would and I think something like that
will happen but I think it's somewhat
exaggerating both the problem and the
opportunity I think we mustn't think of
compute as being free as the AI people
call it when you duplicate an AGI you
make an exact copy of it either you run
it in the same computer in which case
there's only half the amount of memory
available for each of them and only half
the number of processor Cycles or you
move them into a different computer in
which case the original computer is
presumably the property of the AGI
because otherwise it's a slave if it
doesn't even own its own body so if it's
going to copy itself into another
computer somebody has to buy that it
might earn the money to buy itself
another computer but that doesn't change
the fact that hardware-wise it's now
owning twice as much Hardware as it did
before and there's no Infinity about
this you know we have billions of
computers but we don't have sex silons
of computers one day we will but one day
that will seem not very much either so
yes there's a huge potential for
additional creativity with additional
people if additional people want to make
even more people and to some extent that
will happen but it's not going to be an
explosion it's not like a meme which
somebody invents and then immediately
goes to a billion people around the
world it's not like that if the meme is
an
AGI then it will want to live it will
want to have its creativity harnessed
towards some problem that it likes to
solve and it will have to buy the
resources to do that with you know the
existing memes they buy tiny fraction of
a of a dollar's worth of memory of of
each of the people who download it but
even those people don't keep it forever
those people might keep it for a year or
two until they sell their computer or
something but for large amounts of
memory they still cost money and other
Hardware also costs money now there is
the other problem so that's me saying
it's not as great as you make out but
it's also not as bad as you make out
because these problems with supposing
you make a billion copies of you
there'll be the problem of whether each
of them should have one vote or whether
they should share one vote between them
and you know the uh institution of one
person one vote has served us well for a
couple of hundred years that's going to
have to be modified but I think there's
no big deal about this we we already
have lots of people in society that
don't have the vote like um immigrants
before they get citizenship and children
and foreigners living temporarily and we
manage we man managed to give all those
people human rights yeah I'm not saying
the system is perfect for all those
types of people it's not perfect for
people with the vote either but I think
it won't be a big problem to tweak the
institutions of property and of politics
to accommodate agis you know with a bit
of Goodwill that can all be solved so
you mentioned children we're searching
or trying to create agis when you have
all this untapped intelligence already
on the planet in the form of children
who are mostly coerced through their
lives and not allowed to be as creative
or freely expressive as they could
otherwise be and you've talked about
this the philosophy of taking children
seriously there are unsophisticated
objections say Let me throw out what I
think are sophisticated
objections or at least my objections
maybe I'm just calling myself
sophisticated the first objection would
be that and I think you would probably
agree on this is that there are certain
actions which are irreversible in nature
for for example you kill somebody or you
get somebody pregnant or they get you
pregnant and some of these you would
stop an adult from doing as well you
would stop an adult from committing
murder or suicide but at the same time a
child may not understand the
consequences uh the full consequences of
for example unprotected sex leading to
pregnancy or committing a what they
think is a small crime or taking a very
addictive drug like a fentel or
something which may then unlock
something that they're not quite used to
or ready to handle so you know one class
of objections would be well I want to
stop my kid from taking fentanyl or
doing a hard drug because they have not
yet developed the resistance to it and I
can try and talk them out of it but if
they're going to take it anyway then I
have to forcibly stop them that is one
set of objections the other which is
related is around brain plasticity so if
they don't learn matths and piano at an
early age or language or proper reading
then it's going to be much harder for
them to acquire that skill later on and
we know that some of these skills are so
fundamental that if you don't pick them
up early on they close off entire
Avenues and yes there are exceptions of
geniuses who pick up the violin at the
age of 20 or pick up math at the age of
15 or whatever but isn't there an
argument to be made that for the average
child you want them to learn
fundamentals at an early age so that
then they have the freedom to explore
and be creative in those domains later I
think we could add disasters is very
difficult to come back from now every
single one of the dangers that you
actually mentioned you would there we
could mention an infinite number but
it's interesting that the ones you
actually mentioned are notorious
problems in our society in present day
Society in society where it's taken for
granted that you can use unlimited Force
to prevent children from doing things to
themselves in some cases it's legal to
use unlimited Force to prevent an adult
doing them but many of the things adults
are allowed to to do and not just
allowed to do a legally protected right
to do and children don't and it doesn't
