Panel Discussion

0:00 It takes about an hour by inviting the speakers to ask questions to each other. And I want the speaker to feel free to ask questions or make comments or questions that they know that the other speaker is going to say. Well, I think I get it now. When we come back, of course, maybe. Then how much do you like to think that the human mind exists? At the same time, I really agree. The first point is that there's very few more probabilistic answers

2:30 because the life of the mind has nothing to do with it. And all kinds of more technical things to do where you can use the computer's analogy. I specifically think that the theory has to do with the computer, the thing you can manage things to. Oh, I see, I will let him know. And it actually, it's a syntax, it's actually a system, it's a system, right. It's a whole subtotal system, and that's great as well. I think the middle of the middle is quite very interesting. Is intelligence being... So it's a deceptive, the evidence you put on the deceptive, that's a deceptive, which is a lot of work. And that's definitely the main point of that, that it's a lot of work, that's how it's going to be used. Yes, but the way I thought of it, not so much the main point, but it's to get the test to work, it's got to be done. Well, I think that raises more, I'm not confusing that, I'm just saying it raises more problems than it is. So that's the point, it raises more problems. Thank you. Or something else. And I agree with what both of you are saying about that. I just wanted to ask, why are the two of you on the same page? No, we're not on the same page. I'm kind of difficult to believe in the type of situation we're in. And what ran through me is the point to make that intelligence has its unique characteristics. But you cannot convince people, pretend to be a scientist the way you are. And that makes a difference, doesn't it? The important thing about the test is not so much the imitation aspect of it, but where they use the power of computing, convincingly. The funding that is put in for the construction involving all the essential aspects of mathematics, that's nearly, I think, that's more primary.

5:00 But I think really where you, I mean, obviously it's very rough, because you couldn't do this. That's why it's not so much that you couldn't do this. You couldn't do this. You couldn't do this. It is very, very possible to do. I'm not partial to what I've tried to do today. I've already proved that I really could do something like that. I've already done it. It would be really hard to tell him to do it. No part of this is difficult to test. It's just something that's out of our control. You can imagine if he knew something about mathematics. I'm trying to tell him to really watch what he's doing and not to compare it to him. That's what it's doing. I think it's the whole point about the freedom that the judge has, means that it would require a kind of reciprocity, which is typical to think that anything could seem to happen for very long without getting to that. Yeah, I know that. Certainly in my position, I would suggest that I would. I think there could be opportunities, but there's a very lack of it, so I think that's on that, but that's just getting out of the territory. Have you not mentioned that you and Stephen Lee have done several lectures?

7:30 Several. But it's a really serious issue here because if, as you were saying, you were trying to optimize it for the second, I could see Cole calling in the year 2100 having some super brilliant excuse going in. And it could be quite dangerous to have an optimized, a program of optimization for the science. And what happens is that the computer will then begin to answer some questions. Now, when you search for design, you find out how much the person knew about the car. If you get a sort of question like, are you very concerned about whether the... ...the car... ...the car... ...then it will switch. Knowledgeable things. And they want to do that. Just a further... Footnote to the point that's already been made, vis-a-vis the liar aspect of the Turing test, I mean, surely, in fact, a convincingly human liar is never a highly consistent one. That would in fact be one way which, where in practice you would detect the computer very early on. I mean, anybody's ever stood up to sustained cross-examination in the witness box, I think.

10:00 Confirmed that consistent lying, logically consistent lying over long periods is virtually unachievable by a normal human being under stress, even one of exceptionally high intelligence. Whereas the computer, unless it was actually programmed, of course, to tell occasional inconsistencies and designed to be caught out on them. Yes, to make it convincing by not being an entirely consistent liar. Well, do we make each course like that or not? What we're going to do is we have to see it and see it. It's crazy, right? We don't have to see it. We can see it. But it is always crazy to see it. But there is something, I mean, mathematical is something you can maybe guide you. You're supposed to see it yourself. It's in you instead.

