What is dualism? What is idealism? What is materialism? What is functionalism? And what connects with you most in terms of because you just mentioned there's a reality we don't have access to.

Okay, what does that even mean and why don't we get access to it, only part of that reality?

Why can't we access it? So the particular trajectory that mostly exists in the West is the result of our indoctrination by a cult for 2,000 years.

A cult which, yes, oh, the Catholic Church, mostly, yes. And for better or worse, right, it has created or defined many of the modes of interaction that we have, that has created this society, but it has also in some sense scarred our rationality.

And the intuition that exists if you would translate the mythology of the Catholic Church into the modern world is that the world in which you and me interact is something like a multiplayer role-playing adventure.

Yes, and the money and the objects that we have in this world, this is all not real, or as Eastern philosophers would say, it's Maya.

It's just stuff that is, it appears to be meaningful. And this embedding in this meaning and people, even it is samsara.

This, it's basically the identification with the needs of the mundane, secular, everyday existence. And the Catholics also introduced the notion of higher meaning, the sacred.

And this existed before, but eventually the natural shape of God is the Platonic form of the civilization that you're part of.

It's basically the superorganism that is formed by the individuals as an intentional agent. And basically the Catholics used a relatively crude mythology to implement software on the minds of people and get the software synchronized to make them walk in lockstep.

This basically, they get this God online, and to make it efficient and effective. And I think God technically is just the self that spans multiple brains as opposed to your and myself, which mostly exists just on one brain, right?

And so in some sense, you can construct yourself functionally as a function that is implemented by brains that exists across brains.

And this is a God with a small 'g.' That's one of the, if you are talking, this is one of the nice features of our brains, it seems, that we can all download the same piece of software, oh my God in this case, and kind of share it.

Yes, you give everybody a spec, and the mathematical constraints that are intrinsic to information processing make sure that given the same spec, you come up with a compatible structure.

Okay, so that's there's the space of ideas that we all share, and we think that's kind of the mind.

And but that's separate from the ideas from Christianity, from religion, is that there's a separate thing between the mind as a real world and this real world is the world in which God exists.

God is the co-author of the multiplayer adventure, so to speak, and we are all players in this game. And that's the dualism you use.

Yeah, but the fact is, because the mental realm exists in a different implementation than the physical realm, and the mental realm is real, and a lot of people have this intuition that there is this real room in which you and me talk and speak right now.

Then comes a layer of physics and abstract rules and so on, and then comes another real room where our souls are, and our soul form isn't the thing that gives us phenomenal experience.

And this, of course, is a very confused notion that you would get, and it's basically it's the result of connecting materialism and idealism in the wrong way.

So, okay, I apologize, but I think it's really helpful if we just tried to define, try to define terms like what is dualism and what is idealism, what is materialism for people.

And also, the idea of dualism in our cultural tradition is that there are two substances, a mental substance and a physical substance, and they interact by different rules.

And the physical world is basically causally closed and it's built on a low-level causal structure of the very bottom level that is causally closed, that's entirely mechanical and mechanical in the widest sense.

So it's computational. There's basically a physical world in which information flows around and physics describes the laws of how information flows around in this.

Would you compare it to like a computer where you have a hardware and software? The computer is a generalization of information flowing around basically.

But you will discover that there is the new universal principle. You can define this universal machine that is able to perform all the computations.

So all these machines have the same power. This means that you can always define a translation between them as long as they have unlimited memory to be able to perform each other's computations.

So would you then say that materialism is this whole world is just the hardware and idealism is this whole world is just the software?

Not quite. I think that most idealists don't have a notion of software yet because software also comes down to information processing, right?

So what you notice is the only thing that is real to you and me is this experiential world in which things matter, in which things have taste, in which things have color, phenomenal content and so on.

Okay, and this is distinct from the physical world in which things have values in only in an abstract sense and you only look at cold patterns moving around.

So how does anything feel like something? And this connection between the two things is very puzzling to a lot of people, of course, to many philosophers.

So idealism starts out with the notion that mind is primary. Materialism thinks that matter is primary. And so for the idealist, the material patterns that we see playing and playing out are part of the dream that the mind is dreaming and it exists in a mind on a higher plane of existence if you want.

And for the materialist, there is only this material thing and that generates some models and we are the result of these models.

And in some sense, I don't think that we should understand, if you understand it properly, materialism and idealism as a dichotomy, but as two different aspects of the same thing.