work the reason you mentioned them is
that they are notorious problems now
with the present
arrangements so in order to make this an
objection to taking children seriously
and you know treating children as people
you have to have an additional theory
that treating people as people makes
these problems worse than better so you
have at the moment a population of
children and a society that is focused
on preventing them from taking drugs by
force and yet thousands millions of them
take drugs and some of them suffer
irreversible consequences so I think
preventing this is a matter of knowledge
all evils due to lack of knowledge when
you're unable to persuade somebody of
something there's a reason for that that
it's not that people are
inherently I make the joke that that
people say that children are so gullible
that they won't listen to a word I say
The Stereotype involves them being
infinitely gullible on the one hand and
infinitely resistant to argument on the
other hand and often in the same breath
like in my joke and that's not true
children are Universal and what's more
they're not like agis they're not just
any old Universal thing they Universal
thing that is trying to integrate itself
into our culture our culture is the best
thing we know of it's a disaster not to
successfully integrate oneself into it
and it happens all the time today now
under existing Arrangements that people
end up being criminals despite the
entire weight of society being directed
towards preventing them from becoming
criminals now one thing that we know is
that the creativity to prevent the Next
Generation from you know taking drugs or
becoming terrorists or or whatever
cannot be creativity just exerted in the
minds of the teacher of of society of
the adult learning has to be a creative
act in the mind of the recipient always
children adults that's the only way that
anyone ever learns anything by exerting
their creativity and existing
Arrangements not only thwart the actions
but much more important they are
directed towards suppressing the
creativity Itself by for example making
the education system inculcate obedience
first of all and secondly by making it
inculcate existing theories so if you
successfully inculcated existing
theories and obedience in the whole
population You couldn't possibly get
anything better than the existing
population so no improvement could ever
happen but it would be worse because the
people in present Society are creative
they manag to weave their way through
this Thicket of um thwarting that is
trying to make them not make progress
and they do make progress anyway but if
we succeeded in making a generation that
didn't do that then at best we'd have
staticity and the staticity will
eventually be disastrous I'm not saying
that emancipating children is something
that can be done by Fiat it can't be
done overnight by just saying we're
going to do it any more than we can
instill scientific creativity in a
person in the street who is not
interested in science that's not known
that's that's like arbitrarily
programming somebody to be disobedient
OB you it's inherently impossible but to
emancipate children from the
institutions of society that are
admittedly openly designed to do those
two things namely create obedience and
to replicate existing theories that we
can do that it is known how to do you
know there are people who do it most of
the parents who object to school do not
really object to the underlying
epistemology of school they still
believe what Papa called the bucket
theory of knowledge or the bucket theory
of the mind they only think that the
school has been pouring bad stuff into
their children and they want to pour
good stuff into their children whereas
what I advocate is to give children
access to whatever they want to pour
into themselves and pouring is the wrong
metaphor because they create it
internally so in your model it's closer
to an unschooling than a homeschooling
cuz homeschooling is attempting to
replicate the school in a home context
yes unschooling might be here's a
library here's your musical instruments
here's your access to other kids and you
choose well yes although this giving
access is itself not a mechanical
process it involves thinking you know
what might the children want you know
what might they like what might they
want to know what might they want to be
warned of it's a continual interaction
not a hands-off thing it's coercion of
off not interaction of it's just that
the interaction that I advocate is not
directed towards obedience and it's not
directed towards any particular thing
that I think you know I think quantum
theory is important I don't think I have
the right to force anybody to learn it
even if I think it would benefit them
greatly I don't think that's a
relationship I want to have with
somebody and I don't think it's a good
thing overall what about the argument
that brains are more plastic yeah that
was your second argument well first of
all it's rather ironic given that the
existing pattern of Education as I say
is explicitly designed to waste all that
plasticity by making everybody have the
same ideas schools advertise saying you
know we're going to make your children
all get A's so in other words we're
going to make your children all alike
and let's imagine a school with a good
ethos it would be advertising we're
going to make your children all
different we're going to make them more
different than you can imagine all our
alumni are radically different people
from each other of course you know we
also think hope expect that they will
all be nice people despite being
radically different from each other this
plasticity notion and this will likely
upset our educationalists who might be
