Michael Levin | Bernardo Kastrup #3 - With Reality in Mind

This was an excerpt from a 5-week discussion series with Bernardo Kastrup & Michael Levin
To join the next edition please visit www.adventuresinawareness.com...
If you would like to support future content, contributions are greatly appreciated at:
Patreon: / adventuresinawareness
In the UK: pay.gocardless.com/AL00048KYK...
One-off PayPal donations: www.paypal.com/paypalme/adven...
Michael’s established work: drmichaellevin.org/
Michael’s more speculative work: thoughtforms.life/

[@hangbrand8199]

That’s why I love hearing Michael’s talk because every time he get to speak, it helps him clarify his work more and more. That’s why he is so humble

[@willywalter6366]

Revolutionary & Humble ❤ like always! The world once again on the eve of a massive paradigm shift - and this time it will hit humankind directly and massively - great stuff and I always wonder how many people are really prepared for the mental and physical implications out of this! We live in interesting times

[@Renvoxan]

Two GOATs 🐐 Let's goooooo 🫡

[@stevenpham6734]

Nah Bernardo ain't no goat (speaking as a former fan). He has an unique and compelling perspective, but in order to arrive to it, the science and philosophy had been bent too much by personal bias. Also, Kastrup is so convinced of his analytic idealism, he has become incapable of seeing other people's perspectives, often scientists who have much greater depth on many topics.

[@Renvoxan]

@@stevenpham6734 ngl, I like hands-on Levin more, but Bernardo offers interesting perspectives on consciousness and he is very well-read

[@abhi0227]

In the realm of philosophy or computer science, Bernardo is goat. If you notice, Michael doesn’t even try to pretend to challenge Bernardo in those areas. Whereas, Bernardo has the ability to challenge at a deeper scientific level than most philosophers are comfortable doing or even have the capacity to do. He was able to suggest ideas and collaborations for Michael to explore further. Which is I think the best thing he can do. I thought he was quite relaxed that Michael had different ideas to his. He could also sense the weightage that was given to Michael’s work and opinions in all of these talks. Yet he was there, didn’t disrupt and even helped give conversations some direction. Of course, he doesn’t agree with certain subtle aspects - but that’s totally fine, right?

[@olbluelips]

Love when Kastrup and Levin discuss, thanks for the upload

[@williamjmccartan8879]

43:36 I'm 100% on the same page as Mike as he lays out his interpretation of Bernardo's line of questions, thingness being a binary is a mental creation, stepping into the line of life you enter an exponentially explosive space that can't be thrown into any sort of a mental projection, and that is actually what makes life beautiful. 1:07:12 at this point I think Mike is talking about frequencies that create levels of cognition, which is a healthy perspective from my end. Bernardo is such a great foil for Michael to better explain his own thinking and providing thoughts levels of cognitive life. Thank you everyone for sharing your time and work, this was a great 3rd part in the conversation, peace

[@rooruffneck]

Yeah, so good to hear them finally speak to their differences. Currently, I don't think it is coherent to claim that a system/being can be in state this isn't conscious and isn't unconscious. I'm not talking about meta-consciousness (knowing that one is conscious). Even the simpleist, most basic and short-lived experience is an experience, no matter how simple or evanescent. In that tiny moment, there was something it was like to be that system.

[@Jhawk_2k]

I sorta hate that this thought appeared in my conscious experience, but Michael looks kinda like an older and much much wiser Mr. Beast

[@connorp5142]

That’s hilarious, I can definitely see it!

[@donfields1234]

😂 now we can't unsee it either 🤣

[@willywalter6366]

For me he always looked an older version of Luke Skywalker 🙈🤣

[@realcygnus]

Nice 2 hr ! 🍿Perhaps thE 2 most interesting cats out there today

[@adamr.9728]

I'd agree. Fascinating minds. Joscha Bach would be the third, for me.

[@beniscatus6321]

Bernardo didn’t pick up on this, but when Michael was talking about sense-making as the criterion for providing evolutionary perspectives, it occurred to me that this tied in really well with Bernardo’s dashboard metaphor - that evolution limits our perceptions of “what’s out there” to what makes sense to us.

