The Deutsch Files II

[@blueskies1237]

Who else is a random person sipping on coffee at 7 in the morning listening to this?

[@solomondavid9811]

This is the coffee

[@El_Diablo_12]

Good man/woman for waking up early

[@visavou]

Oh yes

[@rigaleb]

make it 6.00 am

[@cbskwkdnslwhanznamdm2849]

I’m having coffee at that time while listening to this. But I’m not random!

[@codegallant]

The amount of happiness i just got by the notification and seeing a new upload of Deutch Files!

[@vimal-cliobconsulting]

It doesn't take years!

[@papaforpopper11]

whenever i’m completely outweighed by my problems, i come here to rejuvenate

[@ethiesm1]

So True

[@papaforpopper11]

when i’m sad, i just come on here binge david and feel good again

[@ethiesm1]

Weird but True

[@tylerhartnell492]

This has to be the greatest podcast series to date

[@teleologist]

This should be taught in high-school to every kid, beautiful.

[@ladok1865]

Pleasure to hear you Naval! Please never stop.

[@DanielZajic]

These discussions were so so so good. Who is the interviewer? What an incredible job, to be able to stay at David's level and restate his thoughts in a new but still correct way.

[@El_Diablo_12]

19:40 why there’s a mystery at the heart of Evolution 55:50 we’ve maybe just caught up in order of magnitude of knowledge from evolution 1:08:00 techno optimism/ e-acc vs Deutsch’s ideas 1:13:00 danger of moving against the grain of your own problem situation

[@suryasai5120]

"Solve problems that are fun to you"

[@AkhonaNzamaa]

"the growth of knowledge begins with problems👏"

[@guidobellberg2294]

Dear Naval, thanks for presenting this brilliant conversation to us, it is much apprecciated. The only point I repeatedly don't find quite convincing is Deutsch's assumptions on free will. As a non-native speaker, I might get this wrong, so I like to take a very simple approach: If you claim that there is free will, you will have to prove it somehow (the same with "gods", an after-live an other wild ideas etc.). Since we and our brains are physical entities, free will has to be a "physical thing" (otherwise we might as well talk about unicorns), something that happens in the real world. The universe as I understand it, is deterministic (classical physics, Einstein) plus some true randomness on the quantum level ("Quantensprung"). But neither determinism nor pure chance really leave room for free will. What Deutsch says about Einstein having the idea of relativity doesn't prove free will or at least make it more plausible. For me it doesn't even seems to be really connected. You can explain all that without having to invent a free will. Einstein being who he was, having led the life that he had (all of which determined his path to this idea or maybe that was sparked by quantum randomness, either way no free will needed), being quasi-triggered into thinking about the perceived problem (again, deterministic) and so on. And yes, "creativity" is just another one of there terms that don't really make sense and almost never are necessary in a philosophical discussion (I work as a "creative" by the way …). On a psychological level the idea of free will just seems to be our egos wanting to feel important. Naturally, if someone tomorrow finds a free will meachnism of some sorts, I'll gladly change my mind. Again, thank you very much.

[@XEvraai]

🙏🏼

[@henryayanna9401]

Implicit in your critique is the notion that human being is entirely the result of physical processes. But we understand that there are general laws by which we can predict the observable activity of the physical universe. How can we account for the existence of metaphysical laws without opening the door to the existence of proto-material forms? How can something purely physical observe itself metaphysically? Stating that physical properties inherently allow for metaphysical observation seems to be a recursive loop. How does a constellation of matter and energy come to understand its own form and the context within which the form exists? I think it is a shaky leap of faith to suggest that a purely material universe allows for comprehension of itself. It is within this proto-material domain, whether or not it exists, that I believe a credible discussion of the existence of free will can be had.

[@BernieOfOslo]

Great comment, and I think you're right in some sense. I'm more in line with your conclusion (for now), but I don't think Deutsch ever meant to say that free will necessarily exists. He just doesn't see it as an absolute certainty. He emphasizes the need for an open-minded exploration of the nature of consciousness and its potential implications. His point, as I understand it, is that while the laws of physics may appear deterministic and apply to the physical world, there is a possibility that the nature of consciousness and decision-making may involve phenomena that are not fully explained by these laws. Just as the behavior of the quantum world can be different from classical physics, he suggests that the workings of the human mind might involve complexities that we have yet to fully comprehend. The example with Einstein is intended to illustrate that there are aspects of creativity and human thought that might not fit neatly into deterministic or purely random models. The multiverse concept isn't a solution to the free will dilemma but an example to illustrate that Newtonian mechanics doesn't inherently conflict with the concept of free will. The existence of free will isn't negated by physics - it's a misinterpretation of physics to conclude that free will is an illusion just because it can't be deduced from first principles. The view that you can equate human behavior solely to atomic interactions is flawed and has implications for theories in other fields, such as morality, leading to misguided policies and philosophical stances.

[@enjoythejourney5943]

Follow your own version of Fun, your intuition & gut and in the meantime you may end up solving the greatest problems of the world unknowingly as a byproduct.