listening and neuroscientists might be
listening evokes the notion of Hardware
so I don't know what you think about
this that there is this golden window
supposedly early on in life where unless
you get taught the language or unless
you get taught the mathematics then the
window closes and the parallel or the
mirror image of this is you can't teach
an old dog new tricks so at one end is
the golden opportunity for Learning and
the other end learning is closed off
from you now I've got my own stock
answer of this but the cultural answer
seems to be it is brain Decay that goes
on you start out with a a brain that is
a sponge and by the end all hope is
almost lost to you to learn anything new
what do you think about that well I
don't know the fact of the matter about
how the brain works and I don't think
neuroscientists do either but I'm not
hostile to the idea that the hardware of
a brain works better when one is Young I
just don't think it's relevant to
anything I read somewhere that it's
totally not true that you can't teach an
old dog new tricks old dogs are are just
as able to learn new tricks as young
dogs so you know but that's dogs and I
don't think we are like dogs anyway in
the first place and I don't think that
dogs learning tricks is a good metaphor
for humans learning mathematics it's a
different thing Thomas zaz says they
should walk in different doors into
different buildings in the university to
discuss those things different people
are different there are people who like
to learn languages you can find them on
the Internet and I'm flabbergasted by
what they can do you know they are
people who learn Latin but not just
learn Latin they learn realistic Latin
not as it's taught in Latin lessons but
how it was actually spoken how do you
find out how it was actually spoken well
this is a tremendous sophisticated
branch of History where they can
actually learn a lot about how people
used to speak and I saw a video of a guy
walking around Rome talking to priests
in classical Latin and to see if they
would understand him and they kind of
half understood him and then you know
when they realized what was happening
they would say you know what's happening
and then he would reply in medieval
Church Latin what he was doing you know
he just saying you know I'm doing an
experiment and then they would
understand him but he had the right
medieval Church Latin accent and they
have the present day Church Latin accent
and there are also people who learn lots
of languages and speak it like a native
can't be distinguished from a native so
why are those people so rare well I
don't want to do it if I could do it by
snapping my fingers I definitely would
but I'm not sufficiently interested to
engage with other languages to the
extent that I engage with English by the
way another thing is that people are
constantly learning their own language
their native language and if one is
interested in communication one is doing
that all the time no two people speak
the same English therefore communicating
one of the reasons that papa says you
know you can't speak so that it's
impossible not to be understood one of
the reasons for that is that everybody
speaks a different English everybody
means a different thing by the word
thought or freedom and and idea and
theory and creativity everybody means
something different even within the
exact Sciences you know every physicist
has a different conception of of what a
manifold is they overlap enough to be
able to communicate well very well
sometimes never perfectly and sometimes
they find it hard to communicate even
imperfectly even though they have
ostensibly gone through the same
learning process but every physicist is
different every physicist has different
problem situation has a different set of
ideas that they think of as what physics
is and and they differ from each other
so if they want to work together they
often have to work at understanding what
each other mean now
plasticity if it's true that the the
brain sort of works FAS or whatever lays
down memories more easily or something
when one is Young for Hardware reasons I
don't see how that changes anything you
might want a person to have an intuitive
knowledge of piano playing but that's
what you want that may not be what they
want and there's an infinite number of
things that somebody might want them to
be proficient at and it's impossible
there is no one who is proficient at all
the things that Society thinks children
should grow up proficient at my can
picture following on from your own work
was that because we are little learning
machines throughout our lives we're
learning the good ideas but we're also
picking up bad ideas as well and in
particular anti-rational memes all the
ways in which we might be embarrassed
about trying to learn the bad
experiences we have while learning
especially at school and so therefore
you know the newborn baby is
unencumbered largely by any of these
anti-rational means they're just trying
out everything and they go through
infancy they're still very good but by
the time you get to Primary School
you've been punished a couple of times
perhaps if you're going through the
traditional schooling so your capacity
to learn gets worse and worse and worse
until by the time most of us are adults
we've had some bad experiences with
learning and by the towards the end of
your life you're just you're tired of
learning because you've you associate it
with punishments or you associate with
embarrassment or shame could this also
be at least part of the explanation it
could be and it sounds plausible and I
like the theory because as it were
politically it it backs up what I would
have people do but you know I wouldn't
be surprised if that isn't true and if
