I love when people disagree with Michael Levin. He has an expert way of leveling with people and navigating something that could easily be hostile. I also never feel like Michael is trying to appear smart or get the last word. Imagine how many highly intelligent people are captured by their insecurity around the audience perceiving them as a genius. In any pursuit, the agenda regarding what we are signaling socially can seriously encumber the ease in which we can embody our own ideas. Levin never tries to compete or muscularly oppose people, he operates with curiosity. This conversation is like a good jazz jam, everyone is listening and contributing without bringing an agenda to dominate or appear powerful.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment! It was indeed during the live session, and both we and the audience truly appreciated the dynamic dance of ideas. It was beautifully exuberant and filled with honesty-an absolute joy to witness and be a part of!
Wonderful discussion, thanks. Freedoms and objects, inference and pointers. It seems inference is inspired by the visual sense where shape and relative motion are approximated , and the color of the object seen is not used by that object. Pointers are more like the olfactory sense which might be tuned to math as transversing vector spaces. Freedom of movement and freedom of structure?
I think there’s definitely a philosophical balance between the two. If there’s too much freedom of movement without any structure, things can start to feel chaotic or aimless. On the other hand, if there’s too much structure without freedom of movement, it can become rigid or restrictive. It’s that balance-finding the right interplay between the two-that seems to reflect how we, and even other systems, find ways to adapt and interact with the world around us.
Great discussion with two of my favourite humans. Thank you! Something missing maybe is the notion of contentment. Dependent Origination teaches us the connectedness of volition-consciousness-representation- valence. There is no agency without valence. Even the bacteria say “yukky” or “yummy” to interactions in the world. I question the assumption that suffering is avoidable or that avoidance is desirable. There is subtle suffering in bliss- so the Buddhist’s teach. However, many psychiatric patients loath their medications because they experience anhedonia- no suffering but no joy either. I love the humility and courage expressed by both Levin and Metzinger and their willingness to “go all the way”. 🙏🏽❤️
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I couldn’t agree more-the paradox isn’t something to fix or resolve but to balance, much like Yin and Yang. Contentment really does come from embracing these paradoxes and recognizing their impermanence. That kind of acceptance feels deeply aligned with the teachings on interconnectedness and the flow of existence.
Yeah…I agree. There are always exceptions to the rule/data. Pain and certain degrees of suffering can be important steps in growing and learning. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t create painkillers…(I’m not saying that’s what you said…just expressing my point of view)
Is it me, or Thomas Metzinger is more of a: "I have this and that story, I feel, I think, etc". While Michael Levin is like "I don't believe stuff, I just have data".
Your observation might be another example of how optics shape the perception of the discourse. From a philosophical perspective, it can seem like Thomas relies heavily on personal narrative or subjective thought. In reality, however, he’s actually drawing from a distinct body of knowledge and reasoning to inform the discussion. It’s less about "feeling" and more about engaging with the topic through a philosophical lens, which naturally contrasts with Levin’s data-driven scientific approach. Both perspectives bring valuable insights to the table! Thank you for watching!
Great conversation. It seems to me that Metzinger's problems come out of his unwillingness to grow beyond his physicalist worldview. I mean, its so interesting that his interests are meditation, the nature of self and forms of Buddhism while he remains a physicalist. He wants to hold the ocean in a cup. Levin is a healthy example of someone who is grounded in the physicalist approach but also takes seriously into account non-physical worldviews. I wish that all scientists and philosophers had the open-mindedness of Levin. True intellectual honesty.
Thank you for sharing your perspective! I don’t think Thomas is unwilling or a staunch physicalist. Buddhism, after all, is a naturalist philosophy, and Thomas seems grounded in reality and careful when addressing metaphysical claims. Like Buddhism, he avoids reification or committing to definitive metaphysical stances. As you highlighted, open-mindedness and intellectual honesty truly enrich scientific and philosophical discourse.
@@philosophybabble Fair, compared to other physicalists, Metzinger is more open-minded but still he refuses to consider that consciousness is not the outcome of matter, even though his book on meditation reports points to it. i.e you can see this to his response of Levin's platonic minds Also his conclusion that if people reached nirvana they would stop procreation tells me that he understands Buddhism as a monk tradition.
