The mind is more than a computer | Ian Hutchinson and Lex Fridman

Full episode with Ian Hutchinson (Jul 2020): • Ian Hutchinson: Nuclea...
Clips channel (Lex Clips): / lexclips
Main channel (Lex Fridman): / lexfridman
(more links below)
Podcast full episodes playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast
Podcasts clips playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
Podcast website:
lexfridman.com/ai
Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
apple.co/2lwqZIr
Podcast on Spotify:
spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
Podcast RSS:
lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/
Ian Hutchinson, a nuclear engineer and plasma physicist at MIT. He has made a number of important contributions in plasma physics including the magnetic confinement of plasmas seeking to enable fusion reactions, which is the energy source of the stars, to be used for practical energy production. Current nuclear reactors are based on fission as we discuss. Ian has also written on the philosophy of science and the relationship between science and religion.
Subscribe to this KZbin channel or connect on:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman

[@sunriseeternity300]

Another great interview. I'm going to watch the full length. Thank you

[@truthseeking3818]

What an outstanding guest! Please have him back!

[@SPribyt]

Great podcast episode

[@memoai7276]

Always brilliant content!

[@leelasuelane6544]

Ye be da frst

[@droopy8262]

the brain isn't like a computer....The computer is like a brain!

[@ignacioshaw8623]

First time i find someone who speaks exactly how i think about these questions

[@keanemorrissey5478]

I hope and think he is right. The thing some people forget is how connected the mind and body is thanks for the reminder

[@scooterallen1834]

Our minds are full of emotions, happiness, sadness, empathy, etc. A machine can't produce an emotion, only cause an affect on our own emotions.

[@VantaBlackSheep]

Do you really know anyone else other than yourself is conscious? Do you even know if you’re conscious if you have a subconscious that has a great impact of majority of your life? When someone starts to act In a way that we deem different to how we knew them, we either call them crazy or a vegetable and in some cases are perfectly fine with pulling a life support plug. What if they’ve just the done a different person, one that we do not recognize. Quick question, do you think only human beings have minds with emotions happiness sadness and empathy or do other animals share these qualities?

[@xolomartinez6036]

Living creatures are alive. Notice, you can have something that was once alive, you can't describe it but once it's dead, you know it, it's not asleep, it's no longer alive. That's the difference. A machine will never be alive.

[@adrianaadnan7704]

To me, Transhumianism is just another step up from vr to a more sophisticated form of escapism.

[@CaptainTae]

To me, transhumanism is a tropical fruit.

[@CaptainTae]

@Quantum Man The Photonic Mastermind! TV doesn't have a future.

[@CaptainTae]

@Quantum Man The Photonic Mastermind! I agree. It's future is extinction.

[@CaptainTae]

@Quantum Man The Photonic Mastermind! TV is still dying. It will be replaced by something. That's just how it works.

[@bobworks5197]

Only one way to evolve. Thats not it.

[@michaelgorby]

I think this guest is very reminiscent of Francis Collins. Both in appearance and in philosophy.

[@JosephSalvoni]

When someone says its all on your mind. Obviously its all in the observing mind as well.

[@basicfeelings8375]

That difference made between mind and spirit is very interesting philosophically speaking.

[@dianeaustin2414]

How are we certain something called spirit even exists?

[@justaguywithaturban6773]

@@dianeaustin2414 That’s where philosophy stops and spirituality starts

[@sandarahcatmom9897]

@@dianeaustin2414. If you’ve never at least meditated in order to shift states, you wouldn’t. And, some people are just shut down or at least very limited as to their sense perceptions. The world is more like 3D for others.

[@dino7869]

Your mind is Your soul on its journey of experiences. Yet it was made to be controlled. By whatever you allow in it

[@siulapwa]

The brain is a computer and a user in one.

[@cooldepot4378]

Lex this is my question: Where is the ''image'' you see in your counciosness? I know that its encoded in the brain and it has a direct correlation... But where is the actual ''image''? As an analogy, we know the brain is the motherboard of the computer... but where is the monitor screen? Where is the actual image we are perceiving located right now? Where is the eye of the beholder?

