Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast. 0:00 - Introduction & sponsor mentions: - SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com/lex and use code LEX to get a free security camera - Eight Sleep: www.eightsleep.com/lex and use code LEX to get $200 off - ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free - BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/lex and use code LEX to get 10% off 3:31 - Simulation 8:22 - Theories of everything 14:02 - Consciousness 36:16 - Roger Penrose on consciousness 46:28 - Turing test 50:16 - GPT-3 58:46 - Universality of computation 1:05:17 - Complexity 1:11:23 - P vs NP 1:23:41 - Complexity of quantum computation 1:35:48 - Pandemic 1:49:33 - Love
Start simpler single-cell organism and it's recognition of a change of state, time perception basically. Matter recognising a change of state or gaining information about itself you could say.
He began arrogant as someone who's going to die before his expectations are realised. You asked questions that allowed him to remember what is important to him and created an excellent discussion. I personally appreciate your determination to demonstrate intelligent humility in the face of elite intelligence, and think that you expose more from these people than even they believed possible. Well done!
Ok, but in the test of consciousness, how can Phi fail a test, when the idea of it is that a bridge can be more conscious than an individual human, simply because it's bigger? Isn't the Bridge a form of error correction for both the individual human being and society? Where the phi of the bridge is actually a substrata of overarching phi that is human society via existing as an error correction model? That doesn't make the bridge 'touring conscious', but it does provide the bridge with a proverbial 'soul of intent' that can be included in the goals of humanity.
Can you get an updated anti aging guru? Cross reference with the super rich who seem to live longer than the rest of society. How they rule the world at near 100 years old while we die peasants or middle class at 70
fair nuf. Then again most interesting people are pretty unknown :p The days of people knowing great minds are over. Id even go so far to say that if you'd ask people to name physicists they'd be able to come up with more names of the deceased than the living.
@@jimjam303 He had openly planned on doing so forever; that he didn't let himself devolve into dementia and uselessness and went out on his own terms was a sign of his ideological integrity until the end.
Lex, thank you so much for this! We are an education establishment in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). We are helping school students to get the best education they can! We are waiting for you in our podcast! Please, press like, so Lex could see it! We would love to make this interview in the Russian language! The English is great as well, just saying.
Wow Yakutia!! Always wanted to visit that part of the world (probably need to buy warmer clothes;). It looks beautiful on the photos. All the best to you guys from Poland!
A CPU is just hardware it wouldn’t be the thing passing the test that would be the program running on the CPU. It’s like how a treadmill doesn’t run, YOU run.
One of my favorite conversations. Awesome episode. I didn’t notice any sort of poor sound quality or rain noise in the beginning. Great as always. Thanks for making these.
Dear Lex, I have discovered you recently and I am impressed with your humbleness and great skills in taking interviews. Yesterday I had the privilege to listen to your father's interview and download his book on plasma, which I shared it with my dear friend Roger Spurr, the founder of Mudfossil University, and I felt it was amazing synchronicity when he told me he was just looking in depth into plasma at that time. He is a very well educated person in an array of fields from anatomy, physiology, molecular biology, chemistry, electricity, physics, anthropology, geology, religion, you will find yourself very challenged in taking his interview in just one session. He will blow your mind, and your mind will have to be very open to grasp the beyond textbooks levels of research, so I wish you good luck and a lot of interest in this subject. Most people will be overwhelmed but I am confident you will treat this with outmost seriousness and respect, based on your previous videos. I say that because I sense a great humbleness which is the attribute of extremely intelligent people. Yes, the more you know, the more you understand you know very little and there is much more to learn. So, I salute you and I admire you, and it would be a privilege if you would take my request seriously and look into it. You can contact me anytime, I will be delighted to make this interview possible. So please, take a few minutes to read this and check out Roger. I hope you'll make my dream come true. Blessings and lots of good vibes and love to you!
His reasoning for why the theory failed though was moronic. It was essentially "because it looks like a wall". So what if it looks like a blank wall? Why does that matter at all? That's so human centric and arrogant it's unbelivable.
@@lost4468yt yeah it made me sad to see how close-minded scott is. and he didn't really put that much thought into his counterarguments either. the simplest version of an error correcting algorithm is going to have a much smaller graph than the graph of the simplest version of a human brain. it seems like he's almost maliciously taking the nuance out of what could be a good argument. especially considering he has nothing to say on the matter.
@@youredead1000 Yeah I couldn't stand a huge amount of this podcast. I can't believe so many people think it's so great. As you said Scott is acting very close minded, and I think quite arrogant. And even just the little things like where he talks about P=NP, and mentions there's something like a 2% (iirc) chance he might be wrong in believing they're not equal. Then he backs that up by saying "well yeah because if you gave me 50 unsolved questions I think maybe 2% would give different answers, that's what that means when you say that" or something like that. Uhh no that's not even what that means, that means out of the entire 50 only maybe 1 will likely be wrong as a group, but each question in there has a different probability itself. You can't just apply that group to a single one, yet he says it so confidently.
Gosh who are you people here watching this, I want to befriend all of you. I am serious I want Lex's audience as friends, 0 people I know find Lex interesting, the people he brings and their discussions are boring for all the people I know, which I just want to repeat these discussions all day long. Lex PLEASE start a social media platform intended for your audience only I WANT TO BEFRIEND YOU PEOPLE ♥️💯 I finished listening, stop talking love start doing love, let's all come together on the LexBook/Fridder/instaman social media.
I listen to it but generally I don't understand 90% of Lexes podcast. In this particular case, when they started talking about complexities, my understanding went down to 0%, so I will be the person that will just listen to your discussions haha
I could listen to Scott talk about quantum mechanics and consciousness philosophy forever. If I was rich, and he were willing, I'd pay him to follow me around and just talk to me about stuff.
Simultaneously enjoying this and hating you for posting this after 1am as I was checking my subscription channels just before intending to close down my browser for the night.
You can absolutely establish the fact of the simulation from its errors once you know what to look for. I see them all the time now, mostly in the execution of relationships that come under regular scrutiny for certain reasons.