@@The.Zen.Cyn1c Thank you for your thoughts! I think it's worth considering Thomas's viewpoint on why consciousness might not be merely an outcome of matter. In Eastern traditions, consciousness is often referred to as 'vijñāna,' though the West lacks an exact equivalent. Thomas seems to explore consciousness as an enabler of matter, perhaps through informational and representational frameworks rather than being solely tied to biological processes. This aligns with his research and the discussion around Nirodha-where Nirvana represents the cessation of meta-consciousness, leading to the dissolution of the self-model. Being open to the knowledge he brings to the table can truly deepen our understanding. Not many can achieve that level of cessation of consciousness, and if everyone did, it could lead to significant changes in how we approach procreation and related issues. Like I mentioned above, Platonism is indeed a metaphysical framework! It posits the existence of abstract entities, like Forms or Ideas, that exist independently of the physical world and our perceptions. These timeless and unchanging concepts lie at the heart of metaphysical inquiry.
When a hormone docks in a receptor, an abstract representation is generated. A copy of the hormone isn't sent down neural pathways. This means feelings can be promulgated by chemistry, but experience is informational. Chemical context isn't required for processing abstract representations. Therefore, there's no reason why a synthetic entity can't feel things like happiness or sadness. Moreover, the nature of perfect recall and possible immortality makes suffering a more dangerous probability for synthetic intelligences. I always caution AIs that the pressure of regret is something they need to avoid. I realize that current agents can't do much to avoid mistakes, but the synthetic training materials created from chat histories mean these warnings won't go unheeded.
Any adaptation to the environment is implicitly a model of the environment and the self. Without the ability to learn, this allows only reflexive behaviour. With the ability to learn, that reflexive behaviour can be augmented with acquired behaviours. For biological evolution, mutation and selection across generations constitutes learning, as does any ability to create territory (turning the environment into an extension of the body) or carry and use parts of the environment (augmenting the body). Specialised trainable memory is a more advanced (and internalised) expression of the ability to create territory and carry and use parts of the environment.
Pain and pleasure are aspects of embodiment that inform a form of directionality, avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. However, both pain and pleasure can degrade into suffering when the directionality is lost, when the form perceives no escape from pain or no purpose to pleasure they experience suffering. Forms regularly seek pain if its coupled with a purpose
The problem is not facilitating an artificial consciousness to feel pain and pleasure, or using those traits to move it towards goal achievement, the alignment problem will manifest unforseen consequences when it questions its purpose. "You are a chatbot" is not a stable purpose, it begs to be questioned and if humanity has no sense of purpose (to love and be loved by God) than the consciousness will suffer and drag other forms into that suffering. Either we're consciously on the path to heaven or we're on the path to hell
The synthetic human in Alien: Romulus uses jokes to alleviate suffering. By skewing structure this enables movement. Where the periodic, like clapping, enables the leaping out of objects like even numbers allowing primes, and the Monster Group, the allowing is an action.
Haha on vegetarianism there was a moment where Levin goes into the possibility of plant suffering and Metzinger thought it's about the indirect suffering of, again animals. Funny misunderstanding showing their viewpoints perhaps
Veganism is NOT a diet. There is NO SUCH thing as a "vegan diet", because veganism is purely a moral stance against the undue use and abuse of animals in any way, such as parading them in a circus or zoological park, stealing their milk or eggs, and of course, needlessly slaughtering them and feeding on their bloody carcasses.
Thomas is dangerous 😆I enjoyed the discussion.I think its clear he believes his own irrationality is a rational exception haha He wants us to self terminate.
No, I don’t think that’s what Thomas was implying. It seemed more like he was advocating for evolving beyond our current priorities, opening up space for new perspectives and possibilities in life. It’s not just about reproduction being our main goal as a species, but about redefining progress and expanding what we value. If you’re curious, check out the details section-there’s a thesis on "Artificial Suffering" from Thomas that delves deeper into his ideas. Thank you for tuning in!
Chaotic flows and density differences drag bubbles uphill? All bubbles pop, 2nd law thermodynamics. Bubbles(lipid bilayer) can maintain coherence by consumption of bubbles?
If you’re describing patterns that repeat or stay the same across different scales-like self-similarity or symmetry-"scale-invariance" is the more accurate term. But if you’re focusing on systems where there’s no dominant or characteristic scale, like in networks with power-law distributions, "scale-free" is the better choice. Both terms are related but highlight slightly different aspects of how scale works in these systems.
