There might be (probably are) some exceptions But they would just prove the rule, so there must be some exceptions Too bad we don't know what the are (yet?)
Definition of consciousness: The perception of a self, similar to our own. This is why animals that behave more like us seem more conscious to us, and organisms that do not seem less-so. Our perceptions of consciousness are fundamentally rooted in our human-centric definitions based on our own experiences, so the definition needs to relate back to us. Using this definition we can mathematically define the consciousness of another entity using our own collective averaged sense-of-self as the measuring stick.
I think the questions are so subjective and philosophical, as I listen to Michael’s responses are kind but directly implying he doesn’t study these topics and has so much knowledge and not getting to share it… ask questions about his research please
Yes, your right! Perhaps I could of asked questions that are more related to the research! The intention behind those questions was to get at the root of something, rather than knowledge as I feel that Michael has covered a lot of ground in terms of articulating his research on his own site, papers and other podcasts. I guess I followed my curiosity and the questions are just a reflection of that. That's all I can do really. Thank you for stopping by and listening regardless! 🙏
I disagree. I think the questions were on topic and would wager were provocative for Levin. Levin could have explored them in real time bit chose not too.
@@TheHuxely and levin added “I don’t know.”… even hinted that his expertise was not on the topic the interviewer was asking about, I can’t disagree that it might have been thought provoking for Michael, but when you’re asked questions that you respond to with “not my expertise… I’d say that the obvious conclusion was to then shift the focus towards his expertise, nevertheless I respect your view and admit I to would’ve been interested in his thoughts on those topics, had he chose to answer them. I imagine his credibility is always being scrutinized by his peers so perhaps wisdom told him to refrain, from speaking on issues that he has not studied or subject himself to unnecessary criticism, knowing,that could possibly be construed as flawed reasoning and that could lead to a loss of funding and potential recognition. With that being said, I might be dead wrong too🥴
A few possible salient points: - "The opposite of war is not peace. It is creativity." - Dunbar's number as a possible limit to empathy-driven behavior, and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (all language and logic serving as provisional problem solving tools ... but with an emphasis on 'provisional'. Logic and language also serve as proxies for empathy-driven behavior, but as in the abstract (Wittgenstein's Ladder, Godel's Theorems, the improbability of a ToE diminishing scales below the planck unit or 'before' the big-bang, etc.) ... there are limits to rule-dirven behavior. - The alignment problem with A.I. applies to both the emergent 'hallucinations' of LLMs, and the alignment between typical human nature and those (described below) who will more likely be among the first to use A.I. - A vicious cycle of the pareto principle, driven by a relatively small but persistent percentage of any population which are genetically pre-dispositioned for 'dark-triad' behavior traits ... the pathological narcissists, machiavellian opportunists, and morphologically defined psychopaths among us. Unfortunately, these people being born without the neuro-typical pathways for empathy tend to be both more intelligent (in the narrow sense of the word) and predatory on others. I tend to agree with evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr ... human intelligence may prove to be little more than the lethal mutation of a social primate. The late physicist Stephen Hawking put it another way ... "Greed and stupidity will mark the end of the human race." ... the plandemic, SDGs, CCDCs, the agenda of WHO, the WEF. the Davos crowd, etc. being a case in point. But a quote attributed to Mark Twain is a bit funnier ... "The more I learn about people, the better I like my dog." Some of the questions could have been a bit more precise, I enjoyed Levin's style of response. JMHO, but a more balanced all-round thinker than the likes of Jordon Peterson. Cheers from Japan
@@DomSniezka Hi Dom, just saw your quick acknowledgement of my random thoughts. Good guest, difficult questions ... but questions worth asking. Splitting my time between 'not so private Facebook groups', higher level substacks (Sasha Latypova, Tessa Lena, Margarette Anna Alice among my favorites), and some good TH-cams podcasts - I enjoyed this one. Oh, and a recent book that had a big influence on me is A. Lobaczweski's "Political Ponerology; The Science of Evil, Psychopathology, and the Origins of the Totalitarian State'. I don't agree totally with him in that I think 'science' and 'ethics' are two different but overlapping domains with different heuristics. And though a bit of a slog now and then, my big take-away is that the skeletons in the family closet are a fractal of what happens on the world stage. Notifications turned on. Cheers!
@@stevemartin4249 Thank you Sir! What do you mean by 'skeletons in the family closet are a fractal of what happens on the world stage' ? Then when it comes to questions, what do think are the questions that are worth asking as Humanity?
@@DomSniezka "Sir" ... lol, just a messenger boy here. "Steve" will do just fine, though a few have less flattering names for me. 😂 The first question about 'skeletons in the family closet' might best be answered with a few TH-cam view of Dr. Ramani. Her Medcircle Masterclass on the difference between Sociopaths and Psychopaths is a good intro. But Canadian journalist (living here in Japan) James Corbett also has also posted a good summary of the history of psychopathy. Though these are relatively new terms, they describe a personality type that has always been with humanity. On the family level, they can wreck havoc. Although my own mother could be a bit snobbish, my father appeared to sometimes take glee in causing and watching family arguments and havoc. But generally, families and small communities are close-knit enough to weather the storms and keep these types more or less under control. Lobaczewski takes that same psychology and projects it into populations larger than small communities. Although he focussed on the former Soviet Union and Eastern European forms of communism for the dysfunctional group dynamics ... I would take it a step further and say that those social dynamics are pretty much the story of the rise and fall of empires since the stone age. Although my graduate work was in education, the bulk of my research was concerned with intrinsic motivation and the group dynamics that take place in the classroom, particularly in group task based projects. My biggest influence was Zoltan Dornyei ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_D%C3%B6rnyei ... who wrote several books regarding the evolution and dissipation of task based groups in the classroom. I could see a lot of those psychological insights in Lobaczewski's work, though Lobaczewski was focussed on the destructive elements of those 'dark - triad' personality types. Dornyei was mostly interested in the social pychology of game-theory applied to the classroom situation. There are a lot of other angles on which this can be approached such as Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" (a great read and profound insight on the nature of mass movements). Ashamed to say, but I still have not read Mathias Desmet's now popular book on Mass Formation Psychosis. Just a guess, but the reason why Peter Breggins dismisses the book is because it takes the focus off of the sociopaths now causing havoc on a world scale ... but I am also guessing Desmet sheds a lot of light on the neurotypical masses of people. I'll just have to buckle down and read. To tell the truth, I will have to read Lobaczewski again too ... but next time, more slowly, and while taking notes. Kindle versions help a lot with this. Your second question regarding questions about humanity ... wow. That is tough, and worth a lifetime of books. One thing about your interview that has strong points and weak points is that you appeared to be thinking, formulating, and asking questions in real time ... questions that Levin might not have anticipated. The good thing is that it was a bit like the call-and response of blues or jazz improvisation ... real, and in the moment. But jazz improv takes waaaaay more skill than my modest bossa nova by tab score memorization. The opposite end of the spectrum would probably be a highly scripted and choreographed performance which pretends to be an interview ... kind of like canned pop music for mass consumption. Although I've never hosted a podcast, I have judged All Japan English speech contests, been a coach, and a teacher of public speaking for well over 30 of my 40 years here in Japan ... and I really don't have a good answer for striking the right balance between authenticity and 'rehearsed spontaneity'. But the best speech I can recall was of a girl I coached. She was a high school senior and living near the epicenter of the Great Tohoku Earthquake. It was 2 years later in college when I helped her prepare for her speech in the Tokyo Jr. College Contest. We must have spent a hundred hours, helping her write, edit, re-write, again and again, recording my. voice so she could get accustomed to native