[@adventuresinawareness]

nice observation, thanks

[@Pretaviana0137]

Amazing!! Thank you again. I hope to see this duo together more often!!!!!

[@adventuresinawareness]

us too!

[@Tino_Tino_Tino]

"I believe in gliders." Is a great T shirt

[@javadhashtroudian5740]

Wow! Thank you both. Absolutely brilliant.

[@patrickdelarosa7743]

I love this Bernardo/Michel conversations, always a bliss ❤

[@MattGray_Chelsoph]

Fantastic and hugely appreciated! Thank you.

[@clivejenkins4033]

Great discussion, I'm always interested when bernardo is talking and, indeed, Dr Levin

[@mp9810]

Awesome duo, please keep getting them together.

[@adventuresinawareness]

agreed!

[@OmriC]

Best thing that happened to me today

[@QDoppio]

Bless you

[@MindRiderFPV]

Great discussion!

[@TimCCambridge]

~ Hi. Great! Thanks for this.

[@johnwalker6042]

What Michael says about how what the caterpillar learned benefits the butterfly is analogous to what Rudolf Steiner said about how learning is translated to a new incarnation.

[@joeyrufo]

1:22:16 yes. You wring meaning from reality, then apply that meaning directly back on to reality

[@Raptorel]

I'm booking my next two hours and won't be disturbed 😃

[@realismschism]

Levin dropped a great recommendation in Richard Watson, which I hadn't heard before. Anyone listening should check out Watson's Songs of Life and Mind KZbin series, which builds on Levin's research. He's taking things to a whole other level.

[@oliviergoethals4137]

intuitive creativity combined! Also gravity is the observer.

[@clli9458]

wow!

[@TheMoopMonster]

Gravity is love.

[@joeyrufo]

No. You are your own observer and so is everyone else! We are the Watchmen who watch ourselves and the other people we need to watch!

[@phantomhawk01]

Good observations!

[@TheTheahart]

I can’t follow it all, but this discussion really captures my interest. I agree that nonbinary thinking is important in understanding experience.

[@adventuresinawareness]

Thank you! The earlier discussions are also on this channel, which might make this conversation easier to follow. With thanks 🙏

[@elizabethwinsor5140]

I would love to see what Mike would make of the DMT realm - new perspectives give insight and DMT allows you to step outside (briefly) the physical space and into a purely cognitive one of different dimensions. I know it's highly unlikely Mike will read this but I can't stress enough how truly breathe taking the exploration of these other cognitive worlds are .... some scientists have already been there so there is hope !

[@willywalter6366]

Great minds great discussion ❤- love it and very thankful for this! this is the way I imagine the discussion of Einstein and Born. wave of particle - pieces or phenomenon - who knows? We not 😂

[@adventuresinawareness]

Well said!

[@CrowMagnum]

A brain being an integrator of perspectives or subsuming the perspectives of the parts does not equal one perspective, it only suggests a role of a particular perspective. People need to let go of the idea of human consciousness being a top down control system and embrace the full spectrum of perspectives, perceptions, cognitions, and contextual awareness and responsiveness at play within themselves and the universe around them

[@Flowstatepaint]

Yayyayyaa!!!

[@nowenterpsie]

I love this conversation so much. Imagine if BIG MONEY was pumped into research by the likes of Levin, Kastrup, Tononi etc. That old saying about science becoming indistinguishable from magic comes to mind, but on steroids.

[@suhailski]

Life is all about searching and sorting.

[@missh1774]

Ding ding 🛎️ it's a bell.

[@joeyrufo]

1:16:00 this stuff about how the caterpillar metamorphoses into the butterfly is very apposite. I felt something like this happen with my own psychology over the past month :P

[@anthonylawrence5842]

Bernard Lonergen wrote "Insight a study of human understanding" in 1960 which could be of interest

[@pawelvono]

hey, ho let's go! ✌️😎

[@cryoshakespeare4465]