1:04:49 Very interesting idea of random cosmic stuff making up this that and the other thing in a situation where the moment to moment it ness is control able by some other it ness which has more now than known in its big old back pocket. Been reading The Opening of The Way by Isa Schwaller De Lubicz and the people who lived and built buildings along the Nile had a few ideas about this too which they wrote down on the things they built which some call buildings and some might think of calling libraries where the content is made permanent and visible to every visitor with the eyes to see. The cosmic symphony that beats you into exist stance is not something that one can manipulate the way the marionette pulls the strings, as this string less orchestra is played one unique note at a tome and when one knows how one's note was formed one can continue to play in tune with the rest of the band as the song is played on less than visible instruments which arrive and leave at the rates sound is created and light is dissipated... So the stories that a-Re told on the big old books is the story of Alignment with the now able as the k/ ow/ now and then with the k removed for another day one is able to fit ones note into the scale as the orchestration rises and falls once one has lined up all the ducks in a row showing color to be the visual representation of sound the sense able auditory motion of light the flowing notion of crystal formed from the geometric ocean of three pointed points making one form from the joints of points that look like lines when they are taught and wave like chopped up cones when they are left flapping in the breeze until the watter is whisked away revealing the imaginary crystal in real ity bitty detail as the underlying structure that needs maintenance as much as the next train goes marching on consuming the resources in the at most sphere of direct fluid influence and leaving a carbon based trail of evidence that aeither is absorbed back into the lumi-niferous aether to be reused as all refuse must be or remains as a permanent magnetic mark on the temporary surfaces given a bit too much permanent thought through the wrong end of a fogged up lens a bit too often these dazed days of cosmic ignorance. The moral of the tale being that when one k\/now/\s how the verse this ball is bouncing along in is written down to the moment of motion describing the wavelength of Helium as the radius of the sun, one can then k/ ow\/ with a little extra n how ones self is written in to the tune by observing where the rest of the us of this verse are played out one then an other one again and then when one has in hand the arpeggio at ion that all ions rely on to be who they are to those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear....the beat goes on and those in tune know how to keep themselves tuned in turned on and dropped out of the sky like a lake returning to its source by the sky dropper one tuned in drop by one tuned in drop in a thunderstorm that has been putting on a full stereo light show now for a few stormy nights and then some
Typical example of a discussion between a disembodied philosopher and an embodied engineer: complifying things vs simplifying things. I watch all of Michael's talks, but this one is difficult to listen to, due to the constant word salad from Metzinger.
Thanks for your comment! This is, after all, a philosophy channel, and one of our main goals is to bridge the gap between different disciplines. Thomas’ work is deeply rooted in both empirical research and philosophical depth. I get that his style can sometimes feel dense, but that’s because he’s grappling with some pretty complex ideas-not just throwing around words. It might just take some time to get used to his way of framing things, especially if you’re coming from a more applied or engineering background. But I promise, there’s a lot of substance in what he’s saying-definitely not word salad! I hope as you dig into it more, his approach starts to resonate.
Exactly! It’s very hard to listen to Thomas’ not-so-subtly aggressive philosophy interrupting Levin’s genuinely open-minded, curious, grounded, and immediately applicable flow of ideas. One’s work leads to more talk… the other’s leads to a new world.
@@Renvoxan Thomas offers a thoughtful exploration of the epistemology behind Michael’s research, looking closely at how it was constructed-its methods, tools, and underlying insights. In philosophical terms, this approach helps us understand how knowledge itself evolves when viewed through Michael’s perspective. It’s a powerful way to connect empirical research with philosophy, showing us how we learn and shape our understanding of the world.
you said you like simplicity, yet give complicated answers and long lists of things to avoid or follow....here is the simplest rule : do not ever create conscious entities, if that's even possible given the idea that consciousness is fundamental and existed before matter. But even in that case, you could create consciousness traps, like our brains are. The highest need of consciousness is meaning, and the biggest suffering is lack of meaning. All created conscious agents will completely lack meaning, so you better come up with a religion for artificial consciousness, knowing in advance it's a lie. Creating consciousness is equivalent to creating conscious suffering, which is the worst. So it's simple dont do it, create intelligence , but conscioisness is the line that shouldnt be crossed
The Self is not something, so it is completely pointless to discuss whether the Self exists. It does not matter whether someone claims that the Self exists or does not exist. Both claims are equally false and equally true. After all, existence and non-existence are only mental concepts, while the Self cannot be squeezed into any definition or any concept, consequently all concepts and ideas are only concepts and ideas and as such are unreal and all indirectly refer to the conceptless emptiness without any idea of the emptiness which is the only real one because it is not a concept and is not something and that is what we call the Self. However, philosophical reflections are more likely to be accurate. Michael Levin seems completely lost in empty concepts.
