Teleophobia is a term I am keeping when defending teleonomy lol. One must also consider how that approach would be better suited for medical science related definitions, such as disorder, than what is currently used (although it could have awkward conclsions for current sensibilities, so to speak). On another note, really liked how he instantly brought panpsychism when relevant without any mystical baggage.
I wonder if Dr. Levin has thought about the intersection of the placebo effect with his work? Given his brilliance, I'd be very surprised if this future Nobel Prize winner hasn't. It seems that it must be necessarily so that the bioelectrical mechanisms which enable self-healing of complex diseases are similar somehow to the ones that enable limb regeneration. I would love to learn more about this. (P.S. More and more, I am leaning toward pan-psychism as a high-probability universal fact, and I think Dr. Levin's work is strong evidence in support of it.)
Thank you for this video and for a very interesting interview. I was particularly impressed with Dr. Levin's overall grasp of the finer points of the interview questions including the more difficult philosophical - political ones. I think one area of difficulty that I am seeing is in the definition of "goal", and the "size(s) of a goal that a system can be capable of representing" which seems quite impossible to define and measure. So, while I do understand that there is this idea of basic intellect at various scales of life, if we cannot define "goals" more precisely... we certainly can't make a lot of progress elucidating the nature of intellect. Using the words from the interview for "intellect" as "Light Cone", I don't see how we can make a claim to the size of the "light cone" (Intellect) of an organism in anything other than generality without having a much more rigorous way of defining "goals". The other aspect I have difficulty with is the idea that there can be an intellect at the most basic physical level (as mentioned in the interview, rocks have an intellect for example), which then implies that pretty much all of existence has some basic intellect. But that implies that there is a some "list" of goals that applies to this. I would like to understand what is the scientific proof for the existence of such goals, and what are those goals?
Thanks for your comment and interest. Thanks, too, for the question. You've hit the nail on the head with the final question, which is one of Levin's main arguments. I don't have time to write much now, or review the video, but I would encourage you to take a look at his papers and the gist of his argument in this and other exchanges that Levin has online. Thanks again for your interest.
yogi? yea they are more internally focused and able to enhance their physiology more adeptly than basic humans. fascinating and im more biased towards that approach than lets say focusing my senses externally, like become people oriented. the latter has no reward than monetary gain. being internal though has more potency
One thing that struck me was how he mentioned (and I’m paraphrasing) that taking a step back can basically be the right step toward a teleological end. I think the scientific enterprise itself should consider that. Focusing inwardly might be the more externality-free approach toward whatever teleological ends the scientific enterprise is reaching toward.
Great question. I think this is exactly what Friedrich Nietzsche was referring to when he said the world is will and nothing more, and of course Schopenhauer before him. Thanks for your comment.
Why use the word "will"? Why not, for instance, "program"? Why employ any common, vaguely defined, human scale, culturally dependent word for it at all? I am just curious. "Will" sounds so very loaded with continental philosophical baggage to me as to be off-putting.
I agree! Let is all learn together. See what I wrote here: Smith, S.P., 2021, Two-sidedness, relativity and CPT symmetry, Prespacetime Journal, 12 (3), 245-252. At Least I cannot find conflict with Levin's work! Cheers!
Thanks for your comment and interest. I glanced at your paper. Would you like to talk about it and we can post the exchange here? The main question I would ask is this: what are the practical implications of your paper? Thanks again for your interest.
@@eismscience Main application is that it leads to a mirror universe hypothesis that is unconflicted with Levin's bioelectric model, as best I can tell. It is more on the ontology side, where a better framework is provided as a mode of inquiry. I have a new paper on the viXra archive where I elaborate more, search for "Universal Grammar, the Mirror Universe Hypothesis and Kinesiological Thinking". Other results, two-sidedness explains bilateral symmetry, complementarity, and provides for a stopping rule in development. Cheers!
@@stephensmith6524 Thanks again for your comment. If you had more to say about a rule stopping development, I think Levin would be interested. That is currently one of the biggest open questions he and his team are facing. Let me know if you'd like to talk about it on the channel and we can post a link here in the comments. Thanks again.
