0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Donald Hoffman, Professor of Cognitive Sciences at UC Irvine, focusing his research on evolutionary psychology, visual perception, and consciousness.
0
SPEAKER_00
He s the author of over 120 scientific papers on these topics, and his most recent book titled, The Case Against Reality, Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think some of the most interesting ideas in this world, like those of Donald Hoffman s, attempt to shake the foundation of our understanding of reality.
0
SPEAKER_00
And thus, they take a long time to internalize deeply.
0
SPEAKER_00
So proceed with caution.
0
SPEAKER_00
Questioning the fabric of reality can lead you to either madness or to truth.
0
SPEAKER_00
And the funny thing is, you won t know which is which.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
We got Calm for meditation, Element for hydration, Insight Tracker for longevity, Masterclass for inspiration, and Indeed for hiring.
0
SPEAKER_00
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, onto the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_00
As always, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_00
I try to make these interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy their stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you will, too.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by Calm, a meditation and mental wellness app.
0
SPEAKER_00
Over 100 million people around the world use Calm to take care of their minds.
0
SPEAKER_00
Guided meditation is one of the best tools you can use.
0
SPEAKER_00
to explore your mind, to focus it, to train it to know how to focus, how to let the things that are not important, that are distractions to a peaceful existence, to a happy existence, let them pass away.
0
SPEAKER_00
Let them float past you.
0
SPEAKER_00
This has to do with being able to focus your mind on anything you want, including on your breath, on nothing at all, or on a single thought for prolonged periods of time.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is what Calm will help you do.
0
SPEAKER_00
As a listener, you ll get 40% off a Calm Premium subscription, which includes hundreds of hours of programming.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check it out at calm.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
I should mention there s something very peaceful and calming about saying calm.com.
0
SPEAKER_00
It rhymes in a slightly asymmetrical way that reveals something beautiful.
0
SPEAKER_00
This episode is also brought to you by Element, spelled L-M-N-T.
0
SPEAKER_00
To do low-carb diets correctly, which is what I do, the number one thing you have to get right to avoid what they call the keto flu is electrolytes, specifically sodium, potassium, and magnesium.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have a bunch of incredible flavors.
0
SPEAKER_00
My new favorite flavor, I shouldn t say my new favorite, I ve been drinking it for many, many months now, my favorite flavor is watermelon salt.
0
SPEAKER_00
I drink a ridiculous number of these a day.
0
SPEAKER_00
I mean, it s gotta be over five.
0
SPEAKER_00
It makes me feel great.
0
SPEAKER_00
It tastes great.
0
SPEAKER_00
It has nothing that s bad for you.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s just amazing.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s magical what difference it makes in terms of when you re fasting.
0
SPEAKER_00
Just the right combination of electrolytes.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s just incredible.
0
SPEAKER_00
And when I m doing really long runs,
0
SPEAKER_00
along the lake, the river here in Austin.
0
SPEAKER_00
Just did one in 100 degree weather, it s insane.
0
SPEAKER_00
You have to make sure you get the electrolytes correctly there.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, Olympians use it, tech people use it.
0
SPEAKER_00
Try an eight single serving sample pack for free.
0
SPEAKER_00
Just cover the cost of shipping, which is five bucks in the US.
0
SPEAKER_00
Try it at drinklmnt.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This deal is not available on their regular website.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by InsideTracker, a service I use to track biological data.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have a bunch of plans, most of which include a blood test that gives you a lot of information that you can use to make decisions about your health.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have algorithms, machine learning algorithms that analyze your blood data, DNA data, and fitness tracker data to provide you with a clear picture of what s going on inside you and to offer you science-backed recommendations for positive diet and lifestyle changes.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love this idea.
0
SPEAKER_00
Your lifestyle, your health, anything you do to improve your body should be based on data from your body.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is so old school, so 20th century to be doing stuff based on sort of generic averages about the population.
0
SPEAKER_00
You gotta take information from your data.
0
SPEAKER_00
Of course, that s what a doctor does when you see them, but they have a very crude amount of data.
0
SPEAKER_00
You should be measuring regularly all kinds of markers to figure out what s wrong with you, how to improve stuff that is right with you, how to make it even better, all that kind of stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s what this is all about.
0
SPEAKER_00
Go to insighttracker.com slash flex for a limited time.
0
SPEAKER_00
You get 20% off the entire store.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Masterclass.
0
SPEAKER_00
$180 a year gets you an all-access pass to watch courses from the best people in the world in their respective disciplines.
0
SPEAKER_00
This list is frankly ridiculous.
0
SPEAKER_00
It includes Chris Hadfield, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Will Wright, Carlos Santana, Garry Kasparov, Daniel Negrano, Neil Gaiman, Martin Scorsese, Tony Hawk, Jane Goodall, and just keeps going on and on and on.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s very few masters of the guitar as good as Carlos Santana.
0
SPEAKER_00
When he plays Europa, the tone, the timing, the musicality of the bends,
0
SPEAKER_00
The ability to convey through volume changes and motion.
0
SPEAKER_00
Very few people are as good as that man at playing any instrument.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s magic.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s freedom on the guitar.
0
SPEAKER_00
So learning from him what it takes to create great music is a true honor.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I can t believe Masterclass have done this work of putting this all together.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s just amazing.
0
SPEAKER_00
If for no other reason, you should just support their efforts in doing so.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get unlimited access to every Masterclass and get 15% off an annual membership if you go to masterclass.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by Indeed, a hiring website.
0
SPEAKER_00
I ve used them as part of many hiring efforts I ve done for the teams I ve led in the past.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have tools like Indeed Instant Match that gives you quality candidates whose resumes at Indeed fit your job description immediately.
0
SPEAKER_00
There are very few things as important in life as figuring out who are the people you surround yourself with, and because we spend so much of our time at work,
0
SPEAKER_00
It s really important to select the people you work with and make sure you build a team that make you excited to wake up in the morning, to take on the day, because some of the hardest things we do in life are those at work.
0
SPEAKER_00
The ones that push us to our limits, challenges mentally and physically, all of that kind of stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
And so, you re brothers and sisters in arms with the people you work with.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s extremely important from a perspective of an employer and the employee.
0
SPEAKER_00
To make sure the team...
0
SPEAKER_00
is one that you re proud of, that you re happy with.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, right now you get free $75 sponsored job credit to upgrade your job post.
0
SPEAKER_00
You can get up to 500 bucks extra in sponsored job credits with Indeed s virtual interviews at indeed.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
Offers good for a limited time, terms and conditions apply.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, dear friends, here s Donald Hoffman.
0
SPEAKER_00
In your book, The Case Against Reality, Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes, you make the bold claim that the world we see with our eyes is not real.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s not even an abstraction of objective reality.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is completely detached from objective reality.
0
SPEAKER_00
Can you explain this idea?
0
SPEAKER_01
Right, so this is a theorem from evolution by natural selection.
0
SPEAKER_01
So the technical question that I and my team asked was, what is the probability that
0
SPEAKER_01
natural selection would shape sensory systems to see true properties of objective reality.
0
SPEAKER_01
And to our surprise, we found that the answer is precisely zero, except for one kind of structure that we can go into if you want to.
0
SPEAKER_01
But for any generic structure that you might think the world might have, a total order, a topology metric, the probability is precisely zero that natural selection would shape any sensory system of any organism to see any aspect of objective reality.
0
SPEAKER_01
So in that sense,
0
SPEAKER_01
What we re seeing is what we need to see to stay alive long enough to reproduce.
0
SPEAKER_01
So in other words, we re seeing what we need to guide adaptive behavior, full stop.
0
SPEAKER_00
So the evolutionary process, the process that took us from the origin of life on Earth to the humans that we are today,
0
SPEAKER_00
That process does not maximize for truth, it maximizes for fitness, as you say.
0
SPEAKER_00
Fitness beats truth.
0
SPEAKER_00
And fitness does not have to be connected to truth, is the claim.
0
SPEAKER_00
And that s where you have an approach towards zero of probability that we,
0
SPEAKER_00
have evolved human cognition, human consciousness, whatever it is, the magic that makes our mind work, evolved not for its ability to see the truth of reality, but its ability to survive in the environment.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s exactly right.
0
SPEAKER_01
So most of us intuitively think that surely
0
SPEAKER_01
the way that evolution will make our senses more fit is to make them tell us more truths, or at least the truths we need to know about objective reality, the truths we need in our niche.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s the standard view, and it was the view I took.
0
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s sort of what we re taught or just even assume.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s just sort of like the intelligent assumption that we would all make.
0
SPEAKER_01
We don t have to just wave our hands.
0
SPEAKER_01
Evolution of a natural selection is a mathematically precise theory.
0
SPEAKER_01
John Maynard Smith in the 70s created evolutionary game theory.
0
SPEAKER_01
And we have evolutionary graph theory and even genetic algorithms that we can use to study this.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so we don t have to wave our hands.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s a matter of theorem and proof and or simulation before you get the theorems and proofs.
0
SPEAKER_01
And a couple of graduate students of mine, Chester Mark and Brian Marion, did some wonderful simulations that tipped me off that there was something going on here.
0
SPEAKER_01
And then I went to a mathematician, Chetan Prakash, and Manish Singh, and some other friends of mine, Chris Fields.
0
SPEAKER_01
But Chetan was the real mathematician behind all this, and he s proved several theorems that uniformly indicate that with one exception, which has to do with probability measures,
0
SPEAKER_01
there s no, the probability is zero.
0
SPEAKER_01
The reason there s an exception for probability measures, so-called sigma algebras or sigma additive classes, is that for any scientific theory, there is the assumption that needs to be made that the, whatever structure, whatever probabilistic structure the world may have is not
0
SPEAKER_01
unrelated to the probabilistic structure of our perceptions.
0
SPEAKER_01
If they were completely unrelated, then no science would be possible.
0
SPEAKER_01
So this is technically the
0
SPEAKER_01
map from reality to our senses has to be a so-called measurable map, has to preserve sigma algebras.
0
SPEAKER_01
But that means it could be infinite to one, and it could collapse all sorts of event information.
0
SPEAKER_01
But other than that, there s no requirement in standard evolutionary theory for fitness payoff functions, for example, to preserve any specific structures of objective reality.
0
SPEAKER_01
So you can ask the technical question.
0
SPEAKER_01
This is one of the avenues we took.
0
SPEAKER_01
If you look at
0
SPEAKER_01
all the fitness payoffs from whatever world structure you might want to imagine.
0
SPEAKER_01
So a world with say a total order on it.
0
SPEAKER_01
So it s got N states and they re totally ordered.
0
SPEAKER_01
And then you can have a set of maps from that world into a set of payoffs, say from zero to a thousand or whatever you want your payoffs to be.
0
SPEAKER_01
And you can just literally count all the payoff functions.
0
SPEAKER_01
and just do the combinatorics and count them.
0
SPEAKER_01
And then you can ask a precise question.
0
SPEAKER_01
How many of those payoff functions preserve the total order?
0
SPEAKER_01
Or how many preserve the topology?
0
SPEAKER_01
And you just count them and divide.
0
SPEAKER_01
So the number that are homomorphisms,
0
SPEAKER_01
versus the total number and then take the limit as the number of states in the world and the number of payoff values goes very large.
0
SPEAKER_01
And when you do that, you get zero every time.
0
SPEAKER_00
Okay, there s a million things to ask here, but first of all, just in case people are not familiar with your work, let s sort of linger on the big, bold statement here, which is the thing we see with our eyes
0
SPEAKER_00
is not some kind of limited window into reality.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is completely detached from reality, likely completely detached from reality.
0
SPEAKER_00
You re saying 100% likely.
0
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so none of this is real in the way we think is real, in the way we have this intuition.
0
SPEAKER_00
Like this table is some kind of abstraction, but underneath it all, there s atoms.
0
SPEAKER_00
And there s an entire century of physics that describes the functioning of those atoms and the quarks that make them up.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s many Nobel Prizes.
0
SPEAKER_00
about particles and fields and all that kind of stuff that slowly builds up to something that s perceivable to us both with our eyes, with our different senses as this table.
0
SPEAKER_00
Then there s also ideas of chemistry that over layers of abstraction from DNA to embryos to cells that make the human body.
0
SPEAKER_00
So all of that,
0
SPEAKER_00
is not real.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s a real experience, and it s a real adaptive set of perceptions.
0
SPEAKER_01
So it s an adaptive set of perceptions, full stop.
0
SPEAKER_01
We want to think that- The perceptions are real.
0
SPEAKER_01
So their perceptions are real as perceptions, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
We are having our perceptions, but we ve assumed that there s a pretty tight relationship between our perceptions and reality.
0
SPEAKER_01
If I look up and see
0
SPEAKER_01
moon, then there is something that exists in space and time that matches what I perceive.
0
SPEAKER_01
And all I m saying is that if you take evolution by natural selection seriously,
0
SPEAKER_01
then that is precluded.
0
SPEAKER_01
Our perceptions are there.
0
SPEAKER_01
They re there to guide adaptive behavior full stop.
0
SPEAKER_01
They re not there to show you the truth.
0
SPEAKER_01
In fact, the way I think about it is they re there to hide the truth because the truth is too complicated.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s just like if you re trying to use your laptop to write an email.
0
SPEAKER_01
What you re doing is toggling voltages in the computer.
0
SPEAKER_01
But good luck trying to do it that way.
0
SPEAKER_01
The reason why we have a user interface is because we don t want to know that quote unquote truth, the diodes and resistors and all that terrible hardware.
0
SPEAKER_01
If you had to know all that truth, your friends wouldn t hear from you.
0
SPEAKER_01
So what evolution gave us was perceptions that guide adaptive behavior.
0
SPEAKER_01
And part of that process, it turns out, means hiding the truth and giving you eye candy.
0
SPEAKER_00
So what s the difference between hiding the truth and forming abstractions, layers upon layers of abstractions over these, over low level voltages and transistors and chips and programming languages from assembly to Python that then leads you to be able to have an interface like Chrome where you open up
0
SPEAKER_00
another set of JavaScript and HTML programming languages that lead you to have a graphical user interface on which you can then send your friends an email.
0
SPEAKER_00
Is that completely detached from the zeros and ones that are firing away inside the computer?
0
SPEAKER_01
It s not.
0
SPEAKER_01
Of course, when I talk about the user interface on your desktop, there s this whole sophisticated backstory to it, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
That the hardware and the software that s allowing that to happen.
0
SPEAKER_01
Evolution doesn t tell us the backstory, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
So the theory of evolution is not going to be adequate to tell you what is that backstory.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s gonna say that whatever reality is, and that s the interesting thing, it says whatever reality
1
SPEAKER_01
is you don t see it.
1
SPEAKER_01
You see a user interface, but it doesn t tell you what that user interface is, how it s built, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
Now we can try to look at certain aspects of the interface, but already we re gonna look at that and go, okay, before I would look at neurons and I was assuming that I was seeing something that was at least partially true.
1
SPEAKER_01
And now I m realizing that it could be like looking at the pixels on my desktop
1
SPEAKER_01
or icons on my desktop, and good luck going from that to the data structures and then the voltages.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, good luck.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s just no way.
1
SPEAKER_01
So what s interesting about this is that our scientific theories are precise enough and rigorous enough to tell us certain limits, and even limits of the theories themselves.
1
SPEAKER_01
But they re not going to tell us what the next move is, and that s where scientific creativity comes in.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the stuff that I m saying here, for example, is not alien to physicists.
1
SPEAKER_01
The physicists are saying precisely the same thing, that space-time is doomed.
1
SPEAKER_01
We ve assumed that space-time is fundamental.
1
SPEAKER_01
We ve assumed that for several centuries, and it s been very useful.
1
SPEAKER_01
So all the things that you were mentioning, the particles and all the work that s been done, that s all been done in space-time, but now physicists are saying space-time is doomed.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s no such thing as space-time fundamentally in the laws of physics.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that comes actually out of gravity together with quantum field theory.
1
SPEAKER_01
It just comes right out of it.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s a theorem of those two theories put together.
1
SPEAKER_01
But it doesn t tell you what s behind it.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the physicists know that their best theories, Einstein s gravity and quantum field theory put together, entail that space-time cannot be fundamental and therefore particles in space-time cannot be fundamental.
1
SPEAKER_01
just irreducible representations of the symmetries of space-time.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s what they are.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we put the two together.
1
SPEAKER_01
We put together what the physicists are discovering and we can talk about how they do that.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then the new discoveries from evolution of natural selection.
1
SPEAKER_01
Both of these discoveries are really in the last 20 years.
1
SPEAKER_01
And what both are saying is space-time has had a good ride.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s been very useful, reductionism has been useful, but it s over, and it s time for us to go beyond.
1
SPEAKER_00
When you say space-time is doomed, is it the space, is it the time, is it the very hard-coded specification of four dimensions, or are you specifically referring to the kind of perceptual domain that humans operate in, which is space-time, you think like there s a 3D,
1
SPEAKER_00
Our world is three-dimensional and time progresses forward, therefore three dimensions plus one, 4D.
1
SPEAKER_00
What exactly do you mean by space-time?
1
SPEAKER_00
What do you mean by space-time is doomed?
1
SPEAKER_01
Great, great.
1
SPEAKER_01
So this is, by the way, not my quote.
1
SPEAKER_01
This is from, for example, Nima Arkani-Hamed at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.
1
SPEAKER_01
Ed Witten, also there.
1
SPEAKER_01
David Gross.
1
SPEAKER_01
Nobel Prize winner.
1
SPEAKER_01
So this is not just something that cognitive scientists, this is what the physicists are saying.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, the physicists, they re space-time skeptics.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, they re saying that, and I can say exactly why they think it s doomed, but what they re saying is that, because your question was, what aspect of space-time, what are we talking about here?
1
SPEAKER_01
It s both space and time, their union into space-time as in Einstein s theory, that s doomed.
1
SPEAKER_01
And
1
SPEAKER_01
they re basically saying that even quantum theory, this is with Neemar Kani Hamed especially, so Hilbert spaces will not be fundamental either.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that the notion of Hilbert space, which is really critical to quantum field theory, quantum information theory, that s not going to figure in the fundamental new laws of physics.
1
SPEAKER_01
So what they re looking for is some new mathematical structures beyond space-time,
1
SPEAKER_01
beyond Einstein s four-dimensional space time or supersymmetric version, geometric algebra signature 2,4.
1
SPEAKER_01
There are different ways that you can represent it, but they re finding new structures.
1
SPEAKER_01
And by the way, they re succeeding now.
1
SPEAKER_01
They found something called the Amplituhedron.
1
SPEAKER_01
This is Nima and his colleagues, the cosmological polytope.
1
SPEAKER_01
So there are these
1
SPEAKER_01
polytopes, these polyhedra in multi-dimensions, generalizations of simplices, that are coding for, for example, the scattering amplitudes of processes in the Large Hadron Collider and other colliders.
1
SPEAKER_01
So they re finding that if they let go of space-time completely, they re finding new ways of computing these scattering amplitudes that turn literally billions of terms into one term.
1
SPEAKER_01
you do it in space and time, because it s the wrong framework, it s just a user interface, that s now from the evolutionary point of view, it s just user interface, it s not a deep insight into the nature of reality.
1
SPEAKER_01
So it s missing deep symmetry, it s something called a dual conformal symmetry, which turns out to be true of the scattering data, but you can t see it in space time.
1
SPEAKER_01
and is making the computations way too complicated because you re trying to compute all the loops and Feynman diagrams and all the Feynman integrals.
1
SPEAKER_01
So see the Feynman approach to the scattering amplitudes is trying to enforce two critical properties of space-time, locality and unitarity.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so when you enforce those, you get all these loops and multiple different levels of loops.
1
SPEAKER_01
And for each of those, you have to add new terms to your computation.
1
SPEAKER_01
But when you do it outside of space-time,
1
SPEAKER_01
you don t have the notion of unitarity.
1
SPEAKER_01
You don t have the notion of locality.
1
SPEAKER_01
You have something deeper and it s capturing some symmetries that are actually true of the data.
1
SPEAKER_01
But then when you look at the geometry of the facets of these polytopes, then certain of them will code for unitarity and locality.
1
SPEAKER_01
So it actually comes out of the structure of these deep polytopes.
1
SPEAKER_01
So what we re finding is there s this whole new world.
1
SPEAKER_01
Now,
1
SPEAKER_01
beyond space-time that is making explicit symmetries that are true of the data that cannot be seen in space-time.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that is turning the computations from billions of terms to one or two or a handful of terms.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we re getting insights into symmetries and all of a sudden the math is becoming simple because we re not doing something silly.
1
SPEAKER_01
We re not adding up all these loops in space-time.
1
SPEAKER_01
We re doing something far deeper.
1
SPEAKER_01
But they don t know what this world is about.
1
SPEAKER_01
So they re in an interesting position
1
SPEAKER_01
where we know that space-time is doomed, and I should probably tell you why it s doomed, what they re saying about why it s doomed, but they need a flashlight to look beyond space-time.
1
SPEAKER_01
What flashlight are we gonna use to look into the dark beyond space-time?
1
SPEAKER_01
Because Einstein s theory and quantum theory can t tell us what s beyond them.
1
SPEAKER_01
All they can do is tell us that when you put us together, space-time is doomed at 10 to the minus 33 centimeters, 10 to the minus 43 seconds.
1
SPEAKER_01
Beyond that, space-time doesn t even make sense.
1
SPEAKER_01
It just has no operational definition.
1
SPEAKER_01
So, but it doesn t tell you what s beyond.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so they re just looking for deep structures, like guessing is really fun.
1
SPEAKER_01
So these really brilliant guys, generic, brilliant men and women who are doing this work, physicists, are making guesses about these structures, informed guesses, because they re trying to ask, well, okay, what deeper structure could give us the stuff that we re seeing in space-time, but without certain commitments that we have to make in space-time, like locality.
1
SPEAKER_01
So they make these brilliant guesses.
1
SPEAKER_01
And of course, most of the time you re gonna be wrong.
1
SPEAKER_01
But once you get one or two, that start to pay off.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then you get some lucky breaks.
1
SPEAKER_01
So they got a lucky break back in 1986.
1
SPEAKER_01
A couple of mathematicians named Park and Taylor.
1
SPEAKER_01
took the scattering amplitude for two gluons coming in at high energy and four gluons going out at low energy.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that kind of scattering thing.
1
SPEAKER_01
So it s like apparently for people who are into this, that s sort of something that happens so often you need to be able to find it and get rid of those because you already know about that.
1
SPEAKER_01
So you needed to compute them.
1
SPEAKER_01
It was billions of terms.
1
SPEAKER_01
And they couldn t do it, even for the supercomputers couldn t do that for the many billions or millions of times per second they need to do it.
1
SPEAKER_01
So they begged, the experimentalists begged the theorists, please, you got it.