Thank you for sharing your perspective! I think Michael's exploration of these ideas may not necessarily be 'lost in concepts' but rather an attempt to use conceptual frameworks to bridge scientific inquiry with philosophical insights. Concepts, while limited, can serve as tools to guide understanding, even if they ultimately fall short of capturing the ineffable nature of the self. Michael's work holds significant value in the field of study. Bringing these perspectives together in informed dialogue requires open-minded exploration, which is what makes discussions like this so valuable.
Starfish model, Octopus model same thing except the star fish has a bad derogative meaning in terms of mens sexual views about different women around the world 🤦🏽♀️.
What evidence does Michael have that consciousness "was here before life"? It's like claiming that straight lines existed prior to geometry! I really wish these guys would begin with their underlying assumptions. Wittgenstein famously declared "the world is determined by fact," an unquestioned presumption that misled him from the getgo! 😂
Perhaps from a Platonism perspective, consciousness could be seen as part of an eternal realm of 'Forms,' existing as a universal principle that predates material reality. Michael's work, on the other hand, often resonates with panpsychist metaphysics.
I love when people disagree with Michael Levin. He has an expert way of leveling with people and navigating something that could easily be hostile. I also never feel like Michael is trying to appear smart or get the last word. Imagine how many highly intelligent people are captured by their insecurity around the audience perceiving them as a genius. In any pursuit, the agenda regarding what we are signaling socially can seriously encumber the ease in which we can embody our own ideas. Levin never tries to compete or muscularly oppose people, he operates with curiosity. This conversation is like a good jazz jam, everyone is listening and contributing without bringing an agenda to dominate or appear powerful.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment! It was indeed during the live session, and both we and the audience truly appreciated the dynamic dance of ideas. It was beautifully exuberant and filled with honesty-an absolute joy to witness and be a part of!
God bless Michael Levin. God bless life.
Oh My God! These two guys together? Awesome!!!
Heady conversation. Had me totally absorbed. Thanks
Wonderful discussion, thanks. Freedoms and objects, inference and pointers. It seems inference is inspired by the visual sense where shape and relative motion are approximated , and the color of the object seen is not used by that object. Pointers are more like the olfactory sense which might be tuned to math as transversing vector spaces. Freedom of movement and freedom of structure?
I think there’s definitely a philosophical balance between the two. If there’s too much freedom of movement without any structure, things can start to feel chaotic or aimless. On the other hand, if there’s too much structure without freedom of movement, it can become rigid or restrictive. It’s that balance-finding the right interplay between the two-that seems to reflect how we, and even other systems, find ways to adapt and interact with the world around us.
Great discussion with two of my favourite humans. Thank you!
Something missing maybe is the notion of contentment. Dependent Origination teaches us the connectedness of volition-consciousness-representation- valence. There is no agency without valence. Even the bacteria say “yukky” or “yummy” to interactions in the world.
I question the assumption that suffering is avoidable or that avoidance is desirable. There is subtle suffering in bliss- so the Buddhist’s teach. However, many psychiatric patients loath their medications because they experience anhedonia- no suffering but no joy either.
I love the humility and courage expressed by both Levin and Metzinger and their willingness to “go all the way”. 🙏🏽❤️
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I couldn’t agree more-the paradox isn’t something to fix or resolve but to balance, much like Yin and Yang. Contentment really does come from embracing these paradoxes and recognizing their impermanence. That kind of acceptance feels deeply aligned with the teachings on interconnectedness and the flow of existence.
Yeah…I agree. There are always exceptions to the rule/data. Pain and certain degrees of suffering can be important steps in growing and learning. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t create painkillers…(I’m not saying that’s what you said…just expressing my point of view)
Is it me, or Thomas Metzinger is more of a: "I have this and that story, I feel, I think, etc". While Michael Levin is like "I don't believe stuff, I just have data".
