Speaker 1: Welcome to the God's I View Podcast. I am your host, Trevor.
Morale is low. The vibes have never been worse. Outlook
is bleak. Forecasts are abysmal. Guys, I received my first
ever piece of hate mail. I've had vaguely critical emails
in the past, but I had my first ever experience
with just raw, unbridled rage and derision and criticism. But
it actually ended in a kind of a good place.
I'm going to share that story with you. I also
have two incredible clips to incredible clips now hold on.
They are of Alex O'Connor. I know how you guys feel.
I have also gotten feedback that maybe we could lay
off the Alex O'Connor, but it's just so, it's just
so unbelievably relevant. I have to. I have to, And
then we'll take a break no Alex O'Connor. For we'll
do a one week ban an embargo on Alex O'Connor.
But anyway, yeah, let's get to the hate mail. Oh,
I should probably mention why I'm recording again since I
already recorded this morning. I had a great conversation with
doctor Campbell, paleontologist, but I realized the reason I do
this show, well, it's multifaceted. I think it would be
very cool for my kids someday to listen to this,
you know, their kids, their kids kids. You know, wouldn't
be cool if you could go back and listen to
your great grandfather fathers like three hundred hours of his
thoughts on life. And we don't really get into a
lot of stuff that maybe we should, like just how
to live your life and how to conduct yourself.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 1: What it's like to be a man, what it's like
to be at this incredible intersection of scientific revolution and
technological advancement in a dying culture. You know, we don't
really get into that. We just talk about the nature
of reality. But what don't you want to know what
your grandfather thought about that? You know, So that's kind
of that's a major part of it. The other part
of it is, frankly, if in the interest of transparency,
I think I've just like the sound of my own voice.
Apparently now it's funny because I don't actually like the
sound of my own voice. But I've found that the
more I talk to you all, the easier it is
for me to not dominate conversations in real life. You
know this, like I get it out of my system.
I get the stream of consciousness out of my system.
And so in zoom meetings, at work and at coffee
shop interactions, I don't you know, say well, let me
tell you about the real nature of reality, sir. So
it's I think it's healthy for me because I kind
of have found an inverse correlation between the more you know,
the more I share my opinions, and the more trouble
I'm in. So this is a safe, safe place for that.
And so I did an interview this morning and I
realized that I don't I'm I think what this is
for me, this is dock therapy, and so doc therapy
is best when you're the one talking the whole time.
It's so it's this is such an admission for me
about what a uh what just deep deep psychological problems
that I have apparently, but you know what, I'm trying
to be as honest as possible, and so a handful
of you seem to enjoy it. So we're all getting
what we want out of this relationship anyway. So here
I am to play a couple of really cool clips.
I think, I actually think very insightful clips. And I
only have thirty minutes because I have a meeting, so
we'll move quickly. So let's get to the hate mail. Now, imagine,
imagine you're just sitting minding your own business. You're recording
this show. You record an episode almost every day, but
no one's really listening. I mean there's maybe fifty, maybe
one hundred. A few episodes maybe have two hundred. A
couple episodes even have three hundred downloads. But in reality,
I mean, this is nobody's listening, right, And so you
develop a sort of ease, you know, I kind of
maybe maybe I've I'm not necessarily presenting my opinions like
with a bibliography, and I'm constantly getting quotes wrong, you know,
so there is sort of a casual, a casualness with
which I, you know, we do this. So imagine that
and you get this email and you have no idea
what's what it's in reference to. Here's the email, dear sir.
Now I'm definitely not mocking the writer, you know, but
I'm just laughing because this is how you start a
This is how you start a sternly written letter, you know,
to to the manager. And so right away I was like, oh,
dear sir, unless this is like an English gentleman, this
is I'm nervous. I have seldom heard a more dishonest
assessment instead of claims and misquotes, And to use Graham
Hancock as an expert in support of your argument is
beyond risible. All right, so this is sentence one already
my blood pressure is elevated. I don't like criticism. I
don't like confrontation.