[@adrianaadnan7704]

A hologram in the liquid centre projected by 6 million colour cones perhaps. Give lex a break.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@adrianaadnan7704]

Put this question on quora.might get some interesting answers

[@adrianaadnan7704]

What about imagination

[@MisterDoctorBaconman]

It very likely doesn't even work like that, and current research seems to indicate that we don't fully form images with all their details in our mind when we imagine things

[@soulsociety5768]

The image we are perceiving is the physical world. Eyes are a result of biological evolution that has allowed us to do this for quite some time now. There is no “monitor” acting as a mediary. You’re not looking at anything similar to a screen. Speaking in terms of comparison to ones point of view in relation to that of a “screen” of sorts, you are the screen that is looking inward or into you current reality, not looking at the screen from an outward perspective. Think of it as being a flashlight in a dark room, you are the light illuminating the objects in the darkness which allows you to see what is there, you’re not using the light to look at something and perceive the reality around you, rather you are a point within that reality that is able to reflect on itself.

[@megavide0]

Read: *Greg Egan - Permutation City!*

[@joydevghosh8017]

There should also be a discussion on the possibility of free will of a robot in future.

[@adamisgreen5701]

No freewill

[@jimmykelly2809]

Imagine living forever but being an early humanoid. We die to evolve and move forward with changes to the species. Nothing really dies just changes form

[@mattmillar3586]

2:38 🥳

[@BrandonTheKralik]

Guy looks like a HL1 lab NPC Very fascinating though

[@Godfather48hrs]

💙

[@ChildOL]

The brain may be a quantum "antenna" and the folds help increase the "signal".

[@No2AI]

Our consciousness is like a personal ‘movie’ with awareness .... so it can be uploaded and saved and it is you - live recording of self ! You are your memories and experiences which are defined by emotion - save that and you exist as your own story able to access any event ... past and present from that perspective is irrelevant.

[@No2AI]

pyropulse we shall see

[@No2AI]

pyropulse yes my proposal does capture all - emotions and feelings are an integral part of memory - when you ‘bring a memory to life’ it includes all emotions - NDE’s experience that very thing. It’s a theory no less plausible than the 100 other theories out there.

[@scooterallen1834]

@@No2AI Like a scent I smelled that reminded me of my grandmother, and the emotion that followed.

[@Autobotmatt428]

Lex should talk with Bernardo Kastrup

[@scottchase8014]

As a child having to take decontamination showers just to be around family no joke

[@StephenPaulKing]

Not a Substance dualist!!!

[@radhakrishna1845]

Dr. Ian Hutchinson.... How can I enlighten you... Qualifications for God... Omnipresent... Omnipotent... Omniscient... Who are you... You need deep self exploration.... You are not the body Not the mind... Not the thought... You are the Soul.... Your Soul is the Primordial energy... The Chee... Qigong for self exploration... You and your creator are one... Be one with God.... Through deep self exploration...

[@jordanking5679]

We exist for the worship and exaltation of the supremacy of God in the creation of all things. “Whether you eat or drink, whatever you do, do it unto the glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 10:31. God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him.

[@scottchase8014]

One of my good friends had a reoccurring brain tumor about that size in the middle of his head it was operated on twice and removed when it grew back I figured out why it's because I was part of the atomic field growing up around these huge areas and he didn't and I really felt bad my exposure spread to my friend I won't forget it

[@matthewtaylordeoppressolib7141]

It's a stargate

[@revivalofthefittestonlythe2757]

What if the mind vanishes due to an extinction event like asteroid? Dont we have a responsibilty to safegaurd it?

[@Widowson]

All is mind. There can be no removal of mind in an absolute sense. Information exists even without a human to interpret it, information implies meaning, information and meaning suggests some sort of intelligent agent to construct them. Therefore there must be an underlying base awareness beyond biological organisms, so rest assured my friend!

[@AbsentMindedA]

@@Widowson would meaning not be derived from the interpretation of information? Meaning is not inherent

[@momotaha]

His last words struck me for the wisedom in them ! God is good.

[@adrianaadnan7704]

I also wana see discussions on data storage in photons stored in red rubbies. We know we can store data in photons, we know we can store water in geodes or rocks or gems. Because everytime god or revelation is mentioned in scriptures the word light or enlighten comes up every single time

[@bobworks5197]

When the term light is used it refers to knowledge. The data storage is in the 98% junk dna which is bacteria and viruses.

