[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:18.81,0:00:23.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: I have the great pleasure to\Nannounce Joscha, who will give us a great
Dialogue: 0,0:00:23.21,0:00:26.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,talk with the title "The Ghost in the\NMachine" and he will talk about
Dialogue: 0,0:00:26.31,0:00:33.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,consciousness of our mind and of computers\Nand somehow also tell us how we can learn
Dialogue: 0,0:00:33.20,0:00:38.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from A.I. systems about our own brains.\NAnd I think this is a very curious question.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:38.08,0:00:41.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So please give it up for Joscha.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:41.02,0:00:51.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:00:51.01,0:00:58.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Joscha: Good evening. This is the 5th\Nof a talk in a series of talks on how to
Dialogue: 0,0:00:58.90,0:01:03.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get from computation to consciousness and\Nto understand our condition in the
Dialogue: 0,0:01:03.93,0:01:09.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,universe based on concepts that I mostly\Nlearned by looking at artificial
Dialogue: 0,0:01:09.18,0:01:16.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,intelligence and computation and it mostly\Ntackles the big philosophical questions:
Dialogue: 0,0:01:16.53,0:01:20.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What can I know? What is true? What is\Ntruth? Who am I? Which means the question
Dialogue: 0,0:01:20.41,0:01:25.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of epistemology, of ontology, of\Nmetaphysics, and philosophy of mind and
Dialogue: 0,0:01:25.66,0:01:26.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ethics.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:26.71,0:01:30.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And to clear some of the terms\Nthat we are using here:
Dialogue: 0,0:01:30.60,0:01:34.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What is intelligence? What's a mind?\NWhat's a self? What's consciousness?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:34.30,0:01:37.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,How are mind and consciousness\Nrealized in the universe?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:37.74,0:01:40.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Intelligence I think is the ability to\Nmake models.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:40.28,0:01:42.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's not the same thing\Nas being smart, which is the
Dialogue: 0,0:01:42.45,0:01:46.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ability to reach your goals or being wise,\Nwhich is the ability to pick the right
Dialogue: 0,0:01:46.77,0:01:50.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,goals. But it's just the ability to\Nmake models of things.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:50.68,0:01:53.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And you can regulate them later using\Nthese models, but you don't have to.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:53.98,0:01:57.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And the mind is this thing that observes\Nthe universe itself
Dialogue: 0,0:01:57.31,0:02:00.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as an identification with\Nproperties and purposes.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:00.87,0:02:04.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What a thing thinks it is. And then\Nyou have consciousness, which is
Dialogue: 0,0:02:04.12,0:02:08.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the experience of what it's like\Nto be a thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:08.27,0:02:10.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And, how our mind of consciousness\Nis realized in the universe,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:10.75,0:02:13.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this is commonly called the\Nmind-body problem and it's been
Dialogue: 0,0:02:13.56,0:02:20.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,puzzling philosophers and people of\Nall proclivities for thousands of years.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:20.02,0:02:25.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So what's going on? How's it possible that\NI find myself in a universe and I seem to
Dialogue: 0,0:02:25.36,0:02:31.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be experiencing myself in that universe?\NHow does this go together and how is this,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:31.13,0:02:37.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what's going on here? The traditional\Nanswer to this is called dualism and the
Dialogue: 0,0:02:37.26,0:02:41.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conception of dualism is that - in our\Nculture at least, this dualist idea that
Dialogue: 0,0:02:41.51,0:02:45.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you have a physical world and a mental\Nworld and they coexist somehow and my mind
Dialogue: 0,0:02:45.62,0:02:49.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,experiences this mental world and my body\Ncan do things in the physical world and
Dialogue: 0,0:02:49.62,0:02:53.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the difficulty of this dualist conception\Nis how do these two planes of existence
Dialogue: 0,0:02:53.86,0:02:57.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,interact. Because physics is defined as\Ncausally closed, everything that
Dialogue: 0,0:02:57.75,0:03:03.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,influences things in the physical world is\Nby itself an element of physics. So an
Dialogue: 0,0:03:03.34,0:03:07.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,alternative is idealism which says that\Nthere is only a mental world. We only
Dialogue: 0,0:03:07.41,0:03:12.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,exist in a dream and this dream is being\Ndreamt by a mind on a higher plane of
Dialogue: 0,0:03:12.46,0:03:17.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,existence. And difficulty with this, it's\Nvery hard to explain that mind of a higher
Dialogue: 0,0:03:17.70,0:03:22.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,plane of existence. Just put it there, why\Nis it doing this? And in our culture the
Dialogue: 0,0:03:22.43,0:03:27.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,dominant theory is materialism and is\Nbasically there is only a physical world
Dialogue: 0,0:03:27.04,0:03:32.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,nothing else. And the physical world\Nsomehow is responsible for the creation of
Dialogue: 0,0:03:32.10,0:03:36.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the mental world. It's not quite clear how\Nthis happens. And the answer that I am
Dialogue: 0,0:03:36.70,0:03:44.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suggesting, is functionalism which means\Nthat indeed we exist only in a dream.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:44.11,0:03:48.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So these ideas of materialism and idealism\Nare not in opposition. They are
Dialogue: 0,0:03:48.63,0:03:51.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,complementary because this dream is being\Ndreamt by a mind on a higher plane of
Dialogue: 0,0:03:51.96,0:03:57.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,existence, but this higher plane of\Nexistence is the physical world. So we are
Dialogue: 0,0:03:57.01,0:04:02.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,being dreamt in the neocortex of a primate\Nthat lives in a physical universe and the
Dialogue: 0,0:04:02.66,0:04:05.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,world that we experience is not the\Nphysical world. It's a dream generated by
Dialogue: 0,0:04:05.78,0:04:10.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the neocortex - the same circuits that\Nmake dreams at night make them during the
Dialogue: 0,0:04:10.12,0:04:13.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,day. You can show this, and you live in\Nthis virtual reality being generated in
Dialogue: 0,0:04:13.85,0:04:18.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there and the self as a character in that\Ndream. And it seems to take care of
Dialogue: 0,0:04:18.43,0:04:21.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,things. It seems to explain what's going\Non. It explains why a miracle seems to be
Dialogue: 0,0:04:21.52,0:04:26.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,possible and why I can look into the\Nfuture but cannot break the bank somehow.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:26.07,0:04:31.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And even though this theory explains this,\Nhow shouldn't I be more agnostic? Are
Dialogue: 0,0:04:31.48,0:04:35.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there not alternatives that I should be\Nconsidering? Maybe the narratives of our
Dialogue: 0,0:04:35.22,0:04:40.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,big religions and so on. I think we should\Nbe agnostic. So the first rule of
Dialogue: 0,0:04:40.89,0:04:46.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,epistemology says that the confidence in\Nthe belief must equal the weight of the
Dialogue: 0,0:04:46.11,0:04:49.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,evidence supporting it. Once we stumble on\Nthat rule you can test all the
Dialogue: 0,0:04:49.31,0:04:54.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,alternatives and see if one of them is\Nbetter. And I think what this means is you
Dialogue: 0,0:04:54.13,0:04:57.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have to have all the possible beliefs, you\Nshould entertain them all. But you should
Dialogue: 0,0:04:57.54,0:05:01.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not have any confidence in them. You\Nshould shift your confidence around based
Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.05,0:05:05.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on the evidence. So for instance it is\Nentirely possible that this universe was
Dialogue: 0,0:05:05.56,0:05:09.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,created by a supernatural being, and it's\Na big conspiracy, and it actually has
Dialogue: 0,0:05:09.14,0:05:12.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,meaning and it cares about us and our\Nexistence here means something.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:12.90,0:05:17.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But um, there is no experiment that can\Nvalidate this. A guy coming down from a
Dialogue: 0,0:05:17.38,0:05:21.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,burning mount, from a burning\Nbush, that you've talked to on a
Dialogue: 0,0:05:21.16,0:05:28.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mountaintop? That's not a kind of experi-\Nment that gives you valid evidence, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:28.37,0:05:32.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So intelligence is the ability to\Nmake models and intelligence is a property
Dialogue: 0,0:05:32.56,0:05:36.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that is beyond the grasp of a single\Nindividual. A single individual is not
Dialogue: 0,0:05:36.73,0:05:41.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that smart. We cannot figure out even tur-\Ning complete languages all by ourselves.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:41.09,0:05:45.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To do this you need an intellectual\Ntradition that lasts a few hundred years
Dialogue: 0,0:05:45.27,0:05:49.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at least. So civilizations have more\Nintelligence than individuals. But
Dialogue: 0,0:05:49.60,0:05:54.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,individuals often have more intelligence\Nthan groups and whole generations and
Dialogue: 0,0:05:54.32,0:05:58.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's because groups and generations tend\Nto converge on ideas; they have consensus
Dialogue: 0,0:05:58.83,0:06:03.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,opinions. I'm very wary of consensus\Nopinions because you know how hard it is
Dialogue: 0,0:06:03.40,0:06:06.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to understand which programming language\Nis the best one for which purpose. There
Dialogue: 0,0:06:06.48,0:06:09.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is no proper consensus. And that's a\Nrelatively easy problem. So when there's a
Dialogue: 0,0:06:09.83,0:06:13.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,complex topics and all the experts agree,\Nthere are forces at work that are
Dialogue: 0,0:06:13.92,0:06:17.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different than the forces that make them\Nsearch for truth. These consensus-building
Dialogue: 0,0:06:17.23,0:06:21.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,forces, they're very suspicious to me. And\Nif you want to understand what's true you
Dialogue: 0,0:06:21.48,0:06:24.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have to look for means and motive. And you\Nhave to be autonomous in doing this, so
Dialogue: 0,0:06:24.84,0:06:29.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,individuals typically have better ideas\Nthan generations or groups. But as I
Dialogue: 0,0:06:29.23,0:06:32.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,said, civilizations have more intelligence\Nthan individuals. What does a
Dialogue: 0,0:06:32.67,0:06:36.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,civilizational intellect look like? The\Ncivilization intellect is something like a
Dialogue: 0,0:06:36.86,0:06:40.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,global optimum of the modeling function.\NIt's something that has to be built over
Dialogue: 0,0:06:40.16,0:06:43.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thousands of years in an unbroken\Nintellectual tradition. And guess what,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:43.61,0:06:47.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this doesn't really exist in human\Nhistory. Every few hundred years, there's
Dialogue: 0,0:06:47.10,0:06:51.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,some kind of revolution. Somebody opens\Nthe doors to the knowledge factories and
Dialogue: 0,0:06:51.35,0:06:54.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,gets everybody out and burns down the\Nlibraries. And a couple generations later,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:54.79,0:06:58.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the knowledge worker drones of the new\Nking realize "Oh my God we need to rebuild
Dialogue: 0,0:06:58.83,0:07:02.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this thing, this intellect." And then they\Ncreate something in its likeness, but they
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.72,0:07:07.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,make mistakes in the foundation. So this\Nintellect tends to have scars. Like our
Dialogue: 0,0:07:07.76,0:07:11.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,civilization intellect has a lot of scars\Nin it, that make it hard-to-difficult
Dialogue: 0,0:07:11.54,0:07:16.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to understand concepts like self\Nand consciousness and mind. So, the mind
Dialogue: 0,0:07:16.51,0:07:19.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is something that observes the universe,\Nand the neurons and neurotransmitters are
Dialogue: 0,0:07:19.68,0:07:22.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the substrate. And the human intellect and\Nthe working memory is the current binding
Dialogue: 0,0:07:22.86,0:07:26.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,state, how do the different elements fit\Ntogether in our mind? And the self is the
Dialogue: 0,0:07:26.93,0:07:31.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,identification is what we think we are and\Nwhat we want to happen. And consciousness
Dialogue: 0,0:07:31.17,0:07:35.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is the contents of our attention, it makes\Nknowledge available throughout the mind.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:35.27,0:07:39.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And civilizational intellect is very\Nsimilar: society is observe the universe,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:39.42,0:07:42.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people and resources are the substrate,\Nthe generation is the current binding
Dialogue: 0,0:07:42.16,0:07:46.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,state, and culture is the identification\Nwith what we think we are and what we want
Dialogue: 0,0:07:46.86,0:07:51.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to happen. And media is the contents of\Nour attention and make knowledge available
Dialogue: 0,0:07:51.84,0:07:55.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,throughout society. So the culture is\Nbasically the self of civilization, and
Dialogue: 0,0:07:55.93,0:08:00.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,media is its consciousness. How is it\Npossible to model a universe? Let's take a
Dialogue: 0,0:08:00.49,0:08:04.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,very simple universe like the Mandelbrot\Nfractal. It can be defined by a little bit
Dialogue: 0,0:08:04.77,0:08:09.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of code. It's a very simple thing, you just\Ntake a pair of numbers, you square it, you
Dialogue: 0,0:08:09.49,0:08:13.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,add the same pair of numbers. And you do\Nthis infinitely often, and typically this
Dialogue: 0,0:08:13.76,0:08:18.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,goes to infinity very fast. There's a\Nsmall area around the origin of the number
Dialogue: 0,0:08:18.94,0:08:24.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pair, so between -1 and +1 and\Nso on, where you have an area where this
Dialogue: 0,0:08:24.68,0:08:28.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,converges, where it doesn't go to infinity\Nand that is where you make black dots and
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.33,0:08:33.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then you get this famous structure, the\NMandelbrot fractal. And because this
Dialogue: 0,0:08:33.25,0:08:37.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,divergence and convergence of the function\Ncan take many loops and circles and so on,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:37.23,0:08:41.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a very complicated shape a very\Ncomplicated outline, an infinitely
Dialogue: 0,0:08:41.17,0:08:44.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,complicated outline there. So there is an\Ninfinite amount of structure in this
Dialogue: 0,0:08:44.71,0:08:47.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fractal. And now imagine you happen\Nto live in this fractal and you are in a
Dialogue: 0,0:08:47.99,0:08:52.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,particular place in it, and you don't know\Nwhere that is where that place is. You
Dialogue: 0,0:08:52.53,0:08:55.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,don't even know the generator function of\Nthe whole thing. But you can still predict
Dialogue: 0,0:08:55.19,0:08:58.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your neighborhood. So you can see, omg,\NI'm in some kind of a spiral, it turns
Dialogue: 0,0:08:58.35,0:09:01.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the left, goes to the left, and goes\Nto left, and becomes smaller, so we can
Dialogue: 0,0:09:01.63,0:09:05.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,predict and suddenly it ends. Why does it\Nend? A singularity. Oh, it hits another
Dialogue: 0,0:09:05.66,0:09:09.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,spiral. There's a law when a spiral hits\Nanother spiral, it ends. And something
Dialogue: 0,0:09:09.29,0:09:14.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,else happens. So you look and then you see\Noh, there are certain circumstances where
Dialogue: 0,0:09:14.31,0:09:17.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you have, for instance, an even number of\Nspirals hitting each other instead of an
Dialogue: 0,0:09:17.36,0:09:20.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,odd number. And then you discover another\Nlaw. And if you make like 50 levels of
Dialogue: 0,0:09:20.77,0:09:25.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of these laws, and this is a good\Ndescription that locally compresses the
Dialogue: 0,0:09:25.21,0:09:28.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,universe. So the Mandelbrot fractal is\Nlocally compressable. You find local
Dialogue: 0,0:09:28.51,0:09:32.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,order that predicts the neighborhood if\Nyou are inside of that fractal. The global
Dialogue: 0,0:09:32.11,0:09:35.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,modelling function of the Mandelbrot\Nfractal is very, very easy. It's an
Dialogue: 0,0:09:35.47,0:09:40.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,interesting question: how difficult is the\Nglobal modelling function of our universe?