@@user-ew9cf1fv4l Yeah... it's a different game altogether. The biggest bitch for me is being constantly, grindingly aware of the sim limitations in processing power. It ranges from merely being annoyed by the low level of interactivity to barely being able to walk straight.
The craziest thing, to me, is that Penrose seems like the farthest thing ever from a charlatan. I get the impression that he believes it. But how can he be so intelligent, work in science, and believe his crackpot theory? That and the fact that I’ve never heard anyone else say this. Am I the only one who thinks it’s strange?
I really, really like the way this guy thinks and articulates himself. He's got a real knack for communication and lucid thinking. First person who's involved in anything quantum related that doesn't seem like they're selling me a bill of goods
Lex, I highly recommend you to look into Bernardo Kastrup's work, and maybe interviewing him. His thoughts on the hard problem of consciousness are the most interesting that I've come across
@Dirk Knight me too, but I try to be cordial about it. These interviews exercise critical thinking and skepticism, so I gravitate toward them. Imean shermer is the head of the freakin skeptic society, I'm surprised you don't like his content this much
okay, I'm still just paying a compliment, which is a good thing, not bad. Obviously these people don't need motherly encouragement, just commenting to show how I value this content.
anything positive to say, or advice on where I should give up my efforts toward being an autodidact polymath and apply to work at a fast food chain, to "stop thinking" as you put it? try to encourage people, not belittle them, that's something I've learned from these videos
I'm glad these kind of topics are back. Lately, we were getting into down to earth topics like, what's your game plan when you are going to fight (physically) with someone, you're on top of your adversary and try to clamp him down ...I mean, i'm 56, i never had to fight anyone in all my life, and it's not because i always agree with everyone coming my way....thank you.
I'd really love to see more depth on such topics! From what I can tell, you barely scratched the surface of computational complexity theory. As I see it, theoretical computer science/complexity theory is THE discipline that is ironically the most practical concerning questions about determinism, nondeterminism, consciousness and all those interesting concepts!
Agreed, it's one of my favorite topics. I'm thinking of how we can go deep and still make it a fun episode to listen to for 2-4 hours. I'd like to believe it's possible.
@@lexfridman I totally believe its possible and I'd totally listen to it :D But I do acknowledge that many people are very intimidated by such things ;D
I love his answer to the useless simulation theory. “What difference does it make?” It’s unfalsifiable, so it’s not a real scientific theory. You can never be proven wrong.
Exactly... There are some people that Lex interviews that speak about such pseudo-interesting stuff that really don't look good next to actual science stuff and sensible, clear-thinking guests like Aaronson.
Thank you lex, this was a great episode. Even if I don't understand some of the complex topics I really enjoy listening to the passion that you and your guests have for the subjects. I'm inspired by every episode and I can't wait for more!
As always - amazing! Thank you, Lex. All you need is love? Try to talk to Sir Paul McCartney - not Putin... Thanks to you and your guest Dr Aaronson! As you always saying - it was beautiful.
I recently considered the simulation question more seriously and had the following thoughts: IF it is a simulation, what is the point of it? we run simulations to figure out stuff that is hard to calculate otherwise. I think, therefore I am. The thinker thinking this then can only conclude that either the simulation is running specifically to get some output from that thinker that it can't otherwise figure out (seems kinda unlikely for most people I guess?) OR they're part of the simulation themselves and are meant to help guide it towards some end.
Here’s the thing and the reason why I am a supporter of Wolframs model. In his model the universe is fundamentally computational, which means the universe is a simulation…but what is critical is that it is fundamental…meaning that computation IS the point of the universe. That insight is a huge shift in how we think about simulation hypothesis and that you don’t need a computer “outside” the universe…the universe is just fundamentally a computation and that everything we do is a computation of some kind. This realization is made explicit in Wolframs model and as a consequence, it makes all computations an arbitrary construct. Meaning that there is no meaning…we compute whatever is meant to be computed and that is why we are here…to be part of a computation.
In Penrose’s concluding remarks in ‘The Road to Reality’ he noted that not only do we currently not have the answer, but it’s most likely both very simple & standing right before our eyes. In an 2011 ‘Edge’ conversation, Deutsch pointed out that the exact ontology of ‘information’ is completely unknown, & that if & when we do figure it out we’ll almost surely be able to understand those deepest of deep ‘constructor’ laws that are even more foundational than quantum physics. ‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena & as such it’s quite reasonable to assume that knowing information’s correct ontological identity - along with the role it fills here in our Universe - should be an especially useful aid in clarifying all of these directly information-related phenomena. And such is the case. And the principal reason we haven’t been able to determine the ontological identity of any of these directly information-related phenomena to date is simply due to the fact that we’ve fallen into the habit of considering ‘digits’ to be ‘information’ but ‘digits’ are not ‘information’ no matter how many of these particular entities one has at one’s disposal, nor how cleverly arranged they are, nor how massively miniaturised they are in their orchestrated dance around on the surface of the many tiny chips on which they do so customarily dance inside our computers & communicating devices, nor, indeed, how large, powerful & globally interconnected are the machines & devices, systems & gadgets operating on them. Mind you real information can be turned into digits, & can be trundled through any dedicated digit-using machine in digital form - but no such dedicated digit-using machine can ‘think’ - or be conscious, or intelligent. (See my concluding comments below)
I agree with the knowledge you two find beautiful. I appreciate being able to be apart of witnessing this life. One of those things that make life worth living,god bless you both. Ty Scott and Lex. Another great podcast
I have a strong feeling that Penrose’s idea of consciousness is the correct route. It’s sad these guys are just not understanding it. They are just caught up in their ways.
1:43:00 Part of the issue that has made nuanced discussion difficult is that people on the extremes had started to hide behind nuanced discussion to promote bigoted views, often using it as a dog-whistle or to bait and it has started to condition people to assume that you are speaking in bad faith if you appear to be arguing against what are usually at their core a positive viewpoint. Because so much hatred and bigotry has reared its head in recent years it has put people on the defensive a lot more.
Thanks a lot for incredibly hard work youve put in this podcast . Thoughts that guests are saying so strongly relate to my own views that it helps a lot in these tumultuous times to percieve my self not like monster or freak or something. Спасибо еще раз большое ! Интервью Вашего отца тоже было очень глубокое и вдохновляющее.
