Not sure how familiar you are with the work of Terrence Deacon (berkely) but in his Incomplete nature, He also adresses the homuncular problem for immanent purposefulness in living systems in terms of particular types of hierarchally nested dynamical organization, you may find it very intersting, and the framework useful in your work on cognitive science. The explanatory framework, although skeletal has deep implications in many fields, and adresses the origins and evolution of for one thing heuristic processes.
As a CompSci grad and a science/logic first type of person I have really been enjoying every one of the historical episodes 1-25. Now as the series begins to delve into topics I understand well this whole "awakening" is really coming to life (metaphor intended). I feel the connections forming with every minute that passes and it is quite literally changing my salience landscape. I cannot thank you enough John. Truely exceptional stuff and so glad to give my time.
I'd also like to add now that I watched the last 10 minutes of this video... when I studied Theory Of Computation in college this idea of "parity" to find solutions for finite state machines and prove how certain binary string could be allowed to pass was very important. Bc of that framing tought to me then, I immediately knew why this chess board problem was unsolvable. A good example of how my previous relevance realizations created knowledge that was applicable when John posed the question.
Excellent! This episode should be part of the engineering curricula! "Problems that remain persistently insoluble should always be suspected as questions asked in the wrong way." (Alan Watts) That is, questions that fail to uncover relevant aspects of the problem; questions that keep promoting self-deception. And sometimes this is not accidental; good faith has a lot to do on how we formulate problems.
Absolutely. Every episode makes me think it should be part of every university gen ed. You shouldn't be able to graduate without hearing this. Heck, AP Awakening in high school even.
Your students are lucky ducks. Now I understand that I spend 35 years honing (and teaching, for a while there) problem relevance, and relevance realization - as a communication/graphic designer. Restructuring one's salience landscape is creativity. Thank you John.
Don’t forget “sounds like a science fiction weapon but it is an actual fact” 😂❤️ Also, “Combinatorial Explosion” sounds like Hollywood film industry jargon 🤔💥
This episode masterfully coalesces many threads into a unified tapestry of clarity. Absolutely brilliant! I love it. I'm so happy to be alive to witness this. Thank you John!!!
You’re still my favorite John. I can’t believe this series only got better- but it certainly did. Thanks a lot for your incredible work and entertaining delivery.
@@johnvervaeke These talks are so fantastic and salient! Taking me back to my days as a philosophy major. So applicable to current problems I’m working on. Thank you so much for your time and attention! ❤️🙏
19:40 "being rational means when, where, how much and what degree to be logical" Being rational... knowing where when and how to use your psychotechnology to optimally achieve the goal
Sometimes ( i mean most of the times) i need to watch these podcast twice or more to understand ,also i wonder how beautifully can make sense in my mind although I’m just a student
I like this metaphor. 🥰 Ancient bacteria helped to make the veins of gold we see today. Reminds me of the documentary “the octopus teacher”. The arrangement of the brain or nervous system of an octopus is interesting in that regard. Makes you appreciate all life more. Even bacteria. ❤️ I like where he says “because of their logic and mathematical abilities they came to grief” This is what I have been trying to say for many years. These things are so exactly controlling and perfectly explanatory tools that we tend to get lost in them. But it’s worth it because they can teach us about symbols in general. I am writing as fast as I can a book meant to repair the damage from this 2-edged sword backlash. Really the real problem is people aren’t smart enough. Logically you would think this means logic and math. Perhaps partially, but what I mean is more like “reading comprehension” or seeing meaning APART from your own instrumental and egotistical needs. Apart from your own intentions and plans. Parietal-lobe type stuff. Right brain type stuff. It’s more complicated than that but that’s part of why. Humans need to use technology to back out of the dead end they are digging. That’s why we have it, not to increase convenience and survival in the now. That’s just symbolic. Not the purpose or reality of it. That’s all I can say without revealing what I see in Toto in a way that will destroy. Trying to avoid that. It’s definitely a razors edge. It’s also a message about how intelligent and how important LOVE is. Love as an actual basis for the existence of everything. ❤️👁
My personal notes! Feel free to critique! EPISODE 27: PROBLEM FORMULATION AGI offers “Modified instances of mind” Sometimes people initiate cognitive science as Interdisciplinary eclecticism, which requires inter-faith dialogue. Then there is synoptic integration. - “we need something between disciplines that addresses equivocatin, deals with fragmentation, and addresses ignorance, tells how each is restraining the other.” , which requires “bridging vocabulary”, or metaphor. We use metaphor to bridge between domains. When a metaphor balances identity and difference well in an example, we call it “apt”. An apt metaphor. Linguistically concise as well, as “apt” is two syllables shorter than “accurate”. “How can I see into psychology through the lens of linguistics, and vice versa?” This is the question posed to the autodidact polymath. [IDEA FOR AUTODIDACT POLYMATH INSTITUTE/DORANS STORY] This is the mindset the polymath must occupy, always switching between various perspectives. Multi-aptness must be plausible, it needs to be highly probably. Science overall seeks this multidisciplinary transparency, but due to expertise so often being restricted to a monomath career, many scientists get stuck in one perspective of thinking. It’s cool I was writing about this very issue 2 years ago before watching this, maybe I really should get into cog sci! Teehee! Bias runs rampant in a monomath institutional culture. “Science trusts numbers because they afford convergence, they boost trustworthiness, they help reduce bias. The scientific method is a psychotechnology to reduce bias. To reduce the way in which we’re deceiving how we’re coming up with our constructs.” Conspiracy theories are unbalanced synoptic integration. The salient content is very high affect and usually positively-valenced neurochemically, but the reliability of the content is always lacking. This promotes potential cognitive distortion, because there is little convergence. Then again, I write about existentialism and include a character named Farmer Jack who deliberately avoids learning about new ontologies and is content to slug about developing his own epistemology, and “going with the flow” as it were. (Small) scientific insights “afford no integration, cause no insight” I emphasize small because obviously learning about black holes is inherently awe-inspiring. “Love is but a four-letter word”, this is an illusory statement that actually detracts from the the utility of the word “Love”. It sounds profound but it’s not, it’s a distraction. This is what Daniel Dennet calls a “Deepity”. It sounds deep, but it’s cheap. Like a Deepak Chopra-ism. Vervaeke struggles with the term “meaning-making”, it sounds too romantic. “Meaning-seeking implies seeing things to derive meaning from, and that’s not it either”. DEFNINTINOS: Intelligence - allows for a cognitive agent, a general problem solver. We should not seek to admonish intelligence, but rather pursue how rational we can become. A difference between intelligence and knowledge? Knowledge