On the topic of IIT and whether components of a integrated frame of reference retain their own frame of reference, I agree with Miachel's dissatisfaction with the exclusion principle and his assertion that components do retain their frame of reference. I think Bernardo's view of conscious systems being dissociated alters of mind-at-large wouldn't be possible if the exclusion principle held, because unless we annihilate mind-at-large's frame of reference when we instantiate as individuals, we would be unable to exist as individual frames of reference within that greater system simultaneously with its own perspective-bound existence. It is possible if you take a kind of timeline-dependent solipsistic approach, where you say "I was mind-at-large conceiving the nascent system, and now I am that system conceiving mind-at-large", but that's only true now from the timeline established in your frame of reference. I would say it's more rational to consider all possible timelines having been instantiated by mind-at-large, which allows you to look at your current projection of mind-at-large and perceive that other frames of reference exist simultaneously with your own, at least in functional terms. But of course, that's also where I agree with Michael, the important part then about thinking about other frames of reference is whether it changes how we want to interact with them, whether we can empirically deduce that there is some kind of self-referencing model the system seems to tend towards. Because, absent any sufficient reason for mind-at-large to not create all possible frames of reference, I think it does, but relative to the frame of reference we have, not all possible frames of reference are going to be relevant as social agents who can interact with our model of ethics.

[@cryoshakespeare4465]

Also Michael bringing up the concept of paradoxes as oscillating truth values fills me with joy, this is I think a sound gateway into "why did mind-at-large create an alter in the first place?". The argument is as follows: A perspective, that contains all that is, references all possible perspectives within it. However, those possible perspectives themselves are defined by their lack of context of all possible perspectives, or of perspectives other than their own. This leads to a paradox, since that perspective that contains all that is must also try to logically contain perspectives which don't contain all that is, and it can't do so by merely having a reference to them, like a symbol of those perspectives, it must contain the actual perspectives as they are, which it cannot. That paradox itself, in this framework of paradoxes leading to oscillating truth values, leads to the local/perspective-bound oscillation of all possible perspectives. This conversation really keeps on giving, what a great pairing these two!

[@adventuresinawareness]

@@cryoshakespeare4465 great comments - thanks - I wish you had been at the live event!

[@cryoshakespeare4465]

@@adventuresinawareness Aw, thanks! I hope I can catch ones in the future! Appreciate your work a great deal, peace!

[@penguinista]

We are actually just a system with simple properties that seems to develop complex properties. We develop such complex properties that we have a hard time remembering that we are just a bunch of very simple rules piled on top of other simple rules and iterated extensively. Quarks make atoms, which make molecules, which make proteins and dna. It is all following simple rules.

[@JuanTrinidad-ow7nq]

The argument, what's it like to be a bat? This argument can be used in relations to your(Bernardo or Michael)'s perspective, by asking your turkey sandwich you had for lunch or the bacteria in your intestines. But you see minerals (non-living things) also play a role in the existance of living beings. So Michael can make that argument. A grain of Sodium (salt) can play a role in your perspective, if it is part of your human structure (Theseus ship argument).

[@anthonylawrence5842]

The Russians have done so much work in the area of biophysics. Gariaev, Kozyrev, Kaznacheev, Trofimov et al

[@adventuresinawareness]

thanks

[@user-km3mp7fe1h]

Pro. Rupert Sheldrake was been talking about this topic since the 1980s.

[@KineHjeldnes]

What was the name of the one that thought of liars paradox as harmonic oscillations? I have a hard time interpret the name Michael mentions.

[@KineHjeldnes]

I found it. patrick grim, maybe others also wanted to know.

[@Theodosia1]

Yeah, I’ll be on here hoping KZbin’s cc is good enough to get the names and concepts because my auditory processing skills are lacking.

[@alletklameista]

it takes a village - as above, so below

[@Meta4Monky]

Is abiogenesis synonymous with poking an egg with a needle. The egg being earth and the needle being collisions of complex molecules or something else?

[@adventuresinawareness]

I believe abiogenesis refers to the origin of life from non-living things

[@rooruffneck]

But, Levin, sensing your blood chemistry wouldn't be feeling the bloods so-called experience. Bernardo sometimes slides into talking as if the liver is having its own experience, but I think he actually believes that it would have its own experience if dissociated from the body in some fundamental way. Big difference. That said, Bernardo's model makes it clear that the liver would be a partial image of some aspect of our subjectivity. Again, very different than saying that the liver is having its own experience.