speaker pitch, stress, and juncture to express her emotions about her experience and evacuation during the earthquake, and then hours video-taping and critiquing the gestures, body language, and facial expressions to match her feelings. When it came her time for the speech at the contest, about half way through the speech ... she lost it. She broke down in real tears, sobbing as she recounted her experience and discovering the true meaning of family. Despite it all, she finished the speech precisely withing the allotted 4 minutes. Half of the audience and judges were confused because according to the judging criteria, she would not have even made last place ... the other half, including myself were in tears. Not for her. With her. At the end of the contest, we hugged and neither of us could care less about a prize. The chief judge came over to me and discretely said that it was the best speech he had ever heard in his career, one of the reasons being he has a daughter about her age. The judges did not know what to do because she did not follow the script. They decided to give her 2nd place - in recognition that she did not perform like a trained monkey for a prize. She gave the only 'real' speech of the evening. Didn't mean to be so long winded here. Just wanted to say that it is a tough call. At least from my point of view, a good podcast, like a good speech, is a work of art. We can practice, rehearse, and condense until the cows come home ... but the difference between a good piece of art and something approaching the sublime, is something that comes only once in awhile. It can't be planned, and I think it emerges from the god, the love within. That's what I liked about your approach ... you are struggling to keep it real. But a lot of the audience will not be able to handle the divine when it comes. Indeed, many of the guests won't. After all of this, I still did not answer your question about what are the questions worth asking. Because I don't think there are any 'answers', perhaps there are no 'right' questions. God, or love, is in the process. And occasionally, it emerges. Occasionally. Will end with a couple of references to TED talks that have moved me. Frans de Waal's TED talk on Moral Behavior in Animals got him elected to academic I would most love to have a beer with. Jill Bolte Taylor's talk moved me to tears. And more than once. I even exchanged a few e-mails with her, and though not of my doing, NHK Educational TV in Japan ran two documentaries about her. Keep up the good fight fight Dom. You are asking the right questions. It just takes time, persistence, and courage. We are all perpetual beginners here, especially myself. Cheers from Japan Dom.
Wow, thank you for such a thorough response, I'm not even sure what to say, as you said quite a lot there :) But I just want to say thank you for sharing and for such great feedback!
Hey, philospher and neuroscientist here and I just came across this and wanted to send you my gratitude. Watched your intro video and wondering if you might like to talk with me about your podcast and your trajectory, your form of what I call way-making?
Having world peace just among humans might help us focus on other goals like overcoming disease and death. Intelligence getting better and better, it seems like the next logical step that we learn to transcend our metabolism.
@@DomSniezka yes and metabolism includes respiration as well, right? I don’t know if it’s physically possible, but I suppose that would depend on whether intelligence is only for survival. But what is survival for? What is reproduction for? What is evolution for? I know these are really hard questions and maybe unanswerable lol. It just seems like we are and life is wired to want to survive.
I agree with the other commentors that a lot of the questions could have been better. I get the "trying to get a high level overview" point, but still. For example, asking "why study biology" and then subsequently follow up with "why study something at all" is mundane. I think the answer to "why study biology or something at all" is something that anyone has the capacity to answer quite easily, it's fairly obvious. There were also other questions that were rooted in flawed logic or weren't properly thought out. I appreciate the effort to do the interview and share it though. There's always insight to be gleaned from Michael. Your segment on world peace and freedom to explore your own intellectual curiosities is an example of flawed logic by the way. What if my intellectual curiosity is religion, and yours is materialist science? Conflicting perceptions of reality and the freedom to explore them is what leads to division to begin with. So you can't have your cake and eat it too. You either have world peace where everything is stagnant and everyone does the same things and thinks the same ways, or you have exploration and division. That was Michael's point when he was bringing up the reference to the bronze ages or hunter gatherer societies. And on that note, even in that climate, any entity that isn't able to explore its own curiosities would not be at "peace", so the prerequisite here is that every entity WANTS to think the same and feel the same and have no differences among them. Essentially social agreement that behaving as a collective borg mind is good, peaceful and enjoyable. Whether that's even possible is a question, but I don't see the benefit to it. It's also a question that didn't need to be in this interview, he's a biology expert not a philosophy expert. Overall, in the future, I would suggest sticking to questions relevant to the expertise of the professional you're having on, out of respect for them and your audience. Research the individuals work and formulate your questions around that. I would also suggest pondering the answers to the questions yourself ahead of time, or researching the answers to them, so as to avoid bringing up logical fallacies.
Thank you for your feedback, I do appreciate it. I'd just like to highlight, this was not intended to be an Interview. I wanted to treat this like a Dialogue, which implies exploring a question in a step by step manner. If this was an interview, the questions would of been radically different and yes to your point aimed at the expertise of the guest rather than keeping it general. This was an experiment, these are the results. Sharing it publicly as opposed to keeping it private makes sense, so here we are :) When it comes to the question of why study something at all. Don't you think it's important to find out why we do something at all? After all, if we are investigating something, hoping to find an answer to something, whether it's intelligence, compassion, love or whatever it may be, perhaps our means of searching is itself flawed? The reason why the point of world peace was mentioned was in order to address the question of 'what use is intelligence?' It seems like the highest use of intelligence is to find out how to cooperate between one another and not divide one another, if we are concerned with practical living. I guess the label we can apply there is 'World Peace'. What else do your propose as a good use of Intelligence?
@@DomSniezka Cool, I hope you didn't take any offense, I didn't mean it in a hostile way, just trying to give food for thought to help the channel grow and share my opinion on how you can improve your technique. I am grateful for the discussion regardless. As for why we study something at all, I agree that there may be some philosophical merit in the question if you were to really get down to it at a deeper level, but on the surface I just feel like there's so many other more interesting questions that could have been asked instead, ones that are more targeted to his expertise that would have resulted in a more interesting answer. Or you could reframe it so that it's something deeper and related to biology, i.e. "why do something rather than nothing, on a biological level". Or "what is the biological drive to learn new information, and how does it work from a biological level?" Perhaps those would have been more fitting questions to ask if you really wanted to go down this line of thought. As for the highest use of intelligence being how to cooperate, it's a very morally centered and subjective viewpoint. The goal of defining a term should be bring it to it's simplest base level. To me, that means intelligence is environmental utility maximization or some form of it. Yes, that "could" mean "a" highest use of intelligence is cooperation, but it's not a requirement, and is dependent on the environment. In a non-social environment, cooperation is irrelevant, but intelligence can still exist. Perhaps the disconnect here is that you're very interested in the human-centric impacts and influences, which are generally more higher-level and socially involved, and thus there tends to be a lot of subjectivity involved. Scientists would rather leave subjectivity out of things, especially when referring to their work, as the point is to eliminate subjectivity and bring subjective opinions into the realm of objective empirical understanding. There's nothing wrong with the question "what is the maximum use of intelligence" per-se, it would require further elaboration to begin with to ground it into objectivity (what intelligence are we referring to, what do you mean by "use", what is the context), but if we're answering it from the perspective of a human it requires you to delve into your own subjective experiences - which isn't a particularly interesting subject matter from my perspective, from the angle of learning about reality.