begets wisdom though? Heuristic - limits the space in which one may search for solutions to a problem. Useful for the monomath, not so much the polymath. This of course correlates with heuristic bias. BOOKS: Practical Induction - Elijah Millgram Getting from an “initial state to a goal state”, point A to B, what are the pathway constraints? F^D F = the number of operations you can perform on any turn D = the number of turns. Say F = 30, D = 60, that = 4.29 x 10^88, a bigger number than the atoms in the universe. Neurons in the brain = 10^10 Synapses = 5x10^15 Because of this limitation in our cognitive capacity, we cannot search the entire problem space. We do not have the time nor the capacity. We have to incorporate more minds. This is the problem of problems, many problems become a “combinatorial explosion” Vervaeke shows a pie chart with a sliver taken out, saying that this sliver is essentially what we study, what we embody, and as we get better at it we encounter “relevance realization” This is what occurs with the monomath, the phd expert in one field. The polymath however, after studying multiple fields and observing what’s relevant, can expand their awareness and gratitude subsequently. How does the brain make things “obvious” to you? Examining things “obviousness” This is related to salience. The issue with algorithmic AI is trying to get it gooder at not running into combinatorial explosions. Algorithms work in terms of certainty, they will either prove something or decide something is unprovable. “Trying to combine rationality with logic is absurd. You can’t do that.” “Ratio = Ration = Rational; Rationality is knowing when, where, to what degree to be logical, that’s a much more difficult thing to do” So Spock is impossible. Trying to use logic all the time results in ever-expanding combinatorial explosions. This is the “no free lunch theory”, “ the price you pay for using heuristics is that you fall prey to potential bias.” We can also overthink within these heuristics like the dangerous plane metaphor, people think planes are more dangerous than they are because of limited stats and feelings. “The very things that make you adaptive make you prone to self-deception” Vervaeke claims that “If I’m always using mind to explain mind, I’m never explaining the mind, I’m just engaged in a circular explanation.” This can be true to a certain extent, but the minds ability to notice what its doing after an action occurs is a form of mind-to-mind examination, and promotes growth. A “Naturalistic Imperative in Cog Sci”, attempting to avoid circular reasoning, regression to the mean. We have to be looking for where we’re not making progress in trying to explain intelligence in terms of Analyze, Formalize and Mechanize Insight - the process by which we convert bad information processing into good information processing. “Insight in addition to logic is essential to rationality” SUMMARY: We want to analyze, formalize and mechanize our explanation of intelligence. Explaining it in non-mental terms allows us to approach the issue in a way that’s non-reciprocal, because using the brain to explain itself is a moot agenda. Avoid the idea of the humunculi [all the way down]. Combinatorial explosion. The power of the naturalistic imperative.
Id go so far as to say relevance realization is a fundamental property of organism, it is one of the things which distinguishes life from non life. what was it Varela said...something like All organisms are constantly confronted with a vast excess of meaning. The process is obviously most highly developed in humans, but is observeable in organisms as "simple" as bacterium
I agree. As John said early on in the series, the things that permeate through not just humans but many species, all life, etc are very powerful ideas. RR is definitely on that shortlist.
Interesting. So I am watching The Shining. It is challenging because of the horror and the strange imagery and I am doing it primarily for entertainment. Am I playing a game?
John Legar I do not think most people would agree with you that was the point of my counter example. Of course you can stipulate that anything that satisfies your definition is a game but of course anyone can do that with any definition that they propose. That does not seem fair to Wittgenstein.
@@johnlegar7235 This makes no sense. Walking is a game? What if I'm trying to find water in the dessert, so I walk to find it. What if my car breaks down and I walk to find a mechanic? What about the "Game" Of Thrones? The characters engaged in a "game" for power, survival and legacy. Most of it not for entertainment - from the charters perspective. I can find counters to everyone one your statements. This exchange is a great example of Doc Vervaeke's presentation of problem formulation or the lack there of. This kinda stuff drove me nuts in my engineering career ... differing peoples had differing ideas of what the problem really was or how to solve it.
@@billtimmons7071 , thank you for your reply. Walking in the desert to find water is not a game, it does not fulfill the definition. To be a game it must be an activity which is undertaken primarily for enjoyment, not for purely utilitarian purposes. By "walking" I mean a leisurely walk, and I apologise if that distinction was unclear. The "Game" of Thrones is an interesting case. I would argue that a struggle for sovereignty is predicated on a sense of enjoyment rather than practical necessity, and, therefore, fulfills the definition of a game.
Important detail regarding homunculus explanation. The example given is an example of something called recursion. Recursion isn't always ineffective. It's only ineffective when it fails to terminate. Usually this means each recursive step must reduce the problem in some important way. That reduction must also result in a final most basic case that affords solution. In the homunculus example this could be reduction in complexity of the internal homunculus until at some level the nested homunculus is something we can understand and explicate.
(c. 52:00) Conclusion, insight defined: 'The process, which allows bad problem formulation to be transformed into good problem formulation.' In the example explained prior to this conclusion, combinatorial explosion is collapsed, which allows for the search space to be narrowed such that the problem becomes solvable. That is insight.
25:00~33:00 Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem feels relevant to avoiding "circular explanations" of Mind. i.e. We might need something axiomatically "outside" of spacetime/consciousness to make it possible. An ontological fulcrum. Not talking about God here, per se. But the "amatadhamma" (Deathless/Unborn/Zero) in Buddhism would seem to come close.
Another way of dealing with the mutilated chessboard problem, still as a "coverage problem" without it being algorithmic is noting that one is constrained by the shape of both the board and the "covering tile" and doing a couple of bits of arithmetic. With a covering tile that is constrained in its dimensions to 2x1, the board MUST have all of its rows and columns evenly divisible by 2. The mutilated board has 2 rows and 2 columns that are 7 squares long. In this manner, we don't have to care what the colors of the board's squares are.
"There is much self-satisfaction in explanation because in explanation consciousness is, so to speak, in an immediate dialogue with itself and enjoys only itself; it seems to be dealing with something else, but, in fact, it is engaged and occupied only with itself."
Indeed, not only are there fundamentally different claases of problems, but (mathematically) based on some of my arguments below, there can be no classification of the set of all problems as there are very likely to be classes of problems we have not yet encountered, or do not yet exist( only there possibility does) . So if we view problem solving as an abductive process, this is perhaps likely to be more fruitful.