@@eismscience Well, I am kind of shy, and retired, with no affiliation, I publish on viXra because that is all I can do; maybe not the best interview. On another matter, the stopping rule idea is easy to understand: In the mirror universe hypothesis we are energized by emotion when we respond to reflection in a relativistic setting. However, when we happen upon a fundamental mirror where we cannot tell which side we are on, well then, we are no longer moved. Then the emotional energies dissipate.
@@stephensmith6524 I was thinking of a conversation more than an interview, but no worries at all. Regarding your explanation, it's difficult to understand what you mean, which is why I wanted to give you a chance to explain. In any case, I appreciate your interest and wish you the best.
Had a conversation once with Michael Levin and a neuroscience professor Brandon Aragona I’ve collaborated with for some time. In the Wittgenstein sense the way Levin is defining goals and this came up in our conversation to me at that time didn’t seem distinguishable from just a low entropy state. Where I did not agree with Levin was in his definition of consciousness but I see now that he is defining it as intelligence. I would agree fully with Levin that intelligence does exist in the way described at these multiple levels of systems of complexity. We now emphasize teleology at the cellular level and the classes taught at U of M by my old prof. In my mind the origin of bio electrical gradients are the origin of will in biology. So this work is incredibly profound in this sense (it is profound in many ways) and also induced plasticity through raising the endogenous alkalinity of your blood through breathing methods such as Wim Hoff’s methods. Making physiological processes conscious which was thought before as impossible. Should allow us in principle to obtain more plasticity and increase cellular bio electrical communication thereby preventing cancer. I’d recommend Warburg if you’re interested in that. My email is salimhue@umich.edu
Awesome video with one weird distraction- your intro called out one specific thing that Michael said, and then you twice tried to put those words in his mouth and he didn’t accept them - I’m not sure why you did that because his words were more measured. Calling specific attention to the fact that he did say it made it feel awkward when you tried to lead him there and failed. Other than that, Levin is one of the most interesting people in the world right now and this was a great talk.
Interesting comment. Can you tell me what words I put in his mouth? I think maybe you've misunderstood, but maybe I am wrong. If it is the case, I will definitely retract.
@@eismscience What caught my attention was when you specifically called out Levin's goal oriented work and asked the viewer to specifically note his compelling response: “This is a framework we find useful and the language we use to describe it. If you have something better, bring it. For the moment, my team and I are regenerating frog limbs and looking to regenerate human limbs and organs, as well as possibly cure cancer. How is your framework and your telephobia working out for you?” But while I you could argue that's the vibe, he didn't really say anything so confrontational as that - At 11:44 you said part of that back to him again but as part of a statement rather than a question, and then at 18:10 you repeated part of it again and he kind of nodded I guess but didn't exactly double down on it. I guess what threw me was that I've always found Michael to be extremely measured in the way he presents ideas, and he has a great deal of respect for the work of others, so when you put that quote up I was waiting for something uncharacteristically sassy from Michael to come out in the interview, but I don't think it did. Sorry if I come across as a negative nancy - I watched the whole video, enjoyed it immensely and appreciate you having made and uploaded it!
@@andrewwalker8985 I think you're absolutely right about the sassiness. That comes from me because, as you say, Levin is much more measured. I could go back and look for the exact words he uses, but it's not worth it. As far as I'm concerned, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Levin is a consumate scientist, but his message is his message, loud and clear. I don't think I have mischaracterized that at all. Thanks again for your comment and interest.
@@eismscience thanks for taking the time to read and respond to the comments. I think I missed the word Paraphrase in your quote the first time through. It would have been great if he did sneak in a sassy jibe like that though ;).
@@eismscience Quasiparticles ride waves and interchange a potential and kinetic energy in a general Lagrangian - th-cam.com/video/Olj_zkSrtPc/w-d-xo.html
@@eismscienceLagrangian=KE-PE. I think, that Kinetic/Potential energy trace out a wave. KE=sin(x) in a special case. And in general KE/PE can be Fourier decomposed and so I see it as a wave.
@@eismscience If I understand correctly particles occilate with roughly the Compton frequency - Zitterbewegung. That's a wave. I'm wondering if they do "stop and go locomotion" on average.