[@jdsilvestri]

Dislike people who think like this, acting like it is rational to believe we are somehow to special to solve.

[@angelmanuelvilar]

Yeah, god lives in Beverly Hills

[@vivekpraseed918]

I too believe that myself downloaded into a computer is not the real me. But I do wish to live forever in the body I have and dont mind augmenting with neuralink and nanobots over time like say an artificial heart etc. I certainly dont want to go to heaven or have anything to do with god and divine, am happy with this world

[@bobworks5197]

Wow. The highest minds that ever lived here thought this place was fundamentally evil and the lowest level of vibration. Glad u happy tho

[@vivekpraseed918]

@@bobworks5197 and am just as much happy for those highest minds who have raised their vibrations and gone beyond...I got no plans to change my own vibes and join them. Content with my ordinary mind I guess

[@goldgold523]

It's not possible especially if humans is capable of outer body experiences the soul is something else I had plenty of outer body experiences I seen the world through the third camera view as an observer... one will only die if ever downloaded

[@JohnC-iv8jo]

AI cant play but it can chess, there in lies the problem.

[@johannpopper1493]

Excellent interview and well-formulated philosophical explanations from Professor Hutchinson. I think a little bit of proper understanding and appreciation of Platonism & Aristotelianism goes a long way to completely avoiding all these false paradoxes caused by defining "soul" in a self-contradictory Cartesian manner (you know, like if there is a Cartesian soul, a little person inside the person to explain the person, that kind of a "soul" would require its own soul and so on infinitely; it's an inherently unreasonable concept totally avoided by Aristotle's simple and evident distinction between potentiality and actuality). Listen to the manner in which Professor Hutchinson must speak about the mind to articulate a typical transhumanist point of view, "nothing but software". Now wait a minute. "Nothing but"? There is nothing reductionistic about the fact of the hardware-software relationship via analogy from machines to human experience. Like all analogies it ultimately fails because humans are the only things that are self-aware and there is no reason yet to suppose artificial software implementions on artificial hardware have these supervening levels of existence. But the issue strikes right to the deepest heart of what Plato was trying to say and what Aristotle accepted: that wherever proximate causation fails to show a categorically similar relationship (like, for example, one particle affecting another are at least observable as entities of the same category of existence, whereas the brain is radically unlike the experience of being alive, including observing the brain), the rational thing is to conclude this is a point where humans have not evolved to sense another level of existence directly, but must presume that another level of complexity actually exists -- i.e. forms. As with all paradoxes derived from self-contradictory philosophies, the radical materialist will come to the same conclusions as Hutchinson, except from the opposite perspective -- i.e. that software is a reduction from the primacy of matter, instead of an obvious point from which it is more reasonable to conclude that what exists is more complex than what we have evolved to directly sense (again, Plato or Aristotle's forms or Polanyi's tacit dimension or Wittgenstein's forms of life). In fact, there is no necessary dichotomy here at all. There is simply what plainly exists, which philosophy is intended to accept and categorize, not explain -- and where direct empirical measurements become impossible, the most reasonable indirect conclusions must be drawn. It's that simple. So, around the 10 minute mark Hutchinson deftly explains the philosophical ignorance of thinking that complete empirical explanations of the brain somehow reduce or eliminate the fact that from these relations correspond cognized/organized experience and action (aka "mind"). Again, this is ignorance specifically of what Plato was trying to explain with forms (aka tacit dimensions or supervening laws of nature) and Aristotle's 4 causes (much the same), which still hold logically to this day as adequate explanations of phenomena underpinning empirical measuring and modeling. Measurement does not explain the substance of what is measured; it predicts motion. The only people confused by this are those who lack philosophical education, except for a sort of vague culturally inherited Cartesianism, where they see contradiction everywhere and conclude some kind of reduction has to take place. What Plato was trying to explain is that complex subjective phenomena are analogous to empirical laws of nature. So, when a person educated in Platonic philosophy hears somebody speculate about "souls" or "lack of souls" is just sounds like an average child trying to explain gravitation. The concept of soul is a description of what complex form is concluded to underlie empirical observation and models of corresponding subjective experience, exactly like you can grammatically talk about a "law of gravity" underlying the measurable observation of one mass moving toward a larger mass. Motion is motion. "Soul" is not another empirical substance, as Cartesians invert the Platonic/Aristotleian hylomorphic schema, superimposed upon the world, hiding somewhere, the absence of which observation somehow demonstrates that there is no underlying law-like complexity that can explain why some empirical relations show evidence of experiencing life, while others like raindrops follow less complex laws! Asking what consciousness is, is like asking what a law of nature is in the absolute sense. It's a terminus concept because it has no further empirical or logical path to follow. It's foundational. I would hypothesize the Penrosian attempt to push back the explanation of the hard problem of consciousness (essentially) to the quantum empirical level does not in principle solve the problem he is trying to avoid. Whether at a macro scale or a quantum scale, if you are trying to draw some kind of causal relation between measurable matter and non-measurable subjective experience, you're going to end up with a software-hardware analogy, unless that relation may be traced unto infinity, whatever that would mean in terms of substance. It's functionally irrelevant for medicine. But what is the evidence that the macro scale of obvious empirical brain functions is not enough to explain human experience and activity? There is no such evidence, and in fact there is a mountain of potentially contrary evidence -- to wit, the effectiveness of antipsychotics in restoring and augmenting cognition in the 70 million+ cases of severe psychosis globally! This is not insignificant evidence! The widespread ignorance of these facts is really inexcusable. As little as we know currently, we can directly affect people's fundamental perception of what is real and how they experience the world, and if you need to see it with your own eyes, there are thousands of critically underfunded and understaffed psychiatric hospitals who will gladly offer academic luminaries tours, and millions of victims and their families who would love it if intellectuals dedicated more time to discovering new and better treatments instead of apologizing for various superstitions on the level of the uneducated by pretending these inconvenient diseases don't exist or that nothing can be done. I would finally remind people of the Judeo-Christian tradition who take their revolutionary religion or culture seriously that their primary duty is to always push the limits of truth and charity in this very real and obviously material world because there are millions of lives to save right now. This isn't just a subject for speculation; it's urgent medical need.

