#212 – Joscha Bach — Nature of Reality, Dreams, and Consciousness - Lex Fridman Podcast  ## Metadata - Author: **Lex Fridman Podcast** - Full Title: #212 – Joscha Bach — Nature of Reality, Dreams, and Consciousness - Category: #podcasts - URL: https://share.snipd.com/episode/67de94e6-6dbe-4b95-821a-95617bc020c0 ## Highlights - Consciousness Is a Control Model Summary: The illusion that you are an agent is a construct. What part of that is actually under your control? I think that our consciousness is largely a control model for our own attention. That our memories and expectations is what make us unhappy. And the present really does the day in which we are for the most part. It's okay, right?" Transcript: Speaker 1 That our memories and expectations is what make us unhappy. And the present really does the day in which we are for the most part. It's okay, right? When we are sitting here, right here, right now, we can choose how we feel. And the thing that affects us is the expectation that something is going to be different from what we wanted to be or the memory that something was different from what you wanted it to Be. And once we basically zoom out from all this, what's left is not a person. What's left is this state of being conscious, which is a software state. And software doesn't have an identity. It's a physical law. And it's a law that acts in all of us. And it's embedded in a suitable substrate. And we didn't pick that substrate, right? We are mostly randomly instantiated on it. And there are all these individuals and everybody has to be one of them. And eventually you're stuck on one of them and have to deal with that. Speaker 2 So you're like a leaf floating down the river. You just have to accept that there's a river and you just float. Speaker 1 You don't have to do this. The thing is that the illusion that you are an agent is a construct. What part of that is actually under your control. And I think that our consciousness is largely a control model for our own attention. ([Time 0:08:41](https://share.snipd.com/snip/cbbc0878-2933-435c-94fa-7dd9908f5c55)) - Is Your Consciousness in Charge? Summary: The illusion that you are an agent is a construct. What part of that is actually under your control? Our consciousness is largely a control model for our own attention. And the whole system that runs us is this big, cybernetic motivational system. So we're basically like a little monkey sitting on top of an elephant. Transcript: Speaker 2 So you're like a leaf floating down the river. You just have to accept that there's a river and you just float. Speaker 1 You don't have to do this. The thing is that the illusion that you are an agent is a construct. What part of that is actually under your control. And I think that our consciousness is largely a control model for our own attention. So we notice where we are looking and we can influence what we are looking, how we are disambiguating things, how we put things together in our mind. And the whole system that runs us is this big, cybernetic motivational system. So we're basically like a little monkey sitting on top of an elephant. And we can put this elephant here and there to go this way or that way. And we might have the illusion that we are the elephant or that we are telling it what to do. And sometimes we notice that it walks into a completely different direction. And we didn't set this thing up. It just is the situation that we find ourselves in. Speaker 2 How much prodding can we actually do of the elephant? A lot. Speaker 1 But I think that our consciousness cannot create the motive force. Speaker 2 Is the elephant consciousness in this metaphor? No, the monkey. Speaker 1 The consciousness, the monkey is the attentional system that is observing things. There is a large perceptual system combined with the motivational system that is actually providing the interface to everything and our own ([Time 0:09:38](https://share.snipd.com/snip/e4a42d5a-f6ea-4b2e-8cd9-7abbe35ad22e)) - Is Your Consciousness in Charge? Summary: The illusion that you are an agent is a construct. What part of that is actually under your control? Our consciousness is largely a control model for our own attention. And the whole system that runs us is this big, cybernetic motivational system. So we're basically like a little monkey sitting on top of an elephant. Transcript: Speaker 1 You don't have to do this. The thing is that the illusion that you are an agent is a construct. What part of that is actually under your control. And I think that our consciousness is largely a control model for our own attention. So we notice where we are looking and we can influence what we are looking, how we are disambiguating things, how we put things together in our mind. And the whole system that runs us is this big, cybernetic motivational system. So we're basically like a little monkey sitting on top of an elephant. And we can put this elephant here