1
SPEAKER_01
So Park and Taylor took the billions of terms, hundreds of pages, and miraculously turned it into nine.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then a little bit later, they guessed one term expression that turned out to be equivalent.
1
SPEAKER_01
So
1
SPEAKER_01
billions of terms reduced to one term, that so-called famous Park-Taylor formula, 1986.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that was like, okay, where did that come from?
1
SPEAKER_01
This is a pointer into a deep realm beyond space and time, but no one, I mean, what can you do with it?
1
SPEAKER_01
And they thought maybe it was a one-off, but then other formulas started coming up.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then eventually Neemar Kani Hamad and his team found this thing called the Amplituhedron, which really sort of captures a big part of the whole ball of wax.
1
SPEAKER_01
I m sure they would say, no, there s plenty more to do.
1
SPEAKER_01
So I won t say they did it all by any means.
1
SPEAKER_01
They re looking at the cosmological polytope as well.
1
SPEAKER_01
So what s remarkable to me is that two pillars of modern science,
1
SPEAKER_01
quantum field theory with gravity on the one hand, and evolution by natural selection on the other.
1
SPEAKER_01
Just in the last 20 years have very clearly said, space-time has had a good run, reductionism has been a fantastic methodology.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we had a great ontology of space-time, a great methodology of reductionism.
1
SPEAKER_01
Now it s time for a new trick.
1
SPEAKER_01
But now you need to go deeper and show, by the way, this doesn t mean we throw away everything we ve done, not by a long shot.
1
SPEAKER_01
Every new idea that we come up with beyond space-time must project precisely into space-time and it better give us back everything that we know and love in space-time or generalizations.
1
SPEAKER_01
or it s not gonna be taken seriously, and it shouldn t be.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we have a strong constraint on whatever we re going to do beyond space-time.
1
SPEAKER_01
It needs to project into space-time.
1
SPEAKER_01
And whatever this deeper theory is, it may not itself have evolution by natural selection.
1
SPEAKER_01
This may not be part of this deeper realm.
1
SPEAKER_01
But when we take whatever that thing is beyond space-time and project it into space-time, it has to look like evolution by natural selection, or it s wrong.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that s a strong constraint on this work.
1
SPEAKER_00
So even the evolution by natural selection and quantum field theory could be interfaces into something that doesn t look anything like, like you mentioned, I mean, it s interesting to think that evolution might be a very crappy interface into something much deeper.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s right.
1
SPEAKER_01
They re both telling us that the framework that you ve had can only go so far, and it has to stop, and there s something beyond.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that framework, the very framework that is space and time itself.
1
SPEAKER_01
Now, of course, evolution by natural selection is not telling us about like Einstein s relativistic space-time.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that was another question you asked a little bit earlier.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s telling us more about our perceptual space and time, which we have used as the basis for creating first a Newtonian space versus time.
1
SPEAKER_01
as a mathematical extension of our perceptions.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then Einstein then took that and extended it even further.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the relationship between what evolution is telling us and what the physicists are telling us is that in some sense, the Newton and Einstein space time are formulated as sort of rigorous extensions of our perceptual space.
1
SPEAKER_01
making it mathematically rigorous and laying out the symmetries that they find there.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that s sort of the relationship between them.
1
SPEAKER_01
So it s the perceptual space time that evolution is telling us is just a user interface effectively.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then the physicists are finding that even the mathematical extension of that into the Einsteinian formulation has to be as well, not the final story, there s something deeper.
1
SPEAKER_00
So let me ask you about reductionism and interfaces.
1
SPEAKER_00
As we march forward from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics, these are all, in your view, interfaces.
1
SPEAKER_00
Are we getting closer to objective reality?
1
SPEAKER_00
How do we know if these interfaces in the process of science, the reason we like those interfaces is because they re predictive of some aspects, strongly predictive about some aspects of our reality.
1
SPEAKER_00
is that completely deviating from our understanding of that reality or is it helping us get closer and closer and closer?
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, of course, one critical constraint on all of our theories is that they are empirically tested and pass the experiments that we have for them.
1
SPEAKER_01
So no one s arguing against experiments being important and wanting to test all of our current theories and any new theories on that.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that s
1
SPEAKER_01
that s all there.
1
SPEAKER_01
But we have good reason to believe that science will never get a theory of everything.
1
SPEAKER_00
Everything, everything.
1
SPEAKER_01
Everything, everything, right.
1
SPEAKER_01
A final theory of everything, right.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think that my own take is for what it s worth is that Godel s incompleteness theorem sort of points us in that direction that even with mathematics,
1
SPEAKER_01
of any finite axiomatization that s sophisticated enough to be able to do arithmetic, it s easy to show that there ll be statements that are true that can t be proven, can t be deduced from within that framework.
1
SPEAKER_01
And if you add the new statements to your axioms, then there ll be always new statements that are true but can t be proven with a new axiom system.
1
SPEAKER_01
The best scientific theories in physics, for example, and also now evolution, are mathematical.
1
SPEAKER_01
So our theories are gonna be, they re gonna have their own assumptions, and they ll be mathematically precise.
1
SPEAKER_01
And there ll be theories, perhaps, of everything except those assumptions, because the assumptions are, we say, please grant me these assumptions.
1
SPEAKER_01
If you grant me these assumptions, then I can explain this other stuff.
1
SPEAKER_01
So you have the assumptions that,
1
SPEAKER_01
are like miracles as far as the theory is concerned, they re not explained, they re the starting points for explanation.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then you have the mathematical structure of the theory itself, which will have the girdle limits.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so my take is that reality, whatever it is, is always going to transcend any
1
SPEAKER_00
conceptual theory that we didn t come up with.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s always going to be mystery at the edges.
1
SPEAKER_00
Right.
1
SPEAKER_00
Contradictions and all that kind of stuff.
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay.
1
SPEAKER_00
And truths.
1
SPEAKER_00
So there s this idea that is brought up in the financial space of settlement of transactions.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s often talked about in cryptocurrency especially.
1
SPEAKER_00
So you could do, you know, money, cash is not connected to
1
SPEAKER_00
It used to be connected to gold, to physical reality, but then you can use money to exchange value, to transact.
1
SPEAKER_00
So when it was on the gold standard, the money would represent some stable component of reality.
1
SPEAKER_00
Isn t it more effective to use money
1
SPEAKER_00
to avoid things like hyperinflation, if we generalize that idea.
1
SPEAKER_00
Isn t it better to connect your, whatever we humans are doing in the social interaction space with each other, isn t it better from an evolutionary perspective to connect it to some degree to reality so that the transactions are settled
1
SPEAKER_00
with something that s universal, as opposed to us constantly operating in something that s a complete illusion.
1
SPEAKER_00
Isn t it easy to hyperinflate that?
1
SPEAKER_00
Like where you really deviate very, very far away from the underlying reality, or do you never get in trouble for this?
1
SPEAKER_00
Can you just completely drift far, far away from the underlying reality and never get in trouble?
1
SPEAKER_01
That s a great question.
1
SPEAKER_01
On the financial side, there s two levels at least that we could take your question.
1
SPEAKER_01
One is strictly evolutionary psychology of financial systems.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s pretty interesting.
1
SPEAKER_01
And there, the decentralized idea, the DeFi kind of idea in cryptocurrencies may make good sense from just an evolutionary psychology point of view.
1
SPEAKER_01
Human nature being what it is,
1
SPEAKER_01
putting a lot of faith in a few central controllers depends a lot on the veracity and trustworthiness of those few central controllers.
1
SPEAKER_01
And we have ample evidence time and again that that s often betrayed.
1
SPEAKER_01
So it makes good evolutionary sense, I would say, to have a decentralized... I mean, democracy is a step in that direction, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
We don t have a monarch,
2
SPEAKER_00
now telling us what to do, we decentralize things, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
Because if you have Marcus Aurelius as your emperor, you re great.
2
SPEAKER_00
If you have Nero, it s not so great.
2
SPEAKER_00
And so we don t want that.
2
SPEAKER_00
So democracy is a step in that direction, but I think the DeFi thing is an even bigger step and is going to even make the democratization even greater.
2
SPEAKER_00
So that s one level of it.
2
SPEAKER_01
Also, the fact that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is also
2
SPEAKER_01
a consequence of evolution.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s also a feature, I think, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
You can argue from the long span of living organisms, it s nice for power to corrupt, for you to, so mad men and women throughout history might be useful to teach us a lesson.
2
SPEAKER_00
We can learn from our negative example, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
Exactly.
2
SPEAKER_00
Right.
2
SPEAKER_00
Power does corrupt and I think that you can think about that again from an evolutionary point of view.
2
SPEAKER_00
But I think that your question was a little deeper when that was, does the evolutionary interface idea sort of unhinge science from
2
SPEAKER_00
from some kind of important test for the theories, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t mean that anything goes in scientific theory, but if we don t see the truth, is there no way to tether our theories and test them?
2
SPEAKER_00
And I think
2
SPEAKER_00
there s no problem there.
2
SPEAKER_00
We can only test things in terms of what we can measure with our senses in space and time.
2
SPEAKER_00
So we re going to have to continue to do experiments, but we re gonna understand a little bit differently what those experiments are.
2
SPEAKER_00
We had thought that when we see a pointer on some machine in an experiment, that the machine exists, the pointer exists, and the values exist even when no one is looking at them.
2
SPEAKER_00
and that they re an object of truth.
2
SPEAKER_00
And our best theorists are telling us no.
2
SPEAKER_00
The pointers are just pointers, and that s what you have to rely on for making your judgments.
2
SPEAKER_00
But even the pointers themselves are not
2
SPEAKER_00
objective reality.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I think Gödel is telling us that not that anything goes, but as you develop new axiom systems, you will find out what goes within that axiom system and what testable predictions you can make.
2
SPEAKER_00
So I don t think we re untethered.
2
SPEAKER_00
We continue to do experiments.
2
SPEAKER_00
What I think we won t have that we want is a conceptual understanding
2
SPEAKER_00
that gives us a theory of everything that s final and complete.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think that this is, to put it another way, this is job security for scientists.
2
SPEAKER_00
Our job will never be done, it s job security for neuroscience.
2
SPEAKER_00
Because before we thought that when we looked in the brain, we saw neurons and neural networks and action potentials and synapses and so forth, and that was it, that was the reality.
2
SPEAKER_00
Now we have to reverse engineer that.
2
SPEAKER_00
We have to say, what is beyond space-time?
2
SPEAKER_00
What is going on?
2
SPEAKER_00
What is a dynamical system beyond space-time?
2
SPEAKER_00
That when we project it into Einstein s space-time, gives us things that look like neurons and neural networks and synapses.
2
SPEAKER_00
So we have to reverse engineer it.
2
SPEAKER_00
So there s gonna be lots more work for neuroscience.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s gonna be far more complicated and difficult and challenging, but that s wonderful.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s what we need to do.
2
SPEAKER_00
We thought neurons exist when they are perceived and they don t.
2
SPEAKER_00
In the same way that if I show you, when I say they don t exist, I should be very, very concrete.
2
SPEAKER_00
I draw on a piece of paper a little sketch of something that is called the Necker cube, it s just a little line drawing of a cube, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
It s on a flat piece of paper.
2
SPEAKER_00
If I execute it well and I show it to you, you ll see a 3D cube and you ll see it flip.
2
SPEAKER_00
Sometimes you ll see one face in front, sometimes you ll see the other face in front.
2
SPEAKER_00
But if I ask you, which face is in front when you don t look?
2
SPEAKER_00
The answer is, well, neither face is in front because there s no cube.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s just a flat piece of paper.
2
SPEAKER_00
So when you look at the piece of paper, you perceptually create the cube.
2
SPEAKER_00
And when you look at it, then you fix one face to be in front and one face to be.
2
SPEAKER_00
So that s what I mean when I say it doesn t exist.
2
SPEAKER_00
Space-time itself is like the cube.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s a data structure that your sensory systems construct, whatever your sensory systems mean now, because we now have to even take that for granted.
2
SPEAKER_00
But there are perceptions that you construct on the fly,
2
SPEAKER_00
and their data structures in a computer science sense, and you garbage collect them when you don t need them.
2
SPEAKER_00
So you create them and garbage collect them.
2
SPEAKER_01
But is it possible that it s mapped well in some concrete predictable way to objective reality?
2
SPEAKER_01
The sheet of paper, this two-dimensional space,
2
SPEAKER_01
or we can talk about space-time maps in some way that we maybe don t yet understand, but we ll one day understand what that mapping is, but it maps reliably, it is tethered in that way.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, yes, and so the new theories that the physicists are finding beyond space-time have that kind of tethering.
2
SPEAKER_00
So they show precisely how you start with an amplituhedron and how you project this high dimensional structure into the four dimensions of space-time.
2
SPEAKER_00
So there s a precise procedure that relates the two.
2
SPEAKER_00
And they re doing the same thing with the cosmological polytopes.
2
SPEAKER_00
So they re the ones that are making the most concrete and fun advances going beyond space-time.
2
SPEAKER_00
And they re tethering it.
2
SPEAKER_00
They say this is precisely the mathematical projection from this deeper structure into space-time.
2
SPEAKER_00
One thing I ll say about, as a non-physicist, what I find interesting is that they re finding just
2
SPEAKER_00
geometry, but there s no notion of dynamics.
2
SPEAKER_00
Right now, they re just finding these static geometric structures, which is impressive.
2
SPEAKER_00
I m not putting them down.
2
SPEAKER_00
This is what they re doing is unbelievably complicated and brilliant and adventurous.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s all those things.
2
SPEAKER_01
And beautiful from a human aesthetic perspective because geometry is beautiful.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s absolutely.
2
SPEAKER_00
And they re finding symmetries that are true of the data that can t be seen in space-time.
2
SPEAKER_00
But I m looking for a theory beyond space-time that s a dynamical theory.
2
SPEAKER_00
I would love to find, and we can talk about that at some point, a theory of consciousness in which
2
SPEAKER_00
the dynamics of consciousness itself will give rise to the geometry that the physicists are finding beyond space-time.
2
SPEAKER_00
If we can do that, then we d have a completely different way of looking at how consciousness is related to what we call the brain or the physical world more generally.
2
SPEAKER_00
Right now, all of my brilliant colleagues, 99% of them are trying to
2
SPEAKER_00
They re assuming space-time is fundamental.
2
SPEAKER_00
They re assuming that particles are fundamental, quarks, gluons, leptons, and so forth.
2
SPEAKER_00
Elements, atoms, and so forth are fundamental and that therefore neurons and brains are part of objective reality.
2
SPEAKER_00
And that somehow when you get matter that s complicated enough,
2
SPEAKER_00
it will somehow generate conscious experiences by its functional properties.
2
SPEAKER_00
Or if you re a panpsychist, maybe in addition to the physical properties of particles, you add consciousness property as well.
2
SPEAKER_00
And then you combine these physical and conscious properties to get more complicated ones.
2
SPEAKER_00
But they re all doing it within space-time.
2
SPEAKER_00
All of the work that s being done on consciousness and its relationship
2
SPEAKER_00
to the brain is all assumed something that our best theories are telling us is doomed, spacetime.
2
SPEAKER_01
Why does that particular assumption bother you the most?
2
SPEAKER_01
So you bring up spacetime.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s just one useful interface we ve used for a long time.
2
SPEAKER_01
Surely there s other interfaces.
2
SPEAKER_01
Is space-time just one of the big ones that you, to build up people s intuition about the fact that they do assume a lot of things strongly?
2
SPEAKER_01
Or is it, in fact, the fundamental flaw in the way we see the world?
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, everything else that we think we know are things in space-time.
2
SPEAKER_00
And so, when you say space-time is doomed, this is a shot to the heart of the whole framework, the whole conceptual framework that we ve had in science.
2
SPEAKER_00
Not to the scientific method, but to the fundamental ontology and also the fundamental methodology, the ontology of space-time and its contents.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the methodology of reductionism, which is that as we go to smaller scales in space-time, we will find more and more fundamental laws.
2
SPEAKER_00
And that s been very useful for space and time for centuries, reductionism for centuries, but now we realize that that s over.
2
SPEAKER_00
Reductionism is in fact dead, as is space-time.
2
SPEAKER_01
What exactly is reductionism?
2
SPEAKER_01
What is the process of reductionism that is different than some of the physicists that you mentioned that are trying to think, trying to let go of the assumption of space-time, looking beyond?
2
SPEAKER_01
Isn t that still trying to come up with a simple model that explains this whole thing?
2
SPEAKER_01
Isn t it still reducing?
2
SPEAKER_00
a wonderful question because it really helps to clarify two different notions, which is scientific explanation on the one hand and a particular kind of scientific explanation on the other, which is the reductionist.
2
SPEAKER_00
So the reductionist explanation is saying, I will start with
2
SPEAKER_00
things that are smaller in space time and therefore more fundamental, where the laws are more fundamental.
2
SPEAKER_00
So we go to just smaller and smaller scales.
2
SPEAKER_00
Whereas in science more generally, we just say like when Einstein did the special theory of relativity, he s saying, let me have a couple postulates.
2
SPEAKER_00
I will assume that the speed of light is universal for all
2
SPEAKER_00
observers in uniform motion, and that the laws of physics for uniform motion.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s not a reductionist.
2
SPEAKER_00
Those are saying, grant me these assumptions, I can build this entire concept of space time out of it.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s not a reductionist thing.
2
SPEAKER_00
You re not going to smaller and smaller scales of space
2
SPEAKER_00
you re coming up with these deep, deep principles.
2
SPEAKER_00
Same thing with this theory of gravity, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
It s the falling elevator idea, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
So this is not a reductionist kind of thing.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s something different.
2
SPEAKER_01
So simplification is a bigger thing than just reductionism.
2
SPEAKER_00
Reductionism has been a particularly useful kind of scientific explanation, for example, in thermodynamics.
2
SPEAKER_00
where the notion that we have of heat, some macroscopic thing like temperature and heat.
2
SPEAKER_00
It turns out that Neil Boltzmann and others discovered, well, hey, if we go to smaller and smaller scales, we find these things called molecules or atoms.
2
SPEAKER_00
And if we think of them as bouncing around and having some kind of energy, then what we call heat really can be reduced to that.
2
SPEAKER_00
And so that s a particularly useful kind of reduction is a useful kind of scientific explanation that works within a range of scales within space time.
2
SPEAKER_00
But we know now precisely where that has to stop at 10 to the minus 33 centimeters and 10 to the minus 43 seconds.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I would be impressed if it was 10 to the minus 33 trillion centimeters.
2
SPEAKER_00
I m not terribly impressed at 10 to the minus 33 centimeters.
2
SPEAKER_01
I don t even know how to comprehend either of those numbers, frankly.
2
SPEAKER_01
Just a small aside, because I am a computer science person, I also find cellular automata beautiful.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so you have somebody like Stephen Wolfram, who recently has been very excitedly exploring a proposal for a data structure that could be the numbers that would make you a little bit happier in terms of scale, because they re very, very, very, very tiny.
2
SPEAKER_01
Do you like this space of exploration, of really thinking, letting go of space-time, letting go of everything, and trying to think what kind of data structures could be underneath this whole mess?
2
SPEAKER_00
That s right.
2
SPEAKER_00
So if they re thinking about these as outside of space-time, then that s what we have to do.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s what our best theories are telling us.
2
SPEAKER_00
You now have to think outside of space-time.
2
SPEAKER_00
Now, of course, I should...
2
SPEAKER_00
back up and say, we know that Einstein surpassed Newton, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
But that doesn t mean that there s not good work to do on Newton.
2
SPEAKER_00
There s all sorts of Newtonian physics that takes us to the moon and so forth.
2
SPEAKER_00
And there s lots of good problems that we want to solve with Newtonian physics.
2
SPEAKER_00
The same thing will be true of space-time.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s not like we re going to stop using space-time.
2
SPEAKER_00
We ll continue to do all sorts of good work there.
2
SPEAKER_00
But for those scientists who are really looking to
2
SPEAKER_00
go deeper to actually find the next, just like what Einstein did to Newton, what are we going to do to Einstein?
2
SPEAKER_00
How do we get beyond Einstein and quantum theory to something deeper?
2
SPEAKER_00
Then we have to actually let go.
2
SPEAKER_00
If we re going to do this automata kind of approach,
2
SPEAKER_00
it s critical that it s not automata in spacetime, it s automata prior to spacetime, from which we re going to show how spacetime emerges.
2
SPEAKER_00
If you re doing automata within spacetime, well, that might be a fun model, but it s not the radical new step that we need.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so the space-time emerges from that whatever system, like you re saying, it s a dynamical system.
2
SPEAKER_01
Do we even have an understanding of what dynamical means when we go beyond?
2
SPEAKER_01
When you start to think about dynamics, it could mean a lot of things.
2
SPEAKER_01
Even causality could mean a lot of things if we realize that everything s an interface.
2
SPEAKER_01
How much do we really know is an interesting question.
2
SPEAKER_01
Because you brought up neurons, I gotta ask you yet another tangent.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s a paper I remember a while ago looking at called, Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?
2
SPEAKER_01
And I just enjoyed that thought experiment that they provided, which is they basically, it s a couple of neuroscientists, Eric Jonas and Conrad Cording, who used the tools of neuroscience to analyze a microprocessor, so a computer chip.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, if we lesion it here, what happens and so forth.
2
SPEAKER_00
And if you go and lesion a computer, it s very, very clear that lesion experiments on computers are not gonna give you a lot of insight into how it works.
2
SPEAKER_01
And also the measurement devices and the kind of sort of, just using the basic approaches of neuroscience, collecting the data, trying to intuit about the underlying function of it.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that helps you understand that our scientific exploration of concepts, depending on the field,
2
SPEAKER_01
are maybe in the very, very early stages.
2
SPEAKER_01
I wouldn t say it leads us astray, perhaps it does sometimes, but it s not anywhere close to some fundamental mechanism that actually makes a thing work.
2
SPEAKER_01
I don t know if you can sort of comment on that in terms of using neuroscience to understand the human mind and neurons.
2
SPEAKER_01
Are we really far away potentially from understanding in the way we understand the transistors enough to be able to build a computer?
2
SPEAKER_01
So one thing about understanding is you can understand for fun.
2
SPEAKER_01
The other one is to understand so you could build things.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that s when you really have to understand.
2
SPEAKER_00
Exactly.
2
SPEAKER_00
In fact, what got me into the field that I, at MIT, was work by David Marr on this very topic.
2
SPEAKER_00
So David Marr was a professor at MIT, but he d done his PhD in neuroscience, studying just the architectures of the brain.
2
SPEAKER_00
But he realized that his work, it was on the cerebellum.
2
SPEAKER_00
he realized that his work, as rigorous as it was, left him unsatisfied because he didn t know what the cerebellum was for and why it had that architecture.
2
SPEAKER_00
And so he went to MIT and he was in the AI lab there.
2
SPEAKER_00
And he said he had this three-level approach that really grabbed my attention.