[@mikeyjohnson5888]

While I won't be able to address everything you wrote, I want to say that I mostly agree with your logic. Any idea of materials discussing platonism and its application to mind? While I am superficially aware of platonic concepts it seems it goes far beyond what I'd assumed. Thank you for writing.

[@johannpopper1493]

​@@mikeyjohnson5888 We all try to help each other. Your question is difficult to answer because the subjects are so extensive, and we're in the middle of a huge historical reaction with much confusion of meaning and terms. The books that need to be written soon, haven't been yet, much less proliferated in and accepted by global academia. The only materials I can recommend are very old and need to be contextualized as sources for a modern interpretation, but I'll try. I would say there is isolated historical Platonism (shallow realm of forms, perhaps shoehorning in anachronistically the completely erroneous anti-materialism of the so-called neo-Platonists writing almost a millennium or more later), which you get in any intro Philosophy 101 course, then there is what advanced students who really get the major logical problems Plato was reacting against historically (Parmenides/Monism), which project Aristotle continued with more precision in the logical sphere, and which project Kant and the Enlightenment era innovated by the introduction of the clear subjective-empirical distinction, then such students can extrapolate from his solutions to the same problems today because they are still mission critical concerns vis-a-vis science and politics. I will summarize the fundamental issues I was referring to in my last post. Essentially, from this advanced perspective, every school of Philosophy/Logic applied to life is within a hair's width from each other, and the paradox of their differences is mainly one of emphasis and holding to false dichotomies. At the lowest level of education, most differences are due to not agreeing on definitions of terms. So, what was Plato's whole point? What was he speaking up to react against in 4th century BCE Athens? It's pretty clear his greatest adversaries were the Parmenideans. If you want to read his dialogue Parmedies, you'll see that the titular character is the only opponent his Socrates character never defeats in debate. This is because the entire Platonic theory of forms was an ultimately unsatisfying, yet necessary, reaction to Parmenides monistic logic. The critical issue intellectuals in Plato's time faced was that 1) Parmenides arguments for substance monism seemed flawless, yet totally undercut empiricism, not only of the theoretical kind, but undercut material life in general if followed to its plain logical conclusion -- that there is no such thing as change, that life is an illusion. If you think this sounds like Vedic/Hindu monism, you're not the only one, and you're probably historically right that Indian monism had reached Greece. The problems with this metaphysics are, 1) that it is contrary to common experience and so cannot explain common experience, nor justify any reason for survival let alone flourishing or political and technological progress, 2) common experience being experienced and articulated through the structure of human thought (i.e. language), logic itself is undermined by substance monism, such that the very means by which Parmenides (or Hindu gurus) might communicate truth is itself illusory by the definitions and dialectical practice designed to reach the Truth. Thus, Plato had to 1) justify progressive human life, and 2) save the grammar of human language. No small project. His answer was not so mystical as, in my opinion, scholars who didn't understand Plato's historico-metaphysical context have corrupted his memory via virulent anti-materialism and superstition. Plato essentially wanted to say there exists non-material information that informs and orients reality at the point of each thinkable and empirical relation. Ideals. Substantial changes are neither chaos, nor illusory, but relative to the evolutionary development toward progressive ideals - - aesthetico-ethical, technological, medical, political, and so on. Humanity is the demiurge in Plato's religious fable in Timaeus. Secondly, by rejecting substance monism, language can be about actual things in a world. This point of view accepts the foundational trinitarian human form of life/perspective as true -- subject, object, and context thereof. Plato thus saves grammar and may proceed to deduce and engage in dialectic toward truths without immediate self-contradiction as under the