and there to go this way or that way. And we might have the illusion that we are the elephant or that we are telling it what to do. And sometimes we notice that it walks into a completely different direction. And we didn't set this thing up. It just is the situation that we find ourselves in. Speaker 2 How much prodding can we actually do of the elephant? A lot. Speaker 1 But I think that our consciousness cannot create the motive force. Speaker 2 Is the elephant consciousness in this metaphor? No, the monkey. Speaker 1 The consciousness, the monkey is the attentional system that is observing things. There is a large perceptual system combined with the motivational system that is actually providing the interface to everything and our own consciousness, I think, is a tool that directs the attention of that system, which means it singles out features and performs conditional operations for which it needs an index memory. But this index memory is what we perceive as our stream of consciousness. But the consciousness is not in charge. That's an illusion. ([Time 0:09:46](https://share.snipd.com/snip/31d6a097-c203-4308-bdf0-d4db8fc4fdad)) - The Elephant Is the Agent Summary: Our consciousness cannot create the motive force. Is the elephant consciousness in this metaphor? No, the monkey. There is a large perceptual system combined with the motivational system that is actually providing the interface to everything. So there is an environment in which the agent is stomping and you are influencing a little part of that agent. Transcript: Speaker 2 How much prodding can we actually do of the elephant? A lot. Speaker 1 But I think that our consciousness cannot create the motive force. Speaker 2 Is the elephant consciousness in this metaphor? No, the monkey. Speaker 1 The consciousness, the monkey is the attentional system that is observing things. There is a large perceptual system combined with the motivational system that is actually providing the interface to everything and our own consciousness, I think, is a tool that Directs the attention of that system, which means it singles out features and performs conditional operations for which it needs an index memory. But this index memory is what we perceive as our stream of consciousness. But the consciousness is not in charge. That's an illusion. Speaker 2 So everything outside of that consciousness is the elephant. It's the physics of the universe, but it's also society that's outside of your... Speaker 1 I would say the elephant is the agent. So there is an environment in which the agent is stomping. And you are influencing a little part of that agent. Speaker 2 So is the agent a single human being? What which object has agency? Speaker 1 That's an interesting question. I think a way to think about an agent is that it's a controller with a setpoint generator. The notion of a controller comes from cybernetics and control theory. ([Time 0:10:34](https://share.snipd.com/snip/a143e443-2808-48d9-bdea-2b99e7e09ffd)) - Are Agents All the Way Down? Summary: "Everything in life is about self-organization. So I think up from the level of life, you have agents," he says. "But below life, you rarely have agents because sometimes you have control systems that emerge randomly and try to achieve a set point" Transcript: Speaker 2 Okay, so it's hierarchies to go to another one of your tweets with, I think, you were playfully mocking Jeff Hawkins with saying his brains all the way down. So it's like it's agents all the way down. It's agents made up of agents made up of agents. Like if Angela Merkel is Germany and Germany is made up of a bunch of people and the people are themselves agents in some kind of context. And then people are made up of cells, each individual. So is it agents all the way down? Speaker 1 I suspect that has to be like this in the world where things are self-organizing. Most of the complexity that you're looking at, everything in life is about self-organization. So I think up from the level of life, you have agents. And below life, you rarely have agents because sometimes you have control systems that emerge randomly in nature and try to achieve a set point, but they're not that interesting agents That make models. And because to make an interesting model of the world, you typically need a system that is during complete. Speaker 2 Can I ask you a personal question? ([Time 0:15:15](https://share.snipd.com/snip/9b850a70-edb5-4c4e-b79e-d9719d872efa)) - Is Free Will an Illusion? Summary: When you zoom out and look at the entities that are composed by the individual cells. You know there's underlying simple rules that make the system evolve in deterministic ways. Is that where the illusion of free will emerges? That jump and scale. It's a particular type of model but this jump and scale is crucial. The higher level regularity is a pattern that you project into the world to make sense of it. And agency is one of these patterns. Transcript: