A new physics theory of how life emerges | Sara Walker and Lex Fridman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Sara Walker: Physics o...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Notion: notion.com/lex
- Motific: motific.ai
- Shopify: shopify.com/lex to get $1 per month trial
- BetterHelp: betterhelp.com... to get 10% off
- AG1: drinkag1.com/lex to get 1 month supply of fish oil
GUEST BIO:
Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. She is the author of a new book titled "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence".
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman 
Наука
Full podcast episode: ruclips.net/video/wwhTfyX9J34/видео.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ruclips.net/user/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. She is the author of a new book titled "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence".
As a social scientific trained mind - I read and find it amazing that we possess the power to push the entire universe away to make space for ourself to remain and take space cause we literally take some space to reside. We have a serious force in us. we don't usually recognize this ability and achievement as it's over looked but pretty amazing property. To think is to be -kant followed by I think therefore I am! -Descartes
I have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
She is saying: things that “do” exist arise from things that “can” exist…
…that there is a “Invisible” but real and constant struggle/battle between the “can-exist” and “cannot-exist” things….
Basically she is Using a lot of “Gobbledygook” to make something small and known seem more complex for $$$$ purposes…( ie from NIH grants, publications, etc)…
She is saying: things. That “do” exist comes from things that “can” exist…
She is saying: there is an invisible but real struggle/war between the “can-exist” and “cannot-exist” things…
Basically, she is using a lot of gobbledygook to make a small-known fact seem more complex in order to get $$$$$$….(in the form of NIH grants, publicity, etc…)
neither do they!
Thanks for saving me 17 minutes
she's trying to fit all of nature in some kiddy lego blocks mindset, i e BS, B as in a big ox huge one makig lots of S
It's like simple electric charges, through this process eventually evolve into the people talking about it. A positive charge and negative. Always opposites or codependents. When i move my arm through the air, the rest of The Universe does the exact opposite around me.
How many ways to have an explosion
Where the idea is transported through an expansion in all ways human being a way
Lol, the problem with most physicists is they can't articulate in a way general lay people can understand. Most scientists, actually.
RFK jr School of elocution....
I think I get what she is saying. The probability space of things that can exist at each level of assemblage is always larger than the things that do exist at that level but each newer (the time factor) level has more possible things to exist as assembled things than the earlier levels. Thus, each new level's space of possible things to exist increases from the one below it. All of this leveling are pathways to more complex assemblages with no return path. There is an early level (15 steps chemically) where that assemblage becomes self-sustaining (as such it 'snaps' into existence as 'life'). Of the possible things that can exist selection (along with randomness - like evolution) brings about assembled things and thus excludes thing that don't (or did not get to exist) and as such the potential for further assemblage is increased because the higher-level assemblages have access to other nearby assemblages thus the space at each higher/newer level has more probability for potential things that can exist and thus increases always. It is almost like many worlds' interpretation of QM. Or not! LMAO! I gave it a go!!
Well explained.
nice. and perhaps lends to the notion of the universe expanding at an increasing rate, or at least as we can observe.
I so often struggle with the combinatorial complexity of life and assembly theory so far is the only thing that has even remotely addresses it. If you do the math, it would take trillions of trillions of trillions of universes worth of matter smashing together trillions of times per second to generate even the simplest of genes within trillions of years. So either we are stupefyingly lucky or there is another framework that describes how these layers stack that makes the outcome of this horrifically complex thing we call life exist at all.
So great to see such excellent dialogue between two intelligent and noble people. I've followed you for years Lex and I really appreciate your approach to the podcast format. Great interview
Thank you
I swear i watched this 2 years ago..
intelligent....Nobel???? OK I guess if that what's you think.. "I think" she would make a great Leftist Politician.
@@lorencapps8510 just because your brain can’t comprehend doesn’t mean it’s not true.
@@iTzWoodstock i DARE YOU TO SAY THAT TO MY FACE ...YOU NEANDERTHAL
1, first of all, this new theory DOES NOT EXPLAIN anything. it is intended to associate some quantities to the concepts of emergence and complexity. correlation and causation are two DIFFERENT things. this assembly theory is about causal chains which is at most an indicator of complexity, and NOT the reason of it. this theory is interesting, but FAR from being innovative and successful. and one of the main reasons of this is simply that it ignores the most important part of the analysis: potentiality (i.e. this theory only focuses on actuality).