So the real thing is, we don't exist in the physical world. We do exist inside of a story that the brain tells itself.

Okay, that's it. Let me uh let my my my information processing, I take they take that in.

We don't exist in the physical world, we exist in the narrative. Basically, your brain cannot feel anything new, your cannot feel anything.

Their physical things, physical systems are unable to experience anything. But it would be very useful for the brain or for the organism to know what it would be like to be a person and to feel something.

Yeah, so the brain creates a simulacrum of such a person that it uses to model the interactions of the person's, the best model of what that brain, this organism thinks it is in relationship to its environment.

So it creates that model. It's a story, a multimedia novel that the brain is continuously writing and updating.

But you also kind of said that, you said that we kind of exist in the head and that's all right, yes, that story.

Yeah, what is real in any of this? So like there's a, again, these terms are you kind of said there's a quantum graph. I mean, what is what is this whole thing running on then?

Is this story, and is it completely fundamentally impossible to get access to it? Because isn't the story supposed to, isn't the brain in a, in in something, in existing in some kind of context?

So what we can identify as computer scientists, we can engineer systems and test our theories this way that may have the necessary insufficient properties to produce the phenomena that you're observing, which is there's itself in a virtual world that is generated in somebody's neocortex, who that is contained in the skull of this primate here.

And when I point at this, this indexicality is of course wrong, but I do create something that is likely to give rise to patterns on your retina that allow you to interpret what I'm saying, right?

But I both know that the world that you and me are seeing is not the real physical world.

What we are seeing is a virtual reality generated in your brain to explain the patterns on your retina. How close is it to the real world?

That's kind of the the question. Is it when you have when you have like people like Donald Hoffman, let's say that like that you're really far away, the the thing we're seeing, you and I now, that interface would have it's very far away from anything like we don't even have anything close like to the sense of what the real world is or is it a very surface, a piece of architecture.

Imagine you look at the Mandelbrot fractal, right? This famous thing that when a man would discover that, whoa, if you see an overall shape in there, right?

But you know, if you truly understand it, you know it's two lines of code. It's basically a series that is being tested for complex numbers, and in the complex number plane, for every point, and for those where this series is diverging, you will paint this black, and where it's converging, you don't.

And you get the intermediate colors by taking how fast it diverges, yes, right? This is gives you this shape of this fractal.

But imagine you live inside of this fractal and you don't have access to where you are in the fractal, or you have not discovered the generator function even, right?

So what you see is all, "Oh, I can see right now is the spiral, and this spiral moves a little bit to the right." Is this an accurate model of reality?

It is an adequate description. But you know that there is actually no spiral in the Mandelbrot fractal. It only appears like this to an observer that is interpreting things as a two-dimensional space and then defines certain regularities in there at a certain scale that it currently observes, because if you zoom in, the spiral might disappear and turn out to be something different at a different resolution, right?

Yes. So at this level, you have the spiral, and then you discover the spiral moves to the right, and at some point it disappears.

So you have a singularity. At this point, your model is no longer valid.

You cannot predict what happens beyond the singularity. But you can observe again and you will see it is another spiral, and at this point, it disappeared.

So maybe we now have a second-order law, and if you make 30 layers of these laws, then you have a description of the world that is similar to the one that we come up with when we describe the reality around us.

It's reasonably predictive. It does not cut to the core of it, so you explain how it's being generated, yeah, how it actually works, but it's relatively good to explain the universe of your entangled fence.

But you don't think the tools of computer science, the tools of physics, could get could step outside, see the whole drawing, and get at the basic mechanism of how the pattern, the spiral, is generated?

Imagine you would find yourself embedded into a Mandelbrot fractal, and you try to figure out what works, and you, you know, somehow have a Turing machine, there's enough memory to think, and as a result, you've come to this idea: it must be some kind of automaton.

And maybe you just enumerate all the possible until you get to the one that produces your reality.

So you can identify necessary and sufficient conditions. For instance, we discover that mathematics itself is the domain of all languages, and then we see that most of the domains of mathematics that we have discovered are in some sense describing the same fractals.

This is what category theory is obsessed about, that you can map these different domains to each other.

So there are not that many fractals, and some of these have interesting structure and symmetry breaks. And so you can just cover what region of this global fractal you might be embedded in from first principles.

