Metaphysics and modern AI: What is reality?

Interactive Transcript

spk_0 The AI Fundamentalists

spk_0 A podcast about the fundamentals of safe and resilient modeling systems behind the AI

spk_0 that impacts our lives and our businesses.

spk_0 Here are your hosts, Andrew Clark and Sid Mongolik.

spk_0 Welcome to the AI Fundamentalists and the first full episode of our mini series on Metaphysics.

spk_0 You can hear more about the purpose of this series in our previous episode, particularly

spk_0 why principles and metaphysics matter as a foundation for modern AI.

spk_0 In this first part, we'll be talking about reality.

spk_0 And today we're glad to have on Michael Hermann.

spk_0 You might remember him from his previous episode he did, it was episode 14.

spk_0 We explored the question of what is consciousness.

spk_0 On this podcast unsurprisingly, we talk a lot about the fundamentals.

spk_0 And for a podcast called the AI Fundamentalists, we owe you a little bit of a fundamentals view then on what is reality.

spk_0 And this is a part of our mini series on metaphysics.

spk_0 And so, you know, we really want to build that from scratch.

spk_0 A lot of cities are working on.

spk_0 Before we hop into the meat of the episode, I'm really interested to hear, you know, are there any books you guys are reading recently that you're interested in that you like?

spk_0 I'm currently reading, let me see, the way of the shaman by Michael Harner.

spk_0 And it's kind of, I guess it's like a Western sort of like step by step approach to shamanic journeying.

spk_0 And I know shamanic journeying sounds a little hippy-dippy.

spk_0 And I guess it kind of is, but it's, it's really just like a similar to meditation is a way of, you know, kind of changing your consciousness for spiritual and healing purposes.

spk_0 Very nice, very cool.

spk_0 It's, uh, strange enough, I just read the golden road, how ancient India transformed the world.

spk_0 Like the endosphere is what it was calling it.

spk_0 It's a pretty new book by William Darwin, both kind of like the history of of India and how it really influenced a lot of areas and was one of the earliest triggers with the Roman Empire and all that kind of stuff like that.

spk_0 It doesn't really get that much justice oftentimes and like how influential India was.

spk_0 And it's like, it's definitely coming back on the world stage too.

spk_0 So I found that very interesting, a little bit of a dry read.

spk_0 It wasn't the most like easy to read book, but I thought it was very interesting and kind of ties someone the endosphere of from your book as well.

spk_0 But that's very good.

spk_0 Love the history part of it.

spk_0 Good author, but yeah, probably not the easiest reading, but then definitely been reading a lot of metaphysics for prepping for this series.

spk_0 And it's been honestly a lot of fun.

spk_0 I know when we were all in person a few weeks ago, we were talking about some of this and like I said and I found a book Stephen Mumford's metaphysics, a very short introduction.

spk_0 That's been a great read.

spk_0 I'm trying to read some other things.

spk_0 I had read Aristotle metaphysics a long time ago, but haven't gotten that one done again yet.

spk_0 But also looking at some of the car stuff of meditations and discourse and methods and things like that.

spk_0 So it has been really interesting journey to really take this step back as said mentioned the fundamentalists really look about fundamentals of like metaphysics and what is thinking what is a person and as we try and like tackle with this, you know, the age of AI, what do these concepts mean?

spk_0 And really going back to not just what a computer science textbook says, but really going back to, I mean, what Aristotle played, going back that far type of what is metaphysics and like the whole field.

spk_0 So it's been very interesting, really excited of this is we did the really kind of an intro episode of the kind of the concepts we'd be touching and then really honored to have you Michael on our first episode here of really digging into and signal outline kind of what we're going to be going through but very excited for you to get this started.

spk_0 But before said what have you been reading lately outside of Mumford?

spk_0 Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's been really great getting back into doing some physics reading.

spk_0 It's been a while since I sat down and said like I'm going to read one book in one week and that's been it's been great.

spk_0 A lot of fun.