2, I don't understand Lex. there are many interesting scientists and researches. why does he invite the same people all the time? we have already heard about these in the last 1-2 years. nothing new has been said here.
I understood everything
Cool. Me too. Lots of people do.
Then explain to me how the addition of one proton changes the physical properties of the element…
…or how can the universe be infinite if inflation-duration is finite…?
She's actually really fucking smart despite her upspeak, vocal fry and speech disfluencies.
@@jimliu2560 It was a sarcastic joke😂 I didn’t understand a s…t
@propagandacritic5511 yes...not all smart peoplle are necessarily good communicators....and she's working with concepts that are fundamentally mathematical.....
So it's like trying to describe Mozart by using flavors of cheese and spices
what she said here with assembly theory (that above 15 steps we can only see molecules passed this threshold are ones that are in life) simply means that complexity emerges step by step, i.e. locally. just like the optimisation nature of evolution. not globally, but locally. in other words, life is probably very rare, and conscious life is ever much more improbable, but the spontaneous emergence of life or mind are WAY LESS probable. so in a sense, if assembly theory is correct, it refutes the idea of Boltzmann's brain.
I love how she expresses the scientific validity of the feminine attitude and ego nature. She is not a girl-boss trying to be one of the guy's. She is doing more than keeping up she is challenging our ability to better comprehend reality with the sciences. She is an authentic person, ahead of the curve.
No one but you gives a shit that she's a woman lol
perfect observation
She sounds like a Valley Girl leaving out the words "I mean or Like"
She drank the smart water 🧠 🔥
with some serious quaaludes mixed in , or some other synthetic drugs ... 🙂
Christ I had to listen to this whole thing while making a pie and had flour all over the place and nearly went blind, def became dizzy while listening to this unwillingly because i had pie dough on my hands.
This is my favourite comment of the year
I listen only because I really like Lex Fridman...I had hoped it would get better...but it did not.
Makes me think of "the ocean" in Solaris, it must have gone through similar stages of all these assembly chains in order to recreate them.
Pure pain for the ears; pseudoscience. It’s better to take Mikhail Nikitin’s course on the emergence of life, which coherently explains every step: abiogenesis of nucleotides => RNA World => peptide synthesis => cell membrane => eukaryotic cell. Additionally, alternative life chemistry: non-water, non-carbon. He’s Russian-speaking, but that shouldn’t be a problem for Lex. Or, Eugene Koonin, who is English-speaking, is also good on the topic.
Now imagine fusing assembler theory with Hugh Everetts' ideas, and we MIGHT see that they all actually do exist but at varying energy levels derived from probability... Maybe? Great clip!
There are many forms of life. Life has many forms. Humans think their form is important.
There may be a force that had intention and conceived of design. The god head souls be explored more.
life is rare, and exactly because of its rarity life is "more" than non-life. and this extra thing is something we call synergy. in a couple of years people will understand how entropy and synergy are related. even the assembly theory provided by Sara Walker started to scratch the surface of this topic. however, the key is not time (causation), it is only an indicator of complexity and synergy, and NOT the inducer. the answer is hidden in the concept of potentiality (and counterfactuality).
It would be really nifty to see her and Michael Levin talk!
Man I’m having trouble following this one
She looks like April O'Neil from ninja turtles
You know what’s complex, X will forever be called Twitter even though the name change.
Schrödinger’s social media platform.
"the almost shortest path is always most likely". That's occams razor. Love it
Two smart people made up mostly of water, having a conversation. Ironically or not, right next to two bottles of Smart Water. Made me smile a little bit.
Both made of molecules billions of years old, maybe once burning in a star, that combined because a butterfly flapped its wings in the right direction, on a moon, in the early universe.
Water is just the medium...
The complexity/Magic is the other stuff in the water...
Meanwhile the two volumes of water are having a conversation about the deterministic steps that water took to create the humans that made the bottles.
They are mostly made up of empty space.
@@fkalanda space in which galaxies once passed through. This is my favorite :)
I think lux found a soul mate… lol ❤
If I understand her correctly, in Assembly Theory, life is inevitable, given enough time.
I could be way off, but I vibe a lot of chemistry between Lex and Sarah. Ha!
Regardless, Lex rocks in totality, but I specifically enjoyed all clips I've viewed from this interview.
Fascinating 🙏❤️
"a lot of chemistry between Lex and Sarah. Ha! "
I said this last time he interviewed her. It hasn't changed. :)
@@TruthHasSpoken Ha! Great minds think alike. 😁
Lex won't ask the most obvious question, "What's Curious George like in real life"?
