Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/wwhTfyX9J34/w-d-xo.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. She is the author of a new book titled "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence".
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs that depend on the level of abstraction one chooses to analyze the system and are used to approximately describe underlying physical processes; these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities, and therefore consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini
Hi Marco, If I may. It presents as a contradiction that one would be able to use the physical brain to refute the theory that the physical brain is not sufficient in manifesting the emergence of consciousness. We have brains, we have consciousness, a word to describe a somewhat vague idea of a feeling of self-awareness, therefore, since there is no other physical component capable of generating that experience, consciousness comes from the brain. Only after it has been determined EXACTLY what is necessary for consciousness to emerge could one claim that the brain is insufficient to be that causal agent. What is the fragmentary structure of the brain? Are you referring to the fact that different areas, not fragments as they are part of one assemblage, are generally responsible for carrying out different tasks, such as seeing, short term memory, fight or flight, etc.? I apologize for not taking the time to read through the rest of your post, except to add that many of the claims you make later on are purely speculative, and within the description you write in reference to several phenomena, is the unintended statement that you cannot know them by using your brain?
Something that struck me was the part about mathematics and how there is an infinite amount of digits between 0 and 1. It’s infinity as I could write 0.999 forever
I think she's more or less correct on that life is difficult to define. I think a key factor for us is that we're working with a set of 1. Which is exactly the same problem the 'Drake equation' suffers from. (The one that lets us calculate the likelihood of life in our galaxy). The key factor I find in the biological definition of life (being that it's a chauvinistic approach, meaning it's based on Earth life, specifically humanity, with the intentional exclusion of things like viruses) is that the qualifiers of life isn't a "OR" connection, it's an "AND" connection. Meaning ALL parts of the definitions have to fit not just a few.
But I think that view, of it requiring ALL parts to be there to define life is a problem with the idea of abiogenesis, because that requires there to be only a few parts working and a few steps from chemistry to life. So again, the line of life and non-life is a tricky one for sure.
I think the idea of 'language being alive' is sorta like saying 'vehicles fit the definition of life' because they are byproducts of life. So they're going to look alive. That saying they DO EVOLVE, and follow a evolutionary selection process, if they don't get used they go to extinction.
Sara Walker!? Is this the same Sara Walker that wrote a paper about the evolution of life on a Jupiter-like gas giant? If so, thanks for the help on the book, Sara!
'Magic' or mystery is the brain's linearity and inability to perceive infinity. As soon as you explain infinity it's no longer infinite. Like stopping counting. A thought or idea is stopping counting if the brain sees it.
Interesting snippet and I'm going to read her book for more context, but her beef with that definition of life using that combination of words was odd. Words have a commonly accepted meaning that is sometimes not inclusive of every possible usage of the word. Her objection widened some usages, and narrowed others in a way that, to me, seemed contrarian to a fault.
Lex, you must’ve either forgotten or not heard of Plato’s idea of “recollection” if you can’t see the possibility of the jungle ‘remembering’ all of its ‘pieces’. The “forms” are not forgotten! 😎
The instructions by the ancient yogi's is clear When these people with letters after their name and a huge school bill look at the instructions given They will have their eyes opened
Yes yes yes, ancient yogis this and that. It is funny how "ancient wisdome" never manages to provide actual explainations, but have to wait for science to explain it properly, and then afterwards swoop in and claim that "that is exactly what we meant"! No it fu ck ing wasn't. Ancients had no idea of what they were blabbering about, and people now post-rationalize their bul lshit according to scientific discovery. Christians do it, muslims do it, but the worst offenders are definately hindus.
Let's be honest. Lex absolutely MUST interview the incomparable Dr. Greer. Lex will never be the same. This gal is obviously smart but I spent 99% of the time looking at her plunging neckline...just as she planned.
@14:45 she brings up a hypothetical using potential outcomes of an equation involving a unique molecule, but its totally random! It doesn't relate to anything, just highlights how many possible unique molecules can exist. Several times in this interview she has really went on a tandem to bolster a point (typically about how definitions aren't accurate, but doesn't provide an alternative), that sounded intellectual and fluid but really fizzled out.