spk_0 I'm finally getting back into reading a little bit of sci fi. I think Michael already knows this but I'm now reading the three body problem, which is one of the like new premier sci fi books, which is coming out of out of China, which we haven't seen a lot of before here in the states, but it's super interesting.

spk_0 Very physics heavy, really interesting to see a sci fi book that's clearly written by a grad student.

spk_0 They have a good understanding of academia and how research happens in the real world and that's very refreshing.

spk_0 I need to read that one. I did the Netflix series and I definitely saw the academic been so I don't know how accurate the net like it's probably destroys the book as usual.

spk_0 I don't know. Maybe it's a better faithful definitely had a major focus on like academics and research and things.

spk_0 I thought that was cool and kind of unusual. So at least that little bit of it came through in the Netflix series.

spk_0 Yeah, absolutely. And maybe I'll maybe I'll watch this show after I finish reading.

spk_0 David, who's going to come on our podcast next week. He is a huge fan of the Netflix three body problem. So yeah, I highly recommend from both of us.

spk_0 Awesome. All right. So let's get into the meat of the subject today. So as a quick recap, since this is technically the first episode that we did a preview on the last episode.

spk_0 Metaphysics is the study of the most general features of reality that includes things like existence objects in their properties, change your causality, space and time and the relationships with you matter in mind.

spk_0 And this is usually considered one of the oldest branches of philosophy besides maybe moral philosophy.

spk_0 Today, specifically, we're very interested on the nature of existence, the nature of objects and the nature of properties and how those things interplay.

spk_0 And if one thing can exist without the other. So to start off the discussion today, we're going to talk about specifically, what is the nature of the thing? What is the nature of a chair?

spk_0 What is the nature of a table? How would you define what an object is? And so I mean, you know, with some of the reading you've done Andrew.

spk_0 And some of the insights you have, Michael, like, how do we define an object? What makes an object present?

spk_0 Yeah, this was this was wild. This is what metaphysics is. And I definitely don't feel qualified to answer that question, but it was very much from this.

spk_0 This book of the different ways, this was a month for a book does a great job of describing the different components of what that is and different ways to think about it.

spk_0 But really that an object can kind of be into properties of it, like hardness and shape and things like that in the particulars of like the specific color or is it your chairs at my chair and things like that.

spk_0 So, and then the substratum and things, there's a bunch of these different theories, but really I think high level for me, what really resonated was that the really properties and particulars and an object has that has those different components and maybe kind of like a by part graph essentially of the interactions of those components.

spk_0 So you can see like the the type of what an object is like the it's a chair. It has certain attributes and then the specificness of that of that chair to you or me as an example.

spk_0 So that makes sort of like the property bearing the defining feature of objecthood and I think the problem with that or like one problem that I see with that is like how how does an object then persist through change.

spk_0 So like if you change, you know, a single property, then wouldn't that change the object from like one thing to another. And so like I think a good example that would be a banana.

spk_0 So I think we can probably, you know, definitely say that like a banana just because it goes from green to yellow doesn't mean that's a new banana.

spk_0 It's going to be like the same same sort of banana. So I think like my definition or like the definition I like of like what an object is is anything that can be perceived.

spk_0 And so that's obviously much more subjective and you know it's phenomenological, but I think for me it just I think it makes a little bit more sense than like just like focusing just on the properties.

spk_0 It's it's definitely more subjective.

spk_0 I love that I fully agree. One analogy I want to run by you and see what your thoughts are from the Mumford was.

spk_0 And I think it kind of aligns what you're saying, but maybe not that's what I get your thoughts on is if thing is separate from its properties.

spk_0 So you can think of it kind of like a pins and a pin cushion. So kind of like what you're perceiving is the cushion and you have the different attributes as pins.

spk_0 Right, so you can the cushion stays the same with what you don't see in like the if it changes shape as a banana whatever it's the cushion it's still there the bananas of banana because you perceive it.

spk_0 However, like it was it's mush now or it's changed color or whatever and those like the pins are being added or removed from the cushion.