[@N0r8]

wow, stopped at 40:50 I think Michael said he is a materialist :D

[@TriggerIreland]

Is it the 'ofness' characteristic in consciousness that we read as point of view? When consciousness is operating it is conscious of else. Engineers might see this quality as point of view or perspective. It might also be something like caring. Time for a cup of tea.

[@chromakey84]

A thing is a noun

[@jj4cpw]

I never really understood what Levin was getting at, even in his prior exchanges with BK. After this, at least a part of ii is clearer. BK, as usual, is brilliant in dissecting it (though I wonder why it didn't happen in their earlier conversations). But, clearly, Levin's (radical, to me) perspective, so to speak, wasn't changed. Just have to wait for better proof, I guess.

[@joeyrufo]

1:23:37 no. There's no platonic realm. It's all real and it's all in your head. It's just organized differently inside your head, but it's all the same stuff going on :P

[@joeyrufo]

24:54 come on! that's exactly how your color vision works! Your visual system sorts different wavelengths of light into different colors! That's exactly how people without one sense make up for it with other senses!

[@duh_incredible_dolt]

✌️❤️

[@JuanTrinidad-ow7nq]

I don't like the analogy he always uses of a table because at some point it was alive(tree), this same analogy can take the form of a living human body and a dead one. I do believe that language is the barrier in this argument. Especially the use of nouns(things). All nouns are actually verbs in the process of becoming one form or another, as everything is made by waves. Particle waves can be described similar to electric current, a movement of energy. The decomposition of a wooden table or dead human body is in the process of becoming(the happening) whether it is ash or food for fungi.

[@KineHjeldnes]

bernardo talks about constructive proofs, not intuitionist logic :) And the law of the excluded middle can be used in constructive proofs, but you cannot start with something negated to prove its oposite - that's the problem Brouwer had with the axiom.

[@greensleeves7165]

Unless you are using a true random number generator, those 'algotypes' seeming to go round the 'barrier' etc are really just a mathematics operation performing entirely deterministically. There's no mystery there. It's just seeing gliders again. I'm not sure what Michael actually means when he says that he doesn't believe the question of consciousness is binary. If it isn't binary, then some named process X can have a vaguely formed sense of itself, which is proto-consciousness, which is Idealism in one form or another.

[@margrietoregan828]

48:18 because we don't have a well- behaved objective Criterium to say no no this is 48:24 a valid observing system and that is not or this is a thing and that is not it's 48:30 a projection it's an arbitrary way of us carving out the world it is not a thing 48:36 or to say um the zygote doesn't have a point of view but a grown human has 48:42 under my own view U ayot already has a point of view 48:48 because a point of view is what arises from dissociation if there is a dissociative process that dissociation52:47 but there is one exception to this there is one thing for which we have objective criteria to say these are things and 52:55 that's life because if you stick a needle on the arm of my chair I don't feel it but if you stick it on my arm I 53:01 do feel it so there is a clear boundary between what I do register and what I 53:07 don't register that boundary determines me as a real thing not as just a sort of 53:13 an arbitrary collection of pixels on the screen of of perception that we give a name to it's like say saying

[@teemukupiainen3684]

Lautzen Bauer?

[@N0r8]

Platonic space - Jung's archetype ?

[@N0r8]

yes I was right :"D

[@rooruffneck]

But when Levin says that maybe in a long time-frame even we will be seen as a blip. Okay. But this is how Levin argues against the idea of consciousenss either being there or not. However, even if there is a perspective in which my experience is just a blip, that doesn't at all change the fact that I'm experiencing. Same with a lady bug.

[@adventuresinawareness]

agreed - I think he was talking about whether we would perceive it from that time frame

[@rooruffneck]

@@adventuresinawareness And that's my point. An experience is an experience. If it happens it is by definition being experienced. We aren't talking about a meta-consciousness that turns back and says, "Oh, I'm noticing that i've had this experience". Much of what Levin says about consciousness seems to imply he can imagine it as a 'perspective' for which there is nothing it is like to be. It'll be really interesting to hear him unpack his notion of experience down the road. Right now, it seems that anywhere he can find goal-directed activity, he considers that a 'perspective' and he is somewhat comfortable equating perspectives with consciousness, even if that means there can be un-experienced perspectives. Illusionists and eliminativists certainly speak in those terms. This was a great conversation. I'm so glad that we finally got to hear Bernardo push back against having undefined notions of 'things.' That seems to be THE key issue in terms of grappling with whether our AI programs are becoming conscious.