2
SPEAKER_00
So when I was an undergrad at UCLA, I read one of his papers in a class and said, who is this guy?
2
SPEAKER_00
Because he said, you have to have a computational theory.
2
SPEAKER_00
What is being computed and why?
2
SPEAKER_00
An algorithm, how is it being computed?
2
SPEAKER_00
What are the precise algorithms?
2
SPEAKER_00
And then the hardware, how does it get instantiated in the hardware?
2
SPEAKER_00
And so to really do neuroscience, he argued, we needed to have understanding at all those levels.
2
SPEAKER_00
And that really got me.
2
SPEAKER_00
I loved the neuroscience, but I realized this guy was saying, if you can t build it, you don t understand it effectively.
2
SPEAKER_00
And so that s why I went to MIT.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I had the pleasure of working with David until he died just a year and a half later.
2
SPEAKER_00
So there s been that idea that with neuroscience, we
3
SPEAKER_00
to have, in some sense, a top-down model of what s being computed and why that we would then go after.
3
SPEAKER_00
And same thing with trying to reverse engineer a computing system like your laptop.
3
SPEAKER_00
We really need to understand what the user interface is about and what are keys on the keyboard for and so forth.
3
SPEAKER_00
You need to know why to really understand all the circuitry and what it s for.
3
SPEAKER_00
Now,
3
SPEAKER_00
We don t, evolution by natural selection does not tell us the deeper question that we re asking, the answer to the deeper question, which is why?
3
SPEAKER_00
What s this deeper reality and what s it up to and why?
3
SPEAKER_00
All it tells us is that whatever reality is, it s not what you see.
3
SPEAKER_00
What you see is just an adaptive fiction.
3
SPEAKER_01
So just to linger on this fascinating bold question that shakes you out of your dream state.
3
SPEAKER_01
Does this fiction still help you in building intuitions as literary fiction does about reality?
3
SPEAKER_01
The reason we read literary fiction is it helps us
3
SPEAKER_01
build intuitions and understanding in indirect ways, sneak up to the difficult questions of human nature.
3
SPEAKER_01
Great fiction.
3
SPEAKER_01
Same with this observed reality.
3
SPEAKER_01
Does this interface that we get, this fictional interface, help us build intuition about deeper truths of how this whole mess works?
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, I think that each theory that we propose will give its own answer to that question, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
So when the physicists are proposing these structures like the amplituhedron and cosmological polytope, associahedron and so forth,
3
SPEAKER_00
beyond space-time.
3
SPEAKER_00
We can then ask your question for those specific structures and say, how much information, for example, does evolution by natural selection and the kinds of sensory systems that we have right now give us about this deeper reality?
3
SPEAKER_00
why did we evolve this way?
3
SPEAKER_00
We can try to answer that question from within the deep.
3
SPEAKER_00
So there s not going to be a general answer.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think what we ll have to do is posit these new deeper theories and then try to answer your question within the framework of those deeper theories knowing full well that there ll be an even deeper theory.
3
SPEAKER_01
So is this paralyzing though?
3
SPEAKER_01
Because how do we know we re not completely adrift out to sea, lost forever from, so like, that our theories are completely lost.
3
SPEAKER_01
So if it s all, if we can never truly, deeply introspect to the bottom, if it s always just turtles on top of turtles infinitely,
3
SPEAKER_01
Isn t that paralyzing for a scientific mind?
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, it s interesting that you say introspect to the bottom.
3
SPEAKER_00
Because there is one, I mean, again, this is in the same spirit of what I said before, which is it depends on what answer you give to what s beyond space-time, what answer we would give to your question, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
But one answer that is interesting to explore is something that spiritual traditions have said for thousands of years, but haven t said precisely.
3
SPEAKER_00
So we can t take it seriously in science until it s made precise, but we might be able to make it precise.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that is that they ve also said something like space and time aren t fundamental, they re maya, they re illusion.
3
SPEAKER_00
But if you look inside, if you introspect and let go of all of your particular perceptions,
3
SPEAKER_00
you will come to something that s beyond conceptual thought.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that is, they claim, being in contact with the deep ground of being that transcends any particular conceptual understanding.
3
SPEAKER_00
If that is correct, and I m not saying it s correct, and I m not saying it s not correct, I m just saying, if that s correct, then it would be the case that as scientists, because we also are in touch with this ground of being, we would then
3
SPEAKER_00
not be able to conceptually understand ourselves all the way, but we could know ourselves just by being ourselves.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so there would be a sense in which there is a fundamental grounding to the whole enterprise because we re not separate from the enterprise.
3
SPEAKER_00
This is the opposite of the impersonal third-person science.
3
SPEAKER_00
This would make science go personal all the way down.
3
SPEAKER_00
But nevertheless, scientific, because the scientific method would still be
3
SPEAKER_00
what we would use all the way down for the conceptual understanding.
3
SPEAKER_01
Unfortunately, you still don t know if you went all the way down.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s possible that this kind of whatever consciousness is, and we ll talk about it, is getting the cliche statement of be yourself.
3
SPEAKER_01
It is somehow digging at a deeper truth of reality, but you still don t know when you get to the bottom.
3
SPEAKER_01
A lot of people, they ll take psychedelic drugs, and they ll say, well, that takes my mind to certain places where it feels like that is revealing some deeper truth of reality.
3
SPEAKER_01
But you still, it could be interfaces on top of interfaces.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s, in your view of this, you really don t know.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, Gato s incompleteness is that you really don t know.
3
SPEAKER_00
My own view on it, for what it s worth, because I don t know the right answer, but my own view on it right now is that it s never ending.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think that this is great, as I said before, great job security for science.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that we, if this is true, and if consciousness is somehow important or fundamental in the universe, this may be an important fundamental fact about consciousness itself, that it s a never-ending exploration that s going on in some sense.
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s interesting.
3
SPEAKER_01
Push back on the job security.
3
SPEAKER_00
Okay.
3
SPEAKER_01
So maybe as we understand this kind of idea deeper and deeper, we understand that the pursuit is not a fruitful one.
3
SPEAKER_01
Then maybe we need to, maybe that s why we don t see aliens everywhere, is you get smarter and smarter and smarter, you realize that like exploration is, there s other fun ways to spend your time than exploring.
3
SPEAKER_01
You could be, you know,
3
SPEAKER_01
You could be sort of living maximally in some way that s not exploration.
3
SPEAKER_01
There s all kinds of video games you can construct and put yourself inside of them that don t involve you going outside of the game world.
3
SPEAKER_01
Feeling, from my human perspective, what seems to be fun is challenging yourself and overcoming those challenges.
3
SPEAKER_01
So you can constantly artificially generate challenges for yourself.
3
SPEAKER_01
like Sisyphus and his boulder.
3
SPEAKER_01
And that s it.
3
SPEAKER_01
So the scientific method that s always reaching out to the stars, that s always trying to figure out the puzzle upon a puzzle, always trying to get to the bottom turtle.
3
SPEAKER_01
Maybe if we can build more and more the intuition that that s infinite pursuit, we agree to start deviating from that pursuit, start enjoying the here and now versus the,
3
SPEAKER_01
looking out into the unknown always.
3
SPEAKER_01
Maybe that s looking out into the unknown is a early...
3
SPEAKER_01
activity for a species that s evolved.
3
SPEAKER_01
I m just sort of saying, pushing back, as you probably got a lot of scientists excited in terms of job security, I could envision where it s not job security, where scientists become more and more useless.
3
SPEAKER_01
Maybe they re like the holders of the ancient wisdom that allows us to study our own history, but not much more than that.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, that s good pushback.
3
SPEAKER_00
I ll put one in there for the scientists again.
3
SPEAKER_00
But sure, but then I ll take the other side too.
3
SPEAKER_00
So, when Faraday did all of his experiments with magnets and electricity and so forth, he came with all this wonderful empirical data and James Clerk Maxwell looked at it and wrote down a few equations, which we can now write down in a single equation, the Maxwell equation if we use geometric algebra, just one equation.
3
SPEAKER_00
That opened up unbelievable technologies.
3
SPEAKER_00
People were Zooming and talking to each other around the world, the whole electronics industry.
3
SPEAKER_00
There was something that transformed our lives in a very positive way.
3
SPEAKER_00
With the theories beyond space-time, here s one potential.
3
SPEAKER_00
Right now, most of the galaxies that we see
3
SPEAKER_00
We can see them, but we know that we could never get to them no matter how fast we traveled.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re going away from us at the speed of light or beyond, so we can t ever get to them.
3
SPEAKER_00
So there s all this beautiful real estate that s just smiling and waving at us and we can never get to it.
3
SPEAKER_00
But that s if we go through space-time.
3
SPEAKER_00
But if we recognize that space-time is just a data structure, it s not fundamental.
3
SPEAKER_00
We re not little things inside space-time.
3
SPEAKER_00
Space-time is a little data structure in our perceptions.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s just the other way around.
3
SPEAKER_00
Once we understand that and we get equations for the stuff that s beyond space-time, maybe we won t have to go through space-time.
3
SPEAKER_00
Maybe we can go around it.
3
SPEAKER_00
Maybe I can go to Proxima Centauri and not go through space.
3
SPEAKER_00
I can just go right there directly.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s a data structure.
3
SPEAKER_00
We can start to play with it.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I think that
3
SPEAKER_00
My, for what it s worth, my take would be that the endless sequence of theories that we could contemplate building will lead to an endless
3
SPEAKER_00
sequence of new remarkable insights into the potentialities, the possibilities that would seem miraculous to us, and that we will be motivated to continue the exploration partly just for the technological innovations that come out.
3
SPEAKER_00
But
3
SPEAKER_00
The other thing that you mentioned though, what about just being?
3
SPEAKER_00
What if we decide instead of all this doing and exploring, what about being?
3
SPEAKER_00
My guess is that the best scientists will do both and that the act of being will be a place where they get many of their ideas.
3
SPEAKER_00
that they then pull into the conceptual realm.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I think many of the best scientists, Einstein comes to mind, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
Where these guys say, look, I didn t come up with these ideas by a conceptual analysis.
3
SPEAKER_00
I was thinking in vague images and it was just something
3
SPEAKER_00
non-conceptual.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then it took me a long, long time to pull it out into concepts and then longer to put it into math.
3
SPEAKER_00
But the real insights didn t come from just slavishly playing with equations, they came from a deeper place.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so there may be this going back and forth between the complete non-conceptual
3
SPEAKER_00
where there s essentially no end to the wisdom, and then conceptual systems where there s the girdle limits that we have to that.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that may be, if consciousness is important and fundamental, that may be what consciousness, at least part of what consciousness is about, is this discovering itself, discovering its possibilities, so to speak, and we can talk about what that might mean, by going from the non-conceptual to the conceptual and back and forth.
3
SPEAKER_01
to get better and better and better at being.
3
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask you, just to linger on the evolutionary, because you mentioned evolutionary game theory and that s really where you, the perspective from which you come to form the case against reality.
3
SPEAKER_01
at which point in our evolutionary history did we start to deviate the most from reality?
3
SPEAKER_01
Is it way before life even originated on Earth?
3
SPEAKER_01
Is it in the early development from bacteria and so on?
3
SPEAKER_01
or is it when some inklings of what we think of as intelligence or maybe even complex consciousness started to emerge?
3
SPEAKER_01
So where did this deviation, just like with the interfaces in a computer, you start with transistors and then you have assembly and then you have C, C++, then you have Python, then you have GUIs,
3
SPEAKER_01
You have layers upon layers.
3
SPEAKER_01
When do we start to deviate?
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, David Marr, again, my advisor at MIT.
3
SPEAKER_00
his book, Vision, suggested that the more primitive sensory systems were less realistic, less veridical, but that by the time you got to something as complicated as the humans, we were actually estimating the true shapes and distances to objects and so forth.
3
SPEAKER_00
So his point of view, and I think it was probably, it s not an uncommon view among my colleagues, that yeah, the sensory systems of lower
3
SPEAKER_00
creatures may just not be complicated enough to give them much truth.
3
SPEAKER_00
But as you get to 86 billion neurons, you can now compute the truth, or at least the parts of the truth that we need.
3
SPEAKER_00
When I look at evolutionary game theory,
3
SPEAKER_00
One of my graduate students, Justin Mark, did some simulations using genetic algorithms.
3
SPEAKER_00
So there he was just exploring, we start off with random organisms, random sensory genetics and random actions.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the first generation was unbelievably, it was a foraging situation, they were foraging for resources.
3
SPEAKER_00
Most of them just stayed in one place, didn t do anything important.
3
SPEAKER_00
But
3
SPEAKER_00
We could then just look at how the genes evolved, and what we found was
3
SPEAKER_00
What he found was that basically you never even saw the truth organisms even come on the stage.
3
SPEAKER_00
If they came, they were gone in one generation.
3
SPEAKER_00
They just weren t.
3
SPEAKER_00
So they came and went even just in one generation.
3
SPEAKER_00
They just are not good enough.
3
SPEAKER_00
The ones that were just tracking, their senses just were tracking the fitness payoffs.
3
SPEAKER_00
we re far more fit than the truth seekers.
3
SPEAKER_00
So an answer at one level, I m gonna give an answer at a deeper level, but just with evolutionary game theory, because my attitude as a scientist is, I don t believe any of our theories.
3
SPEAKER_00
I take them very, very seriously.
3
SPEAKER_00
I study them.
3
SPEAKER_00
I look at their implications, but none of them are the gospel.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re just the latest ideas that we have.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so the reason I study evolutionary game theory is because that s the best tool we have right now in this area.
3
SPEAKER_00
there is nothing else that competes.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so, as a scientist, it s my responsibility to take the best tools and see what they mean.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the same thing the physicists are doing.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re taking the best tools and looking at what they entail.
3
SPEAKER_00
But I think that science now has enough experience to realize that we should not
3
SPEAKER_00
believe our theories in the sense that we ve now arrived.
3
SPEAKER_00
In 1890, it was a lot of physicists thought we d arrived.
3
SPEAKER_00
They were discouraging, bright young
3
SPEAKER_00
students from going into physics because it was all done.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that s precisely the wrong attitude.
3
SPEAKER_00
Forever, it s the wrong attitude forever.
3
SPEAKER_00
The attitude we should have is a century from now, they ll be looking at us and laughing at what we didn t know.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we just have to assume that that s going to be the case.
3
SPEAKER_00
Just know that everything that we think is so brilliant right now, our final theory, a century from now, they ll look at us like we look at the physicists of 1890 and go, how could they have been so dumb?
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I don t want to make that mistake.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I m not doctrinaire about any of our current scientific theories.
3
SPEAKER_00
I am doctrinaire about this.
3
SPEAKER_00
we should use the best tools we have right now.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s what we ve got.
3
SPEAKER_01
And with humility.
3
SPEAKER_01
So let me ask you about game theory.
3
SPEAKER_01
I love game theory, evolutionary game theory, but I m always suspicious of it, like economics.
3
SPEAKER_01
When you construct models, it s too easy to construct things that oversimplify just because we, our human brains, enjoy the oversimplification.
4
SPEAKER_00
the simplification of constructing a few variables that somehow represent organisms or represent people and running a simulation that then allows you to build up intuition.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it feels really good because you can get some really deep and surprising intuitions.
4
SPEAKER_00
But how do you know?
4
SPEAKER_00
your models aren t, the assumptions underlying your models aren t fundamentally flawed, and because of that, your conclusions are fundamentally flawed.
4
SPEAKER_00
So I guess my question is, what are the limits in your use of game theory, evolutionary game theory, your experience with it, what are the limits of game theory?
4
SPEAKER_01
So I ve gotten some pushback from professional colleagues and friends.
4
SPEAKER_01
who have tried to rerun simulations and try to, I mean, the idea that we don t see the truth is not comfortable.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so many of my colleagues are very interested in trying to show that we re wrong.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so the idea would be to say that somehow we did something as you re suggesting, maybe something special that wasn t completely general.
4
SPEAKER_01
We ve got some little special part of the whole search space in evolutionary game theory in which this happens to be true, but more generally organisms would evolve to see the truth.
4
SPEAKER_01
So the best
4
SPEAKER_01
pushback we ve gotten is from a team at Yale.
4
SPEAKER_01
And they suggested that if you use thousands of payoff functions, so we in our simulations, we just use a couple, one or two, because it was our first simulations, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
So that would be a limit.
4
SPEAKER_01
We had one or two payoff functions, we showed the result in those, at least for the genetic algorithms.
4
SPEAKER_01
And they said, if you have 20,000 of them, then we can find these conditions in which
4
SPEAKER_01
truth-seeing organisms would be the ones that evolved and survived.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so we looked at their simulations, and it certainly is the case that you can find special cases in which truth can evolve.
4
SPEAKER_01
So when I say it s probability zero, it doesn t mean it can t happen.
4
SPEAKER_01
It can happen.
4
SPEAKER_01
In fact, it could happen infinitely often.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s just probability zero.
4
SPEAKER_01
So probability zero things can happen infinitely often.
4
SPEAKER_01
When you say probability zero, you mean probability close to zero.
4
SPEAKER_01
to be very, very precise.
4
SPEAKER_01
So for example, if I have a unit square on the plane, and I use a probability measure in which the area of a region is this probability, then if I draw a curve in that unit square, it has measure precisely zero, precisely, not approximately, precisely zero, and yet it has infinitely many points.
4
SPEAKER_01
So there s an object that for that probability measure has probability zero, and yet there s infinitely many points in it.
4
SPEAKER_01
So that s what I mean when I say that the things that are probability zero can happen infinitely often in principle.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but infinity, as far as, and I look outside often, I walk around and I look at people, I have never seen infinity in real life.
4
SPEAKER_00
That s an interesting,
4
SPEAKER_00
I ve been looking, I ve been looking.
4
SPEAKER_00
I don t notice it, infinitely small or the infinitely big.
4
SPEAKER_00
And so the tools of mathematics, you could sort of apply the same kind of criticism that it is a very convenient interface into our reality.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s a big debate in mathematics, the intuitionists versus the ones who take, for example, the real numbers as real.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s a fun discussion.
4
SPEAKER_01
Nicholas Gieson, a physicist, has done really interesting work recently on how if you go with intuitionist mathematics,
4
SPEAKER_01
you could effectively quantize Newton and you find that the Newtonian theory and quantum theory aren t that different once you go with it.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s really quite interesting.
4
SPEAKER_01
So the issue you raise is a very, very deep one and one that I think we should take quite seriously, which is, you know,
4
SPEAKER_01
how should we think about the reality of the contours hierarchy, Aleph one, Aleph two, and all these different infinities versus just a more algorithmic approach, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
So where everything s computable in some sense, everything s finite, as big as you want, but nevertheless finite.
4
SPEAKER_00
So yeah, it ultimately boils down to whether the world is discrete or continuous in some general sense.
4
SPEAKER_00
And again, we can t really know.
4
SPEAKER_00
But there s just a mind-breaking thought, just common sense reasoning, that something can happen and is yet, probability of it happening is 0%.
4
SPEAKER_00
That doesn t compute for common sense computer.
4
SPEAKER_01
Right, this is where you have to be a sharp mathematician to really, and I m not.
4
SPEAKER_00
Sharp is one word.
4
SPEAKER_00
What I m saying is common sense computers, I mean that in a very kind of, in a positive sense, because we ve been talking about perception systems and interfaces, if we are to reason about the world, we have to use the best interfaces we got.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I m not exactly sure
4
SPEAKER_00
that game theory is the best interface we got for this.
4
SPEAKER_00
And application of mathematics, tricks and tools of mathematics to game theory is the best we got when we are thinking about the nature of reality and fitness functions and evolution, period.
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s a fair rejoinder.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I think that that was the tool that we used.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if someone says, here s a better mathematical tool, and here s why, this mathematical tool better captures the essence of Darwin s idea.
4
SPEAKER_01
John Maynard Smith didn t quite get it with evolutionary game theory.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s this thing.
4
SPEAKER_01
Now, there are tools like evolutionary graph theory, which generalize evolutionary game theory.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then there s quantum game theory.
4
SPEAKER_01
So you can
4
SPEAKER_01
you can use quantum tools, like entanglement, for example, as a resource in games, that change the very nature of the solutions, the optimal solutions of the game theoretic.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, the work from Yale is really interesting.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s a really interesting challenge of that kind of, of these ideas where, okay, if you have a very large number of fitness functions, or let s say you have,
4
SPEAKER_00
a nearly infinite number of fitness functions, or a growing number of fitness functions, what kind of interesting things start to emerging, if you are to be an organism.
4
SPEAKER_00
If to be an organism that adapts means having to deal with an ensemble of fitness functions.
4
SPEAKER_01
Right.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so, we ve actually redone some of our own work based on theirs.
4
SPEAKER_01
And this is the back and forth that we expect in science, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
And what we found was that in their simulations, they were assuming that you couldn t carve the world up into objects.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so, we said, well, let s relax that assumption.
4
SPEAKER_01
Allow organisms to create data structures that we might call objects.
4
SPEAKER_01
And an object would be you would do hierarchical clustering of your fitness payoff functions, the ones that have similar shapes.
4
SPEAKER_01
If you have 20,000 of them, maybe these 50 are all very, very similar.
4
SPEAKER_01
So I can take all the perception, action, fitness stuff and make that into a data structure and we ll call that a unit or an object.
4
SPEAKER_01
And as soon as we did that, then all of their results went away.
4
SPEAKER_01
It turned out they were the special case and that the organisms that were allowed to only see, that were shaped to see only fitness payoffs were the ones that were.
4
SPEAKER_01
So the idea is that objects then, what are objects from an evolutionary point of view?
4
SPEAKER_01
This bottle, we thought that when I saw a bottle, it was because I was seeing a true object that existed whether or not it was perceived.
4
SPEAKER_01
evolutionary theories suggest a different interpretation.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m seeing a data structure that is encoding a convenient way of looking at various fitness payoffs.
4
SPEAKER_01
I can use this for drinking.
4
SPEAKER_01
I could use it as a weapon, not a very good one.
4
SPEAKER_01
I could beat someone over the head with it.
4
SPEAKER_01
If my goal is mating, this is pointless.
4
SPEAKER_01
So I m seeing for what I m coding here is all sorts of actions and the payoffs that I could get.
4
SPEAKER_01
When I pick up an apple, now I m getting a different set of actions and payoffs.
4
SPEAKER_01
When I pick up a rock, I m getting... So for every object, what I m getting is a different set of payoff functions with various actions.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so once you allow that, then what you find is, once again, that truth goes extinct and the organisms that just get an interface are the ones that win.
4
SPEAKER_00
But the question, just sneaking up on, this is fascinating, from where do fitness functions originate?
4
SPEAKER_00
What gives birth to the fitness functions?
4
SPEAKER_00
So if there s a giant black box that just keeps giving you fitness functions, what are we trying to optimize?
4
SPEAKER_00
You said that water has different functions.