This is a really important point. The psychotechnologies we develop to address OUR problems likely need to be dynamically updated to address the problems of future generations. The degree to which we can dynamically update our psychotechnologies must speed up to match the speed at which technology is progressing.
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
Same. Jordan Peterson's lectures on personality etc are very good. I actually found John and this series through his podcast episode. Im still looking for a good philosophy series but I fear the subject is so vast that reading the actual material authored throughout history is the best way to go once you build a roadmap of who is important. This series does a good job of naming the names and exploring some of their ideas.
the fascination you describe, dr. v., what allows a human mind to zero in and what 'science' has yet to describe, though jung tried (synchronicity, etc.) is none other than clairvoyance/audience. this is what informs 'flow state', how we 'know more than we can say', but because it is a power or ability based in direct opposition to the consciousness (the exclusive working range and realm of the scientific method), there's no way for it to be analyzed, formalized and mechanized, i.e., manipulated and commercialized by a hierarchical system. given the impasse, that system then seeks to debunk the existence of prescient powers, either for fear that it may be held superior over their own ability or else the knowledge of its potential is sequestered, instead mass-promoting the idea that things like ESP, telepathy and lucid dreams are not real so that average-nobody-schmucks like myself won't get any ideas! et viola; conspiracy theory wrapped in a conspiracy, i.e., infinite regress.
With the chess board problem, I was given another solution, however in that solution I did not take into account the colour of the squares. Its not that I lack intelligence, its because the cognition and proprioception is shut down from overload. However when you came up with turning the dominoes, I then saw how your solution went with my solution to bring forth a whole solution. I realised as it was revealed that these two go together. For me its not about increasing intelligence because the intelligence I know is already beyond beyond beyond, for me its a matter of a life or death situation that needs to be addressed and is not. Until it is and is addressed it will continue to be a life or death situation. It will continue to release a cry.
Talking about "combinatorial explosion"... That chess bord example is what is usually called a great example of "very elegant combinatorial proof". While Sir Penrose may be dreaming about new "non-computational" (non-algorithmic) branch of mathematics to explain insights like this, you, sir, have just renamed it to 'problem formulation'. That seems to be putting everything right back into the computational realm, with combination of attention, random noise and good internal error-correcting encoding which shall return random nonsense back into (a new) framing which makes sense again, but differs from the old one which didn't provide a/good path to the solution.
If anyone needs a transcript we've made them for this & all episodes here: www.meaningcrisis.co/ep-27-awakening-from-the-meaning-crisis-problem-formulation/
"Most of your problems are ill-defined problems. In most of your problems you *don't know* what the relevant information about the initial state is. You don't know what the relvant information about the goal state is. You don't know what the relevant operators are. You don't even know what the relevant path constraints are." Damn, what I'm gone do now?
Very many thanks again, though this one has left me wondering whether intelligence can be reduced to problem solving. That's part of it but aren't there kinds of intelligence that aren't to do with problem solving, from directing our will to loving another? They seem more like intelligent perceptions or intelligent relating; to do with qualities rather than problems.
"All life is problem-solving" - Karl Popper. Think about it a bit more, you will see that is in fact absolutely true (the meta-problem being simply "how to survive and replicate"). And so intelligence is just another tool in the box of problem solving tools, albeit a very powerful one. And if you think "love" is not a solution to a problem think again (and start reading books on evolutionary psychology).
@@KRGruner Karl nailed it. I commented before I read yours… yep. Popper had a lot to say on that. But if you combine Popper and Kuhn it’s a better picture. Extrapolate from that process and you have love. Also, I am an evolutionary psychologist and neuroscientist. Lol.
@@KRGrunerI think the original comment was referring to the fact that even though evolutionary processes are directed towards self-replication, our mental experiences are not directed towards that. We feel love, attachment and other similar emotions; we also experience them as a state of calm joy and comfort rather than a seeking state where the only thing on our minds is how to replicate ourselves. There is an interesting question there, even if the evolutionary lens casts the situation as just another manifestation of the underlying biology.
@@SisypheanRoller Love (at least, love towards spouses/partners, children, and close relatives) IS directed towards self-replication. The brain is an evolved system, just like the heart, eyes, or the stomach. The fact that you are not conscious of the true meaning of "love" is irrelevant. Evolutionary processes in the brain are mostly sub-conscious. And sure enough, some brain processes might be exaptations or spandrels (but love is not one of those, it DOES have a clear evolutionary purpose). My point stands as stated, even if there are still some psychological traits/functions that we do not fully understand, such as human reactions to music.
22:30 You mention the No Free Lunch theorum. It’s interesting because I just watched Curt’s interview with the guy who made that, and thought about how much you would disagree with his ontology/philosophy as i did
Intelligence could be explained as the ability to GPS (general problem solve), Individual Specific problems can be framed and solved using a specific method There are fundamentally different kinds of problems Near infinite amount of information to pay attention to or ignore, near infinite number of actions could be taken in different ways and at different times this combinatorial explosion makes algorithmic and logical certainty impossible therefore you need heuristics which are a source of bias, humans unconsciously use relevance realisation to formulate and solve problems. Well defined vs ill defined problems eg taking notes, when to speak, telling a joke, going on a date
About metaphors and analogies, please rate how "apt" you find this one: metaphors are like toilet paper; really handy when you need them, but don't want to keep them close after they have done their job...
Today we learn to become world class problem solvers 01:50 intelligence: "read between the lines" 10:00 combinatory nunber of choices explodes. Choose a piece of pie of options based on some smart thinking, heuristics 19:00 matching rationality and logics is absurd. The rational is knowing when how where to apply logics 23:45 things that makes us adaptive, also make us prone to failure: human bias 26:20 falacy in explaining the mind using circular definitions. The triangle 29:28 naturalistic imperative 38:40 find the one strategy 53:49 problem formulation and relevance realization. Avoid ill definition and combinatory explosions
I wonder if there is a connection between what Vervaeke calls "Relevance realization" and the problem of induction in philosophy. How many times do you need to see the sun rise in the morning before you can conclude that it will do the same thing tomorrow? If the only evidence is previous experience, you are just begging the question. However, what if the answers lie not the number of things, but in the nature of things. If there was a way we could link relevance realization to truth might that be a way to answer the challenge first proposed by Hume?
well then ask yourself what is 'relevant to realise' in distinguishing the following questions from what is the nature of a thing in itself and what is the nature of the thing for you: what is "sun"? what is "morning"? what is "rising"? what is "tomorrow"?