Yes Sir, very good points made. I reply to these things just to make the context clear, for the commentor and perhaps others too, as I think it's nice to understand one another. Gosh, there's a lot you said there, so I don't even know where to go with it, but I'll take what you said into consideration, that's for sure :) But yes, most certainly the questions could of been more specific, and I would loved to have explored them too! Thank you!
You won't eliminate conflict by removing divisions/boundaries. Only a change in the perception of the differences and the meaning placed on them will reduce conflict. And, as Michael said conflict between differences is what spurs evolution. Even during the generalized peacetime in Constantinople's heyday the conflicts of intellectual discourse and artistic/engineering prowess were the catalyst for civilizational evolution.
@@DomSniezka You don't! Instead you learn to redirect the conflict into growth. Conflict is ubiquitous throughout the universe. Trees compete with grass for nutrients and sunlight, stars and galaxies collide, people have differences of opinion. Yet the intertwined roots and branches of the trees and grass help both survive extremes, galaxies colliding start new processes that may lead to new lifeforms. Eliminating conflict may be the most dire mistake any sentient entity could ever conceive.
@@clintnorton4322 Ah yes, the trees compete for light, the animals compete for food etc... I see that. What I don't see is the mere acceptance of conflict, war, inequality if there's a genuine solution to it. Very well, there may not be a solution, and our efforts may in fact be destructive, but is not worth inquiring into it, and finding out if there really is a way? I would say that of course there is. Surely the faith of humanity is not to battle between one another? If we say to redirect our effort towards 'growth' what does that mean? What does it mean to grow? To produce more weapons, spaceships, cure diseases, develop technology? For what purpose, for mere growth for the sake of growth? I hope you don't mind if I question these things, I don't see why not.
@@DomSniezka Questioning the apparent known is the Socratic method. Keep doing it, _including your own conclusions._ Growth is just one path of the evolutionary impulse, which, at it's most fundamental is reaching for more. Other paths are diversity and complexity. 14 billion years of conflict resolution has surely produced every kind of resolution scenario possible. Ants go to war with other ant colonies over territory or food. Bees violently protect their homes. I once watched a mother deer boldly face off with a coyote to protect her fawn. Conflict happens simply because there are different objectives that cross paths. Even a Vegan is taking the life of a vegetable that just wants to grow and reproduce. The real question is; what is our attitude when we encounter conflict situations? Will we do only what is best for ourselves, will we sacrifice our goals for the other party, or will we work out a compromise that at least partially benefits both sides?
Yeah I think that's a very good point. 'What is our attitude when we encounter conflict situations'. I find that very interesting because it seems that this is the real issue, how do we as individuals interact with one another, as this makes up society. Right?
@2:30 The quintessential lens would be epistemological and phenomenological. The fact that thinking is the generator of the notion of mind or the belief that biology is essential to understanding the mind presupposes thinking. Michael confuses perception and the thinking about what we perceive. Thinking is not reducible to relative position. Interpretation is. They are not the same thing. The use of the term mind is what Bonnie Roy might call a categorical abstraction if she were consistent in relation to what she refers to as pure abstraction. She is not consistent because of a built in dualism that naturalism tends toward in its linear complexity directionality.
The interview hit a wall at min. 45 lol. The interviewee ‘s let’s all just get along theory of human condition and do away with greed brought poor Levin to a full stop and rude awareness that he was in the wrong place! Lol
You can't say that other organisms stop becoming more intelligent. This is also for us taking the time to experiment and take time. Because we reflect and speak the same language it is easier. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist for anything else. I"'m not a biologist. But maybe this is about group intelligence. There might be different ways to solve a problem. Not necessarily only in one individual at one level. It is a stretchy subject. If I think of something, I always ask about situations that are not that clear. What can we say about intelligence if the individual is destructive, in coma state , raised by dogs/apes or whatever. So intelligence can't be tied to wants perse. You do not need that in a human way. Does it want food? Yes. But it can wait half a year, ten years. You said it. Good use of intelligence. Intelligence is neutral. Peace is relatively or comes in gradations. Inner stress can be seen as an inner war due to societal hostilities. You can export war to others. We learn from adversity. Thus we have a paradox. Maybe it becomes easier if we aren't so attached to material things. War is only dreadful if you can't escape it and you are the victim. If it is on Mars. It is totally irrelevant. Nobody cares about ants going to war. Only if they do so in your backyard.
Very disappointed with the questions in the beginning. Asking him vague nonsense like “should we cooperate with each other?” Is a pure waste of time. What do you expect him to say? I almost closed the window. But after the first 15 minutes the discussion got much better!
I greatly appreciate Michael’s work but at the very beginning of this interview he asserts that biology demonstrates that mind emerges from matter. However, I’m surprised he makes this assumption because the process is analogous to developing a photograph. A photograph “emerges” from the interaction of the film negative (proto-image, analogous to mind) with chemicals and a substrate (photographic paper, analogous to matter). However, no-one assumes/believes/asserts that the photograph simply emerges from the interaction of the material components of the process I.e., chemicals and substrate. Rather the proto-image was already present and the development process merely transformed it into the photographic image. Further, the mind from matter hypothesis is like saying that the images on a TV emerge from the interaction of it’s internal parts and mechanisms. Whereas, in reality the TV only receives and transforms pre-existing electromagnetic or radio waves into visual images. Therefore, I suggest it is more accurate to say that proto-mind already exists and that matter merely transforms it into different forms which humans recognise as minds.
@@DomSniezka in this instance I’m not asserting mind is fundamental. I’m simply pointing out that it’s an assumption to assert that matter is the substrate from which mind emerges. Once this point is accepted we could explore things further.
@@DomSniezka I’m reminded that “relations precede relata”. So, how can matter (relata) possibly be more fundamental than mind (relations). What do you think?