spk_0 And that was one of the analogies in the book. Is that kind of a line?

spk_0 Yeah, I think so. I mean, that's that's a little bit like I would say object oriented programming where like you're creating like an instance and you're like you're passing it like individual attributes.

spk_0 Yeah, absolutely. And I think that like you know in the text we get this this situational problem where if we have the banana and we describe the banana as a set of attributes right.

spk_0 It's this color. It's this shape. It's it's this color. It's on this table.

spk_0 We find that we can have a pretty good sense that you can create continuities right one banana is the same banana.

spk_0 If you know one or two attributes are changing. It's the same everything else except for one attribute and we're moving through it in time.

spk_0 We then do run into the problem of well then how do we distinguish two bananas that are next to each other right because they have everything in common.

spk_0 The only attribute that's changing then is is location. So you know in what sense can we then describe objects as particulars or as being distinct from each other.

spk_0 If they are you know if we take for granted this idea that there's a property.

spk_0 I said a proper is it to find a single object.

spk_0 Yeah, so I think like in that sort of definition of an object what would make an object unique would be you know it's specific location as you had said.

spk_0 It's sort of like the sensory features of it I would say and then also like I guess like it's relation to sort of the the subjectives or to like the person observing it.

spk_0 Yeah, I think that's fair and that's that's very interesting. I guess do you want to dig in a little bit to this idea that.

spk_0 The existence of the object is only relative to the receiver right does the object not exist without proceeding right if I if I close my eyes the object cease to exist.

spk_0 Yeah, I would say so let going back to that you know age old philosophical question of like you know if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to perceive it you know did the tree fall or you know whatever it is.

spk_0 I would say no I would say like if there's nothing there that to you know perceive or take in those sound waves then yeah it's for all intents of purposes purposes that it happens.

spk_0 So I do think it's it's really dependent on there being a subject there were and an observer.

spk_0 This this is going to be interesting as we get into really the two from the month or book had the two ideas really like this the plate versus Aristotle kind of how they view the world.

spk_0 And I think there that sounds like you're maybe getting a little bit more on the Aristotle side of the house of if you if someone is there to perceive it so so do you think we want to start heading into that.

spk_0 The plate over Sarah's not all the day of platonic realm yeah and so I guess like you know before we hop into that I guess we'll talk a little bit more broadly about types of objects or archetypal objects are prototypical objects right so for example.

spk_0 I say a banana and a banana is conjured in your mind maybe it's a perfect ideal banana right this is oh this is the banana that like all bananas are like this banana.

spk_0 From that viewpoint we have this split between Plato and Aristotle let's start with Plato just because chronologically it's correct in Aristotle as a response.

spk_0 Is there some perfect banana out in some perfect heavenly realm and all bananas exist on the earth are basically representations of that banana do we understand banananess or table this as this abstract construct which is pure and real or is there possibly another solution.

spk_0 Yeah my initial answer to that is no perfect forms do not exist.

spk_0 I'm still trying to wrap my head around the question.

spk_0 Yeah yeah I guess the question is like and I'll do something similar than a banana it's a circle right so like a perfect circle is defined by a bunch of mathematical functions.

spk_0 But there aren't real perfect circles in the real world most circles have imperfections.

spk_0 So it sounds like to play though that there is a place where the real circle exists in some heavenly realm and that all fake circles on earth are manifestations of a perfect representation.

spk_0 How do we feel about that.

spk_0 The flip from a modeling perspective I think that has a decent analogy right so like we're that's an interesting way and I'll think about that some for models so all models are imperfect.

spk_0 Representations of reality so like what you learn with how models work so obviously it's a lot more nitty gritty and not as aspirational as like how Plato is saying but we're kind of operating a little bit in the platonic realm of how we view when we're doing modeling.

spk_0 But definitely don't want to go too much down that tangent keep it keep it more the metaphysical realm here of that difference and I think to me the platonic way really resonated with how the view of the world there because when we start to think about counterfactuals and scenarios and maybe I'm getting too tactical too fast but like the idea of there's a perfect representation somewhere else and then everything else is like an approximation is a good really resonated of which again all this is there's no imperative.