Can anyone refer me to the episode vervaeke speaks about GESTALT? I’m carefully reading Don Idhe’s book, “Experimental Phenomenology: an introduction,” and Idhe mentions gestalt, and I’ve looked it up, but I’ve heard how vervaeke defined it and I’d like his definition in my notes. Thanks in advance
Indeed, you cannot search the whole spaces, (for that matter neither can thevolution of the biosphere itself thats why the univerese is strongly historical and irreversible), another issue is that (within this abstraction) the entire search space is does not yet exist, the further out you go, the less concrete and more widely possibilistic the search space is. To even comlexify a bit more, just for fun, presumably the choice of direction requires agency, and the concept of function or purpose is relavant. But, the set of functions for a given structural/functional whole is non determinant anf contextual...since most future context is unknowable and often even unimaginable, it is imposiible to prestate what functionalities might be available in problem solving. Note that this makes it quitte impossible for the universe to be an algorithmic process, for if it were, there would have to be a godlike perspective that the algorithm had access to somehow...I suppose in a sense that David bohms implicate order would be something like that.
They're just being used to cover two squares. It is because they can't be split that you can't use 31 dominoes to cover all the squares on the modified board.
18:00 "You can't turn yourself into an algorithmic machine that pursues certainty." Wait... isn't this what the Buddha did successfully? I mean, it's difficult, but not impossible.
9:17 ‘literal sense bigger than the universe’. I contend that such propositions are meaningless. Maths only has meaning by correspondence to what actually exists. That speculative number doesn’t exist. Maths is literally constrained by time and space
What about the use of imaginary numbers or complex numbers, such as square root of -1, which are used applicably in technology? They don't correspond to what we observe but potentially to what governs what we observe? (Not contesting your statement so much as genuinely asking)
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 The so -called "imaginary" number was a hard one to grasp when I first learned it in engineering school. Square root of -1 .. WTF? But once the context and history was explained to me, and how useful the math was (repeating circle) , I got on board. For me, the context (implicit) knowledge tied in with the algorithmic knowledge to do useful stuff made all the difference. Talk about reducing the problem space using abstract numbers heh?
Not my real pseudonym Thank you. Yes I was thinking about my grandiose claim😉 after I’d made it (which is what often happens; It’s only after I expose a claim/notion to public scrutiny that it becomes more scrutinised in my own mind). Anyway, I think the ‘big number’ that triggered my contention derived from the potential moves in a Chess game, which in hindsight seems legitimate; ergo I think I was committing a categorical error. So that’s perhaps not to say (and I appreciate you’ve not jumped to conclusions) that roughly what I was getting at, in the appropriate category, so to speak, isn’t without some substance. But perhaps explore that a bit more later... this is a quick response 😎
@@kiljoy5223 There is no substance to your original claim. Obviously you have never studied any form of advanced mathematics, or you would know there are many areas which have zero application to the real world. Now, maybe some day some practical use could be found (this has happened many times in the past, i.e. first the abstract math is created, then later an application is found) but the fact is mathematics are an analytical subject which stands on its own regardless of real-world applications.
Karl I’m not so sure about that. I think there’s a contradiction in what you say. I should have probably said space-time, by the way. I realise that was kind of a given, but just saying 😎
16:27 "Algorithmic processing is held to the standard of certainty. You use an algorithm when you're pursuing certainty. Now, what's the problem with using an algorithm as a problem solving technique? Well, it's guaranteed to find an answer or prove that an answer is not findable." Does this bear any relationship to the inevitability of nihilism when approaching the “problem” of understanding the natural world in an algorithmic, rationalistic manner?
Yes I think so. One of the roads that leads to the sense of absurdity of being. I used to have a sort of subconscious mantra where I would repeat "there's just too many variables" in my mind. And along with that came the feeling of despair that there was no way to "figure out" what was going on.
My patreon is live now, which includes early access to my weekly video series: www.patreon.com/johnvervaeke
im in, love the presntations ...can't afford the 100, although id love a video call every month, but i can manage 10.
Not sure how familiar you are with the work of Terrence Deacon (berkely) but in his Incomplete nature, He also adresses the homuncular problem for immanent purposefulness in living systems in terms of particular types of hierarchally nested dynamical organization, you may find it very intersting, and the framework useful in your work on cognitive science. The explanatory framework, although skeletal has deep implications in many fields, and adresses the origins and evolution of for one thing heuristic processes.
As a CompSci grad and a science/logic first type of person I have really been enjoying every one of the historical episodes 1-25. Now as the series begins to delve into topics I understand well this whole "awakening" is really coming to life (metaphor intended). I feel the connections forming with every minute that passes and it is quite literally changing my salience landscape. I cannot thank you enough John. Truely exceptional stuff and so glad to give my time.
I'd also like to add now that I watched the last 10 minutes of this video... when I studied Theory Of Computation in college this idea of "parity" to find solutions for finite state machines and prove how certain binary string could be allowed to pass was very important. Bc of that framing tought to me then, I immediately knew why this chess board problem was unsolvable. A good example of how my previous relevance realizations created knowledge that was applicable when John posed the question.
"Triangle..." I like the sound of that little Homunculus
That moment you go to the comments after laughing at “TRIangle” and find the comment
Lol I noticed that too hehe 🤣
Excellent! This episode should be part of the engineering curricula! "Problems that remain persistently insoluble should always be suspected as questions asked in the wrong way." (Alan Watts) That is, questions that fail to uncover relevant aspects of the problem; questions that keep promoting self-deception. And sometimes this is not accidental; good faith has a lot to do on how we formulate problems.
Absolutely. Every episode makes me think it should be part of every university gen ed. You shouldn't be able to graduate without hearing this. Heck, AP Awakening in high school even.
Your students are lucky ducks.
Now I understand that I spend 35 years honing (and teaching, for a while there) problem relevance, and relevance realization - as a communication/graphic designer.
Restructuring one's salience landscape is creativity.
Thank you John.
"The Most Beautiful Picture of All Time.. of a platypus."
Don’t forget “sounds like a science fiction weapon but it is an actual fact” 😂❤️ Also, “Combinatorial Explosion” sounds like Hollywood film industry jargon 🤔💥
Won’t count as an answer!
This episode masterfully coalesces many threads into a unified tapestry of clarity. Absolutely brilliant! I love it. I'm so happy to be alive to witness this. Thank you John!!!
Once again, Mr Vervaeke, thank you for your time and dedication.