Parmenidean system. Thus, Plato's entire project is fundamentally progressive, but also a reductio ad absurdum that admits to not being able to take on Parmenides' arguments directly, yet indirectly demonstrates that Parmenides' ultimate conclusion about life leads to suffering as well as contradiction. Assuming that contradiction is a sign of falsehood, Plato's explosive and revolutionary common sense overturned what had likely been a previous epoch of intellectual stagnancy based on substance monism. It only seems simple because we are Plato's children in the west. But we are Parmenides' children too, and half the world never had a Plato. Moreover, by the Middle Ages Platonism had been practically transformed into monism by the Muslims and Christians! Hence, the 17th & 18th century neo-pluralistic reaction aka the Scientific Revolution. Observe science today, and very much unlike the Enlightenment era that created it, apart from a few mathematicians Plato's substance pluralism has been more or less overthrown in favor of neo-monism again, ranging from casual to highly developed along Hindu or Buddhist lines that once more want to categorize lived experience as illusory. It's a back and forth motion. Therefore, given these introductory ideas and the historical context I'm presenting as a starting point, I would recommend always looking at Platonism through the much more accurate and useful lens of critical metaphysics. Useful modern analogies include looking at what Plato was trying to get at through the concept of forms as something like emergent software that guides evolution, and by respecting the structure of human language as akin to math as the only reasonable epistemological baseline -- i.e. life isn't an illusion and the objects (numerically plural) of language like persons, particles, and even thoughts such as ideals are substantially real in some sense that may always be described in perhaps infinite detail, but never explained away via reduction. Where did software forms/ideals come from? What is information? Modern evolutionary psychology may provide some insight, but perhaps never a complete answer. The question is functionally irrelevant to the ethical tasks that present themselves, such as mastery over all within our scope in nature. Lastly, I would look at the effect of Platonism (combined with any other school and its effects also) on humanity in the full context of known history. Has it been socially, economically, politically, technologically, etc, progressive/useful to think in terms of plural substances versus monistically? Compare the cultural achievements, how many of the population thrived, and so on. Paradoxically, for example, one can see how the 4th century era of Platonic philosophical revolution against established monism caused a monumental religious shift toward monotheism to sort of preserve the 'mono', but replace the underlying metaphysics with pluralism. In contrast, the dead and extant polytheist religions (Greek and Hindu, respectively) were strictly monistic philosophically, with most schools of Hinduism being explicitly monist, or synonymously non-dualistic, meaning infinite substance. Now that my intended context is out of the way, maybe you've read most or all of anything I could suggest. For philosophy, I would recommend reading Kant's Metaphysics of Morals in light of evolutionary psychology, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in light of cognitive science and the modern analogue to Platonic forms as software running on bio-hardware, Polanyi's The Tacit Dimension in this context, and Wittgenstein's Tractatus and later Philosophical Investigations or On Certainty, read Hegel, and read some of Marx's Hegelian philosophical work to see how he was trying to save Platonism from being shoehorned into Hegel's neo-monism by reasserting substance pluralism as the only known historical engine of social progress for the benefit of workers since they live on the front lines, so to speak, of the brute fact of human empirical and grammatical reality. This is what Engel’s called Marx turning Hegelianism on its head. Also, read Vico's New Science. American Pragmatism can be useful too insofar as it tacitly presumes substance pluralism, although refusing to establish substance pluralism explicitly in my view tends to degrade the quality of scientific leadership historically by generating the elite apathy typical of most monistic societies. To this end, ideologically speaking, I would focus on materials about applied empirical sciences for ideal purposes personally and in politico-economics.