12:30 I think that's true all the time. And again, a mathematics course is very important. It's tough to explore just how conic you are. It seems to me that there are two most important components. First of all, the world we think of. Metaphysics is the intent. There's a sense in which the conic, this world in form, has a sort of gain effect. On the one hand, the human mind can apprehend the world as a tunnel. But it also, which is where we get kind of in a little bit of an immortal life, because that kind of access is not as straightforward as it was in the in-between incarnations. But still, just take those two fundamental things with the idea, certainly, that there's a world of forms, which is certainly completely independent of our concepts, and which provides a medical foundation for the physics, and that the mind has to apprehend those things individually, and with a gift of science of insight. How much of that story do you start to think about when you go along with that? Do you base that? Probably when we come to 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago, and there are the interminable next 10 years.

15:00 But of course there's some sort of history, why there's such a thing as a neurobiology. And the conditions are more obvious now, you know, theory theory, because we've come to Newton and to the theory of gravitation of the light, and I don't know if you've taken a look at any of those theories, I believe, and that theory certainly held up to 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200, 1,200. And then Einstein comes along, and you can come later with things, and you know you've got something like 14 different things. So it's a thing whereby the physical world seems to be full of different things, you know, seems to be extraordinary. So it's not just something that we've been told about, and I'm glad to be able to give you that, because you can understand. It's out there in the world, and I think that we've got some extraordinary facts that we've got to be able to get through these things. So I'm trying to do it myself, you know, in order to determine the consequences, but then at the time, you can, you can... You've accepted it. But some people think, well, the mathematics is dangerous, you know, it's a castle, we have to be able to do it ourselves. But, but I'm not saying... But it's not a question. I find it very hard to see how you can have a picture out there and understand how it is that the law of physics seems to have held the right form long before there were any human beings.

17:30 The physical world is behaving in a way which is called very abstractly. There isn't that kind of a law of our own construction. How do you know you have to go through all of those before there's nothing left? It doesn't even make any sense. Well, beyond that, I agree with all that. The thing is, in the moment here, there are plenty of mathematicians out there. They think they almost know the relevance of mathematics. And what little there is seems to be rapidly declining. Yes, sir. You're true. Certainly not very little is irrelevant in, say, the 19th century. I mean, that's an interesting question. I mean, the relative is, the thing to do with the relative seems to be... No, no, no, you pick up anything that's related to the relative as well. I mean, ok, theory, mathematics is awesome, but what do they have to do with the typical behaviour? I suppose I haven't read any maths on this thing. But from a mathematics point of view, what is the relative? Well, I'm not sure. I mean, you can't really answer that question, because you might say that ultimately it does have something to do with physical behavior. But as we see it at the moment, I think the answer would have to be that it's only a very small part of the mathematics which is established, which has to be reckoned with, which is very important. So in the large universe it's irrelevant. I don't mind, but I think it's relevant to the universe. What? I mean, relevant to the universe. It doesn't have direct relevance to physics, to quantum mathematics. And logic has relevant relevance, but it doesn't have, as far as we know, any direct relevance to the way in which the world operates. It's pure rather than implied. Yes, it's part of the opposite. I suppose that's what the question was. What I mean was it seems that more and more of it could somehow find an application. I don't know how bizarre it is. That certainly happened. I'm sure it's important to point that out.

20:00 That would be mine, for the time being. Just to tell you for the moment that we've never... To discover a better proof of a four-color theorem, is there a sense in which the computer perceives as true, perceives as true, whereas we can't? I would say that the computer perceives as true anyway. The truth. The computer is only used, I feel, in the United States. I mean, the arguments have been synthesized very much in the literature. But it still applies in the way that all proofs of the goal of the theorem do use the computer at some point. But the computer is an element of proof. We could ask the computer and say, well, do you think you've got proof? We could ask the computer and say, yes, I know you can say that, but it certainly wouldn't have that connection. I think my point is that, in a sense, we've got an algorithm for the theorem to be the same set of proofs, but which reads. We can't conclude with that, besides this sort of hypothesis, but there's nothing conceptual in it that we aren't meaning. No, no. Of course it's true, but of course it seems to be true also requires having theory about the way that... About logarithms. Yeah. There's hardly proof anyway in mathematics. It's a point I was trying to make earlier. Mathematical physics is true, it's just that mathematicians can use it. But honestly, I'd say that I thought they were very early. They were more dull and brainy. They didn't always do what was seen at that time. They didn't always have great skills. But again, during Darwin's wisdom, it certainly was not aimed at showing, it was quite often at showing that people were more dull and brainy than they usually were. It's quite a different direction. That's why, for instance, in the start of an initiative, we make mistakes at a very different level, but we've done it in a way that's been done for a long time, and we've done it in a way that's been done for a long time, and we've done it in a way that's been done for a long time, and we've done it in a way that's been done for a long time.