This series is phenomenal
I laughed out loud several times during this. Particularly when he makes the voice and says "triangle".
You’re still my favorite John. I can’t believe this series only got better- but it certainly did. Thanks a lot for your incredible work and entertaining delivery.
The "triangle" sequence is so brilliant as it is funny! such genius. The homunculus regression syndromes
Tiny voice: “triangle!” ☺️😄👍👍👍
😊
@@johnvervaeke These talks are so fantastic and salient! Taking me back to my days as a philosophy major. So applicable to current problems I’m working on. Thank you so much for your time and attention! ❤️🙏
It is soooo nice to listen to intelligent discourse, rather than the stupidity of television, politics and most people!
Thank You!
I appreciate YOUR time JV ❤️🍄
I think it would be fun to try to memorize this lecture. As a party trick? To stand on a streetcorner to busk? To paraphrase in blog posts?
Thank you, John, for another step towards clarity. Beautiful lecture.
Thank you
19:40 "being rational means when, where, how much and what degree to be logical"
Being rational... knowing where when and how to use your psychotechnology to optimally achieve the goal
Home run for Vervaeke.
I copied out this same quote!
Damn.... FANTASTIC.. i cant wait to come back to this one......
Sometimes ( i mean most of the times) i need to watch these podcast twice or more to understand ,also i wonder how beautifully can make sense in my mind although I’m just a student
Good lecture. Thank you. "insight as well as logic is essential to rationality". Yes, I agree with you.
The last 5 minutes are pure gold
I like this metaphor. 🥰 Ancient bacteria helped to make the veins of gold we see today. Reminds me of the documentary “the octopus teacher”. The arrangement of the brain or nervous system of an octopus is interesting in that regard. Makes you appreciate all life more. Even bacteria. ❤️
I like where he says “because of their logic and mathematical abilities they came to grief” This is what I have been trying to say for many years. These things are so exactly controlling and perfectly explanatory tools that we tend to get lost in them. But it’s worth it because they can teach us about symbols in general. I am writing as fast as I can a book meant to repair the damage from this 2-edged sword backlash.
Really the real problem is people aren’t smart enough. Logically you would think this means logic and math. Perhaps partially, but what I mean is more like “reading comprehension” or seeing meaning APART from your own instrumental and egotistical needs. Apart from your own intentions and plans. Parietal-lobe type stuff. Right brain type stuff. It’s more complicated than that but that’s part of why. Humans need to use technology to back out of the dead end they are digging. That’s why we have it, not to increase convenience and survival in the now. That’s just symbolic. Not the purpose or reality of it.
That’s all I can say without revealing what I see in Toto in a way that will destroy. Trying to avoid that. It’s definitely a razors edge. It’s also a message about how intelligent and how important LOVE is. Love as an actual basis for the existence of everything. ❤️👁
Thank you, John! This was a highly practical lesson, while no less fascinating and revelatory!
Thank you Dan for continual enthusiastic support. It is much appreciated.
Thank you so much, John Vervaeke.
My personal notes! Feel free to critique!
EPISODE 27: PROBLEM FORMULATION
AGI offers “Modified instances of mind”
Sometimes people initiate cognitive science as Interdisciplinary eclecticism, which requires inter-faith dialogue.
Then there is synoptic integration. - “we need something between disciplines that addresses equivocatin, deals with fragmentation, and addresses ignorance, tells how each is restraining the other.” , which requires “bridging vocabulary”, or metaphor. We use metaphor to bridge between domains.
When a metaphor balances identity and difference well in an example, we call it “apt”. An apt metaphor. Linguistically concise as well, as “apt” is two syllables shorter than “accurate”.
“How can I see into psychology through the lens of linguistics, and vice versa?” This is the question posed to the autodidact polymath. [IDEA FOR AUTODIDACT POLYMATH INSTITUTE/DORANS STORY] This is the mindset the polymath must occupy, always switching between various perspectives.
Multi-aptness must be plausible, it needs to be highly probably.
Science overall seeks this multidisciplinary transparency, but due to expertise so often being restricted to a monomath career, many scientists get stuck in one perspective of thinking. It’s cool I was writing about this very issue 2 years ago before watching this, maybe I really should get into cog sci! Teehee!
Bias runs rampant in a monomath institutional culture.
“Science trusts numbers because they afford convergence, they boost trustworthiness, they help reduce bias. The scientific method is a psychotechnology to reduce bias. To reduce the way in which we’re deceiving how we’re coming up with our constructs.”
Conspiracy theories are unbalanced synoptic integration. The salient content is very high affect and usually positively-valenced neurochemically, but the reliability of the content is always lacking. This promotes potential cognitive distortion, because there is little convergence. Then again, I write about existentialism and include a character named Farmer Jack who deliberately avoids learning about new ontologies and is content to slug about developing his own epistemology, and “going with the flow” as it were.
(Small) scientific insights “afford no integration, cause no insight”
I emphasize small because obviously learning about black holes is inherently awe-inspiring.
“Love is but a four-letter word”, this is an illusory statement that actually detracts from the the utility of the word “Love”. It sounds profound but it’s not, it’s a distraction. This is what Daniel Dennet calls a “Deepity”. It sounds deep, but it’s cheap. Like a Deepak Chopra-ism.
Vervaeke struggles with the term “meaning-making”, it sounds too romantic. “Meaning-seeking implies seeing things to derive meaning from, and that’s not it either”.
DEFNINTINOS:
Intelligence - allows for a cognitive agent, a general problem solver.
We should not seek to admonish intelligence, but rather pursue how rational we can become.
A difference between intelligence and knowledge?
Knowledge begets wisdom though?
Heuristic - limits the space in which one may search for solutions to a problem. Useful for the monomath, not so much the polymath. This of course correlates with heuristic bias.
BOOKS: Practical Induction - Elijah Millgram
Getting from an “initial state to a goal state”, point A to B, what are the pathway constraints?
F^D
F = the number of operations you can perform on any turn
D = the number of turns.
Say F = 30, D = 60, that = 4.29 x 10^88, a bigger number than the atoms in the universe.
Neurons in the brain = 10^10
Synapses = 5x10^15
Because of this limitation in our cognitive capacity, we cannot search the entire problem space. We do not have the time nor the capacity. We have to incorporate more minds.
This is the problem of problems, many problems become a “combinatorial explosion”
Vervaeke shows a pie chart with a sliver taken out, saying that this sliver is essentially what we study, what we embody, and as we get better at it we encounter “relevance realization” This is what occurs with the monomath, the phd expert in one field. The polymath however, after studying multiple fields and observing what’s relevant, can expand their awareness and gratitude subsequently.
