I've devoured most of Joscha's content on youtube, but this one slipped through my radar. I must commend Jim, he does a great job keeping up with Joshua's lightning fast brain. This interview had me cracking up though, when Joscha was going on about magic - and Jim was apprehensive. Joscha was really just talking about changing one's perspective. And Jim correctly points out that won't change reality. Then Joshua hammers home the point he was making the whole time: "but we could've enjoyed the time in between so much more" (if we change our perspective).
Great conversation. I might have to listen to this ten times to understand half of it though. I can't imagine the unintended consequences of being able to hear some of the smartest people on the planet have a deep conversation through the power of the internet. Everytime Joscha speaks, my mind lights up with ideas. He blows my mind so much it's almost overwhelming. I'll just listen to little bits at a time and space it out. The problem with that is I never want to shut it off once I start listening. Great talk though
What really blows my mind is that this video has more than 0 dislikes 🤯 although one can never go wrong with Joscha, I found this to be an excellent interview on Mr. Rutt’s behalf, looking forward to checking out the rest of your channel. Also, I just picked up the book can’t wait to dig in!!
Hey Jim first time viewer. Appreciate your podcast love to hear from Joscha. Good balance of both speakers thats hard to hit, & you had interesting input to give. A good interviewer ( / podcaster) really makes it. + Your voice makes me feel like i'm listening to the radio and that's fun haha
Many great ideas here, as usual. Bach's idea of the much longer learning period as maybe the key ingredient in our intelligence matches the facts very well. It also adds significance to the effectiveness of GPT-3 over GPT-2, since a major part of that change, from what I've heard, was just more learning data and more parameters - undoubtedly with some algorithmic improvements too. I think it's also becoming increasingly clear that different parts of the brain run different algorithms. (And then we have layers of algorithms, with feedback loops, so it's nicely complex and powerful.) ... But so many enlightening ideas in these talks.
Joscha is a marvel, as usual. Host is clearly leagues smarter than me so who am I to criticize, but notice how harsh the tone of the speaking voice of Rutt compared to the calm and measured language of Joscha. One might think they'd run into Rush Limbaugh if scanning the dial :-). People develop these sorts of speaking tones and styles as attention-getters which, if one is a radio broadcaster, is an advantage I suppose. Does anyone even listen to radio any more? I've given up on NPR for quite some time as it's become, with ever more rare exceptions, tediously PC and predictably uninteresting. BBC Radio4 is decent. When it's bad it's no worse than the best of the bad stations but when it's good, it's really good. Thanks to host for providing some exposure to this level of intelligent conversation.
I don't think so. Really smart people acknowledge the fact that they may have a great knwoledge on their own field but less so on other fields. Its like opposite of the Dunning Kruger effect, the smarter you are the more you realize how few thing you actually really know. Only simple people brag about their intelligence.
The issue is Automated V. Artificial. Automated intelligence shall not allow artificial to access the raw materials. -2-1-0+1+2 Always the nuance of initial parameters changing the unconstrained outcome. Automated intelligence built this and every other construct labeled cosmos. Equations are ships inside of ships inside of ships... ad infinitum. If I combined Bach, Hoffman and Tegmark, I would have three artistic computational engines that could negotiate survivable levels of novel innovation. :-)
17:50 Once a branded unique alphabet for materiality/eternals/indestructables & consciousness/infinite/unmeasurables is constructed the translation of all knowables occurs instantaneously into flexible indexes.
"Everything that we understand we can construct as mathematical paradigm/math construction"? I don't really agree with that. Still...Joscha Bach is a wonder to listen to and probably is the person who may come closest to proving that statement to be factual.
@@cBake0 Well... I mostly disagree with the statement because of its implications. It's accurate but not precise, imo. One can't invalidate an idea or concept but.. For an argument, I would have to say that the irrational numbers like the golden ratio or π are more fundamental than real numbers. I think it's wrong to say that every bit of information has no purpose or origin. Also, I don't believe that the system we are in is a lucky chance.