4
SPEAKER_00
uses than an apple.
4
SPEAKER_00
So there s these objects.
4
SPEAKER_00
What are we trying to optimize?
4
SPEAKER_00
And why is not reality a really good generator of fitness functions?
4
SPEAKER_01
So each theory makes its own assumptions and says, grant me this, and I ll explain that.
4
SPEAKER_01
So evolutionary game theory says, grant me fitness payoffs.
4
SPEAKER_01
Right, and grant me strategies with payoffs, and I can write down the matrix for if this strategy interacts with that strategy, these are the payoffs that come up.
4
SPEAKER_01
If you grant me that, then I can start to explain a lot of things.
4
SPEAKER_01
Now, you can ask for a deeper question, like, okay, how does physics evolve biology, and where do these fitness payoffs come from, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
That s a completely different enterprise.
4
SPEAKER_01
And of course, evolutionary game theory then would be not the right tool for that.
4
SPEAKER_01
It would have to be a deeper tool that shows where evolutionary game theory comes from.
4
SPEAKER_01
My own take is that there s gonna be a problem in doing that because space-time isn t fundamental.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s just a user interface.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that the distinction that we make between living and non-living
4
SPEAKER_01
is not a fundamental distinction.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s an artifact of the limits of our interface.
4
SPEAKER_01
Right, so this is a new wrinkle, and this is an important wrinkle.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s so nice to take space and time as fundamental, because if something looks like it s inanimate, it s inanimate, and we can just say it s not living.
4
SPEAKER_01
Now, it s much more complicated.
4
SPEAKER_01
Certain things are obviously living.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m talking with you, I m obviously interacting with something that s alive and conscious.
4
SPEAKER_00
I think we ve let go of the word obviously in this conversation.
4
SPEAKER_00
I think nothing is obvious.
4
SPEAKER_01
Nothing s obvious, that s right.
4
SPEAKER_01
But when we get down to an ant, it s obviously living, but I ll say it appears to be living.
4
SPEAKER_01
But when we get down to a virus, now people wonder, and when we get down to protons, people say it s not living.
4
SPEAKER_01
And my attitude is, look, I have a user interface.
4
SPEAKER_01
The interface is there to hide certain aspects of reality and others to,
4
SPEAKER_01
an uneven representation, put it that way.
4
SPEAKER_01
Certain things just get completely hidden.
4
SPEAKER_01
Dark matter and dark energy are most of the energy and matter that s out there.
4
SPEAKER_01
Our interface just plain flat out hides them.
4
SPEAKER_01
The only way we get some hint is because gravitational things are going wrong.
4
SPEAKER_01
So most things are outside of our interface.
4
SPEAKER_01
The distinction between living and non-living
4
SPEAKER_01
is not fundamental, it s an artifact of our interface.
4
SPEAKER_01
So if we really want to understand where evolution comes from, to answer the question, the deep question you asked, I think the right way we re gonna have to do that is to come up with a deeper theory than space-time, in which there may not be the notion of time.
4
SPEAKER_01
And show that whatever this dynamics of that deeper theory is,
4
SPEAKER_01
And by the way, I ll talk about how you could have dynamics without time.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the dynamics of this deeper theory, when we project it into
4
SPEAKER_01
in certain ways, then we do get space-time and we get what appears to be evolution by natural selection.
4
SPEAKER_01
So I would love to see evolution by natural selection, nature red in tooth and claw, people fighting, animals fighting for resources and the whole bit, come out of a deeper theory in which perhaps it s all cooperation.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s no limited resources and so forth.
4
SPEAKER_01
But as a result of projection, you get space and time.
4
SPEAKER_01
And as a result of projection, you get nature red in tooth and claw, the appearance of it.
4
SPEAKER_01
But it s all an artifact of the interface.
4
SPEAKER_00
I like this idea that the line between living and non-living is very important.
4
SPEAKER_00
Because that s a thing that would emerge before you have evolution.
4
SPEAKER_00
The idea of death.
4
SPEAKER_00
So, that seems to be an important component of natural selection, and if that emerged, because that s also, you know, asking the question, I guess, that I asked, where do fitness functions come from?
4
SPEAKER_00
That s like asking the old meaning of life question, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
It s like, what s the why?
4
SPEAKER_00
Why?
4
SPEAKER_00
And one of the big underlying why s, okay, you can start with evolution on Earth, but without living, without life and death, without the line between the living and the dead, you don t have evolution.
4
SPEAKER_00
So what if underneath it, there s no such thing as the living and the dead?
4
SPEAKER_00
There s no, like this concept of an organism, period.
4
SPEAKER_00
There s a living organism that s defined by a volume in space-time that somehow interacts, that over time maintains its integrity somehow.
4
SPEAKER_00
it has some kind of history, it has a wall of some kind.
4
SPEAKER_00
The outside world, the environment, and then inside there s an organism.
4
SPEAKER_00
So you re defining an organism, and also you define that organism by the fact that it can move, and it can come alive, which you kind of think of as moving, combined with the fact that it s keeping itself separate from the environment, so you can point out that thing is living, and then it can also die.
4
SPEAKER_00
that seems to be all very powerful components of space-time that enable you to have something like natural selection and evolution.
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, and there s a lot of interesting work, some of it by collaborators of Carl Friston and others where they have Bayes net kind of stuff that they build on and the notion of a Markov blanket.
4
SPEAKER_01
So you have some states,
4
SPEAKER_01
within this network that are inside the blanket, then you have the blanket, and then the states outside the blanket.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the states inside this Markov blanket are conditionally independent of the states outside the blanket, conditioned on the blanket.
4
SPEAKER_01
And what they re looking at is that the dynamics of the states inside the Markov blanket
4
SPEAKER_01
seem to be trying to estimate properties of the outside and react to them in a way.
4
SPEAKER_01
So it seems like you re doing probabilistic inferences in ways that might be able to keep you alive.
4
SPEAKER_01
So there s interesting work going on in that direction.
4
SPEAKER_01
But what I m saying is something slightly different.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that is, when I look at you, all I see is skin, hair, and eyes, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
That s all I see.
4
SPEAKER_01
But
4
SPEAKER_01
I know that there s a deeper reality.
4
SPEAKER_01
I believe that there s a much deeper reality.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s the whole world of your experiences, your thoughts, your hopes, your dreams.
4
SPEAKER_01
In some sense, the face that I see is just a symbol that I create, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
And as soon as I look away, I delete that symbol.
4
SPEAKER_01
But I don t delete you.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t delete the conscious experience, the whole world of your... So I m only deleting an interface symbol.
4
SPEAKER_01
But that interface symbol is a portal, so to speak.
4
SPEAKER_01
not a perfect portal, but a genuine portal into your beliefs, into your conscious experiences.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s why we can have a conversation.
4
SPEAKER_01
Your consciousness is genuinely affecting mine, and mine is genuinely affecting yours through these icons, which I create on the fly.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I create your face.
4
SPEAKER_01
When I look, I delete it.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t create you, your consciousness.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s there all the time.
4
SPEAKER_01
Now when I look at a cat, I m creating something that I still call living and I still think is conscious.
4
SPEAKER_01
When I look at an ant, I create something that I still would call living but maybe not conscious.
4
SPEAKER_01
When I look at something I call a virus, now I m not even sure I would call it living.
4
SPEAKER_01
And when I look at a proton, I would say I don t even think it s not alive at all.
4
SPEAKER_01
It could be that I m nevertheless
4
SPEAKER_01
interacting with something that s just as conscious as you.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m not saying the proton is conscious.
5
SPEAKER_00
The face that I m creating when I look at you, that face is not conscious.
5
SPEAKER_00
That face is a data structure in me.
5
SPEAKER_00
That face is an experience, it s not an experiencer.
5
SPEAKER_00
Similarly, a proton is something that I create when I look or do a collision in the Large Hadron Collider or something like that.
5
SPEAKER_00
But what is behind the entity in space-time?
5
SPEAKER_00
So I ve got this space-time interface and I ve just got this entity that I call a proton.
5
SPEAKER_00
What is the reality behind it?
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, the physicists are finding these big, big structures, amplituhedron, the sociahedron.
5
SPEAKER_00
What s behind those?
5
SPEAKER_00
Could be consciousness, what I m playing with.
5
SPEAKER_00
In which case, when I m interacting with a proton,
5
SPEAKER_00
I could be interacting with consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
Again, to be very, very clear, because it s easy to misunderstand, I m not saying a proton is conscious.
5
SPEAKER_00
Just like I m not saying your face is conscious.
5
SPEAKER_00
Your face is a symbol I create and then delete as I look.
5
SPEAKER_00
So your face is not conscious, but I know that that face in my interface, the Lex Friedman face that I create, is an interface symbol that s a genuine portal into your consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
portal is less clear for a cat, even less clear for an ant, and by the time we get down to a proton, the portal is not clear at all.
5
SPEAKER_00
But that doesn t mean I m not interacting with consciousness, it just means my interface gave up, and there s some deeper reality that we have to go after.
5
SPEAKER_00
So your question really forces out a big part of this whole approach that I m talking about.
5
SPEAKER_01
So it s this portal, I wonder why you can t, your portal is not as good to a cat, to a cat s consciousness, than it is to a human.
5
SPEAKER_01
Does it have to do with the fact that you re human, and just similar organisms, organisms of similar complexity are able to create portals better to each other, or is it just, as you get more and more complex, you get better and better portals?
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, let me answer one aspect of it that I m more confident about, then I ll speculate on that.
5
SPEAKER_00
Why is it that the portal is so bad with protons?
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, and elementary particles more generally, so quarks, leptons, and gluons, and so forth.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, the reason for that is because those are just symmetries of space-time.
5
SPEAKER_00
More technically, they re irreducible representations of the Poincaré group of space-time.
5
SPEAKER_00
So they re just,
5
SPEAKER_00
literally representations of the data structure of space-time that we re using.
5
SPEAKER_00
So that s why they re not very much insightful.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re just almost entirely tied to the data structure itself.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re telling you only something about the data structure, not behind the data structure.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s only when we get to higher levels that we re starting to, in some sense, build portals to what s behind space-time.
5
SPEAKER_01
Sure, yeah, so there s more and more complexity built on top of the interface of space-time with the cat.
5
SPEAKER_01
So you can actually build a portal, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, right.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, this interface of face and hair and so on, skin,
5
SPEAKER_01
There s some syncing going on between humans, though, where we sync, like, you re getting a pretty good representation of the ideas in my head and starting to get a foggy view of my memories in my head, even though this is the first time we re talking, you start to project your own memories, you start to solve, like,
5
SPEAKER_01
a giant hierarchy of puzzles about a human.
5
SPEAKER_01
Because we re all, there s a lot of similarities, a lot of it rhymes.
5
SPEAKER_01
So you start to make a lot of inferences and you build up this model of a person.
5
SPEAKER_01
You have a pretty sophisticated model of what s going on underneath.
5
SPEAKER_01
Again, I just, I wonder if it s possible to construct these models about each other and nevertheless be very distant from an underlying reality.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes, there s a lot of work on this.
5
SPEAKER_00
So there s some interesting work called Signaling Games, where they look at how people can coordinate and come to communicate.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s some interesting work that was done by some colleagues and friends of mine, Louis Nerens, Natalia Komorova, and Kimberly Jameson, where they were looking at
5
SPEAKER_00
evolving color words.
5
SPEAKER_00
So you have a circle of colors, the color circle, and they wanted to see if they could get people to cooperate in how they carved the color circle up into two units of words.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so they had a game, theoretic kind of thing that they d had people do.
5
SPEAKER_00
And what they found was that when they included, so most people are trichromats, you have three kinds of cone photoreceptors,
5
SPEAKER_00
But there are some, a lot of men, 7% of men are dichromats.
5
SPEAKER_00
They might be missing the red cone photoreceptor.
5
SPEAKER_00
They found that the dichromats had an outsized influence
5
SPEAKER_00
on the final ways that the whole space of colors was carved up and labels attached.
5
SPEAKER_00
You needed to be able to include the dichromats in the conversation so they had a bigger influence on how you made the boundaries of the language.
5
SPEAKER_00
I thought that was a really interesting kind of insight that there s going to be, again, perhaps a game or evolutionary or genetic algorithm kind of thing that goes on in terms of
5
SPEAKER_00
learning to communicate in ways that are useful.
5
SPEAKER_00
So yeah, you can use game theory to actually explore that, or signaling games.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of brilliant work on that.
5
SPEAKER_00
I m not doing it, but there s work out there.
5
SPEAKER_01
So if it s okay, let us tackle once more, and perhaps several more times, after the big topic of consciousness, okay?
5
SPEAKER_01
this very beautiful, powerful things that perhaps is the thing that makes us human.
5
SPEAKER_01
What is it?
5
SPEAKER_01
What s the role of consciousness in, let s say even just the thing we ve been talking about, which is the formation of this interface?
5
SPEAKER_01
Any kind of ways you want to kind of start talking about it?
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, let me say first what most of my colleagues say.
5
SPEAKER_00
99% are, again, assuming that space-time is fundamental, particles in space-time, matter is fundamental, and most are reductionist.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so, the standard approach to consciousness is to figure out what complicated systems of matter with the right functional properties could possibly lead to the emergence of consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s the general idea, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
So maybe you have to have neurons.
5
SPEAKER_00
Maybe only if you have neurons, but that might not be enough.
5
SPEAKER_00
They have certain kinds of complexity in their organization and their dynamics, certain kind of network abilities, for example.
5
SPEAKER_00
So there s
5
SPEAKER_00
There are those who say, for example, that consciousness arises from orchestrated collapse of quantum states of microtubules and neurons.
5
SPEAKER_00
So this is Hameroff and Penrose.
5
SPEAKER_00
So you start with something physical,
5
SPEAKER_00
a property of quantum states of neurons, of microtubules and neurons.
5
SPEAKER_00
And you say that somehow an orchestrated collapse of those is consciousness or conscious experiences.
5
SPEAKER_00
Or integrated information theory.
5
SPEAKER_00
Again, you start with something physical
5
SPEAKER_00
And if it has the right kind of functional properties, it s something they call phi, with the right kind of integrated information, then you have consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
Or you can be a panpsychist, Philip Goff for example, where you might say, well, in addition to the particles in space and time,
5
SPEAKER_00
Those particles are not just matter, they also could have, say, a unit of consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
But once again, you re taking space and time and particles as fundamental, and you re adding a new property to them, say, their consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
And then you have to talk about how when a proton and an electron get together to form hydrogen, then how those consciousnesses
5
SPEAKER_00
merge to or interact to create the consciousness of hydrogen and so forth.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s attention schema theory, which again, this is how neural network processes representing to the network itself, its attentional processes, that could be consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s global workspace theory and neuronal global workspace theory.
5
SPEAKER_00
So there s many, many theories of this type.
5
SPEAKER_00
What s common to all of them?
5
SPEAKER_00
is they assume that space-time is fundamental.
5
SPEAKER_00
They assume that physical processes in space-time is fundamental.
5
SPEAKER_00
Panpsychism adds consciousness as an additional thing, it s almost dualist in that regard.
5
SPEAKER_00
And my attitude is our best science is telling us that space-time is not fundamental.
5
SPEAKER_00
So why is that important here?
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, for centuries,
5
SPEAKER_00
Deep thinkers thought of earth, air, fire, and water as the fundamental elements.
5
SPEAKER_00
It was a reductionist kind of idea.
5
SPEAKER_00
Nothing was more elemental than those and you could sort of build everything up from those.
5
SPEAKER_00
When we got the periodic table of elements
5
SPEAKER_00
we realized that, of course, we want to study earth, air, fire and water.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s combustion science for fire, there s sciences for all these other things, water and so forth.
5
SPEAKER_00
So we re going to do science for these things, but fundamental, no, no.
5
SPEAKER_00
If you re looking for something fundamental, those are the wrong building blocks.
5
SPEAKER_00
Earth has many, many different kinds of elements.
5
SPEAKER_00
that project into the one thing that we call Earth.
5
SPEAKER_00
If you don t understand that there s silicon, that there s iron, that there s all these different kinds of things that project into what we call Earth, you re hopelessly lost.
5
SPEAKER_00
You re not fundamental, you re not going to get there.
5
SPEAKER_00
And then after the periodic table, then we came up with quarks, leptons and gluons, the particles of the standard model of physics.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so, we actually now know that if you really want to get fundamental,
5
SPEAKER_00
periodic table isn t it?
5
SPEAKER_00
It s good for chemistry and it s just wonderful for chemistry, but if you re trying to go deep fundamental, what is the fundamental science?
5
SPEAKER_00
That s not it.
5
SPEAKER_00
You re going to have to go to quarks, leptons and gluons and so forth.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, now we ve discovered space-time itself is doomed.
5
SPEAKER_00
Quarks, leptons and gluons are just irreducible representations of the symmetries of space-time.
5
SPEAKER_00
So the whole framework on which consciousness research is being based right now is doomed.
5
SPEAKER_00
And for me, these are my friends and colleagues that are doing this.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re brilliant.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re brilliant.
5
SPEAKER_00
My feeling is I m so sad
5
SPEAKER_00
that they re stuck with this old framework because if they weren t stuck, like with earth, air, fire, and water, you could actually make progress.
5
SPEAKER_00
So it doesn t matter how smart you are.
5
SPEAKER_00
If you start with earth, air, fire, and water, you re not gonna get anywhere, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
Can I actually just, because the word doomed is so interesting.
5
SPEAKER_01
Let me give you some options, multiple choice quiz.
5
SPEAKER_01
Is space-time, we could say, is reality the way we perceive it doomed?
5
SPEAKER_01
wrong or fake?
5
SPEAKER_01
Because doomed just means it could still be right and we re now ready to go deeper.
5
SPEAKER_01
So it s not wrong, it s not a complete deviation from a journey toward the truth.
5
SPEAKER_00
Right, it s like earth, air, fire, and water is not wrong.
5
SPEAKER_00
There is earth, air, fire, and water, that s a useful framework, but it s not fundamental.
5
SPEAKER_01
Well, there s also wrong, which is they used to believe, as I recently learned, that George Washington, the first president of the United States, was blood to death.
5
SPEAKER_01
for something that could have been easily treated because it was believed that you can get, actually I need to look into this further, but I guess you get toxins out or demons out, I don t know what you re getting out with the bleeding of a person.
5
SPEAKER_01
So that ended up being wrong but widely believed as a medical tool.
5
SPEAKER_01
So it s also possible that our assumption of space-time is not just doomed but is wrong.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, if we believe that it s fundamental, that s wrong.
5
SPEAKER_00
But if we believe it s a useful tool, that s right.
5
SPEAKER_01
But bleeding somebody to death was believed to be a useful tool.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that was wrong.
5
SPEAKER_01
It wasn t just not fundamental.
5
SPEAKER_01
Right.
5
SPEAKER_01
it was very, I m sure there s cases in which bleeding somebody would work, but it would be a very tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of cases.
5
SPEAKER_01
So it could be that it s wrong, like it s a side road that s ultimately leading to a dead end, as opposed to a truck stop or something that you can get off of.
5
SPEAKER_00
My feeling is not the dead end kind of thing.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think that what the physicists are finding is that there are these structures beyond space-time, but they project back into space-time.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so space-time, when they say space-time is doomed, they re explicit.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re saying it s doomed in the sense that we thought it was fundamental.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s not fundamental.
5
SPEAKER_00
a useful, absolutely useful and brilliant data structure, but there are deeper data structures like cosmological polytope and space-time is not fundamental.
5
SPEAKER_00
What is doomed in the sense that it s wrong is reductionism.
5
SPEAKER_01
which is saying space-time is fundamental, essentially.
5
SPEAKER_00
Right, right.
5
SPEAKER_00
The idea that somehow being smaller in space and time, or space-time, is a fundamental nature of reality, that s just wrong.
5
SPEAKER_00
It turned out to be a useful heuristic for thermodynamics and so forth, and in several other places, reductionism has been very useful.
5
SPEAKER_00
But that s, in some sense,
5
SPEAKER_00
an artifact of how we use our interface.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so you re saying size doesn t matter.
5
SPEAKER_01
Okay, this is very important for me to write down.
5
SPEAKER_01
Ultimately.
5
SPEAKER_01
Ultimately.
5
SPEAKER_00
Ultimately, right.
5
SPEAKER_00
I mean, it s useful for theories like thermodynamics and also for understanding brain networks in terms of individual neurons and neurons in terms of chemical systems inside cells.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s all very, very useful.
5
SPEAKER_00
But the idea that we re getting to the more fundamental nature of reality,
5
SPEAKER_00
No.
5
SPEAKER_00
When you get all the way down in that direction, you get down to the quarks and gluons, what you realize is what you ve gotten down to is not fundamental reality, just the irreducible representations of a data structure.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s all you ve gotten down to.
5
SPEAKER_00
So you re always stuck inside the data structure.
5
SPEAKER_00
So you seem to be getting closer and closer.
5
SPEAKER_00
I went from neural networks to neurons, neurons to chemistry, chemistry to particles, particles to quarks and gluons.
5
SPEAKER_00
I m getting closer and closer to the actual structure of the data structure of space and time, the irreducible representations.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s what you re getting closer to, not to a deeper understanding of what s beyond space-time.
5
SPEAKER_01
We ll return again to this question of dynamics.
5
SPEAKER_01
because you keep saying that space-time is doom, but mostly focusing on the space part of that.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s very interesting to see why time gets the bad cred, too, because how do you have dynamics without time is the thing I d love to talk to you a little bit about.
5
SPEAKER_01
But let us return, your brilliant whirlwind overview of the different theories of consciousness that are out there.
5
SPEAKER_01
What is consciousness if outside of space-time?
5
SPEAKER_00
If we think that we want to have a model of consciousness, we as scientists then have to say, what do we want to write down?
5
SPEAKER_00
What kind of mathematical modeling are we gonna write down, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
And if you think about it, there s lots of things that you might want to write down about consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s a fairly complicated subject.
5
SPEAKER_00
So most of my colleagues are saying, let s start with matter or neurons and see what properties of matter could create consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
But I m saying that that whole thing is out.
5
SPEAKER_00
Space-time is doomed, that whole thing is out.
5
SPEAKER_00
We need to look at consciousness qua consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
In other words, not as something that arises in space and time, but perhaps as something that creates space and time as a data structure.
5
SPEAKER_00
So what do we want?
5
SPEAKER_00
And here again, there s no hard and fast rule, but what you as a scientist have to do is to pick what you think are the minimal assumptions that are gonna allow you to boot up a comprehensive theory.
5
SPEAKER_00
That is the trick.
5
SPEAKER_00
So what do I want?
5
SPEAKER_00
So what I chose to do.
6
SPEAKER_00
was to have three things.
6
SPEAKER_00
I said that there are conscious experiences, feeling of headache, the smell of garlic, experiencing the color red.
6
SPEAKER_00
Those are conscious.