How does the brain make things “obvious” to you? Examining things “obviousness”
This is related to salience.
The issue with algorithmic AI is trying to get it gooder at not running into combinatorial explosions.
Algorithms work in terms of certainty, they will either prove something or decide something is unprovable.
“Trying to combine rationality with logic is absurd. You can’t do that.”
“Ratio = Ration = Rational; Rationality is knowing when, where, to what degree to be logical, that’s a much more difficult thing to do”
So Spock is impossible. Trying to use logic all the time results in ever-expanding combinatorial explosions.
This is the “no free lunch theory”, “ the price you pay for using heuristics is that you fall prey to potential bias.”
We can also overthink within these heuristics like the dangerous plane metaphor, people think planes are more dangerous than they are because of limited stats and feelings.
“The very things that make you adaptive make you prone to self-deception”
Vervaeke claims that “If I’m always using mind to explain mind, I’m never explaining the mind, I’m just engaged in a circular explanation.”
This can be true to a certain extent, but the minds ability to notice what its doing after an action occurs is a form of mind-to-mind examination, and promotes growth.
A “Naturalistic Imperative in Cog Sci”, attempting to avoid circular reasoning, regression to the mean. We have to be looking for where we’re not making progress in trying to explain intelligence in terms of Analyze, Formalize and Mechanize
Insight - the process by which we convert bad information processing into good information processing. “Insight in addition to logic is essential to rationality”
SUMMARY:
We want to analyze, formalize and mechanize our explanation of intelligence. Explaining it in non-mental terms allows us to approach the issue in a way that’s non-reciprocal, because using the brain to explain itself is a moot agenda. Avoid the idea of the humunculi [all the way down].
Combinatorial explosion.
The power of the naturalistic imperative.
The most beautiful picture of all time of a platypus does NOT count as an answer!
Id go so far as to say relevance realization is a fundamental property of organism, it is one of the things which distinguishes life from non life. what was it Varela said...something like All organisms are constantly confronted with a vast excess of meaning. The process is obviously most highly developed in humans, but is observeable in organisms as "simple" as bacterium
I agree. As John said early on in the series, the things that permeate through not just humans but many species, all life, etc are very powerful ideas. RR is definitely on that shortlist.
Perfect example for understanding problem formulation would be puzzle
The movie "The Imitation Game" goes along with this video amazingly well.
Thanks for the tip! I haven’t watched it yet - i’ll check it out.
What an intellectually stimulating lecture! 🤯
43:45 John's explanation about ill defined problems (what is "good" notes?) made me laugh... 😊
The essence of a game: A challenging activity performed primarily for enjoyment.
Interesting. So I am watching The Shining. It is challenging because of the horror and the strange imagery and I am doing it primarily for entertainment. Am I playing a game?
@@johnvervaeke Yes. If you're partaking in a challenging activity for the purposes of enjoyment, you are playing a game.
John Legar I do not think most people would agree with you that was the point of my counter example. Of course you can stipulate that anything that satisfies your definition is a game but of course anyone can do that with any definition that they propose. That does not seem fair to Wittgenstein.
@@johnlegar7235 This makes no sense. Walking is a game? What if I'm trying to find water in the dessert, so I walk to find it. What if my car breaks down and I walk to find a mechanic? What about the "Game" Of Thrones? The characters engaged in a "game" for power, survival and legacy. Most of it not for entertainment - from the charters perspective. I can find counters to everyone one your statements. This exchange is a great example of Doc Vervaeke's presentation of problem formulation or the lack there of. This kinda stuff drove me nuts in my engineering career ... differing peoples had differing ideas of what the problem really was or how to solve it.
@@billtimmons7071 , thank you for your reply. Walking in the desert to find water is not a game, it does not fulfill the definition. To be a game it must be an activity which is undertaken primarily for enjoyment, not for purely utilitarian purposes. By "walking" I mean a leisurely walk, and I apologise if that distinction was unclear. The "Game" of Thrones is an interesting case. I would argue that a struggle for sovereignty is predicated on a sense of enjoyment rather than practical necessity, and, therefore, fulfills the definition of a game.
Important detail regarding homunculus explanation. The example given is an example of something called recursion. Recursion isn't always ineffective. It's only ineffective when it fails to terminate.
Usually this means each recursive step must reduce the problem in some important way. That reduction must also result in a final most basic case that affords solution.
In the homunculus example this could be reduction in complexity of the internal homunculus until at some level the nested homunculus is something we can understand and explicate.
Thanks!
(c. 52:00) Conclusion, insight defined: 'The process, which allows bad problem formulation to be transformed into good problem formulation.' In the example explained prior to this conclusion, combinatorial explosion is collapsed, which allows for the search space to be narrowed such that the problem becomes solvable. That is insight.
Well this was one of the more interesting episodes of the series for me. Glad I went with a career in Comp Sci.
The presentation at around 19:26 is beautiful!
Another excellent lecture. Thanks.
25:00~33:00 Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem feels relevant to avoiding "circular explanations" of Mind. i.e. We might need something axiomatically "outside" of spacetime/consciousness to make it possible. An ontological fulcrum. Not talking about God here, per se. But the "amatadhamma" (Deathless/Unborn/Zero) in Buddhism would seem to come close.
Another way of dealing with the mutilated chessboard problem, still as a "coverage problem" without it being algorithmic is noting that one is constrained by the shape of both the board and the "covering tile" and doing a couple of bits of arithmetic. With a covering tile that is constrained in its dimensions to 2x1, the board MUST have all of its rows and columns evenly divisible by 2. The mutilated board has 2 rows and 2 columns that are 7 squares long. In this manner, we don't have to care what the colors of the board's squares are.
16:14 is gold
Thanks John.
Hmmm, the 'problem space' and how it is combinatorial, sounds like fractal space. I wonder if there's a way of using chaos theory to solve this?
19:40 Ratio, rationing, being rational means knowing when, where, how much and to what degree to be logical
Can’t wait for this... thank you!
Holy shit! You lectured this 😯
Just snap the domino in half! The covering part of that problem, solved!
"Triangle"... by John Vervaeke , a philosophy soundbite
Ah shit...here we go again
"There is much self-satisfaction in explanation because in explanation consciousness is, so to speak, in an immediate dialogue with itself and enjoys only itself; it seems to be dealing with something else, but, in fact, it is engaged and occupied only with itself."