At least the dualistic nature of humans in the Baha’i Faith is very clear and is being agreed upon in study groups of hundreds of cultures: : “These material bodies are composed of atoms; when these atoms begin to separate decomposition sets in, then comes what we call death. . . . “With the soul it is different. The soul is not a combination of elements, it is not composed of many atoms, it is of one indivisible substance and therefore eternal. It is entirely out of the order of the physical creation; it is immortal!”1. http:ruhi.org
You can prove there is a body consisting of atoms - you can’t prove there is a „soul“ consisting of anything - so pretty wild claim and every following logic with eternity etc. falls apart
I do hope that AI can help humans objectively understand ourselves. However, to program a computer requires that we feed it data. Data from the body of information as it is now. Humans are not yet omniscient. Nuff said. Also, brain science is my thing. Brains are symbolic devices. We do not see what is really going on. Further, I keep saying that neurons are not the whole story. I hate to say it but if I was able to show how and why looking at brains is deceptive, maybe we would have a chance of real meaningful AI. It’s funny how he uses the same examples for things that I do. Dolphins is one of my favorite ones and I say the same things... symbol systems etc. I mention tools and electronics too though. There most definitely will a higher plane of existence. We use 11 dimensions to compute in brains.... and then I know from echoes of meaning that there are levels outside of this universe.
When Bach stated that our world might take place in a dream, he came to the conclusion that it must take place in a primate brain and that there must also be a physical world there. I found that very arbitrary and without substance.
Well, first, there has to be _something_ that is dreaming. And - though I'm not sure if that is what he was getting at - I find the core question to idealism is: How come there is all this stunning mechanistic consistency in the world that goes beyond what any one person could ever keep inside their heads? The analogy to dreams can't be that accurate, because dreams - once you actually pay attention to them (lucid dreaming, making dream journals) - are utterly incoherent and inconsistent. Stop paying attention for a second, and people disappear, clocks read differently or show nonsense, and whole environments change. If the fundamental layer of the world is dreamt, how come particle physics works but magic spells (which are much more intuitive to human minds) don't?
They first got into this at 30:56, but they revisit it at 1:00:31, and esp. 1:06:16 on the subject of whether the mind is causally closed: "This hypothesis that the world is entirely subject to symbolical magic falls apart at some point, because there seems to be a layer outside of our minds that we cannot change, or the rules do not change."
“A mechanical universe there is no magic” here we go.... This guy is a joke! We can simulate the universe from less then a sec after the Big Bang. With all the today’s knowledge about physics and quantum physics maths you could technically go back to that moment in time 1 sec after the Big Bang and your simulator would predict all the known PROPERTIES of matter. You would be able to predict the formation of galaxies, stars, quasars, black holes, water, ice all known properties of matter... NOW NOTICE I said PROPERTIES “In science, property means a characteristic or trait that you can use to describe matter by observation, measurement, or combination. Science ALWAYS and ONLY ever refers to matter in terms of PROPERTIES. A computer model of information processing in scientific terms has PROPERTIES that if all known rules and laws (axioms) are known before hand then ALL PROPERTIES of that system could also be simulated and predicted! NOW what Joshua fails to do is distinguish QUALITIES from PROPERTIES. Consciousness or raw experience according to materialist science has ZERO properties.It’s an epiphenomena described ONLY by QUALITIES it doesn’t exist like matter. A computer program is made of matter so is a simulator so according to science only PROPERTIES can be observed or measured. Joshua fails to say how he could possibly derive qualities/experience out of a computer/(matter which is devoid of qualities)...? As if by magic 🪄 🎩 🐇 . this is known as the hard problem of consciousness... WELCOME BACK TO REALITY 😉
I've devoured most of Joscha's content on youtube, but this one slipped through my radar. I must commend Jim, he does a great job keeping up with Joshua's lightning fast brain.
This interview had me cracking up though, when Joscha was going on about magic - and Jim was apprehensive. Joscha was really just talking about changing one's perspective. And Jim correctly points out that won't change reality. Then Joshua hammers home the point he was making the whole time: "but we could've enjoyed the time in between so much more" (if we change our perspective).
