The human bias hidden within scientific practises | Neil Turok, Lisa Randall, Martin Cohen 

To restate a point Dr. Randall makes: Our theories can only address what we directly or indirectly perceive. Does the universe also contain that which we cannot directly or indirectly percieve? Almost certainly yes, although we cannot know that to any degree. Can science present its theories as "this is the universe"? No, and to do so is indeed human bias.

This talk does not really happen because the three speakers did not find the common ground, which is more in epistemic questions about the limits and grounding postures of science, and how much can philosophical work help clarify those limits. (if it can at all) Martin Cohen decided to avoid the whole topic and wander off into the mythos. The scientists basically said "science works because theories get verified (or not) by observations, and the program continues forward refining knowledge" - but they can't explain WHY science gets useful verifications - as a product of human intelligence, or a mirroring of 'the real' in the cosmos into symbolic form, or some inherent capability of mathematical form as a 'real' ... etc Science cannot do meta-scientific justification - and there the door remains open for philosophy.

For me I'll make a statement entailing idea and logic being the central form of the universe. We used to think that our minds are actually within us but from recent indication it doesn't really seem that way. We may possess our brains but our consciousness belongs without. The whole universe is like a giant ocean then we are not just like fish swimming around in it but part of the water, our consciousness is like another colour from the water in the ocean.

It would have been neat to get to hear the whole debate. From what is shown, Dr. Randall appears to address the issue with the greatest clarity (to this thick person, anyway). Thank you for bringing at least part of this to us.

2:50 We’ve always been describing the “visible universe”. It’s our ability to extend sight that keeps changing. Of course we are seeing only a tiny slice.

It was an exciting title, but I feel that Martin Cohen was the only person that really touched upon the topic.

1. Philosophy is what is possible. 2. Alignment of probability results in reality. 3. Projection of reality is an avatar. 4. Perception of an avatar is Maya

Kurt Godel already confront strong emphasis in mathematical formalism and axiomazation during his time. And also proved that science has also limits. So it is definitely worth for open discussions on if everything that scientists proposed going to be as rigid as science supposed to be.

Interesting conversation. Everyone made valid points. But I suppose the thought behind the original question is that reality is seen through the lens of the human mind. We like to think of ourselves as having general intelligence. But isn't it more likely that our intelligence is quite specific? It was trained on specific kinds of sensory information and at a certain scale, for solving specific kinds of problems (i.e. survival). Personally, I think there is a serious risk that our minds are misinterpreting what we experience, because at a fundamental level our experience is a heavily distorted picture. Martin Cohen's point is a good one. We shouldn't be too surprised that humans are good at predicting the behaviour of nature, because that is the data our brains are trained on. It is circular.

Meaning is certified by means of multiplication. This operation transforms the infinite into an unending population of a finite variety of types. We always assume that there is a property package to present as a payout for our research, but this entails a subtle change in definitions as usages.

When other points in the universe are discovered and becomes a part of our world we human beings are still the center of the universe. The expansion happens in the past, present, and future. The visible universe is important because it was once not observable.

Concerned about the up-front premise that AI (created BY humans) could possibly be less human-centric-biased. *tbh, have not listened further, yet.

I don't know of any scientist that studies human and animal intelligence that will say that humans are special. Nor do I know any theoretical physicist or microbiologist that would say we are on the "middle" of the scale of material reality sizes. None of these "examples" are what I would expect scientists would propose or discuss.

Martin Cohen. Excellent minority report. The rest is sci-l-ence... Incredible how materialistic and mechanistic most of our scientists have become in the past few hundred years. Unfortunately there is a reason behind that. Reading list from contemporary authors: Matthew Ehret, David Gosselin.

On very large scales the universe does not behave according to equations we knew before making the observations. Dark matter and dark energy are theories that were developed precisely because the universe on very large scales does not behave according to equations we knew before making the observations. The rate at which a galaxy should spin towards its exterior of the galexies did not match the equations and understanding we had before. It is possible that we were/are wrong about our understanding of gravity and energy and we may have just made up dark matter and dark energy to force the already existing theories/equations of gravity to still work. It probably better to say hey we are wrong about gravity and energy but dont know why. Claiming something we cant see and cant interact with is causing some phenomena in the physical world feels like a very "science of the gaps" way of doing things. The Inflationary period is another moment where what was observed did not match what was believed so to make what we observe match the theories of the time the inflation period just had to be made up.

to the philosopher: "In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then, we compute- well, don't laugh, that's really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, we see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature. Or we say, compare to experiment or experience. Compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. And that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it." Richard Feynman Physicist, winner of 1965 physics Nobel prize

Chick on the left clings to the concept of science like a nookie. "We're scientists and we do science". It's like.."ya?.. cool". I only wish I could express my gratitude for such a super intelligent person to have blessed us with their graceful presence.

The ego’s on these kids could clog a black hole.

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

Kant only then? I think a correct reading of Hegel and beyond - and then.

It seems to me that various combinations of various various amounts of various kinds of misleading information and the various combinations of various levels of various kinds of beliefs of such can very often be extremely problematic .