Great conversation, also works as a drinking game. Every time Scott says "you know" drink a sip of whiskey. Expect to be dangerously hung over the next day though!
I wasn't expecting to like this podcast and I definitely didn't think I'd like Scott based on the way he spoke but yeah, he won my heart. I really enjoy him talking -- especially explaining the equation underlying quantum mechanics, I wish more people explained that equation. I have never been one for trying to understand history or people, in CS, when we'd get a history lesson over Djikstra before learning about his algos, I'd be like plllleaseeee just get to the algorithm already. But this was a refreshing perspective! Thanks Lex.
This guys funnny ^_^ Yeah we can't hack the sim unless you see a glitch there's a small window. Love this one thanks for sharing HAHA I love basic I learned when I was seven
For all you complainers bitching about this information too complex, enlighten yourself if it bothers you that much and look the shit up. Lex's podcasts to me are better than Joe Rogan's.
This is a VERY interesting podcast, I thoroughly enjoyed it! I am going to school to study neuroscience and psychology and consciousness and this put new ideas in my head. THANK YOU! and thank you Lex for not reading my IG message lol #Happyfan #Sadfan
Lex please keep bringing complexity theorists and mathematicians on the podcast. They bring a fundamentally different perspective to your show. I'll suggest Thomas Vidick so he can talk about MIP*=RE and the relationship between complexity theory and what's computable in our universe.
I enjoy your podcast. Please keep doing what you are doing, let your intuition guide you. Enjoy Austin! Utilizing social media platforms is great on getting traction, but it’s sad to hear that you are affected by mean comments and trolls, or annoyed by some comments. It seems so stressful. Sending ❤️ May all beings be struggling beautifully? May all beings find a small happiness and peace to keep them going. I listen to this podcast because I always curious with consciousness and the universe. I don’t have a strong background in mathematics, physics, CS or AI, so I may miss important points in this discussion. This is a layman perspective on how my brain works. Initially, I thought there’s a mysterious force that guide the flow of understanding. For instance, I read a paper let say 2 or 3 years ago, but it’s only now I truly understand it that I read it again, having read another related papers. Maybe there was some kind of illusions of competence that prevent me to get new insight. Anyway, because I thought it’s mysterious, I know that it’s stupid, but I become heavily rely on waiting for “the mysterious guidance” or “the right time” to write the discussion of my research findings. I learned the hard way, I never finished my dissertation. People think that I’m aiming for a perfect dissertation, but actually I just want it to be a solid research and useful, not merely adding more data or confirmation, although it’s still very important to do that. So, I’m waiting for the mysterious force to let me find a complete understanding or I procrastinate, I become a big procrastinator. After I read a book entitled “a mind for numbers” by Barbara Oakley, I found that it’s not a mysterious force, my brain just go into “diffuse-mode”, so sometimes idea came when I was not working on my writing. But, it’s impossible to find new knowledge according to the book without building a library of knowledge, the key is to enrich my reading sources instead of waiting for an idea to come. It takes time for the brain to build new synapses. Since I’m a slow learner, it may take more time for my brain to build new network to understand new knowledge. Or in AI term, adding a new algorithm? Sir Roger Penrose argued that the way computers run an algorithm and do computation is different from the way we understand an algorithm. And I also think that computers can only regurgitate any information loaded into its program, it can’t acquire outside sources, so how can it correct its error? My brain is constantly changing what it believes, through understanding. I wonder how a super AI corrects the bugs by itself? I watched a movie, serenity, in the movie everyone who lives in a simulation has limited access. It makes me think that maybe I’m living in a simulation, because sometimes I can predict future events in my dreams, usually it’s a symbol not actual events. But of course, it’s not 100% accurate, so let’s dismiss it. I don’t have any experience or enough knowledge on speculating that we’re living in a simulation, guided by complex algorithms.
@@MrJigarparmar Too much to explain in a RUclips post. They're each a classification of problems. "P" problems can be solved "quickly" (where "quickly" means in polynomial time) and verified "quickly." NP problems can be verified "quickly" but there is no known way to solve "quickly." NP problems can be solved "slowly" as it would take literally billions of years for a computer to solve. Like encryption can be broken if you have an unlimited amount of time. For eg. you can just brute force anything if time is not an issue (just try every combination of inputs sequentially until you get the right answer). P problems are a subset of NP problems, but we don't know if all NP problems are P problems (we have no rigorous proof to say they're not). It's a massive question we don't know the answer to. The gut feeling though is that P does not equal NP. BUT if P = NP, our computers would overnight become super computers capable of doing even more incredible things. But this is very unlikely though to be true.
@@birdo1180 thanks for short explanation atleast It got me basic understanding I tried reading this topic in detail at other places but It was too mumbo jumbo for me
On university "You can't write a software engineering book and make that the first chapter and we're done" actually made me laugh out loud!! Love it 😂👊
With the lookup table then remove the table and casually either remove data and then to form conclusions that the table didn’t necessarily look up however rather thought of.
First, I'm new & enjoy the channel. Second, about Scott's answer to are we living in a simulation, I think it does matter because otherwise what purpose is there for science & enlightenment & philosophic religion to keep looking beyond ourselves, to leave the cave & roam the hills and look to the heavens? There is this need to survive and to do so requires us to survey the lands and locate the boundries of reality. This leads us to search for thee question or thee mathmatic formulated expression to describe this experience were living in. The singularity or "pure universal truth". Scott also talks about how a true simulation is indistinguishable from the real thing; if we keep exploring to find a 'bug' in the system then we could potentially exploit it. In order to do that, we would probably need to know every line of mathematical "code" about how the universe works which at that point is essentially like making a read-only snapshot backup system to store the mathmatical code but not execute it until we have enough resources. This survival instinct also leads to the ultimate goal of identifying & quantifying everything like a root user that has access to all of that "code". To change it up, imagine grabbing a cigarette lighter while your eyes are closed, pushing the brain to map the object by feeling it. Then by opening your eyes to new input data for the parameters of further definition, a smooth blue lighter. Your adding another perspective thereby quantifying it further. We then keep going by studying the lighter with a microscope only to rewrite the expression, from what is this to how is this working. This leads from ancient philosophy of description down to modern quantum fields. However "pure truth" beyond what we know may be some form of a ever exacerbating random function, untouchable & infinately chaotic like the flame that's to hot to touch or the unicorn which cannot be caught or the wavefunction which cannot be observed without collapsing. In a far abstract concept perhaps for each collapse of a wavefunction or as we observe more about the universal expression of "pure truth" we are adding perspective and cornering the unicorn a bit more forcing it to reshape into a new frontier which continues forever generating the experince around us. This chaotic adaptation could be the security ruleset which holds it all together. By keeping "pure truth" chaoticly random will force the system to provide infinite possibilities and multiuniversal realities over infinite time. My questions then are is there a bandwidth limit or a point at which every possible outcome would have played out and then what? Does porky pig say, that's all folks!?