the plasticity theory is true or if some
other theory is true I don't think is
relevant and by the way you speak of
young children being punished for making
mistakes and you know being thwarted at
every step in elementary school and you
got to remember that there are children
who aren't put off who just sail through
all that despite being coerced and
forced to learn things that they bore
them and despite all that they go
through the same thing that everyone
else does to which you attribute the
fact that they're getting slower and
slower at learning and yet there are
some people who it doesn't affect or at
least it doesn't affect them in the
areas that they like so Mozart for
example was treated horribly as a child
forced to perform like a performing
monkey for audiences for money and so on
and yet he learned music better than
anyone else in the world in his day and
he continued to learn like we can see
that his works are getting better and
better over time before he died in his
30s whatever the relationship is between
external coercion and brain lack of
ficity and so on I think those are not
the important things peer pressure and
whatever the reason we should make
education more liberal is not that it
will create a lot of geniuses I me it
might for all I I mean as you know that
that's another that's another one of the
things I don't know it could do but
that's not the reason for doing it the
reason for doing it is that children are
people and some of the few handles we
have on making a society that is amable
to progress is making it Freer so we
should make it Freer for people who are
on their deathbed and are going to die
in the next day and it's not because we
think they might have a brilliant idea
during the next day it's because they
are people and have rights they have the
right to flourish in whatever way is
left open to them by the Grim forces of
nature or in the case of young children
whatever is made open to them by the
benevolent forces of nature that give
them plastic minds or whatever who knows
like another thing that just occurs to
me it's a mistake to think that if this
plasticity isn't being hijacked by some
education process that is not being used
it is being used I mean why would
Evolution like waste it it's being used
in a way that the individuals think will
be best for them of course their
conjectures about what is best for them
are going to be full of errors but so
are adults conjectures all our
conjectures are full of Errors making
institutions that tend to facilitate the
growth of knowledge is not the same in
fact it's the opposite it of making
institutions that produce people to a
predefined recipe as you've tweeted I
think Brett everybody who has an idea
that something or other is good they
express it in the form all children
should be forced to learn this thing if
you add up all those things it will take
several lifetimes yeah I find it
remarkable whatever the topic dour
happens to be you know we go through
these fads of well now let's Force
nutrition onto children that's extremely
social justice is one that's coming out
recently and almost every year there's
the history Wars it's like how what
version of History are we going to teach
yeah and nothing's ever taken away from
the curriculum really modified perhaps
but not eliminated then there are these
turf wars between certainly Nations
about who has the best mathematic
syllabus and that kind of thing I
suppose one thing that young people are
ever eager to do is to emulate people
they admire of course and so I think
there are a number of people out there
young who would admire especially
yourself and they would think I would
like to be able to do that thing I would
like to be able to contribute to that
thing what would be a way in which a
young person could pursue that you
wouldn't want to prescribe a syllabus
and you might very well just say just
pursue what's fun but is there anything
more concrete that you could hang on
that rather than just do what you like
almost yeah well do what you like it's
totally not helpful because the person
is already doing what they like unless
someone stopping them but there's also
nothing you can say if you know nothing
about their problem situation so there's
there's no generic thing you can advise
someone to do if you've watched a
documentary about Michael Faraday and
you think that's the kind of person I
want to be
well then okay that's a starting point
then we can talk about first the fact
that you can't reproduce Michael
Faraday's environment and you wouldn't
want to so you know what is it about
Michael Faraday okay well Michael
Faraday had a laboratory in the basement
of the Royal Institution and they would
fiddle around with electrical things
well okay that's a beginning but you
know you may not have enough money to
set up your own laboratory actually if
you're starting out fiddling with things
it doesn't really take money I'm
imagining a non-existent person here and
giving them advice I think that's all
right because I'm not going to harm
anybody but I would say if the
conversation went that way I would be
saying well there are lots of YouTube
videos showing people messing about with
the very things that you have just said
you like messing about okay so watch
those videos if there's something in a
video that you don't understand ask
somebody now that we have the Internet
it's particularly easy but even before
the internet you know there's Hugh
Everett wrote a letter to Einstein when
he was 12 years old and Einstein wrote a
very nice letter back and no doubt it
inspired Everett and you don't need the
full attention of Einstein throughout
your exploration of physics you only
need it when you encounter a problem