[@dianeaustin2414]

Wow....cocaine is a hell of a drug, no?

[@dingusdingo2926]

Damn this guy wrote a whole paper on it kinda cool

[@user-dj6rk2yv7i]

@@johannpopper1493 No serious Christian theologian of the first centuries either from the Cappadocian Fathers, or from Origen and others thought that the soul, is just a ghost entering a machine. That Cartesian soul is a post Christian view. Although Descartes was confessionaly a Christian, that's NOT a classic Christian or in general theistic version of the soul. You can find in the Cappadocian fathers in Plotinus also that the body is IN the soul, NOT the soul in the body. The soul is the principle of life and organization which at least in rational creatures allows for the organization of the highest intellective capacity downright to its simplest sense. The soul is that whole formal intellectual act of being, which allows us to participate in the infinite act of divine consciousness which is the construction of reality.

[@nithionvanlithe9369]

Think about this: we need to be conscious to feel pain, a computer will never feel pain, therefore a computer will never be conscious.

[@cordyone]

But at the brain end, isnt pain just a signal?

[@nithionvanlithe9369]

@@cordyone Yes, I believe so. Nevertheless, the feeling/experience of pain is real. So what I mean is, in a computer, a "pain" signal leads to (say) a register being set to a certain value, for example the "pain level" register is set to 7/10 (70%). But, in a human it translates to the real feeling of pain, not just the registering of a pain level. Because, if it was just that, then it would not be so damn sore!! Computers on the other hand, are only capable of registering pain, they can never actually feel pain. Basically there is no way to program the feeling of pain. And I don't think there is any kind of "magic law" that says: if computers are complex enough, then the feeling of pain "emerges". I believe that you can only feel pain if, and only if, you are conscious. I.e. pain and consciousness are related. Therefore, because computers can never feel pain, they will never be conscious. But whether they can exceed our intelligence, is a different question.

[@cordyone]

@@nithionvanlithe9369 It's interesting. I think consciousness may or may not manifest in other scenarios, not only a physical world where feelings are an integral aspect of interaction with it. Consciousness came into being for us and maybe it is limited to physical bodies, maybe not. Maybe there are other things that will emerge for AI that are comparable.

[@bdawggification]

So paralyzed people aren’t people... ok

[@ryanrobin12]

@@nithionvanlithe9369 your premise is based solely on the reasoning of: pain, therefore consciousness. That is an element of our consciousness but doesn’t explain consciousness in and of itself nor does it presuppose consciousness depends on a feeling like pain.

[@mxu111]

The reason for everything: God

[@codynemeth6395]

"That universal reason, practical or ethical, that determinism, those categories that explain everything are enough to make a decent man laugh. They have nothing to do with the mind. They negate its profound truth, which is to be enchained."

[@scottchase8014]

Marry Christmas from Apollo in Greek APOLLYON IN EGYPTIAN ABADDON IN HEBREW ⚡😇🙏⚡. From King David's Temple of Sardis and Solomon's Temple of Philadelphia and the library Spanx of Delphi..... Merry Christmas Merry Christmas

[@adrianaadnan7704]

I wana seee🤔🙄. Lex+ hamza yusuf+ nick bostrom speak about the potentiality or if science can disprove the lawhunmahfuz stored in red rubbies. I also wana see data storage compression discussion on red rubbies. That would attract the religious community and science into more dialogues about the lawhunmahfuz theory

[@clairek8651]

The new joe rogan 😇

[@dino7869]

You don't have a spirit. The spirit in you does not belong to you. It gives you life and consciousness. The spirit belongs to the creator. It return to him when you die. Everyone is under the same system. We make different life choices.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Why must we presume there is God? The Bible? Not everyone is Christian.