Watched it all, fascinating. Always nice to remind myself of things long forgotten, once read in a book 15 years ago! Btw, that drunken outro was something else!
I think in any equation that could help us understand the universe... Would exist the criteria of perspective. Therefore different for every living organism. Each having its own unique equation? Maybe
@Lex Fridman What would you suggest? A formal education on AI/Deep learning like a Master’s degree and PHD or self learning and exploration given that there is equal determination and obligation in both cases. The end goal is to innovate in the area of AI/Deep learning and do something that gives me satisfaction of creativity. Thanks in advance.
This talk of the universe being a simulation is one of many acts of desperation responding to the wave-particle problem. Look me up to see how I resolved that problem.
Hey Lex. Great stuff as usual. As a request, though I know it may be a bit much, could you link websites like Wikipedia for the high level concepts that are talked about or mentioned? It took me a bit long to find the AdS/CFT Correspondence, mostly due to messing up the speech to text, but I think it would be really cool to be able to purvey the theories and mathematical backings to the concepts that are talked about. Again, I know it would be a lot of extra work so no need to heed. Keep up the good work!
Show me a consciousness, any consciousness and I'll show you it is indeed reducible to computation. So, it may be we've been getting Test before the Touring. I'm thinking especially in the case of certain others whose perspective(s) on the questions involved with consciousness may be somehow bounded. I need to hold a symposium on Consciousness.
Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast.
0:00 - Introduction & sponsor mentions:
- SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com/lex and use code LEX to get a free security camera
- Eight Sleep: www.eightsleep.com/lex and use code LEX to get $200 off
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free
- BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/lex and use code LEX to get 10% off
3:31 - Simulation
8:22 - Theories of everything
14:02 - Consciousness
36:16 - Roger Penrose on consciousness
46:28 - Turing test
50:16 - GPT-3
58:46 - Universality of computation
1:05:17 - Complexity
1:11:23 - P vs NP
1:23:41 - Complexity of quantum computation
1:35:48 - Pandemic
1:49:33 - Love
Hard on yourself, the raindrops are free asmr, we usually would have to go to another video. Great conversation!
Start simpler single-cell organism and it's recognition of a change of state, time perception basically. Matter recognising a change of state or gaining information about itself you could say.
He began arrogant as someone who's going to die before his expectations are realised. You asked questions that allowed him to remember what is important to him and created an excellent discussion. I personally appreciate your determination to demonstrate intelligent humility in the face of elite intelligence, and think that you expose more from these people than even they believed possible. Well done!
Ok, but in the test of consciousness, how can Phi fail a test, when the idea of it is that a bridge can be more conscious than an individual human, simply because it's bigger? Isn't the Bridge a form of error correction for both the individual human being and society? Where the phi of the bridge is actually a substrata of overarching phi that is human society via existing as an error correction model? That doesn't make the bridge 'touring conscious', but it does provide the bridge with a proverbial 'soul of intent' that can be included in the goals of humanity.
Can you get an updated anti aging guru? Cross reference with the super rich who seem to live longer than the rest of society. How they rule the world at near 100 years old while we die peasants or middle class at 70
One of the few podcasts that always evokes a little spark of joy when I see a notification of a new episode.
Would love to see Joscha Bach back soon.
Not just Lex's best podcast but the best I've ever listened to
Yes, already listend to it thrice and planning on relistening it. that episode was a mindfuck though.
Joscha is psychedelic
I second this. Bring Joscha back!
Yes, Lex can you get Joscha on again?
Aaronson is such a great guy to interview. Smart, knowledgeable, and super reasonable. More of him, please!
Aaronson is such an underrated speaker. Thanks for having him on again.
underrated by whom?
@@daarom3472 maybe “not well known” would have been a better phrase ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
fair nuf. Then again most interesting people are pretty unknown :p
The days of people knowing great minds are over.
Id even go so far to say that if you'd ask people to name physicists they'd be able to come up with more names of the deceased than the living.
He stutters a lot….
I'm hopeful for a part 3
"Life should not just be a journey to the grave with an intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body......."
The intro is just thrilling 👏
Lex is in early startup mode
@@jimjam303 He had openly planned on doing so forever; that he didn't let himself devolve into dementia and uselessness and went out on his own terms was a sign of his ideological integrity until the end.
@yap yap Eh, I would say that's a matter of opinion but even so I guess you'd just say his suicide came 20-30 years too late then.
Well, this isn't life. If you haven't figured that out yet then nothing we're doing here is going to make sense :)
he should tell that to the otherwise brilliant speaker there, who is pro vaccines!
Lex, thank you so much for this! We are an education establishment in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). We are helping school students to get the best education they can! We are waiting for you in our podcast! Please, press like, so Lex could see it! We would love to make this interview in the Russian language! The English is great as well, just saying.
Amazing !!! Id love to be in this class
@@beevsteve hello! Nice to meet you!
Wow Yakutia!! Always wanted to visit that part of the world (probably need to buy warmer clothes;). It looks beautiful on the photos. All the best to you guys from Poland!