Speaker 2 But what about for you? So is this akin to systems like cellular automata where it's deterministic but when you squint your eyes a little bit it starts to look like there's agents making decisions at the higher. So when you zoom out and look at the entities that are composed by the individual cells. You know there's underlying simple rules that make the system evolve in deterministic ways. It looks like there's organisms making decisions. Is that where the illusion of free will emerges? That jump and scale. Speaker 1 It's a particular type of model but this jump and scale is crucial. The jump and scale happens whenever you have too many parts to count and you cannot make a model at that level and you try to find some higher level regularity. And the higher level regularity is a pattern that you project into the world to make sense of it. And agency is one of these patterns. You have all these cells that interact with each other and the cells in our body are set up in such a way that they benefit if their behavior is coherent. Which means that they act as if they were serving a common goal. And that means that they will evolve regulation mechanisms that act as if they were serving a common goal. And now you can make sense of these all these cells by projecting the common goal into them. Speaker 2 Right. So for you then free will is an illusion. Speaker 1 No it's a model and it's a construct. ([Time 0:30:16](https://share.snipd.com/snip/2a6a00cd-51ce-41df-ad50-1be618f2f5d5)) - How Close Is It to the Real World? Summary: We're just seeing a very crude approximation. Isn't our dream world very consistent to the point of being mapped directly one to one to the actual physical world as opposed to us being completely tricked? This is like where you have like Donald Trump, it's not a trick. It's an attempt to deal with the dynamics of too many parts to count at the level at which we're entangled with the best model that you can find. So we can act in that dream world. And our actions have impact in the real world, in the physical world, to which we don't have access. Yes. But it's basically like accepting the fact that the software that we live in, the dream Transcript: Speaker 1 We know that it's not very close, but we know that the dynamics of the dream world match the dynamics of the physical world to a certain degree of resolution. But the personal structure of the dream world is different. So you see, it's a way of scratching on your feet, right? But there are no waves in the ocean. There's only water molecules that have tangents between the molecules that are the result of electrons in the molecules interacting with each other. Speaker 2 Aren't they like very consistent? We're just seeing a very crude approximation. Isn't our dream world very consistent to the point of being mapped directly one to one to the actual physical world as opposed to us being completely tricked? This is like where you have like Donald Trump. It's not a trick. Speaker 1 That's my point. It's not an illusion. It's a form of data compression. It's an attempt to deal with the dynamics of too many parts to count at the level at which we're entangled with the best model that you can find. Yeah. Speaker 2 So we can act in that dream world. And our actions have impact in the real world, in the physical world, to which we don't have access. Speaker 1 Yes. But it's basically like accepting the fact that the software that we live in, the dream that we live in is generated by something outside of this world that you're in. Speaker 2 So is the software deterministic in doing not having any control? Do we have? So free will is having a conscious being. ([Time 0:36:05](https://share.snipd.com/snip/0a26de22-b426-49f3-8cdb-d66edcea13ce)) - The Theory of Everything Summary: I don't think that you can talk about where it is because space is emerging over the activity of these things. And this is a point where I tend to agree with people like Stephen Wolfram who are very skeptical of the geometric notions. I think that geometry is the dynamics of too many parts to count. When there are no infinities, if there are twoinfinities, you would be running into contradictions. This is in some sense what Girdle and Turing discovered in response to Hilbert's call. Transcript: Speaker 2 Do you have a sense of what is that base layer of physical reality? You have like, so you have these attempts at the theories of everything, the very, very small like strength theory or what Stephen Wolfram talks about with a hypergrass. He said, these tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny objects, and then there is more like quantum mechanics that's talking about objects that are much larger, but still very, very, very tiny. Do you have a sense of where the tiniest thing is that is like at the lowest level, the turtle at the very bottom? Do you have a sense? Speaker 1 I don't think that you can talk about