I agree that she fizzles a bit, but the Taxol example is absolutely not random. In a conversation about defining life, she brought up that she hates the definition of life as a "self-reproducing chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution". In explaining her view on life as a chemical system, she says "I don't think life is chemical, I think life emerges from chemistry because chemistry is the first thing the universe builds where it cannot exhaust all the possibilities because the combinatorial space is too large". Lex asks her about it, so she elaborates and gives an example to illustrate just how large the combinatorial space of chemistry is. "The universe has to actually make historically contingent choices in chemistry because it can't exhaust all possible molecules" is the sentence you're looking for to tie the whole bit together
Self sustaining being that we are replacing and repairing molecules quickly enough to maintain our organization long enough to reproduce and swt the offspring on a successful path. The replicating entity is alive Did we all read Erwin Schrodinger's "What is Life"? It is the classic to quote here
The problem with vitalism, that this otherwise brilliant guest, and to a degree the host as well, don't seem to understand is that by the very nature of the claim of this field of knowledge is that it excludes that knowledge from ever entering a human brain. The only things you can know, or will ever know, are based upon the information that enters your brain. AKA, enters through your senses. If anyone cares to conjecture about knowledge that is of a radically different nature, which enters in some other fashion, they are free to do so, but what they offer can only ever be speculative. As such, they must leave behind the data, and all of the processes to analyze that data, such as inductive, and deductive reasoning to name a few, that got them to the point where, dissatisfied with the limitation on what they can know, they claim a field of existence, that by its most basic description cannot be known. No amount of esoteric lexicon can ever substantiate those claims, regardless of how much they draw upon the vagueness of language, and the already understood limitations of human knowledge. I really wish that the intelligent, imaginative people who are able to engage in these cutting edge discussions would make more of an effort to avoid the woowoo, and leave that to hopeful fantasizing to adolescents, and philosophers.
She seems to come off that way. I think the only thing that she said in the first half that was factual is that on a physical level (informatics approach) that there's no unified definition of what life is. That problem right there is the seed of any of the rest of the issues that might come up from anything else she says. Because 'not knowing how to define base levels' of something is going to lead to misapplication of those ideas.
“I hope that you will listen, but not with the memory of what you already know; and this is very difficult to do. You listen to something, and your mind immediately reacts with its knowledge, its conclusions, its opinions, its past memories. It listens, inquiring for a future understanding. Just observe yourself, how you are listening, and you will see that this is what is taking place. Either you are listening with a conclusion, with knowledge, with certain memories, experiences, or you want an answer, and you are impatient. You want to know what it is all about, what life is all about, the extraordinary complexity of life. You are not actually listening at all. You can only listen when the mind is quiet, when the mind doesn't react immediately, when there is an interval between your reaction and what is being said. Then, in that interval there is a quietness, there is a silence in which alone there is a comprehension which is not intellectual understanding. If there is a gap between what is said and your own reaction to what is said, in that interval, whether you prolong it indefinitely, for a long period or for a few seconds - in that interval, if you observe, there comes clarity. It is the interval that is the new brain. The immediate reaction is the old brain, and the old brain functions in its own traditional, accepted, reactionary, animalistic sense. When there is an abeyance of that, when the reaction is suspended, when there is an interval, then you will find that the new brain acts, and it is only the new brain that can understand, not the old brain”--Jiddu Krishnamurti
Darwin/Dawkins Evolution, The Big Bang Theory can Not Explain Major Components of Life on Earth. A Very Good Example of Missing Explanation is the Enormous Amount of Useful Materials which Humans Coincidentally Master and Coincidentally Progress from. Someone/Something was Looking After Us ?. Good Conversation, Smart Lady.
I don't follow. The 'spirit' falls within the realm of the supernatural. Can you please explain? I'm being serious by the way I am not trying to be a troll.
This woman doesn't care about reality or what's true, she literally is arguing about what's been said a lot historically as if that has more truth value than what has been said little. I'm pretty sure a God that actually comes into the universe and changes stuff, that so far is not true.
Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/wwhTfyX9J34/w-d-xo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. She is the author of a new book titled "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence".
All you need to create life is electricity , salt water and time. Three things that the earth has in abundance.
Love Sara's logic. Very pragmatic and refreshing to listen to.
Thank very you much for all your great work and for being such a wonderful human.
And also for Sara Walker's explanations and work.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs that depend on the level of abstraction one chooses to analyze the system and are used to approximately describe underlying physical processes; these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities, and therefore consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
Hi Marco, If I may. It presents as a contradiction that one would be able to use the physical brain to refute the theory that the physical brain is not sufficient in manifesting the emergence of consciousness. We have brains, we have consciousness, a word to describe a somewhat vague idea of a feeling of self-awareness, therefore, since there is no other physical component capable of generating that experience, consciousness comes from the brain.