"We should not fear the day when a CPU passes the turing test. The true day of concern is when the AI purposely fails." -Can't remember
Thats the plot to "Ex Machina"
@@quantum_ocean Also i don't think exists a serious test, only in the programming phase you have conscius control over it (sAi)
A CPU is just hardware it wouldn’t be the thing passing the test that would be the program running on the CPU. It’s like how a treadmill doesn’t run, YOU run.
Just be nice to your robots, because they will remember....
@@ZeNashB not really
One of my favorite conversations. Awesome episode. I didn’t notice any sort of poor sound quality or rain noise in the beginning. Great as always. Thanks for making these.
I cant help but mimic this dude's smile while watching. Contagious
Dear Lex, I have discovered you recently and I am impressed with your humbleness and great skills in taking interviews. Yesterday I had the privilege to listen to your father's interview and download his book on plasma, which I shared it with my dear friend Roger Spurr, the founder of Mudfossil University, and I felt it was amazing synchronicity when he told me he was just looking in depth into plasma at that time. He is a very well educated person in an array of fields from anatomy, physiology, molecular biology, chemistry, electricity, physics, anthropology, geology, religion, you will find yourself very challenged in taking his interview in just one session. He will blow your mind, and your mind will have to be very open to grasp the beyond textbooks levels of research, so I wish you good luck and a lot of interest in this subject. Most people will be overwhelmed but I am confident you will treat this with outmost seriousness and respect, based on your previous videos. I say that because I sense a great humbleness which is the attribute of extremely intelligent people. Yes, the more you know, the more you understand you know very little and there is much more to learn. So, I salute you and I admire you, and it would be a privilege if you would take my request seriously and look into it. You can contact me anytime, I will be delighted to make this interview possible. So please, take a few minutes to read this and check out Roger. I hope you'll make my dream come true. Blessings and lots of good vibes and love to you!
i'm glad that ppl as established as Penrose aren't afraid to chase outlandish theories once in a while
Even tho I realize how much of an idiot I am every time I listen to your program...I love it. Don't stop.
@Mr Sunshine self deprecation is a built in check to keep me humble.
I'm also smart enough to know how dumb I am.. seems most people don't 😁
@@volaireoh883 I remind myself daily ;)
Compared to many recent interviewees his thoughts and answers are crystal clear. Just compare his answer about Penrose's model of consciousness
.
Scott is a special guy. His blog is a great read too.
he is good at saying I don't know and doesn't jump to conclusions. which is a good thing to me.
His reasoning for why the theory failed though was moronic. It was essentially "because it looks like a wall". So what if it looks like a blank wall? Why does that matter at all? That's so human centric and arrogant it's unbelivable.
@@lost4468yt yeah it made me sad to see how close-minded scott is. and he didn't really put that much thought into his counterarguments either. the simplest version of an error correcting algorithm is going to have a much smaller graph than the graph of the simplest version of a human brain. it seems like he's almost maliciously taking the nuance out of what could be a good argument. especially considering he has nothing to say on the matter.
@@youredead1000 Yeah I couldn't stand a huge amount of this podcast. I can't believe so many people think it's so great. As you said Scott is acting very close minded, and I think quite arrogant.
And even just the little things like where he talks about P=NP, and mentions there's something like a 2% (iirc) chance he might be wrong in believing they're not equal. Then he backs that up by saying "well yeah because if you gave me 50 unsolved questions I think maybe 2% would give different answers, that's what that means when you say that" or something like that. Uhh no that's not even what that means, that means out of the entire 50 only maybe 1 will likely be wrong as a group, but each question in there has a different probability itself. You can't just apply that group to a single one, yet he says it so confidently.
Gosh who are you people here watching this, I want to befriend all of you. I am serious I want Lex's audience as friends, 0 people I know find Lex interesting, the people he brings and their discussions are boring for all the people I know, which I just want to repeat these discussions all day long. Lex PLEASE start a social media platform intended for your audience only I WANT TO BEFRIEND YOU PEOPLE ♥️💯
I finished listening, stop talking love start doing love, let's all come together on the LexBook/Fridder/instaman social media.
We are the misfits. We question everything.
You can follow his sub reddit- www.reddit.com/r/lexfridman?
I kinda agree - not too many people dig this kinda stuff, although it looks like you might've made some hasty choices in making friends :)
I listen to it but generally I don't understand 90% of Lexes podcast. In this particular case, when they started talking about complexities, my understanding went down to 0%, so I will be the person that will just listen to your discussions haha
Biers Adajew that’s so they make themselves feel smart. don’t worry
I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. It made me ponder the words “immeasurable” and “value”, which came to mind as a result.
Girl
Haven’t heard it yet but I’m glad to be back. Been depressed lately and need a good break.
I genuinely appreciate the positivity.
I could listen to Scott talk about quantum mechanics and consciousness philosophy forever. If I was rich, and he were willing, I'd pay him to follow me around and just talk to me about stuff.
Scott is the greatest guest. Fun, affable, down to earth, and wicked smaht
Anyone craving a round 3 with Scott Aaranson hits like 👍
Simultaneously enjoying this and hating you for posting this after 1am as I was checking my subscription channels just before intending to close down my browser for the night.
Great podcast. The rational line of thinking is actually very simple to follow, I appreciate the way Aaronson effectively delivers his points.
You can absolutely establish the fact of the simulation from its errors once you know what to look for. I see them all the time now, mostly in the execution of relationships that come under regular scrutiny for certain reasons.
Public interactions changed 360 for me after I woke.
@@user-ew9cf1fv4l Yeah... it's a different game altogether. The biggest bitch for me is being constantly, grindingly aware of the sim limitations in processing power. It ranges from merely being annoyed by the low level of interactivity to barely being able to walk straight.
Thank god got people like Scott that are smart enough to call bs on theories like Penrose’s that I could always could tell smelled funny.
The craziest thing, to me, is that Penrose seems like the farthest thing ever from a charlatan. I get the impression that he believes it. But how can he be so intelligent, work in science, and believe his crackpot theory? That and the fact that I’ve never heard anyone else say this. Am I the only one who thinks it’s strange?
Yep, same with "Integrated Information Theory"
He talks just like Ben Goertzel - both brilliant minds.