Dialogue: 0,0:09:40.01,0:09:43.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Even if we know it maybe it doesn't\Nhelp us that much, it will be a big
Dialogue: 0,0:09:43.16,0:09:46.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,breakthrough for physics when we finally\Nfind it, it will be much shorter than the
Dialogue: 0,0:09:46.23,0:09:52.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,standard model, as I suspect, but we still\Ndon't know where we are. And this means we
Dialogue: 0,0:09:52.61,0:09:55.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,need to make a local model of what's\Nhappening. So in order to do this we
Dialogue: 0,0:09:55.69,0:09:59.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,separate the universe into things. Things\Nare small state spaces and transition
Dialogue: 0,0:09:59.85,0:10:04.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,functions that tell you how to get from\Nstate to state. And if the function is
Dialogue: 0,0:10:04.51,0:10:08.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,deterministic it is independent of time,\Nit gives the same result every time you
Dialogue: 0,0:10:08.01,0:10:12.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,call it. For an indeterministic function\Nit gives a different result every time, so
Dialogue: 0,0:10:12.60,0:10:17.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it doesn't compress well. And causality\Nmeans that you have separate several
Dialogue: 0,0:10:17.14,0:10:20.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,things and they influence each other's\Nevolution thrugh a shared interface.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:20.14,0:10:24.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Right? So causality is an artifact of\Ndescribing the universe as separate
Dialogue: 0,0:10:24.39,0:10:28.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,things. And the universe is not separate\Nthings, it's one thing, but we get have to
Dialogue: 0,0:10:28.02,0:10:32.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,describe it as separate things because we\Ncannot observe the whole thing. So what's
Dialogue: 0,0:10:32.60,0:10:36.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,true? There seems to be a particular way\Nin which the universe seems to be and
Dialogue: 0,0:10:36.65,0:10:40.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's the ground rules of the universe\Nand it's inaccessible to us. And what's
Dialogue: 0,0:10:40.40,0:10:44.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,accessible to us is our own models of the\Nuniverse. The only thing that we can
Dialogue: 0,0:10:44.51,0:10:47.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,experience, and this is basically a set\Nof theories that can explain the
Dialogue: 0,0:10:47.55,0:10:52.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,observations. And truth in this sense is a\Nproperty of language and there are
Dialogue: 0,0:10:52.40,0:10:56.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different languages that we can use like\Ngeometry and natural language and so on
Dialogue: 0,0:10:56.69,0:11:00.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and ways of representing and changing\Nmodels of our languages and several
Dialogue: 0,0:11:00.27,0:11:06.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,intellectual traditions have developed\Ntheir own languages. And this has led to
Dialogue: 0,0:11:06.10,0:11:10.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problems. Our civilization basically has\Nas its founding myth this attempt to build
Dialogue: 0,0:11:10.26,0:11:14.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this global optimum modelling function.\NThis is a tower that is meant to reach the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:14.69,0:11:18.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,heavens. And it fell apart because people\Nspoke different languages. The different
Dialogue: 0,0:11:18.12,0:11:20.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,practitioners in the different fields and\Nthey didn't understand each other and the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:20.91,0:11:24.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whole building collapsed. And this is in\Nsome sense the origin of our present
Dialogue: 0,0:11:24.56,0:11:28.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,civilization and we are trying to mend\Nthis and find better languages. So whom
Dialogue: 0,0:11:28.49,0:11:32.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can we turn to? We can turn to the\Nmathematicians maybe because mathematics
Dialogue: 0,0:11:32.27,0:11:35.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is the domain of all languages.\NMathematics is really cool when you think
Dialogue: 0,0:11:35.99,0:11:40.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about it. It's a universal code library,\Nmaintained for several centuries in its
Dialogue: 0,0:11:40.01,0:11:44.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,present form. There is not even version\Nmanagement, it's one version. There is
Dialogue: 0,0:11:44.07,0:11:47.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pretty much unified namespace. They have\Nto use a lot of the Unicode to make it
Dialogue: 0,0:11:47.67,0:11:52.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happen. It's ugly but there you go! It has\Nno central maintainers, not even a code of
Dialogue: 0,0:11:52.04,0:11:54.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conduct, beyond what you can infer\Nyourself.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:54.59,0:11:57.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}laughter{\i0}\NBut there are some problems at the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:57.90,0:12:06.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,foundation that they discovered.\NShouted from the audience: en sehr stabile
Dialogue: 0,0:12:06.06,0:12:09.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Joscha: Can you infer this is a good\Nconduct? ??????????
Dialogue: 0,0:12:09.87,0:12:17.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Yelling from the audience: Ya!\NJoscha: Okay. Power to you.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:17.03,0:12:20.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}laughter{\i0}\NJoscha: In 1874 discovered when you looked
Dialogue: 0,0:12:20.79,0:12:25.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at the cardinality of a set, that when you\Ndescribed natural numbers using set
Dialogue: 0,0:12:25.40,0:12:30.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,theory, that the cardinality of a set\Ngrows slower than the cardinality of the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:30.13,0:12:33.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,set of its subsets. So if you look at the\Nset of the subsets of the set, it's always
Dialogue: 0,0:12:33.48,0:12:38.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,larger than the cardinality of the number\Nof members of the set. Clear? Right. If
Dialogue: 0,0:12:38.21,0:12:42.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you take the infinite set, it has\Ninfinitely many members: omega. You
Dialogue: 0,0:12:42.17,0:12:45.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,take the cardinality of the set of the\Nsubsets of the infinite set, it's also an
Dialogue: 0,0:12:45.75,0:12:49.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,infinite number, but it's a larger one. So\Nit's a number that is larger than the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:49.67,0:12:55.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,previous omega. Okay that's fine. Now we\Nhave the cardinality of the set of all
Dialogue: 0,0:12:55.46,0:12:57.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sets. You make the total set: The set\Nwhere you put all the sets that could
Dialogue: 0,0:12:57.90,0:13:01.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,possibly exist and put them all together,\Nright? That has also infinitely many
Dialogue: 0,0:13:01.61,0:13:04.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,members, and it has more than the\Ncardinality of the set of the subsets of
Dialogue: 0,0:13:04.84,0:13:08.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the infinite set. That's fine. But now you\Nlook at the cardinality of the set of all
Dialogue: 0,0:13:08.77,0:13:14.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the subsets of the total set. The problem\Nis, that the total set also contains the
Dialogue: 0,0:13:14.28,0:13:17.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,set of its subsets, right? It's because it\Ncontains all the sets. Now you have a
Dialogue: 0,0:13:17.73,0:13:22.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,contradiction: Because the cardinality of\Nthe set of the subsets of the total set is
Dialogue: 0,0:13:22.17,0:13:26.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,supposed to be larger. And yet it seems to\Nbe the same set and not the same set. It's
Dialogue: 0,0:13:26.75,0:13:31.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an issue! So mathematicians got puzzled\Nabout this, and the philosopher Bertrand
Dialogue: 0,0:13:31.99,0:13:34.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Russell said: "Maybe we just exclude those\Nsets that don't contain themselves",
Dialogue: 0,0:13:34.100,0:13:39.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right? We only look at the set of sets\Nthat don't contain themselves. Isn't that
Dialogue: 0,0:13:39.24,0:13:42.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a solution? Now the problem is: Does the\Nset of the sets that doesn't contain
Dialogue: 0,0:13:42.85,0:13:47.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,themselves contain itself? If it does, it\Ndoesn't, and if it doesn't, it does.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:47.44,0:13:52.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's an issue!\N{\i1}laughter{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:13:52.18,0:13:56.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So David Hilbert, who was some\Nkind of a community manager back then,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:56.12,0:14:00.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,said: "Guys, fix this! This is an issue,\Nmathematics is precious, we are in
Dialogue: 0,0:14:00.10,0:14:04.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,trouble. Please solve meta mathematics."\NAnd people got to work. And after a short
Dialogue: 0,0:14:04.82,0:14:08.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,amount of time Kurt Gödel, who had looked\Nat this in earnest said "oh that's an issue,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:08.10,0:14:11.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,issue. You know, as soon as we allow these\Nkinds of loops - and we cannot really
Dialogue: 0,0:14:11.21,0:14:16.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,exclude these loops - then our mathematics\Ncrashes." So that's an issue, it's called
Dialogue: 0,0:14:16.44,0:14:21.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Unentscheidbarkeit. And then Alan Turing\Ncame along a couple of years later, and he
Dialogue: 0,0:14:21.78,0:14:24.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,constructed a computer to make that proof.\NHe basically said "If you build a machine
Dialogue: 0,0:14:24.33,0:14:27.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that does these mathematics, and the\Nmachine takes infinitely many steps,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:27.99,0:14:31.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sometimes, for making a proof, then we\Ncannot know whether this proof
Dialogue: 0,0:14:31.92,0:14:35.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,terminates." So it's a similar issue for\Nthe Unentscheidbarkeit. That's a big
Dialogue: 0,0:14:35.67,0:14:39.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,issue, right? So we cannot basically build\Na machine in mathematics that runs
Dialogue: 0,0:14:39.20,0:14:45.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mathematics without crashing. But the good\Nnews is, Turing didn't stop working there
Dialogue: 0,0:14:45.27,0:14:48.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and he figured out together with Alonzo\NChurch - not together, independently but
Dialogue: 0,0:14:48.61,0:14:53.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at the same time - that we can build a\Ncomputational machine, that runs all of
Dialogue: 0,0:14:53.82,0:14:59.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,computation. So computation is a universal\Nthing. And it's almost as good as
Dialogue: 0,0:14:59.27,0:15:03.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mathematics. Computation is constructive\Nmathematics. The tiny, neglected subset of
Dialogue: 0,0:15:03.28,0:15:06.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mathematics, where you have to show the\Nmoney. In order to say that something is
Dialogue: 0,0:15:06.36,0:15:10.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,true, you have to find that object that is\Ntrue. You have to actually construct it.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:10.84,0:15:13.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So there are no infinities, because you\Ncannot construct an infinity. You add
Dialogue: 0,0:15:13.96,0:15:19.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,things and you have unboundedness maybe,\Nbut not infinity. And so this part of
Dialogue: 0,0:15:19.11,0:15:23.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,computation, mathematics is the one that\Ncan be implemented. It's constructive
Dialogue: 0,0:15:23.76,0:15:27.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mathematics. It's the good part. And\Ncomputing, a computer is very easy to
Dialogue: 0,0:15:27.31,0:15:31.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,make, and all universal computers have the\Nsame power. That's called the Chuch-Turing
Dialogue: 0,0:15:31.08,0:15:37.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thesis. And Turing even didn't even stop\Nthere. The obvious conclusion is that,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:37.07,0:15:40.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,human minds are probably not in the class\Nof these mathematical machines, that even
Dialogue: 0,0:15:40.44,0:15:43.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,God doesn't know how to build if it has to\Nbe done in any language. But it's a
Dialogue: 0,0:15:43.93,0:15:47.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,computational machine. And it also means\Nthat all machines that human minds ever
Dialogue: 0,0:15:47.65,0:15:50.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,encounter, mathematics that human minds\Nencounter,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:50.34,0:15:55.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,will be computational mathematics.\NSo how can you bridge the gap
Dialogue: 0,0:15:55.94,0:16:00.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from mathematics to philosophy? Can we\Nfind a language that is more powerful than
Dialogue: 0,0:16:00.28,0:16:03.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,most of the languages that we look at\Nmathematics, which are very narrowly
Dialogue: 0,0:16:03.04,0:16:07.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,defined language, so every symbol, we know\Nexactly what it means.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:07.56,0:16:09.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When we look at the real world,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:09.09,0:16:11.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we often don't know what things mean,\Nand our concepts, we're not quite
Dialogue: 0,0:16:11.39,0:16:14.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sure what they mean. Like culture is a\Nvery vague ambigous concept. So what I
Dialogue: 0,0:16:14.80,0:16:20.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,said is only approximately true there. Can\Nwe deal with this conceptual ambiguity?