where it is because space is emerging over the activity of these things. So space coordinates only exist in relation to the things, other things. And so you put in some sense abstracted into locations that can hold information and trajectories that the information can take between the different locations. And this is how we construct our notion of space. And physicists usually have a notion of space that is continuous. And this is a point where I tend to agree with people like Stephen Wolfram who are very skeptical of the geometric notions. I think that geometry is the dynamics of too many parts to count. And when there are no infinities, if there are two infinities, you would be running into contradictions, which is in some sense what Girdle and Turing discovered in response to Hilbert's Call. ([Time 0:42:49](https://share.snipd.com/snip/963d3554-d31e-445d-97ed-d25c819a1904)) - Is There a Perfect Circle? Summary: I don't think that you need infinities at all, and you never needed them. You can build your computer algebra systems just as well without believing an infinity in the first place. So for instance, Roger Penrose uses this as an argument to say that there are certain things that mathematicians can do dealing with infinities. Transcript: Speaker 1 Reason why this is interesting is because it's important sometimes to settle disagreements. I don't think that you need infinities at all, and you never needed them. You can always deal with very large numbers, and you can deal with limits. You are fine with doing that. You don't need any kind of affinity. You can build your computer algebra systems just as well without believing an infinity in the first place. So you're okay with limits? Yeah. So basically, a limit means that something is behaving pretty much the same if you make the number larger. Because it's converging to a certain value, and at some point the difference becomes negligible, and you can no longer measure it. And in this sense, you have things that, if you have an n-gon, which has enough corners, then it's going to behave like a circle at some point. And only going to be in some kind of esoteric thing that cannot exist in a physical universe that you would be talking about this perfect circle. And now it turns out that it also wouldn't work in mathematics because you cannot construct mathematics that has infinite resolution without running into contradictions. So that is itself not that important because we never did that, right? It's just a thing that some people thought we could. And this leads to confusion. So for instance, Roger Penrose uses this as an argument to say that there are certain things that mathematicians can do dealing with infinities and by extension our mind can do that computers cannot do. Speaker 2 Yeah, he talks about that there's the human mind can do certain mathematical things that the computer has defined by the universal Turing machine cannot. Yes. So that it has to do with infinity. Speaker 1 Yes, it's one of the things. So he is basically pointing at the fact that there are ([Time 0:48:10](https://share.snipd.com/snip/0b3a71cc-42fc-41a4-80f4-8a3211130ffe)) - Is the Human Mind Fundamentally More Capable as a Thinking Machine Than a Turing Machine? Summary: He talks about that there's the human mind can do certain mathematical things that the computer has defined by the universal Turing machine cannot. So he is basically pointing at the fact that there are things that are possible in the mathematical mind and in pure mathematics that are not possible in machines that can be constructed in the physical universe. And because he is an honest guy, he thinks this means that present physics cannot explain operations that happen in our mind. Do you think he's right? Transcript: Speaker 2 Yeah, he talks about that there's the human mind can do certain mathematical things that the computer has defined by the universal Turing machine cannot. Yes. So that it has to do with infinity. Speaker 1 Yes, it's one of the things. So he is basically pointing at the fact that there are things that are possible in the mathematical mind and in pure mathematics that are not possible in machines that can be constructed in the physical universe. And because he is an honest guy, he thinks this means that present physics cannot explain operations that happen in our mind. Speaker 2 Do you think he's right? So let's leave his discussion of consciousness aside for the moment. Do you think he's right about just what he's basically referring to as intelligence? ([Time 0:49:37](https://share.snipd.com/snip/4c7d0395-228a-4368-ab90-812fd4a90d50)) - What Does It Take to Make You Not Conscious? Summary: So what about the perception of consciousness? So to me, you look conscious. What would it take to make you not conscious? Can you decide to switch from looking at qualia to looking at representational states? And it turns out you can. There is a particular