Face kinda looks like him too
I really, really like the way this guy thinks and articulates himself. He's got a real knack for communication and lucid thinking. First person who's involved in anything quantum related that doesn't seem like they're selling me a bill of goods
Lex, I highly recommend you to look into Bernardo Kastrup's work, and maybe interviewing him. His thoughts on the hard problem of consciousness are the most interesting that I've come across
Just ordered his book, thanks for the heads up :)
Hey Lex, is there any prospect of you interviewing Demis Hassabis ?
Love the Podcast !
I keep thinking these interviews are showing me the smartest people I've ever witnessed and they just keep getting better.
@Dirk Knightlol I'm actually starting a youtube series on how to nurture the art of being an autodidact polymath, discussing many of these subjects.
are you really just commenting to hate? I'm complimenting these interviewees, what's your issue?
@Dirk Knight me too, but I try to be cordial about it. These interviews exercise critical thinking and skepticism, so I gravitate toward them. Imean shermer is the head of the freakin skeptic society, I'm surprised you don't like his content this much
okay, I'm still just paying a compliment, which is a good thing, not bad. Obviously these people don't need motherly encouragement, just commenting to show how I value this content.
anything positive to say, or advice on where I should give up my efforts toward being an autodidact polymath and apply to work at a fast food chain, to "stop thinking" as you put it? try to encourage people, not belittle them, that's something I've learned from these videos
One of the few podcasts that always evokes a little spark of joy when I see a notification of a new episode.
I'm glad these kind of topics are back. Lately, we were getting into down to earth topics like, what's your game plan when you are going to fight (physically) with someone, you're on top of your adversary and try to clamp him down ...I mean, i'm 56, i never had to fight anyone in all my life, and it's not because i always agree with everyone coming my way....thank you.
I'd really love to see more depth on such topics! From what I can tell, you barely scratched the surface of computational complexity theory. As I see it, theoretical computer science/complexity theory is THE discipline that is ironically the most practical concerning questions about determinism, nondeterminism, consciousness and all those interesting concepts!
Agreed, it's one of my favorite topics. I'm thinking of how we can go deep and still make it a fun episode to listen to for 2-4 hours. I'd like to believe it's possible.
Lex Fridman I’d listen to this for a lot more than 4 hours, Don’t worry about the length. Thanks for this video!
@@lexfridman I totally believe its possible and I'd totally listen to it :D But I do acknowledge that many people are very intimidated by such things ;D
@@lexfridman Stop worrying about that sort of thing and do a 10 hour punishment episode. The people must know how little we know!
I love his answer to the useless simulation theory. “What difference does it make?” It’s unfalsifiable, so it’s not a real scientific theory. You can never be proven wrong.
Exactly... There are some people that Lex interviews that speak about such pseudo-interesting stuff that really don't look good next to actual science stuff and sensible, clear-thinking guests like Aaronson.
I've learned many scientists are no matter the field have some nihilistic tendencies.
Thank you lex, this was a great episode. Even if I don't understand some of the complex topics I really enjoy listening to the passion that you and your guests have for the subjects. I'm inspired by every episode and I can't wait for more!
As always - amazing! Thank you, Lex.
All you need is love? Try to talk to Sir Paul McCartney - not Putin...
Thanks to you and your guest Dr Aaronson! As you always saying - it was beautiful.
I recently considered the simulation question more seriously and had the following thoughts: IF it is a simulation, what is the point of it? we run simulations to figure out stuff that is hard to calculate otherwise. I think, therefore I am. The thinker thinking this then can only conclude that either the simulation is running specifically to get some output from that thinker that it can't otherwise figure out (seems kinda unlikely for most people I guess?) OR they're part of the simulation themselves and are meant to help guide it towards some end.
Here’s the thing and the reason why I am a supporter of Wolframs model. In his model the universe is fundamentally computational, which means the universe is a simulation…but what is critical is that it is fundamental…meaning that computation IS the point of the universe. That insight is a huge shift in how we think about simulation hypothesis and that you don’t need a computer “outside” the universe…the universe is just fundamentally a computation and that everything we do is a computation of some kind. This realization is made explicit in Wolframs model and as a consequence, it makes all computations an arbitrary construct. Meaning that there is no meaning…we compute whatever is meant to be computed and that is why we are here…to be part of a computation.
In Penrose’s concluding remarks in ‘The Road to Reality’ he noted that not only do we currently not have the answer, but it’s most likely both very simple & standing right before our eyes.
In an 2011 ‘Edge’ conversation, Deutsch pointed out that the exact ontology of ‘information’ is completely unknown, & that if & when we do figure it out we’ll almost surely be able to understand those deepest of deep ‘constructor’ laws that are even more foundational than quantum physics.
‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena & as such it’s quite reasonable to assume that knowing information’s correct ontological identity - along with the role it fills here in our Universe - should be an especially useful aid in clarifying all of these directly information-related phenomena.
And such is the case.
And the principal reason we haven’t been able to determine the ontological identity of any of these directly information-related phenomena to date is simply due to the fact that we’ve fallen into the habit of considering ‘digits’ to be ‘information’ but ‘digits’ are not ‘information’ no matter how many of these particular entities one has at one’s disposal, nor how cleverly arranged they are, nor how massively miniaturised they are in their orchestrated dance around on the surface of the many tiny chips on which they do so customarily dance inside our computers & communicating devices, nor, indeed, how large, powerful & globally interconnected are the machines & devices, systems & gadgets operating on them.
Mind you real information can be turned into digits, & can be trundled through any dedicated digit-using machine in digital form - but no such dedicated digit-using machine can ‘think’ - or be conscious, or intelligent.
(See my concluding comments below)
Interesting to see this analysis 2 years later
love scott hes enthousiasm
Still one of my favorite episodes
In order to follow along in this interview, I need to marshal my entire consciousness
Yasss Been Waiting for Round 2
I agree with the knowledge you two find beautiful. I appreciate being able to be apart of witnessing this life. One of those things that make life worth living,god bless you both. Ty Scott and Lex. Another great podcast
I have a strong feeling that Penrose’s idea of consciousness is the correct route. It’s sad these guys are just not understanding it. They are just caught up in their ways.