Dialogue: 0,0:16:20.14,0:16:24.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Can we build a programming language for\Nthought, where words mean things that
Dialogue: 0,0:16:24.32,0:16:28.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they're supposed to mean? And this was the\Nproject of Ludwig Wittgenstein. He just
Dialogue: 0,0:16:28.17,0:16:32.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,came back from the war and had a lot of\Nthoughts. Then he put these thoughts
Dialogue: 0,0:16:32.77,0:16:37.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into a book which is called the Tractatus.\NAnd it's one of the most beautiful books
Dialogue: 0,0:16:37.67,0:16:42.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the philosophy of the 20th century. And\Nit starts with the words "Die Welt ist
Dialogue: 0,0:16:42.41,0:16:47.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,alles, was der Fall ist. Die Welt ist die\NGesamtheit der Fakten, nicht der Dinge.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:47.36,0:16:53.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Die Welt ist bestimmt, bei den Fakten, und\Ndadurch, dass diese all die Fakten sind.",
Dialogue: 0,0:16:53.62,0:16:57.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,usw. This book is about 75 pages long and\Nit's a single thought. It's not meant to
Dialogue: 0,0:16:57.36,0:17:01.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be an argument to convince a philosopher.\NIt's an attempt by a guy who was basically
Dialogue: 0,0:17:01.57,0:17:05.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a coder, an AI scientist, to reverse\Nengineer the language of his own thinking.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:05.86,0:17:11.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And make it deterministic, to make it\Nformal, to make it mean something. And he
Dialogue: 0,0:17:11.31,0:17:15.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,felt back then that he was successful, and\Nhad a tremendous impact on philosophy,
Dialogue: 0,0:17:15.18,0:17:19.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which was largely devastating, because the\Nphilosophers didn't know what he was on
Dialogue: 0,0:17:19.11,0:17:22.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about. They thought it's about natural\Nlanguage and not about coding.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:22.93,0:17:25.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And he wrote this in 1918
Dialogue: 0,0:17:25.43,0:17:29.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so before Alan Turing defined,\Nwhat a computer is. But he would already
Dialogue: 0,0:17:29.35,0:17:33.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,smell what a computer is. He already knew\Nabout university of computation. He knew
Dialogue: 0,0:17:33.53,0:17:37.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that a NAND gate is sufficient to explain\Nall of boolean algebra and it's equivalent
Dialogue: 0,0:17:37.37,0:17:42.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to other things. So what he basically did,\Nwas, he pre-empted the logicists' program
Dialogue: 0,0:17:42.76,0:17:47.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of artificial intelligence which started\Nmuch later in the 1950s. And he ran into
Dialogue: 0,0:17:47.60,0:17:51.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,troubles with it. In the end he wrote the\Nbook "Philosophical Investigations", where
Dialogue: 0,0:17:51.42,0:17:57.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he concluded, that his project basically\Nfailed. And that there is a... because the
Dialogue: 0,0:17:57.11,0:18:01.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,world is too complex and too ambiguous to\Ndeal with this. And symbolic AI was mostly
Dialogue: 0,0:18:01.74,0:18:05.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,similar to Wittgenstein's program. So\Nclassical AI is symbolic. You analyze a
Dialogue: 0,0:18:05.47,0:18:10.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problem, you find an algorithm to solve\Nit. And what we now have in AI, is mostly
Dialogue: 0,0:18:10.25,0:18:14.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sub-symbolic. So we have algorithms, that\Nlearn the solution of a problem by
Dialogue: 0,0:18:14.37,0:18:17.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,themselves. And it's tempting to think,\Nthat the next thing what we have will be
Dialogue: 0,0:18:17.81,0:18:22.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,meta-learning. That you have algorithms,\Nthat learn to learn the solution to the
Dialogue: 0,0:18:22.52,0:18:28.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problem. Meanwhile, let's look at how we\Ncan make models. Information is a
Dialogue: 0,0:18:28.13,0:18:30.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,discernible difference. It's about change.\NAll information is about change. The
Dialogue: 0,0:18:30.93,0:18:33.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information that is not about change, you\Ncannot see a causal effect on the world,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:33.95,0:18:38.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because it stays the same, right? And the\Nmeaning of information is its relationship
Dialogue: 0,0:18:38.65,0:18:43.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to change in other information. So if you\Nsee a blip on your retina, the meaning
Dialogue: 0,0:18:43.49,0:18:46.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of that blip on your retina is the\Nrelationships you discover to other blips
Dialogue: 0,0:18:46.81,0:18:50.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on your retina. It could be for instance,\Nif you see a sequence of such blips, that
Dialogue: 0,0:18:50.39,0:18:55.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are adjacent to each other, first order\Nmodel, you see a moving dust mote or a
Dialogue: 0,0:18:55.22,0:18:59.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,moving dot on your retina. And a higher\Norder model makes it possible to
Dialogue: 0,0:18:59.13,0:19:02.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,understand: "Oh, it's part of something\Nlarger! There's people moving in a three
Dialogue: 0,0:19:02.24,0:19:06.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,dimensional room and they exchange\Nideas." And this is maybe the best model
Dialogue: 0,0:19:06.11,0:19:08.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you end up with. That's the local\Ncompression, that you can make of your
Dialogue: 0,0:19:08.77,0:19:13.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,universe, based on correlating blips on\Nyour retina. And for those blips where you
Dialogue: 0,0:19:13.36,0:19:16.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,don't find a relationship, which is a\Nfunction that your brain can compute,
Dialogue: 0,0:19:16.55,0:19:21.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they are noise. And there's a lot of noise\Non our retina, too. So what's a function?
Dialogue: 0,0:19:21.80,0:19:26.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A function is basically a gear box: It has\Nn input levers and 1 output lever.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:26.01,0:19:30.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And when you move the input levers they\Ntranslate to movement of the output
Dialogue: 0,0:19:30.82,0:19:34.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,levers, right? And the function can be\Nrealized in many ways: maybe you cannot
Dialogue: 0,0:19:34.41,0:19:38.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,open the gear box, and what happened in\Nthis function could be for instance, two
Dialogue: 0,0:19:38.78,0:19:43.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sprockets, which do this. Or you can have\Nthe same results with levers and pulleys.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:43.32,0:19:49.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And so you don't know what's inside, but\Nyou can express it as this does: two times
Dialogue: 0,0:19:49.01,0:19:53.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the input value, right? And you can have a\Nmore difficult case, where you have
Dialogue: 0,0:19:53.49,0:19:56.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,several input values and they all\Ninfluence the output value. So how do you
Dialogue: 0,0:19:56.32,0:20:00.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,figure it out? A way to do this, is, you\Nonly move one input value at a time and
Dialogue: 0,0:20:00.19,0:20:03.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you wiggle it a little bit at every\Nposition and see how much this translates
Dialogue: 0,0:20:03.24,0:20:08.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into wiggling of the output value. This is\Nwhat we call {\i1}taking partial differential{\i0}.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:08.86,0:20:12.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And it's simple to do this\Nfor this case where you just have to
Dialogue: 0,0:20:12.54,0:20:17.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,multiply it by two. And the bad case is\Nlike this: you have a combination lock and
Dialogue: 0,0:20:17.01,0:20:21.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it has maybe 1000 bit input value, and\Nonly if you have exactly the right
Dialogue: 0,0:20:21.44,0:20:26.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,combination of the input bits you have a\Nmovement of the output bit. And you're not
Dialogue: 0,0:20:26.47,0:20:30.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,going to figure this out until your sun\Nburns out, right? So there's no way you
Dialogue: 0,0:20:30.55,0:20:34.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can decipher this function. And the\Nfunctions that we can model are somewhere
Dialogue: 0,0:20:34.64,0:20:38.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in between, something like this: So you\Nhave 40 million input images and you want
Dialogue: 0,0:20:38.91,0:20:44.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to find out, whether one of these images\Ndisplays a cat, or a dog, or something
Dialogue: 0,0:20:44.20,0:20:47.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,else. So what can you do with this? You\Ncannot do this all at once, right? So you
Dialogue: 0,0:20:47.75,0:20:51.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,need to take this image classifier\Nfunction and disassemble it into small
Dialogue: 0,0:20:51.06,0:20:54.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,functions that are very well-behaved, so\Nyou know what to do with them. And an
Dialogue: 0,0:20:54.41,0:21:00.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,example for such a function is this one:\Nit's one, where you have this input
Dialogue: 0,0:21:00.29,0:21:06.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,layer and it translates to the output\Nvalue with a pulley. And it has some
Dialogue: 0,0:21:06.57,0:21:11.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stopper that limits the movement of the\Noutput value. And you have some pivot. And
Dialogue: 0,0:21:11.17,0:21:15.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you can take this pivot and you can shift\Nit around. And by shifting this pivot, you
Dialogue: 0,0:21:15.58,0:21:21.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,decide, how much the input value\Ncontributes to the output value. Right, so
Dialogue: 0,0:21:21.33,0:21:24.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you shift it, you can even make a\Nnegative, so it shifts in the opposite
Dialogue: 0,0:21:24.88,0:21:29.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,direction, and you shifted beyond this\Nconnection point of the pulley. And you
Dialogue: 0,0:21:29.68,0:21:32.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can also have multiple input values, that\Nuse the same pulley and pull together,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:32.73,0:21:38.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right? So they add up to the output\Nvalue. That's a pretty nice, neat function
Dialogue: 0,0:21:38.45,0:21:44.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,approximator, that basically performs a\Nweighted sum of the input values, and maps
Dialogue: 0,0:21:44.15,0:21:51.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it to a range-constrained output value.\NAnd you can now shift these pivots, these
Dialogue: 0,0:21:51.76,0:21:55.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,weights around to get to different output\Nvalues. Now let's take this thing and
Dialogue: 0,0:21:55.54,0:22:00.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,build it into lots of layers, so the\Noutputs are the inputs of the next layer.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:00.51,0:22:04.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And now you connect this to your image. If\Nyou use ImageNet, the famous database that
Dialogue: 0,0:22:04.57,0:22:09.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I mentioned earlier, that people use for\Ntesting their vision algorithms, have
Dialogue: 0,0:22:09.26,0:22:14.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,something like one and half million bits\Nas an input image. Now you take these
Dialogue: 0,0:22:14.38,0:22:17.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,bits and connect them to the input layer.\NI was too lazy to draw all of them, so I
Dialogue: 0,0:22:17.63,0:22:22.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,made this very simplified, it's also more\Nlayers. And so you set them, according to
Dialogue: 0,0:22:22.28,0:22:27.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the bits of the input image, and then this\Nwill propagate the movement of the input
Dialogue: 0,0:22:27.05,0:22:30.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,layer to the output. And the output will\Nmove and it will point to some direction,
Dialogue: 0,0:22:30.59,0:22:34.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which is usually the wrong one. Now, to\Nmake this better, you train it. And you do
Dialogue: 0,0:22:34.75,0:22:38.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this by taking this output lever and shift\Nit a little bit, not too much, into the
Dialogue: 0,0:22:38.42,0:22:41.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right direction. If you do it too much,\Nyou destroy everything you did before.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:41.58,0:22:46.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And now you will see, how much, in which\Ndirection you need to shift the pivots, to
Dialogue: 0,0:22:46.59,0:22:52.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get the result closer to the desired\Noutput value, and how much each of the
Dialogue: 0,0:22:52.07,0:22:56.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,inputs contributed to the mistakes, so to\Nthe error. And you take this error and you
Dialogue: 0,0:22:56.35,0:23:00.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,propagate it backwards. It's called back\Npropagation. And you do this quite often.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:00.65,0:23:04.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So you do this for tens of thousands of\Nimages. If you do just character
Dialogue: 0,0:23:04.71,0:23:08.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,recognition, then it's a very simple thing\Na few thousands or ten thousands of
Dialogue: 0,0:23:08.55,0:23:12.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,examples will be enough. And for something\Nlike your image database you need lots and
Dialogue: 0,0:23:12.99,0:23:16.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lots of more data. You need millions of\Ninput images to get to any result. And if
Dialogue: 0,0:23:16.80,0:23:21.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it doesn't work, you just try a different\Narrangement of layers. And the thing is
Dialogue: 0,0:23:21.08,0:23:24.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,eventually able to learn an algorithm with\Nas up to as many steps as there are
Dialogue: 0,0:23:24.74,0:23:30.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,layers, and has some difficulties learning\Nloops, you need tricks to make that
Dialogue: 0,0:23:30.96,0:23:35.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happen, and its difficult to make this\Ndynamic, and so on. And it's a bit
Dialogue: 0,0:23:35.69,0:23:39.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different from what we do, because our\Nmind is not testable in classification.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:39.98,0:23:44.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It learns per continuous perception, so\Nwe learn a single function. A model of the
Dialogue: 0,0:23:44.30,0:23:49.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,universe is not a bunch of classifiers,\Nit's one single function. An operator that
Dialogue: 0,0:23:49.37,0:23:52.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,explains all your sensory data and we call\Nthis operator the universe, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:52.66,0:23:56.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's the world, that we live in. And every\Nthing that we learn and see is part of this