22:30 I don't know how you use the word, but in a sense it's a good question as to whether a computer could just, I mean, simulate. But the way it's slightly different is that if you think that, regardless of that... We have this thing called insight, which is again a part of the conversation. It's a kind of analogous perception rather than affirmation, which is actually the most essential one in order to be able to understand it. It's a real force that plays an indispensable role in the truth of the problem. I think there is an insight if you like, a bit more. So I think what I would regard as essential is the quality of mathematics in a certain country. So the good side is something you could start something and expand it and start something new. And on the other hand, one might have some device that does a very good job of simulating deterministic qualities. And I think, ultimately, they would, they would just, they can't come together without, they would ultimately, they would just become like, you know, typically some, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know,

25:00 I take this as a question of the mathematicians themselves. Their understanding was that it was an ineliminable part of the explanation as to why they arrived at the conclusion that they did. That could never be true. All of this is different, except on the assumption that understanding is something which is a very big paradigm. So that's very much interesting. Can we put in an example, we have three people that are here, and this is a slight variance, but that is my point. I'm not sure that it's absolutely correct, but I think that they have thought now, it's just a completely impromptu measure, or it doesn't quite just bring forth, just making companies and companies work together. And eventually, what we're actually going to do. So, it's sort of flipped out, you know, a long stream, four or three comprehensive lines of law, which you can be fairly sure is correct, but it doesn't correspond to any kind of useful equipment. Now, this is possible. You normally wouldn't have to give it out for less than a minute. I think the point about proof anywhere is that you have to gain some insight from it. The proof which is given to you as proof, which is just a screen of glass, doesn't help you. I mean, okay, it may tell you something about the proof, but it doesn't give you any insight. It doesn't give you any insight, you derive it. And the value of the proof... It's giving you an insight, and it's enabling you to do other things than take off from it. There's just a simple argument, which is a long string of lines, correct, which is accepted now. It doesn't give you an insight. There's something, I mean, a computer computer can do that, certainly, and there are examples of it. I think it is wonderful to talk about this kind of logic, and I haven't actually read any of it. It was actually first truly used in computer science, technically, where they used it.

27:30 But in general, I understand that the complexity involved in finding these views is so horrendous, and that without any kind of insight, even if you could solve a problem in a day, it's just not a good way to connect it. You really need to understand it. This is very close to the situation of the sky in the period of 1978 or the weather as well. Well, the point is that the locals used to arrive at it, wasn't as much as the world used to arrive at it. I think it's very close. So that was, as we've been hearing today, but that concentrating on those, I mean not fishermen, but all mathematicians used to do it and sort of experiment with it and acknowledge that. So if you put the emphasis on these gaps, well, that's good. That's what we're saying. That's very close to that, isn't it? That's interesting. That's very interesting. If you read that paper, it's very interesting. Anyway, you can consider a logic of physics and the Goebbels theorem, for example, but the Goebbels theorem is something... This is something we must accept if we believe that the systems we rely on to do this kind of thing, and we must believe that they're the same, even though they're the same and we must rely on them, or else we can't believe them. So in some sense, it's just a theory that we rely on to do this. So if you don't even consider the systems like this, or at least at Atiyah's book, and then you add the devil's steps into it, and then you consider what you do best in class, and then you add the devil's steps in the end, and you call these things. So you can imagine a sort of generalized continuum which could... There's also an oracle machine, which is one of these mounds. You pull in the oracle, and it's just as typically accomplished over the time you've been here. And the oracle can be actually implemented, and it's corrected every time.