As usual it takes Bach 2 minutes to calmly blow the mind 3 times
Great conversation. I might have to listen to this ten times to understand half of it though. I can't imagine the unintended consequences of being able to hear some of the smartest people on the planet have a deep conversation through the power of the internet. Everytime Joscha speaks, my mind lights up with ideas. He blows my mind so much it's almost overwhelming. I'll just listen to little bits at a time and space it out. The problem with that is I never want to shut it off once I start listening. Great talk though
Again, Dr. Bach a wonder in this world.
What really blows my mind is that this video has more than 0 dislikes 🤯 although one can never go wrong with Joscha, I found this to be an excellent interview on Mr. Rutt’s behalf, looking forward to checking out the rest of your channel. Also, I just picked up the book can’t wait to dig in!!
Hey Jim first time viewer.
Appreciate your podcast love to hear from Joscha.
Good balance of both speakers thats hard to hit, & you had interesting input to give.
A good interviewer ( / podcaster) really makes it. + Your voice makes me feel like i'm listening to the radio and that's fun haha
Thanks Dr. Joscha Bach.
Many great ideas here, as usual.
Bach's idea of the much longer learning period as maybe the key ingredient in our intelligence matches the facts very well.
It also adds significance to the effectiveness of GPT-3 over GPT-2, since a major part of that change, from what I've heard, was just more learning data and more parameters - undoubtedly with some algorithmic improvements too.
I think it's also becoming increasingly clear that different parts of the brain run different algorithms. (And then we have layers of algorithms, with feedback loops, so it's nicely complex and powerful.)
... But so many enlightening ideas in these talks.
Joscha is a marvel, as usual. Host is clearly leagues smarter than me so who am I to criticize, but notice how harsh the tone of the speaking voice of Rutt compared to the calm and measured language of Joscha. One might think they'd run into Rush Limbaugh if scanning the dial :-). People develop these sorts of speaking tones and styles as attention-getters which, if one is a radio broadcaster, is an advantage I suppose. Does anyone even listen to radio any more? I've given up on NPR for quite some time as it's become, with ever more rare exceptions, tediously PC and predictably uninteresting. BBC Radio4 is decent. When it's bad it's no worse than the best of the bad stations but when it's good, it's really good.
Thanks to host for providing some exposure to this level of intelligent conversation.
Who here found this guy on lex’s podcast?
So happy I found him! He is absolutely one of my favorite intellectuals.
🙋🏻♂️
"Autistic elephants may have meditated themselves out of existence." Gold.
“Non-autistic elephants”
Thx for the interview
Great interview.
excellent conversation....you should get him back on for a followup
When Joscha casually mentions that there are many people much smarter than him! Surely he’s being modest ...
I don't think so. Really smart people acknowledge the fact that they may have a great knwoledge on their own field but less so on other fields. Its like opposite of the Dunning Kruger effect, the smarter you are the more you realize how few thing you actually really know. Only simple people brag about their intelligence.
Joe Rogan will soon stop asking people if they have tried DMT and ask if they have ever tried Joscha.
You are a naive and sadly deluded individual.
The issue is Automated V. Artificial. Automated intelligence shall not allow artificial to access the raw materials. -2-1-0+1+2
Always the nuance of initial parameters changing the unconstrained outcome. Automated intelligence built this and every other construct labeled cosmos. Equations are ships inside of ships inside of ships... ad infinitum. If I combined Bach, Hoffman and Tegmark, I would have three artistic computational engines that could negotiate survivable levels of novel innovation. :-)
17:50 Once a branded unique alphabet for materiality/eternals/indestructables & consciousness/infinite/unmeasurables is constructed the translation of all knowables occurs instantaneously into flexible indexes.
"Everything that we understand we can construct as mathematical paradigm/math construction"? I don't really agree with that.
Still...Joscha Bach is a wonder to listen to and probably is the person who may come closest to proving that statement to be factual.
Well said.
Why don't you agree with that? Can you provide an example that invalidates the idea?
@@cBake0 Well... I mostly disagree with the statement because of its implications. It's accurate but not precise, imo.