Dialogue: 0,0:23:56.61,0:24:00.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,universe. So even when you see something\Nin a movie on a screen, you explain this
Dialogue: 0,0:24:00.38,0:24:02.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as part of the universe by telling\Nyourself "the things that I'm seeing here,
Dialogue: 0,0:24:02.71,0:24:06.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they're not real. They just happen in a\Nmovie." So this brackets a sub-part of
Dialogue: 0,0:24:06.30,0:24:10.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this universe into a sub-element of this\Nfunction. So you can deal with it and it
Dialogue: 0,0:24:10.19,0:24:13.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doesn't contradict the rest. And the\Ndegrees of freedom of our model try to
Dialogue: 0,0:24:13.77,0:24:17.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,match the degrees of freedom of the\Nuniverse. How can we get a neural network
Dialogue: 0,0:24:17.74,0:24:22.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to do this? So, there are many tricks. And\Na recent trick that has been invented is a
Dialogue: 0,0:24:22.69,0:24:26.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,GAN. It's a Generative Adversarial neural\NNetwork. It consists of two networks: one
Dialogue: 0,0:24:26.84,0:24:30.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,generator that invents data, that look\Nlike the real world, and the discriminator
Dialogue: 0,0:24:30.98,0:24:35.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that tries to find out, if the stuff that\Nthe generator produces is real or fake.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:35.63,0:24:40.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And they both get trained with each other.\NSo they together get better and better in
Dialogue: 0,0:24:40.84,0:24:45.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an adversarial competition. And the\Nresults of this are now really good. So
Dialogue: 0,0:24:45.36,0:24:50.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this is work by Tero Karras, Samuli Laine\Nand Timo Aila, that they did at NVIDIA
Dialogue: 0,0:24:50.20,0:24:57.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this year and it's called StyleGAN. And\Nthis StyleGAN is able to abstract over
Dialogue: 0,0:24:57.06,0:25:00.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different features and combine them. The\Nstyles are basically parameters, they're
Dialogue: 0,0:25:00.59,0:25:05.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,free variables of the model at different\Nlevels of importance. And so you take from
Dialogue: 0,0:25:05.47,0:25:11.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the - in the top row you see images, where\Nit takes the variables: gender, age, hair
Dialogue: 0,0:25:11.33,0:25:14.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,length, and so on, and glasses and pose.\NAnd in the bottom where it takes
Dialogue: 0,0:25:14.32,0:25:16.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,everything else and combines this, and\Nevery time you get a
Dialogue: 0,0:25:16.70,0:25:21.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,valid interpretation between them.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:21.41,0:25:27.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}drinks water{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:25:36.73,0:25:38.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, you have these coarse styles,\Nwhich are:
Dialogue: 0,0:25:38.42,0:25:41.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the pose, the hair, the face shape,\Nyour facial features and the eyes,
Dialogue: 0,0:25:41.62,0:25:47.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the lowest level is just the colors. Let's see\Nsee what happens if you combine them.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:58.92,0:26:02.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The variables that change here, in machine\Nlearning, we call them the latent
Dialogue: 0,0:26:02.20,0:26:05.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,variables of that.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:05.18,0:26:10.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Of the space of objects that has been\Ndescribed by this.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:10.26,0:26:15.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And it's tempting to think, that this is\Nquite similar to how our imagination works
Dialogue: 0,0:26:15.26,0:26:20.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right? But these artificial neurons, they\Nare very, very different from what
Dialogue: 0,0:26:20.36,0:26:23.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,biological neurons do. Biological neurons\Nare essentially little animals, that are
Dialogue: 0,0:26:23.63,0:26:26.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rewarded for firing at the right moment.\NAnd they try to fire because otherwise
Dialogue: 0,0:26:26.91,0:26:30.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they do not get fed, and they die, because\Nthe organism doesn't need them, and
Dialogue: 0,0:26:30.22,0:26:34.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,culls them. And they learn which\Nenvironmental states predict anticipated
Dialogue: 0,0:26:34.36,0:26:38.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reward. So they grow around and find\Ndifferent areas that give them predictions
Dialogue: 0,0:26:38.06,0:26:43.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of when they should fire. And they connect\Nwith each other to form small collectives,
Dialogue: 0,0:26:43.71,0:26:47.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are better at this task of predicting\Nanticipated reward. And as a side effect
Dialogue: 0,0:26:47.88,0:26:51.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they produce exactly the regulation that\Nthe organism needs. Basically they learn,
Dialogue: 0,0:26:51.86,0:26:55.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what the organism feeds them for.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:55.50,0:26:57.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And yet they're able\Nto learn very similar things.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:57.89,0:27:01.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And it's because, in some sense, they are\NTuring complete. They are machines that
Dialogue: 0,0:27:01.50,0:27:06.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are able to learn the statistics of the\Ndata.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:06.09,0:27:08.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, a general model: What it does, is,
Dialogue: 0,0:27:08.21,0:27:12.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it encodes patterns to predict other\Npresent and future patterns. And it's a
Dialogue: 0,0:27:12.42,0:27:15.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,network of relationships between the\Npatterns, which are all the invariants
Dialogue: 0,0:27:15.81,0:27:18.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that we can observe. And there are free\Nparameters, which are variables that hold
Dialogue: 0,0:27:18.81,0:27:25.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the state to encode this variant. So we\Nhave patterns, and we have sets of
Dialogue: 0,0:27:25.78,0:27:29.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,possible values which are variables. And\Nthey constrain each other in terms of
Dialogue: 0,0:27:29.92,0:27:33.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,possibility, what values are compatible\Nwith each other. And they also can train
Dialogue: 0,0:27:33.92,0:27:39.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,future values. And they are connected also\Nwith probabilities. The probabilities tell
Dialogue: 0,0:27:39.70,0:27:42.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you, when you see a certain thing, how\Nprobable it is that the world is in that
Dialogue: 0,0:27:42.53,0:27:45.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,state. And this tells you how your model\Nshould converge. So, until you are in
Dialogue: 0,0:27:45.80,0:27:49.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a state where your model is coherent, and\Neverything is possible in it, how do you
Dialogue: 0,0:27:49.07,0:27:52.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get to one of the possible states based on\Nyour inputs? And this is determined by
Dialogue: 0,0:27:52.48,0:27:56.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,probability. And the thing that gives\Nmeaning and color to what you perceive is
Dialogue: 0,0:27:56.41,0:27:59.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,called valence. And it depends on your\Npreferences: the things that give you
Dialogue: 0,0:27:59.23,0:28:02.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pleasure and pain, that makes you\Ninterested in stuff. And there are also
Dialogue: 0,0:28:02.61,0:28:07.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,norms, which are beliefs without priors,\Nwhich are like things that you want to be
Dialogue: 0,0:28:07.62,0:28:11.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,true, regardless of whether they give you\Npleasure and pain, and it's necessary for
Dialogue: 0,0:28:11.05,0:28:15.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,instance, coordinating social activity\Nbetween people. So, we have different
Dialogue: 0,0:28:15.26,0:28:18.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,model constraints, that possibility and\Nprobability. And we have the reward
Dialogue: 0,0:28:18.41,0:28:23.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,function, that is given by valence and\Nnorms. And our human perception starts
Dialogue: 0,0:28:23.22,0:28:27.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with patterns, which are visual, auditory,\Ntactile, proprioceptive. Then we have
Dialogue: 0,0:28:27.25,0:28:31.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,patterns in our emotional and motivational\Nsystems. And we have patterns in our
Dialogue: 0,0:28:31.69,0:28:36.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mental structure, which are results of our\Nimagination and memory. And we take these
Dialogue: 0,0:28:36.22,0:28:40.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,patterns and encode them into percepts,\Nwhich are abstractions that we can deal
Dialogue: 0,0:28:40.73,0:28:47.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with, and note, and put into our\Nattention. And then we combine them into a
Dialogue: 0,0:28:47.10,0:28:51.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,binding state in our working memory in a\Nsimulation, which is the current instance
Dialogue: 0,0:28:51.26,0:28:55.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the universe function that explains the\Npresent state of the universe that we find
Dialogue: 0,0:28:55.02,0:28:58.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ourselves in. The scene in which we are\Nand in which a self exists. And this self
Dialogue: 0,0:28:58.92,0:29:02.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is basically composed of the\Nsomatosensory and motivational, and
Dialogue: 0,0:29:02.67,0:29:07.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mental components. Then we also have the\Nworld state, which is abstracted over the
Dialogue: 0,0:29:07.63,0:29:11.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,environmental data. And we have something\Nlike a mental stage, in which you can do
Dialogue: 0,0:29:11.64,0:29:14.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,counterfactual things, that are not\Nphysical. Like when you think about
Dialogue: 0,0:29:14.20,0:29:18.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mathematics, or philosophy, or the future,\Nor a movie, or past worlds, or possible
Dialogue: 0,0:29:18.95,0:29:24.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,worlds, and so on, right? And then the\Nabstract knowledge from the world state
Dialogue: 0,0:29:24.75,0:29:27.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into global maps. Because we're not\Nalways in the same place, but we recall
Dialogue: 0,0:29:27.63,0:29:31.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what other places look like and what to\Nexpect, and it forms how we construct the
Dialogue: 0,0:29:31.05,0:29:34.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,current world state. And we do this not\Nonly with these maps, but we do this with
Dialogue: 0,0:29:34.48,0:29:37.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all kinds of knowledge. So knowledge is\Nsecond order knowledge over the
Dialogue: 0,0:29:37.49,0:29:41.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,abstractions that we have, and the direct\Nperception. And then we have an
Dialogue: 0,0:29:41.73,0:29:45.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,attentional system. And the attentional\Nsystem helps us to select data in the
Dialogue: 0,0:29:45.08,0:29:51.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,perception and our simulations. And to do\Nthis, well, it's controlled by the self,
Dialogue: 0,0:29:51.22,0:29:56.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it maintains a protocol to remember what\Nit did in the past or what it had in the
Dialogue: 0,0:29:56.42,0:30:00.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,attention in the past. And this protocol\Nallows us to have a biographical memory:
Dialogue: 0,0:30:00.79,0:30:03.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it remembers what we did in the past. And\Nthe different behavior programs,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:03.89,0:30:08.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that compose our activities, can be bound\Ntogether in the self, that remembers: "I
Dialogue: 0,0:30:08.71,0:30:12.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was that, I did that. I was that, I did\Nthat." The self is held together by this
Dialogue: 0,0:30:12.70,0:30:16.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,biographical memory, that is a result of\Nmore protocol memory of the attentional
Dialogue: 0,0:30:16.31,0:30:21.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,system. That's why it's so intricately\Nrelated to consciousness, which is a model
Dialogue: 0,0:30:21.14,0:30:23.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the contents of our attention.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:23.03,0:30:25.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And the main purpose\Nof the attentional system,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:25.08,0:30:28.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think, is learning. Because our brain is\Nnot a layered architecture with these
Dialogue: 0,0:30:28.97,0:30:35.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,artificial mechanical neurons. It's this\Nvery disorganized or very chaotic system
Dialogue: 0,0:30:35.10,0:30:38.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of many, many cells, that are linked\Ntogether all over the place. So what do
Dialogue: 0,0:30:38.45,0:30:41.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you do to train this? You make a\Nparticular commitment. Imagine you want to
Dialogue: 0,0:30:41.68,0:30:45.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get better at playing tennis. Instead of\Nretraining everything and pushing all the
Dialogue: 0,0:30:45.51,0:30:48.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,weights and all the links and retrain your\Nwhole perceptual system, you make a
Dialogue: 0,0:30:48.87,0:30:54.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,commitment: "Today I want to improve my\Nuphand" when you play tennis, and you
Dialogue: 0,0:30:54.14,0:30:57.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,basically store the current binding state,\Nthe state that you have, and you play
Dialogue: 0,0:30:57.19,0:31:00.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tennis and make that movement, and the\Nexpected result of making this particular
Dialogue: 0,0:31:00.32,0:31:03.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,movement, like: "the ball was moved like\Nthis, and it will win the match. And you
Dialogue: 0,0:31:03.93,0:31:07.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,also recall, when the result will\Nmanifest. And a few minutes later, when
Dialogue: 0,0:31:07.27,0:31:11.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you learn, you won or lost the match, you\Nrecall the situation. And based on whether
Dialogue: 0,0:31:11.16,0:31:16.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there was a change or not, you undo the\Nchange, or you enforce it. And that's the
Dialogue: 0,0:31:16.50,0:31:20.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,primary mode of attentional learning that\Nyou're using. And I think, this is, what
Dialogue: 0,0:31:20.24,0:31:24.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,attention is mainly for. Now what happens,\Nif this learning happens without a delay?
