The Deutsch Files III

Summary

В 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

00:00

🤔 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.

05:01

🏙️ 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.

10:03

🌟 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.

15:06

🧬 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.

20:07

🧠 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.

25:09

🌐 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.

30:09

💭 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.

35:10

🌌 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.

Keywords

💡Summarizing complex ideas

The process of condensing intricate concepts or theories into simpler, more understandable forms. In the video, the speaker discusses the difficulty of explaining complex ideas without being misunderstood, emphasizing the challenge of conveying intricate thoughts in a way that is easily grasped by others.

💡Misunderstandings

The video highlights the common occurrence of misunderstandings when discussing complex topics, especially on social media platforms like Twitter. Misunderstandings can stem from the oversimplification of ideas or the lack of context in which they are presented.

💡Proof and conjecture

The distinction between 'proof' as a term used in mathematics and physics, where it signifies an established and undeniable truth, and 'conjecture' which refers to a hypothesis or a proposed explanation yet to be proven. The speaker clarifies that in fields like artificial general intelligence (AGI), where no comprehensive theory exists, proving something definitively is not possible.

💡Concentric circles of understanding

This concept refers to the varying levels of comprehension that different individuals have regarding a particular idea or worldview. As people engage with and attempt to understand complex ideas, their levels of understanding expand outward like concentric circles, with some closer to the core having a deeper grasp of the subject.

💡Creativity

The ability to generate new ideas, concepts, or solutions that are both original and valuable. In the context of the video, creativity is discussed as a complex and not fully understood phenomenon that is distinct from mere observation, induction, or algorithmic processes.

💡Free will

The philosophical concept of the ability to make choices that are genuinely one's own. In the video, the speaker suggests a connection between creativity and free will, positing that the unknown origins of creativity imply a degree of freedom in operation.

💡Quantum theory and Turing conjecture

Quantum theory is a fundamental theory in physics describing the behavior of matter and energy at atomic and subatomic scales. The Turing conjecture, in computer science, is a hypothesis about the limits of what can be computed. The speaker mentions a connection between these two fields, suggesting that if quantum theory is true, then the Turing conjecture is also true, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of scientific inquiry.

💡Necessity and truth in mathematics

In mathematics, a necessary truth is a statement that must be true under all circumstances. The speaker discusses the nature of mathematical knowledge as being about necessary truths, contrasting this with other fields where knowledge may be more contingent or provisional.

💡Explanatory knowledge

Knowledge that provides a reason or explanation for a phenomenon, as opposed to mere description or correlation. The speaker argues that explanatory knowledge allows for leaps in understanding and the ability to connect ideas or states in ways that are not immediately apparent.

💡Evolution and creativity

The process by which species change over time through genetic variation and natural selection, and the application of this concept to the discussion of creativity. The speaker uses the analogy of evolution to explain the emergence of new ideas and the development of human creativity.

💡Resilience of knowledge

The concept that knowledge, especially when it is laden with information, has a durability and longevity that surpasses physical objects. The speaker posits that knowledge can outlive the most enduring physical entities in the cosmos, emphasizing the power and longevity of human ideas and discoveries.

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