Martin Rees: If Science is to Save Us, Part 2
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 06. 2023
- Subscribe for exclusive content at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/
Learn more and support the foundation at originsproject.org/
A message from Lawrence Krauss for this episode:
This is the second podcast dialogue we are airing with renowned astrophysicist, Astronomer Royal, and former President of the Royal Society, Lord Martin Rees. The first time I sat down with Martin for the Podcast we discussed his life in science, and topics ranging from the state of modern cosmology to the potential conflicts between science and religion (which he views as minimal, and I don’t). Martin’s thinking, and his expertise, go far beyond these topics however. Based on his experience at the Royal Society, as an elected member of the House of Lords, and working with the Center for Existential Risk at Cambridge, Martin has thought carefully about the challenges we face as a society in the 21st century, and how science can be marshaled to help us address these challenges. He has written a new book on the subject called If Science is to Save Us. I thought it would be useful and interesting to sit down with Martin to discuss the ideas he raises there, and our conversation turned out to be so wide-ranging that we are presenting it in two separate podcast episodes. This is the second part. As always, I benefitted greatly from my conversation with him, and I hope you do as well.
Consider supporting the podcast and the Origins Project Foundation at originsproject.org/
The Origins Podcast, a production of The Origins Project Foundation, features in-depth conversations with some of the most interesting people in the world about the issues that impact all of us in the 21st century. Host, theoretical physicist, lecturer, and author, Lawrence M. Krauss, will be joined by guests from a wide range of fields, including science, the arts, and journalism. The topics discussed on The Origins Podcast reflect the full range of the human experience - exploring science and culture in a way that seeks to entertain, educate, and inspire.
Full Episodes Playlist:
• Ricky Gervais - The Or... - Věda a technologie
Love from Pakistan... Continuesly listening to your podcast.
Lawrence your origins podcast with Martin Rees was brilliant I watched part one and two was brilliant. you're going for that Christmas gig at the Royal Institute aren't you and I think you're speaking to the right man
Regards.
julian samuels.
Bravo for attempting to spread knowledge. You're growing into quite an assemblage, Lawrence. Keep at it! And thanks!
Jeffery Epstein defender Lawerence
Thanks, Lawrence and Martin!
Lawerence, as much as I enjoy your ideas, I was interested to hear Martin talk. You really highjacked this conversation. Even your questions were longer that Martin’s answers, yet alone your pontifications on each subject. You also interrupted and cut him off several times. Your enthusiasm and energy are to be commended, but your skills as an interviewer leave much to be desired.
WELCOME TO PEI!
I hope you get the gig one day at the royal institute. I would love to see you there.
I'm sure it will be a brilliant discussion.
In the old days we had plans for that.. In fact there was some discussion of becoming head of the royal institution. But I am afraid an appearance is not in the cards at this time
Perhaps the earliest stark philosophical thoughts I remember having, other than realizing I would eventually die, was that all that was happening around me, all my thoughts and actions, were just a kind of complex motor of my body, under my control for sure, but pretty much a kind of motor, with my consciousness sitting in the background watching it all like I was watching TV, and that that was all life was about. Yes, since then I've inculcated in myself all sorts of tastes for the patterns and experiences around me, but that does not change the fact that that original assessment is true. I am this population of cells that I control, but largely I'm not that much different from a small insect except for the complexity of things I control and consume, and I wonder if some mite in my scalp is at times having essentially some of the same assessments I end up having.
It’s even worse than that. You are not truly in control. Free will is an illusion. Watch Sam Harris’s talk about free will if you don’t believe this.
Why not replace the large lecture with a simulation app practicing the concepts taught?
Great conversation. Awful commercials which are a huge turnoff
Richard Feynman, once said, (paraphrasing) if you push yourself to the very limit and if you’re curious then you are a scientist.
Fremason! And still smirking at the rest.
very enjoyable conversation to listen to, although lawrence interrupts martin a bit when he is just trying to elaborate on a point.
Dear Lawrence, would you consider inviting Matt from the Dark Matters channel, I think it would be an amazing interview, I am not sure if you two have anything in common (wink wink) but I think it would be good.