6
SPEAKER_00
So that s a primitive of a theory.
6
SPEAKER_00
And the reason I want few primitives, why?
6
SPEAKER_00
Because those are the miracles of the theory, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
The primitives, the assumptions of the theory are the things you re not going to explain.
6
SPEAKER_00
Those are the things you assume.
6
SPEAKER_01
And those experiences you particularly mean there s a subjectiveness to them.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s the thing when people refer to the heart problem of consciousness is it feels like something to look at the color red.
6
SPEAKER_01
Okay.
6
SPEAKER_00
Exactly right.
6
SPEAKER_00
It feels like something to have a headache or to feel upset to your stomach.
6
SPEAKER_00
It feels like something.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so I m going to grant that in this theory, there are experiences and they re fundamental in some sense.
6
SPEAKER_00
So conscious experience.
6
SPEAKER_00
So they re not derived from physics.
6
SPEAKER_00
They re not functional properties of particles.
6
SPEAKER_00
They are sui generis.
6
SPEAKER_00
They exist.
6
SPEAKER_00
Just like we assume space-time exists.
6
SPEAKER_00
I m now saying space-time is just a data structure.
6
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t exist independent of conscious experiences.
6
SPEAKER_01
Sorry to interrupt once again, but should we be focusing in your thinking on humans alone?
6
SPEAKER_01
Or is there something in relation to other kinds of organisms that have a sufficiently high level of complexity?
6
SPEAKER_01
Or is there some kind of generalization of the panpsychist idea that consciousness permeates all matter?
6
SPEAKER_01
outside of the usual definition of what matter is inside space-time?
6
SPEAKER_00
RL So, it s beyond human consciousness.
6
SPEAKER_00
Human consciousness, from my point of view, would be one of a countless variety of consciousnesses.
6
SPEAKER_00
And even within human consciousness, there s countless variety of consciousnesses within us, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, you have your left and right hemisphere,
6
SPEAKER_00
And apparently, if you split the corpus callosum, the personality of the left hemisphere and the religious beliefs of the left hemisphere can be very different from the right hemisphere.
6
SPEAKER_00
And their conscious experiences can be disjoint.
6
SPEAKER_00
One could have one conscious experience.
6
SPEAKER_00
They can play 20 questions.
6
SPEAKER_00
The left hemisphere can have an idea in its mind, and the right hemisphere has to guess.
6
SPEAKER_00
And it might not get it.
6
SPEAKER_00
So even within you, it s more than just one consciousness, it s lots of consciousnesses.
6
SPEAKER_00
So the general theory of consciousness that I m after is not just human consciousness, it s going to be just consciousness and I presume human consciousness is a tiny
6
SPEAKER_00
drop in the bucket of the infinite variety of consciousnesses.
6
SPEAKER_01
That said, I should clarify that the black hole of consciousness is the home cat.
6
SPEAKER_01
I m pretty sure cats lack, is the embodiment of evil and lack all capacity for consciousness or compassion.
6
SPEAKER_01
So I just want to lay that on the table.
6
SPEAKER_01
That s a theory I m working on.
6
SPEAKER_01
I don t have any good evidence.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s just a shout out.
6
SPEAKER_01
Sorry to distract.
6
SPEAKER_01
So that s the first assumption.
6
SPEAKER_00
The first assumption, that s right.
6
SPEAKER_00
The second assumption is that these experiences have consequences.
6
SPEAKER_00
So I m going to say that conscious experiences can trigger other conscious experiences somehow.
6
SPEAKER_00
So really, in some sense, there s
6
SPEAKER_00
two basic assumptions.
6
SPEAKER_01
There comes some kind of causality.
6
SPEAKER_00
Is there a chain of causality?
6
SPEAKER_00
Does this relate to dynamics?
6
SPEAKER_00
I ll say there s a probabilistic relationship.
6
SPEAKER_00
Okay.
6
SPEAKER_00
And then, so I m trying to be
6
SPEAKER_00
as non-specific to begin with and see where it leads me.
6
SPEAKER_00
So what I can write down are probability spaces.
6
SPEAKER_00
So probability space, which contains the conscious experiences that this consciousness can have.
6
SPEAKER_00
So I call this a conscious agent.
6
SPEAKER_00
This technical thing, Anika Harris and I have talked about this and she rightly
6
SPEAKER_00
that people will think that I m bringing in a notion of a self or agency and so forth when I say conscious agent.
6
SPEAKER_00
So I just want to say that I use the term conscious agent merely as a technical term.
6
SPEAKER_00
There is no notion of self in my fundamental definition of a conscious agent.
6
SPEAKER_00
There are only experiences and probabilistic relationships of how they trigger other experiences.
6
SPEAKER_01
So the agent is the generator of the conscious experience?
6
SPEAKER_00
The agent is a mathematical structure that includes a probability measure,
6
SPEAKER_00
probability space of a possible conscious experiences and a Markovian kernel, which describes how if this agent has certain conscious experiences, how that will affect the experiences of other conscious agents, including itself.
6
SPEAKER_01
But you don t think of that as a self.
6
SPEAKER_00
No, there is no notion of a self here.
6
SPEAKER_00
There s no notion of really of an agent.
6
SPEAKER_01
But is there a locality
6
SPEAKER_01
Is there an organism?
6
SPEAKER_00
There s no, okay.
6
SPEAKER_00
So this is, these are conscious units, conscious entities.
6
SPEAKER_01
But they re distinct in some way, because they have to interact.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, so here s the interesting thing.
6
SPEAKER_00
When we write down the mathematics, when you have two of these conscious agents interacting, the pair satisfy a definition of a conscious agent.
6
SPEAKER_00
So they are a single conscious agent.
6
SPEAKER_00
So there is one conscious agent.
6
SPEAKER_00
But it has a nice analytic decomposition into as many conscious agents as you wish.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s a very useful scientific interface.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s a scale-free or if you like a fractal-like approach to it in which we can use the same unit of analysis at all scales in studying consciousness.
6
SPEAKER_00
But if I want to talk about, so there s no notion of learning,
6
SPEAKER_00
memory, problem solving, intelligence, self, agency.
6
SPEAKER_00
So none of that is fundamental.
6
SPEAKER_00
And the reason I did that was because I want to assume as little as possible.
6
SPEAKER_00
Everything I assume is a miracle in the theory.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s not something you explain, it s something you assume.
6
SPEAKER_00
So I have to build networks of conscious agents.
6
SPEAKER_00
If I want to have a notion of a self, I have to build a self.
6
SPEAKER_00
I have to build learning, memory, problem solving, intelligence, and planning, all these different things.
6
SPEAKER_00
I have to build networks of conscious agents to do that.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s a trivial theorem that networks of conscious agents are computationally universal, that s trivial.
6
SPEAKER_00
So anything that we can do with neural networks or, you know, automata, you can do with networks of conscious agents, that s trivial.
6
SPEAKER_00
But you can also do more.
6
SPEAKER_00
The events in the probability space need not be computable.
6
SPEAKER_00
So the Markovian dynamics is not restricted to computable functions because the very events themselves need not be computable.
6
SPEAKER_00
So this can capture any computable theory, anything we can do with neural networks we can do with conscious agent networks.
6
SPEAKER_00
But it leaves open the door for the possibility of non-computable interactions between conscious agents.
6
SPEAKER_00
So if we want a theory of memory, we have to build it.
6
SPEAKER_00
And there s lots of different ways you could build.
6
SPEAKER_00
We ve actually got a paper, Chris Fields took the lead on this, and he
6
SPEAKER_00
We have a paper called Conscious Agent Networks where Chris takes the lead and shows how to use these networks of conscious agents to build memory and to build primitive kinds of learning.
6
SPEAKER_01
But can you provide some intuition of what conscious networks, networks of conscious agents,
6
SPEAKER_01
helps you, first of all, what that looks like.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I don t just mean mathematically, of course maybe that might help build up intuition, but that helps us potentially solve the hard problem of consciousness.
6
SPEAKER_01
Or is that baked in, that that exists?
6
SPEAKER_01
Can you solve the hard problem of consciousness, why it tastes delicious when you eat a delicious ice cream with networks of conscious agents?
6
SPEAKER_01
Or is that taken as an assumption?
6
SPEAKER_00
So the standard way the hard problem is thought of is we re assuming space and time are particles, or neurons, for example.
6
SPEAKER_00
are just physical things that have no consciousness.
6
SPEAKER_00
And we have to explain how the conscious experience of the taste of chocolate could emerge from those.
6
SPEAKER_00
So the typical hard problem of consciousness is that problem, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
How do you boot up the taste of chocolate, the experience of the taste of chocolate from neurons, say, or the right kind of artificial intelligence circuitry?
6
SPEAKER_00
How do you boot that up?
6
SPEAKER_00
That s typically what the hard problem of consciousness means to researchers.
6
SPEAKER_00
Notice that I m changing the problem.
6
SPEAKER_00
I m not trying to boot up conscious experiences from the dynamics of neurons or silicon or something like that.
6
SPEAKER_00
I m saying that that s the wrong problem.
6
SPEAKER_00
My hard problem would go in the other direction.
6
SPEAKER_00
If I start with conscious experiences, how do I build up space and time?
6
SPEAKER_00
How do I build up what I call the physical world?
6
SPEAKER_00
How do I build up what we call brains?
6
SPEAKER_00
Because I m saying consciousness is not something that brains do.
6
SPEAKER_00
Brains are something that consciousness makes up.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s among the experience, it s an ephemeral experience in consciousness.
6
SPEAKER_00
I look inside, so to be very, very clear, right now I have no neurons.
6
SPEAKER_00
If you looked, you would see neurons.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s a data structure that you would create on the fly.
6
SPEAKER_00
And it s a very useful one.
6
SPEAKER_00
As soon as you look away,
6
SPEAKER_00
You garbage collect that data structure.
6
SPEAKER_00
Just like that Necker cube that I was talking about on the piece of paper.
6
SPEAKER_00
When you look, you see a 3D cube.
6
SPEAKER_00
You create it on the fly.
6
SPEAKER_00
As soon as you look away, that s gone.
6
SPEAKER_00
When you say you, you mean a human being scientist?
6
SPEAKER_00
Right now, that s right.
6
SPEAKER_00
More generally, it ll be conscious agents, because as you pointed out, am I asking for a theory of consciousness only about humans?
6
SPEAKER_00
No, it s consciousness, which human consciousness is just a tiny sliver.
6
SPEAKER_01
So, but you are saying that there is, that s a useful data structure.
6
SPEAKER_01
How many other data structures are there?
6
SPEAKER_01
That s why I said you human.
6
SPEAKER_01
If there s another Earth, if there s another alien civilization doing these kinds of investigations, would they come up with similar data structures?
6
SPEAKER_01
Probably not.
6
SPEAKER_01
What is the space of data structures, I guess is what I m asking.
6
SPEAKER_00
My guess is that if consciousness is fundamental, consciousness is all there is, then the only thing that mathematical structure can be about is possibilities of consciousness.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that suggests to me that there could be an infinite variety of consciousnesses and
6
SPEAKER_00
A vanishingly small fraction of them use space-time data structures and the kinds of structures that we use.
6
SPEAKER_00
There s an infinite variety of data structures.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now this is very similar to something that Max Tegmark has said, but I want to distinguish it.
6
SPEAKER_00
He has this level four multiverse idea.
6
SPEAKER_00
He thinks that mathematics is fundamental.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so that s the fundamental reality.
6
SPEAKER_00
And since there s an infinite variety of, endless variety of mathematical structures, there s an infinite variety of multiverses in his view.
6
SPEAKER_00
I m saying something similar in spirit, but importantly different.
6
SPEAKER_00
There s an infinite variety of mathematical structures, absolutely.
6
SPEAKER_00
But mathematics isn t the fundamental reality in this framework.
6
SPEAKER_00
Consciousness is.
6
SPEAKER_00
And mathematics is to consciousness like bones are to an organism.
6
SPEAKER_00
need the bones.
6
SPEAKER_00
So mathematics is not divorced from consciousness, but it s not the entirety of consciousness by any means.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so there s an infinite variety of consciousnesses and signaling games that consciousnesses could interact via.
6
SPEAKER_00
And therefore worlds, common worlds, data structures,
6
SPEAKER_00
that they can use to communicate.
6
SPEAKER_00
So, space and time is just one of an infinite variety.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so, I think that what we ll find is that as we go outside of our little space-time bubble, we will encounter utterly alien forms of conscious experience that we may not be able to really
6
SPEAKER_00
comprehend in the following sense.
6
SPEAKER_00
If I ask you to imagine a color that you ve never seen before, does anything happen?
6
SPEAKER_00
Right, nothing happens.
6
SPEAKER_00
Nothing happens.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that s just one color.
6
SPEAKER_00
I m asking for just a color.
6
SPEAKER_00
We actually know, by the way, that apparently there are women called tetraphams who have four color receptors.
6
SPEAKER_00
not just three.
6
SPEAKER_00
And Kimberly Jameson and others who ve studied these women have good evidence that they apparently have a new dimension of color experience that the rest of us don t have.
6
SPEAKER_00
So these women are apparently living in a world of color that you and I can t even concretely imagine, no man can imagine them.
6
SPEAKER_00
and yet they re real color experiences.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so in that sense, I m saying now take that little baby step, oh, there are women who have color experiences that I could never have.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, that s shocking.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now take that infinite.
6
SPEAKER_00
There are consciousnesses where every aspect of their experiences is like that new color.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s something utterly alien
6
SPEAKER_00
to you, you d have nothing like that.
6
SPEAKER_00
And yet these are all possible varieties of conscious experience.
6
SPEAKER_01
When you say there s a lot of consciousnesses, as a singular consciousness, basically the set of possible experiences you can have in that subjective way as opposed to the underlying mechanism.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because you say that having extra color receptor, ability to have new experiences, that s somehow a different consciousness.
6
SPEAKER_01
Is there a way to see that as all the same consciousness, the subjectivity itself?
6
SPEAKER_00
Right, because when we have two of these conscious agents interacting, mathematics, they actually satisfy the definition of a conscious agent.
6
SPEAKER_00
So in fact, they are a single conscious agent.
6
SPEAKER_00
So in fact, one way to think about what I m saying, I m postulating with my colleagues, Chetan and Chris and others, Robert Prentner and so forth, there is one big conscious agent, infinitely complicated.
6
SPEAKER_00
But fortunately, we can, for analytic purposes, break it down all the way to, in some sense, the simplest conscious agent, which has one conscious experience, one.
6
SPEAKER_00
This one agent can experience red 35, that s it, that s what it experiences.
6
SPEAKER_00
You can get all the way down to that.
6
SPEAKER_01
So you think it s possible that consciousness, whatever that is, is fundamental, or at least much more in the direction of the fundamental than is space-time as we perceive it.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s the proposal.
6
SPEAKER_00
And therefore, what I have to do, in terms of the hard problem of consciousness,
6
SPEAKER_00
is to show how dynamical systems of conscious agents could lead to what we call space and time and neurons and brain activity.
6
SPEAKER_00
In other words, we have to show how you get space time and physical objects
6
SPEAKER_00
entirely from a theory of conscious agents outside of space-time, with the dynamics outside of space-time.
6
SPEAKER_00
So that s, and I can tell you how we plan to do that, but that s the idea.
6
SPEAKER_01
Okay, the magic of it, the chocolate is delicious.
6
SPEAKER_01
So there s a mathematical kind of thing that we could say here, how it can emerge within the system of networks of conscious agents, but,
6
SPEAKER_01
is there going to be at the end of the proof why chocolate is so delicious or no?
6
SPEAKER_01
I guess I m going to ask different kinds of dumb questions to try to sneak up.
6
SPEAKER_00
Oh, well that s the right question.
6
SPEAKER_00
And when I say that I took conscious experiences as fundamental, what that means is in the current version of my theory, I m not explaining conscious experiences where they came from.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s the miracle, that s one of the miracles.
6
SPEAKER_00
So I have two miracles in my theory.
6
SPEAKER_00
There are conscious experiences, like the taste of chocolate, and that there s a probabilistic relationship.
6
SPEAKER_00
When certain conscious experiences occur, others are more likely to occur.
6
SPEAKER_01
Those are the two miracles that are possible to get beyond that and somehow start to chip away at the miracleness of that miracle, that chocolate is still delicious.
6
SPEAKER_00
I hope so.
6
SPEAKER_00
I ve got my hands full with what I m doing right now, but I can just say at top level how I would think about that.
6
SPEAKER_00
That would get at this consciousness without form.
7
SPEAKER_00
This is really tough because it s consciousness without form versus the various forms that consciousness takes for the experiences that it has.
7
SPEAKER_00
So when I write down a probability space for these conscious experiences, I say, here s a probability space for the possible conscious experiences.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s just like when I write down a probability space for an experiment, like I m gonna flip a coin twice, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
And I want to look at the probabilities of various outcomes.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I have to write down a probability space.
7
SPEAKER_00
There could be heads, heads, heads, tails, tails, heads, tails, tails.
7
SPEAKER_00
So you, before, as any class in probability, you re told, write down your probability space.
7
SPEAKER_00
If you don t write down your probability space, you can t get started.
7
SPEAKER_00
So here s my probability space for consciousness.
7
SPEAKER_00
how do I want to interpret that structure?
7
SPEAKER_00
The structure is just sitting there.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s gonna be a dynamics that happens on it, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
Experiences appear and then disappear, just like heads appears and disappears.
7
SPEAKER_00
So one way to think about that fundamental probability space is that corresponds to consciousness without any content.
7
SPEAKER_00
The infinite consciousness that transcends any particular content.
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, do you think of that as a mechanism, as a thing, like the rules that govern the dynamics of the thing outside of space-time?
7
SPEAKER_01
Isn t that, if you think consciousness is fundamental, isn t it essentially getting like, it is solving the hard problem, which is like, from where does this thing pop up?
7
SPEAKER_01
Which is the mechanism of the thing popping up.
7
SPEAKER_01
Whatever the consciousness is, the different kinds, so on, that mechanism.
7
SPEAKER_01
And also, the question I wanna ask is, how tricky do you think it is to solve that problem?
7
SPEAKER_01
We ve solved a lot of difficult problems throughout the history of humanity.
7
SPEAKER_01
There s probably more problems to solve left than we ve solved by like an infinity.
7
SPEAKER_01
But along that long journey of intelligent species,
7
SPEAKER_01
when will we solve this consciousness one?
7
SPEAKER_01
Which is one way to measure the difficulty of the problem.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I ll give two answers.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s one problem I think we can solve, but we haven t solved yet.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that is the reverse of what my colleagues call the hard problem.
7
SPEAKER_00
The problem of how do you start with conscious experiences in the way that I ve just described them and the dynamics and build up space and time and brains
7
SPEAKER_00
That, I think, is a tough technical problem, but it s in principle solvable.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I think we can solve that.
7
SPEAKER_00
So we would solve the hard problem, not by showing how brains create consciousness, but how networks of conscious agents create what we call the symbols that we call brains.
7
SPEAKER_01
So that, I think, but does that allow you to, so that s interesting, that s an interesting idea.
7
SPEAKER_01
Consciousness creates the brain, not the brain creates consciousness.
7
SPEAKER_01
But does that allow you to build the thing?
7
SPEAKER_00
My guess is that it will enable unbelievable technologies.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I ll tell you why, I think it plugs into the work that the physicists are doing.
7
SPEAKER_00
So this theory of consciousness will be even deeper than the structures that the physicists are finding, like the amplituhedron.
7
SPEAKER_00
But the other answer to your question is less positive.
7
SPEAKER_00
As I said earlier, I think that there is no such thing as a theory of everything.
7
SPEAKER_00
So that
7
SPEAKER_00
I think that the theory that my team is working on, this conscious agent theory, is just a 1.0 theory.
7
SPEAKER_00
We re using probability spaces and Markovian kernels.
7
SPEAKER_00
I can easily see people now saying, well, we can do better if we go to category theory.
7
SPEAKER_00
And we can get a deeper, perhaps more interesting.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then someone will say, well, now I ll go to Topoi theory.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I imagine that there ll be conscious agents, five, 10,
7
SPEAKER_00
three trillion point O, but I think it will never end.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think ultimately this question that we sort of put our fingers on of how does the formless give birth to form, to the taste, the wonderful taste of chocolate.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think that we will always go deeper and deeper, but we will never solve that.
7
SPEAKER_00
that in some sense that will be a primitive.
7
SPEAKER_00
I hope I m wrong.
7
SPEAKER_00
Maybe it s just the limits of my current imagination.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I ll just say my imagination right now doesn t peer that deep.
7
SPEAKER_00
By the way, I m saying this, I don t want to discourage some brilliant 20-year-old
7
SPEAKER_00
who then later on proves me dead wrong.
7
SPEAKER_00
I hope to be proven dead wrong.
7
SPEAKER_01
Just like you said, essentially from now, everything we re saying now, everything you re saying, all of your theories will be laughing stock.
7
SPEAKER_01
They will respect the puzzle-solving abilities and how much we were able to do with so little, but outside of that, it will all be just, the silliness will be entertainment for a teenager.
7
SPEAKER_00
Especially the silliness when we thought that we were so smart and we knew it all.
7
SPEAKER_01
So it would be interesting to explore your ideas by contrasting, you mentioned Annika, Annika Harris, you mentioned Philip Goff.
7
SPEAKER_01
So outside of, if you re not allowed to say,
7
SPEAKER_01
the fundamental disagreement is the fact that space-time is fundamental.
7
SPEAKER_01
What are interesting distinctions between ideas of consciousness between you and Annika, for example?
7
SPEAKER_01
You guys have, you ve been on a podcast together, I m sure.
7
SPEAKER_01
In private, you guys have some incredible conversations.
7
SPEAKER_01
So where are some interesting sticking points, some interesting disagreements, let s say, with Annika first?
7
SPEAKER_01
Maybe there ll be a few other people.
7
SPEAKER_00
Well, Anika and I just had a conversation this morning where we were talking about our ideas and what we discovered really in our conversation was that we re pretty much on the same page.
7
SPEAKER_00
It was really just about consciousness.
7
SPEAKER_00
Our ideas about consciousness are pretty much on the same page.
7
SPEAKER_00
She rightly has cautioned me to when I talk about conscious agents,
7
SPEAKER_00
to point out that the notion of agency is not fundamental in my theory.
7
SPEAKER_00
The notion of self is not fundamental, and that s absolutely true.
7
SPEAKER_00
I can use this network of conscious agents, and I now use it as a technical term.
7
SPEAKER_00
Conscious agent is a technical term for that probability space with the Markovian dynamics.
7
SPEAKER_00
I can use that to build models of a self and to build models of agency, but they re not fundamental.
7
SPEAKER_00
So she has really been very helpful in helping me to be a little bit clearer about these ideas and not say things that are misleading.