[@joeyrufo]

59:01 this is called a dialectic! Thesis, antithesis, synthesis! Even Hegel knew this sh*t! :P

[@joeyrufo]

Yes! The combination of the sperm and the egg into the zygote is literally dialectical materialism in biological form!

[@mitcholson2273]

Kastrup can't see past his ideas about what reality is to get a better grasp of what it actually is. A mismatch. Michael Levin is in another class.

[@clivejenkins4033]

I think you are wrong

[@mitcholson2273]

@@clivejenkins4033probably

[@bigron7009]

What is a thing? Its a noun

[@margrietoregan828]

38:25 I'll kind of emphasize the part that we completely agree on my my point about the language models was not that I think 38:31 that they have and I don't use the word cience much myself but but the kind of sensient that that people often 38:37 attribute to them I mean I I I don't think they have it but but I think I think the the kind of the fundamental 38:44 thing where um that drives our our our viewpoints here is that uh or the difference in our viewpoints is that I 38:51 don't really believe in a binary distinction between yes they have it or no they don't have it right I I think 38:57 it's a deep spectrum and I think that what's really interesting and important about the universe is uh that it's full 39:05 of what what I what I what I really think is is sort of um uh competing and and and acting in the universe is is 39:11 perspectives frames of reference and the and and you know I think very simple 39:16 systems can have a perspective I think it makes sense it it could be it could 39:21 be extremely tiny I don't you know I I just I don't like the the binary trying 39:27 to classify systems that okay this is this this really has an inner point of view and this absolutely does not I I I 39:34 think it's a Continuum and I think the question is uh how much you you know how much uh utility do you get from taking 39:40 the perspective of some other some other system and some of them are truly minimal I I I don't you know these 39:45 things that we're talking about now I don't think they're metacognitive I don't think anything like a like a human but I do think that there's a sense of a 39:52 nano um you know a set of a sense of a kind of a a a nano go directedness that 39:59 we can that we can have and and the problem is the problem is is that if we don't believe that's true then we're 40:06 going to have a real uh difficulty saying why it is that humans or whatever else that you want to extend it to why 40:13 they have it too right because we all Start Life as a single cell and somehow you have to get to the point where0:26 real metacognitive um wants and goals and things like that and I'm not saying there isn't a difference between those 40:31 two cases there certainly is but the hard part is is explaining that smooth transition you know and this is yeah 40:38 this is this is what we work45:11 and inevitably you're going to tell AG gental stories about uh uh agents doing things and so I think this is this is 45:18 universal and I think that the universe is basically a uh a giant set of 45:25 competing and and and Co operating perspectives and it isn't just us when we say us it's it's everything is is has 45:32 some degree of inner perspective on the outside world and if you're a rock that inner perspective is infinitism we can 45:38 argue about whether it's zero but uh anything above that is going to and and 45:43 life is very good at scaling up these these these perspectives and and and detecting agency and so on um is going 45:49 to have uh these kind of perspectives and so so that's that's that's my move I think that I think that we really need

[@stephengee4182]

Life uses conscious agency to execute movements allowing itself to maintain free will negative entropy over environmental ambient temperatures.

[@woodcutterdave7835]

Universal intelligence vs elementals

[@rooruffneck]

Somebody help me understand what it would mean for a system to have a perspective but no experience.

[@huntertony56]

Green vs. green leaf.

[@ruinner]

Your immune system at birth has perspective but no experience.

[@rooruffneck]

@@ruinner In that case, I'm happy to say that the rock I stop on has perspective but no experience. Fine. Then we are simply changing the definition of 'perspective'. That's okay. But, if we do that, then we need to distingish the new definition from what people typically mean. Heck, some painting undoubtedly have perspective.