I suspect Newton would get an academic post these days - Lord Rees is Master of Newton's old Cambridge College - and I'm sure he could pull some strings for his academic hero.
United moral codes, care and honesty for all around will save us. No science required, it's behaviour based and starts from birth.
These are two very interesting looking people.
📍1:26:03
2📍52:35
3📍1:19:42
Do you know that we are living within an energy conservation dynamics universe? If you do, then you may have the answer.
We know what you creatures really are.
I respect Lawrence and Martin immensely. They are obviously brilliant. However, I think they are grossly underestimating the danger of A.I. This attitude expressed by Lawrence that we've always relied on machines so why worry is shockingly naive to me.
*_“It may seem bizarre, but, in my opinion, science offers a surer path to God than religion.”_* -Physicist Paul Davies, the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards), as cited in his book God and the New Physics.
If god existed, it would be a surer path.. but the statement is meaningless in my opinion.
God resides subjectively in the mind of man , science objectively attempts to explain the universe , one ends with our demise the other persists regardless . When atoms no longer form humans , atoms will still be .
Medicine is mysterious to me now, having it come from a black box would not make it more mysterious. I wonder who is going to be accountable in the event of malpractice
Until AI can respond on the logic of it’s response, why would you trust it? Same question to Homo sapiens.
Nothing worse than a scientist with a savior complex.
Would you prefer a savior with a science complex more?
@@jabbrewoki Ha! I think I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. 😁
@@jabbrewoki 😂
I forgive you my son…. right after I check the data…
Haters gonna hate, great talk, great content
Science or THE $cience™?
mmm, perhaps I'm too scientifically minded to be a good storyteller.
AI will never be more than a sorter of information and never more "intelligent" than the lowliest amoeba. This is why Krauss has such a problem with consciousness. Everything is alive with him only on the material plan. AI will become his god.
Framing science as the end of history is exactly the opposite of what will "save us." I guess this is a case of "f you have a hammer, every problem is a nail." If you're a scientist, it seems you think every problem in the world is a scientific one. Even if you want to argue for pure science, that is still just utopianism. Science is a cultural institution now, and it's practiced by people with motivations and beliefs about how the world ought to be. And science cannot be the foundation of a culture; people are not Nietzschean supermen who can reverse-engineer ought-from-is with no prior biases.
Krauss is such a novice, AI can do nothing as they can't think. Depending on a dummy to save us.
Regarding "harm", it seems to me there is a stewardship ethic that can be defined regarding tiers of ecosystem and tiers of community. Any activity that directly physically harms an ecosystem or a community is reasonably interpretted as harm, and it's not only completely reasonable to define that, but it's the essence of what politics needs to do. Saying harm might be mis-interpreted is like saying let's not have a wealth tax because even though I'm poor, it might be applied to me some day when I'm rich. It's a false argument and does not reasonably interpret the entire environment around the problem. Furthermore, that kind of nixing of rules creation is the same kind of pattern as a lot of science denial we have to deal with, so you are mimicking the very worst of your detractors by making such an argument.
Unlike computers and AI, human brains don´t work with algoritms (like computationalism believes). So an IA is very unlikely to be innovative, creative or get a spontaneously brilliant idea like a human doctor, a scientist or an artist.
Human brains do work with algorithms. Most decisions are made that way. A few with instincts plus some added emotional factors. AI just uses a database beyond our capacity along with statistical analysis of historical events.
@iantpls That is a simplistic analogy. AI work with computers that code human language instructions into zeroes and ones that are supplied to electronic circuitry that converts them in electric voltages. The software uses them to give other voltages that are then translated back into zeroes and ones and decoded to get an output. Our brains don't do that. And our memory is not like a hard drive. It's reconstructive.
@@guiperion I agree that part. But humans use algorithms based on their knowledge, experience, a collection of date from life, education, parents, fears, etc. Humans do the same thing but within a much smaller database.
@@iantpls OK, that is the old cultural and genetic determinism, but appart from that humans are also capable of getting spontaneous new original innovative (or crazy) ideas while an AI can´t. It needs a prompter. If it could be prompted to get a spontaneous original idea it wouldn´t be spontaneous/original.
The $cience😄
Freemasonry is okay but the rest is out of the norm!?