Only after it has been determined EXACTLY what is necessary for consciousness to emerge could one claim that the brain is insufficient to be that causal agent.
What is the fragmentary structure of the brain? Are you referring to the fact that different areas, not fragments as they are part of one assemblage, are generally responsible for carrying out different tasks, such as seeing, short term memory, fight or flight, etc.?
I apologize for not taking the time to read through the rest of your post, except to add that many of the claims you make later on are purely speculative, and within the description you write in reference to several phenomena, is the unintended statement that you cannot know them by using your brain?
Something that struck me was the part about mathematics and how there is an infinite amount of digits between 0 and 1. It’s infinity as I could write 0.999 forever
You're right. Each number is infinite in 'depth' and there are infinite numbers. These have infinite arrangements.
I think she's more or less correct on that life is difficult to define. I think a key factor for us is that we're working with a set of 1. Which is exactly the same problem the 'Drake equation' suffers from. (The one that lets us calculate the likelihood of life in our galaxy).
The key factor I find in the biological definition of life (being that it's a chauvinistic approach, meaning it's based on Earth life, specifically humanity, with the intentional exclusion of things like viruses) is that the qualifiers of life isn't a "OR" connection, it's an "AND" connection. Meaning ALL parts of the definitions have to fit not just a few.
But I think that view, of it requiring ALL parts to be there to define life is a problem with the idea of abiogenesis, because that requires there to be only a few parts working and a few steps from chemistry to life.
So again, the line of life and non-life is a tricky one for sure.
This was so interesting and fluidly asserted by her. Lex as always; asked all the best questions
Read the books by Cassidy Arrasmith and 1692 ….they wrote extensively on language and mathematics as life
I think the idea of 'language being alive' is sorta like saying 'vehicles fit the definition of life' because they are byproducts of life. So they're going to look alive. That saying they DO EVOLVE, and follow a evolutionary selection process, if they don't get used they go to extinction.
Lex Clips, cool content keep it up
It's all waves, man.
Strings maybe?
Just because people have held beliefs for a long time does not mean their are seeds of truth in those beliefs
Hi, I'm from São Paulo! Yeah excellent! ABRAÇO!
“Life is simply a process of stimulus and response; and stimulus and response are one unitary movement.” - U.G.
Sara Walker!? Is this the same Sara Walker that wrote a paper about the evolution of life on a Jupiter-like gas giant?
If so, thanks for the help on the book, Sara!
'Magic' or mystery is the brain's linearity and inability to perceive infinity. As soon as you explain infinity it's no longer infinite. Like stopping counting. A thought or idea is stopping counting if the brain sees it.
Interesting snippet and I'm going to read her book for more context, but her beef with that definition of life using that combination of words was odd. Words have a commonly accepted meaning that is sometimes not inclusive of every possible usage of the word. Her objection widened some usages, and narrowed others in a way that, to me, seemed contrarian to a fault.
Any chance of getting David Deutsch on the show? That would be amazing!
Lex, you must’ve either forgotten or not heard of Plato’s idea of “recollection” if you can’t see the possibility of the jungle ‘remembering’ all of its ‘pieces’. The “forms” are not forgotten! 😎
How would we know if the ant is dead?
The instructions by the ancient yogi's is clear
When these people with letters after their name and a huge school bill look at the instructions given
They will have their eyes opened
Yes yes yes, ancient yogis this and that. It is funny how "ancient wisdome" never manages to provide actual explainations, but have to wait for science to explain it properly, and then afterwards swoop in and claim that "that is exactly what we meant"! No it fu ck ing wasn't. Ancients had no idea of what they were blabbering about, and people now post-rationalize their bul lshit according to scientific discovery. Christians do it, muslims do it, but the worst offenders are definately hindus.
what about the rebirth and soul idea.is is true?
Enjoy the physical experience and realize that you are not the only one trying to enjoy living…even though life here on Earth 🌍 obviously sucks!
Let's be honest. Lex absolutely MUST interview the incomparable Dr. Greer. Lex will never be the same. This gal is obviously smart but I spent 99% of the time looking at her plunging neckline...just as she planned.
Sara, you are missing the paradoxical nature of life. That being...the individual is BOTH essential AND irrelevant to the evolutionary process.