[@enderminer206]

Why must we presume there is no God? No Bible? Not everyone is atheist. hahahahah

[@nutinmyass]

​@@enderminer206 We should start with as little default presumptions as possible when attempting to describe the nature of something (you know, Occam's razor). Presuming God will automatically require more explanation because you now have to describe the nature of reality, *and* God.

[@enderminer206]

​@@nutinmyass Yeah I agree with you but I don't think that means we should completely denounce God all the time. But mostly I was just playing with the other guy's words. ahahah

[@iphonesuzy6790]

good obsession A real scientist doesn’t presume *anything* ... Atheism is *not* the belief that a god *doesn’t* exist - It’s the *understanding* that we *do not know* ... Different people have different definitions of Atheism - but the only *honest* position is Agnostic-Atheism. Did the Bible not say “Thou shall not lie” ??? I do not believe in god - or the Easter bunny - or leprechauns or unicorns - I do not believe because not a single person has ever provided adequate evidence for such things - this means if I believed in one of these things - or all of them - or any combination - then I would be a dishonest person. Science is *all about* honesty - so the honest truth is that *we don’t know* - to start from any other position than “I don’t know” would be dishonest - unless you can *prove* that you *do* know. If we don’t tell the truth - and admit that we do not know - then there’s no way we will *ever* find out. It’s simple logic my friend... You are either part of the problem - or part of the solution.

[@iphonesuzy6790]

buymebluepills Religion and science are 2 opposite things Christianity is just a bunch of lies that got made up by really bad people in order to brainwash people and keep them predictable. There’s zero evidence For Christian belief. That’s why your beliefs are based on FAITH - not evidence. Science has to do with things that CAN be tested - measured - seen and touched. Not legendary creatures who are invisible. Keep in mind that back when science was getting started it was taboo to admit you were an atheist - so most people lied and pretended to believe in fairy tales... But fortunately people are starting to grow up now a days so - religions days are numbered.

[@Dan.50]

Imagine how hard it is for humans to build a conscious machine. Then think about how hard it would be for nature to whip one up. How the hell did we get here??

[@dan101glass]

Could not disagree more, it is the next step

[@AdventurousJohn]

He talks about timing... I have had some longer form conversations with some serious neurologists... We have about a trillion neurons in the brain. Each neuron can have up to 10,000 - 12,000 connections to other neurons (so when it fires it sends those signals to them to somehow integrate and decide if it's going to fire), and from someone studying the optic nerve in depth they told me we need to capture those firings about 20 times a second to properly capture the "resolution" of thoughts. entertainlingly, when he talks about mri probes... go look up the Mary Lou Jepson scanner that may be around in the next 5 years or so, which looks like it might actually be able to map those dendritic connections between all the neurons in the brain. So... on getting better... yes, getting "the connectome" - thats coming, and coming faster than he thinks... but it's NOT "the integration process" - or "the weighting" of each neuron.

[@plafar7887]

We have around 80-100 billion neurons, not a trillion.

[@itsbeenwritten2518]

God has placed a spirit within man...you don't like that answer smh. If God made man in his image let's look...man creates Laws and seeks to uphold them: God has made Laws for life to live by. Man takes all his resources and builds things that are expressly useful: God has taken all his resources and has Created all things. Man sets up hierarchies of power: God has set up hierarchies in his creation. Man considers life and death: God has prepared for life and what happens after death....stop being negative about this great Name God. If God created all this amazing thing we call "life" then do you think He enjoys seeing the people on earth constantly talk bad about Him? Limiting his power and in their imagination degrading his own Intellect? Smh you will all find out one day for sure. God has made truth, wisdom, love, and knowledge to be prized and well respected for a reason.