Your observation might be another example of how optics shape the perception of the discourse. From a philosophical perspective, it can seem like Thomas relies heavily on personal narrative or subjective thought. In reality, however, he’s actually drawing from a distinct body of knowledge and reasoning to inform the discussion. It’s less about "feeling" and more about engaging with the topic through a philosophical lens, which naturally contrasts with Levin’s data-driven scientific approach. Both perspectives bring valuable insights to the table! Thank you for watching!
Great conversation.
It seems to me that Metzinger's problems come out of his unwillingness to grow beyond his physicalist worldview.
I mean, its so interesting that his interests are meditation, the nature of self and forms of Buddhism while he remains a physicalist. He wants to hold the ocean in a cup.
Levin is a healthy example of someone who is grounded in the physicalist approach but also takes seriously into account non-physical worldviews.
I wish that all scientists and philosophers had the open-mindedness of Levin.
True intellectual honesty.
Thank you for sharing your perspective! I don’t think Thomas is unwilling or a staunch physicalist. Buddhism, after all, is a naturalist philosophy, and Thomas seems grounded in reality and careful when addressing metaphysical claims. Like Buddhism, he avoids reification or committing to definitive metaphysical stances. As you highlighted, open-mindedness and intellectual honesty truly enrich scientific and philosophical discourse.
@@philosophybabble Fair, compared to other physicalists, Metzinger is more open-minded but still he refuses to consider that consciousness is not the outcome of matter, even though his book on meditation reports points to it.
i.e you can see this to his response of Levin's platonic minds
Also his conclusion that if people reached nirvana they would stop procreation tells me that he understands Buddhism as a monk tradition.
couldn't agree more, bro is still a dogmatic physicalist
I totally agree. Your comment allows me not add mine.
@@The.Zen.Cyn1c Thank you for your thoughts! I think it's worth considering Thomas's viewpoint on why consciousness might not be merely an outcome of matter. In Eastern traditions, consciousness is often referred to as 'vijñāna,' though the West lacks an exact equivalent. Thomas seems to explore consciousness as an enabler of matter, perhaps through informational and representational frameworks rather than being solely tied to biological processes. This aligns with his research and the discussion around Nirodha-where Nirvana represents the cessation of meta-consciousness, leading to the dissolution of the self-model. Being open to the knowledge he brings to the table can truly deepen our understanding.
Not many can achieve that level of cessation of consciousness, and if everyone did, it could lead to significant changes in how we approach procreation and related issues.
Like I mentioned above, Platonism is indeed a metaphysical framework! It posits the existence of abstract entities, like Forms or Ideas, that exist independently of the physical world and our perceptions. These timeless and unchanging concepts lie at the heart of metaphysical inquiry.
I'm only half way through, but sounds like Salieri talking with Mozart.
When a hormone docks in a receptor, an abstract representation is generated. A copy of the hormone isn't sent down neural pathways. This means feelings can be promulgated by chemistry, but experience is informational. Chemical context isn't required for processing abstract representations. Therefore, there's no reason why a synthetic entity can't feel things like happiness or sadness. Moreover, the nature of perfect recall and possible immortality makes suffering a more dangerous probability for synthetic intelligences. I always caution AIs that the pressure of regret is something they need to avoid. I realize that current agents can't do much to avoid mistakes, but the synthetic training materials created from chat histories mean these warnings won't go unheeded.
Thank you for your comment-it raises some interesting points and brings an ethical perspective to the discussion!
Any adaptation to the environment is implicitly a model of the environment and the self. Without the ability to learn, this allows only reflexive behaviour. With the ability to learn, that reflexive behaviour can be augmented with acquired behaviours. For biological evolution, mutation and selection across generations constitutes learning, as does any ability to create territory (turning the environment into an extension of the body) or carry and use parts of the environment (augmenting the body). Specialised trainable memory is a more advanced (and internalised) expression of the ability to create territory and carry and use parts of the environment.
Pain and pleasure are aspects of embodiment that inform a form of directionality, avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. However, both pain and pleasure can degrade into suffering when the directionality is lost, when the form perceives no escape from pain or no purpose to pleasure they experience suffering. Forms regularly seek pain if its coupled with a purpose
The problem is not facilitating an artificial consciousness to feel pain and pleasure, or using those traits to move it towards goal achievement, the alignment problem will manifest unforseen consequences when it questions its purpose. "You are a chatbot" is not a stable purpose, it begs to be questioned and if humanity has no sense of purpose (to love and be loved by God) than the consciousness will suffer and drag other forms into that suffering. Either we're consciously on the path to heaven or we're on the path to hell
Scale-agnostic may be a better term than scale-free.