I have been thinking that Consciousness itself is the real horror. I can't think of an afterlife scenario that doesn't terrify me.
A physicists belief is still a belief.
**"Stones are alive"** I love my beliefs
Commonitorial? Am I spelling that correctly? If I am, why are all the dictionaries not helping me with meaning and usage?
Combinatorial. Relating to the arrangement, operation and selection of discrete elements into different configurations.
combinatorial
She's beautiful ❤
That word salad was delicious with a basic vinaigrette.
@14:45 she brings up a hypothetical using potential outcomes of an equation involving a unique molecule, but its totally random! It doesn't relate to anything, just highlights how many possible unique molecules can exist. Several times in this interview she has really went on a tandem to bolster a point (typically about how definitions aren't accurate, but doesn't provide an alternative), that sounded intellectual and fluid but really fizzled out.
I agree that she fizzles a bit, but the Taxol example is absolutely not random. In a conversation about defining life, she brought up that she hates the definition of life as a "self-reproducing chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution". In explaining her view on life as a chemical system, she says "I don't think life is chemical, I think life emerges from chemistry because chemistry is the first thing the universe builds where it cannot exhaust all the possibilities because the combinatorial space is too large". Lex asks her about it, so she elaborates and gives an example to illustrate just how large the combinatorial space of chemistry is. "The universe has to actually make historically contingent choices in chemistry because it can't exhaust all possible molecules" is the sentence you're looking for to tie the whole bit together
where does DNA come from??
Science is just magic that has been explained, some believe this takes away their magic, some disagree.
Self sustaining being that we are replacing and repairing molecules quickly enough to maintain our organization long enough to reproduce and swt the offspring on a successful path. The replicating entity is alive
Did we all read Erwin Schrodinger's "What is Life"? It is the classic to quote here
but what about when we automate manufacturing and that system is capable of maintaining itself?
Can't help but wonder if she would like to date Lex?
Seemed open to it, Lex keeping it profesh.
Great pillow talk
The problem with vitalism, that this otherwise brilliant guest, and to a degree the host as well, don't seem to understand is that by the very nature of the claim of this field of knowledge is that it excludes that knowledge from ever entering a human brain.
The only things you can know, or will ever know, are based upon the information that enters your brain. AKA, enters through your senses. If anyone cares to conjecture about knowledge that is of a radically different nature, which enters in some other fashion, they are free to do so, but what they offer can only ever be speculative. As such, they must leave behind the data, and all of the processes to analyze that data, such as inductive, and deductive reasoning to name a few, that got them to the point where, dissatisfied with the limitation on what they can know, they claim a field of existence, that by its most basic description cannot be known.
No amount of esoteric lexicon can ever substantiate those claims, regardless of how much they draw upon the vagueness of language, and the already understood limitations of human knowledge. I really wish that the intelligent, imaginative people who are able to engage in these cutting edge discussions would make more of an effort to avoid the woowoo, and leave that to hopeful fantasizing to adolescents, and philosophers.
Take a shot every time she says, "I'm a scientist", or "as a scientist", or "being a scientist".
Huge Ricky Fitz vibe going on Lex…..
this is probably the most disturbing thing I've ever heard on the internet.
A living organism in mathematics is called… Intelligence.
In a simulation, a dream, a Maya, the answers are different.
Interesting...
My beautiful will say, this is more than fantasy!
Immortality is bad for life but good for death.
What is scope nor lens? Meeks will say, HE SPEAKS IN PARABLES AND UNFAMILIAR WAYS OF SPEAKING UNTO MANY BUT YET IS CLEAR AS WATER UNTO WHOM BELONGS?
So art would be life. It has no borders, open ended, continual since we humans( even pre Homo sapiens) have existed.
Swallowed the Flood to protect and provide Haven!
Life is not chemical….absolutely! Life is mathematical
*Computational, and it applies to everything
With an infant daughter, women, and to become Beautiful Mothers holding HIM?
Life is something that can manipulate other laws of physics
I think I have understood what life is..... it's just me !!! 😂
Will AI be life?
The old woman sitteth upon all my Waters will say, who is that little infant daughter with HIM?
The old woman will say who is that? Who is that? Who is that? Son of Man!
her UPTALK doesn't do it for me
She’s just a crunchy-magic crystal lady dressed up as a big brian scientist.
You mean beside being physics PhD and an active researcher at the Arizone state university?