spk_0 So it's like that it is kind of like how it resonates with somebody but the platonic way of like the perfect circle of no matter how good of machining you do or something there's going to be some imperfection somewhere but we've kind of created in mathematics and things like this some of these like perfect like the magic ratios and like what like pie and things like that we actually kind of have these abstractions that we know as an ideal that we can't quite ever calculate what that is so I don't just kind of like felt like a good through line for a lot of house how signs and things operate from the platonic view.

spk_0 Yeah I think an object is an object because we can perceive it as something that is distinct not necessarily because it mirrors some sort of perfect or heavily form so you know again I think all objects are just rounded an experience and so you don't have that sort of that heavily realm like doesn't really even like really enter into sort of that framework that makes sense.

spk_0 That absolutely makes sense and honestly you sound like the exact or Aristotelian position right which is basically like there is no perfect version of these objects.

spk_0 Yes these are abstractions that we can use to describe how things could be but we exist in the real world and thus objects are what they are here and there is circle likeness or circliness but there is no need for there to then be perfect circles on earth first to understand what a circle is.

spk_0 So grounding a lot more in physicality and reality and then building from there.

spk_0 So I think that you know it's very easy for us to say like oh poo poo Play Do you know you're like 300 years behind the curve but you know it's on to something to kind of describe this idea of like are there perfect representations in the world.

spk_0 I think we deal with a lot of this at science and even an AI where we say like you know no model is correct but some models are better than others right the true representation is out there but we cannot have it all you can have is an approximation and the quality of that approximation is like gives it value.

spk_0 Yeah I think it's very interesting and said I want to your opinion here is Michael and I are both split on the two different views and this is a common thing in the history of philosophy is it really comes down to these two different views I forget exactly as I guess this famous painting of Play Do Nero Staddle arguing about this exact thing so this is very like two different philosophical views of the world and sit a very curious where you land on it.

spk_0 But Mike and I kind of see it a little bit differently which is probably I would actually like to pull philosophers is it kind of like a down the middle but there's definitely it's been kind of a running thing of people view it the different ways.

spk_0 So where do you fall on this.

spk_0 Yeah this is a really good question and I think that basically what I find is that trying to assign the world as a set of ideal representations becomes very difficult.

spk_0 I'm sure we've seen all some very abstract and interpretive styles of chairs where it's like wow this is nothing like the perfect chair.

spk_0 And so the question is then like are these types of idealized particular models actually useful for us maybe not.

spk_0 And I think to Michael's point I stand on the side of maybe privileging more the human experience of objects and saying if I can use this as a chair it's a chair even if it doesn't meet you know typical definitions if it doesn't meet this idea of like a perfect platonic object.

spk_0 So I would probably land on the more of Aristotelian side but I understand that it's important for science to have this notion of the real world sometimes being representable as abstractions of some perfect ideal.

spk_0 But maybe this is more interesting for mathematicians and scientists than how we need to live our day to day lives.

spk_0 Yeah I think to a certain degree like a lot of like what we call objects are just sort of like it's because we agreed upon it like if you think of a chair you know chair has you know legs it has a back it has a seat.

spk_0 And when you combine those all together we label the chair and it's it's because it's because of that combination because you know we we've decided that thing is a chair right like you can't there isn't like an infinite number of combinations out there with this chair where you can add like all these other things and it's still you know being is a chair but it's only because we've agreed upon that right.

spk_0 Yeah I mean absolutely I mean you then you like the spork problem right it's like well it functionally as the properties of both does it then exists as a new object or is it distinctly one of them.

spk_0 Yeah I think there's a I can't remember the exact sort of a metaphor analogy or whatever but there's like this philosophical question of like there's like a wooden boat.

spk_0 And if you remove a plank you know from that boat and replace it with a new plank is that boat still the same boat and you know it goes it goes as far as like you know saying like hey if you remove a plank you know once a week and you know all the sudden you have like a completely sort of like you know all the planks have been replaced is still the same boat.