[@nolifeonearth9046]

buddhism has very deep answers about the mind/conciousness

[@sidkapoor9085]

like what

[@bolermanii]

only statements about the subject experience of it, not truth claims about it is physically constituted

[@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone]

Sid Kapoor like the idea of 'no-self' - that there is no "essence" to ourselves but that we are constituted exhaustively of the psycho-physical elements of the 'five aggregates': form, sensations (or feelings, received from form) perceptions, mental activity (including willful habit formations), and consciousness.

[@asanti3748]

magicpotion8 Sounds like Buddhism was head of all these philosophical questions before they became as mainstream as they are today.

[@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone]

A Santi Yes and Hinduism before that

[@JonnyUnderrated]

This guy looks exactly like the guy in the simulation saying that kind of stuff would look like. W0w. It IS real. yumminna hummina.......... what now

[@smokescreen767]

if you have to write a computation for a computer to show emotion. the computer will not be able to experience free will. computers can only do things through programs. just an extension of the person that created it.

[@selimgure]

Do you have free will? A man can want what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.

[@dx4life68]

God made man in his image... and now man is making God with the advent of super-intelligent AI

[@MrVerdes22]

That would make sense

[@AndreaCalaon73]

What does he know about QM? Everything is QM ... Hearing once more about "reducible mind" makes me crazy ...

[@juanmilano224]

God if it exists, and it doesnt, can't have animal/life properties like wants, needs and goals.

[@mikeyjohnson5888]

Goes to show that someone can be extremely intelligent and a genius in some fields, while pearl clutching and clinging to outmoded ways of thinking in others.

[@scottchase8014]

I think he and Hutchinson might be one of the only people to understand me a little bit........ Of how after my time here on Earth I will always say THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT LIFE LEFT DOWN HERE ON EARTH PLEASE GOD BRING ME BACK HOME I DON'T LIKE IT HERE... APOLLO

[@enriquemartinez5647]

...God takes delight in... Hiroshima and Nagasaki...(?!)

[@LogicaIn]

@Irving Ceron oah there pal, take care to not cut yourself with all that edge

[@arzoo_singh]

Awesome!!! within 30 seconds of watching this video . Conciousness is real but they will build a artificial conciousness field ,you will recive and send ideas from that field . But,that is artificial conciousness not natural Conciousness. You want to know what is conciousness in spiritual term . Read Upanishads ,and I bet no philosophy or gets even closer to that ...

[@adrianaadnan7704]

I dont think you can simulate drive,passion, preferences, vegenve , peer pressure, insecurity that drives the human race.that requires EQ.i dont think chips will ever grasp EQ unless set by an EQ human coder in boston dynamic or whatever the predetermined setting done by a specific company to mimic humans. Even so it will only be copied or based on an emotions humans have potrayed before.so its not original.

[@arzoo_singh]

@@adrianaadnan7704 Agreed we can take data sets of human brain their response on certain situation,and then we can classify them in some groups and then made to respond as some humans did in some situation . That is copied response not a natural response . But, what's dangerous is artificial conciousness filed . You might think it's you're idea,but that's idea of xyz and the supercomputer is acting as MITM and sharing someone's thought to you . Artificial conciousness = Matrix . You thinks it's real and you're Conciousness ,it's not

[@MinisterChristopher]

Excellent musings. Just excellent. Call “God”, “Life”, then it will make more sense both physically and metaphysically.

[@goldschool9050]

Hello everyone. I'm God, your creator.

[@adamisgreen5701]

Dude(Ian) outdated. His view points are primitive.

[@markgillespie8829]

God does not change. God is infinite and all powerful. Our small brains can't seem to grasp that or many can't accept a superior being in all ways. Infinite ly superior.

[@aha6500]

This guy is a mostly wrong boomer.

[@SpecialistBR]

He believes in god and in spirit, and that's where all his philosophy and viewpoints are fundamentally flawed.

[@SpecialistBR]

@@Wilhelm4131 I understand I can't unprove it, although not for the reasons you think. And I also understand the difference between "knowing" and "believing". But you did not addressed the point of my comment, which furthers it.

[@RAC91]

He lost me at “let’s worries about a sentient robot when it happens” that is complete foolishness!! Chances are that when that happens it will be to late to do anything about it! That is why Elon put together the committee of Open AI it needs massive oversight as it’s been develop not once it already has this dude takes a massive L for that comment!