Indeed, not only are there fundamentally different claases of problems, but (mathematically) based on some of my arguments below, there can be no classification of the set of all problems as there are very likely to be classes of problems we have not yet encountered, or do not yet exist( only there possibility does) . So if we view problem solving as an abductive process, this is perhaps likely to be more fruitful.
This is a really important point. The psychotechnologies we develop to address OUR problems likely need to be dynamically updated to address the problems of future generations. The degree to which we can dynamically update our psychotechnologies must speed up to match the speed at which technology is progressing.
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
Same. Jordan Peterson's lectures on personality etc are very good. I actually found John and this series through his podcast episode. Im still looking for a good philosophy series but I fear the subject is so vast that reading the actual material authored throughout history is the best way to go once you build a roadmap of who is important. This series does a good job of naming the names and exploring some of their ideas.
the fascination you describe, dr. v., what allows a human mind to zero in and what 'science' has yet to describe, though jung tried (synchronicity, etc.) is none other than clairvoyance/audience. this is what informs 'flow state', how we 'know more than we can say', but because it is a power or ability based in direct opposition to the consciousness (the exclusive working range and realm of the scientific method), there's no way for it to be analyzed, formalized and mechanized, i.e., manipulated and commercialized by a hierarchical system. given the impasse, that system then seeks to debunk the existence of prescient powers, either for fear that it may be held superior over their own ability or else the knowledge of its potential is sequestered, instead mass-promoting the idea that things like ESP, telepathy and lucid dreams are not real so that average-nobody-schmucks like myself won't get any ideas! et viola; conspiracy theory wrapped in a conspiracy, i.e., infinite regress.
With the chess board problem, I was given another solution, however in that solution I did not take into account the colour of the squares.
Its not that I lack intelligence, its because the cognition and proprioception is shut down from overload. However when you came up with turning the dominoes, I then saw how
your solution went with my solution to bring forth a whole solution. I realised as it was revealed that these two go together. For me its not about increasing intelligence because the intelligence I know is already beyond beyond beyond, for me its a matter of a life or death situation that needs to be addressed and is not. Until it is and is addressed it will continue to be a life or death situation. It will continue to release a cry.
Talking about "combinatorial explosion"... That chess bord example is what is usually called a great example of "very elegant combinatorial proof".
While Sir Penrose may be dreaming about new "non-computational" (non-algorithmic) branch of mathematics to explain insights like this, you, sir, have just renamed it to 'problem formulation'. That seems to be putting everything right back into the computational realm, with combination of attention, random noise and good internal error-correcting encoding which shall return random nonsense back into (a new) framing which makes sense again, but differs from the old one which didn't provide a/good path to the solution.
If anyone needs a transcript we've made them for this & all episodes here: www.meaningcrisis.co/ep-27-awakening-from-the-meaning-crisis-problem-formulation/
Clairvoyance is definitely helpful
"Most of your problems are ill-defined problems. In most of your problems you *don't know* what the relevant information about the initial state is. You don't know what the relvant information about the goal state is. You don't know what the relevant operators are. You don't even know what the relevant path constraints are."
Damn, what I'm gone do now?
Trial and error until you become an expert - someone who can discern the relevant information.
Don't all games involve some sort of rules? explicit or not
I agree! I would define game as having rules and at least one player
“Sounds like a science fiction weapon… but it is actually an actual fact.” 😂🥰 Pew! Pew! 🛸 Omg too funny… ❤️
Very many thanks again, though this one has left me wondering whether intelligence can be reduced to problem solving. That's part of it but aren't there kinds of intelligence that aren't to do with problem solving, from directing our will to loving another? They seem more like intelligent perceptions or intelligent relating; to do with qualities rather than problems.
"All life is problem-solving" - Karl Popper. Think about it a bit more, you will see that is in fact absolutely true (the meta-problem being simply "how to survive and replicate"). And so intelligence is just another tool in the box of problem solving tools, albeit a very powerful one. And if you think "love" is not a solution to a problem think again (and start reading books on evolutionary psychology).
Those are also problem-solving, 😂 ❤️👍🏻
@@KRGruner Karl nailed it. I commented before I read yours… yep. Popper had a lot to say on that. But if you combine Popper and Kuhn it’s a better picture. Extrapolate from that process and you have love. Also, I am an evolutionary psychologist and neuroscientist. Lol.
@@KRGrunerI think the original comment was referring to the fact that even though evolutionary processes are directed towards self-replication, our mental experiences are not directed towards that. We feel love, attachment and other similar emotions; we also experience them as a state of calm joy and comfort rather than a seeking state where the only thing on our minds is how to replicate ourselves.
There is an interesting question there, even if the evolutionary lens casts the situation as just another manifestation of the underlying biology.
@@SisypheanRoller Love (at least, love towards spouses/partners, children, and close relatives) IS directed towards self-replication. The brain is an evolved system, just like the heart, eyes, or the stomach. The fact that you are not conscious of the true meaning of "love" is irrelevant. Evolutionary processes in the brain are mostly sub-conscious. And sure enough, some brain processes might be exaptations or spandrels (but love is not one of those, it DOES have a clear evolutionary purpose). My point stands as stated, even if there are still some psychological traits/functions that we do not fully understand, such as human reactions to music.
If you cut the 31st domino in half, it could work. Don't know if that was explicitly stated as being against the rules or not. :-)
22:30 You mention the No Free Lunch theorum. It’s interesting because I just watched Curt’s interview with the guy who made that, and thought about how much you would disagree with his ontology/philosophy as i did
Who’s that ?
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Curt Jaimungal, host of Theories of Everything channel. He had also done some talks with John
How is solving the problem of being thirsty by drinking water “acquiring knowledge”?
Developing your Queen early is not recommended as often times it is vulnerable to attack by the opponents minor pieces.
"logic works in terms of the normativity of certainty" 18:28
Are there any resources where I can train these types of "insight" problems like the same way I would train on chess puzzles?
Intelligence could be explained as the ability to GPS (general problem solve),
Individual Specific problems can be framed and solved using a specific method
There are fundamentally different kinds of problems
Near infinite amount of information to pay attention to or ignore, near infinite number of actions could be taken in different ways and at different times this combinatorial explosion makes algorithmic and logical certainty impossible therefore you need heuristics which are a source of bias, humans unconsciously use relevance realisation to formulate and solve problems.
Well defined vs ill defined problems eg taking notes, when to speak, telling a joke, going on a date
Question - if there's no essential property that makes a game a game, what makes all games games and not not games?