I disagree about optimising biomass being number one concern... We're about to learn more about it all... The skill for keeping population slightly lower than optimal carrying capacity of the local ecosystem using tricks like homosexuality, for more stability given by the presence of an adult non breeding percentage to the group and perhaps birth control predation..... During the longest era we probably enjoyed due to health longevity, freedom, equality and plenty MORE leisure time than modern multi billionaire playboys OR PERMA DOLEY FOLKS... 13 HR "working "weeks.. According to the San.. Gatherer Hunters.. Had more fun... But... It'll take time yet to have it all SINK IN... Longevity was high.. Dropped with the drudgery of new hierarchical farming civilization... And those wave after wave of super deadly zoonotic pathogens... The 3 coolest fact of the San - peace accords with their local prides of Lions.... 265,000 years of San civilisation!!!! Their amusing customs to Stop Any leader emerging... Their choice to stay FIERCELY EGALITARIAN... Their insanely tiny bows and poison tipped arrows, so highly effective they go home, sleep - track the punctured kudu or zebra next day as it quite peacefully goes to sleep, and dead.. Putting salt in a captive baboons mouth.. Then releasing it to find water... They always do!!! That's more than 3... BUT I DON'T DO MUCH COUNTING!!!
Teleophobia is a term I am keeping when defending teleonomy lol. One must also consider how that approach would be better suited for medical science related definitions, such as disorder, than what is currently used (although it could have awkward conclsions for current sensibilities, so to speak). On another note, really liked how he instantly brought panpsychism when relevant without any mystical baggage.
Mr.Levin, the world needs you! Keep it up.
Energy itself is intelligence.
There you go , Prof. Levin. The shortest possible definition.
I wonder if Dr. Levin has thought about the intersection of the placebo effect with his work? Given his brilliance, I'd be very surprised if this future Nobel Prize winner hasn't. It seems that it must be necessarily so that the bioelectrical mechanisms which enable self-healing of complex diseases are similar somehow to the ones that enable limb regeneration. I would love to learn more about this. (P.S. More and more, I am leaning toward pan-psychism as a high-probability universal fact, and I think Dr. Levin's work is strong evidence in support of it.)
Thank you for this video and for a very interesting interview. I was particularly impressed with Dr. Levin's overall grasp of the finer points of the interview questions including the more difficult philosophical - political ones.
I think one area of difficulty that I am seeing is in the definition of "goal", and the "size(s) of a goal that a system can be capable of representing" which seems quite impossible to define and measure. So, while I do understand that there is this idea of basic intellect at various scales of life, if we cannot define "goals" more precisely... we certainly can't make a lot of progress elucidating the nature of intellect. Using the words from the interview for "intellect" as "Light Cone", I don't see how we can make a claim to the size of the "light cone" (Intellect) of an organism in anything other than generality without having a much more rigorous way of defining "goals". The other aspect I have difficulty with is the idea that there can be an intellect at the most basic physical level (as mentioned in the interview, rocks have an intellect for example), which then implies that pretty much all of existence has some basic intellect. But that implies that there is a some "list" of goals that applies to this. I would like to understand what is the scientific proof for the existence of such goals, and what are those goals?
Thanks for your comment and interest. Thanks, too, for the question. You've hit the nail on the head with the final question, which is one of Levin's main arguments. I don't have time to write much now, or review the video, but I would encourage you to take a look at his papers and the gist of his argument in this and other exchanges that Levin has online. Thanks again for your interest.
@@eismscience Thank you for the reply. Great idea, already a work in progress!
I enjoy this greatly this man is explaining science the way a yogi explains it just with different language. This man understands more than he knows
yogi? yea they are more internally focused and able to enhance their physiology more adeptly than basic humans. fascinating and im more biased towards that approach than lets say focusing my senses externally, like become people oriented. the latter has no reward than monetary gain. being internal though has more potency
One thing that struck me was how he mentioned (and I’m paraphrasing) that taking a step back can basically be the right step toward a teleological end. I think the scientific enterprise itself should consider that. Focusing inwardly might be the more externality-free approach toward whatever teleological ends the scientific enterprise is reaching toward.
Why not posit a fundamental Will, if you are going to trace goal seeking behavior from the particle to the human level?