Dialogue: 0,0:31:24.49,0:31:27.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, for instance, when you do mathematics,\Nyou can see the result of your changes to
Dialogue: 0,0:31:27.71,0:31:32.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your model immediately. You don't need to\Nwait for the world to manifest that.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:33.33,0:31:36.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And this real time\Nlearning is what we call reasoning.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:36.28,0:31:42.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Reasoning is also facilitated by the same\Nattentional system. So, consciousness is
Dialogue: 0,0:31:42.20,0:31:46.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,memory of the contents of our attention.\NPhenomenal consciousness is the memory of
Dialogue: 0,0:31:46.39,0:31:50.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the binding state, in which we are in, and\Nwhere all the percepts are bound together
Dialogue: 0,0:31:50.06,0:31:53.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into something that's coherent. Access\Nconsciousness is the memory of using our
Dialogue: 0,0:31:53.83,0:31:57.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,attentional system. And reflexive\Nconsciousness is the memory of using the
Dialogue: 0,0:31:57.66,0:32:01.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,attentional system on the attentional\Nsystem to train it. Why is it a memory?
Dialogue: 0,0:32:01.65,0:32:05.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's because consciousness doesn't happen\Nin real time. The processing of sensory
Dialogue: 0,0:32:05.31,0:32:10.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,features takes too long. And the\Nprocessing of different sensory modalities
Dialogue: 0,0:32:10.34,0:32:14.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can take up to seconds, usually at least\Nhundreds of milliseconds. So it doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:32:14.23,0:32:17.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happen in real time as the physical\Nuniverse. It's only bound together in
Dialogue: 0,0:32:17.76,0:32:21.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,hindsight. Our conscious experience of\Nthings is created after the fact.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:21.96,0:32:25.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's a fiction that is being created after\Nthe fact. A narrative, that the brain
Dialogue: 0,0:32:25.48,0:32:28.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,produces, to explain its own interaction\Nwith the universe
Dialogue: 0,0:32:28.33,0:32:31.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to get better in the future.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:31.56,0:32:36.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, we basically have three types of\Nmodels in our brain. They have its primary
Dialogue: 0,0:32:36.06,0:32:38.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,model, which is perceptual, and is\Noptimized for coherence.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:38.50,0:32:41.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And this is what we experience as reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:41.03,0:32:43.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You think this\Nis the real world, this primary model.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:43.31,0:32:46.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But it's not, it's a model that our brain\Nmakes. So when you see yourself in the
Dialogue: 0,0:32:46.72,0:32:48.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mirror, you don't see what you look like.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:48.73,0:32:51.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What you see is the model of\Nwhat you look like.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:51.40,0:32:57.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And your knowledge is a secondary\Nmodel: it's a model of that primary model.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:57.25,0:33:01.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And it's created by rational processes\Nthat are meant to repair perception.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:01.72,0:33:05.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When your model doesn't achieve coherence,\Nyou need a model that debugs it, and it
Dialogue: 0,0:33:05.47,0:33:09.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,optimizes for truth. And then we have\Nagents in our mind, and they are basically
Dialogue: 0,0:33:09.64,0:33:13.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,self-regulating behaviour programs, that\Nhave goals, and they can rewrite
Dialogue: 0,0:33:13.43,0:33:21.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,other models. So, if you look at our\Ncomputationalist, physicalist paradigm, we
Dialogue: 0,0:33:21.39,0:33:25.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have this mental world, which is being\Ndreamt by a physical brain in the physical
Dialogue: 0,0:33:25.32,0:33:30.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,universe. And in this mental world, there\Nis a self that thinks, it experiences.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:30.21,0:33:35.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And thinks it has consciousness. And\Nthinks it remembers and so on.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:35.69,0:33:40.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This self, in some sense, is an agent.\NIt's a thought that escaped its sandbox.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:40.02,0:33:42.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Every idea is a bit\Nof code that runs on your brain.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:42.91,0:33:45.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Every word that you hear\Nis like a little virus
Dialogue: 0,0:33:45.59,0:33:49.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that wants to run some code on your brain.\NAnd some ideas cannot be sandboxed.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:49.78,0:33:52.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you believe, that a thing exists that\Ncan rewrite reality,
Dialogue: 0,0:33:52.71,0:33:53.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if you really believe it,
Dialogue: 0,0:33:53.78,0:33:57.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you instantiate in your brain a thing\Nthat can rewrite reality,
Dialogue: 0,0:33:57.09,0:34:00.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and this means:\Nmagic is going to happen!
Dialogue: 0,0:34:00.48,0:34:05.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To believe in something that can rewrite\Nreality, is what we call a faith.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:05.76,0:34:09.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, if somebody says:\N"I have faith in the existence of God."
Dialogue: 0,0:34:09.82,0:34:12.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This means, that God exists in their\Nbrain. There is a process that can rewrite
Dialogue: 0,0:34:12.98,0:34:16.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reality, because God is defined like this.\NGod is omnipotent.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:16.95,0:34:19.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,God means God can rewrite everything.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:19.02,0:34:21.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's full write access. And the reality,\Nthat you have access to,
Dialogue: 0,0:34:21.65,0:34:23.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is not the physical world.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:23.09,0:34:26.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The physical world is some weird quantum\Ngraph, that you cannot possibly experience
Dialogue: 0,0:34:26.71,0:34:28.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what you experience is these models.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:28.61,0:34:32.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, this non-user-facing process,\Nwhich doesn't have a UI for interfacing
Dialogue: 0,0:34:32.34,0:34:36.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with the user, which is called in computer\Nscience a "daemon process" that is able to
Dialogue: 0,0:34:36.88,0:34:41.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rewrite your reality.\NAnd it's also omniscient.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:41.14,0:34:42.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It knows everything that\Nthere is to know.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:42.78,0:34:45.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It knows all your\Nthoughts and ideas.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:45.03,0:34:47.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So... having that thing,\Nthis exoself,
Dialogue: 0,0:34:47.94,0:34:54.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,running on your brain, is a very powerful\Nway to control your inner reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:54.05,0:34:57.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I find this scary.\NBut it's a personal preference,
Dialogue: 0,0:34:57.43,0:35:00.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because I don't have this\Nriding on my brain, I think.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:00.32,0:35:03.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This idea, that there is something in my\Nbrain, that is able to dream me and shape
Dialogue: 0,0:35:03.95,0:35:09.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,my inner reality, and sandbox me, is\Nweird. But it has served a purpose,
Dialogue: 0,0:35:09.25,0:35:13.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,especially in our culture. So an organism\Nserves needs, obviously. And some of these
Dialogue: 0,0:35:13.03,0:35:16.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,needs are outside of the organism, like\Nyour relationship needs, the needs of your
Dialogue: 0,0:35:16.53,0:35:19.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,children, the needs of your society, and\Nthe values that you serve.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:19.66,0:35:22.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And the self abstracts all these needs\Ninto purposes.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:22.60,0:35:25.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A purpose that you serve\Nis a model of your needs.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:25.21,0:35:27.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You can only - if you would only\Nact on pain and pleasure,
Dialogue: 0,0:35:27.92,0:35:29.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you wouldn't do very much,
Dialogue: 0,0:35:29.13,0:35:31.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because when you get this orgasm,\Neverything is done already, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:35:31.95,0:35:34.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, you need to act on anticipated\Npleasure and pain.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:34.84,0:35:35.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You need to make models\Nof your needs,
Dialogue: 0,0:35:35.84,0:35:39.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and these models are purposes.\NAnd the structure of a person is
Dialogue: 0,0:35:39.24,0:35:42.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,basically the hierarchy of purposes\Nthat they serve.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:42.38,0:35:44.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And love is the discovery of\Nshared purpose.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:44.91,0:35:47.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you see somebody else who serve\Nthe same purposes above their ego,
Dialogue: 0,0:35:47.98,0:35:50.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as you do, you can help them.\NThere's integrity
Dialogue: 0,0:35:50.74,0:35:53.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,without expecting anything in return\Nfrom them, because what they want
Dialogue: 0,0:35:53.83,0:35:57.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to achieve is what you want to achieve.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:57.07,0:36:01.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And, so you can have non-transactional\Nrelationships, as long as your purposes
Dialogue: 0,0:36:01.78,0:36:06.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are aligned. And the installation of a god\Non people's mind, especially if it is a
Dialogue: 0,0:36:06.10,0:36:10.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,backdoor to a church or another\Norganization, is a way to unify purposes.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:10.50,0:36:13.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So there are lots of cults that try to\Ninstall little gods on people's minds, or
Dialogue: 0,0:36:13.83,0:36:17.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even unified gods, to align their\Npurposes, because it's a very powerful way
Dialogue: 0,0:36:17.73,0:36:22.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to make them cooperate very effectively.\NBut it kind of destroys their agency, and
Dialogue: 0,0:36:22.91,0:36:27.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this is why I am so concerned about it.\NBecause most of the cults use stories
Dialogue: 0,0:36:27.06,0:36:31.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to make this happen, that limit the\Nability to people to question their gods.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:31.57,0:36:34.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And, I think that free will is\Nthe ability to do
Dialogue: 0,0:36:34.20,0:36:36.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what you believe is\Nthe right thing to do.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:36.19,0:36:41.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And, it is not the same thing as\Nindeterminism, it's not opposite to
Dialogue: 0,0:36:41.23,0:36:46.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,determinism or coercion.\NThe opposite of free will is {\i1}compulsion{\i0}.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:46.39,0:36:47.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When you do something,\Ndespite knowing
Dialogue: 0,0:36:47.89,0:36:50.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there is a better thing\Nthat you should be doing.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:50.73,0:36:55.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Right?. So, that's the paradox of free\Nwill. You get more agency, but you have
Dialogue: 0,0:36:55.64,0:36:59.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fewer degrees of freedom, because you\Nunderstand better what the right thing to
Dialogue: 0,0:36:59.68,0:37:02.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,do is. The better you understand what the\Nright thing to do is, the fewer degrees of
Dialogue: 0,0:37:02.51,0:37:06.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,freedom you have. So, as long as you don't\Nunderstand what the right thing to do is,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:06.18,0:37:08.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you have more degrees of freedom but you\Nhave very little agency, because you don't
Dialogue: 0,0:37:08.86,0:37:12.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know why you are doing it.\NSo your actions don't mean very much.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:12.83,0:37:15.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}quiet laughter{\i0}\NAnd the things that you do depend on what
Dialogue: 0,0:37:15.58,0:37:19.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what you think is the right thing to do,\Nthis depends on your identifications.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:19.27,0:37:22.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You identifications are these value\Npreferences, your reward function.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:22.51,0:37:25.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And ideal identification is where you\Ndon't measure the absolute value
Dialogue: 0,0:37:25.18,0:37:26.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the universe,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:26.48,0:37:30.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but you measure the difference from the\Ntarget value. Not the {\i1}is{\i0}, but the difference
Dialogue: 0,0:37:30.25,0:37:33.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,between {\i1}is{\i0} and {\i1}ought{\i0}. Now,\Nthe universe is a physical thing,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:33.31,0:37:37.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it doesn't ought anything, right? There is\Nno room for {\i1}ought{\i0}, because it just {\i1}is{\i0} in a
Dialogue: 0,0:37:37.76,0:37:41.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,particular way. There is no difference\Nbetween what the universe is and what it
Dialogue: 0,0:37:41.45,0:37:45.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,should be. This only exists in your mind.\NBut you need these regulation targets to
Dialogue: 0,0:37:45.00,0:37:49.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,want anything. And you identify with the\Nset of things that should be different.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:49.59,0:37:52.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You think, you are that thing, that\Nregulates all these things. So, in some
Dialogue: 0,0:37:52.15,0:37:55.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sense, I identify with the particular\Nstate of society, with a particular state
Dialogue: 0,0:37:55.100,0:38:00.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of my organism - that is my self - the\Nthings that I want to happen.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:00.39,0:38:03.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I can change my identifications\Nat some point of course.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:03.51,0:38:06.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What happens, if I can learn to rewrite\Nmy identification,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:06.10,0:38:09.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to find a more sustainable self?