30:00 And then you have an oracle machine, which is a more powerful device. And then you can have a sort of second-order oracle machine, or a third-order oracle machine. And so on and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on, Then you say, you see something far beyond the very notion of a theorem. Well, this is what I've done many years ago. Well, you said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. I said it. The mind is the governing process, not the mind itself doing what has to be done. But if you already had all of them, why wouldn't you use them? I mean, why would you come to the conclusion, for example, that the mind ought to be doing the lowest level of all things? Well, I don't know. Well, I've heard of all of them, but we didn't use the word brain in any of these points. And that, I think, really... That work doesn't appear until later in the sermon. My feeling is that it's sort of left open, this question, as well, and it seems very instinctively that it isn't, you know, certainly left open in certain cases, but quite useful. But my feeling is that, probably, once they ask the question, well, how could, in my view, the operation of the brain, how could the brain be doing something that's done for the future? I would think that there's a general bias in the field of mathematics that works well with the computer, but the resolution must be the practice of the reading and attending theory to do something, and a little up on the risk is actually designed. But it doesn't worry us at that time more than other people, and the art of it, in a certain way, is no game, it's just thought.

32:30 It is important to note that the show is not going to be recorded this month, because we're actually going to move, and we're going to give you another, in fact, a presentation, a closing series. So, I think we're going to be done about this. Well, it's fascinating to see that if someone had really killed him down in that period, would it have caused a lot of physical damage to him? It's a great thing to do, isn't it? Which may well be a factor. I mean, if it hadn't been for him, it's very plausible that he would have extended his life in a completely different way. And you see the experience of seeing, at the outset of the lecture, the exciting experience of seeing mechanical processing and how it benefits the size of the interstate. But really, it's basically given the information. And that's what we've been talking about for a long time, and that's what we've been talking about for a long time. And that's what we would have done, we would have sort of thrown it in there, but if someone had seen it now, they'd say... What we didn't try to do was to bring in a bunch of sources of information that we didn't know about, but we tried to find out how to solve it. So we said, well, what do you think? How do you think about it then? How do you think about it? We've done some things with that, but I think it's very interesting to speculate. And even more, if you combine that view with the 1970s, the views of Heddington and Kwan, views of quantum mechanics, mathematics, and mathematics, you can often discover what physics and law is, because it is much better informed about the nature of mathematical mathematics. But physics is not an academic subject, is it? Physics is at work on quantum mechanics. Yes, I mean, they've talked about it, you know, in certain ways. It's much more difficult to bring quantum physics to the inside than you'd expect it to be, because the fact of the matter is that quantum physics is left-handed to the inside. It's almost in the very nature of the inside. Now, some of the stuff is brilliant if you have it in a jar in the morning, because it comes down to your self-consciousness. Perhaps you need to approach it to see what to do with it, so you can see what to do with it, and you will get to know it. I think it's an interesting question, but there's no question of inspiration. It's actually, there seems to be a difference.

35:00 I suppose the way I look at it is that, okay, there are some kinds of elements. I like to think that there are two degrees of fear found in mathematics. There are two degrees. One of them is exploring other ideas, and the other is shooting down ideas that may come, but most of them may be nonsense. You need their consciousness to perform the judgments, to see where they're going. And inspiration, if you like, is more focused than you think. You need something that throws ideas out into the evening sun. And I'm prepared to accept whether it's that very reality I'm trying to show you. But in order to have any kind of evidence, to go ahead and do it, we need a scientific way. When you're leading, you do sometimes get the feeling that you know that's the right thing. And you know this is it. I wake up to this feeling that I'm taught by this school. I'm a little bit of a chore, but I know how to do it. You have to get the ones that don't. Going back to the... Can you just prove that that's a theorem? I don't know the detail, but the first thing I heard was the computer said, axiom of quantum geometry, and it came up with a theorem. If human mathematicians don't just do not prove it, and there isn't anyone who hasn't found it, so I think the computer cannot find theorems of significance. There are so, so few of us, that whatever that could be, it's not obvious, and second of all, it's absolutely frustrating, isn't it? Well, isn't it? The thing that you're continuing to prove, or the question you're answering, is not the question that's been given last season, or that you've been taught and asked it. And yet, having had a particular talk with me, there is really the truth, not just the question and the answer, but there is not much of a difference. Yes, everything has to... Besides, you know, you like to confuse these guys, don't you?