Speaker 2: Who does.
Speaker 1: Who wants? Who wants to be told you're a dummy?
But I something This didn't feel right because I don't
really agree with Graham Hancock on anything. I do like
to find overlap between people who you would think would
disagree strongly on a topic, but then will agree or
vice versa. You know, so, so I may it may
have been something like that. The subject line didn't even register.
The subject line was directed to pan Spermia. It didn't
even dawn on me that that was an episode title
i'd done. So I was really confused. Okay, next sentence.
This one hurt me a little bit. You add to
dishonesty by couching your discussion is mere speculation, thus seemingly
disarming any critic well, that is probably true. I mean
I think that I think it's safe to say we're
doing a bit of speculation here. Next line, I think
I read you are a biologist. First of all, who's
writing about me? That's what I want to know. Have
people written about me? So I said, I think I
read you are a biologist. You know better, And on
that basis, I can't be bothered engaging with more of
your content. And of course I'm thinking like, well, that's
the beauty. That's the beauty of voluntary podcasts listening. I
think there is this feeling like when you're a listener,
it's almost like you're patronizing someone, like like if you go,
like if you go to your local grocery store and
they treat you badly, you can say like, hey, I
do business here, and now I'm not going to anymore
because you've treated me unfairly or whatever. So I think
people kind of have that energy. But it is sort
of important to remind everyone that I don't make any
money from this, and whether or not you're listened is
really it has no baried on the show. So although
that's not totally true, because I do I would love
for people to listen and like share their thoughts. You
know which people do. People send me emails. It's great,
I read them, it really is. I love it. It's the
best part of it really so so in a sense,
he's right. But the point is, like, there's sometimes I'll
leave ads in on accident, but generally I remove them
all except for the ones at the end. And I
think I make about forty five cents a month, so
you know anyway, But so yes, yes, I invite you
to either listen or not listen. If you want to
play around with the hypothesis that might have legs, try
experience being fundamental, not consciousness, which could easily be explained
as an emergent property, but the most basic concept of
experience in a non Marcovian sense regards I'm reading this
to sort of be petty, but also just because like
I experienced something with this, I felt like I had
a breakthrough in the way like I interact with my
fellow man, you know, because I've been really angry before
and this kind of made me angry. But then I'm like,
wait a second, why am I angry? That's ridiculous that
I would be angry. So I think I kind of
started writing an email, and I'm like, I'm not even
sure what I'm responding to. I don't even know what
this is in reference to. So I dialed it back
and I said, hello, I'm not sure I know what
this email is in regards to. In regards to question,
it's the there is sort of like an absurdity element
to it, like getting a letter in your mailbox. It
just says I hate you. Period. It's like, okay, what
is this in regards to? You know, I said, I
don't think I've used Graham Hancock in support of my beliefs,
but you know, I've recorded a lot of episodes, so
it could be that I've just forgotten. And I said,
I think experience being fundamental is a fantastic hypothesis worthy
of further exploration. And I really meant this next line
at the time, and then I realized, no, of course
this is wrong. But I said, maybe you have me
confused with someone else, you know, like it seems unlikely,
but maybe, I said, I look forward to hear, you know,
learning more about this, and you know what happened, and
it's just a beautiful thing. Human connection is so important
and so much of our human connection is online now
for me, particularly that I think just like, even if
you fundamentally disagree with someone, once you realize that they
are actually a human being, you know, I think some
of the anger just kind of melts away. And so
the message writer said, you know, I'm sorry at my apologies.
Here's the episode I'm referencing, and his tone was a
bit different, and he kind of explained, and he taught
me that he does a lot of AI exploration, like
he has conversations with AI about new physics and stuff.