He high key wants to be Mr. Lady in the yellow shacket.
"think this is too yellow?"
Maybe she's Tracy...Dick, Tracy..... depends on which yellow hat she wears... where's her hat?
This theory is blown up by Butterflies, moths, and cicadas existing.
?????
The April O'Neil vibes are pretty distracting, but I'm really digging the theory. I wonder if she's familiar with Terence McKenna's take on novelty.
At least this doesn't only use a dualistic order and spin on the platonic solids.
The most taught ordering skills of population species defines a city by walls reduced down to ethnicity and cells. Idealism and physicalism only. It denys x,y,z= manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations.
Denys that subjective properties make up 96% of our known standard reality & universe .
It projects formalism but atleast it's broad and free enough to dig out some soul agency and an excuse in overcoming horizon paradoxes to scales that very few things in nature can do .
Something humans get mobile and overcome so effortlessly we take for granted just how fast we plagerize correlate and project symmetrical beauty and ugly chaos upon.
As a biochemist/Computer Scientist (I agree who cares but) I wouldn't talk like this to an audience unless I knew they understood what I was saying. Otherwise, I would use analogies and as much lamen terminology to convey what I was trying to say.
To say, “It took a long Evolutionary History to get where we are today” is the most assumptive and dismissive statement in Science albeit too common. There is not one serious effort going to conduct an actual real Scientific effort to openly discuss and research the Origin of Man - period. And if we actually endeavored to delve into that discussion in earnest without bias regardless of the Scientist involved then we would start to understand the immense complexity of Man’s Origin and then we would look at the entire Universe differently. We ignore our Origins at our own undoing.
Ok what she hasnt explained is 1) what is diving the new connections and what may be trying to destroy said connections ie aintimatter, external forces and bonds that may be coherent for one compound but eventually deadly when a new structure is made. Life has a equal chance at failing as it does succeeding even if this theory of accidental life can be proven. Even if her theories of stacking wre correct where in nature do we see this, and if it be true then each lifeform would be unique entirely thus it would be impossible for reproduction to happen so spontaneously. If chance is driving life then we would not see life consistently thriving. If evolution were true life would evolve to stay small because large organisms would take to much resources to stay alive to support constant life. Human beings are a very fragile orgamism compared to say bacteria so why would evolution choose to make species that conflict with one another and would be difficult to support constant life. Thing is she is smart yet cannot see that everything living and the whole universe has been programmed by something to survive and thrive. This phenomenon is not a law of pysics it difies pysics because it has been programmed to do so.
🤣🤯😂🤔 lex that look at 3:19 ! Idk why but u had me falling over laughing, if u aren’t already u now know how to be the best husband, listen, encourage, and u can do anything but bore them!
Hello, Miguel...(ChronoCross ref.) "A future that never was, a place where angels loose their way..."
This is absolutely right - it agrees with cellular Automata, crystal formation chemically, gene preservation and replication, planetary maps to suns forming solar systems
so her main point is time is above all and is always ahead; So everything that happens is always on “the past” and we could never catch up to that, and then comes depressing thoughts….😂❤❤
in*
And how useful is this?
@@dimitardobrev3296 Very
This chick says a lot without really saying anything
Actually her description of time and life were some of the best I’ve ever heard. Quite profound.
Imo it's because the whole assembly theory is like this, I remember watching the podcast with Kronin and it felt similar, that it says a lot without a whole lot of a new insight.
If you don’t know what she’s talking about, you are in the right channel be enlightened
No ring on her finger yet! I’m creating my theory now. Sorry this is my girl lex! 😂 needs a neck and back massage, then back to work
Non sense…
A bunch of big words explaining nothing…
When does Assembly become law? This is it - the equation to creation. Bravissimo!!!
I let my dog listen to this now he is calculating deterministic probabilities on my computer
This doesn't really feel like physics, but rather philosophy. This seems more abstract than physical.
Unfortunately I don't find this particularly helpful or compelling. Maybe my IQ is not high enough.
The one point I did find highly interesting is the notion that life is a phase change of "complexity" in the universe, though I'm not particularly moved by it because it is subject to the sample size of the universe: i.e., life is an irregularity in our galactic neighbourhood, but if you zoom out far enough then it is probably dispersed regularly, at which point things look homogenous again.