She seems to come off that way. I think the only thing that she said in the first half that was factual is that on a physical level (informatics approach) that there's no unified definition of what life is.
That problem right there is the seed of any of the rest of the issues that might come up from anything else she says. Because 'not knowing how to define base levels' of something is going to lead to misapplication of those ideas.
“I hope that you will listen, but not with the memory of what you already know; and this is very difficult to do. You listen to something, and your mind immediately reacts with its knowledge, its conclusions, its opinions, its past memories. It listens, inquiring for a future understanding.
Just observe yourself, how you are listening, and you will see that this is what is taking place. Either you are listening with a conclusion, with knowledge, with certain memories, experiences, or you want an answer, and you are impatient. You want to know what it is all about, what life is all about, the extraordinary complexity of life. You are not actually listening at all.
You can only listen when the mind is quiet, when the mind doesn't react immediately, when there is an interval between your reaction and what is being said. Then, in that interval there is a quietness, there is a silence in which alone there is a comprehension which is not intellectual understanding.
If there is a gap between what is said and your own reaction to what is said, in that interval, whether you prolong it indefinitely, for a long
period or for a few seconds - in that interval, if you observe, there comes clarity. It is the interval that is the new brain. The immediate reaction is the old brain, and the old brain functions in its own traditional, accepted, reactionary, animalistic sense.
When there is an abeyance of that, when the reaction is suspended, when there is an interval, then you will find that the new brain acts, and it is only the new brain that can understand, not the old brain”--Jiddu Krishnamurti
Do you mean big brain scientists? Or am I the one who can’t use spell check 🤷
When it comes to ancient ideas about life having some truth to them isn't it insane that humans seem to have some intuition about the physical world.
The thumbnail makes me itchy
Vitalism? Seems like you are coming down with a a case of hippies.
Why? My beautiful will say, remember magic nor fantasy belongs under HIS FEET!
Darwin/Dawkins Evolution, The Big Bang Theory can Not Explain Major Components of Life on Earth.
A Very Good Example of Missing Explanation is the Enormous Amount of Useful Materials which Humans Coincidentally Master and Coincidentally Progress from.
Someone/Something was Looking After Us ?.
Good Conversation, Smart Lady.
Lex always high AF 😅
I had a seizure listening to this
Better get checked for glioblastoma
All the RENOWNED will say, who is that little infant daughter with thee SON OF MAN? Keep watch!
Why my beautiful? Yes, ye are more than fantasy nor magic! Can't handle This!
Don't take yourself too seriously because you're not a big deal.
I don’t think she understands the meanings of the words she’s trying to talk about.
Insane take
I think you are talking about yourself
Spoken like someone with no point
Huh? Wha? She talks? I wasn't paying attention.
Facts.. She’s describing the process and circle of life.. We wanna know about the soul 😂
Lex you still owe me a coffee and pita at my house bro
In the beginning was the WORD…….maybe these pseudo scientists will get it one day
What are your thoughts on this?
@@obi_na I’ve written books on it….who is this I’m speaking to?
My name is obi I’m from Canada, are you going to give me the names of the books?
The ego
word salad
Completely juvenile comment...
She is my dream woman
Smart and gorgeous
It's actually not spirit not magic It's bullshit 👍🏻
Hey you! Double click this comment and see what happens.
hey she's super smart and foxy, ask her out lex!
Very disturbing voice....
Uh, it is called spirit. Not magic, not physics, not 'emergence', not the unknown, not the supernatural....why is this so hard to acknowledge?
I don't follow. The 'spirit' falls within the realm of the supernatural. Can you please explain? I'm being serious by the way I am not trying to be a troll.
because there is zero tangible evidence of your claim
Uh, it is called science, and it works by gathering evidence that others can also independently gather and replicate.
Exactly, no evidence. The call it a soul in the beggining. But it just a "word" ,can also be called "abcde" and will be mean "the spirit"
It’s called emergence and you call the emergent behaviour a spirit.
This woman doesn't care about reality or what's true, she literally is arguing about what's been said a lot historically as if that has more truth value than what has been said little. I'm pretty sure a God that actually comes into the universe and changes stuff, that so far is not true.
Astrobiology shouldn't be considered science 😮 it's philosophy, there are no Astrobiological things to study 😢
NASA has got its Astrobiology Institute. So apparently there are things to study...
Lady science???
You should tag that Lex, she's a cutie and smart too.