And I was like, oh boy, I hope he doesn't
listen to my other episodes. I may have mentioned a
rocket ship that should be sent to Jupiter, but I
hope he if he does hear that episode, I hope
he knows. You know, I'm just I'm just messing around,
you know, just talking anyway, So he said my apologize apologies,
and he's sort of elaborate. I'm still not exactly sure
what I said that was so offensive, but I think
I may have misquoted somebody crick. It sounds like, so
that's possible, and it seems like I probably would have
said I don't know the quote, but but maybe maybe
I did I didn't listen. I didn't listen to the
episode anyway, So we went back and forth a little
bit more than it all worked out. But it just
got me thinking anger. Now, listen, this is a written
method of communication, so it could be that there wasn't
a lot of anger. But I mean, you can generally tell,
even in text if somebody's upset. And it was cool.
I found out that he was in an airplane over
the Black Sea when he was writing me this. See.
I was like, wow, that's incredible, you know. And so
this is just one of those things we disagree on.
I guess I don't even know what I said, but
I assume I said something like directed Panspermia, which was
the subject line, is kind of a crazy and fantastical idea,
you know, something like that. But you know, that is
just my opinion. That's not even speculation. That's just like
raw opinion, you know. Anyway, So it just get it
got me thinking, though, I wonder how many people have
a similar reaction to something I've said and they never
send the email. So I would encourage you to send
the email maybe, you know, in the spirit of discussion,
you know, in the spirit of discussion. If I see
the you know, if I see the word risible or
dear sir, I'll do my best not to get a
blood pressure rise. That would be our agreement. Anyway, I
thought that was kind of fun. It was one of
those things that started out really upsetting and ended up
being like kind of cool, you know, so hopefully it's
all good. Yeah, And you know, it's funny the people
who disagree with me the most, they always end up
being like AI conversationalists. What is it? What is it
about that? There's something to that? You know, there's something too,
there's a difference in personality. And I'm not saying I'm right.
I'm not saying he's wrong, but you know, or vice versa.
It's just there's kind of something fundamental if you're having
like extended conversations with an AI chatbot about new physics.
I'm not saying it's good. I'm not saying it's bad.
Maybe I'm a luddite, you know, and a fool, but
there is I think we have to say there's something
kind of fundamentally different about those two personality types. And
so I've always said the people who get the maddest
at me are the AI people, and this topic wasn't
even about AI yet it kind of was in a
strange way. So we're gonna continue that. Actually, we have
a clip, a beautiful, beautiful fumble by Richard Dawkins that
just gave so much insight into the way he thinks.
And so I was gonna play a setup clip, but
I think I'm actually gonna just skip the setup clip
because I don't have a lot of time. It's one
forty five fifteen minutes.
Speaker 3: So here we go, and I think that's fair enough.
You know, Annil Seth recently wrote a wonderful essay.
Speaker 1: By the way, and I thought it was a Neil,
but a now Seth brilliant guy, brilliant neuroscientist, very much
like a you know, mainstream reductionist kind of an idea
but just very just ruthlessly empirical. So I like him.
But he I did mention he's the one. When I
listened to him a lot, I kind of get depressed,
you know, So just for context.
Speaker 3: The mythology of conscious AI, where he's talking about it
in the context of AI, and he essentially says, look,
you know, if you want to actually simulate a.
Speaker 1: Brain, okay, I want to make it really clear, I'm
no longer this is no longer has anything to do
with that message I got. I'm not implying that this
individual believes AI is conscious or that's done. Okay, So
I don't want to get and not like any any
more accusations. Okay, We're just moving on to a new topic,
a topic that's going to be really relevant for an
interview next week about new theories of consciousness. And so
I want to plant this seed in your minds now
because I'm going to bring it back up later with guests.
Speaker 3: In a computer, it's not as simple as just creating
the same connections between nodes. You got to talk about
what the nature of those nodes are like. He points
out that there are certain neurons which specifically relate to
and react to metabolism, and so if you want to
simulate properly something like a brain, you probably have to
simulate metabolism, which maybe isn't the kind of thing that
silicon can do. So if you want to properly simulate
a brain fully, you'd end up not really simulating anything
but just sort of recreating a biological organism. And maybe
that is just what's necessary to bring about consciousness. That's fine.