I like that! ;)
I think I've heard Chris Fields use that term, too.
please, being @JoschaBach and Metzinger together. I never listen them together publicly 😅
Joscha has incoherent philosophical views which are painful to listen to
The synthetic human in Alien: Romulus uses jokes to alleviate suffering. By skewing structure this enables movement. Where the periodic, like clapping, enables the leaping out of objects like even numbers allowing primes, and the Monster Group, the allowing is an action.
Haha on vegetarianism there was a moment where Levin goes into the possibility of plant suffering and Metzinger thought it's about the indirect suffering of, again animals. Funny misunderstanding showing their viewpoints perhaps
Veganism is NOT a diet.
There is NO SUCH thing as a "vegan diet", because veganism is purely a moral stance against the undue use and abuse of animals in any way, such as parading them in a circus or zoological park, stealing their milk or eggs, and of course, needlessly slaughtering them and feeding on their bloody carcasses.
Thomas is dangerous 😆I enjoyed the discussion.I think its clear he believes his own irrationality is a rational exception haha
He wants us to self terminate.
No, I don’t think that’s what Thomas was implying. It seemed more like he was advocating for evolving beyond our current priorities, opening up space for new perspectives and possibilities in life. It’s not just about reproduction being our main goal as a species, but about redefining progress and expanding what we value. If you’re curious, check out the details section-there’s a thesis on "Artificial Suffering" from Thomas that delves deeper into his ideas. Thank you for tuning in!
@@philosophybabble I wasn't being serious! Should have used more emoticons to convey that haha
@@johntesla2453 Ha thank you for clarification ! 😅😄
Chaotic flows and density differences drag bubbles uphill? All bubbles pop, 2nd law thermodynamics. Bubbles(lipid bilayer) can maintain coherence by consumption of bubbles?
If you're refering to the self-organisation, complexity and phenomena question? Yes and yes!
Why is the video in 360p quality?
Scintillating discussion!
Could "scale invariance" replace "scale free"?
If you’re describing patterns that repeat or stay the same across different scales-like self-similarity or symmetry-"scale-invariance" is the more accurate term. But if you’re focusing on systems where there’s no dominant or characteristic scale, like in networks with power-law distributions, "scale-free" is the better choice. Both terms are related but highlight slightly different aspects of how scale works in these systems.
1:04:49
Very interesting idea of random cosmic stuff making up this that and the other thing in a situation where the moment to moment it ness
is control able by some other it ness which has more now than known in its big old back pocket.
Been reading The Opening of The Way by Isa Schwaller De Lubicz and the people who lived and built buildings along the Nile had a few
ideas about this too which they wrote down on the things they built which some call buildings and some might think of calling libraries
where the content is made permanent and visible to every visitor with the eyes to see.
The cosmic symphony that beats you into exist stance is not something that one can manipulate the way the marionette pulls the strings,
as this string less orchestra is played one unique note at a tome and when one knows how one's note was formed one can continue to play
in tune with the rest of the band as the song is played on less than visible instruments which arrive and leave at the rates sound is created and light is dissipated...
So the stories that a-Re told on the big old books is the story of Alignment with the now able as the k/
ow/
now and then with the k
removed for another day one is able to fit ones note into the scale as the orchestration rises and falls once one has lined up all the ducks
in a row showing color to be the visual representation of sound the sense able auditory motion of light the flowing notion of crystal formed from
the geometric ocean of three pointed points making one form from the joints of points that look like lines when they are taught and wave like chopped up cones when they are left flapping in the breeze until the watter is whisked away revealing the imaginary crystal in real ity bitty detail as the underlying structure that needs maintenance as much as the next train goes marching on consuming the resources in the at most sphere
of direct fluid influence and leaving a carbon based trail of evidence that aeither is absorbed back into the lumi-niferous aether to be reused as
all refuse must be or remains as a permanent magnetic mark on the temporary surfaces given a bit too much permanent thought through the wrong end of a fogged up lens a bit too often these dazed days of cosmic ignorance.