@Paul Keogh His assertion was that mind emerges from the gradual process of interplay between physics and chemistry. I think he was specifically talking about human mind here, as chemistry may not be a prerequisite. I believe that also fits within your definition though, I don't think he's asserting a discrete and concrete order of precedence. I think the position is that these material systems (chemical or physical systems) combine to form interfaces into viewing or expressing the fundamental nature or properties of reality in unique ways, and that the perception of what classifies mind is dependent on the perspective of where the utility is. Based on your words above, if your problem with the statement "matter is the substrate from which mind emerges", that implies you either believe mind (proto-mind) is the substrate from which matter emerges, or you believe neither emerges first. If we're talking proto-mind I assume you're talking on a more universal level, as human minds are obviously not responsible for creating all matter - we can only combine it in unique ways. I'm strongly in the last camp, I think thinking about things from a perspective of linear flow is a human-centric way to think about the problem and is not representative of the underlying reality. If we scale this question back does it not lead to: Is the universe a giant mind that leads to matter, or is the universe a giant soup of matter that leads to mind. If that's where we are going with this, I think this falls apart when you consider the dualistic infinite nature of reality. I'll posit that neither is more fundamental than the other, both are required, always have been and always will be. Without the dual nature of reality, we would have no time (discrete measurements of infinity), because there would be no observation or singular separation to classify either mind OR matter, and no potential to do-so. It's the fundamental existence of duality that allows us to even ponder the question. Fundamentally, both mind and environment (mind + matter & body) are dual pairs and rely on each other in a feedback loop for motion. When you look all the way down, all the way to the beginning, the notion of "what comes first" falls apart on an infinite time-scale.
Yes we created the computer but thought inspired the actions to do so. Now what is thought? We cant just say we created the computer and leave it at that and disregard the mystery of mind.
@@DomSniezka knowledge seems to be able to regurgitate data .. which Ai will completely disrupt. Imo intelligence will be cut from abstract thinking and deductive reasoning. Finding relationships in the crumbs and then postulating the synthesis that’s springs forth
@@crypto_hodler6948 Yeah, this AI stuff is quite interesting in regards to it's capabilities, even at such an early stage. What do you mean by 'Finding relationships in the crumbs and then postulating the synthesis that’s springs forth' Are you saying that it's about finding connections in the gaps of knowledge that we do have and generating insights from there... I'm not sure what you mean? Have you ever wondered about what's Creativity? It doesn't seem to spring from Knowledge.
The host really needs to read some of his papers first and ask more appropriate questions. Trying to not be mean, but this is one of the worst interviews I've seen. Lack of prep and lack of skill. At least it makes you appreciate the work that goes into doing interviews...
Thank you for your feedback, It's true, the questions were not related to the research, I totally agree! This was intentional, for numerous reasons, which I informed Michael about before the discussion. I can only assume that many listeners, feel the same way, so I'll provide some context here, if interested: - The intention of the questions was to get to the root of something, especially the field of Biology. I was interested in getting the highest level overview as opposed to the details. - I'm aware of Michaels work. We only had one hour, there was only so much we could explore deeply in one hour. - Michael has covered a lot of ground via other Podcasts, channels, his own site, lab etc. I was interested in exploring a different set of questions. - I don't consider myself to be an interviewer, I wanted to treat this like a Dialogue, where a question is proposed and then allow the dialogue to unfold from that question. Well, that's what I was hoping to do at least :) Naturally, due to the limits of time, you won't be able to cover the details with such an approach. In retrospect, sure, perhaps different questions could of been asked, or maybe not do the discussion at all. I didn't know what kind of response it will be, all I could do was follow my curiosity and see where it leads... So here we are :) Thank you for listening regardless, and I just hope it wasn't a complete waste of your time!
Let him compare himself to himself from yesterday. Yes, questions weren't specialized but that was actually interesting, to see responses of Micheal to something that is out of usually schema, and how he handle dialog like that. Dialog wasn't about advanced stuff but still was quite good and entertaining.
Sorry, but after hearing the profound answer to the first question, the second question, why study biology? was cringe-makingly dumb. You might as well ask why study anything? Why have this interview? Why get out of bed? Sometimes you have to scratch questions off your mental list. A better one might have been, for example, how might a deeper understanding of developmental process in biology impact our understanding in other fields? You are clued into what your interviewee has just said.
I'm simply exploring here, but if we are saying that 'we are not conditioned to be separate'. Alright, that may be the case or it may not be the case, but surely it's worth finding out? So if we explore further, we have to ask ourselves, what actually divides people? Please help me out here, but it does seem that it's Nationality, Religion, Philosophy, Ideologies, Politics, Beliefs etc... So once again, if we ask, what creates Nationality, Religion, Philosophy etc. It all boils down to Thought / Thinking. Then if we ask, 'what is thinking, what are the roots of thought?' It certainly seems that thinking is our memories, our knowledge, experiences etc.. but essentially it's the past. Even to think about the future has it's roots' in the past. It becomes obvious then that our thinking is conditioned thinking, since it has it's root in the past. So if we cling to our past, to our thinking and identify with it, that is Conditioning. So, how can we possibly live together and trust each other if we can't understand the whole machinery of thought?
@@DomSniezka We evolved as small bands of hunter gatherers who had love, empathy, & altruistic sacrifice for each other. We also had a visceral hatred for strangers w/ the desire to violently kill them, & to be delight in their pain & death. These are known as savage instincts. Even after the emergence of complex language giving rise to tribal cultures we still lived in unbridled accord w/ these savage instincts for scores of millennia up until the emergence of civilization. Gathered among others in lsrger to populations than we had evolved for, culture had to find ways to suppress these instincts almost fully. Religious values developed in ways to suppress them. Religions also extended moral instinct for greater good to a wider group Nationality, & politics has found other ways of redirecting moral & altruistic instincts to wider & greater purposes I contend that these things that you claim separate us have actually worked to bring us together in larger & more complex groups. However, they have their limitations & may never be able to bring us together fully in free peaceful associations
@@DomSniezka We pursue decentralized solutions that try to cultivate healthy competitive environments We need to put to rest the foolish notion that corporations can be responsible for the greater good. In so doing, government will regulate their behavior when necessary. Their influence on politics & government policy must be limited severely In addition, we need to strive for developing a cheap abundant source of energy which will probably be along the lines of nuclear & to reach full automation as quick as possible. This will end the economics of scarcity which will lead to the end of bourgeois capitalism & its reliance on neverending growth. This will usher in a new capitalism of abundance that will be focused on maintaining a steady state of zero growth. It can still increase in efficiency over time, producing more, but using a constant amount of resources
"We don't know anything for certain." The longer I live the more I am able to accept that statement.
There might be (probably are) some exceptions
But they would just prove the rule, so there must be some exceptions
Too bad we don't know what the are (yet?)
For certain😊
Definition of consciousness: The perception of a self, similar to our own. This is why animals that behave more like us seem more conscious to us, and organisms that do not seem less-so. Our perceptions of consciousness are fundamentally rooted in our human-centric definitions based on our own experiences, so the definition needs to relate back to us. Using this definition we can mathematically define the consciousness of another entity using our own collective averaged sense-of-self as the measuring stick.
Thank you for your time Michael.
I think the questions are so subjective and philosophical, as I listen to Michael’s responses are kind but directly implying he doesn’t study these topics and has so much knowledge and not getting to share it… ask questions about his research please
Yes, your right! Perhaps I could of asked questions that are more related to the research!