Lmao this guy is low key hilarious 😂
About metaphors and analogies, please rate how "apt" you find this one: metaphors are like toilet paper; really handy when you need them, but don't want to keep them close after they have done their job...
Note to self, not every category has an essence. It is not algorithmic!!!!!!! Lol Under generalizing is also a mistake!!!!!!! Amen.
A scientific explanation of how to generate scientific explanations sounds like a circular project to me.
id say that Pierces arguments for abductive processes rears its head right here.
Today we learn to become world class problem solvers
01:50 intelligence: "read between the lines"
10:00 combinatory nunber of choices explodes. Choose a piece of pie of options based on some smart thinking, heuristics
19:00 matching rationality and logics is absurd. The rational is knowing when how where to apply logics
23:45 things that makes us adaptive, also make us prone to failure: human bias
26:20 falacy in explaining the mind using circular definitions. The triangle
29:28 naturalistic imperative
38:40 find the one strategy
53:49 problem formulation and relevance realization. Avoid ill definition and combinatory explosions
Are there machines that can be called "self organized,dynamical systems" ? Or is the mechanical metaphor truly dead and near useless?
I wonder if there is a connection between what Vervaeke calls "Relevance realization" and the problem of induction in philosophy. How many times do you need to see the sun rise in the morning before you can conclude that it will do the same thing tomorrow? If the only evidence is previous experience, you are just begging the question.
However, what if the answers lie not the number of things, but in the nature of things. If there was a way we could link relevance realization to truth might that be a way to answer the challenge first proposed by Hume?
well then ask yourself what is 'relevant to realise' in distinguishing the following questions from what is the nature of a thing in itself and what is the nature of the thing for you: what is "sun"? what is "morning"? what is "rising"? what is "tomorrow"?
Can anyone refer me to the episode vervaeke speaks about GESTALT? I’m carefully reading Don Idhe’s book, “Experimental Phenomenology: an introduction,” and Idhe mentions gestalt, and I’ve looked it up, but I’ve heard how vervaeke defined it and I’d like his definition in my notes.
Thanks in advance
ua-cam.com/video/jkWNBdBDyoE/v-deo.html I wish you luck on your journey
Can someone tell me the name of the music playing at the beginning. Ty
Erik Satie Gymnopedie No 1
A more mundane question: what is that intro music? It feels like I heard it somewhere before. Any idea? Couldn't find any clues on the web.
Hansjörg Mixdorff It’s Erik Satie - Gymnopédie n 1
Thanks for the info, now I know where I heard it before!
Indeed, you cannot search the whole spaces, (for that matter neither can thevolution of the biosphere itself thats why the univerese is strongly historical and irreversible), another issue is that (within this abstraction) the entire search space is does not yet exist, the further out you go, the less concrete and more widely possibilistic the search space is. To even comlexify a bit more, just for fun, presumably the choice of direction requires agency, and the concept of function or purpose is relavant. But, the set of functions for a given structural/functional whole is non determinant anf contextual...since most future context is unknowable and often even unimaginable, it is imposiible to prestate what functionalities might be available in problem solving. Note that this makes it quitte impossible for the universe to be an algorithmic process, for if it were, there would have to be a godlike perspective that the algorithm had access to somehow...I suppose in a sense that David bohms implicate order would be something like that.
Synoptic integration
General problem solver
did anyone else notice that dominos are not squares, but rectangles, so how (without splitting) could a rectangle be used to replace a square?
They're just being used to cover two squares. It is because they can't be split that you can't use 31 dominoes to cover all the squares on the modified board.
Homunculi all the way down!
Is there a podcast version of this series? Somebody post a link pleeeeeaaaaase.
There are podcast links in the description!
Heuristics = Active Filtering
+
Triangl3
“So Powerful, So Powerful “ “no bull, no bull” my dog solves problems better than this guy, and I don’t have a dog.
18:00 "You can't turn yourself into an algorithmic machine that pursues certainty."
Wait... isn't this what the Buddha did successfully? I mean, it's difficult, but not impossible.
9:17 ‘literal sense bigger than the universe’. I contend that such propositions are meaningless. Maths only has meaning by correspondence to what actually exists. That speculative number doesn’t exist. Maths is literally constrained by time and space
What about the use of imaginary numbers or complex numbers, such as square root of -1, which are used applicably in technology? They don't correspond to what we observe but potentially to what governs what we observe? (Not contesting your statement so much as genuinely asking)
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 The so -called "imaginary" number was a hard one to grasp when I first learned it in engineering school. Square root of -1 .. WTF? But once the context and history was explained to me, and how useful the math was (repeating circle) , I got on board. For me, the context (implicit) knowledge tied in with the algorithmic knowledge to do useful stuff made all the difference. Talk about reducing the problem space using abstract numbers heh?
Not my real pseudonym
Thank you. Yes I was thinking about my grandiose claim😉 after I’d made it (which is what often happens; It’s only after I expose a claim/notion to public scrutiny that it becomes more scrutinised in my own mind). Anyway, I think the ‘big number’ that triggered my contention derived from the potential moves in a Chess game, which in hindsight seems legitimate; ergo I think I was committing a categorical error.
So that’s perhaps not to say (and I appreciate you’ve not jumped to conclusions) that roughly what I was getting at, in the appropriate category, so to speak, isn’t without some substance. But perhaps explore that a bit more later... this is a quick response 😎
@@kiljoy5223 There is no substance to your original claim. Obviously you have never studied any form of advanced mathematics, or you would know there are many areas which have zero application to the real world. Now, maybe some day some practical use could be found (this has happened many times in the past, i.e. first the abstract math is created, then later an application is found) but the fact is mathematics are an analytical subject which stands on its own regardless of real-world applications.
Karl
I’m not so sure about that. I think there’s a contradiction in what you say.
I should have probably said space-time, by the way. I realise that was kind of a given, but just saying 😎
16:27 "Algorithmic processing is held to the standard of certainty. You use an algorithm when you're pursuing certainty. Now, what's the problem with using an algorithm as a problem solving technique? Well, it's guaranteed to find an answer or prove that an answer is not findable."
Does this bear any relationship to the inevitability of nihilism when approaching the “problem” of understanding the natural world in an algorithmic, rationalistic manner?
Yes I think so. One of the roads that leads to the sense of absurdity of being.
I used to have a sort of subconscious mantra where I would repeat "there's just too many variables" in my mind. And along with that came the feeling of despair that there was no way to "figure out" what was going on.