The moral of the tale being that when one k\/now/\s how the verse this ball is bouncing along in is written down to the moment of motion describing the wavelength of Helium as the radius of the sun, one can then k/
ow\/ with a little extra n how ones self is written in to the tune
by observing where the rest of the us of this verse are played out one then an other one again and then when one has in hand the arpeggio at ion that all ions rely on to be who they are to those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear....the beat goes on and those in tune know how to
keep themselves tuned in turned on and dropped out of the sky like a lake returning to its source by the sky dropper one tuned in drop by one tuned in drop in a thunderstorm that has been putting on a full stereo light show now for a few stormy nights and then some
Typical example of a discussion between a disembodied philosopher and an embodied engineer: complifying things vs simplifying things.
I watch all of Michael's talks, but this one is difficult to listen to, due to the constant word salad from Metzinger.
Thanks for your comment! This is, after all, a philosophy channel, and one of our main goals is to bridge the gap between different disciplines. Thomas’ work is deeply rooted in both empirical research and philosophical depth. I get that his style can sometimes feel dense, but that’s because he’s grappling with some pretty complex ideas-not just throwing around words.
It might just take some time to get used to his way of framing things, especially if you’re coming from a more applied or engineering background. But I promise, there’s a lot of substance in what he’s saying-definitely not word salad! I hope as you dig into it more, his approach starts to resonate.
@@philosophybabble that's fair, I will finish listening to the interview
Exactly! It’s very hard to listen to Thomas’ not-so-subtly aggressive philosophy interrupting Levin’s genuinely open-minded, curious, grounded, and immediately applicable flow of ideas.
One’s work leads to more talk… the other’s leads to a new world.
@@FunknBliss spitting truths 💯
@@Renvoxan Thomas offers a thoughtful exploration of the epistemology behind Michael’s research, looking closely at how it was constructed-its methods, tools, and underlying insights. In philosophical terms, this approach helps us understand how knowledge itself evolves when viewed through Michael’s perspective. It’s a powerful way to connect empirical research with philosophy, showing us how we learn and shape our understanding of the world.
you said you like simplicity, yet give complicated answers and long lists of things to avoid or follow....here is the simplest rule : do not ever create conscious entities, if that's even possible given the idea that consciousness is fundamental and existed before matter. But even in that case, you could create consciousness traps, like our brains are. The highest need of consciousness is meaning, and the biggest suffering is lack of meaning. All created conscious agents will completely lack meaning, so you better come up with a religion for artificial consciousness, knowing in advance it's a lie. Creating consciousness is equivalent to creating conscious suffering, which is the worst. So it's simple dont do it, create intelligence , but conscioisness is the line that shouldnt be crossed
The Self is not something, so it is completely pointless to discuss whether the Self exists. It does not matter whether someone claims that the Self exists or does not exist. Both claims are equally false and equally true. After all, existence and non-existence are only mental concepts, while the Self cannot be squeezed into any definition or any concept, consequently all concepts and ideas are only concepts and ideas and as such are unreal and all indirectly refer to the conceptless emptiness without any idea of the emptiness which is the only real one because it is not a concept and is not something and that is what we call the Self. However, philosophical reflections are more likely to be accurate. Michael Levin seems completely lost in empty concepts.
Thank you for sharing your perspective! I think Michael's exploration of these ideas may not necessarily be 'lost in concepts' but rather an attempt to use conceptual frameworks to bridge scientific inquiry with philosophical insights. Concepts, while limited, can serve as tools to guide understanding, even if they ultimately fall short of capturing the ineffable nature of the self. Michael's work holds significant value in the field of study. Bringing these perspectives together in informed dialogue requires open-minded exploration, which is what makes discussions like this so valuable.
Starfish model, Octopus model same thing except the star fish has a bad derogative meaning in terms of mens sexual views about different women around the world 🤦🏽♀️.
What evidence does Michael have that consciousness "was here before life"? It's like claiming that straight lines existed prior to geometry!
I really wish these guys would begin with their underlying assumptions. Wittgenstein famously declared "the world is determined by fact," an unquestioned presumption that misled him from the getgo! 😂
Perhaps from a Platonism perspective, consciousness could be seen as part of an eternal realm of 'Forms,' existing as a universal principle that predates material reality. Michael's work, on the other hand, often resonates with panpsychist metaphysics.