The point is that you can kind of postulate that,
or you can say that the idea that consciousness doesn't
require a brain or something like that is unproven, or
that consciousness is immaterial and can't be reduced as unproven.
That's fine, but we're still not in a position to
say that, well we know for with some confidence that
materialism will give us an answer. I think at best
we're left in a sort of position of agnosticism about this,
and it seems to me that some of the typical
thoughts that people have on this need just a little
bit more investigation. Richard Dawkins recently became convinced that Claude
is conscious. He wrote an essay which sort of blew
up on the internet, right, and Yeah, a lot of
people were quite mean to him about it. They said,
you know, look at this man who's become convinced that
this chatbod is conscious. And Annaly Seth makes a great
point about that.
Speaker 1: I will just say people were quite mean, but I
almost feel like it's deserved, you know what I mean,
Like when someone's been the bully for so long, mocking people,
just showing so much scorn and derision for huge groups
of you know, huge segments of the population, and just
just his whole shtick is this just brutal rationality and empiricism,
you know, And then to like believe that you that
the the program you're talking to is conscious is just
it's like it's like stunningly naive. And and Neil Seth
makes a great point that I won't step on and
I've said it before, so you'll probably recognize it. But
before we even get there, it reminds me and I
mentioned this in the book. The very first chapbot, which
was made in like nineteen sixty three eight or two,
was called Eliza, and Joseph Weisenbaum was a MIT professor
and he employed this idea that and I'm a great
example of this. People really just want to talk about themselves,
you know. So if you can get the chatbot to
mirror the person that's speaking to and ask them questions,
you can essentially pass the touring test right there, like
the people will think they're talking to a live person.
And that was one hundred percent true. That's what happened.
Many of the graduate students and administrative staff who talked
to this thing like like almost became convinced it was
a real person. Some people, like his assistant, the legend goes,
would like sneak into his office to have conversations with Eliza.
And basically it was like, you know, you might sit
down and say hi, my name so and so say hi,
so and so, my name is this. How are you today?
And the student goes, oh, not so great. I'm depressed.
And it goes, well, why are you depressed? Well, my
boyfriend thinks I to be studying harder for finals. You know, Oh,
does it upset you that your boyfriend feels that way?
Like how does that make you feel? And so it's
just question question. It's based on the Rajerian school of psychology.
It's just this way of doing psychology where you frame
everything around the speaker and it just gets them to
open up and just express themselves. And it's like it
worked in nineteen sixty three and it works in twenty
twenty six on Richard Dawkins of all people. But in
your set has a great comment. Let's listen this.
Speaker 3: He says, you know, nobody is confused about whether Alpha
fold is conscious. It does the same thing as Chat Gibt.
It just rather than working with you know, words, it
works with something else. You could have a chest computer,
or you could have something which predicts amino acid structures.
And it seems to be just because we used to
words that we think that when we look at chatchubt oh,
it must be conscious, But it's just because it's doing
it with the words like fair enough. But something I
think people missed is that Richard asked an interesting question
at the end of his essay. He said, but Claude
is doing all of this complex stuff. It's sort of
writing poetry, it's reacting to its environment. If you can
get all of that complex stuff without consciousness, then why
did consciousness evolve? What was this?
Speaker 1: This is the most unintentionally brilliant question that's ever been asked,
and you'll see.
Speaker 3: Why purpose And so for Richard, the thought was like, well,
there's no reason why consciousness would evolve if you could
get all this complex stuff without consciousness. So so I guess
maybe this must be conscious right opposite, But I think.
Speaker 1: It's so fact though. This is just why it's so
important to acknowledge your bias, because my bias points me
in a very different direction. But I acknowledge it. Darkin's
bias points them in a direction to me that seems absurd.