37:30 It's a bit like these, uh, computers which, uh, program, which one uses. In other words, you know, you may, uh, you tell them that you need a code, and you decide, you know, how it's going to be, and you don't have to do any programming, and you, you just want to take the time to fix the code. And it can be used in the composition to explain something or something like that, but it may be flawed, you see. But what he essentially let out was that if you have two of these ones, you each have a floor in the chair. If you make a computer out of it, I'm not sure if you could do that. I don't know if you made stuff, but wrote some music on it. I could tell you clearly. I think he stuck to the formula for the basic synopsis. That doesn't help. Yes, that doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. That doesn't help. So it's not, if you look at the universe, it doesn't go in the same direction, but it seems more mathematical to me than it is. No, it's not very much, it's not very mathematical to me all around me. The universe goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. This is basically a very quick argument to the effect that mathematical teams can't contribute to each other.

40:00 Well, it sounds, when I try to understand you up to 10 years, you've not sort of said it to me yet. As well as the use of mathematical theories, you know, to keep floating around without having anything to do with it indeed. There's some mathematics in what you're saying, because the way it behaves now, which you've been looking at, is according to the mathematical law. Are you suggesting that, I'm not quite sure which of two things is the difference, is that when everybody's up there, it starts behaving very differently? No, that's exactly the same thing. But there aren't any mathematical theories about it. It's just the use of mathematical theories is the difference between the one and the other. The way it appears to behave now, This is according to mathematical law. Now listen, it still keeps behaving according to mathematical law. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. You can't behave according to mathematical law anymore. On the premise, the lady thinks that mathematical laws are something which intrinsically have to be known to us. I mean, that's the suppressed premise. No, that's not on the premise. No, it's no, not at all. Certainly not on the premise. Moron. I mean, he's a mathematician. That's how it's presented. I mean, it's obvious it's Ryan Applegart, but I don't think it's the premise.

42:30 It's obvious we have another number in there. The absence of the phenomenon, the phenomenon of maintaining the absence, is not the universal evidence that fits your work, that's the premise. The thing that's absent is the mathematical law. That's not a phenomenon. That's how we describe it. Of course, of course. The law is the decision. The point I'm trying to make is that the universe does behave in a certain way according to very precise mathematical rules, and that's what I'm saying. And if they weren't allowed to be the mathematical rules, how could it do it? Mathematical law doesn't require any human intervention. Even if there were no humans. So that is what the problem is. So he doesn't have the problem. If he wasn't referring to this issue, as far as we can imagine, can we talk about something else? I think we're just getting through some of these things here. Could I go right back to the beginning, to the Turing machine? I wonder how long is it going to be all that relevant, certainly to the man in the speech? Because many people I know tell me that the computer understands next-step systems. Some people even say to themselves that they don't know that. We're getting to the point where there's a big difference between what in normal forms we call understanding and what we call being conscious, being a person. So that if you can demonstrate to me that this computer within a certain area shows such intelligence that I say it understands,

45:00 It may not be too far away, we can extend that circle and almost get to the point where the Turing factor may be 50%. Yes, it understands it, what does that mean? Because we spent the last 14 years with confusing circles, within some areas it understands. So the connection between understanding and consciousness, the connection between understanding and being a person, seems to be going. Now, I think we'll get back to, you know, the impact of doing tests, I'm sure, in a few minutes. Sorry, I couldn't do tests. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I heard you, sir. And what you're articulating is exactly true, too. I don't know if you can see it in the paper, but as time goes on, students become less informed than you think, in such a way that it's indicated. And, you know, I can certainly see that in this respect, the area that it is indicated, and vice versa, I think, too. I'm certainly going to increase the impressions of things to some degree, but I'm not touching any theory, and I'm not going to say any theory thing at all, because I'm sure I've been, you know, I've been speaking to some of the romantic kids, you know, anything that I've been talking about, so I think it's extending into the length of the conference, but they're going to follow me. Can I ask you a question? Can I ask you a question? Can I ask you a question? Well, what I'm really saying is, for the computer to be able to fool me, this is a long way off, I know, but I think by the time that time comes, our grandchildren will say, that's not very impressive, if you're a computer, tell me what it feels like to be a computer, but don't pretend to be a computer, because there's always super intelligence that's now built into you, and it's great to be able to do that.

