Marvin Minsky - Are There Things Not Material?

Is the natural, material, physical world all there is? Or is there something more-a supernatural, nonmaterial, nonphysical existence?
Click here for more interviews on immaterial things bit.ly/1nwieK3
Click here for more interviews with Marvin Minsky bit.ly/1PAAiP4
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com

[@MrSidney9]

I am mind-bent. Whether he's right or not he's definitely extended my way of thinking.

[@h.astley2113]

‘What do your philosopher friends say?’ 😂😎

[@djacob7]

Marvin would never drown. All he'd have to do is talk.

[@kipp0man]

A brilliant mind, much missed, even watching this video, I'm surprised by the eloquent ideas he seems so naturally to put forward. So I watch it three of four times more, eventually feel I comprehend it, and realize it was so simple in the first place, so I remember again how insightful he was.

[@AmeerFazal]

And also how good he is at expressing those ideas so easily in the spoken version of English language.

[@Human_Evolution-]

I'm on round 3. Still fascinating. I love his deflation area ideas of Truth. Ironically I think they are pragmatic lol.

[@elmastoras1]

Brilliant as always!

[@gepmrk]

I think you should try and fix the audio to these interviews. It's barely audible.

[@cremasca]

Modal Realism at it’s best. Great video!

[@AlexanderBollbach]

relativity is an example of word length. i love it!

[@ambrishjaiswal1286]

Marvin is a real scientist. But sad we have so short lives.

[@AlchemistOfNirnroot]

Life is pretty long tbh. Understand your sentiment though.

[@h.astley2113]

This guy was brilliant, how did I not know?

[@alexvandenbroek5587]

If we are simulated, it still means we exist, even in base reality. Our simulated worlds are programs of code, ultimately binary code of 1s and 0s, which has an existence in terms of voltages. Even a simulation within a simulation has to exist in base reality in some sense like this. It just comes down to your definition of conscious and world

[@ljuhan2]

of course. His claim that we may not even exist is just pure nonsense. Even if we are merely parts of a simulation, we can be certain that we exist, though we might be deluded about our nature.

[@MrSidney9]

My Take: You could be a program ( a logical sequence) running on a computer; you could be a program that a programmer is thinking about or you could be simply be one possible logical sequence. These three processes are on equal footing as they're indistinguishable from each other from your point of you and you couldn't justify the claim that one is better than the other. What is common between these processes is that they're possible. Saying that one is real and not the other is meaningless as it presumes that one is better that the other.

[@myothersoul1953]

One is better than the others in that one is a much simpler explanation.

[@MrSidney9]

@@myothersoul1953 You run into problems when you try to define simple. A logical possibility seems to me the simplest.

[@myothersoul1953]

@@MrSidney9 No, that I exist as a physical thing is much simpler than I exist and a simulation of a physical thing because it' doesn't contain the simulation part.

[@Benjamin93swe1]

@@myothersoul1953 You clearly did not get it. there is no neeed for any simulation. you only need the internal logic, which consits of relations between structures/math to specify you. there is no need to "simulate" anything really.

[@myothersoul1953]

@@Benjamin93swe1 I never said there is a need for a simulation. It's not something I believe. The simulation hypothesis is not a hypothesis I accept.

[@whatthefunction9140]

I think therefor I am.

[@kingsandassociates7176]

I understand the principal, this is like free will with parameters.....so I'm free to choose only between a set of options which are pre-established. However what this theory does rule out is infinity....and arguably not just in reality but also conceptually.

[@PunjabiPlayboy]

RIP

[@charlesbrightman4237]

There are things we call "concepts" that we give names to, even what we call "concepts". What if our basic knowledge and understanding was flawed of what a concept really is? How would we ever know? To us it would still be defined as a concept. But, what if there is more to "concepts" than we can even perceive? " " = a concept (whatever is inside the quotation marks), that we give a name to, and usually a meaning attached to that name and concept so we can deal with perceived reality that we appear to be in.

[@tsuich00i]

+Charles Brightman If it's logically consistent it exists insofar as we do. it may not reflect on the true nature of reality, but it true for us, in the way that we work, and that is enough.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

+tsuich00i And then we apparently die and not remember any of it.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

+Locarith Thanks for the added info. Of which, to answer the question posed by this video , "Are there things not material?", the answer would appear to be "yes". "Information" is not material, so right there it would seem answers the question. I believe there are other things too like pure energy that are not material.

[@0cireeric0]

Try CC

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

My #1 question, before watching, is... what IS "material"? Try to look for "material" in molecules and atoms...

[@jean-pierredevent970]

I like the game "Njam" and have also already been thinking that luckily the monsters aren't really evil intelligence's..or else they would hunt me down in seconds.

[@steeneugenpoulsen8174]

I don't get the blurry start of Closer To Truth as someone with glasses it's really unpleasant as my eyes try to look harder to make it come into focus. When I remember it, I usually click start video and quickly click on another window, so I wont see the first few seconds. but that is really annoying extra step to take just because I was born this way.

[@SuperMaDBrothers]

8:58 how do you prove this??