7
SPEAKER_01
The word, I mean, this is the interesting thing about language, actually, is that language, quite obviously, is an interface to truth.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s so fascinating that individual words, individual words,
7
SPEAKER_01
can have so much ambiguity, and the specific choices of a word within a particular sentence, within the context of a sentence, can have such a difference in meaning.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s quite fascinating, especially when you re talking about topics like consciousness, because it s a very loaded term.
7
SPEAKER_01
It means a lot of things to a lot of people.
7
SPEAKER_01
and the entire concept of shrouded in mystery.
7
SPEAKER_01
So a combination of the fact that it s a loaded term and that there s a lot of mystery, people can just interpret it in all kinds of ways.
7
SPEAKER_01
And so you have to be both precise and help them avoid getting confused.
7
SPEAKER_01
stuck on some kind of side road of miscommunication, lost in translation because you used the wrong word.
7
SPEAKER_01
That s interesting.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, because for a lot of people, consciousness is ultimately connected to a self.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, our experience of consciousness is very, it s connected to this ego.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I just, I mean, what else could it possibly be?
7
SPEAKER_01
I can t even, how do you begin to comprehend, to visualize, to conceptualize a consciousness that s not connected to like this particular organism?
7
SPEAKER_00
I have a way of thinking about this whole problem now that comes out of this framework that s different.
7
SPEAKER_00
So we can imagine a dynamics of consciousness, not in space and time, just abstractly.
7
SPEAKER_00
It could be cooperative for all we know.
7
SPEAKER_00
It could be very friendly, I don t know.
7
SPEAKER_00
And you can set up a dynamics, a Markovian dynamics that is so-called stationary.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that s a technical term, which means that the entropy effectively is not increasing.
7
SPEAKER_00
There is some entropy, but it s constant.
7
SPEAKER_00
So there s no increasing entropy.
7
SPEAKER_00
And in that sense, the dynamics is timeless.
7
SPEAKER_00
there is no entropic time.
7
SPEAKER_00
But it s a trivial theorem, three line proof, that if you have a stationary Markovian dynamics, any projection that you make of that dynamics by conditional probability, and if you want, I can state a little bit more, even more mathematically precisely for some readers or listeners.
7
SPEAKER_00
But if any projection you take by conditional probability, the induced image of that Markov chain will have increasing entropy.
7
SPEAKER_00
you will have entropic time.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I ll be very, very precise.
7
SPEAKER_00
I have a Markov chain X1, X2 through Xn where Xn goes to infinity, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
The entropy H, capital H of Xn is equal to the entropy H of Xn minus one for all n. So the entropy is the same.
7
SPEAKER_00
But
7
SPEAKER_00
It s a theorem that h of xn, say given x sub one, is greater than or equal to h of xn minus one, given x1.
7
SPEAKER_01
Sure, where does the greater come from?
7
SPEAKER_00
because with the three-line proof, h of xn given x1 is greater than or equal to h of xn given x1 and x2 because conditioning reduces.
7
SPEAKER_00
But then h of xn minus one given x1 comma x2 is equal to h of xn
7
SPEAKER_00
given X2, Xn minus one given X2 by the Markov property.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then because it s stationary, it s equal to H of X. I have to write it down.
7
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, there s a three line proof.
7
SPEAKER_01
Sure.
7
SPEAKER_01
But the assumption of stationarity
7
SPEAKER_01
We re using a lot of terms that people won t understand, but it doesn t matter.
7
SPEAKER_01
So there s some kind of, Markovian dynamics is basically trying to model some kind of system with some probabilities, and there s agents, and they interact in some kind of way, and you can say something about that system as it evolves.
7
SPEAKER_01
Stationarity, so a stationary system is one that has certain properties in terms of entropy.
7
SPEAKER_01
very well, but we don t know if it s stationary or not.
7
SPEAKER_01
We don t know what the properties, so you have to kind of take assumptions and see, okay, well, what does the systems behave like under these different properties?
7
SPEAKER_01
The more constraints, the more assumptions you take, the more interesting, powerful things you can say, but sometimes they re limiting.
7
SPEAKER_01
That said, we re talking about consciousness here.
7
SPEAKER_01
How does that,
7
SPEAKER_01
You said cooperative, okay, competitive.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s just, I like chocolate.
7
SPEAKER_01
I m sitting here, I have a brain, I m wearing a suit.
7
SPEAKER_01
It sure as hell feels like I m a self.
7
SPEAKER_01
What, am I tuning in, am I plugging into something?
7
SPEAKER_01
Am I a projection, a simple, trivial projection into space-time from some much larger organism that I can t possibly comprehend?
7
SPEAKER_01
How the hell, you re saying some, you re building up mathematical intuitions, fine, great.
7
SPEAKER_01
But I m just, I m having an existential crisis here and I m gonna die soon, or I ll die pretty quickly, so I wanna figure out why chocolate s so delicious.
7
SPEAKER_01
So help me out here.
7
SPEAKER_01
So let s just keep sneaking up to this.
7
SPEAKER_00
Right, so the whole technical thing was to say this.
7
SPEAKER_00
Even if the dynamics of consciousness is stationary, so that there is no entropic time,
7
SPEAKER_00
any projection of it, any view of it will have the artifact of entropic time.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s a limited resource.
7
SPEAKER_00
Limited resources.
7
SPEAKER_00
So the fundamental dynamics may have no limited resources whatsoever.
7
SPEAKER_00
Any projection will have certainly time as a limited resource and probably lots of other limited resources.
7
SPEAKER_00
Hence, we could get
7
SPEAKER_00
competition and evolution and nature red and tooth and claw as an artifact of a deeper system in which those aren t fundamental.
7
SPEAKER_00
And in fact, I take it as something that this theory must do.
7
SPEAKER_00
at some point is to show how networks of conscious agents, even if they re not resource limited, give rise to evolution by natural selection via a projection.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, but you re saying, I m trying to understand how the limited resources that give rise to, so first the thing gives rise to time, it gives rise to limited resource, it gives rise to evolution by natural selection, how that has to do with the fact that chocolate is delicious.
7
SPEAKER_00
Well, it s not gonna do that directly, it s gonna get to this notion of self.
7
SPEAKER_00
Oh, it s gonna give you the notion of self.
7
SPEAKER_01
Evolution gives you the notion of self.
7
SPEAKER_00
And also of a self separate from other selves.
7
SPEAKER_00
So the idea would be that- Has competition, has life and death, all those kinds of things.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s right.
7
SPEAKER_00
So it won t, I don t think, as I said, I don t think that I can tell you how the formless gives rise to the experience of chocolate.
7
SPEAKER_00
Right now, my current theory says that s one of the miracles I m assuming.
7
SPEAKER_00
So my theory can t do it.
7
SPEAKER_00
And the reason my theory can t do it is because Hoffman s brain can t do it right now.
7
SPEAKER_00
But the notion of self, yes, the notion of self can be an artifact of the projection of it.
7
SPEAKER_00
So there s one conscious agent.
7
SPEAKER_00
Because anytime conscious agents interact, they form a new conscious agent.
7
SPEAKER_00
So there s one conscious agent.
7
SPEAKER_00
any projection of that one conscious agent gives rise to time, even if there wasn t any time in that one conscious agent.
7
SPEAKER_00
And it gives rise, I want to, now I haven t proven this, so now this is me guessing where the theory s gonna go.
7
SPEAKER_00
I haven t done this, there s no paper on this yet.
7
SPEAKER_00
So now I m speculating.
7
SPEAKER_00
My guess is I ll be able to show, or my brighter colleagues working with me will be able to show,
7
SPEAKER_00
that we will get evolution of a natural selection, the notion of individual selves, individual physical objects and so forth coming out as a projection of this thing.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that the self, this then will be really interesting in terms of how it starts to interact with certain
7
SPEAKER_00
spiritual traditions, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
Where they will say that there is a notion of self that needs to be let go, which is this finite self that s competing with other selves to get more money and prestige and so forth.
7
SPEAKER_00
That self in some sense has to die, but there s a deeper self, which is the timeless being
7
SPEAKER_00
that precludes, not precludes, but precedes any particular conscious experiences, the ground of all experience, that there s that notion of a deep capital self.
7
SPEAKER_00
But our little capital lowercase s selves could be artifacts of projection.
7
SPEAKER_00
And it may be that
7
SPEAKER_00
what consciousness is doing in this framework is it s projected itself down into a self that calls itself Don and a self that calls itself Lex.
7
SPEAKER_00
And through conversations like this, it s trying to find out about itself and eventually transcend the limits of the Don and Lex little icons that it s using and that little projection of itself.
7
SPEAKER_00
Through this kind of conversation, somehow it s learning about itself.
7
SPEAKER_01
So that thing dressed me up today in order to understand itself.
7
SPEAKER_00
And in some sense, you and I are not separate from that thing, and we re not separate
8
SPEAKER_00
from each other.
8
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, well I have to question the fashion choices on my end then.
8
SPEAKER_00
All right, so you mentioned you agree on, in terms of consciousness on a lot of things with Anukka, is there somebody, friend or friendly foe that you disagree with?
8
SPEAKER_00
in some nuanced, interesting way or some major way about consciousness, about these topics of reality that you return to often.
8
SPEAKER_00
It s like Christopher Hitchens with Rabbi David Wolpe.
8
SPEAKER_00
have had interesting conversations through years that added to the complexity and the beauty of their friendship.
8
SPEAKER_00
Is there somebody like that, that over the years has been a source of disagreement with you, that s strengthened your ideas?
8
SPEAKER_01
My ideas have been really shaped by several things.
8
SPEAKER_01
One is,
8
SPEAKER_01
the physicalist framework that my scientific colleagues, almost to a person, have adopted and that I adopted too.
8
SPEAKER_01
The reason I walked away from it was because it became clear that we couldn t start with unconscious ingredients and boot up consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_00
Can you define physicalist in contrast to reductionist?
8
SPEAKER_01
So a physicalist, I would,
8
SPEAKER_01
say is someone who takes space-time and the objects within space-time as ontologically fundamental.
8
SPEAKER_00
Right.
8
SPEAKER_00
And then reductionist is saying the smaller, the more fundamental.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s a methodological thing.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s saying within space-time as you go to smaller and smaller scales in space, you get deeper and deeper laws, more and more fundamental laws.
8
SPEAKER_01
And the reduction of temperature to
8
SPEAKER_01
Particle movement was an example of that, but I think that the reason that worked was almost an artifact of the nature of our interface.
8
SPEAKER_00
That was for a long time, and your colleagues, including yourself, were physicalists, and now you broke away.
8
SPEAKER_01
Broke away because I think you can t start with unconscious ingredients and boot up consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
So even with Roger Penrose, where there s like a gray area,
8
SPEAKER_01
Right.
8
SPEAKER_01
And here s the challenge I would put to all of my friends and colleagues who are, give one specific conscious experience.
8
SPEAKER_01
that you can boot up, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
So if you think that it s integrated information, and this, I ve asked this of Giulio Tononi a couple times back in the 90s and then just a couple years ago.
8
SPEAKER_01
I asked Giulio, okay, so great, integrated information.
8
SPEAKER_01
So we re all interested in explaining some specific conscious experiences.
8
SPEAKER_01
So what is, you know, pick one, the taste of chocolate.
8
SPEAKER_01
What is the integrated information precise structure that we need for chocolate?
8
SPEAKER_01
And why does that structure have to be
8
SPEAKER_01
for chocolate and why is it that it could not possibly be vanilla?
8
SPEAKER_01
I ll ask them, is there any one specific conscious experience that you can account for?
8
SPEAKER_01
Because notice, they ve set themselves the task of booting up conscious experiences from physical systems.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s the task they ve set themselves.
8
SPEAKER_00
But that doesn t mean they re, I understand your intuition, but that doesn t mean they re wrong just because they can t find a way to boot it up yet.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s right.
8
SPEAKER_01
No, that doesn t mean that they re wrong.
8
SPEAKER_01
It just means that they haven t done it.
8
SPEAKER_01
I think it s principled.
8
SPEAKER_01
The reason is principled.
8
SPEAKER_01
But I m happy that they re exploring it.
8
SPEAKER_01
But the fact is, the remarkable fact is there s not one theory.
8
SPEAKER_01
So integrated information theory,
8
SPEAKER_01
orchestrated collapse of microtubules, global workspace theory.
8
SPEAKER_00
These are all theories of consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
These are all theories of consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
There s not a single theory that can give you a specific conscious experience, that they say here is the physical dynamics or the physical structure that must be the taste of chocolate or whatever one they want.
8
SPEAKER_00
So you re saying it s impossible, they re saying it s just hard.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, my attitude is, okay, no one said you had to start with neurons or physical systems and boot up consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
You chose that problem.
8
SPEAKER_01
So since you chose that problem, how much progress have you made?
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, when you ve not been able to come up with a single specific conscious experience, and you ve had these brilliant people working on it for decades now,
8
SPEAKER_01
That s not really good progress.
8
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask you to play devil s advocate.
8
SPEAKER_00
Can you try to steel man, steel man meaning argue the best possible case for reality, the opposite of your book title.
8
SPEAKER_00
Or maybe just stick into consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_00
Can you take the physicalist view?
8
SPEAKER_00
Can you steel man the physicalist view for a brief moment, playing devil s advocate to, or steel man the person you used to be?
8
SPEAKER_00
She s a physicalist.
8
SPEAKER_00
What s a good, like saying that you might be wrong right now, what would be a convincing argument for that?
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, I think the argument I would give and that I believed was, look, when you have very simple physical systems, like a piece of dirt,
8
SPEAKER_01
There s not much evidence of life for consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s only when you get really complicated physical systems like that have brains and really the more complicated the brains, the more it looks like there s consciousness and the more complicated that consciousness is.
8
SPEAKER_01
Surely that means that simple physical systems don t create
8
SPEAKER_01
much consciousness, or if maybe not any, or maybe, panpsychics, they create the most elementary kinds of simple conscious experiences.
8
SPEAKER_01
But you need more complicated physical systems to boot up, to create more complicated consciousnesses.
8
SPEAKER_01
I think that s the intuition that drives most of my colleagues.
8
SPEAKER_00
And you re saying that this concept of complexity is ill-defined when you ground it to space-time.
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, I think it s well-defined within the framework of space-time, right?
8
SPEAKER_00
No, it ll define relative to what you need to actually understand consciousness because you re grounding complexity just in space-time.
8
SPEAKER_01
Oh, gotcha, right, right.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, what I m saying is if it were true that space-time was fundamental,
8
SPEAKER_01
then I would have to agree that if there is such a thing as consciousness, given the data that we ve got that complex brains have consciousness and dirt doesn t, that somehow it s the complexity of the dynamics or organization, the function of the physical system that somehow is creating the consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
So under those assumptions, yes, but when the physicists themselves are telling us that space-time is not fundamental,
8
SPEAKER_01
then I can understand.
8
SPEAKER_01
See, then the whole picture starts to come into focus.
8
SPEAKER_01
My colleagues are brilliant, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
These are really smart people.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, Francis Crick worked on this for the last 20 years of his life.
8
SPEAKER_01
These are not stupid people, these are brilliant, brilliant people.
8
SPEAKER_01
The fact that we ve come up with not a single specific conscious experience that we can explain.
8
SPEAKER_01
And no hope, there s no one that says, I m really close, I ll have it for you in a year.
8
SPEAKER_01
No, there s just like, there s this fundamental gap.
8
SPEAKER_01
So much so that Steve Pinker in one of his writings says, look, he likes the global workspace theory, but he says the last dollop of the theory in which there s something it s like to, he says, we may have to just stipulate that as a brute fact.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s, I mean, Pinker is brilliant, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
He understands the state of play on this problem, the hard problem of consciousness, starting with physicalist assumptions and then trying to boot up consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
When you ve set yourself the problem, I m starting with physical stuff that s not conscious.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m trying to get the taste of chocolate out as maybe some kind of function of the dynamics of that.
8
SPEAKER_01
we ve not been able to do that.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so Pinker is saying we may have to punt.
8
SPEAKER_01
we may have to just stipulate that last bit, he calls it the last dollop, and just stipulate it as a bare fact of nature that there is something it s like.
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, from my point of view as the, the whole point, the whole promise of the physicalist was we wouldn t have to stipulate.
8
SPEAKER_01
I was gonna start with the physical stuff and explain where the consciousness came from.
8
SPEAKER_01
If I m going to stipulate consciousness, why don t I just stipulate consciousness and not stipulate all the physical stuff too?
8
SPEAKER_01
So I m stipulating less.
8
SPEAKER_00
I m saying, okay, I agree.
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, it s actually what I call the conscious realist perspective.
8
SPEAKER_01
Because panpsychics are effectively dualists, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
They re saying there s physical stuff that really is fundamental and then consciousness stuff.
8
SPEAKER_01
So I would go with Pinker and say, look, let s just stipulate the consciousness stuff.
8
SPEAKER_01
But I m not gonna stipulate the physical stuff.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m gonna actually now show how to boot up the physical stuff from just the consciousness stuff.
8
SPEAKER_01
So I ll stipulate less.
8
SPEAKER_00
Is it possible, so if you stipulate less, is it possible for our limited brains to visualize reality?
8
SPEAKER_00
as we delve deeper and deeper and deeper, is it possible to visualize somehow?
8
SPEAKER_00
With the tools of math, with the tools of computers, with the tools of our mind, are we hopelessly lost?
8
SPEAKER_00
You said there s ways to intuit what s true using mathematics and so on.
8
SPEAKER_00
probability and sort of Markovian dynamics, all that kind of stuff, but that s not visualizing.
8
SPEAKER_00
That s, what s the kind of...
8
SPEAKER_00
building intuition, but is it possible to visualize in the way we visualize so nicely in space-time in four dimensions?
8
SPEAKER_00
In three dimensions, sorry.
8
SPEAKER_00
Well, we really are looking through a two-dimensional screen onto what we intuit to be a three-dimensional world, and also inferring dynamic stuff.
8
SPEAKER_00
making it 4D anyway, is it possible to visualize some pretty pictures that give us a deeper sense of the truth of reality?
8
SPEAKER_01
I think that we will incrementally be able to do that.
8
SPEAKER_01
I think that, for example, the picture that we have of electrons and photons interacting and scattering,
8
SPEAKER_01
wasn t, it may have not been possible until Faraday did all of his experiments and then Maxwell wrote down his equations.
8
SPEAKER_01
And we were then sort of forced by his equations to think in a new way.
8
SPEAKER_01
And then when Planck in 1900, desperate to try to solve the problem of black body radiation, what they call the ultraviolet catastrophe where Newton was predicting infinite,
8
SPEAKER_01
energies where there weren t infinite energies in black-body radiation.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he, in desperation, proposed packets of energy.
8
SPEAKER_01
Then once you ve done that, and then you have an Einstein come along five years later and show how that explains the photoelectric effect.
8
SPEAKER_01
And then eventually in 1926, you get quantum theory.
8
SPEAKER_01
And then you get this whole new way of thinking that was, from the Newtonian point of view, completely contradictory and counterintuitive, certainly.
8
SPEAKER_01
And
8
SPEAKER_01
And maybe if Deason is right, not contradictory.
8
SPEAKER_01
Maybe if you use intuitionist math, they re not contradictory, but still.
8
SPEAKER_01
Certainly you wouldn t have gone there.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so here s a case where the experiments and then a desperate mathematical move, sort of we use those as a flashlight into the deep fog, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
And so that science may be the flashlight into the deep fog.
8
SPEAKER_00
I wonder if it s still possible to visualize in the, like we talk about consciousness from a self-perspective experience it.
8
SPEAKER_00
Hold that idea in our mind, the way you can experience things directly.
8
SPEAKER_00
We ve evolved to experience things in this 3D world.
8
SPEAKER_00
And that s a very rich experience.
8
SPEAKER_00
When you re thinking mathematically, you know,
8
SPEAKER_00
you still, in the end of the day, have to project it down.
8
SPEAKER_00
to a low dimensional space to make conclusions.
8
SPEAKER_00
Their conclusions will be a number, or a line, or a plot, or a visual.
8
SPEAKER_00
So I wonder like how we can really touch some deep truth in a subjective way, like experience it, really feel the beauty of it, you know?
8
SPEAKER_00
In the way that humans feel beauty.
8
SPEAKER_00
Are we screwed?
8
SPEAKER_01
I don t think we re screwed.
8
SPEAKER_01
We get little hints of it from psychedelic drugs and so forth.
8
SPEAKER_01
We get hints that there are certain interventions that we can take on our interface.
8
SPEAKER_01
I apply this chemical, which is just some element of my interface, to a brain, I ingest it.
8
SPEAKER_01
And all of a sudden, I seem like I ve opened new portals into conscious experiences.
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s very, very suggestive.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s like the black body radiation doing something that we didn t expect, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t go to infinity when we thought it was gonna go to infinity and we re forced to propose these quanta.
8
SPEAKER_01
So, once we have a theory of conscious agents and is projection just based on, I should say, I should sketch what I think that projection is.
8
SPEAKER_01
But then I think we can then start to ask specific questions.
8
SPEAKER_01
When you re taking DMT,
8
SPEAKER_01
or you re taking LSD or something like that.
8
SPEAKER_01
Now that we have this deep model that we ve reverse engineered space and time and physical particles, we ve pulled them back to this theory of conscious agents.
8
SPEAKER_01
Now we can ask ourselves in this idealized future, what are we doing to conscious agents when we
8
SPEAKER_01
apply 5 MEO DMT.
8
SPEAKER_01
What are we doing?
8
SPEAKER_01
Are we opening a new portal?
8
SPEAKER_01
So when I say that, I mean, I have a portal into consciousness that I call my body of Lex Friedman that I m creating.
8
SPEAKER_01
And it s a genuine portal, not perfect, but it s a genuine portal.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m definitely communicating with your consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
And we know that we have one technology for building new portals.
8
SPEAKER_01
We know one technology and that is having kids.
8
SPEAKER_01
Having kids is how we build new portals into consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_00
It takes a long time.
8
SPEAKER_00
Can you elaborate that?
8
SPEAKER_00
Oh, oh, oh, you mean like- Your son and your daughter didn t exist.
8
SPEAKER_01
That was a portal.
8
SPEAKER_01
You re having contact with consciousness that you never would have had before, but now you ve got a son or a daughter.
8
SPEAKER_01
You went through this physical process.
8
SPEAKER_01
They were born, then there was all the training.
8
SPEAKER_00
But is that portal yours?
8
SPEAKER_00
So when you have kids, are you creating new portals that are completely distinct from the portals that you ve created with other consciousness?
8
SPEAKER_00
Can you elaborate on that?
8
SPEAKER_00
To which degree are the consciousness of your kids a part of you?
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, so every person that I see,
8
SPEAKER_01
that symbol that I see, the body that I see is a portal potentially for me to interact with a consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
And each consciousness has a unique character, we call it a personality and so forth.