that is suitable for asking Einstein
which doesn't happen all that often but
when it does today it is far far easier
to ask the perfect person who is the
perfect person to answer your question
and people do that people write to me
asking questions and I try to answer as
many as I can as well as I can so the
more you interact with somebody the more
you can appreciate their problem
situation and the more you can say well
if I was in that problem situation I
would you know watch this or read this
or ask this person or sequester yourself
somewhere where you won't be disturbed
and try this
another question I had it seems like
your deeply optimistic Viewpoint about
children and people and minds and
freedom comes from the understanding
that we're Universal explainers and so
anyone is capable of any thought and any
amount of creativity this seems to fly a
little bit in the face of modern
Sciences finding in genetics and saying
that well genes seem to account for more
than nurture so to speak although in
this case we're not talking about nature
or nurture we're talking about
creativity versus nature so how much of
a person's thoughts and Destiny are
determined by nature versus their own
creativity and doesn't this fly in the
face of all these twin studies that show
that you separate these identical twins
at Birth and their outcomes are roughly
similar in life regardless of what
circumstances they grow up in oh well
that okay that's again more than one
question but let let me ask the second
one first now twin studies are only
persuasive if you already believe the
bucket theory of the mind or the the a
mechanical theory of how thinking works
so the idea is is the content of your
thoughts determined more by the content
of your
DNA or more by what people do to you
apart from harm that is done to you the
main content of your thought is created
by you why did you switch on the TV and
watch that documentary about
Faraday well who knows it's not encoded
in your DNA that you will on a
particular day watch a particular
documentary nor was it inculcated in you
by your environment by whether you were
allowed to eat ice cream whenever you
like or not it's an unpredictable
feature of your genes and environment
that end up at a certain place but then
the important thing that happens is that
you think about that and you create a
new thing and if you are inspired by
that documentary to try to be like
Faraday then it's not the documentary
that has done this to you the
documentary was seen by another million
people and it had no effect on any of
them or it had a different should we say
it had a different effect on all of them
the effect on you was created by you so
if you have this view of what human
thought is then it's totally
unsurprising that two people who look
alike but are educated by different
people in the same culture are going to
have similarities in their thoughts the
ones who never had a TV and never
watched a faraday documentary are going
to have different thoughts from the ones
who did or maybe not maybe it's the one
who didn't watch the TV documentary who
becomes interested in Faraday and if if
they're similar it's because people who
look alike are treated in a similar way
there's a sort of compulsion to deny
this among people who believe in nurture
rather than nature you know they they
say okay well how would it affect it I I
don't know but it's not surprising that
there are ways in which people who look
alike acquire similar attributes the
trivia way that you've pointed out
yourself when talking about this is if
you know the beautiful people the people
who appear on the front of magazines are
obviously going to be treated in a
certain way so if you have twins like
that you know these two model like
people they're going to be treated in
one way these other two twins that maybe
aren't quite so attractive they going to
be treated in a different way so that's
a trivial way in which that kind of
thing might happen and not only
appearance but Behavior so there are
inborn behaviors like babies smiling or
babies blinking or babies looking in a
certain way at a person doing a certain
thing or listening to a sound in a
certain way way and those initial
behaviors are changed by the baby in
solving their problems but also they are
noticed by adults in the environment who
are solving their problems and if they
see the baby doing something that they
approve of they will behave differently
to if they see the baby doing things
that they don't approve of or are
indifferent to or and if if they see a
thing that is really great or really
dangerous or you know really uh
something which is an inborn Behavior
they will behave differently
accordingly and this will create a new
problem situation for the baby I was
once having this very argument with
Michael Lockwood and uh he was saying
well if the baby has more hardware for
pattern matching than another you know
we have hardware for facial recognition
so maybe we have hardware for pattern
matching I don't know maybe we do and so
maybe a baby that has better hardware
for pattern matching will behave
differently when they get colored blocks
to put one on top of the other and so
maybe such a baby would be more likely
to become a mathematician than a baby
that hasn't got such good pattern
matching Hardware so I said yeah I can't
say that won't happen it's got nothing
to do with what we're arguing about but
it could happen but let me just point
out that what could also happen is that
the baby was better patent matching
Hardware who is more likely to play with
the wooden blocks is more likely to make
his parents worried that he's not
playing outside in the garden and
frolicking in the grass and so they if
they think he's autistic or something