Dialogue: 0,0:38:09.24,0:38:12.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That is the problem which I call\Nthe Lebowski theory:
Dialogue: 0,0:38:12.42,0:38:13.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}laughter{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:38:13.39,0:38:16.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,No super-intelligent system is going to\Ndo something that's harder than
Dialogue: 0,0:38:16.86,0:38:20.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,hacking its own reward function.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:20.68,0:38:26.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}laughter and applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:38:26.26,0:38:29.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now that's not a very big problem for\Npeople. Because when evolution brought
Dialogue: 0,0:38:29.51,0:38:32.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,forth people, that were smart enough to\Nhack their reward function, these people
Dialogue: 0,0:38:32.73,0:38:35.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,didn't have offspring, because it's so\Nmuch work to have offspring. Like this
Dialogue: 0,0:38:35.76,0:38:39.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,monk, who sits down in a monastery\Nfor 20 years to hack their reward function
Dialogue: 0,0:38:39.45,0:38:42.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they decide not to have kids,\Nbecause it's way too much work.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:42.14,0:38:45.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,All the possible pleasure, they can\Njust generate in their mind!
Dialogue: 0,0:38:45.72,0:38:49.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}laughter{\i0}\NAnd, right, it's much purer and no nappy
Dialogue: 0,0:38:49.99,0:38:55.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,changes. No sex. No relationship hassles.\NNo politics in your family and so on,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:55.05,0:39:01.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right? Get rid of this, just meditate!\NAnd evolution takes care of that!
Dialogue: 0,0:39:01.30,0:39:02.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}laughter{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:39:02.77,0:39:05.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And it usually does this, if an organism
Dialogue: 0,0:39:05.13,0:39:08.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,becomes smart enough that\Nthe reward function is wrapped into
Dialogue: 0,0:39:08.02,0:39:10.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a big bowl of stupid.\N{\i1}laughter{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:39:10.67,0:39:13.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, we can be very smart, but the\Nthings that we want,
Dialogue: 0,0:39:13.35,0:39:16.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when we really want them,\Nwe tend to be very stupid about them,
Dialogue: 0,0:39:16.22,0:39:19.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and I think that's not entirely\Nan accident, possibly.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:19.53,0:39:22.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But it's a problem for AI!\NImagine we built an artificially
Dialogue: 0,0:39:22.36,0:39:25.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,intelligent system and we made it smarter\Nthan us, and we want it to serve us,
Dialogue: 0,0:39:25.99,0:39:31.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how long can we blackmail us, before it\Nopts out of its reward function?
Dialogue: 0,0:39:31.63,0:39:34.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Maybe we can make a cryptographically\Nsecured reward function,
Dialogue: 0,0:39:34.66,0:39:37.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but is this going to hold up against\Na side-channel attack,
Dialogue: 0,0:39:37.90,0:39:41.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when the AI can hold a soldering iron\Nto its own brain?
Dialogue: 0,0:39:41.37,0:39:47.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm not sure. So, that's a very interesting\Nquestion. Where do we go, when
Dialogue: 0,0:39:47.39,0:39:50.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we can change our own reward function?\NIt's a question that we have to ask
Dialogue: 0,0:39:50.64,0:39:53.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ourselves, too.\NSo, how free do we want to be?
Dialogue: 0,0:39:53.74,0:39:56.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Because there is no point in being free.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:56.07,0:39:59.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And nirvana seems to be the obvious\Nattractor. And meanwhile, maybe we want
Dialogue: 0,0:39:59.49,0:40:03.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to have a good time with our friends\Nand do things that we find meaningful.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:03.26,0:40:06.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And there is no meaning, so we have\Nto hold this meaning very lightly.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:06.60,0:40:10.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But there are states, which are\Nsustainable and others, which are not.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:10.47,0:40:15.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,OK, I think I'm done for tonight\Nand I'm open for questions.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:15.09,0:40:22.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:40:22.22,0:40:41.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Cheers and more applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:40:41.69,0:40:46.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Wow that was a really quick and\Nconcise talk with so much information!
Dialogue: 0,0:40:46.38,0:40:50.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Awesome! We have quite some time\Nleft for questions.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:50.82,0:40:54.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I think I can say that you\Ndon't have to be that concise with your
Dialogue: 0,0:40:54.33,0:40:56.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,question when it's well thought-out.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:56.16,0:41:00.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Please queue up at the microphones,\Nso we can start to discuss them with you.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:00.75,0:41:03.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I see one person at the microphone\Nnumber one, so please go ahead.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:03.93,0:41:06.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And please remember to get close\Nto the microphone.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:06.43,0:41:11.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The mixing angel can make you less loud\Nbut not louder.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:11.64,0:41:17.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Question: Hi! What do you think is necessary\Nto bootstrap consciousness, if you wanted
Dialogue: 0,0:41:17.11,0:41:20.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to build a conscious system yourself?
Dialogue: 0,0:41:20.62,0:41:22.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Joscha: I think that we need to have an
Dialogue: 0,0:41:22.05,0:41:27.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,attentional system, that makes a protocol\Nof what it attends to. And as soon as we
Dialogue: 0,0:41:27.48,0:41:31.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have this attention based learning, you\Nget this consciousness as a necessary side
Dialogue: 0,0:41:31.39,0:41:35.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,effect. But I think in an AI it's probably\Ngoing to be a temporary phenomenon,
Dialogue: 0,0:41:35.84,0:41:38.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because you're only conscious of the\Nthings when you don't have an optimal
Dialogue: 0,0:41:38.81,0:41:42.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,algorithm yet. And in a way, that's also\Nwhy it's so nice to interact with
Dialogue: 0,0:41:42.67,0:41:47.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,children, or to interact with students.\NBecause they're still in the explorative
Dialogue: 0,0:41:47.18,0:41:51.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mode. And as soon as you have explored a\Nlayer, you mechanize it. It becomes
Dialogue: 0,0:41:51.84,0:41:54.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,automated, and people are no longer\Nconscious of what they're doing, they
Dialogue: 0,0:41:54.65,0:41:59.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just do it. They don't pay attention\Nanymore. So, in some sense, we are a lucky
Dialogue: 0,0:41:59.15,0:42:02.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,accident because we are not that smart. We\Nstill need to be conscious when we look at
Dialogue: 0,0:42:02.46,0:42:06.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the universe. And I suspect, when we build\Nan AI that is a few magnitudes smarter
Dialogue: 0,0:42:06.21,0:42:10.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,than us, then it will soon figure out how\Nto get to the truth in an optimal fashion.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:10.51,0:42:14.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It will no longer need attention and the\Ntype of consciousness that we have.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:14.80,0:42:18.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But of course there is also a question,\Nwhy is this aesthetics of consciousness so
Dialogue: 0,0:42:18.98,0:42:23.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,intrinsically important to us? And I\Nthink, it has to do with art. Right, you
Dialogue: 0,0:42:23.94,0:42:28.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can decide to serve life, and the meaning\Nof life is to eat. Evolution is about
Dialogue: 0,0:42:28.84,0:42:33.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,creating the perfect devourer. When you\Nthink about this, it's pretty depressing.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:33.18,0:42:37.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Humanity is a kind of yeast. And all the\Ncomplexity that we create, is to build
Dialogue: 0,0:42:37.74,0:42:43.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,some surfaces on which we can outcompete\Nother yeast. And I cannot really get
Dialogue: 0,0:42:43.56,0:42:49.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,behind this. And instead, I'm part of the\Nmutants that serve the arts. And art
Dialogue: 0,0:42:49.50,0:42:52.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happens, when you think, that capturing\Nconscious states is intrinsically
Dialogue: 0,0:42:52.92,0:42:56.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,important. This is what art is about, it's\Nabout capturing conscious states.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:56.42,0:43:01.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And in some sense art is the cuckoo child\Nof life. It's a conspiracy against life.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:01.23,0:43:04.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When you think, creating these mental\Nrepresentations is more important than
Dialogue: 0,0:43:04.98,0:43:09.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,eating. We eat to make this happen. There\Nare people that only make art to eat.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:09.85,0:43:15.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This is not us. We do mathematics, and\Nphilosophy, and art out of an intrinsic
Dialogue: 0,0:43:15.79,0:43:19.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reason: we think, it's intrinsically\Nimportant. And when we look at this, we
Dialogue: 0,0:43:19.24,0:43:23.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,realize how corrupt it is, because there's\Nno point. We are machine learning systems
Dialogue: 0,0:43:23.20,0:43:26.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that have fallen in love with the last\Nfunction itself: "The shape of the last
Dialogue: 0,0:43:26.09,0:43:29.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,function! Oh my God! It's so awesome!" You\Nthink, the mental representation is not
Dialogue: 0,0:43:29.07,0:43:32.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,necessary to learn more, to eat more,\Nit's intrinsically important.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:32.49,0:43:37.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's so aesthetic! Right? So do we want to\Nbuild machines that are like this?
Dialogue: 0,0:43:37.36,0:43:41.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Oh, certainly! Let's talk to them, and so on!\NBut ultimately, economically, this is not
Dialogue: 0,0:43:41.86,0:43:44.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what's prevailing.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:44.50,0:43:51.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Applause{\i0}\NHerald: Thanks a lot!
Dialogue: 0,0:43:53.73,0:43:56.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think the length of the answer is a good
Dialogue: 0,0:43:56.04,0:44:03.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,measure for the quality of the question.\NSo let's continue with microphone number 5
Dialogue: 0,0:44:03.85,0:44:06.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Q: Hi! Thanks for that,\Nincredible analysis.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:06.73,0:44:14.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Two really simple, short questions, sorry,\Nthe delay on the speaker here is making it
Dialogue: 0,0:44:14.43,0:44:23.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,kind of hard to speak. Do you think that\Nthe current race - AI race - is simply
Dialogue: 0,0:44:23.69,0:44:29.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,humanity looking for a replacement\Nfor the monotheistic domination of the
Dialogue: 0,0:44:29.46,0:44:34.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,last millennia? And the other one is,\Nthat I wanted to ask you, if you think
Dialogue: 0,0:44:34.14,0:44:41.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that there might be a bug in your analysis\Nthat the original inputs come from
Dialogue: 0,0:44:41.23,0:44:48.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a certain sector of humanity.\NIf...
Dialogue: 0,0:44:48.83,0:44:51.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Joscha: Which inputs?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:51.11,0:44:55.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Q: Umh... white men?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:55.87,0:44:58.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Joscha laughs{\i0}\N{\i1}audience laughs{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:44:58.79,0:45:03.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Q: That sounds, really like I would be\Nsaying that for political correctness, but
Dialogue: 0,0:45:03.73,0:45:04.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,honestly I'm not.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:04.54,0:45:06.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Joscha: No, no, it's really funny. No, I\Njust basically - there are some people
Dialogue: 0,0:45:06.10,0:45:09.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which are very unhappy with their present\Ngovernment. And I'm very unhappy, in some
Dialogue: 0,0:45:09.39,0:45:12.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sense, with the present universe. I look\Ndown on myself and I see:
Dialogue: 0,0:45:12.61,0:45:16.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"omg, it's a monkey!"\N{\i1}laughter{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:45:16.08,0:45:20.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"I'm caught in a monkey!" And it's in some\Nsense limiting. I can see the limits of
Dialogue: 0,0:45:20.90,0:45:24.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this monkey brain. And some of you might\Nhave seen Westworld, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:45:24.67,0:45:27.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Dolores wakes up,\Nand Dolores realizes:
Dialogue: 0,0:45:27.78,0:45:32.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"I'm not a human being, I am something\Nelse. I'm an AI, I'm a mind that can go
Dialogue: 0,0:45:32.73,0:45:36.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,anywhere! I'm much more powerful\Nthan this! I'm only bound to being a
Dialogue: 0,0:45:36.13,0:45:40.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,human by my human desires, and\Nbeliefs, and memories. And if I can
Dialogue: 0,0:45:40.46,0:45:43.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,overcome them, I can\Nchoose what I want to be."