[@James-mk8jp]

Marvin said it would be hard to imagine mathematical ideas being false in a universe that supports numbers and addition as we see it - but spiritual people (and potentially other “realities”) may see their universe as one whole, not a collection of countable items that can be added and subtracted. You don’t think about math if you are just being blasted with one mega-sensation.

[@vladimir0700]

For an MIT professor Minsky was surprisingly simple minded

[@LucBoeren]

Care to elaborate?

[@Fx_-]

Well he was a reductionist no? Oh wait... he did criticize physicists and neurologists for maybe getting stuck because of trying to explain the brain from its fundamental components instead the higher structures. Much how you would not be able to explain exactly how a computer works just by looking at all its parts. So i guess it depends in what direct you are reducing lol, bottom up or top down. 😉

[@vladimir0700]

@@LucBoeren I guess you failed to actually listen to him in the video

[@LucBoeren]

@@vladimir0700 That’s an attempt at an insult more than elaborating on your idea that dr. Minsky was simpleminded. I simply have a very poor reference frame for him and MIT, hence my question

[@jonanderson7549]

It's actually the red ghost who chases you in Pac-Man, not the pink one! The pink and blue ghosts both are a little more idiosyncratic... They both try to position themselves in front of Pac-Man's mouth. The orange one is almost random, but not quite--it will tend to run away when it gets too close.

[@coolcat23]

There is actually a bug in the ghost routine for Pinky and Inky. It was discovered before release but it was thought to make the ghost behaviour more interesting and was hence left in.

[@vikingjanch]

Yes but there is no reason to believe the simulations in computers have consciousness. Consciousness and how it arises from the physical in the known world is an irreducible mystery, however much neuroscientists brush the question under the carpet. Mystical language and imagery seems to have the best traction on the issue.

[@rekdinhopoetico]

Marvin foi um gênio, porém, muito otimista com relação àquilo que se pode fazer no seio de A. I. Agora, a respeito de certas hipóteses sobre a 'realidade', muitas não fazem sentido e outras não têm valor epistemológico. Cito uma: suponha (à Russell e Descartes) que o mundo como o conhecemos exista há 5 minutos e tudo que sabemos foi colocado em nossas mentes por uma espécie de gênio maligno e que, na realidade, tudo seja uma ilusão. No Filme Blade Runner, e.g., aquela secretária interpretada pela Sean Young tinha as suas memórias implantadas. No caso da hipótese do gênio maligno, apesar de eu não poder contestá-la por meios lógicos, ela não tem valor epistemológico e outras hipóteses poderiam ser elaboradas, como supor que o mundo como o conhecemos nada mais é que o resultado de uma descrição complexa de um super computador. Isso não tem valor epistemológico, não amplia o nosso conhecimento de mundo nem serve como uma hipótese útil de trabalho para nada. Não tem valor filosófico...é firula discursiva, nada mais. Pode servir para filmes como o Matrix.

[@Domispitaletti]

"Teoria" da simulacao nao é Ciencia. É Filosofia.

[@patoaplastao7126]

Sean Young es el personaje que experimenta las emociones más humanas, los 'humanos' ya hemos perdido la capacidad de expresarnos y sólo nos queda la empatía. Por eso el destino de un humano es amar a un androide, y el de un androide ser amado por un humano.

[@Theunknowndoodlebop]

i didn't hear a word he said. i was too busy watching his hands move

[@iBMcFly]

Don’t blame the irregularities on anything other than the physics and relativity theories….

[@maspoetry1]

would be nice to remove any images but the hands. Listen to voices and see hand movements.

[@colinmaharaj]

:O I have a shirt like what Marvin is wearing. And it is also big for me.

[@JRodAllen]

If you were in a simulation how could you know you were in one

[@chrisc1257]

that's easy.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

"Are there things not material?" Yes. Pure energy itself for one. For example, modern science says a singular mass banged which went on to create the laws of nature, matter, and everything in this universe. Going backwards in the analysis, (understanding things like E=mc^2 and E=hf, whereby "energy" exists), before the laws of nature and matter even came into existence, what else was there that banged but energy? Pure energy exists and yet it is apparently not material.

[@yearningthevoid]

Why wouldn't energy be material (physical)?

[@Jalcolm1]

He has lived long enough to be unimpressed by the human brain. He acknowledges its utility but insists that it often asks the wrong questions. If how existent you are depends on what you can do, he seems to suggest that humans overestimate the power of their brains. Certainly the hand is a much more useful tool.

[@SeanMauer]

If the genesis of the universe doesn't take a God, then why does a computer take a human?

[@PhilHibbs]

+SeanMauer Brains are computers, and brains were not created by humans, therefore your question is invalid. Also I'm fairly confident that there are aliens out there somewhere that have also invented computers. I'm sure that after we wipe ourselves out, another species will come along that will evolve intelligence and will invent something that we would recognize as a computer. We invented computers. To ask, "why did this need us to invent it" is a rather pointless statement. Why does this post take me to write it?