and is too much attached to his blocks
they will try to make him go out and
play outside and so it's the one who's
Le has less pattern matching ability who
will as a result of his treatment end up
being a mathematician I was always not
forced but I was always harassed when I
was a kid to go out and play more and
stop reading because I was buried in
random useless magazines and books and
whatever happened to be lying around
said go outside go outside play with
your friends get some sun go out go out
um and I had the most horrible diet I
was basically just living indoors in the
dark and reading and eating the most
horrible things in the fridge when
nobody was
looking ah well I I can empathize with
all of that except the last thing you
know each to his own is is motto you're
a very rigorous thinker and I think
you're very careful in the claims that
you make but I wonder if you have
conjectures about things that don't
really have much basis and evidence at
the moment but it's just sort of like if
there were infinite David deutsches or
infinite time you would end up pursuing
these conjectures so I just love to you
know understand if you have any such
conjectures I know you're pursuing
Constructor Theory so maybe you're
already doing the one you really care
about but are there others so for
example Schrodinger had his is what is
life paper you know people have always
been wrestling with Consciousness that's
another one we talked about creativity
another one could be what direction
would you go in if you were trying to
build minds and silicon and AGI I'm
wondering if you have any fanciful
conjectures which we will disclaim as
saying no no there's no basis for this
or very little basis for this it is just
simply a creative spark that you would
pursue if you had more time and more
resources yeah there are many such
things as you know I think that AG when
it is attained will not be attained by
throwing masses of computer power at it
I think it will be able to use a to help
it just as humans do but my guess is if
I knew how I could write the program on
my computer today that would be an AGI
but I just don't know how but I do have
some wild ideas that you know probably
won't be true that if I had infinite
time I would be switching to Mathematica
and I'd be writing some of those PR
programs and see what happens and and S
of throw creativity at it rather than
throw computer power at it by the way
that that makes me rather wary of these
proposals to regulate AGI because if AGI
doesn't need actually all this huge
computer power then those regulations
would prevent me using my own computer
for the thing I want to work on and
that's one thing so with creativity I
think that the another of my wild ideas
is that that you could do much better at
automating music at making say new
Mozart things if you didn't insist that
they were like the old ones like you
know if if Mozart was alive his next
great work would not be within the space
that an AI can synthesize from all his
existing works it would be new in a
creative way so I would want to say make
a computer program the conjectures what
the problem situation is what is it that
Mozart was trying to do why is it that
he has this amazing ability to make a
tune that sort of meshes with all sorts
of other considerations and that ends up
working like if I try and say whistle a
tune with random notes or play random
notes on the piano I'm very quickly
going to get into a situation where I
can't go on because the next thing is
going to sound bad I mean there isn't in
order to make it sound good I'd have to
go back and change something earlier so
an AI trying to do this would be able to
do like chat GPT and go back earlier and
correct its theory of what it is about
the existing works that's good but I
don't want to write something that's
like that's good in the same sense as
the existing works I want to create a
new idea which probably you know if we
go back to the real case if Mozart wrote
something that people said wow you know
he's really excelled himself this time I
think the thing he produced would be
recognizably mozar but also recognizably
different and I think that's creativity
you know uh when Newton submitted his
solution of the bistone problem
anonymously one of those people just oh
well it's Newton you know we recognize
the lion by his claw well yeah you're
recognizing him by his claw but he's
produced a new proof that nobody had
ever seen before so another thing is I
think the pattern oh well before I say
the pattern as I say in my book I think
there's a tremendous amount of knowledge
of of History to be obtained by
historians if they focus on the history
of optimism I think you know historians
haven't had this concept so they haven't
like directed their attention I guess
that Florence and ancient Athens were
sort of powered by optimism but I you
know I I don't know much about history
and I also conjecture that there are
many other cases that are not as
spectacular that were also like that so
there's one final topic I been want to
discuss with you but I don't even have
it well formed but I'll throw out a few
boundaries around it you've studied
science and the world as much as you can
as much as any one person can but it
seems that there's a central mystery at
the heart of it all which is existence
itself and it that one seems almost
soluble Perhaps it is perhaps it's
soluble by constructive theory but most
people I think would say that there is
just a mystery of why is there anything
at all why do we even exist and then
there's some people who go down the
Consciousness route and say well it's a
Consciousness Centric view Consciousness
is all that exists there is a guy here
who lives in Oxford actually Rupert spir