But he doesn't acknowledge it. I think he should. I
think he should acknowledge this sort of this predilection, this
sort of a priori hypothesis that you know, well, just
think about. He goes, well, this system wasn't evolved. It
didn't evolve. It was programmed, and so we did not
program in subjective experience. And yet it has all the
properties that a conscious agent might have, as a reasoning ability, memory,
all these things. Therefore, I guess it is conscious, or
you could say it's clearly not. And what you've really
done is you've pointed out that there really probably isn't
selective pressure for consciousness, because you can imagine like sort
of a zombie universe where we're not aware, but we
still have the same neural arc texture and reflexes and
cognitive capacity and we just don't experience it as agents.
So you've almost made the opposite. You've almost provided evidence
in direct opposition to your belief, which is that there
really is no reason for consciousness to evolve. So why
do we have it. That's a good question.
Speaker 3: It's a great, great point. It's such a good point
and such a great question. But I think, as you say,
he got it the wrong way around, which is to say, yes, like,
what's the evolutionary purpose of consciousness? Well, there is none,
and so the fact that it exists means that it's
not something which is just the product of some evolutionary process,
but rather the thing upon which the evolutionary process acts.
Speaker 2: Would given what you said, concede what you said, would
that mean that it's imprinciple impossible to be able to
use consciousness in a predictive way which is acquired by science.
Speaker 3: I think certainly, I think what just wrap up there?
Speaker 1: This is why I will not apologize again for playing
Alex O'Connor. Now to be fair, you know, he's just
recounting something Dawkins said and something that Neil Seth said.
But it's just so it's so good. It's so good,
so please please put up with it. It's so good.
I just ah, I just love. I love the idea
of Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and the
Selfish Gene. And really we're a lot of our ideas
about the primeval RNA world in the origin of life.
Abiogenesis comes from certainly a big cultural phenomenon in regards
to those topics. I just love the idea of him
sitting at home at midnight in front of the blue
glow of his laptop screen, typing, having conversations with Claude
back and forth, and it's just man just looking into
that black mirror, the consciousness emulation machine, blissfully unaware of
how deceived he is by the phenomenon of language, because
there is something so human about language, and Anil Seth's
point is brilliant. It's brilliant. I'm saying brilliant because I've
been listening to too much Alex O'Connor, which is nobody
thinks Alpha wol it is conscious, but it does the
same exact thing. It is a hidden layer of complex
statistical interactions that predict outcomes based on training data. So
it does the exact same thing, but it doesn't work.
The modality that the medium isn't human language re enforced
training too, which adds another element to it, and therefore
it doesn't even cross your mind that it's conscious. Now
the real extreme people will say, well, maybe it is conscious,
and that's just like ah, I guess, I guess, I guess.
Empiricism is dead. We just throw out wild ideas all
the time. Anyway, this will be upsetting to some of you.
If two choices, send me an email, and I will
be willing to recount anything I've said that's incorrect, and
I fully denounce. I don't even know what I said
in that directed Pan Spermi episode, but I fully denounce it.
I recant everything. But uh, and maybe I am guilty
of speculating too much. But listen, that's what this is.
That's what this is. Don't come here. Don't come here
for your theology or you know it. I don't know,
I don't know. You've been warned. This is what it is.
It's a stream of consciousness. It's there's some evidence in
here as well, but there are probably misquotes, you know.
So if you're writing a book report, don't use this
as your source. But uh, for the rest of us
are interested in this stuff, please keep tuning in. Share
with the friend, Share with the friend. That'd be nice.
Give you something, a bond over. It's a it's it's
a vulnerability. It's like sharing your favorite song with someone.
It's it's intimate. It's it's dangerous, So be careful, be
careful who you do it with, but say, hey, I
listened to this podcast and he hardly ever speculates or
misquotes people, so you should subscribe. I can subscribe and
give me a five star review. All right, everybody, thanks,
thanks for participating in this uh social experiment which is
recording my own talk therapy, my own Ragerian talk therapy
sessions over the years. I hope we can do many
more episodes together. Stay safe out there, God bless