8
SPEAKER_01
So with each new kid that s born, we come in contact with a personality that we ve never seen before and a version of consciousness that we ve never seen before.
8
SPEAKER_01
At a deeper level, as I said, the theory says there s one agent.
8
SPEAKER_01
So this is a different projection of that one agent.
8
SPEAKER_01
But so that s what I mean by a portal is within my own interface, my own projection, can I see other projections of that one consciousness?
8
SPEAKER_01
So can I get portals in that sense?
8
SPEAKER_01
And I think we will get a theory of that, that we will get a theory of portals and then we can ask how the psychedelics
8
SPEAKER_01
are acting, are they actually creating new portals or not?
8
SPEAKER_01
If they re not, we should nevertheless then understand how we could create a new portal, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
Maybe we have to just study what happens when we have kids.
8
SPEAKER_01
We know that that technology creates new portals.
8
SPEAKER_01
So we have to reverse engineer that and then say, okay, could we somehow
8
SPEAKER_01
create new portals de novo.
8
SPEAKER_00
With something like brain-computer interfaces, for example.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, or maybe just a chemical or something like that.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s probably more complicated than a chemical.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s why I think that the psychedelics may, because they might be affecting this portal in certain ways that it turns it around and opens up.
8
SPEAKER_01
In other words, it may be once we understand what this
9
SPEAKER_01
thing as a portal, your body as a portal and understand all of its complexities, maybe we ll realize that that portal can be shifted to different parts of the deeper consciousness and give new windows on it.
9
SPEAKER_01
And so in that way, maybe yes, psychedelics could open up new portals in the sense that they re taking something that s already a complex portal and just tweaking it a bit.
9
SPEAKER_00
Well, but creating is a very powerful difference between morphing.
9
SPEAKER_01
Right, right, tweaking versus creating, I agree.
9
SPEAKER_00
But maybe it gives you intuition to at least the full space of the kinds of things that this particular system is capable of.
9
SPEAKER_00
I mean, the idea that consciousness creates brains, I mean, that breaks my brain.
9
SPEAKER_00
I guess I m still a physicalist in that sense, because it s just much easier to intuit the world.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s practical to think there s a neural network
9
SPEAKER_00
what are the different ways fascinating capabilities can emerge from this neural network?
9
SPEAKER_00
And so you start to, and then present to yourself the problem of, okay, well, how does consciousness arise?
9
SPEAKER_00
How does intelligence arise?
9
SPEAKER_00
How does emotion arise?
9
SPEAKER_00
How does memory arise in the, how do we filter within the system all the incoming sensory information we re able to allocate attention in different interesting ways?
9
SPEAKER_00
How do all those mechanisms arise?
9
SPEAKER_00
But to say that there s other fundamental things we don t understand outside of space-time that are actually core to how this whole thing works is a bit paralyzing because it s like, oh, we re not 10% done, we re like 0.001% done, is the immediate feeling.
9
SPEAKER_01
I certainly understand that.
9
SPEAKER_01
My attitude about it is
9
SPEAKER_01
you look at the young physicists who are searching for these structures beyond space-time, like Apollo and so forth, they re having a ball.
9
SPEAKER_01
Space-time, that s what the old folks did.
9
SPEAKER_01
That s what the older generation did.
9
SPEAKER_01
We re doing something that really is fun and new and they re having a blast and they re finding all these new structures.
9
SPEAKER_01
So, I think that we re going to
9
SPEAKER_01
succeed in getting a new deeper theory, I can just say what I m hoping with the theory that I m working on.
9
SPEAKER_01
I m hoping to show that I could have this timeless dynamics of consciousness, no entropic time.
9
SPEAKER_01
I take a projection and I show how this timeless dynamics looks like the Big Bang and the entire evolution of space-time.
9
SPEAKER_01
In other words, I see how my whole space-time interface
9
SPEAKER_00
So not just the projection, it doesn t just look like space-time, you can explain the whole from the origin of the universe.
9
SPEAKER_01
That s what we have to do, and that s what the physicists understand.
9
SPEAKER_01
When they go beyond space-time to the amplitude and the cosmological polytope,
9
SPEAKER_01
they ultimately know that they have to get back the big bang story and the whole evolution, that whole story where there were no living things, there was just a point.
9
SPEAKER_01
And then the explosion and then just particles at high energy and then eventually the cooling down and the differentiation and finally matter condenses and then life and then consciousness.
9
SPEAKER_01
That whole story has to come out of something that s deeper and without time.
9
SPEAKER_01
And that s what we re up to.
9
SPEAKER_01
We want to get that.
9
SPEAKER_01
So the whole story that we ve been telling ourselves about Big Bang and how brains evolve in consciousness will come out of a much deeper theory.
9
SPEAKER_01
And for someone like me, it s a lot.
9
SPEAKER_01
But for the younger generation?
9
SPEAKER_01
This is like, oh, wow, all the low charis aren t picked.
9
SPEAKER_01
This is really good stuff.
9
SPEAKER_01
This is really new fundamental stuff that we can do.
9
SPEAKER_01
So I can t wait to read the papers of the younger generation.
9
SPEAKER_01
And I want to see them.
9
SPEAKER_00
Kids these days with their non-space-time assumptions.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s just interesting looking at the philosophical tradition of this difficult ideas you struggle with.
9
SPEAKER_00
If you look like somebody like Immanuel Kant, what are some interesting agreements and disagreements you have with a guy about the nature of reality?
9
SPEAKER_01
So there s a lot in agreement.
9
SPEAKER_01
So Kant was an idealist, transcendental idealist,
9
SPEAKER_01
He basically had the idea that we don t see nature as it is, we impose a structure on nature.
9
SPEAKER_01
He
9
SPEAKER_01
And so, in some sense, I m saying something similar.
9
SPEAKER_01
I m saying that, by the way, I don t call myself an idealist.
9
SPEAKER_01
I call myself a conscious realist because idealism has a long history.
9
SPEAKER_01
A lot of different ideas come under idealism and there s a lot of debates and so forth.
9
SPEAKER_01
It tends to be identified with, in many cases, anti-science and anti-realism.
9
SPEAKER_01
And I don t want either connection with my ideas.
9
SPEAKER_01
And so, I just called my conscious realism with an emphasis on realism and not anti-realism.
9
SPEAKER_01
But one place where I would, of course, disagree with Kant was that he thought that Euclidean space time was a priori.
9
SPEAKER_01
We just know that that s false.
9
SPEAKER_01
So he went too far on that.
9
SPEAKER_01
But
9
SPEAKER_01
But in general, the idea that we don t start with space-time, that space and time is in some sense forms of our perceptions.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yes, absolutely.
9
SPEAKER_01
And I would say that there s a lot in common with Berkeley in that regard.
9
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of ingenious arguments in Berkeley.
9
SPEAKER_01
Leibniz in his monadology understood very clearly that the hard problem was not solvable.
9
SPEAKER_01
He posed a hard problem and basically dismissed it.
9
SPEAKER_01
He just said, you can t do this.
9
SPEAKER_01
And so if he came here and saw where we are, he said, look, guys, I told you this 300 years ago.
9
SPEAKER_01
And he had his monadology.
9
SPEAKER_01
He was trying to do something like this.
9
SPEAKER_01
It s different from what I m doing, but he had these things that were not in space and time, these monads.
9
SPEAKER_01
He was trying to build something
9
SPEAKER_01
I m trying to build a theory of conscious agents.
9
SPEAKER_01
My guess is that if he came here, I could just, if he saw what I was doing, he would say, he would understand it immediately.
9
SPEAKER_01
take off with it and go places that I couldn t.
9
SPEAKER_01
He would have no problems.
9
SPEAKER_00
Right, there would be overlap of the spirit of the ideas would be totally overlapping.
9
SPEAKER_01
But his genius would then just run with it far faster than I could.
9
SPEAKER_00
I love the humility here.
9
SPEAKER_00
So let me ask you about sort of practical implications of your ideas to our world, our complicated world.
9
SPEAKER_00
When you look at the big questions of humanity, of hate, war,
9
SPEAKER_00
What else is there?
9
SPEAKER_00
Evil, maybe there s the positive aspects of that, of meaning, of love.
9
SPEAKER_00
What is the fact that reality is an illusion?
9
SPEAKER_00
Perceived, what is the conscious realism when applied to daily life?
9
SPEAKER_00
What kind of impact does it have?
9
SPEAKER_00
A lot, and it s sort of scary.
9
SPEAKER_01
We all know that life is ephemeral and spiritual traditions have said wake up to the fact that anything that you do here is going to disappear.
9
SPEAKER_01
But it s even more ephemeral than perhaps we have thought.
9
SPEAKER_01
I see this bottle because I create it right now.
9
SPEAKER_01
As soon as I look away, that data structure has been garbage collected.
9
SPEAKER_01
That bottle, I have to recreate it every time I look.
9
SPEAKER_01
So I spend all my money and I buy this fancy car.
9
SPEAKER_01
That car, I have to keep recreating it every time I look at it.
9
SPEAKER_01
It s that ephemeral.
9
SPEAKER_01
So all the things that we invest ourselves in, we fight over, we kill each other over, and we have wars over.
9
SPEAKER_01
These are all, it s just like people in a virtual reality simulation.
9
SPEAKER_01
And there s this Porsche, and we all see the Porsche.
9
SPEAKER_01
Well, that Porsche exists when I look at it.
9
SPEAKER_01
I turn my headset and I look at it.
9
SPEAKER_01
And then if Joe turns his headset the right way, he ll see his Porsche.
9
SPEAKER_01
It s not even the same Porsche that I see.
9
SPEAKER_01
He s creating his own Porsche.
9
SPEAKER_01
So these things are exceedingly ephemeral, and now just imagine saying that that s my Portia.
9
SPEAKER_01
Well,
9
SPEAKER_01
you can agree to say that it s your portion, but really, the portion only exists as long as you look.
9
SPEAKER_01
So this all of a sudden, what the spiritual traditions have been saying for a long, long time, this gets cashed out in mathematically precise science.
9
SPEAKER_01
It s saying, ephemeral, yes, in fact, it lasts for a few milliseconds, a few hundred milliseconds while you look at it, and then it s gone.
9
SPEAKER_01
So the whole idea, why are we fighting?
9
SPEAKER_01
Why do we hate?
9
SPEAKER_01
It s
9
SPEAKER_01
we fight over possessions because we think that we re small little objects inside this pre-existing space time.
9
SPEAKER_01
We assume that that mansion and that car exists independent of us and that somehow we, these little things can have our sense of self and importance enhanced by having that special car or that special house or that special person.
9
SPEAKER_01
in fact, is just the opposite.
9
SPEAKER_01
You create that mansion every time you look.
9
SPEAKER_01
You re something far deeper than that mansion.
9
SPEAKER_01
You re the entity which can create that mansion on the fly.
9
SPEAKER_01
And there s nothing to the mansion except what you create in this moment.
9
SPEAKER_01
So all of a sudden, when you take this point of view,
9
SPEAKER_01
It has all sorts of implications for how we interact with each other, how we treat each other.
9
SPEAKER_01
And again, a lot of things that spiritual traditions have said,
9
SPEAKER_01
It s a mixed bag.
9
SPEAKER_01
Spiritual traditions are a mixed bag.
9
SPEAKER_01
So let me just be right up front about that.
9
SPEAKER_01
I m not promoting any particular, but they do have some insights.
9
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, they have wisdom.
9
SPEAKER_01
They have certain wisdom.
9
SPEAKER_01
They have, I can point to nonsense, I won t go into it, but I can also point to lots of nonsense.
9
SPEAKER_01
So the issue is to then to look for the key insights.
9
SPEAKER_01
And I think they have a lot of insights about the ephemeral nature of objects in space and time and not being attached to them, including our own bodies.
9
SPEAKER_01
and reversing that I m not this little thing, a little consciousness trapped in the body.
9
SPEAKER_01
And the consciousness itself is only a product of the body.
9
SPEAKER_01
So when the body dies, the consciousness disappears.
9
SPEAKER_01
It turns completely around.
9
SPEAKER_01
The consciousness is fundamental.
9
SPEAKER_01
The body, my hand exists right now because I m looking at it.
9
SPEAKER_01
My hand is gone.
9
SPEAKER_01
I have no hand.
9
SPEAKER_01
I have no brain.
9
SPEAKER_01
I have no heart.
9
SPEAKER_01
If you looked, you ll see a heart.
9
SPEAKER_01
Whatever I am,
9
SPEAKER_01
is this really complicated thing in consciousness.
9
SPEAKER_01
That s what I am.
9
SPEAKER_01
All the stuff that I thought I was.
9
SPEAKER_01
is something that I create on the fly and delete.
9
SPEAKER_01
So this is completely a radical restructuring of how we think about possessions, about identity, about survival of death, and so forth.
9
SPEAKER_01
This is completely transformative.
9
SPEAKER_01
But the nice thing is that this whole approach of conscious agents, unlike the spiritual traditions, which have said, in some cases, similar things, they ve said it imprecisely.
9
SPEAKER_01
This is mathematics.
9
SPEAKER_01
we can actually now begin to state precisely, here s the mathematical model of consciousness, conscious agents, here s how it maps onto space-time, which I should sketch really briefly.
9
SPEAKER_01
And here s why things are ephemeral, and here s why you shouldn t be worried about the ephemeral nature of things, because you re not a little tiny entity inside space and time, quite the opposite, you re the author of space and time.
9
SPEAKER_00
The I and the am and the I am is all kind of emerging through this whole process of evolution and so on that s just surface waves and there s a much deeper ocean that we re trying to figure out here.
9
SPEAKER_00
So how does, you said some of the stuff you re thinking about maps to space-time.
9
SPEAKER_00
How does it map to space-time?
9
SPEAKER_01
So just a very, very high level, and I ll keep it brief.
9
SPEAKER_01
The structures that the physicists are finding, like the Amplituhedron,
9
SPEAKER_01
It turns out they re just static structure, they re polytopes.
9
SPEAKER_01
But they remarkably, most of the information in them is contained in permutation matrices.
9
SPEAKER_01
So it s a matrix, like an N by N matrix that just has zeros and ones.
9
SPEAKER_01
that contains almost all of the information.
9
SPEAKER_01
And you can, they have these plavit graphs and so forth that they use to boot up the scattering.
9
SPEAKER_01
You can compute those scattering amplitudes almost entirely from these permutation matrices.
9
SPEAKER_01
So that s just, now from my point of view, I have this conscious agent dynamics.
9
SPEAKER_01
It turns out that the stationary dynamics that I was talking about, where the entropy is increasing, all the stationary dynamics are
9
SPEAKER_01
sketched out by permutation matrices.
9
SPEAKER_01
So there s a so-called Birkhoff polytope.
9
SPEAKER_01
All of the vertices of this polytope, all the points are permutation matrices and all the internal points are Markovian kernels that have the uniform measure as a stationary measure.
9
SPEAKER_00
I need to intuit a little better what the heck you re talking about.
9
SPEAKER_00
So basically, there s some complicated thing going on with the network of conscious agents, and that s mappable to this, you re saying a two-dimensional matrix, that scattering has to do with what, the perception, that s like photon stuff?
9
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I don t know if it s useful to sort of,
9
SPEAKER_00
I dig into detail.
9
SPEAKER_01
I ll do just a high level thing.
9
SPEAKER_01
So the high level is the long-term behavior of the conscious agent dynamics.
9
SPEAKER_01
So that s the projection of just looking at the long-term behavior I m hoping will give rise to the amplituhedron.
9
SPEAKER_01
The amplituhedron
9
SPEAKER_01
then gives rise to space-time.
9
SPEAKER_01
So then I can just use their link to go all the way from consciousness through its asymptotics through the amplituhedron into space-time and get the map all the way into our interface.
9
SPEAKER_00
And that s why you mentioned the permutation matrix, because it gives you a nice thing to try to generate.
9
SPEAKER_01
That s right.
9
SPEAKER_01
It s the connection with the amplituhedron.
9
SPEAKER_01
The permutation matrices are the core of the amplituhedron, and it turns out they re the core of the asymptotic description of the conscious agents.
9
SPEAKER_00
So not to sort of bring up the idea of a creator, but I like, first of all, I like video games, and you mentioned this kind of simulation idea.
9
SPEAKER_00
First of all, do you think of it as an interesting idea, this thought experiment that will live in a simulation?
9
SPEAKER_00
And in general, do you think will live in a simulation?
9
SPEAKER_01
So Nick Bostrom s idea about the simulation is typically couched in a physicalist framework.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
9
SPEAKER_01
So there is the bottom level,
9
SPEAKER_01
There s some programmer in a physical space time and they have a computer that they ve programmed brilliantly and cleverly where they ve created conscious entities.
9
SPEAKER_01
So you have the hard problem of consciousness, right?
9
SPEAKER_01
The standard hard problem, how could a computer simulation create a conscious, which isn t explained by that simulation theory.
9
SPEAKER_01
But then the idea is that the next level, the entities that are created in the first level simulation then can write their own simulations and you get this nesting.
9
SPEAKER_01
So, the idea that this is a simulation is fine, but the idea that it starts with a physical space, I think, isn t fine.
9
SPEAKER_00
There s different properties here, the partial rendering.
9
SPEAKER_00
I mean, to me, that s the interesting idea, is not whether the entirety of the universe is simulated, but how efficiently can you
9
SPEAKER_00
create interfaces that are convincing to all other entities that can appreciate such interfaces, how little does it take?
9
SPEAKER_00
Because you said like partial rendering or like temporal, ephemeral rendering of stuff.
9
SPEAKER_00
only render the tree falling in the forest when there s somebody there to see it.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s interesting to think, how can you do that super efficiently without having to render everything?
9
SPEAKER_00
And that to me is one perspective on the simulation, just like it is with video games, where video
10
SPEAKER_00
game doesn t have to render every single thing.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s just the thing that the observer is looking at.
10
SPEAKER_01
Right.
10
SPEAKER_01
There is actually, that s a very nice question.
10
SPEAKER_01
And there s whole groups of researchers that are actually studying in virtual reality, what is the sort of minimal
10
SPEAKER_01
requirements on this system, how does it have to operate to give you an immersion experience, to give you the feeling that you have a body, to get you to take it real.
10
SPEAKER_01
And there s actually a lot of really good work on that right now.
10
SPEAKER_01
And it turns out it doesn t take that much.
10
SPEAKER_01
You do need to get the perception action loop tight and you have to give them the perceptions that they re expecting if you want them to.
10
SPEAKER_01
But you can
10
SPEAKER_01
If you give them perceptions that are close to what they re expecting, you can then maybe move their reality around a bit.
10
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, it s a tricky engineering problem, especially when you re trying to create a product that costs little, but it feels like an engineering problem, not a deeply scientific problem.
10
SPEAKER_00
Or meaning, obviously, it s a scientific problem, but as a scientific problem, it s not that difficult to trick us.
10
SPEAKER_00
descendants of apes.
10
SPEAKER_01
But here s a case for just us in our own, if this is a virtual reality that we re experiencing right now.
10
SPEAKER_01
So here s something you can try for yourself.
10
SPEAKER_01
If you just close your eyes and look at
10
SPEAKER_01
your experience in front of you, be aware of your experience in front of you, what you experience is just like a modeled dark gray, but there s all sort of, there s some dynamics to it, but it s just dark gray.
10
SPEAKER_01
But now I ask you, instead of having your attention forward, put your attention backward.
10
SPEAKER_01
What is it like behind you with your eyes closed?
10
SPEAKER_01
And there, it s like nothing.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s real.
10
SPEAKER_01
So,
10
SPEAKER_01
what is going on here?
10
SPEAKER_01
What am I experiencing back there?
10
SPEAKER_00
Right?
10
SPEAKER_00
I don t know if it s nothing.
10
SPEAKER_00
I guess it s the absence of, it s not even like darkness or something.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s not even darkness.
10
SPEAKER_01
There s no qualia to it.
10
SPEAKER_01
And yet there is a sense of being.
10
SPEAKER_01
And that s the interesting thing.
10
SPEAKER_01
There s a sense of being back.
10
SPEAKER_01
So I close my
10
SPEAKER_01
I put my attention forward, I have the qualia of a gray model thing, but when I put my attention backward, there is no qualia at all, but there is a sense of being.
10
SPEAKER_00
I personally, now you haven t been to that side of the room, I have been to that side of the room.
10
SPEAKER_00
So for me, memories, I start playing the engine of memory replay.
10
SPEAKER_00
Which is like I take myself back in time and think about that place where I was hanging out in that part, that s what I see when I m behind.
10
SPEAKER_00
So that s an interesting quirk of humans too, we re able to, we re collecting these experiences and we can replay them in interesting ways whenever we feel like it.
10
SPEAKER_00
And it s almost like being there, but not really, but almost.
10
SPEAKER_01
That s right.
10
SPEAKER_01
And yet we can go our entire lives in this.
10
SPEAKER_01
You re talking about the minimal thing for VR.
10
SPEAKER_01
We can go our entire lives and not realize that all of my life, it s been like nothing behind me.
10
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
10
SPEAKER_01
We re not even aware that all of our lives, if you just pay attention to what s behind me, we re like, oh, holy smoke.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s scary.
10
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it s like nothing.
10
SPEAKER_01
There s no quality there at all.
10
SPEAKER_01
How did I not notice that my entire life?
10
SPEAKER_01
We re so immersed in the simulation, we buy it so much.
10
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I mean, you could see this with children, right?
10
SPEAKER_00
With persistence, you could do the peekaboo game.
10
SPEAKER_00
You can hide from them and appear, and they re fully tricked.
10
SPEAKER_00
And in the same way, we re fully tricked.
10
SPEAKER_00
There s nothing behind us, and we assume there is.
10
SPEAKER_00
And that s really interesting.
10
SPEAKER_00
These theories are pretty heavy.
10
SPEAKER_00
You as a human being, as a mortal human being, how has these theories been to you personally?
10
SPEAKER_00
Like are there good days and bad days when you wake up and look in the mirror and the fact that you can t see anything behind you?
10
SPEAKER_00
The fact that it s rendered, like is there interesting quirks, you know, Nietzsche with his, if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you.
10
SPEAKER_00
How s this theory, these ideas change you as a person?
10
SPEAKER_01
it s been very, very difficult.
10
SPEAKER_01
This stuff is not just abstract theory building because it s about us.
10
SPEAKER_01
Sometimes I ve realized that there s this big division in me.
10
SPEAKER_01
My mind is doing all the science and coming up with these conclusions and the rest of me is not integrating.
10
SPEAKER_01
I was just like, I don t believe it.
10
SPEAKER_01
I just don t believe this.
10
SPEAKER_01
So, as I start to take it seriously, I get scared myself.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s like, is it
10
SPEAKER_01
But it s very much, then I read these spiritual traditions and realize they re saying very, very similar things.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s like, there s a lot of convergence.