47:30 So the Turing effect of time goes by with perhaps less and less relevant heights. Do take this point. It doesn't come within a million miles of the things you think about. It would be a step. The vast majority of people don't think about those things. And this concept of understanding and computers' understanding is very widespread and I think as a generation we are going to talk about computers that talk back to us with deep understanding within those narrow areas and just very widely. I do think we're going to say, okay, it's tough to chew insects, not insects. If you're a computer, tell me what it's like to be a computer. Are you using the word understanding in the way of this entire concept? No. Absolutely not. I'm using this in understanding you. This is the point I'm making, that we have in the past taught understanding is a conscious thing. If the systems aren't just a cell I'm talking about, you have something which acts in all respects as if it's understanding. Talk to the doctor, he can't be your correct answer. Talk to the expert system and it understands. It really knows what you're talking about. I mean, okay, words change in meaning, and they do. And I think it's probably you're going to be right, because that's what people use when they're at the end of the world. I think they would. But I just happen to think that's a change in meaning, because I mean, yeah, probably so. I was very interested in your thesis because you can't read it. The distinction between the computer and the dog is huge. The dog is operating in an open-ended universe of which it can see a significant amount. Perhaps not enough of those, but still a significant amount. It has concluded that it likes you all, that it loves you. It's been on you all, et cetera, et cetera. It's not reprogrammed in any finite sense that it takes to do things that are limited.

50:00 It's part of an open system in the same way that I'm talking in an open system. There's no inherent limit to the extent to which we can invent new words with the same things around us that essentially describe anything in the world. And I think that may be a major distinction between what you hear from a human being or a dog or a dolphin. Is this making any sense? I can't really say for that. I mean, I think it looks like you've been doing it up here for a few years. I'd be not sure for so long. No, no. It certainly has always been on the floor. On the other hand, you could see this, you could constantly see this in information, but wouldn't you really have a one-to-one correspondence with the real world? I think it's weird. Can we really have a one-to-one correspondence from the real world to the computer? I don't think the people need it because it's an incredibly complicated physiology. Thank you for watching. I was just positioning them, I should not be positioning them. Yeah, but they don't understand it. They're meant to be buying popcorn. Yeah, I think they'll be buying more popcorn. They'll be buying more popcorn. They'll be buying more popcorn. They'll be buying more popcorn. They'll be buying more popcorn. They'll be buying more popcorn. They'll be buying more popcorn. They'll be buying more popcorn. They'll be buying more popcorn. They'll be buying more popcorn. They'll be buying more popcorn. I think the dog in the computer is essentially the dog that's going to teach us to learn this stuff, to learn from the same experience.

52:30 Everything you don't know, you don't learn from. What people already know is that it's important. And that seems to me the fundamental difference between languages regularly, you know, one for 40 minutes. Instead of saying, I've got to cover these two things, you've got to get something to cover them. There's something underneath these terms. Well, I think the first example is kind of the first type. The first one is the second type. The first one is the human weakness of the third type of scenario, and it has a very human sense. It's very intuitive. The view is very centered around it's a kind of self-fulfillment, as you would say, rather than the other kind of self-fulfillment. And it's not the first kind of self-fulfillment, it's the second kind of self-fulfillment. And also, it doesn't include the reason. It includes the man that has... I mean, this is an expression of wind in the road, but it's also an expression of wind in the road, but it's also an expression of wind in the road, but it's also an expression of wind in the road, but it's also an expression In this lecture, we will talk about quantum mechanics, and we will also talk about quantum mechanics in general, and we will also talk about quantum mechanics in general, and we will also Semantics, I would say, computers, I would say walking, I don't know, by the way, with the feet in it, right?