The intention behind those questions was to get at the root of something, rather than knowledge as I feel that Michael has covered a lot of ground in terms of articulating his research on his own site, papers and other podcasts.
I guess I followed my curiosity and the questions are just a reflection of that. That's all I can do really.
Thank you for stopping by and listening regardless! 🙏
I disagree. I think the questions were on topic and would wager were provocative for Levin. Levin could have explored them in real time bit chose not too.
@@TheHuxely and levin added “I don’t know.”… even hinted that his expertise was not on the topic the interviewer was asking about, I can’t disagree that it might have been thought provoking for Michael, but when you’re asked questions that you respond to with “not my expertise… I’d say that the obvious conclusion was to then shift the focus towards his expertise, nevertheless I respect your view and admit I to would’ve been interested in his thoughts on those topics, had he chose to answer them.
I imagine his credibility is always being scrutinized by his peers so perhaps wisdom told him to refrain, from speaking on issues that he has not studied or subject himself to unnecessary criticism, knowing,that could possibly be construed as flawed reasoning and that could lead to a loss of funding and potential recognition.
With that being said, I might be dead wrong too🥴
Brilliant!!! Reminds me a lot of what I have read about Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead.
Great changes in civilization are not possibly be created by a single individual, Great things are done by great systems of individuals.
So does everything fundamentally just boil down to the Individual?
A few possible salient points:
- "The opposite of war is not peace. It is creativity."
- Dunbar's number as a possible limit to empathy-driven behavior, and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (all language and logic serving as provisional problem solving tools ... but with an emphasis on 'provisional'. Logic and language also serve as proxies for empathy-driven behavior, but as in the abstract (Wittgenstein's Ladder, Godel's Theorems, the improbability of a ToE diminishing scales below the planck unit or 'before' the big-bang, etc.) ... there are limits to rule-dirven behavior.
- The alignment problem with A.I. applies to both the emergent 'hallucinations' of LLMs, and the alignment between typical human nature and those (described below) who will more likely be among the first to use A.I.
- A vicious cycle of the pareto principle, driven by a relatively small but persistent percentage of any population which are genetically pre-dispositioned for 'dark-triad' behavior traits ... the pathological narcissists, machiavellian opportunists, and morphologically defined psychopaths among us. Unfortunately, these people being born without the neuro-typical pathways for empathy tend to be both more intelligent (in the narrow sense of the word) and predatory on others.
I tend to agree with evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr ... human intelligence may prove to be little more than the lethal mutation of a social primate. The late physicist Stephen Hawking put it another way ... "Greed and stupidity will mark the end of the human race." ... the plandemic, SDGs, CCDCs, the agenda of WHO, the WEF. the Davos crowd, etc. being a case in point. But a quote attributed to Mark Twain is a bit funnier ... "The more I learn about people, the better I like my dog."
Some of the questions could have been a bit more precise, I enjoyed Levin's style of response. JMHO, but a more balanced all-round thinker than the likes of Jordon Peterson.
Cheers from Japan
Thank you
@@DomSniezka
Hi Dom, just saw your quick acknowledgement of my random thoughts. Good guest, difficult questions ... but questions worth asking.
Splitting my time between 'not so private Facebook groups', higher level substacks (Sasha Latypova, Tessa Lena, Margarette Anna Alice among my favorites), and some good TH-cams podcasts - I enjoyed this one.
Oh, and a recent book that had a big influence on me is A. Lobaczweski's "Political Ponerology; The Science of Evil, Psychopathology, and the Origins of the Totalitarian State'. I don't agree totally with him in that I think 'science' and 'ethics' are two different but overlapping domains with different heuristics. And though a bit of a slog now and then, my big take-away is that the skeletons in the family closet are a fractal of what happens on the world stage. Notifications turned on.
Cheers!
@@stevemartin4249 Thank you Sir! What do you mean by 'skeletons in the family closet are a fractal of what happens on the world stage' ? Then when it comes to questions, what do think are the questions that are worth asking as Humanity?
@@DomSniezka "Sir" ... lol, just a messenger boy here. "Steve" will do just fine, though a few have less flattering names for me. 😂
The first question about 'skeletons in the family closet' might best be answered with a few TH-cam view of Dr. Ramani. Her Medcircle Masterclass on the difference between Sociopaths and Psychopaths is a good intro. But Canadian journalist (living here in Japan) James Corbett also has also posted a good summary of the history of psychopathy. Though these are relatively new terms, they describe a personality type that has always been with humanity. On the family level, they can wreck havoc. Although my own mother could be a bit snobbish, my father appeared to sometimes take glee in causing and watching family arguments and havoc. But generally, families and small communities are close-knit enough to weather the storms and keep these types more or less under control. Lobaczewski takes that same psychology and projects it into populations larger than small communities. Although he focussed on the former Soviet Union and Eastern European forms of communism for the dysfunctional group dynamics ... I would take it a step further and say that those social dynamics are pretty much the story of the rise and fall of empires since the stone age. Although my graduate work was in education, the bulk of my research was concerned with intrinsic motivation and the group dynamics that take place in the classroom, particularly in group task based projects. My biggest influence was Zoltan Dornyei ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_D%C3%B6rnyei ... who wrote several books regarding the evolution and dissipation of task based groups in the classroom. I could see a lot of those psychological insights in Lobaczewski's work, though Lobaczewski was focussed on the destructive elements of those 'dark - triad' personality types. Dornyei was mostly interested in the social pychology of game-theory applied to the classroom situation. There are a lot of other angles on which this can be approached such as Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" (a great read and profound insight on the nature of mass movements). Ashamed to say, but I still have not read Mathias Desmet's now popular book on Mass Formation Psychosis. Just a guess, but the reason why Peter Breggins dismisses the book is because it takes the focus off of the sociopaths now causing havoc on a world scale ... but I am also guessing Desmet sheds a lot of light on the neurotypical masses of people. I'll just have to buckle down and read. To tell the truth, I will have to read Lobaczewski again too ... but next time, more slowly, and while taking notes. Kindle versions help a lot with this.
Your second question regarding questions about humanity ... wow. That is tough, and worth a lifetime of books. One thing about your interview that has strong points and weak points is that you appeared to be thinking, formulating, and asking questions in real time ... questions that Levin might not have anticipated. The good thing is that it was a bit like the call-and response of blues or jazz improvisation ... real, and in the moment. But jazz improv takes waaaaay more skill than my modest bossa nova by tab score memorization. The opposite end of the spectrum would probably be a highly scripted and choreographed performance which pretends to be an interview ... kind of like canned pop music for mass consumption.