1:43:00 Part of the issue that has made nuanced discussion difficult is that people on the extremes had started to hide behind nuanced discussion to promote bigoted views, often using it as a dog-whistle or to bait and it has started to condition people to assume that you are speaking in bad faith if you appear to be arguing against what are usually at their core a positive viewpoint. Because so much hatred and bigotry has reared its head in recent years it has put people on the defensive a lot more.
Thanks a lot for incredibly hard work youve put in this podcast . Thoughts that guests are saying so strongly relate to my own views that it helps a lot in these tumultuous times to percieve my self not like monster or freak or something. Спасибо еще раз большое ! Интервью Вашего отца тоже было очень глубокое и вдохновляющее.
The raindrops are actually amazing
Great conversation, also works as a drinking game. Every time Scott says "you know" drink a sip of whiskey. Expect to be dangerously hung over the next day though!
I think you did a great job with the audio. The rain isn’t very noticeable, I thought it would be much worse from your intro.
29:00 "ad nausium". He just slipped that in with a straight face. Nicely done.
I wasn't expecting to like this podcast and I definitely didn't think I'd like Scott based on the way he spoke but yeah, he won my heart. I really enjoy him talking -- especially explaining the equation underlying quantum mechanics, I wish more people explained that equation. I have never been one for trying to understand history or people, in CS, when we'd get a history lesson over Djikstra before learning about his algos, I'd be like plllleaseeee just get to the algorithm already. But this was a refreshing perspective! Thanks Lex.
have used that hst quote before... it's a brilliant philosophy,
This guys funnny ^_^ Yeah we can't hack the sim unless you see a glitch there's a small window. Love this one thanks for sharing HAHA I love basic I learned when I was seven
The singularity is nearer
Scott Aaronson is really a special scientist. More of him!
For all you complainers bitching about this information too complex, enlighten yourself if it bothers you that much and look the shit up. Lex's podcasts to me are better than Joe Rogan's.
Look how similar this guy is to Ben Goetzel who Lex had on recenty. You can guarantee they share a close lineage.
He really is. The similar speaking cadence, hand gestures, confident and intelligent explanations... 🤔
Their probably from the same shetel
Great discussion, Lex! You're the best..
I didn't understand all questions and answers, but I REALLY understand that Lex "knows"
This is a VERY interesting podcast, I thoroughly enjoyed it! I am going to school to study neuroscience and psychology and consciousness and this put new ideas in my head. THANK YOU! and thank you Lex for not reading my IG message lol
#Happyfan #Sadfan
We need a podcast with the "Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky" guy, or if it's happened already, someone please link it, thanks
Lex Fridman's conversation with Bruce Banner was absolutely fascinating
Hunter Thomas what a great poet of the 20th Century ,may he rest in peace
Is that an ironing-board / table I see in the background? Probably not but I'm totally down with it.
With random bits of tat on it 😂
That's definitely what it is .
Lex please keep bringing complexity theorists and mathematicians on the podcast. They bring a fundamentally different perspective to your show. I'll suggest Thomas Vidick so he can talk about MIP*=RE and the relationship between complexity theory and what's computable in our universe.
Lex, yet again, you've constructed a masterpiece. Great episode! Absolutely facinating.
"Squaring the heart, integrate the hearth, taking the fourier transform of the hearth... I guess my normal approaches are useless here."
Bring this guy N more times please
When I heard question about computable universe I immediately thought of Penrose. Great job Lex, as always!
I enjoy your podcast. Please keep doing what you are doing, let your intuition guide you. Enjoy Austin!
Utilizing social media platforms is great on getting traction, but it’s sad to hear that you are affected by mean comments and trolls, or annoyed by some comments. It seems so stressful.
Sending ❤️
May all beings be struggling beautifully? May all beings find a small happiness and peace to keep them going.
I listen to this podcast because I always curious with consciousness and the universe. I don’t have a strong background in mathematics, physics, CS or AI, so I may miss important points in this discussion. This is a layman perspective on how my brain works. Initially, I thought there’s a mysterious force that guide the flow of understanding. For instance, I read a paper let say 2 or 3 years ago, but it’s only now I truly understand it that I read it again, having read another related papers. Maybe there was some kind of illusions of competence that prevent me to get new insight. Anyway, because I thought it’s mysterious, I know that it’s stupid, but I become heavily rely on waiting for “the mysterious guidance” or “the right time” to write the discussion of my research findings. I learned the hard way, I never finished my dissertation. People think that I’m aiming for a perfect dissertation, but actually I just want it to be a solid research and useful, not merely adding more data or confirmation, although it’s still very important to do that. So, I’m waiting for the mysterious force to let me find a complete understanding or I procrastinate, I become a big procrastinator. After I read a book entitled “a mind for numbers” by Barbara Oakley, I found that it’s not a mysterious force, my brain just go into “diffuse-mode”, so sometimes idea came when I was not working on my writing. But, it’s impossible to find new knowledge according to the book without building a library of knowledge, the key is to enrich my reading sources instead of waiting for an idea to come. It takes time for the brain to build new synapses. Since I’m a slow learner, it may take more time for my brain to build new network to understand new knowledge. Or in AI term, adding a new algorithm? Sir Roger Penrose argued that the way computers run an algorithm and do computation is different from the way we understand an algorithm. And I also think that computers can only regurgitate any information loaded into its program, it can’t acquire outside sources, so how can it correct its error? My brain is constantly changing what it believes, through understanding. I wonder how a super AI corrects the bugs by itself?
I watched a movie, serenity, in the movie everyone who lives in a simulation has limited access. It makes me think that maybe I’m living in a simulation, because sometimes I can predict future events in my dreams, usually it’s a symbol not actual events. But of course, it’s not 100% accurate, so let’s dismiss it. I don’t have any experience or enough knowledge on speculating that we’re living in a simulation, guided by complex algorithms.
10:10 a theory of everything including cats and baseball 🤔
What’s up with the fascination of cats by physicists?!! 😂
Well done Lex, your humility only enhances your intelligence..
the fact that this talk has less that 200k views after years and "others" have millions in days tells a lot about todays world ..
scott aaronson is a huckster who baffles with bullshit
@@mizutofu sure man whatever makes you happy ... kanye, grimes and oliver stonne are geniues ...