way in which you can look at the world and recognize its machine nature, including your own. In that state, you don't have that conscious experience in this way anymore. It becomes apparent as a representation. Everything becomes opaque. This is typically what we mean with enlightenment states. Transcript: Speaker 2 So what about the perception of consciousness? So to me, you look conscious. So the illusion of consciousness, the demonstration of consciousness, I ask for the leg of robot, how do we make this leg of robot conscious? So there's two things and maybe you can tell me if they're neighboring ideas. One is actually make you conscious and the other is make it appear conscious to others. Are those related? Speaker 1 Let's ask from the other direction, what would it take to make you not conscious? So when you are thinking about how you perceive the world, can you decide to switch from looking at qualia to looking at representational states? And it turns out you can. Yeah. There is a particular way in which you can look at the world and recognize its machine nature, including your own. And in that state, you don't have that conscious experience in this way anymore. It becomes apparent as a representation. Everything becomes opaque. And I think this thing that you recognize, everything as a representation, this is typically what we mean with enlightenment states. ([Time 1:07:36](https://share.snipd.com/snip/be524f0f-7b86-457e-936f-e87333e58a2b)) - Postmodernism and Its Ideological Parts Summary: To develop norms around the idea that truth is something that is completely negotiable is incompatible with the scientific project. And I think if the academia has no defense against the ideological parts of the postmodernist movement, it's doomed. Right, you have to acknowledge the ideological part of any movement, actually, including postmodernism. To me, an ideology is basically a viral mimeplex that is changing your mind in such a way that reality gets warped. It gets warped insuch a way that you're being cut off from the rest of human thought space. Transcript: Speaker 1 Basically there is nothing wrong, I think, with developing a philosophy around this. But to develop norms around the idea that truth is something that is completely negotiable is incompatible with the scientific project. And I think if the academia has no defense against the ideological parts of the postmodernist movement, it's doomed. Speaker 2 Right, you have to acknowledge the ideological part of any movement, actually, including postmodernism. Speaker 1 Well, the question is what an ideology is, and to me, an ideology is basically a viral mimeplex that is changing your mind in such a way that reality gets warped. It gets warped in such a way that you're being cut off from the rest of human thought space. ([Time 1:28:24](https://share.snipd.com/snip/856fee1a-7064-4148-8b2c-5f6ecedad45f)) - Overfitting Psychedelics Summary: A lot of people that use psychedelics became very loopy. Timothy Leary was taking this sense of euphoria and translating it into a model of actual success in the world. So if you take, for instance, John Lillie who was studying dolphin languages and aliens - he didn't get superpowers but his Limitations had disappeared. Transcript: Speaker 1 So if you look at people like Timothy Leary and he has written beautiful manifestos about the effect of LSD on people. He genuinely believed he writes in these manifestos that in the future science and art will only be done on psychedelics because it's so much more efficient and so much better. And he gave LSD to children in this community of a few thousand people that he had near San Francisco and basically he was losing touch with reality. He did not understand the effects that the things that he was doing would have on the reception of psychedelics by society because he was unable to think critically about what happened. What happened was that he got in euphoric state, that euphoric state happened because he was overfitting. He was taking this sense of euphoria and translating it into a model of actual success in the world. Right? He was feeling better. Limitations had disappeared that he experienced to be existing and he didn't get superpowers. Speaker 2 I understand what you mean by overfitting now. There's a lot of interpretation to the term overfitting in this case. But I got you. So he was getting positive rewards from a lot of actions that he shouldn't have been involved in. Speaker 1 Yeah, but not just this. So if you take, for instance, John Lillie who was studying dolphin languages and aliens and so on, a lot of people that use psychedelics became very loopy. And the typical thing that you notice when people are on psychedelics is that they are in a state where they feel that everything can be explained now, everything is clear, everything is obvious. ([Time 1:37:13](https://share.snipd.com/snip/07fd6300-c3c4-4b9e-a4a7-30dd5a0df402))