Whatever led you to believe that theoretical physics has ever NOT been more abstract than physical? Theoretical physics is a mathematical and logical discipline, not experimental or applied.
Nerd date
This lady has that rusty un-oiled "door hinge voice" like when u open or close a door and it creeks real loud and too long
I love her ! Please have her listen to Abraham Hicks she will understand !
hahaha..so funny..she talks like Legally Blonde and then ..Snap!
was she flirting with Chat_Lex at 13:24???
Everything to dismiss the fact that the universe has been engineered
You can make an entire episode of midnight gospel out of this clip
It's almost like word salad, but both her and lex seem to understand
Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb.
world class ideas and creaking vocal fry. I thank you.
I was following but at some point I started to get exponentially lost
Yeah, nah.
The Emperor is buck naked.
God did it.
potential x probability where niether can equal 0.
„Do you wiggle“ is the modern wolf of wallstreet
Can anyone summarize this, so I can process this idea?
It's probably just light that causes life.
The High Priests of Science will do any/all mental gymnastics they need to as long as they can try and explain reality without God. Does nobody recognize that this is a crazy fairy tale?
Nobody here said anything about God one way or another. The discussion (and the theory) is about trying to understand the mechanisms by which the physical world operates. That has nothing to do with ultimate causes for existence. (Unless you're the sort of person who wants every explanation of the natural world to be the sort that goes, "...and then he reached into his hat and pulled out the rabbit !!! I just can't imagine how he did it !!!)
Thanks, Lex. Another eye opener to a new idea.
Man sounds like my last three relationships
I think the precondition of the existence of highly resilient structures (redundancy) is necessary for biological life to develop. Think about how many complex processes go on all the time in even the simplest forms of life, and humans are far more complex than that. There are so many things that could go wrong that would be life ending for an individual organism if they were to occur, but usually, in the vast majority of cases, they don't. The processes that take place inside biological organism are very, very robust and reliable such that they almost always succeed in functioning adequately. This is a fact that cannot just be glossed over. It is an essential requirement for something as "complex" as biological life to be successful.
This has got to be tje dumbest theory I have ever herd.
There is no example we observe where nothing organizes itself into sentient life.
This has got be the dumbest comment I have ever read.
(Notice how my sentence uses all the spelling and grammatical rules correctly? Oh, and by the way, if you think she was saying that "nothing organizes itself into sentient life," then you really did completely miss the point. But, that's not surprising.)
I need her to assemble her words differently
Imagine you start with a semiconductor. One complexity layer above that might be a transistor. One layer above that might be logic gates. A layer above that might be basic logic chips like half adders and multiplexors. Another layer up might be multi-bit versions of those chips. Another layer up might be an Arithmetic Logic Unit, RAM, and machine code processing circuits. Another layer up might be a CPU.
I believe what she's saying is that when something requires at least 15 layers of complexity, it is no longer reasonable to believe that it could have occurred purely randomly. There is simply too much complexity for it to have existed within the age and size of the universe. Instead, it must be explained by structures that build upon existing complex structures.
Essentially, all things that exist, exist on a tree of possibilities, branching from things that existed already. This tree expands exponentially, but far more slowly than the total space of possibilities it expands into. There may be extraordinary things that could exist if only they had a path to reach them along this tree.
I somwtimes wonder with all the deep time, eons, if the universe weeded out the antimatter in the universe, similiar to the way life only uses righthand versions chilrality of molecules. Anyhow it all seems like alot of chaos, sure there's patterns in the clouds patterns on the bottom of the river, order construction of order is life. So these natural systems evolve in an unordered way. One event can birth multiple new trajectories. There's computational thesholds reached quickly. The universe itself could be sourced from some random event, vs say a multiverse. Some event at some phenomenally large scale occurs and from that is what we see and are.
Ok so, like, sometimes i have a hard time following some topics on Lex’s podcast but I didn’t really comprehend any of this but she’s clearly correct about what she was talking about.
Everything that exists, emerges...
Words are nothing more than manipulated noises of our vocal chords. We then attach emotions to those random noises and create our own unneeded controversy.
So, you know... words don't hurt. We hurt ourselves with our own opinions of our surroundings.
Yo Lex! She's it. Few women are as intelligent as her and still actually super attractive. Wow, whata gal
15:30 "people that hate on everything" is not a description of a cohort of people existing, but rather a description of a measurement taken. Don't let the statistics of "social science" lead you to believe that you're using this to think with it. You're thinking in a dimension not used by most people you're thinking about in these terms. Your insight, whatever insight you might derive is rooted and sunned by the sun of a different world. It is an insight into your own thinking, not into someone else's.