Yes, but the only way you can get there is from first principles.

So basically, your understanding of the universe has to start with automata and the number theory and then spaces and so on, yeah, I think like Stephen Wolfram still dreams that he's it, that he'll be able to arrive at the fundamental rules of the cellular automata or the generalization of which is behind our universe.

Yeah, it's you've said on this topic, you said in a recent conversation that, quote, some people think that a simulation can't be conscious and only a physical system can, but they got it completely backward.

A physical system cannot be conscious. Only a simulation can be conscious. Yeah, consciousness is a simulated property that simulated itself.

Yeah, just like you said, the mind is kind of the, call it, story, narrative. There's a simulation in our minds essentially. A simulation, and usually I try to use the terminology so that the mind is basically a principles that produce the simulation.

It's the software that is implemented by your brain. And the mind is creating both the universe that we are in and the self, the idea of a person that is on the other side of attention and is embedded in this world.

Why is that important, that idea of self? Why is that an important feature in the simulation? It's basically a result of the purpose that the mind has.

It's a tool for modeling, right? We are not actually monkeys, we are side effects of the regulation needs of monkeys. And but the monkey has to regulate is the relationship of an organism to an outside world that is a large part also consisting of other organisms.

And as a result, it basically has regulation targets that it tries to get to. These regulation targets start with priors. They are basic, like unconditional reflexes that we are more or less born with, and then we can reverse-engineer them to make them more consistent, and then we get more detailed models about how the world works and how to interact with it.

And so these priors that you commit to are largely target values that our needs should approach set points.

And this deviation to the set point creates some urge, some tangent, and we find ourselves living inside of feedback loops, right?

The consciousness emerges over dimensions of disagreements with the universe, things that you care, things are not the way they should be, but you need to regulate.

And so in some sense, the sense itself is the result of all the identifications that you're having. An identification is a regulation tracker that you're committing to.

It's a dimension that you care about, that you think is important. And this is also what locks you in. If you let go of these commitments, of these identifications, you get free.

There's nothing that you have to do anymore. And if you let go of all of them, you're completely free and you can enter Nirvana because you're done.

And actually, this is a good time to pause and say thank you to a friend of mine, Gustavo Oström, who introduced me to your work.

He's a brilliant guy, and I think the AI community is actually quite amazing, and Gustav was a good representative of that.

You are as well. So I'm glad, first of all, I'm glad the internet exists. YouTube is this where I can watch your talks and then get to your book and study your writing and think about, you know, that's that's amazing.

Okay, but you've kind of described instead of this emergent phenomena of consciousness from the simulation.

So what about the hard problem of consciousness? Can you just linger on it like, but why does it still feel like, I understand you're kind of the self as an important part of the simulation, but why does the simulation feel like something?

So if you look at the book by say, George R.R. Martin, where the characters have plausible psychology, yeah, and they stand on a hill because they want to conquer the city below.

They own that. They look at the color of the sky and they are principled and feel empowered and all these things.

Why do they have these emotions? It's because it's written into the story, right? And it's written into the story because it's an adequate model of the person that predicts what they're going to do next.

And the same thing is helpful. It's basically a story that our brain is writing.

It's not written in words, it's written in a perceptual content, basically multimedia content, and it's a model of what the person would feel if it existed.

So it's a virtual person. And you and me happen to be this virtual person. So if this virtual person gets access to the language center and talks about the sky being blue and this is us.

But hold on a second, do I exist in your simulation?

You do. You do exist, I mean, almost a similar way as me. So there are internal states that are less accessible for me and that you have and so on.

And your model might not be completely adequate. There are also things that I might perceive about you that you don't perceive.

But in some sense, both you and me are some puppets, two puppets that enact this play in my mind. And I identify with one of them because I can control one of the puppets directly and with the other one, I can create things in between.

So for instance, we can go or in an interaction that even leads to a coupling, to a feedback loop, so we can sync things together in a certain way or feel things together.

We exist inside the story that the brain tells itself (Joscha Bach) | AI Podcast Clips

Lex Fridman

철학적 개념과 현실의 본질에 대한 소개

이원론, 이상주의, 유물론, 기능주의에 대한 토론.

2000년 된 컬트의 영향을 받은 서양 철학의 궤적.

이 컬트가 사회적 상호작용과 합리성에 미치는 영향.

세계를 멀티플레이어 롤플레잉 게임과 비교한 마야의 개념.