Although I've never hosted a podcast, I have judged All Japan English speech contests, been a coach, and a teacher of public speaking for well over 30 of my 40 years here in Japan ... and I really don't have a good answer for striking the right balance between authenticity and 'rehearsed spontaneity'. But the best speech I can recall was of a girl I coached. She was a high school senior and living near the epicenter of the Great Tohoku Earthquake. It was 2 years later in college when I helped her prepare for her speech in the Tokyo Jr. College Contest. We must have spent a hundred hours, helping her write, edit, re-write, again and again, recording my. voice so she could get accustomed to native speaker pitch, stress, and juncture to express her emotions about her experience and evacuation during the earthquake, and then hours video-taping and critiquing the gestures, body language, and facial expressions to match her feelings. When it came her time for the speech at the contest, about half way through the speech ... she lost it. She broke down in real tears, sobbing as she recounted her experience and discovering the true meaning of family. Despite it all, she finished the speech precisely withing the allotted 4 minutes. Half of the audience and judges were confused because according to the judging criteria, she would not have even made last place ... the other half, including myself were in tears. Not for her. With her. At the end of the contest, we hugged and neither of us could care less about a prize. The chief judge came over to me and discretely said that it was the best speech he had ever heard in his career, one of the reasons being he has a daughter about her age. The judges did not know what to do because she did not follow the script. They decided to give her 2nd place - in recognition that she did not perform like a trained monkey for a prize. She gave the only 'real' speech of the evening.
Didn't mean to be so long winded here. Just wanted to say that it is a tough call. At least from my point of view, a good podcast, like a good speech, is a work of art. We can practice, rehearse, and condense until the cows come home ... but the difference between a good piece of art and something approaching the sublime, is something that comes only once in awhile. It can't be planned, and I think it emerges from the god, the love within. That's what I liked about your approach ... you are struggling to keep it real. But a lot of the audience will not be able to handle the divine when it comes. Indeed, many of the guests won't.
After all of this, I still did not answer your question about what are the questions worth asking. Because I don't think there are any 'answers', perhaps there are no 'right' questions. God, or love, is in the process. And occasionally, it emerges. Occasionally.
Will end with a couple of references to TED talks that have moved me. Frans de Waal's TED talk on Moral Behavior in Animals got him elected to academic I would most love to have a beer with. Jill Bolte Taylor's talk moved me to tears. And more than once. I even exchanged a few e-mails with her, and though not of my doing, NHK Educational TV in Japan ran two documentaries about her.
Keep up the good fight fight Dom. You are asking the right questions. It just takes time, persistence, and courage. We are all perpetual beginners here, especially myself.
Cheers from Japan Dom.
Wow, thank you for such a thorough response, I'm not even sure what to say, as you said quite a lot there :) But I just want to say thank you for sharing and for such great feedback!
Hey, philospher and neuroscientist here and I just came across this and wanted to send you my gratitude. Watched your intro video and wondering if you might like to talk with me about your podcast and your trajectory, your form of what I call way-making?
Thank you for stopping by! Feel free to email me and we can discuss.
Having world peace just among humans might help us focus on other goals like overcoming disease and death. Intelligence getting better and better, it seems like the next logical step that we learn to transcend our metabolism.
When you say transcend our metabolism, do you mean to say that we can reach a point where we don't need to eat to survive?
@@DomSniezka yes and metabolism includes respiration as well, right? I don’t know if it’s physically possible, but I suppose that would depend on whether intelligence is only for survival. But what is survival for? What is reproduction for? What is evolution for? I know these are really hard questions and maybe unanswerable lol. It just seems like we are and life is wired to want to survive.
I agree with the other commentors that a lot of the questions could have been better. I get the "trying to get a high level overview" point, but still. For example, asking "why study biology" and then subsequently follow up with "why study something at all" is mundane. I think the answer to "why study biology or something at all" is something that anyone has the capacity to answer quite easily, it's fairly obvious. There were also other questions that were rooted in flawed logic or weren't properly thought out. I appreciate the effort to do the interview and share it though. There's always insight to be gleaned from Michael.
Your segment on world peace and freedom to explore your own intellectual curiosities is an example of flawed logic by the way. What if my intellectual curiosity is religion, and yours is materialist science? Conflicting perceptions of reality and the freedom to explore them is what leads to division to begin with. So you can't have your cake and eat it too. You either have world peace where everything is stagnant and everyone does the same things and thinks the same ways, or you have exploration and division. That was Michael's point when he was bringing up the reference to the bronze ages or hunter gatherer societies.
And on that note, even in that climate, any entity that isn't able to explore its own curiosities would not be at "peace", so the prerequisite here is that every entity WANTS to think the same and feel the same and have no differences among them. Essentially social agreement that behaving as a collective borg mind is good, peaceful and enjoyable. Whether that's even possible is a question, but I don't see the benefit to it. It's also a question that didn't need to be in this interview, he's a biology expert not a philosophy expert.
Overall, in the future, I would suggest sticking to questions relevant to the expertise of the professional you're having on, out of respect for them and your audience. Research the individuals work and formulate your questions around that. I would also suggest pondering the answers to the questions yourself ahead of time, or researching the answers to them, so as to avoid bringing up logical fallacies.
Thank you for your feedback, I do appreciate it.
I'd just like to highlight, this was not intended to be an Interview. I wanted to treat this like a Dialogue, which implies exploring a question in a step by step manner. If this was an interview, the questions would of been radically different and yes to your point aimed at the expertise of the guest rather than keeping it general. This was an experiment, these are the results. Sharing it publicly as opposed to keeping it private makes sense, so here we are :)
When it comes to the question of why study something at all. Don't you think it's important to find out why we do something at all? After all, if we are investigating something, hoping to find an answer to something, whether it's intelligence, compassion, love or whatever it may be, perhaps our means of searching is itself flawed?
The reason why the point of world peace was mentioned was in order to address the question of 'what use is intelligence?' It seems like the highest use of intelligence is to find out how to cooperate between one another and not divide one another, if we are concerned with practical living. I guess the label we can apply there is 'World Peace'. What else do your propose as a good use of Intelligence?
@@DomSniezka Cool, I hope you didn't take any offense, I didn't mean it in a hostile way, just trying to give food for thought to help the channel grow and share my opinion on how you can improve your technique. I am grateful for the discussion regardless.
As for why we study something at all, I agree that there may be some philosophical merit in the question if you were to really get down to it at a deeper level, but on the surface I just feel like there's so many other more interesting questions that could have been asked instead, ones that are more targeted to his expertise that would have resulted in a more interesting answer. Or you could reframe it so that it's something deeper and related to biology, i.e. "why do something rather than nothing, on a biological level". Or "what is the biological drive to learn new information, and how does it work from a biological level?" Perhaps those would have been more fitting questions to ask if you really wanted to go down this line of thought.
As for the highest use of intelligence being how to cooperate, it's a very morally centered and subjective viewpoint. The goal of defining a term should be bring it to it's simplest base level. To me, that means intelligence is environmental utility maximization or some form of it. Yes, that "could" mean "a" highest use of intelligence is cooperation, but it's not a requirement, and is dependent on the environment. In a non-social environment, cooperation is irrelevant, but intelligence can still exist.