TL;DR -- I'd be one of those people "that hate on everything" in most of my online interactions. Doesn't describe me, doesn't describe what I do. It's just Twitter, after all.
life is abrupt in relation to linear time against non existence like somone holding their breath and then exhaling. the objects that never get a chance to exist might reap selection because of the need for experience. Sometiimes the fit just need expansion or they just need more structure.
“Do you wiggle?” is crazy
We will never come to an understanding that actually works until we abandon the idea that this is all random.
She should read Terence Deacon.
ttheres something about duality or the initial stages of growth that expresses a quality of randomness which is a reflection of the need for more expansion and thus stucture.
Great talk. its hard to say that free will could be a quality of randomness which is where selection comes in i guess. expansion makes the process easier
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs that depend on the level of abstraction one chooses to analyze the system and are used to approximately describe underlying physical processes; these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities, and therefore consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
Define conciousness, please.
@@rodrigozauli6573 With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experience such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams. The most fundamental empirical piece of information we have is the existence of our mental experiences. Consciousness is what we experience, therefore we know exactly what consciousness is. Consciousness is what we know best because it is the only reality we directly know exactly as it is in itself, the only reality we directly experience because it is experience itself. We have then a direct empirical knowledge of consciousness and consciousness represents the necessary preliminary condition for all other knowledge, consciousness is the foundation of all knowledge.
With the word consciousness I refer to the property of being conscious= having a mental experience such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams. The most fundamental empirical piece of information we have is the existence of our mental experiences. Consciousness is what we experience, therefore we know exactly what consciousness is. Consciousness is what we know best because it is the only reality we directly know exactly as it is in itself, the only reality we directly experience because it is experience itself. We have then a direct empirical knowledge of consciousness and consciousness represents the necessary preliminary condition for all other knowledge, consciousness is the foundation of all knowledge. The existence of consciousness is therefore the most fundamental certainty we can have and denying the existence of consciousness is an unscientific claim, because it denies the most fundamental empirical fact. If we were not conscious, we would neither know nor understand anything; we would not even understand the meaning of the present conversation and we would not even know that this conversation took place. The claim that consciousness is an illusion or does not exist is an utterly meaningless expression, exactly as the expression "a married bachelor" or “a spherical cube”; it is an expression formed by juxtaposing two words whose meaning is mutually exclusive, thus leading to an intrinsic logical contradiction. Language allows us to form meaningless sentences by associating mutually excuding words and this can create illusory definitions; these expressions may create the illusion of a meaning, while being devoid of any meaning.
Oh shut up! You aint gonna do shit! Nice troll though!!
I agree its not just the brain, its the nervous system, sight, hearing, touch, an organism will have limited consciousness just as a brain
So many double entendres.
Compare with Terrence Howard. Thank you!
lol...
I can’t like take like someone who like constantly says like seriously.
Not sure how assembly theory explains the purposefulness of the assembly process.
That's assuming "purpose" is some sort of intentional requirement, is it?
@ghostwalk2446 One cannot observe complex functionality from infinite possibilities and conclude random chance.
@@ChannelSRL1 It is an excellent theory, and I have been thinking along these lines for nearly two decades. What they are missing is the retro-causal effect of future constructs on past constructs, which can be interpreted as a deep-seated purposefulness inherent in existence. Without taking into account retrocausality and Sheldrake's concept of morphic resonance, the theory remains incomplete.
@@ChannelSRL1
Why not?
Why can’t things just-happening occur “first”…and then give rise to a “later” process?….that creates more complex things….
The problem with your “creator”-hypothesis, is that you still can’t explain where the creator came from…
..and saying the creator needs no explanation is insufficient…
@jimliu2560 How about we substitute 'creator' with an 'organizational dynamic'? Think of it as the symmetrical opposite of entropy. That way you won't be spooked with all of the religuos baggage.
what an annoying voice
i would ship them 😂🎉
What a bunch of bunk.
I think I get it, I was thinking about this, but in the idea-space, it might be true there as well.
Too many big words
science and sanity....
...then a sheer drop.
I love her dress.
Holy vocal fry.
… …. ……. …………. nerds
Got wiggle?
Ramble ramble
Mad woman.
there is a reason this girl is not married.
This comment feels very autobiographical.