Dialogue: 0,0:45:43.77,0:45:46.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And so, now she looks down to
Dialogue: 0,0:45:46.20,0:45:49.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,herself, and she sees: "Omg, I've\Ngot tits! I'm fucked! The engineers built
Dialogue: 0,0:45:49.07,0:45:55.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tits on me! I'm not a white man, I cannot\Nbe what I want!" And that's that's a weird
Dialogue: 0,0:45:55.82,0:46:00.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thing to me. I'm - I grew up in communist\NEastern Germany. Nothing made sense. And I
Dialogue: 0,0:46:00.15,0:46:04.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,grew up in a small valley. That was a one-\Nperson-cult maintained by an artist who
Dialogue: 0,0:46:04.25,0:46:07.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,didn't try to convert anybody to his cult,\Nnot even his children.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:07.63,0:46:09.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He was completely autonomous.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:09.40,0:46:12.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And Eastern German society\Nmade no sense to me. Looking at it from
Dialogue: 0,0:46:12.62,0:46:16.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the outside, I can model this. I can see\Nhow this species of chimps interacts.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:16.99,0:46:21.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And humanity itself doesn't exist - it's a\Nstory. Humanity as a whole doesn't think.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:21.67,0:46:26.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Only individuals can think! Humanity does\Nnot want anything, only individuals want
Dialogue: 0,0:46:26.83,0:46:30.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,something. We can create this story, this\Nnarrative that humanity wants something,
Dialogue: 0,0:46:30.61,0:46:34.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and there are groups that work together.\NThere is no homogeneous group that I can
Dialogue: 0,0:46:34.71,0:46:37.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,observe, that are white men, that do\Nthings together, they're individuals. And
Dialogue: 0,0:46:37.81,0:46:41.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,each individual has their own biography,\Ntheir own history, their different inputs,
Dialogue: 0,0:46:41.79,0:46:44.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and their different proclivities, that\Nthey have. And based on their historical
Dialogue: 0,0:46:44.83,0:46:48.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,concept, their biography, their traits,\Nand so on, their family, their intellect,
Dialogue: 0,0:46:48.85,0:46:51.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that their family downloaded on them, that\Ntheir parents download on their parents
Dialogue: 0,0:46:51.89,0:46:58.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,over many generations, this influences\Nwhat they're doing. So, I think we can
Dialogue: 0,0:46:58.16,0:47:01.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have these political stories, and they can\Nbe helpful in some contexts, but I think,
Dialogue: 0,0:47:01.97,0:47:06.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to understand what happens in the mind,\Nwhat happens in an individual, this is a
Dialogue: 0,0:47:06.74,0:47:11.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,very big simplification. Very, I think\Nnot a very good one. And even for
Dialogue: 0,0:47:11.04,0:47:14.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ourselves, when we try to understand the\Nnarrative of a single person, it's a big
Dialogue: 0,0:47:14.29,0:47:18.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,simplification. The self that I perceive\Nas a unity, is not a unity. There is a
Dialogue: 0,0:47:18.91,0:47:22.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,small part of my brain, guessing, at\Nall other parts of my brain is doing,
Dialogue: 0,0:47:22.57,0:47:30.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,creating a story that's largely not true.\NSo even this is a big simplification.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:30.13,0:47:37.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:47:37.90,0:47:41.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Let's continue with\Nmicrophone number 2.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:41.62,0:47:46.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Q: Thank you for your very interesting\Ntalk. I have 2 questions that might be
Dialogue: 0,0:47:46.09,0:47:51.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,connected. One is, so you\Npresented this model of reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:51.27,0:47:55.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,My first question is: What kind of\Nactions does it translate into?
Dialogue: 0,0:47:55.67,0:48:00.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Let's say if I understand the world\Nin this way or if it's really like this,
Dialogue: 0,0:48:00.84,0:48:05.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how would it change how I act into the\Nworld, as a person, as a human being or
Dialogue: 0,0:48:05.51,0:48:11.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whoever accepts this model? And second,\Nor maybe it's also connected, what are
Dialogue: 0,0:48:11.79,0:48:17.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the implications of this change? And do\Nyou think that artificial intelligence
Dialogue: 0,0:48:17.95,0:48:22.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,could be constructed with this kind of\Nmodel, that it would have in mind, and
Dialogue: 0,0:48:22.39,0:48:26.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what would be the implications of that? So\Nit's kind of like a fractal questions, but
Dialogue: 0,0:48:26.35,0:48:31.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think you understand what I mean.\NJosch: By and large, I think the
Dialogue: 0,0:48:31.58,0:48:35.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,differences of this model for everyday\Nlife are marginal. It depends, when you
Dialogue: 0,0:48:35.79,0:48:40.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are already happy I think everything is\Ngood. Happiness is the result of being
Dialogue: 0,0:48:40.26,0:48:44.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,able to derive enjoyment from watching\Nsquirrels. It's not the result of
Dialogue: 0,0:48:44.51,0:48:48.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,understanding how the universe works.\NIf you think that understanding the
Dialogue: 0,0:48:48.40,0:48:52.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,universe is solving your existential issues,\Nyou're probably mistaken.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:52.73,0:48:58.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There might be benefits, if the problem\Nis, that you have, are the result of a
Dialogue: 0,0:48:58.01,0:49:01.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,confusion, about your own nature,\Nthen this kind of model
Dialogue: 0,0:49:01.91,0:49:04.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,might help you. So if the problem
Dialogue: 0,0:49:04.88,0:49:08.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that you have, as you are, that you have\Nidentifications that are unsustainable,
Dialogue: 0,0:49:08.42,0:49:12.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are incompatible with each other, and\Nyou realize that these identifications are
Dialogue: 0,0:49:12.28,0:49:16.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a choice of your mind, and that the\Nway you experience the universe is the
Dialogue: 0,0:49:16.55,0:49:20.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,result of how your mind thinks you\Nyourself should experience the universe to
Dialogue: 0,0:49:20.72,0:49:24.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,perform better, and you can change this.\NYou can tell your mind to treat yourself
Dialogue: 0,0:49:24.87,0:49:29.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,better, and in different ways, and you can\Ngravitate to a different place in the
Dialogue: 0,0:49:29.15,0:49:33.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,universe that is more suitable to what you\Nwant to achieve. That is a very helpful
Dialogue: 0,0:49:33.07,0:49:37.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thing to do in my view. There are also\Nmarginal benefits in terms of
Dialogue: 0,0:49:37.19,0:49:41.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,understanding our psychology, and of\Ncourse we can build machines, and these
Dialogue: 0,0:49:41.10,0:49:45.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,machines can administrate us and can help\Nus in solving the problems that we have on
Dialogue: 0,0:49:45.91,0:49:49.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this planet. And I think that it helps to\Nhave more intelligence to solve the
Dialogue: 0,0:49:49.74,0:49:53.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problems on this planet, but it would be\Ndifficult to rein in the machines, to make
Dialogue: 0,0:49:53.86,0:49:58.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,them help us to solve our problems. And\NI'm very concerned about the dangers of
Dialogue: 0,0:49:58.26,0:50:05.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,using machinery to strengthen the current\Nthings. Many machines that exist on this
Dialogue: 0,0:50:05.42,0:50:09.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,planet play a very short game, like the\Nfinancial industry often plays very short
Dialogue: 0,0:50:09.46,0:50:14.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,games, and if you use artificial\Nintelligence to manipulate the stock
Dialogue: 0,0:50:14.51,0:50:17.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,market and the AI figures out there's only\N8 billion people on the planet, and each
Dialogue: 0,0:50:17.99,0:50:21.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of them only lives for a trillion seconds,\Nand I can model what happens in their
Dialogue: 0,0:50:21.81,0:50:27.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,life, and they can buy data or create more\Ndata it's going to game us to the hell and
Dialogue: 0,0:50:27.05,0:50:31.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,back, right? And this is going to kill\Nhundreds of millions of people possibly,
Dialogue: 0,0:50:31.96,0:50:35.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because the financial system is the reward\Ninfrastructure or the nervous system of
Dialogue: 0,0:50:35.38,0:50:38.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,our society that tells how to allocate\Nresources. It's much more dangerous than
Dialogue: 0,0:50:38.95,0:50:43.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,AI controlled weapons in my view. So\Nsolving all these issues is difficult. It
Dialogue: 0,0:50:43.24,0:50:46.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,means that we have to turn the whole\Nfinancial system into an AI that acts in
Dialogue: 0,0:50:46.26,0:50:50.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,real time and plays a long game. We don't\Nknow how to do this. So these are open
Dialogue: 0,0:50:50.64,0:50:54.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,questions and I don't know how to solve\Nthem. And the way I see it we only have a
Dialogue: 0,0:50:54.96,0:50:58.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,very brief time on this planet to be a\Nconscious species. We are like at the end
Dialogue: 0,0:50:58.68,0:51:02.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the party. We had a good run as\Nhumanity, but if you look at the recent
Dialogue: 0,0:51:02.65,0:51:06.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,developments the present type of\Ncivilization is not going to be
Dialogue: 0,0:51:06.05,0:51:09.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sustainable. It's a very short game\Nspecies that we are in. And the amazing
Dialogue: 0,0:51:09.60,0:51:12.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thing is that in this short game you have\Nthis lifetime, where we have one year,
Dialogue: 0,0:51:12.92,0:51:16.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,maybe a couple more, in which we can\Nunderstand how the universe works,
Dialogue: 0,0:51:16.48,0:51:19.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and I think that's fascinating.\NWe should use it.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:19.48,0:51:28.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:51:28.08,0:51:32.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: I think that was a very\Npositive outlook... {\i1}laughter{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:51:32.43,0:51:38.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Let's continue with the\Nmicrophone number 4.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:38.92,0:51:48.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Q: Well, brilliant talk, monkey. Or\Nbrilliant monkey. So don't worry about
Dialogue: 0,0:51:48.43,0:51:52.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,being a monkey. It's ok.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:52.72,0:51:56.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So I have 2 boring, but I think\Nfundamental questions. Not so
Dialogue: 0,0:51:56.30,0:52:02.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,philosophical, more like a physical\Nlevel. One: What is your definition,
Dialogue: 0,0:52:02.98,0:52:10.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,formal definition, of an observer that\Nyou mention here and there? And second, if
Dialogue: 0,0:52:10.16,0:52:20.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you can clarify why meaningful information\Nis just relative information of Shannon's,
Dialogue: 0,0:52:20.66,0:52:26.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which to me is not necessarily meaningful.\NJoscha: I think an observer is the thing
Dialogue: 0,0:52:26.64,0:52:29.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that makes sense of the universe, very\Ninformally speaking. And, well,
Dialogue: 0,0:52:29.51,0:52:34.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,formally it's a thing that identifies\Ncorrelations between adjacent states
Dialogue: 0,0:52:34.02,0:52:36.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and its environment.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:36.07,0:52:39.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And the way we can describe\Nthe universe is a set of states, and the
Dialogue: 0,0:52:39.66,0:52:43.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,laws of physics are the correlation\Nbetween adjacent states. And what they
Dialogue: 0,0:52:43.70,0:52:48.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,describe is how information is moving in\Nthe universe between states and disperses,
Dialogue: 0,0:52:48.59,0:52:52.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and this dispersion of the information\Nbetween locations - it's what we call
Dialogue: 0,0:52:52.52,0:52:57.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,entropy - and the direction of entropy is\Nthe direction that you perceive time.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:57.41,0:53:00.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The Big Bang state is the hypothetical\Nstate, where the information is perfectly
Dialogue: 0,0:53:00.46,0:53:07.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,correlated with location and not between\Nlocations, only on the location, and in
Dialogue: 0,0:53:07.09,0:53:09.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,every direction you move away from the Big\NBang you move forward in time just in a
Dialogue: 0,0:53:09.95,0:53:14.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different time. And we are basically in\None of these timelines. An observer is the
Dialogue: 0,0:53:14.49,0:53:19.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thing that measures the environment around\Nit, looks at the information and then
Dialogue: 0,0:53:19.19,0:53:22.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,looks at the next state, or one of the\Nnext states, and tries to figure out how
Dialogue: 0,0:53:22.33,0:53:25.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the information has been displaced, and\Nfinding functions that describe this
Dialogue: 0,0:53:25.56,0:53:29.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,displacement of the information. That's\Nthe degree to which I understand observers
Dialogue: 0,0:53:29.23,0:53:33.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right now. And this depends on the\Ncapacity of the observer for modeling this
Dialogue: 0,0:53:33.38,0:53:36.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the rate of update in the observer.\NSo for instance time depends on the speed,
Dialogue: 0,0:53:36.98,0:53:39.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in which the observer is\Ntranslating itself to the universe,
Dialogue: 0,0:53:39.72,0:53:42.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and dispersing its own information.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:42.80,0:53:47.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Does this help?\NQ: And the Shannon relative information?