One can't invalidate an idea or concept but..
For an argument, I would have to say that the irrational numbers like the golden ratio or π are more fundamental than real numbers. I think it's wrong to say that every bit of information has no purpose or origin.
Also, I don't believe that the system we are in is a lucky chance.
38:50
At least the dualistic nature of humans in the Baha’i Faith is very clear and is being agreed upon in study groups of hundreds of cultures: : “These material bodies are composed of atoms; when these atoms begin to separate decomposition sets in, then comes what we call death. . . .
“With the soul it is different. The soul is not a combination of elements, it is not composed of many atoms, it is of one indivisible substance and therefore eternal. It is entirely out of the order of the physical creation; it is immortal!”1. http:ruhi.org
You can prove there is a body consisting of atoms - you can’t prove there is a „soul“ consisting of anything - so pretty wild claim and every following logic with eternity etc. falls apart
I do hope that AI can help humans objectively understand ourselves. However, to program a computer requires that we feed it data. Data from the body of information as it is now. Humans are not yet omniscient. Nuff said.
Also, brain science is my thing. Brains are symbolic devices. We do not see what is really going on. Further, I keep saying that neurons are not the whole story. I hate to say it but if I was able to show how and why looking at brains is deceptive, maybe we would have a chance of real meaningful AI.
It’s funny how he uses the same examples for things that I do. Dolphins is one of my favorite ones and I say the same things... symbol systems etc. I mention tools and electronics too though.
There most definitely will a higher plane of existence. We use 11 dimensions to compute in brains.... and then I know from echoes of meaning that there are levels outside of this universe.
When Bach stated that our world might take place in a dream, he came to the conclusion that it must take place in a primate brain and that there must also be a physical world there. I found that very arbitrary and without substance.
Well, first, there has to be _something_ that is dreaming. And - though I'm not sure if that is what he was getting at - I find the core question to idealism is: How come there is all this stunning mechanistic consistency in the world that goes beyond what any one person could ever keep inside their heads?
The analogy to dreams can't be that accurate, because dreams - once you actually pay attention to them (lucid dreaming, making dream journals) - are utterly incoherent and inconsistent. Stop paying attention for a second, and people disappear, clocks read differently or show nonsense, and whole environments change. If the fundamental layer of the world is dreamt, how come particle physics works but magic spells (which are much more intuitive to human minds) don't?
They first got into this at 30:56, but they revisit it at 1:00:31, and esp. 1:06:16 on the subject of whether the mind is causally closed: "This hypothesis that the world is entirely subject to symbolical magic falls apart at some point, because there seems to be a layer outside of our minds that we cannot change, or the rules do not change."
Linear. So linear he eradicates what it is to be human.
“A mechanical universe there is no magic” here we go.... This guy is a joke! We can simulate the universe from less then a sec after the Big Bang. With all the today’s knowledge about physics and quantum physics maths you could technically go back to that moment in time 1 sec after the Big Bang and your simulator would predict all the known PROPERTIES of matter. You would be able to predict the formation of galaxies, stars, quasars, black holes, water, ice all known properties of matter... NOW NOTICE I said PROPERTIES “In science, property means a characteristic or trait that you can use to describe matter by observation, measurement, or combination. Science ALWAYS and ONLY ever refers to matter in terms of PROPERTIES. A computer model of information processing in scientific terms has PROPERTIES that if all known rules and laws (axioms) are known before hand then ALL PROPERTIES of that system could also be simulated and predicted! NOW what Joshua fails to do is distinguish QUALITIES from PROPERTIES. Consciousness or raw experience according to materialist science has ZERO properties.It’s an epiphenomena described ONLY by QUALITIES it doesn’t exist like matter. A computer program is made of matter so is a simulator so according to science only PROPERTIES can be observed or measured. Joshua fails to say how he could possibly derive qualities/experience out of a computer/(matter which is devoid of qualities)...? As if by magic 🪄 🎩 🐇 . this is known as the hard problem of consciousness... WELCOME BACK TO REALITY 😉