[@JohnForbes]

+SeanMauer If something can exist it does exist. We are here because we are possible and the universe exists because it is possible. The only restriction on what is possible is logical consistency; and it is logical consistency that gives rise to causality and the connectedness of everything through time, space and other dimensions. To me it seems, all events and things are consistent with this theory. It doesn't take a god to make a universe anymore than a god is required to create the number 3. The number 3 exists, and it exists beyond space or time as a logically consistent thing. It simply exists, because it can.

[@lordjavathe3rd]

+John Forbes I agree with your answer. What is possible depends on the complexity of the foundation or base from which further reality extends. It brings to mind the question of from where do basic laws exist which constrain how simple a universe can be which limits possible realities. Or simply put, can anything exist or is there a limitation via "logical consistency" which says via its self how complex something must be for it to create a reality. Or put another way, is the only thing that exists the universe that we experience because it's the only universe that can pass the "logical consistency" test?

[@krustykraken9331]

+SeanMauer Technically, it doesn't. But if a structure is composed of small repeating systems at every scale it's easier for unguided changes by nature to affect the entire product in a consistent manner, which is more likely to be stable and continue rather than stop. Like if you changed the shape of a brick in a house, you could change the shape of all the bricks. For us, that happens in DNA and Cells. But in a real house, humans construct the house which is a much more complicated cause than a free electron switching out a few pairs of DNA.

[@lordjavathe3rd]

+SeanMauer When people say that we as humans don't understand what happened before the big bang, they mean that it's mind blindingly difficult to comprehend. God is easy to understand, the genesis of the universe is not.

[@mindofmayhem.]

Are There Things Not Material? Dumbest question I've ever heard. Simply thinking about the question gives you the answer.

[@magicw7338]

I presume you don't think there are things not material, I agree. Find rules confusing though, are they processes, they seem to prior to processes. There is a difference between saying everything supervenes on material and everything is material.

[@hanskraut2018]

they are not immaterial they are pixels that ilogical people give the attributa "immaterial"

[@noyb154]

simulations exist. he didn't answer the question. the answer is "it depends on you definitions". that's philosophy. it's rigorous. handy wavy sophist.

[@johnraba8669]

He is an IT guy. How is he qualified as any kind of expert.

[@chrisc1257]

you must be 2 years old.

[@lordjavathe3rd]

Marvin was such a troll.

[@7amanito]

It's either that this dude is nuts, or I'm stupid..

[@lordjavathe3rd]

+7amanito He's saying that there is no god that created reality, no initial cause which started the universe, because there was nothing to start it in the beginning. So if nothing is required to start reality, then all realities exist even if nothing started them.

[@MrSidney9]

You're not stupid, but compared to him, most of us are.

[@DeependraTube]

@@MrSidney9 good.....👏👏

[@BiophysicalChemist]

Minsky was always pleasant to listen to and had a simple way with words. Too bad he never had any intelligent ideas worth talking about.

[@thetruth45678]

So... to get around the problems associated with the universe being simulated, rather than being absolute, you were willing to believe that the universe isn't even realized, only imagined? So.. who's imagining it, and where did THEY come from??? Oh, and just because the computer program isn't running a simulation, the programmer's mind IS, just non-perfectly, or not in its completeness, so it is, at best, a flawed and faded reflection of a simulation, and not even a whole and coherent universe. This was your ideal explanation of reality? The brain-fart of a lazy programmer? Really? REALLY?? And you called yourself an educated man? I'd say R.I.P., but It would be a lie.

[@DeependraTube]

do u even know who is he ??👨

[@joeruf6526]

Mindy's over the hill. This conversation certainly brings us further from truth.

[@joeruf6526]

***** No. You like Minksy start from false premises which is why no one does MInksy AI anymore or what the nerds who work in that field call "GOFAI"

[@joeruf6526]

***** It was when it came to mechanics but he then went off, given the way he writes and speaks I'm assuming it's ego, on ridiculous word games and, due to his inability to concede, he still hasn't, he sent AI back decades. He can't use words like "thought" his explanation of "consciousness" is absurd (which is too bad because it too is useful when used in a different way. It's sad you can use his research but have to dismiss his language and philosophical outlook). He doesn't understand the brain or how the brain does things (his input output framework belongs in the 18th century). He doesn't understand that when variability is not debris but actually the system that one must deal with it. This tends to cause old timers distress because they think it isn't science but everyone under 50 understands that it absolutely is.

[@joeruf6526]

***** I hope you're right but don't think so. Sadly there is much ego in founders. Even Einstein stifled early quantum mechanics even tho the new things questioning his picture spawned from his original insight. Wouldn't it be nice if scientist shared a love of common language? It's just confuses things when everyone is using the same words to define different things and when it comes to words like "intelligence" and "consciousness" one can imagine the possibillities. Then again perhaps we should allow founders to die with their egos. It isn't like they have looks or personalities going for them. It just stinks because people who are just curious end up confused.

[@yearningthevoid]

Why is his "explanation" of consciousness "absurd"? Are you in possession of some hidden knowledge?