spk_0 And then you know like if you saved all those old planks and you know built a new boat with those old planks is that now a better representation of like the old you know the original boat then you know how it currently is.

spk_0 Yeah yeah this is the this is a classic Jason ship which which is basically you know you board by board replace it a broken ship and you recreate it and you know which one is Jason ship is it the first and the first and the first at the new one.

spk_0 And I think like it's hard to say that there's an answer but I would say that if we take something with a pin cushion model I think we end up in a very comfortable spot where we can say that there was continuity with the ship that we were slowly building over time.

spk_0 And that the ship that we have been replacing boards over time can be Jason ship the same way that myself said it still said this by all the cells in that body being replaced every 15 years I would still say that there is some continuity between me of the past and me now.

spk_0 And I guess on that point I want to bring us to our next area which is building off of this so we've we talked a lot about combinations and pieces making up a whole.

spk_0 So let's talk about instead of simple particulars more complex particulars particulars where we have a bunch of component pieces or some I call them simple objects, symbols combined together to build brand new objects or a complex.

spk_0 Let's imagine for example a computer which can be understood as a combination of silicon and iron traces and copper but now it has new properties do we then understand that collections of small simple particulars make new objects or new objects just complex mechanisms combining the parts of them do objects become more than the sum of their parts when arranged in particular ways.

spk_0 Yeah, I think this is really the crop summit and I think I kind of live in between both camps which I'm not sure is a state like a metaphor or metaphysically valid place to be but I think it's in both right so like it's really that reductionism of all things can be explained like all little parts of a computer that can be combined and you know how to combine the things purchase the emergence of like sometimes two plus two equals eight is like non-linearity right.

spk_0 And I did a lot of like dynamical systems and chaos theory and I come kind of from that background of where emergence and complex systems have these properties that emerge and I'm personally on the boat of like consciousness of a human or like the what what's the what makes a human or what makes that different then it's not just like a collection of cells or something like different there right.

spk_0 And that would be more that emergence versus you know when you start really thinking about AI and things but like I do think that computers are some of the parts and that's the reductionism approach right so like.

spk_0 I think I don't know if that's metaphysically valid that I kind of live in both camps if I think human beings or like not even human beings animals I think any sort of like living thing is different and it has emerging properties that you can't just like cobble together in a lab Frankenstein style and and make it right versus like computers you can actually do that we can go down the bites and bits so I'm very interested in both here thoughts on that but.

spk_0 I'm not sure if this if I'm valid metaphysical stance here but I very much see both sides of the argument.

spk_0 Yeah I think the answer to your questions is yes I do think that when you combine symbols together like we do have new complex objects I think like yeah it's interesting to relate that back to sort of chat chatsy vt or you know large language models in general like with the symbols you have like data.

spk_0 So I think the difference between you know like a large language model like human is that the unity comes from sort of like the structure not from you know it's not from like experiment experientially so I think until you have a large language models and

spk_0 robots like in general like are embodied until they have like a body in the same way that we do and can interact in the world in the same way we do they are they're definitely like limited and how they bring about unity from those complexes.

spk_0 Yeah I think this is a really challenging point to conceptualize right that on one hand we have to accept well I understand exactly how the computer is created I know exactly how the transistors are laid out and I can entirely determine as to

spk_0 what we recreate its behavior right it doesn't exist as this organic object. Whereas on the other side we have humans which are made of cells and we understand how individual cells work.

spk_0 We don't yet have a good understanding of how millions of cells can come together and create life or consciousness as we understand it.

spk_0 And so we have to reconcile what is the LM not doing that the human is doing that makes this distinct property of life be assigned to one another the other the AI interacts with the world in API calls and their text and you know making chess moves.

spk_0 But somehow it doesn't exist in our world and so I guess the question is do you feel like there's some something tangibly unique in the physical world that differentiates us from the machine.

spk_0 Is there some kind of notion of mind stuff.