55:00 I was just wondering, don't you think that at some level, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Have you pointed to it? It doesn't come out from your fingers. But you see, what I'm admitting to is that, not that we're dependent on jobs, but presumably we're dependent on a similar level of education. What you have to suppose is that somewhere between that creature and ourselves, in our evolutionary ancestry, there was this domain of mere, what do you call it, symbols. Some people argue that mathematics is not just a language. It's a language. It's a symbolic region. And it's not just a language. It is a unique tradition. One of the things I think is important to do as a job is that usually it's very legal. And it's always been very legal. I can say there's more about the people we own, I think, than what we are about to say. And the steering machine has to have a finite number of stops for space. Now, what do you think? That human beings actually have free will? And that any radical plug-in would really be useful? I would argue that their possible number of states is not finite. They just have a day. I don't know much about all these things, except that there are certain things which are about the same time period, but these limits are ridiculously large, and the scale is absurdly larger than any kind of statistical limit.

57:30 But if you'd meant that we were doing, like, a 50% or 30% of real facts, then what's implied is half of those things, right? Excuse me, this question relates to part of the whole discussion, I don't mean to argue with you today, to see whether humans can be interested in computer science. You'll have to idealize it, because I'm really certain about how much it's been good for computer science, and it's an interesting question, which I'm happy to address, whether or not it's been validating the discussion. It's something that isn't established in my understanding yet. My conclusion is it doesn't matter. And the tactics that these two can develop on, as part of the superiority, don't invalidate each other's abilities in any way. Because the question is, how does one's job show that something is true? And some of those things don't have to be done. They don't have to be fully integrated into science. Well, I guess the point I was trying to make was this. If we have three worlds, There's typically a sort of fact that we argue as well, that we would not be computable in that sense, and we would not be linear in the same theory completely because we should draw all sorts of conclusions from almost any amount of theory that we've been permitted with by these plug-ins to the form of the unit. I don't say that the things you put in physics have any number of states of the mind. But that's the way I see things. That's the way I see things.

1:00:00 I was making the assumption that some mechanism exists. Yeah, well, we can do that. But that's really the question. What does mechanism possibly do? And you're not satisfied with a verbal description. But we're saying, oh, we have pretty well all the facts and functionality and more or less what's going to be in the government. We've managed to express it, but the real problem is how on earth those things are supposed to drive things in our everyday lives. Oh, I agree with that. That's a little difficult. It's just, you know, there's also a particular problem that's actually great to point out, which is trying to appeal to... Quantum randomness has a way of accommodating and that is that quantum randomness is such a very specific, a very specific form of law where if somehow the brain or the mind or whatever is able to exploit it in order to correct the type of theory, well it's a difficult thing to do. All of these fields could have been used as a way to preserve these statistical limits. It would have been quite likely to have a hundred copies. In order for the physics to come out right, this is what 50-50, whether this will decay or something, this state will decay, then in order for me, if I'm going to be good, something else has to be bad. It would seem you'd need some kind of non-local coordination in order to reconstruct it, and that itself, as it were, would undermine the piece by responsibility, because if you were to dispatch it, you'd say, well, look, you know, I probably had to do the bad thing in order to do the good thing. I think, really, it's a kind of proposal that's not there for examination.

1:02:30 And what would it be for? Why would it be for? What is the difference? Let's assume for the moment that some mechanism exists and you could make a decision. Somehow, some entity that was selected by you to make a decision, which is superior, somehow, to other entities that might have been made without this absolute randomness. Any entity that could make a decision. If you can conceive of being created, a creative entity that is based on this mechanism, you will survive this long-term path of mathematics. Yeah, something like that. Something like that. I think that's what I'm trying to say. Exactly. It's not random. No, I think there may be something in there. We don't know the mechanism. It's just that if you have adaptive, dynamic, random, what you want is to get people to channel these things. It's doing the thing for the likelihood that you then... You could have a lot of dumb ideas. As long as you have a mechanism for choosing among the ideas, it's still less dumb than it really is. And then there's the potential to do it in either culture or biology or whatever. That's it, you know. Yeah, I like it. And I get it. I like it. I'm standing on the inside of something. It's being there in a way in which, you know, I'm getting much further than that. Somehow, there is something that we are using ourselves as a function of thought, which we believe is valuable. And if it has to do with it, it seems like it does. Thank you for your attention. I think we can leave that at the time of the conference.

1:05:00 Well, thank you very much.