Michael Levin: evaluation

Transcript context

…So in order to be effective at persuading an intelligent being, you yourself have to be persuadable. So the closer in intelligence you are to the thing you’re trying to persuade, the more persuadable you have to become, hence the mutual vulnerable knowing. What a term. Yeah. Richard, you should talk to Richard as well. He’s an amazing guy and he’s got some very interesting ideas about the intersection of cognition and evolution. But I think what you bring up is very important because there has to be a kind of impedance match between what you’re looking for and the tools that you’re using. I think the reason physics always sees mechanism and not minds is that physics uses low-agency tools. You’ve got voltmeters and rulers and things like this. And if you use those tools as your interface, all you’re ever going to see is mechanisms and those kinds of things. If you want to see minds, you have to use a mind, right? You have to have, there has to be some degree of resonance between your interface and the thing you’re hoping to find. You said this about physics before. Can you just linger on that and expand on it, what you mean, why physics is not enough to understand life, to understand mind, to understand intelligence? You make a lot of controversial statements with your work. That’s one of them because there’s a lot of physicists that believe they can understand life, the emergence of life, the origin of life, the origin of intelligence using the tools of physics.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.