10
SPEAKER_01
So for me, I have, the first time I thought it might be possible that we re not seeing the truth was in 1986.
10
SPEAKER_01
It was from some mathematics we were doing.
10
SPEAKER_01
And when that hit me, it hit me like a ton of bricks I had to sit down.
10
SPEAKER_01
It was, it really,
10
SPEAKER_01
It was scary.
10
SPEAKER_01
It was really a shock to the system.
10
SPEAKER_01
And then to realize that everything that has been important to me, like, you know, getting a house, getting a car, getting a reputation and so forth.
10
SPEAKER_01
Well, that car is just like the car I see in the virtual reality.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s there when you perceive it and it s not there.
10
SPEAKER_01
So the whole question of, you know, what am I doing and why?
10
SPEAKER_01
What s worthwhile doing in life?
10
SPEAKER_01
clearly getting a big house and getting a big car.
10
SPEAKER_01
I mean, we all knew that we were gonna die.
10
SPEAKER_01
So we tend not to know that.
10
SPEAKER_01
We tend to hide it, especially when we re young.
10
SPEAKER_01
Before age 30, we don t believe we re gonna die.
10
SPEAKER_00
But- Yeah, we factually maybe know that you kind of are supposed to, yeah.
10
SPEAKER_01
But they ll figure something out, and we ll be the generation that s the first one that doesn t have to die.
10
SPEAKER_01
That s the kind of thing.
10
SPEAKER_01
But when you really face the fact that you re going to die,
10
SPEAKER_01
And then when I start to look at it from this point of view that, well, this thing was an interface to begin with.
10
SPEAKER_01
So what I m really going to be doing, just taking off a headset.
10
SPEAKER_01
So I ve been playing in a virtual reality game all day and I got lost in the game when I was fighting over a Porsche.
10
SPEAKER_01
And I shot some guys up and I punctured their tires and I got the Porsche.
10
SPEAKER_01
Now I take the headset off and what was that for?
10
SPEAKER_01
Nothing.
10
SPEAKER_01
It was data structure and the data structure is gone.
10
SPEAKER_01
So all of the wars, the fighting and the reputations and all this stuff, you know,
10
SPEAKER_01
where it s just a headset.
10
SPEAKER_01
So my theory says that intellectually, my mind, my emotions rebel all over the place.
10
SPEAKER_01
And so I have to meditate, I meditate a lot.
10
SPEAKER_00
What percent of the day would you say you spend as a physicalist sort of living life, pretending your car matters,
10
SPEAKER_00
Your reputation matter, like how much was that Tom Waits song, I Like My Town with a Little Drop of Poison, how much poison do you allow yourself to have?
10
SPEAKER_01
I think my default mode is physicalist.
10
SPEAKER_01
I think that that s just the default.
10
SPEAKER_01
When I m not being conscious, consciously attentive,
10
SPEAKER_00
intellectually consciously attentive, because if you re just, you re still, if you re tasting coffee and not thinking, or drinking, or just taking it in the sunset, you re not being intellectual, but you re still experiencing it.
10
SPEAKER_00
So it s when you turn on the introspective machine, that s when you can start.
10
SPEAKER_01
And turn off the thinker.
10
SPEAKER_01
When I actually just start looking without thinking,
10
SPEAKER_01
So that s when I feel like I all of a sudden I m starting to see through.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s sort of like, okay, part of the addiction to the interface is all the stories I m telling about it.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s really important for me to get that, really important to do that.
10
SPEAKER_01
So I m telling all these stories and so I m all wrapped up.
10
SPEAKER_01
Almost all of the mind stuff that s going on in my head is about attachment to the interface.
10
SPEAKER_01
And so what I found is that essentially the only way to really detach from the interface is to literally let go of thoughts altogether.
10
SPEAKER_01
And then all of a sudden, even my identity, my whole history, my name, my education, all this stuff is almost irrelevant because it s just now here is
10
SPEAKER_01
present moment.
10
SPEAKER_01
And this is the reality right now.
10
SPEAKER_01
And all of that other stuff is an interface story.
10
SPEAKER_01
But this conscious experience right now, this is the only reality as far as I can tell.
10
SPEAKER_01
The rest of it s a story.
10
SPEAKER_01
But that is, again, not my default.
10
SPEAKER_01
That is, I have to make a really
10
SPEAKER_01
conscious choice to say, okay, I know intellectually this is all an interface, I m gonna take the headset off and so forth, and then immediately sink back into the game and just be out there playing the game and get lost in it.
10
SPEAKER_01
So I m always lost in the game unless I literally consciously choose to stop thinking.
10
SPEAKER_00
Isn t it terrifying to acknowledge that
10
SPEAKER_00
to look beyond the game, isn t it?
10
SPEAKER_01
It scares the hell out of me.
10
SPEAKER_01
It really is scary.
10
SPEAKER_01
Because I m so attached.
10
SPEAKER_01
I m attached to this body.
10
SPEAKER_01
I m attached to the interface.
10
SPEAKER_00
Are you ever worried about breaking your brain a bit?
10
SPEAKER_00
Meaning like, I mean some of these ideas, when you think about reality, even with like Einstein,
10
SPEAKER_00
just realizing, you said interface, just realizing that light, that there s a speed of light and you can t go faster than the speed of light and what kind of things black holes can do with light, even that can mess with your head.
10
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
10
SPEAKER_00
But that s still space-time.
10
SPEAKER_01
That s a big mess, but it s still just space-time.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s still a property of our interface.
10
SPEAKER_01
That s right.
10
SPEAKER_00
But it s still like, even Einstein realized that this particular thing, some of the stories we tell ourselves is constructing interfaces that are oversimplifying the way things work.
10
SPEAKER_00
Because it s nice, the stories are nice.
10
SPEAKER_00
Stories are nice.
10
SPEAKER_00
I mean, just like video games, they re nice.
10
SPEAKER_01
Right, but Einstein was a realist, right?
10
SPEAKER_01
He was a famous realist in the sense that he was very explicit in a 1935 paper with Podolsky and Rosen, the EPR paper, right?
10
SPEAKER_01
They said, if without in any way disturbing a system, I can predict with probability one, the outcome of a measurement,
10
SPEAKER_01
then there exists in reality that element, that value.
10
SPEAKER_01
And we now know from quantum theory that that s false.
10
SPEAKER_01
Einstein s idea of local realism is strictly speaking false.
10
SPEAKER_01
And so we can predict, we can set up in quantum theory, you can set up, and there s a paper by Chris Fuchs, Quantum Bayesianism, where he scouts this out.
10
SPEAKER_01
It was done by other people, but he gives a good presentation of this, where they have a sequence of something like nine different quantum measurements that you can make.
10
SPEAKER_01
And you can predict with probability one what a particular outcome will be, but you can actually prove that it s
10
SPEAKER_01
impossible that the value existed before you made the measurement.
10
SPEAKER_01
So you know with probability one what you re going to get, but you also know with certainty that that value was not there until you made the measurement.
10
SPEAKER_01
So we know from quantum theory that the act of observation is an act of fact creation.
10
SPEAKER_01
And that is built into what I m saying with this theory of consciousness.
10
SPEAKER_01
If consciousness is fundamental,
10
SPEAKER_01
Space-time itself is an act of fact creation.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s an interface that we create, consciousness creates, plus all the objects in it.
10
SPEAKER_01
So local realism is not true.
10
SPEAKER_01
Quantum theory is established.
10
SPEAKER_01
Also non-contextual realism is not true.
10
SPEAKER_01
And that fits in perfectly with this idea that consciousness is fundamental.
10
SPEAKER_01
These exist as data structures when we create them.
10
SPEAKER_01
As Chris Fuchs says, the act of observation is an act of fact creation.
10
SPEAKER_01
But I must say, on a personal level, I m having to spend, I spend a couple hours a day just sitting in meditation on this and facing the rebellion
10
SPEAKER_01
in me that goes to the core, it feels like it goes to the core of my being, rebelling against these ideas.
10
SPEAKER_01
So here, it s very, very interesting for me to look at this because, so here I m a scientist and I m a person.
10
SPEAKER_01
The science is really clear.
10
SPEAKER_01
Local realism is false.
10
SPEAKER_01
Non-contextual realism is false.
10
SPEAKER_01
Space-time is doom.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s very, very clear.
10
SPEAKER_01
It couldn t be clearer.
10
SPEAKER_01
And my emotions rebel left and right.
10
SPEAKER_01
When I sit there and say, okay, I am not something in space and time.
10
SPEAKER_01
And something inside of me says, you re crazy.
10
SPEAKER_01
Of course you are.
10
SPEAKER_01
And I m completely attached to it.
10
SPEAKER_01
I m completely attached to all this stuff.
10
SPEAKER_01
I m attached to my body, I m attached to the headset, I m attached to my car, attached to people, I m attached to all of it.
10
SPEAKER_01
And yet I know as an absolute fact, I m gonna walk away from all of it.
10
SPEAKER_01
I m gonna die.
10
SPEAKER_01
In fact, I almost died last year.
10
SPEAKER_01
COVID almost killed me.
10
SPEAKER_01
I sent a goodbye text to my wife.
10
SPEAKER_01
I thought I was- You really did.
10
SPEAKER_01
I sent her a goodbye.
10
SPEAKER_01
I was in the emergency room and it had attacked my heart.
10
SPEAKER_01
It had been at 190 beats per minute for 36 hours.
10
SPEAKER_01
I couldn t last much longer, I knew I couldn t.
10
SPEAKER_01
They couldn t stop it.
10
SPEAKER_00
So- That was it.
10
SPEAKER_01
So that was it.
10
SPEAKER_01
So I texted her goodbye from the emergency room.
10
SPEAKER_00
I love you, goodbye kind of thing.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, right.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, that was it.
10
SPEAKER_01
So- Were you afraid?
10
SPEAKER_01
God, it scares the hell out of you, right?
10
SPEAKER_01
But there was, you re just feeling so bad anyway that all, that s sort of what, you re scared but you re just feeling so bad that in some sense you just want it to stop anyway.
10
SPEAKER_01
So I ve been there and faced it just a year ago.
10
SPEAKER_00
How did that change you, by the way, having this intellectual reality that s so challenging that you meditate on?
10
SPEAKER_00
It s just an interface, and one of the hardest things to come to terms with is that that means that it s gonna end.
10
SPEAKER_00
How did that change you, having come so close to the reality of it?
10
SPEAKER_00
It s not just an intellectual reality.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s a reality of death.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s forced, I ve meditated for 20 years now.
10
SPEAKER_01
And I would say averaging three or four hours a day.
10
SPEAKER_01
But it s put a new urgency, but urgency is not the right word because it s riveted my attention, I ll put it that way.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s really riveted my attention and I ve really paid
10
SPEAKER_01
I spent a lot more time looking at what spiritual traditions say.
10
SPEAKER_01
I don t, by the way, again, not taking it with the, you know, take it all with a grain of salt.
10
SPEAKER_01
But on the other hand, I think it s stupid for me to ignore it.
10
SPEAKER_01
So I try to listen to the best ideas and to sort out
10
SPEAKER_01
nonsense.
10
SPEAKER_01
We all have to do it for ourselves, right?
10
SPEAKER_01
It s not easy.
10
SPEAKER_01
So what makes sense, and I have the advantage of some science, so I can look at what science says and try to compare with spiritual tradition.
10
SPEAKER_01
I try to sort it out for myself.
10
SPEAKER_01
But then I also look and realize that there s another aspect to me, which is this whole emotional aspect.
10
SPEAKER_01
I seem to be wired up, as evolutionary psychology says, I m wired up.
10
SPEAKER_01
right?
10
SPEAKER_01
All these defensive mechanisms.
10
SPEAKER_01
I m inclined to lie if I need to.
10
SPEAKER_01
I m inclined to be angry
11
SPEAKER_00
angry, to protect myself, to have an in-group and an out-group, to try to make my reputation as big as possible, to try to demean the out-group.
11
SPEAKER_00
There s all these things that evolutionary psychology is spot on.
11
SPEAKER_00
It s really brilliant about the human condition.
11
SPEAKER_00
And yet I think evolution, as I said evolutionary theory, is a projection of a deeper theory where there may be no competition.
11
SPEAKER_00
So I m in this very interesting position where I feel like, okay, according to my own theory, I m consciousness.
11
SPEAKER_00
And maybe this is what it means for consciousness to wake up.
11
SPEAKER_00
It s not easy.
11
SPEAKER_00
It s almost like I feel like I have real skin in the game.
11
SPEAKER_00
It really is scary.
11
SPEAKER_00
I really was scared when I was about to die.
11
SPEAKER_00
It really was hard to say goodbye to my wife.
11
SPEAKER_00
It really pained.
11
SPEAKER_00
And to then look at that and then look at the fact that I m going to walk away from this anyway and it s just an interface.
11
SPEAKER_00
So, it s trying to put all this stuff together and really grok it, so to speak.
11
SPEAKER_00
Not just intellectually, but grok it.
11
SPEAKER_00
at an emotional level.
11
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, what are you afraid of, you silly evolved organism that s gotten way too attached to the interface?
11
SPEAKER_01
What are you really afraid of?
11
SPEAKER_00
That s right.
11
SPEAKER_00
Is there a... It s very personal, you know, it s very, very personal.
11
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
11
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
11
SPEAKER_01
I mean, speaking of that text, what do you think is this whole love thing?
11
SPEAKER_01
What s the role of love in our
11
SPEAKER_01
human condition, this interface thing we have, is this somehow interweaved, interconnected with consciousness, this attachment we have to other humans, and this deep, like it s some, there s some quality to it that seems very interesting, peculiar.
11
SPEAKER_00
Well, there are two levels I would think about that.
11
SPEAKER_00
There s love in the sexual sense, and then there s love in the deeper sense.
11
SPEAKER_00
in the sexual sense, we can give an evolutionary account of that and so forth.
11
SPEAKER_00
And I think that s pretty clear to people.
11
SPEAKER_00
In this deeper sense, right, so of course, I love my wife in a sexual sense, but there is a deeper sense as well.
11
SPEAKER_00
When I was saying goodbye to her, there was a much deeper love that was really at play there.
11
SPEAKER_00
That s one place where I think
11
SPEAKER_00
that the mixed bag from spiritual traditions has something right.
11
SPEAKER_00
When they say, love your neighbor as yourself, that in some sense, love is fundamental.
11
SPEAKER_00
I think that they re onto something, something very, very deep and profound.
11
SPEAKER_00
And every once in a while, I can get a personal glimpse of that, especially when I m in the space with no thought.
11
SPEAKER_00
When I can really let go of thoughts,
11
SPEAKER_00
I get little glimpses of a love in the sense that I m not separate.
11
SPEAKER_00
It s a love in the sense that I m not different from that.
11
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, if you and I are separate, then I can fight you.
11
SPEAKER_00
But if you and I are the same, if there s a union there.
11
SPEAKER_01
The togetherness of it, yeah.
11
SPEAKER_01
Who s God?
11
SPEAKER_01
All those gods, the stories that have been told throughout history, you said through the spiritual traditions.
11
SPEAKER_01
What do you think that is?
11
SPEAKER_01
Is that us trying to find that common thing at the core?
11
SPEAKER_00
Well, in many,
11
SPEAKER_00
traditions, not all.
11
SPEAKER_00
The one I was raised in, so my dad was a Protestant minister.
11
SPEAKER_00
We tend to think of God as a being, but I think that that s not right.
11
SPEAKER_00
I think the closest way to think about God is being, period, not a being, but being.
11
SPEAKER_00
The very ground of being itself is God.
11
SPEAKER_00
I think that s the
11
SPEAKER_00
And from my point of view, that s the ground of consciousness.
11
SPEAKER_00
So the ground of conscious being is what we might call God, but the word God has always been, for example, you don t believe the same God is my God, so I m gonna fight you, or we ll have wars over, because the being, the specific being that you call God is different from the being that I call God, and so we fight.
11
SPEAKER_00
Whereas if it s,
11
SPEAKER_00
not a being, but just being, and you and I share being, then you and I are not separate, and there s no reason to fight.
11
SPEAKER_00
We re both part of that one being, and loving you is loving myself, because we re all part of that one being.
11
SPEAKER_00
The spiritual traditions that point to that
11
SPEAKER_00
I think are pointing in a very interesting direction.
11
SPEAKER_00
And that does seem to match with the mathematics of the conscious agent stuff that I ve been working on as well, that it really fits with that, although that wasn t my goal.
11
SPEAKER_01
You mentioned that the young physicists that you talk to or whose work you follow have quite a lot of fun breaking with the traditions of the past, the assumptions of the past.
11
SPEAKER_01
What advice would you give to young people today in high school and college, not just physicists, but in general, how to have a career they can be proud of, how they can have a life they can be proud of?
11
SPEAKER_01
how to make their way in the world, from the lessons, from the wins and the losses in your own life, what little insights could you pull out?
11
SPEAKER_00
I would say the universe is a lot more interesting than you might expect.
11
SPEAKER_00
And you are a lot more special and interesting than you might expect.
11
SPEAKER_00
You might think that you re just a little, tiny, irrelevant, 100 pound, 200 pound,
11
SPEAKER_00
person in a vast billions of light years across space.
11
SPEAKER_00
And that s not the case.
11
SPEAKER_00
You are in some sense the being that s creating that space all the time every time you look.
11
SPEAKER_00
So, waking up to who you really are outside of space and time as the author of space and time is the author of everything that you see.
11
SPEAKER_01
the author of space and time.
11
SPEAKER_00
Sorry.
11
SPEAKER_00
RL You re the author of space and time, right?
11
SPEAKER_00
And I m the author of space and time.
11
SPEAKER_00
And space and time is just one little data structure.
11
SPEAKER_00
Many other consciousnesses are creating other data structures.
11
SPEAKER_00
They re authors of various other things.
11
SPEAKER_00
So, realizing and then realizing that I had this feeling that growing up, going to college, reading all these texts, but oh man, it s all been done.
11
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, if I d just been there 50 years ago, I could have discovered this stuff, but it s all in the textbooks now.
11
SPEAKER_00
Well, believe me, the textbooks are going to look silly in 50 years, and it s your chance to write the new textbook.
11
SPEAKER_00
So, of course, study the current textbooks.
11
SPEAKER_00
You have to understand them.
11
SPEAKER_00
There s no way to progress until you understand what s been done.
11
SPEAKER_00
But then
11
SPEAKER_00
The only limit is your imagination, frankly.
11
SPEAKER_01
That s the only limit.
11
SPEAKER_01
The greatest books, the greatest textbooks ever written on Earth are yet to be written.
11
SPEAKER_01
Exactly.
11
SPEAKER_01
What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing?
11
SPEAKER_01
What s the meaning of life from your limited interface?
11
SPEAKER_01
Can you figure it all out?
11
SPEAKER_01
Like why, so you said the universe is kind of trying to figure itself out through us.
11
SPEAKER_01
Why?
11
SPEAKER_01
Why?
11
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, that s the closest I ve come.
11
SPEAKER_00
So I will say that I don t know, but here s my guess, right?
11
SPEAKER_01
That s a good first sentence.
11
SPEAKER_01
That s a good starting point.
11
SPEAKER_00
And maybe that s gonna be a profound part of the final answer is to start with the I don t know.
11
SPEAKER_00
It s quite possible that that s really important to start with the I don t know.
11
SPEAKER_00
My guess is that if consciousness is fundamental, and if Gödel s incompleteness theorem holds here, and there s infinite variety of structures for consciousness to some sense explore,
11
SPEAKER_00
that maybe that s what it s about.
11
SPEAKER_00
This is something that Anika and I talked about a little bit and she doesn t like this way of talking about it and so I m gonna have to talk with her some more about this way of talking.
11
SPEAKER_00
But right now I ll just put it this way and I ll have to talk with her more and see if I can say it more clearly.
11
SPEAKER_00
But the way I m talking about it now is that there s a sense in which there s being
11
SPEAKER_00
And then there s experiences or forms that come out of being.
11
SPEAKER_00
That s one deep, deep mystery.
11
SPEAKER_00
And the question that you asked, what is it all about?
11
SPEAKER_00
Somehow it s related to that.
11
SPEAKER_00
Why does being, why does it just stay without any forms?
11
SPEAKER_00
Why do we have experiences?
11
SPEAKER_00
Why not just have, when you close your eyes and you pay attention to what s behind you, there s nothing, but there s being.
11
SPEAKER_00
Why don t we just stop there?
11
SPEAKER_00
Why didn t we just stop there?
11
SPEAKER_00
Why did we create all tables and chairs and the sun and moon and people?
11
SPEAKER_00
All this really complicated stuff, why?
11
SPEAKER_00
And all I can guess right now, and I ll probably kick myself in a couple of years and say that was dumb, but all I can guess right now is that somehow consciousness wakes up to itself by knowing what it s not.
11
SPEAKER_00
So here I am, I m not this body.
11
SPEAKER_00
And I sort of saw that, it was sort of in my face when I sent a text goodbye.
11
SPEAKER_00
But then as soon as I m better, it s sort of like, okay, I sort of don t wanna go there, right?
11
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so I am my body.
11
SPEAKER_00
I go back to the standard, I am my body, and I want to get that car, even though I was just about to die a year ago.
11
SPEAKER_00
So that comes rushing back.
11
SPEAKER_00
So consciousness immerses itself fully
11
SPEAKER_00
into a particular headset, gets lost in it, and then slowly wakes up.
11
SPEAKER_01
Just so it can escape, and that is the waking up, but it needs to have the negative.
11
SPEAKER_01
It needs to know what it s not.
11
SPEAKER_00
It needs to know what you are.
11
SPEAKER_00
You have to say, oh, I m not that, I m not that.
11
SPEAKER_00
That wasn t important, that wasn t important.
11
SPEAKER_01
That s really powerful.
11
SPEAKER_01
Don, let me just say that because I ve been a long-term fan of yours and we re supposed to have a conversation during this very difficult moment in your life, let me just say you re a truly special person and I for one, and I know there s a lot of others that agree,
11
SPEAKER_01
I m glad that you re still here with us on this earth, if for a short time.
11
SPEAKER_01
So whatever the universe, whatever planet has for you that brought you close to death,
11
SPEAKER_01
to maybe enlighten you some kind of way.
11
SPEAKER_01
I think he has an interesting plan for you.
11
SPEAKER_01
You re one of the truly special humans, and it s a huge honor that you would sit and talk with me today.
11
SPEAKER_01
Thank you so much.
11
SPEAKER_01
Thank you very much, Lex.
11
SPEAKER_01
I really appreciate that.
11
SPEAKER_01
Thank you.
11
SPEAKER_01
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Donald Hoffman.
11
SPEAKER_01
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
11
SPEAKER_01
And now, let me leave you with some words from Albert Einstein, relevant to the ideas discussed in this conversation.
11
SPEAKER_01
Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live.
11
SPEAKER_01
Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.