Great question. I think this is exactly what Friedrich Nietzsche was referring to when he said the world is will and nothing more, and of course Schopenhauer before him. Thanks for your comment.
Why use the word "will"? Why not, for instance, "program"? Why employ any common, vaguely defined, human scale, culturally dependent word for it at all? I am just curious. "Will" sounds so very loaded with continental philosophical baggage to me as to be off-putting.
I agree! Let is all learn together. See what I wrote here: Smith, S.P., 2021, Two-sidedness, relativity and CPT symmetry, Prespacetime Journal, 12 (3), 245-252. At Least I cannot find conflict with Levin's work! Cheers!
Thanks for your comment and interest. I glanced at your paper. Would you like to talk about it and we can post the exchange here? The main question I would ask is this: what are the practical implications of your paper?
Thanks again for your interest.
@@eismscience Main application is that it leads to a mirror universe hypothesis that is unconflicted with Levin's bioelectric model, as best I can tell. It is more on the ontology side, where a better framework is provided as a mode of inquiry. I have a new paper on the viXra archive where I elaborate more, search for "Universal Grammar, the Mirror Universe Hypothesis and Kinesiological Thinking". Other results, two-sidedness explains bilateral symmetry, complementarity, and provides for a stopping rule in development. Cheers!
@@stephensmith6524 Thanks again for your comment. If you had more to say about a rule stopping development, I think Levin would be interested. That is currently one of the biggest open questions he and his team are facing. Let me know if you'd like to talk about it on the channel and we can post a link here in the comments.
Thanks again.
@@eismscience Well, I am kind of shy, and retired, with no affiliation, I publish on viXra because that is all I can do; maybe not the best interview. On another matter, the stopping rule idea is easy to understand: In the mirror universe hypothesis we are energized by emotion when we respond to reflection in a relativistic setting. However, when we happen upon a fundamental mirror where we cannot tell which side we are on, well then, we are no longer moved. Then the emotional energies dissipate.
@@stephensmith6524 I was thinking of a conversation more than an interview, but no worries at all. Regarding your explanation, it's difficult to understand what you mean, which is why I wanted to give you a chance to explain. In any case, I appreciate your interest and wish you the best.
Had a conversation once with Michael Levin and a neuroscience professor Brandon Aragona I’ve collaborated with for some time. In the Wittgenstein sense the way Levin is defining goals and this came up in our conversation to me at that time didn’t seem distinguishable from just a low entropy state. Where I did not agree with Levin was in his definition of consciousness but I see now that he is defining it as intelligence. I would agree fully with Levin that intelligence does exist in the way described at these multiple levels of systems of complexity. We now emphasize teleology at the cellular level and the classes taught at U of M by my old prof. In my mind the origin of bio electrical gradients are the origin of will in biology. So this work is incredibly profound in this sense (it is profound in many ways) and also induced plasticity through raising the endogenous alkalinity of your blood through breathing methods such as Wim Hoff’s methods. Making physiological processes conscious which was thought before as impossible. Should allow us in principle to obtain more plasticity and increase cellular bio electrical communication thereby preventing cancer. I’d recommend Warburg if you’re interested in that. My email is salimhue@umich.edu
Thanks for your comment and your interest. I will check Warburg out.
Mr Levin should have a talk about teleophobia with John Vervaeke. It probably would be a fruitful disagreement.
Amazin', Luis!
Darn. Turns out, I am a bacteria.
Ability to avoid local minima 👌
fantastic
Dr. Michael Levin 🔴 knows 😉
🧠⚡❇️
Awesome video with one weird distraction- your intro called out one specific thing that Michael said, and then you twice tried to put those words in his mouth and he didn’t accept them - I’m not sure why you did that because his words were more measured. Calling specific attention to the fact that he did say it made it feel awkward when you tried to lead him there and failed.
Other than that, Levin is one of the most interesting people in the world right now and this was a great talk.
Interesting comment. Can you tell me what words I put in his mouth? I think maybe you've misunderstood, but maybe I am wrong. If it is the case, I will definitely retract.