Lex, I'm sorry you got sweaty, but great podcast as always. I'm a big fan of yours, I've learned a lot from you. Thank you, sir.
These 2 are fantastic mhhm-ers.
I'm 15 minutes in and I really like this guy.
Lex I love your work. It inspires me to get off my bum and do stuff.
Finally a reality check from a computer scientist on consciousness. How refreshing.
Beautiful and I am very much looking forward to the next one.
I would love to see Bernardo Kastrup and Joscha Bach on consciousness!
I remember learning about P and NP in college but to talk about it right off the dome in such detail right when Lex asks him about it is insane lol.
What is this p and np problem?
@@MrJigarparmar Too much to explain in a RUclips post. They're each a classification of problems. "P" problems can be solved "quickly" (where "quickly" means in polynomial time) and verified "quickly." NP problems can be verified "quickly" but there is no known way to solve "quickly." NP problems can be solved "slowly" as it would take literally billions of years for a computer to solve. Like encryption can be broken if you have an unlimited amount of time. For eg. you can just brute force anything if time is not an issue (just try every combination of inputs sequentially until you get the right answer).
P problems are a subset of NP problems, but we don't know if all NP problems are P problems (we have no rigorous proof to say they're not). It's a massive question we don't know the answer to. The gut feeling though is that P does not equal NP.
BUT if P = NP, our computers would overnight become super computers capable of doing even more incredible things. But this is very unlikely though to be true.
@@birdo1180 thanks for short explanation atleast It got me basic understanding I tried reading this topic in detail at other places but It was too mumbo jumbo for me
Vagina? What CPU is that?
On university "You can't write a software engineering book and make that the first chapter and we're done" actually made me laugh out loud!! Love it 😂👊
Great podcast!
Would love to see Linus Torvalds in your podcast.
Incredible conversation.
Thanks for the amazing content and exposure to so many different brilliant minds. Also conspiracies :*
With the lookup table then remove the table and casually either remove data and then to form conclusions that the table didn’t necessarily look up however rather thought of.
My favorite interview to date - touched all of my interests - nice job
Comments are good for the RUclips algorithm.
First, I'm new & enjoy the channel. Second, about Scott's answer to are we living in a simulation, I think it does matter because otherwise what purpose is there for science & enlightenment & philosophic religion to keep looking beyond ourselves, to leave the cave & roam the hills and look to the heavens? There is this need to survive and to do so requires us to survey the lands and locate the boundries of reality. This leads us to search for thee question or thee mathmatic formulated expression to describe this experience were living in. The singularity or "pure universal truth". Scott also talks about how a true simulation is indistinguishable from the real thing; if we keep exploring to find a 'bug' in the system then we could potentially exploit it. In order to do that, we would probably need to know every line of mathematical "code" about how the universe works which at that point is essentially like making a read-only snapshot backup system to store the mathmatical code but not execute it until we have enough resources. This survival instinct also leads to the ultimate goal of identifying & quantifying everything like a root user that has access to all of that "code".
To change it up, imagine grabbing a cigarette lighter while your eyes are closed, pushing the brain to map the object by feeling it. Then by opening your eyes to new input data for the parameters of further definition, a smooth blue lighter. Your adding another perspective thereby quantifying it further. We then keep going by studying the lighter with a microscope only to rewrite the expression, from what is this to how is this working. This leads from ancient philosophy of description down to modern quantum fields. However "pure truth" beyond what we know may be some form of a ever exacerbating random function, untouchable & infinately chaotic like the flame that's to hot to touch or the unicorn which cannot be caught or the wavefunction which cannot be observed without collapsing. In a far abstract concept perhaps for each collapse of a wavefunction or as we observe more about the universal expression of "pure truth" we are adding perspective and cornering the unicorn a bit more forcing it to reshape into a new frontier which continues forever generating the experince around us. This chaotic adaptation could be the security ruleset which holds it all together. By keeping "pure truth" chaoticly random will force the system to provide infinite possibilities and multiuniversal realities over infinite time. My questions then are is there a bandwidth limit or a point at which every possible outcome would have played out and then what? Does porky pig say, that's all folks!?
Welcome to Austin, Lex. You're going to like it here.
Watched it all, fascinating. Always nice to remind myself of things long forgotten, once read in a book 15 years ago! Btw, that drunken outro was something else!
I think in any equation that could help us understand the universe... Would exist the criteria of perspective. Therefore different for every living organism. Each having its own unique equation? Maybe
thanks for the awesome podcasts! keep it up.
@Lex Fridman What would you suggest? A formal education on AI/Deep learning like a Master’s degree and PHD or self learning and exploration given that there is equal determination and obligation in both cases. The end goal is to innovate in the area of AI/Deep learning and do something that gives me satisfaction of creativity. Thanks in advance.
Several guests suggested Douglas Hofstadter books. Will you interview him?
Bring him back for more. Awesome guest
Lex, please extract the pandemic segment as a separate video. I’d love to share it with some of my friends.
This talk of the universe being a simulation is one of many acts of desperation responding to the wave-particle problem. Look me up to see how I resolved that problem.
“Of cats and of Baseball” is the title of my book on the theory of everythig
Scott "you know" Aaronson in a house 😁😂 great conversation..made me think deep 😊
Hey Lex. Great stuff as usual. As a request, though I know it may be a bit much, could you link websites like Wikipedia for the high level concepts that are talked about or mentioned? It took me a bit long to find the AdS/CFT Correspondence, mostly due to messing up the speech to text, but I think it would be really cool to be able to purvey the theories and mathematical backings to the concepts that are talked about. Again, I know it would be a lot of extra work so no need to heed. Keep up the good work!
Just looking at the topics it looks great. Can't wait to watch this one!
Show me a consciousness, any consciousness and I'll show you it is indeed reducible to computation. So, it may be we've been getting Test before the Touring. I'm thinking especially in the case of certain others whose perspective(s) on the questions involved with consciousness may be somehow bounded.
I need to hold a symposium on Consciousness.