Lisa seems to be bored with the discussion. Sun glasses and posture of " why am I here?".

Yes, the problems we face are very human. I particularly like Max Planck’s unique insight into this problem when he sad science progresses one funeral at a time. Science is intellectually bankrupt.

Science can only shift our perspective but science can never show us the full perspective...

Assuming that every single point of the universe is the centre of the universe is a kind of misleading.

📍8:02 2📍 3:58

The speed of light is not fixed. There are no fixed points for your various equations about the universe as it is composed of infinite variables.

I feel that pitting top level physicists (Neil Turok and Lisa Randal) against a philosopher is a bit unfair ;) The poor guy's reasoning and input in the discussion was underwhelming to say the least ...

why is that person wearing sunglasses

Practices, with a "c"

All we know is what we can perceive, and what we can directly perceive is very little and what we can indirectly perceive is only a tiny bit more. Anything beyond that is a totally hidden mystery. We use models based on our perceived experience of Reality and Maths that that were created by our brains and limited perceptions. And so our models are mostly imaginary and most certainly have no correspondence to the true nature of Reality. We know this because our Maths have many "constants" & factors that have no reason to be in the equation other than they are "fudge factors" that make the equations work well enough to be mostly useful. So our Math systems are also inadequate for probing and describing the true nature of Reality.

Like, of course a predictive model of the universe can be unfathomable to humans, yet still iterate and improve. That's the goal of AI+ robotics is (My research area). The most fun area of AI (to me) is Knowledge Representation, where we develop structures (state spaces) to encode data, or better yet, develop robots to tell us what those interesting state spaces are -- spoiler, they make no sense to humans. In my experience almost all these automated representations are completely inaccessible "metaphors" of the universe, and they are so whacky and weird that there is a research area dedicated to just understanding what the robots understand. Its called "Explainable AI". This whole debate on the "we cant" side seems predicated on an underlying assumption -- can the LITERATURE or CONTENT we consume ever escape human bias. Of course not. But that subspace of literature can be populated by agents, who can see the universe more plainly. For example, one kind of dumb agent, the "Telescope", can encode information from the universe, and with a computer, etch that data onto a universe map. This kind of intelligent scanning agent (which uses Scan Matching), is a very simple example of such a biasless truth seeker. Its only when humans crop, project, and try to mash the diagrams into the human visual field that we inject ourselvs into that store. That process is a compression, and as we compress, we select the data of human relevance both practically (i.e. we render in visible light) and sub consciously (cantering the universe on ourselves.)

Is this cyberpunk?!

Intelligence is both collective and distributive on the planet. Human knowledge will be concentrated into AI. Biological humans cannot survive in space but machines can.

O dear, where is Cantor or a neo-Pythagorean ✍

After doing philosophy for thousands of years, not much changed. After doing three hundred years science we landed on the moon, sent a probe to Pluto and use AI. Which method might be more accurate to give us insight and understanding of nature?

This is apparent, when you simply observe the periodic table of elements. The bizarre ordering, arranged increasing order by atomic number. Moving from left to right across a period (horizontal row), the atomic number increases sequentially. For example, hydrogen (with atomic number 1) is the first element, followed by helium (with atomic number 2), and so on. In reality, this is not how things work and has been debated, leading to at least 4 different versions being made. Neon, has no single "Atom", it is in fact made of 3 isotopes and can be used in a reaction phase, in conjunction with Hydrogen and Helium. There have been profound findings, such as cold fusion, completely ignored by science, and many great potentially beneficial advances being simply dismissed, as they conflict with modern academic narratives or the interests of those funding these same institutions. Its no surprise. Not anymore than Einstein marrying his first cousin, or Ghandi marrying a child of his own family, as Egyptian pharoes, such as Menkaure who is well known to have married his sister. I could mention many other such cases, but this isn't a blame game. I'm only mentioning this, to highlight the troubles modern science faces, being similar to the inbreeding of "great people", also relating to our "best science". To say we can and should do better, is obvious. Acheiving this, isn't as straightforward or easy, for the same problems which once existed, still being present today.

A perfect example is the idea in Physics that observation by a human affects the outcome of Quantum Mechanics or the Cat in the Box thought experiments. 😂

Its just engineering. As far as we r human.

Lisa knows what she's talking about

Why are you guys are so defensive?

Lisa is right, largely. But the amount of hypocrisy in fundamental theoretical physics all these decades ( you guys are just amateur differential geometers with some training in representation theory ) makes her statement fall short.

Poppycock. Peace ✌️ 😎. If it was something you could do you would have done it already. But we know that you haven't so easy slick.

Lisa is so behind the curve it’s embarrassing! 🤭

When absolute Truth is found, science IS religion. Until then, both science and religion are ignorant cults. The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: You will not TRULY understand anything until you have found what is termed "the Philosopher's Stone." I can tell you exactly what the Philosopher's Stone is, but you haven't found it until you have found REASON to believe that it is true, like I have. But here it is: The Philosopher's Stone is the fact that "GOD" is The Mind that is ALL. Want to know more? Seek and ye shall find...