Perhaps the disconnect here is that you're very interested in the human-centric impacts and influences, which are generally more higher-level and socially involved, and thus there tends to be a lot of subjectivity involved. Scientists would rather leave subjectivity out of things, especially when referring to their work, as the point is to eliminate subjectivity and bring subjective opinions into the realm of objective empirical understanding. There's nothing wrong with the question "what is the maximum use of intelligence" per-se, it would require further elaboration to begin with to ground it into objectivity (what intelligence are we referring to, what do you mean by "use", what is the context), but if we're answering it from the perspective of a human it requires you to delve into your own subjective experiences - which isn't a particularly interesting subject matter from my perspective, from the angle of learning about reality.
Yes Sir, very good points made.
I reply to these things just to make the context clear, for the commentor and perhaps others too, as I think it's nice to understand one another.
Gosh, there's a lot you said there, so I don't even know where to go with it, but I'll take what you said into consideration, that's for sure :)
But yes, most certainly the questions could of been more specific, and I would loved to have explored them too!
Thank you!
You won't eliminate conflict by removing divisions/boundaries. Only a change in the perception of the differences and the meaning placed on them will reduce conflict. And, as Michael said conflict between differences is what spurs evolution. Even during the generalized peacetime in Constantinople's heyday the conflicts of intellectual discourse and artistic/engineering prowess were the catalyst for civilizational evolution.
So how does one eliminate conflict?
@@DomSniezka
You don't! Instead you learn to redirect the conflict into growth. Conflict is ubiquitous throughout the universe. Trees compete with grass for nutrients and sunlight, stars and galaxies collide, people have differences of opinion. Yet the intertwined roots and branches of the trees and grass help both survive extremes, galaxies colliding start new processes that may lead to new lifeforms. Eliminating conflict may be the most dire mistake any sentient entity could ever conceive.
@@clintnorton4322 Ah yes, the trees compete for light, the animals compete for food etc...
I see that.
What I don't see is the mere acceptance of conflict, war, inequality if there's a genuine solution to it.
Very well, there may not be a solution, and our efforts may in fact be destructive, but is not worth inquiring into it, and finding out if there really is a way?
I would say that of course there is.
Surely the faith of humanity is not to battle between one another?
If we say to redirect our effort towards 'growth' what does that mean? What does it mean to grow? To produce more weapons, spaceships, cure diseases, develop technology? For what purpose, for mere growth for the sake of growth?
I hope you don't mind if I question these things, I don't see why not.
@@DomSniezka
Questioning the apparent known is the Socratic method. Keep doing it, _including your own conclusions._ Growth is just one path of the evolutionary impulse, which, at it's most fundamental is reaching for more. Other paths are diversity and complexity.
14 billion years of conflict resolution has surely produced every kind of resolution scenario possible. Ants go to war with other ant colonies over territory or food. Bees violently protect their homes. I once watched a mother deer boldly face off with a coyote to protect her fawn. Conflict happens simply because there are different objectives that cross paths. Even a Vegan is taking the life of a vegetable that just wants to grow and reproduce. The real question is; what is our attitude when we encounter conflict situations? Will we do only what is best for ourselves, will we sacrifice our goals for the other party, or will we work out a compromise that at least partially benefits both sides?
Yeah I think that's a very good point. 'What is our attitude when we encounter conflict situations'. I find that very interesting because it seems that this is the real issue, how do we as individuals interact with one another, as this makes up society. Right?
@2:30 The quintessential lens would be epistemological and phenomenological. The fact that thinking is the generator of the notion of mind or the belief that biology is essential to understanding the mind presupposes thinking. Michael confuses perception and the thinking about what we perceive. Thinking is not reducible to relative position. Interpretation is. They are not the same thing. The use of the term mind is what Bonnie Roy might call a categorical abstraction if she were consistent in relation to what she refers to as pure abstraction. She is not consistent because of a built in dualism that naturalism tends toward in its linear complexity directionality.
Form = Consciousness | Change of Form = Intelligence
The interview hit a wall at min. 45 lol. The interviewee ‘s let’s all just get along theory of human condition and do away with greed brought poor Levin to a full stop and rude awareness that he was in the wrong place! Lol
You can't say that other organisms stop becoming more intelligent. This is also for us taking the time to experiment and take time. Because we reflect and speak the same language it is easier. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist for anything else. I"'m not a biologist. But maybe this is about group intelligence. There might be different ways to solve a problem. Not necessarily only in one individual at one level. It is a stretchy subject. If I think of something, I always ask about situations that are not that clear. What can we say about intelligence if the individual is destructive, in coma state , raised by dogs/apes or whatever. So intelligence can't be tied to wants perse. You do not need that in a human way. Does it want food? Yes. But it can wait half a year, ten years.
You said it. Good use of intelligence. Intelligence is neutral. Peace is relatively or comes in gradations. Inner stress can be seen as an inner war due to societal hostilities. You can export war to others. We learn from adversity. Thus we have a paradox. Maybe it becomes easier if we aren't so attached to material things. War is only dreadful if you can't escape it and you are the victim. If it is on Mars. It is totally irrelevant. Nobody cares about ants going to war. Only if they do so in your backyard.
Very disappointed with the questions in the beginning. Asking him vague nonsense like “should we cooperate with each other?” Is a pure waste of time. What do you expect him to say? I almost closed the window. But after the first 15 minutes the discussion got much better!
I greatly appreciate Michael’s work but at the very beginning of this interview he asserts that biology demonstrates that mind emerges from matter. However, I’m surprised he makes this assumption because the process is analogous to developing a photograph.
A photograph “emerges” from the interaction of the film negative (proto-image, analogous to mind) with chemicals and a substrate (photographic paper, analogous to matter). However, no-one assumes/believes/asserts that the photograph simply emerges from the interaction of the material components of the process I.e., chemicals and substrate. Rather the proto-image was already present and the development process merely transformed it into the photographic image.
Further, the mind from matter hypothesis is like saying that the images on a TV emerge from the interaction of it’s internal parts and mechanisms. Whereas, in reality the TV only receives and transforms pre-existing electromagnetic or radio waves into visual images.
Therefore, I suggest it is more accurate to say that proto-mind already exists and that matter merely transforms it into different forms which humans recognise as minds.
Ah, so are we saying it's Mind first Matter second, rather than the way around? In other words saying that Mind / Consciousness is fundamental?
@@DomSniezka in this instance I’m not asserting mind is fundamental. I’m simply pointing out that it’s an assumption to assert that matter is the substrate from which mind emerges. Once this point is accepted we could explore things further.
@@paulkeogh7077 Ah yes. I agree, that's a very good point!
@@DomSniezka I’m reminded that “relations precede relata”. So, how can matter (relata) possibly be more fundamental than mind (relations). What do you think?