spk_0 Yeah I think that kind of goes back to sort of like the mind body problem you know in philosophy that we talked about during the last podcast but from my perspective yeah I mean I

spk_0 I you know approach things from I think consciousness is fundamental and I think everything is sort of derivative from consciousness and so I think there are different degrees of consciousness now I think sort of like everything has somewhat of a consciousness whether that's human trees bees blades of grass die cook bottles I think consciousness is inherent in all of those things it's just like to to you know what is the degree of consciousness so

spk_0 I think a lot of sort of like data scientists that I interact with are more materialists they more believe that like consciousness is an emergent property like in a complex system and I struggle with that one but yeah I do think that humans have some somewhat of a secret sauce that that large language models do not you know currently have then I don't see them having that anytime soon.

spk_0 To us interesting saw as digging into this mind body problem Michael like you were saying two interesting quotes that I I read one of them was from the mom for it was mentioned which is locks definition and then another one from the cards I did the

spk_0 meditations on first philosophy as well the last couple weeks so lock had to consciousness is an experience of thoughts and sensations that has memory beliefs hopes and emotions so that's where like different than like the computation a little bit of like the what actually will have hope thoughts dreams beliefs emotions right and then the

spk_0 card had a mind is a thing that doubts or in context of a person but the doubts that understands that affirms that denies that wishes to do and not do this and not that also imagines and perceives by its senses so it's kind of like a little bit more of a holistic at least by these that those two

spk_0 philosophers definitions for what it's worth a little bit more than that's where the I struggle with reductionism approach on that right because there's a little bit there's some secret sauce here that's

spk_0 different than like a computer is a computer and it's awesome and it's yes it's super powerful but it's not thinking it's not what I'm not even talking about thinking definition but it doesn't it doesn't have

spk_0 consciousness we're just talking about consciousness definition here right or reality it doesn't have hopes or dreams or anything and the large language models don't either predicting the next

spk_0 word right like they don't have that consciousness like the belief so that that mental I'm not sure like how it that's a whole whole

spk_0 no other topic for another day but those are just two posts I found interesting on like the mind body problem of I think like the reductionism is more like the body right like we can kind of get to the body except

spk_0 I mean scientific science has not progressed to like we can replicate a lot of body parts and things like that right but like in general we can

spk_0 prosthetics and kind of certain in the body but the mind it's like that that emergence that happens there is not something that even we take the computer as an example we're nowhere close to that

spk_0 LLM's were nowhere close to having the there no matter what like we talk about in Terminator and things like that right but they're not actually having hopes and dreams and things and

spk_0 and LLM is not reasoning it's just saying the wrong answer and hallucinating but it's just because it made up a word by predicting the next word right like doesn't mean that it's actually having the hopes and dreams and desires

spk_0 And so I guess this brings us to you know one of our one of our final topics for today which is

spk_0 uh if you want to talk about more

spk_0 modern philosophy no modern is attacking with our own philosophy but more something that's happened in the last 200 years

spk_0 you know you might say like oh well let's all this metaphysics stuff was done back in the day of Plato

spk_0 What's up what's up with today right have we been thinking about this problem since then and what have we

spk_0 come up with uh I would point us to the field of existentialism uh this comes in the late 1800s early 1900s

spk_0 and we see these ideas come across which purvelled you know maybe to more Michael's position

spk_0 that even if we exist as mechanical beings even if we are just automata we still have a valid personal

spk_0 subjectivity and through that subjectivity we have to understand that it feels real to us

spk_0 right even if we are just a machine you know to you know define by chemical properties and and biology

spk_0 and evolution we still exist as as subjective beings and so there is the like value and privilege in

spk_0 making that a real thing very interesting so even like to rephrase and disagree if I didn't get

spk_0 it right please please correct but it's like so even if we're taking like the reductionist

spk_0 view we're still this secret sauce that we haven't figured out yet right that makes even if we're

spk_0 automaton there's something that we're doing differently that we haven't been able to figure out how

spk_0 to do with computers I guess it's that but it's also like saying that like because it feels real that