[@journeytothevoid2899]

20:30 The problem in these ecosystems is that you need fluctuations in the error of the organism and the ecosystems. This allows for natural order and chaos to play out

[@craigsips8677]

Around 8 mins in we are pondering the question of wether we should trust our senses. You don’t see the world, you perceive the world and that perception is made up of 1/ a montage of your previous memories and 2/procedures formed from your ancestors memories and experiences. That’s why people are always disagreeing about what they are witnessing, it’s because we are perceiving a montage of our previous memories triggered by our senses. Different memories form different perceptions. That’s why babies can’t see for weeks, the eyes are mapping the world and only when they have banked enough memory will they be able to cobble together their first perceptions. You ever watch a movie and ten years later you see it again but it’s a different film? That’s because it is a different film. You don’t see the film, the film activates your senses that through association that forms a montage of memories that you think is ‘see’. It’s a different film because it’s a different you, a you with ten years more memories hence ten years more perception.

[@bradyprice4001]

My capacity to process these ideas is too limited. By the time I start to understand an idea, they move on to the next and I’m too exhausted to keep up.

[@AK-is-not-him]

finally some good stuff, gonna listen to it later, I dont this naval will disappoint.

[@missh1774]

42:52 "...free will is intimately connected to new information." Yes And. 48:10 This recalling of the scientist saints paints a picture of darkened rooms and pipe tobacco. 1:00:14 Why does Theory hold so much weight but only allows a tiny little shuffle forward after decades or centuries? 1:01:24 when you want a thorough "explanation" of something. Is it essentially a manual that could be replicated or followed by other people in the future?

[@Kaviarasu_S]

❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@swayson5208]

Audio loudness low in this episode.

[@benfmd]

The point was made that knowledge is created by either evolution or human thought. Also, knowledge is defined as information that can cause physical transformation. But didn’t the particle collisions that started with the Big Bang also cause physical transformations like star and galaxy formation? Isn’t this also a form of knowledge, but clearly not related to biological evolution or human thought? Thanks

[@build_the_future_]

*that contributes causally to its own replication

[@teleologist]

But also what does it mean for paper to "compute," there are processes in the world that compute, not objects. You could use paper as a process of computing, but it would compute by itself, so this argument doesn't make sense to me. So why center objects as paper or trees as "computers." That doesn't make sense.

[@AaronMartinProfessional]

🙌🙌🙌

[@lenalena-x3n]

what is Deautsch in deautsch files ,

[@jeetusharma3292]

It's David Deutsch

[@mabayojetemitope]

Naval ... Big Inspiration

[@pranjalsisodia5003]

48:52 50:17 1:04:01 1:12:34

[@prathamgawali1407]

❤

[@noticingtheobvious]

33:25 we’re not the center of the solar system, we’re not the center of the universe, we’re not the center or anything! 😁 … in a sense we ARE the center of everything!

[@noticingtheobvious]

37:10 all the molecules at the lowest level are moving reversibly, and yet the combination of them is moving irreversibly.

[@noticingtheobvious]

43:32 Humans create something out of nothing when they have a new explanatory idea - creating new explanations is creating a real thing.

[@noticingtheobvious]

1:14:13 Follow the fun 🌟

[@rigaleb]

Naval, invite dr. Michael Levin, he'll blow your mind with all this gene nonsese.

[@mummynapkin.]

metaphysics x physics it’s simple true metaphysics is as real as physics just cause you can’t put it under a microscope does not mean it “does not exist” look into the dialectic to electric or the whatever it’s all put and made sooo complex when all of this silly shit of the brain being a computer. a better metaphor would be a radio, you can modulate the radio and tune the signal as you destroy the radio does the signal become destroyed? the signal as eternal and literally all around us as water, matter, and the “broadcast” must all three be present for “life” to exist and the psychophysical to become. a computer analogy is implying something more complex than what it is in reality is it is 100 more analogous to a radio it’s nearly a perfect analogy, you can’t take it too far as to speak of the broadcasting station or a range of signal but other than that it is nearly perfect. anyways keep in mind all philosophers are repeating the same things and ideas using different words to describe them as to pretend they are the original source of the theory or idea ect… you are not your beliefs, theories or religion, too many people fight on their years of study because the possibility that it is obsolete would ruin them as a TRUE wise man (someone you should look up to) is happy and rejoices when he’s wrong because it means you are a step closer to the truth (the truth is the only thing that matters) as wisdom is self proximity these philosophers often confuse intelligent thought with wisdom they are not the same, seek wisdom in ancient TRUE metaphysics not modern peoples theories.

[@j.m.w.5064]

quite a big bowl of word salad.

[@mummynapkin.]

@@j.m.w.5064 true i was on a perc lol

[@guidobellberg2294]

Argumentation by analogy is always stupid. But so is your radio comparison. If, late at night, you see a bedsheet you left outside to dry, move with the wind doesn't mean ghosts exist.

[@ziii9444]

blessed to be here

[@bluegiant13]

47:41

[@AndersLundberg-v9b]

I am doing that too 😂

[@udaypsaroj]

58:40 lol

[@diegoleonullauri]

"...what people don't get about epistemology it's that the growth of knowledge begins with problems..." kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2eqf35sd7dne5o

[@mabedarefav]

❤