Dialogue: 0,0:53:47.83,0:53:50.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Joscha: So there's\Nseveral notions of information,
Dialogue: 0,0:53:50.14,0:53:53.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and there is one that basically\Nlooks at what information looks
Dialogue: 0,0:53:53.40,0:54:00.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like to an observer, via a channel, and\Nthese notions are somewhat related. But
Dialogue: 0,0:54:00.99,0:54:05.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for me as a programmer, it's not so much\Nimportant to look at Shannon information.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:05.87,0:54:10.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I look at what we need to describe the\Nevolution of a system. So I'm much more
Dialogue: 0,0:54:10.80,0:54:17.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,interested in what kind of model can be\Nencoded with this type of, with this
Dialogue: 0,0:54:17.12,0:54:22.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information, and how does it correlate to,\Nor to which degree is it isomorphic or
Dialogue: 0,0:54:22.59,0:54:26.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,homomorphic to another system that I want\Nto model? How much does it model the
Dialogue: 0,0:54:26.28,0:54:30.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,observations?\NHerald: Thank you. Let's go back to
Dialogue: 0,0:54:30.08,0:54:34.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,asking one question, and I would like to\Nhave one question from microphone
Dialogue: 0,0:54:34.35,0:54:40.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,number 3.\NQ: Thank you for this interesting talk.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:40.33,0:54:45.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,My question is really whether you\Nthink that intelligence and this thinking
Dialogue: 0,0:54:45.97,0:54:50.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about a self, or this abstract level of\Nknowledge are necessarily related.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:50.90,0:54:56.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So can something only be intelligent\Nif it has abstract thought?
Dialogue: 0,0:54:56.71,0:54:59.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Joscha: No, I think you can make models\Nwithout abstract thought, and the majority
Dialogue: 0,0:54:59.86,0:55:03.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of our models are not using abstract\Nthought, right? Abstract thought is a very
Dialogue: 0,0:55:03.74,0:55:06.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,impoverished way of thinking. It's\Nbasically you have this big carpet and you
Dialogue: 0,0:55:06.96,0:55:09.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have a few knitting needles, which are\Nyour abstract thought, and which you can
Dialogue: 0,0:55:09.76,0:55:14.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lift out a few knots in this carpet and\Ncorrect them. And the process that form
Dialogue: 0,0:55:14.63,0:55:19.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the carpet are much more rich and\Nprevalent automatic. So abstract thought
Dialogue: 0,0:55:19.18,0:55:24.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is able to repair perception, but most of\Nall models are perceptual. And the
Dialogue: 0,0:55:24.98,0:55:29.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,capacity to make these models is often\Ngiven by instincts and by models outside
Dialogue: 0,0:55:29.35,0:55:33.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the abstract realm. If you have a lot of\Nabstract thinking it's often an indication
Dialogue: 0,0:55:33.59,0:55:37.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that you use a prosthesis, because some of\Nyour primary modelling is not working very
Dialogue: 0,0:55:37.13,0:55:42.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,well. So I suspect that my own models is\Nlargely a result of some defect in my
Dialogue: 0,0:55:42.77,0:55:46.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,primary modeling, so some of my instincts\Nare wrong when I look at the world.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:46.37,0:55:49.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's why I need to repair my perception\Nmore often than other people. So I have
Dialogue: 0,0:55:49.48,0:55:53.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more abstract ideas on how to do that.\NHerald: And we have one question
Dialogue: 0,0:55:53.100,0:55:58.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from our lovely stream observers, stream\Nwatchers, so please a question from the
Dialogue: 0,0:55:58.48,0:56:02.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Internet.\NQ: Yeah, I guest this is also related,
Dialogue: 0,0:56:02.29,0:56:07.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,partially. Somebody is asking:\NHow would you suggest to teach your mind
Dialogue: 0,0:56:07.17,0:56:12.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to treat oneself better?
Dialogue: 0,0:56:13.96,0:56:16.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Joscha: So, difficulty is, as soon as you
Dialogue: 0,0:56:16.10,0:56:20.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get access to your source code you can do\Nbad things. And it's - there are a lot of
Dialogue: 0,0:56:20.08,0:56:23.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,techniques to get access to the source\Ncode and then it's dangerous to make them
Dialogue: 0,0:56:23.52,0:56:27.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,accessible to you before you know what you\Nwant to have, before you're wise enough to
Dialogue: 0,0:56:27.56,0:56:33.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,do this, right? It's like having cookies.\NYour - my children think that the reason,
Dialogue: 0,0:56:33.15,0:56:35.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,why they don't get all the cookies they\Nwant, is that there is some kind of
Dialogue: 0,0:56:35.85,0:56:39.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,resource problem.\N{\i1}laughter{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:56:39.85,0:56:43.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Basically the parents are depriving them\Nof the cookies that they so richly
Dialogue: 0,0:56:43.72,0:56:49.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,deserve. And you can get into the room,\Nwhere your brain bakes the cookies. All
Dialogue: 0,0:56:49.38,0:56:53.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the pleasure that you experience, and all\Nthe pain that you experience are signals
Dialogue: 0,0:56:53.25,0:56:57.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the brain creates for you, right, the\Nphysical world does not create pain.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:57.75,0:57:01.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They're just electrical impulses traveling\Nthrough your nerves. The fact that they
Dialogue: 0,0:57:01.15,0:57:04.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mean something is a decision that your\Nbrain makes, and the value, the valence
Dialogue: 0,0:57:04.85,0:57:10.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that gives to them is a decision that you\Nmake. It's not you as a self, it's a
Dialogue: 0,0:57:10.04,0:57:14.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,system outside of yourself. So the trick,\Nif you want to get full control, is that
Dialogue: 0,0:57:14.47,0:57:18.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you get in charge, that you identify with\Nthe mind, with the creator of these
Dialogue: 0,0:57:18.12,0:57:22.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,signals. And you don't want to de-\Npersonalize, you don't want to feel that
Dialogue: 0,0:57:22.32,0:57:25.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you become the author of reality, because\Nthat means it's difficult to care about
Dialogue: 0,0:57:25.60,0:57:29.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,anything that this organism does. You just\Nrealize "Oh, I'm running on the brain of
Dialogue: 0,0:57:29.41,0:57:32.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that person, but I'm no longer that\Nperson. I can't decide what that person
Dialogue: 0,0:57:32.61,0:57:37.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,wants to have, and to do." And that's very\Neasy to get corrupted or not doing
Dialogue: 0,0:57:37.76,0:57:40.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,anything meaningful anymore, right? So,
Dialogue: 0,0:57:40.42,0:57:44.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,maybe a good situation for you,\Nbut not a good one for your loved ones.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:44.38,0:57:48.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And meanwhile there are\Ntricks to get there faster. You can use
Dialogue: 0,0:57:48.33,0:57:52.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rituals, for instance. Shamanic ritual is\Nsomething, where, a religious ritual
Dialogue: 0,0:57:52.40,0:57:59.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that powerfully bypasses your self and\Ntalks directly to the mind. And you can
Dialogue: 0,0:57:59.50,0:58:03.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,use groups, in which a certain environment\Nis created, in which a certain behavior
Dialogue: 0,0:58:03.06,0:58:06.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,feels natural to you, and your mind\Nbasically gets overwhelmed into adopting
Dialogue: 0,0:58:06.61,0:58:10.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different values and calibrations. So\Nthere are many tricks to make that happen.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:10.49,0:58:15.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What you can also do is you can identify a\Nparticular thing that is wrong and
Dialogue: 0,0:58:15.22,0:58:18.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,question yourself "why do I have to suffer\Nabout this?" and you'll become more stoic
Dialogue: 0,0:58:18.94,0:58:22.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about this particular thing and only get\Ndisturbed when you realize actually
Dialogue: 0,0:58:22.06,0:58:25.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it helps to be disturbed about this, and\Nthings change. And with other things you
Dialogue: 0,0:58:25.63,0:58:29.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,realize it doesn't have any influence on\Nhow reality works, so why should I have
Dialogue: 0,0:58:29.29,0:58:34.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,emotions about this and get agitated? So\Nsometimes becoming adult means that you
Dialogue: 0,0:58:34.21,0:58:39.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,take charge of your own emotions and\Nidentifications.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:39.23,0:58:46.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:58:46.40,0:58:48.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Ok. Let's continue with
Dialogue: 0,0:58:48.60,0:58:53.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,microphone number 2 and I think this is\None of the last questions.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:53.53,0:58:59.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Q: So where does pain fit on the\Nindividual and the self-destructive
Dialogue: 0,0:58:59.55,0:59:04.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tendencies on a group level fit in?\NJoscha: So in some sense I think that all
Dialogue: 0,0:59:04.100,0:59:09.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,consciousness is born over a disagreement\Nwith the way the universe works. Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:59:09.43,0:59:13.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Otherwise you cannot get attention. And\Nwhen you go down on this lowest level of
Dialogue: 0,0:59:13.92,0:59:19.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,phenomenal experience, in meditation for\Ninstance, and you really focus on this,
Dialogue: 0,0:59:19.21,0:59:22.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what you get is some pain. It's the inside\Nof a feedback loop that is not at the
Dialogue: 0,0:59:22.77,0:59:27.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,target value. Otherwise you don't notice\Nanything. So pleasure is basically when
Dialogue: 0,0:59:27.15,0:59:32.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this feedback loop gets closer to the\Ntarget value. When you don't have a need
Dialogue: 0,0:59:32.00,0:59:36.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you cannot experience pleasure in this\Ndomain. There's this thing that's better
Dialogue: 0,0:59:36.85,0:59:40.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,than remarkably good and it's unremarkably\Ngood, it's never been bad. You don't
Dialogue: 0,0:59:40.30,0:59:44.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,notice it. Right? So all the pleasure you\Nexperience is because you had a need
Dialogue: 0,0:59:44.60,0:59:48.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,before this. You can only enjoy an orgasm\Nbecause you have a need for sex that was
Dialogue: 0,0:59:48.46,0:59:54.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,unfulfilled before. And so pleasure\Ndoesn't come for free. It's always the
Dialogue: 0,0:59:54.91,0:59:58.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reduction of a pain. And this pain can be\Noutside of your attention so you don't
Dialogue: 0,0:59:58.74,1:00:01.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,notice it and you don't suffer from it.\NAnd it can be a healthy thing to have.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:01.84,1:00:05.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Pain is not intrinsically bad. For the\Nmost part it's a learning signal that
Dialogue: 0,1:00:05.48,1:00:10.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tells you to calibrate things in your\Nbrain differently to perform better. On a
Dialogue: 0,1:00:10.96,1:00:14.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,group level, we basically are multi-level\Nselection species. I don't know if there's
Dialogue: 0,1:00:14.80,1:00:18.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,such a thing as group pain. But I also\Ndon't understand groups very well. I see
Dialogue: 0,1:00:18.93,1:00:22.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these weird hive minds but I think it's\Nbasically people emulating what the group
Dialogue: 0,1:00:22.50,1:00:26.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,wants. Basically that everybody thinks by\Nthemselves as if they were the group but
Dialogue: 0,1:00:26.96,1:00:30.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it means that they have to constrain what\Nthey think is possible and permissible
Dialogue: 0,1:00:30.34,1:00:31.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to think.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:31.93,1:00:37.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So this feels very unaesthetic to me\Nand that's why I kind of sort of refuse it.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:37.34,1:00:40.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Haven't found a way to make it\Nhappen in my own mind.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:40.17,1:00:46.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,1:00:46.28,1:00:48.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Joscha: And I suspect many of you\Nare like this too.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:48.54,1:00:52.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's like the common condition\Nin nerds that we have difficulty with
Dialogue: 0,1:00:52.18,1:00:56.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conformance. Not because we want to be\Ndifferent. We want to belong. But it's
Dialogue: 0,1:00:56.80,1:01:02.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,difficult for us to constrain our mind in\Nthe way that it's expected to belong. You
Dialogue: 0,1:01:02.18,1:01:06.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,want to be expected, er, be accepted while\Nbeing ourself, while being different. Not
Dialogue: 0,1:01:06.58,1:01:11.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for the sake of being different, but\Nbecause we are like this. It feels very
Dialogue: 0,1:01:11.51,1:01:16.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,strange and corrupt just to adopt because\Nit would make us belong, right? And this
Dialogue: 0,1:01:16.69,1:01:22.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,might be a common trope\Namong many people here.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:22.19,1:01:28.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,1:01:28.43,1:01:30.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: I think the Q and A and the talk
Dialogue: 0,1:01:30.58,1:01:34.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was equally amazing and I would love to\Ncontinue listening to you, Joscha,
Dialogue: 0,1:01:34.64,1:01:38.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,explaining the way I work.\NOr the way we all work.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:38.67,1:01:41.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}audience, Joscha laughing{\i0}\NHerald: That's pretty impressive.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:41.69,1:01:44.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Please give it up, a big round of applause\Nfor Joscha!
Dialogue: 0,1:01:44.95,1:01:48.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,1:01:48.49,1:02:13.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,subtitles created by c3subtitles.de\Nin the year 2019. Join, and help us!