spk_0 can be enough and that this is almost like you know a more like postmodern philosophy stance where

spk_0 we're looking beyond you know what is literally true this is a response to people saying like well

spk_0 in the industrial revolution you have all the machines that we understand how machines work and

spk_0 maybe humans are just machines and we kind of stepped away from this understanding that

spk_0 sciences only have describing physical mechanisms but not how we live life and that those are

spk_0 distinct things and so like you know the special sauce is just the subjectivity is just

spk_0 understanding that we have a viewpoint of the world and that objects exist in the world because

spk_0 we perceive them as existing in the world I found one quote that we're just going to save it for

spk_0 later but I think it fits well here at the near the end of the month or book as well that it's like

spk_0 so there's a lot of criticism on metaphysics should it even exist or like all the things

spk_0 are talking about are really fascinating but like we know what it can prove in this right it gets

spk_0 unlike there's no empiricism in metaphysics there's no way we can go out and test this right so like

spk_0 this is all these like viewpoints and how do we think about it and like that's really the science

spk_0 metaphysics is thinking and breaking down these things but I thought this quote was great is even if

spk_0 metaphysics is useless from a science perspective it's insights may be so deep and so profound that

spk_0 it could have the highest intrinsic value to us I think that really resonated with me and I think

spk_0 it comes to this here of like the thinking through these things and trying to figure out how

spk_0 the pieces fit together and what actually having to sit down and figure out how to find and

spk_0 at the end of this series we're going to try and have a definition of thinking but like actually

spk_0 breaking apart these ideas and trying to know pun intended things through how these things work

spk_0 it is super valuable and like it doesn't matter that there's not empirical evidence for these things

spk_0 it doesn't matter if Michael was on and sit on the Aristotle side of the house and I'm on the

spk_0 Plato side of the house none of this actually matters but it's a good way of what we're really

spk_0 missing in today's world is people coming sitting back and thinking and actually figuring out

spk_0 what you believe you're not just like pattern matching or just like turning your brain off giving

spk_0 your agency to way to LLM's and just like actually reading and learning and trying to figure things

spk_0 out wrestling with the hard problems it's like going to the mental gym is kind of metaphysics right

spk_0 so it's like it has such intrinsic value of figuring this stuff out even if there's no right or

spk_0 wrong answer here but like the mental gymnastics is where the value is and helps us better perceive

spk_0 and get perspective I think same as like what I said and I talk about all the books all the time

spk_0 right it's like books specifically history and biographies and stuff really help you get perspective

spk_0 on the world and really take a different angle and take a step back and like especially the AI

spk_0 here is like it's so easy to get on the you know the treadmill or like the hamster wheel if you will

spk_0 of like the news and all the hype and all the like we're almost in a post-truth world of whatever

spk_0 the LLM puts out on the internet is what the other LLM's read and then keeps viewing and we kind

spk_0 of get these cycles it's just kind of a crazy thing of like sit back do the hard yards do the mental

spk_0 gymnastics read do things the old fashioned way no matter what technology you use makes you

spk_0 be able to see that perspective and someone's got to be the one that's understanding how the

spk_0 pieces fit together so I know a little bit of a mini rant there but um I don't know that's what I'm

spk_0 very much enjoying this series and excited for it goes and I think all these things that might

spk_0 seem trivial like really doesn't matter the playdo or Aristotle I actually think it really does

spk_0 and it doesn't matter what the right answer is it matters that we're having this conversation

spk_0 thank you for those you know that that doesn't really great you know set of concluding thoughts

spk_0 because I strongly agree with that I think that I love materialism reductionism like it's brought us

spk_0 to where we are today but I do think that it's it's gotten to a point where some of the problems

spk_0 that we're trying to try to look at and that we're you know that we're that we're facing right now

spk_0 like I just do not think that they're going to be solved from like materialist reductionist

spk_0 you know standpoint I think we do need to take a step back as Andrew is saying and take a look at

spk_0 you know history and also take a look a little bit more like qualitative you know type