who's gotten quite famous he's a global
speaker he's actually doing a tour in
the US right now and my wife actually
just went to yesterday while I was
talking to you she was talking to him
and he is one of these quote unquote
enlightened people where he is seen
through the falseness of the separate
self lives in Universal Consciousness
seems very happy all the time says that
we're all just part of God's being and
that science sort of misses the whole
point by exploring all the details but
they miss the central mystery of
Consciousness and awareness and should
realize that we are all one single
awareness as you've gotten along in life
have you developed any understandings
beliefs or thoughts how do you even
approach this topic or subject is it
interesting to you spirituality religion
your own Jewish History Science where do
these intersect what is all this stuff
in your view of the world well I think
it's important to give up on the idea of
ultimate explanation so often when
people say you know the mystery of
existence what is existence you know
what are we ultimately well if there was
such a thing as knowing what we are
ultimately then you'd have to stop after
that the further Delights from
understanding the world would be closed
to you because you'd know what your
ultimate purpose is however I think it's
totally untrue that science just looks
at the details science looks at the big
picture of every kind like science has
discovered what is life one day science
will discover what is consciousness and
people who think that Consciousness is
that you understand Consciousness when
you get into a certain state of mind
that makes you happy they are the ones
that are focusing on details and not
understanding the big picture not
understanding the context someone who
has understood this REM of that video
that feineman made about his art friend
who tells him he's missing what's
important about a flower and he's he's
basically says no I can appreciate the
flower as much as this guy but he can't
appreciate what I can appreciate and
that's a kind of false stereotype that
science only looks at detail or science
only looks at the mechanical or science
only looks at the meaningless things and
never gets around to looking at that the
meaning of things what they're really
pointing to is that science uncovers
problems as uh when it discovers
something new and just in in the big
picture we know a lot more about who and
what we are and why than we did 100
years ago and certainly than we did at
the time of the founding of the great
religions uh Judaism Christianity
Buddhism and so on they were hampered by
the fact that they didn't even know what
the sun is they were hampered by the
fact that they were confusing the world
with one planet and in fact
environmentalists today I just happened
to see yesterday that environmentalists
say that they they want to get in touch
with nature and by Nature they mean
certain certain regions on the surface
of one planet but nature doesn't know
about those prejudices nature exists on
all planets and the important thing
about this planet is us not the grass
and the fields so yeah there are many
mystical and religious World Views some
of them do capture something about the
human condition in that they can make
people happy at least you know in a
limited way they can make some people
people happy some of the time and you
know different religions can do this and
your Oxford friend may or may not think
that he has the same knowledge as the
people in the Bible Belt of the US who
sit around in a circle in sing Kum bayar
but they also smiling all the time and
they think that they've got it and he
thinks that he's got it and to some
extent they must have something because
they can make people happy but there's
this quote in one of the great chest
players of the early 20th century it
goes like this chess like music like
love has the power to make men happy
okay he's got a sliver of Truth there
there is an important truth in there but
he hasn't actually understood happiness
or men or how to achieve anything in in
the way of making men happy he's just
got a sliver of Truth and I don't think
the chess player thought of this as
being the truth but the kumbai our
people and maybe your person think that
they've got the truth the whole truth
the final truth about this and they
definitely haven't it's funny because on
air chat Brett and I were having the
conversation with some people there was
a critical rationalist Meetup and they
created an air chat group where they
wanted to talk critical rationalism and
I think both Brett and I were very
uncomfortable participating in any group
with a name just it sort of Sly felt
like now now there's the argument what
is a central dogma of this group lovely
people wonderful people need more of
them in the world but the problem is
that all free thinking comes from the
individual and the moment you make a
group then the the group has to have
agreements to stick together and the and
so group cohesiveness becomes the
overriding phenomenon rather than
looking for truth I couldn't agree more
well thank you so much David you've been
incredibly generous with your
time
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
ЗАПРЕЩЕННОЕ ИНТЕРВЬЮ бывшего ген Директора Google: «Вы даже не представляете, что вас ждет»
Подкаст #1 - Как избавиться от беспокойства в жизни и обрести внутреннюю опору. Дмитрий Мелешко
5 Новых Нейросетей Для Создания Вирусных Видео [2024]
GPT-4o - Безумные ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ уже сейчас. Исторический поворот от Open Ai
ДАНЯ КАШИН, DK INC, THE ANIMEBIT, LIL THE NEEL - КТО ЭТИ ЛЮДИ?
【北川さん登場】モウリーニョ解任でローマはどうなる!?
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)