@Paul Keogh His assertion was that mind emerges from the gradual process of interplay between physics and chemistry. I think he was specifically talking about human mind here, as chemistry may not be a prerequisite. I believe that also fits within your definition though, I don't think he's asserting a discrete and concrete order of precedence. I think the position is that these material systems (chemical or physical systems) combine to form interfaces into viewing or expressing the fundamental nature or properties of reality in unique ways, and that the perception of what classifies mind is dependent on the perspective of where the utility is. Based on your words above, if your problem with the statement "matter is the substrate from which mind emerges", that implies you either believe mind (proto-mind) is the substrate from which matter emerges, or you believe neither emerges first. If we're talking proto-mind I assume you're talking on a more universal level, as human minds are obviously not responsible for creating all matter - we can only combine it in unique ways.
I'm strongly in the last camp, I think thinking about things from a perspective of linear flow is a human-centric way to think about the problem and is not representative of the underlying reality. If we scale this question back does it not lead to: Is the universe a giant mind that leads to matter, or is the universe a giant soup of matter that leads to mind. If that's where we are going with this, I think this falls apart when you consider the dualistic infinite nature of reality. I'll posit that neither is more fundamental than the other, both are required, always have been and always will be. Without the dual nature of reality, we would have no time (discrete measurements of infinity), because there would be no observation or singular separation to classify either mind OR matter, and no potential to do-so. It's the fundamental existence of duality that allows us to even ponder the question. Fundamentally, both mind and environment (mind + matter & body) are dual pairs and rely on each other in a feedback loop for motion. When you look all the way down, all the way to the beginning, the notion of "what comes first" falls apart on an infinite time-scale.
Yes we created the computer but thought inspired the actions to do so. Now what is thought? We cant just say we created the computer and leave it at that and disregard the mystery of mind.
What is the mind? Isn't it just a bundle of thoughts that have their root in the past?
Best way to look intelligent- have a shit load of books behind your interview
Haha. But does Knowledge create Intelligence or Intelligence uses Knowledge?
@@DomSniezka knowledge seems to be able to regurgitate data .. which Ai will completely disrupt. Imo intelligence will be cut from abstract thinking and deductive reasoning. Finding relationships in the crumbs and then postulating the synthesis that’s springs forth
@@crypto_hodler6948 Yeah, this AI stuff is quite interesting in regards to it's capabilities, even at such an early stage.
What do you mean by 'Finding relationships in the crumbs and then postulating the synthesis that’s springs forth' Are you saying that it's about finding connections in the gaps of knowledge that we do have and generating insights from there... I'm not sure what you mean?
Have you ever wondered about what's Creativity? It doesn't seem to spring from Knowledge.
The host really needs to read some of his papers first and ask more appropriate questions. Trying to not be mean, but this is one of the worst interviews I've seen. Lack of prep and lack of skill. At least it makes you appreciate the work that goes into doing interviews...
Thank you for your feedback, It's true, the questions were not related to the research, I totally agree! This was intentional, for numerous reasons, which I informed Michael about before the discussion.
I can only assume that many listeners, feel the same way, so I'll provide some context here, if interested:
- The intention of the questions was to get to the root of something, especially the field of Biology. I was interested in getting the highest level overview as opposed to the details.
- I'm aware of Michaels work. We only had one hour, there was only so much we could explore deeply in one hour.
- Michael has covered a lot of ground via other Podcasts, channels, his own site, lab etc. I was interested in exploring a different set of questions.
- I don't consider myself to be an interviewer, I wanted to treat this like a Dialogue, where a question is proposed and then allow the dialogue to unfold from that question. Well, that's what I was hoping to do at least :) Naturally, due to the limits of time, you won't be able to cover the details with such an approach.
In retrospect, sure, perhaps different questions could of been asked, or maybe not do the discussion at all.
I didn't know what kind of response it will be, all I could do was follow my curiosity and see where it leads... So here we are :)
Thank you for listening regardless, and I just hope it wasn't a complete waste of your time!
Let him compare himself to himself from yesterday. Yes, questions weren't specialized but that was actually interesting, to see responses of Micheal to something that is out of usually schema, and how he handle dialog like that.
Dialog wasn't about advanced stuff but still was quite good and entertaining.
I liked the change of pace actually, this wasn’t a waste of time. I really just like hearing Dr Levin’s opinions too.
Why should I trust you?
Sorry, but after hearing the profound answer to the first question, the second question, why study biology? was cringe-makingly dumb. You might as well ask why study anything? Why have this interview? Why get out of bed? Sometimes you have to scratch questions off your mental list. A better one might have been, for example, how might a deeper understanding of developmental process in biology impact our understanding in other fields? You are clued into what your interviewee has just said.
We are not conditioned to be separate. We are instinctually separate and can't trust each other to live together
I'm simply exploring here, but if we are saying that 'we are not conditioned to be separate'. Alright, that may be the case or it may not be the case, but surely it's worth finding out?
So if we explore further, we have to ask ourselves, what actually divides people? Please help me out here, but it does seem that it's Nationality, Religion, Philosophy, Ideologies, Politics, Beliefs etc...
So once again, if we ask, what creates Nationality, Religion, Philosophy etc. It all boils down to Thought / Thinking.
Then if we ask, 'what is thinking, what are the roots of thought?' It certainly seems that thinking is our memories, our knowledge, experiences etc.. but essentially it's the past. Even to think about the future has it's roots' in the past.
It becomes obvious then that our thinking is conditioned thinking, since it has it's root in the past. So if we cling to our past, to our thinking and identify with it, that is Conditioning.
So, how can we possibly live together and trust each other if we can't understand the whole machinery of thought?
@@DomSniezka We evolved as small bands of hunter gatherers who had love, empathy, & altruistic sacrifice for each other. We also had a visceral hatred for strangers w/ the desire to violently kill them, & to be delight in their pain & death. These are known as savage instincts.
Even after the emergence of complex language giving rise to tribal cultures we still lived in unbridled accord w/ these savage instincts for scores of millennia up until the emergence of civilization.
Gathered among others in lsrger to populations than we had evolved for, culture had to find ways to suppress these instincts almost fully. Religious values developed in ways to suppress them. Religions also extended moral instinct for greater good to a wider group
Nationality, & politics has found other ways of redirecting moral & altruistic instincts to wider & greater purposes
I contend that these things that you claim separate us have actually worked to bring us together in larger & more complex groups. However, they have their limitations & may never be able to bring us together fully in free peaceful associations
@@donaldrobertson1808 so what do we do?
@@DomSniezka We pursue decentralized solutions that try to cultivate healthy competitive environments
We need to put to rest the foolish notion that corporations can be responsible for the greater good. In so doing, government will regulate their behavior when necessary. Their influence on politics & government policy must be limited severely
In addition, we need to strive for developing a cheap abundant source of energy which will probably be along the lines of nuclear & to reach full automation as quick as possible. This will end the economics of scarcity which will lead to the end of bourgeois capitalism & its reliance on neverending growth.
This will usher in a new capitalism of abundance that will be focused on maintaining a steady state of zero growth. It can still increase in efficiency over time, producing more, but using a constant amount of resources
@@donaldrobertson1808 I see that. So what prevents us from doing this already? (Of course, we are doing this to a certain extent already)
Awful interview, sorry
If you don't mind, what made it awful?