[@N0r8]

We just missing Swami with Adavaita Vedanta point of view:D

[@adventuresinawareness]

this is happening! inzicht.org/event/swami-sarvapriyananda-bernardo-kastrup/

[@donfields1234]

I have the hardest time listening to Bernardo speak about most anything. Of course that is some "fault" of mine but I could listen to Micheal all day yet a moment of Bernardo speaking just makes me physically ill. They are both geniuses in their own rite and I am an aerospace engineering student and fellow nerd dweeb guy yet I "cannot for the life of me" stomach just listening to Bernardo speak. It's not what he says either it's how he says it, no matter the topic and no matter it be him speaking on his own or in some conversation/interview/open forum chat I always get the 🤢 result...which is a bummer for me. I know I am missing much of what Bernardo is getting at from this almost pre-repulsion in how he constructs his words/language is all. Really I have no reason to even write this but I felt obligated to subconsciously or not. There I said it, go Micheal and go Bernardo your both doing excellent work. Sorry Bernardo but I guess it's just one less "follower" among many millions so it is of little consequence ... I wrote this mostly for myself and I suppose to see if anyone else has a similar challenge. I feel like I am missing out on an amazing class due to the color of the paint on the wall or something. Lol. Yes I am a goofball also.

[@tiesergrote]

I have to agree with Bernardo that Michael at times, just through his choice of words, seems to inject notions of intentionality where they are not warranted.

[@N0r8]

I like how both call God a fundamental field , hahah :D

[@clli9458]

this is it, everyone can fill in the blank for their understanding!

[@joeyrufo]

51:40 subjectivity kind of emerges, doesn't it? It kinda evolves, yeah? An adult has more subjectivity than a zygote!

[@gireeshneroth7127]

Answer lies with the mind. It's a mind thing, not a real thing. No mind no thing.

[@N0r8]

53:50 Michael will quit science in a moment:D

[@Planturs]

turns the bat knob.. I AM BATMAN

[@adventuresinawareness]

exactly

[@user-gp1zy3up7y]

pranic energy is the life of creatures; for that is said to be the universal principle of Life. "Taittriya Upanishad"

[@N0r8]

1:07:00 When you become a bat!!

[@suzettedarrow8739]

W all due respect, I believe Dr. Levin is actually lying about his sorting algorithms.

[@suzettedarrow8739]

If Dr. Levin truly “put algorithms inside of cells”, then those cells won’t do anything other than performing the algorithm. Unless the algorithm includes some procedure for delaying gratification, the cells that have algorithms inside them will never, ever perform delayed gratification. Dr. Levin said 2 things: “the algorithm doesn’t contain any instruction for delaying gratification” & “the cells displayed delayed gratification.” Dr. Levin is therefore either incorrect or deceiving us.

[@shawnvandever3917]

Kastrup is wrong that he knows exactly how AI works. It has too many complexities. If they knew precisely how they work alignment would not be an issue and they could predict all capabilities before training .

[@clivejenkins4033]

Kastup is right, you, are wrong

[@shawnvandever3917]

@@clivejenkins4033 I literally laid out why what he said is BS and still you missed it🤦

[@clivejenkins4033]

You entitled to your personal opinion like everyone else but you shouldn't insult people because you think you know better

[@shawnvandever3917]

@@clivejenkins4033 No I stated an objective fact. If he knows how the system works like he claims then he should have no issue solving alignment. If he understands the system as he says then he can predict the properties of the next big training runs. He is the one throwing out baseless opinions.

[@clivejenkins4033]

PHD computer engineering, I think he knows what he is talking about

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

Dude is a iitheorist?? Levin is on the wrong way

[@RogueElement.]

What experiments are YOU doing to say that? 😂

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

these guys are so clueless......... everything is a thing. nothing is a thing. totality is the category of {nothing + something}

[@wanda12246]

Bernardo Kastrup just waste his time with this Levin guy.

[@clivejenkins4033]

Yes I totally agree

[@JuanTrinidad-ow7nq]

The argument, what's it like to be a bat? This argument can be used in relations to your(Bernardo or Michael)'s perspective, by asking your turkey sandwich you had for lunch or the bacteria in your intestines. But you see minerals (non-living things) also play a role in the existance of living beings. So Michael can make that argument. A grain of Sodium (salt) can play a role in your perspective, if it is part of your human structure (Theseus ship argument).