더 높은 의미와 신성한 것에 대한 가톨릭의 소개; 플라톤 문명의 형태.

사람들의 마음속에 구현된 소프트웨어로서의 가톨릭 신화.

여러 뇌에 걸쳐 존재하는 자아로서의 하나님, 자아의 기능적 구성.

두뇌들이 같은 소프트웨어를 다운로드하고 공유합니다.

마음이라는 아이디어의 공유 공간, 종교적 개념으로부터의 분리.

신이 존재하는 현실 세계와 분리된 마음, 즉 이원론.

이원론, 이상주의, 유물론의 정의

이원론: 서로 다른 규칙에 의해 상호작용하는 두 가지 물질(정신과 육체)을 말합니다.

인과적으로 폐쇄적이고 기계적인 물리적 세계와 계산 모델.

컴퓨터 하드웨어 및 소프트웨어와 비교; 범용 기계 원리.

물질주의 대 이상주의: 하드웨어 대 소프트웨어, 경험의 세계.

이상주의: 정신이 일차적인 것, 유물론: 물질이 일차적인 것.

이상주의: 마음의 꿈의 일부인 물질적 패턴; 유물론: 물질 생성 모델.

뇌의 내러티브 내에서의 존재, 물리적 시스템이 경험할 수 없음.

상호작용을 모델링하기 위해 사람의 시뮬라크럼을 생성하는 브레인.

브레인은 멀티미디어 소설을 지속적으로 쓰고 업데이트합니다.

무엇이 진짜인지에 대한 질문, 양자 그래프와 이야기에 대한 접근.

시뮬레이션의 본질과 인식의 한계

관찰된 현상을 생성하는 엔지니어링 시스템, 신피질에서 생성된 가상 세계.

인덱셜리티와 뇌에서 생성된 가상 현실, 현실 세계와의 비교.

도나 호프만의 견해, 인식된 세계와 실제 세계 사이의 거리, 만델브로트의 비유.

만델브로트는 프랙탈의 예로 제너레이터 기능에 접근하지 않고 프랙탈 내부에서 생활하는 것을 설정했습니다.

우주의 기본 규칙과 의식의 본질

오토마타와 수 이론을 통해 근본적인 규칙을 발견할 수 있습니다.

모든 언어의 영역으로서의 수학, 범주 이론과 다양한 영역의 매핑.

첫 번째 원리로 우주를 이해하다; 스티븐 울프람의 셀룰러 오토마타 연구.

시뮬레이션된 속성으로서의 의식; 물리적 시스템은 의식을 가질 수 없습니다.

시뮬레이션에서 자아의 역할과 의식의 어려운 문제

시뮬레이션을 생성하는 원리로서의 마음, 뇌가 구현하는 소프트웨어.

우주와 자아를 모두 창조하는 마음, 자아 개념의 중요성.

모델링을 위한 도구로서의 자아, 유기체의 조절 요구.

규제 대상 및 사전 규제, 리버스 엔지니어링 및 세부 모델.

우주와의 불일치에서 생겨나는 의식, 동일시의 결과로서의 자아.

시뮬레이션 내 물리적 세계의 일관성 해결

시뮬레이션에 대한 요령이 아니라 모델링을 통한 자신에 대한 지식입니다.

물리적 세계의 일관성; 반복 가능한 실험과 물리학 법칙.

안정적인 역학 관계를 가진 현상은 지속되고, 불안정한 현상은 제거됩니다.

마음을 지탱하는 우주의 영역에서 복잡성과 통제.

대칭 및 대칭 깨짐이 있는 엄격하게 제어되는 영역.

뇌, 마음, 우주의 관계; 죽음과 정체성

뇌와 마음, 그리고 더 넓은 우주 사이의 연결, 무엇이 먼저일까요?

우주를 출발점으로 삼아 인과 모델을 쉽게 구성할 수 있습니다.

사람이 죽으면 마인드 시뮬레이션은 어떻게 되는가; 구현 중단.

구성된 정체성 너머의 정체성, 달라이 라마를 예로 들어 설명합니다.

살아 숨 쉬는 아이디어와 전통, 사회와의 동일시.

물리적으로 실재하지 않는 소프트웨어 상태로서의 신원, 객체의 표현.

We exist inside the story that the brain tells itself (Joscha Bach) | AI Podcast Clips

스크립트