spk_0 feature more of the subjective as well yeah absolutely and that's kind of where I want to you know

spk_0 and this off to is that like the great project in metaphysics for a long time was science

spk_0 and creating science and mathematical understanding and models of the physical world

spk_0 but I think that the problems are facing now of you know maybe people don't live in a shared

spk_0 reality and that's a fundamentally you know earth shattering thing for these these fields to answer

spk_0 they can't answer these kinds of questions and so we kind of have to look back and you know these

spk_0 fields that we called soft sciences like psychology and social science are becoming more important as

spk_0 we need to understand how we can interact with each other and how we can construct shared realities

spk_0 uh which we maybe we took for granted before I love that I fully agree I think that soft there's

spk_0 nothing soft about soft sciences or soft skills right they're actually becoming much much much more

spk_0 important if we're getting more automated things and things the what makes us human no matter

spk_0 if if for automaton's whatever whatever we are how we interact with each other how we understand how

spk_0 how the social science is how things work together that's the most important thing now that's what

spk_0 just pains me a little bit with like the massive AI bubble and part of my PhD work was like looking

spk_0 at the tulip crisis in the Netherlands and like these bubbles and like the bubble we're in right now

spk_0 on the AI side like if you actually look at them you know like the what Wall Street is the to

spk_0 get an ROI what you're assuming is going to happen is an interesting thing to look at in any case

spk_0 what I would pains me a little bit is we're so focused on just replicating entry-level job workers

spk_0 knowledge versus creating knowledge right like in most of the history of mankind like in science

spk_0 and technology development we're creating knowledge we're not focused on creating knowledge anymore

spk_0 we're spending trillion dollars to try and replicate basic knowledge right so like that's why I think

spk_0 this all of the social science is like you said said is that might be some of the next frontier of

spk_0 of really good research is like figuring out what what it what it what it is to be human or how to

spk_0 interact in those things and like even if if the AI and I'm skeptical that's going to get near

spk_0 as performance as advertised but even if it does great how do we operate with that now like those

spk_0 the big questions and metaphysics is really a linchpin to those conversations yeah I think that's

spk_0 that's absolutely that's absolutely valid and I think these are the kind of questions we'd love

spk_0 to listen to think about and post themselves and you know please let us know if you have any

spk_0 thoughts we have it we have an inbox that you're always happy to read emails from and we're

spk_0 unlinked and we're all the all the socials so thank you Evan for your time today

spk_0 we'd like to you know remind people that this is a mini series so there's going to be another

spk_0 episode coming up where we're going to be talking a little bit more about the relationship between

spk_0 space and time another piece of metaphysics and we will not have just one but two exciting guests in

spk_0 that episode so very excited for that episode I think we've already been advertised as one to people

spk_0 and I think you'll have a lot of fun with this as we work through from the beginning you know how

spk_0 does space work and how does time work and how does those two things relate so very exciting upside

spk_0 coming up well thank you so much Michael for joining us we need to make this more frequent than

spk_0 ever year and a half or so I guess what it is you need to have you on the show more often and

spk_0 yeah really appreciate you being on and this was this was a great podcast thank you both

spk_0 yeah this was fun thanks thanks for happening yeah this is a great time glad to head you on Michael

spk_0 for our listeners we hope you've enjoyed this episode as a different approach to thinking about

spk_0 the modern age of AI through metaphysics if you have questions about this episode the series or

spk_0 any of the content in our podcast please leave us a note at AI fundamentalist at monotar.ai

spk_0 until next time

Metaphysics and modern AI: What is reality?

Interactive Transcript

Topics Covered

Related Episodes

Out on a Limb | Nov 2nd | Hillhurst United Church

How Do You Respond to Jesus? John 5:16–47 :Daily Devotional, Daily Bible Study

Episode 240: Otto Aerospace CEO Paul Touw talks teardrop, laminar flow, and Phantom 3500

Burnout, Breakthroughs, and the Power of Getting Back Outdoors | Gun Talk Hunt

Share Episode