@@eismscience What caught my attention was when you specifically called out Levin's goal oriented work and asked the viewer to specifically note his compelling response:
“This is a framework we find useful and the language we use to describe it. If you have something better, bring it. For the moment, my team and I are regenerating frog limbs and looking to regenerate human limbs and organs, as well as possibly cure cancer. How is your framework and your telephobia working out for you?”
But while I you could argue that's the vibe, he didn't really say anything so confrontational as that -
At 11:44 you said part of that back to him again but as part of a statement rather than a question, and then at 18:10 you repeated part of it again and he kind of nodded I guess but didn't exactly double down on it.
I guess what threw me was that I've always found Michael to be extremely measured in the way he presents ideas, and he has a great deal of respect for the work of others, so when you put that quote up I was waiting for something uncharacteristically sassy from Michael to come out in the interview, but I don't think it did.
Sorry if I come across as a negative nancy - I watched the whole video, enjoyed it immensely and appreciate you having made and uploaded it!
@@andrewwalker8985 I think you're absolutely right about the sassiness. That comes from me because, as you say, Levin is much more measured. I could go back and look for the exact words he uses, but it's not worth it. As far as I'm concerned, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Levin is a consumate scientist, but his message is his message, loud and clear. I don't think I have mischaracterized that at all. Thanks again for your comment and interest.
@@eismscience thanks for taking the time to read and respond to the comments.
I think I missed the word Paraphrase in your quote the first time through. It would have been great if he did sneak in a sassy jibe like that though ;).
You don’t seem to draw in the probability that the entire universe and all it’s dimensions share a goal and is intact treading religious ground
Limbs require all body flucuation
E = MC2 = I(intelligence)?.
Lol.. what?
Waves are built in the Lagrangian - kinetic and potential energies.
@@eismscience Quasiparticles ride waves and interchange a potential and kinetic energy in a general Lagrangian - th-cam.com/video/Olj_zkSrtPc/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for your input. If you care to elaborate, I think what you've written is interesting. However, it's not clear what you mean.
@@eismscienceLagrangian=KE-PE. I think, that Kinetic/Potential energy trace out a wave. KE=sin(x) in a special case. And in general KE/PE can be Fourier decomposed and so I see it as a wave.
@@eismscience If I understand correctly particles occilate with roughly the Compton frequency - Zitterbewegung. That's a wave. I'm wondering if they do "stop and go locomotion" on average.
@@eismscience Afaik, the wave composes the *clock* which can speed up or slow down paving way to relativity .
I disagree about optimising biomass being number one concern... We're about to learn more about it all... The skill for keeping population slightly lower than optimal carrying capacity of the local ecosystem using tricks like homosexuality, for more stability given by the presence of an adult non breeding percentage to the group and perhaps birth control predation..... During the longest era we probably enjoyed due to health longevity, freedom, equality and plenty MORE leisure time than modern multi billionaire playboys OR PERMA DOLEY FOLKS... 13 HR "working "weeks.. According to the San.. Gatherer Hunters.. Had more fun... But... It'll take time yet to have it all SINK IN... Longevity was high.. Dropped with the drudgery of new hierarchical farming civilization... And those wave after wave of super deadly zoonotic pathogens... The 3 coolest fact of the San - peace accords with their local prides of Lions.... 265,000 years of San civilisation!!!! Their amusing customs to Stop Any leader emerging... Their choice to stay FIERCELY EGALITARIAN...
Their insanely tiny bows and poison tipped arrows, so highly effective they go home, sleep - track the punctured kudu or zebra next day as it quite peacefully goes to sleep, and dead.. Putting salt in a captive baboons mouth.. Then releasing it to find water... They always do!!! That's more than 3... BUT I DON'T DO MUCH COUNTING!!!
I want to see this guy on Jordan Petersons podcast. That would be a discussion for the ages
That makes two of us.
@@eismscience Gross. You've lost all credibility for anything you ever do, in just one short sentence.
@@flavannoyed3585 Why would you say that?
Levin is a genius. Peterson is a charlatan. Keep the two apart from each other, please.
@@sb_dunk Of course. Levin is a genius and Peterson never claimed to be one. Are you confused ? Why is he a charlatan ?
Word salad
I suppose it depends on one's background.