Lex Fridman: uncertainty

Transcript context

…his with neurons all the time. I’ll ask people, “What’s a neuron? Like, what’s really a neuron?” And yes, if you’re in neurobiology 101, of course you just say like, “These are what neurons look like. Let’s just study the neuroanatomy and we’re done.” But if you really want to understand what’s going on, well, neurons develop from other types of cells and that was a slow and gradual process, and most of the cells in your body do the things that neurons do. So what really is a neuron, right? So once you start scratching this, this happens, and I have some things that I think are coming out of our lab and others that are I think very interesting about the origin of life. But I don’t think it’s about finding that one boon, like this is. Yeah, there will be innovations, right? There are innovations that allow you to scale in an amazing way, for sure. And there are lots of people that study those, right? So things like thermodynamic, kind of metabolic things and all kinds of architectures and so on. But I don’t think it’s about finding a line. I think it’s about finding a scaling process. the scaling process, but then there is more rapid scaling and there are slower scaling. So innovation, invention, I think is useful to understand so you can predict how likely it is on other planets, for example. Or to be able to describe the likelihood of these kinds of phenomena happening in certain kinds of environments. Again, specifically in answering how many alien civilizations there are. It’s useful. But it is also useful on a scientific level to have categories, not just ’cause it makes us feel good and fuzzy inside, but because it makes conversation possible and productive, I think. If everything is a spectrum, it becomes difficult to make concrete statements, I think. Like, we even use the terms of biology and physics. Those are categories. Technically, it’s all the same thing, really. Fundamentally, it’s all the same. There’s no difference between biology and physics. But it’s a useful category. If you go to the physics department and the biology department, those people are different in some categorical way. So somehow, I don’t know what the chicken or the egg is, but the categories… Maybe the categories create themselves because of the way we think about them and use them in language, but it does seem useful. Let me make the opposite argument. They’re absolutely useful. They’re useful specifically when you want to gloss over certain things. The categories are exactly useful when there’s a whole bunch of stuff. And this is what’s important about science, is like the art of being able to say something without first having to say everything, right? which would make it impossible. So, categories are great when you want to say, “Look, I know there’s a bunch of stuff hidden here. I’m going to ignore all that, and we’re just going to, like, let’s get on with this particular thing.” And all of that is great as long as you don’t lose track of the stuff that you glossed over. And that was what I’m afraid is happening in a lot of different ways. And in terms of, look, I’m very interested in life beyond Earth and all of these kinds of things so that we should also talk about what I call SUTI, S-U-T-I, the search for unconventional terrestrial intelligences. I think we got much bigger issues than actually recognizing aliens off Earth, but I’ll make this claim. I think the categorical stuff is actually hurting that search. Because if we try to define categories with the kinds of criteria that we’ve gotten used to, we are going to be very poorly set up to recognize life in novel embodiments. I think we have a kind of mind blindness. I think this is really key. To me, the cognitive spectrum is much more interesting than the spectrum of life. I think really what we’re talking about is the spectrum of cognition. And it is… Well, I know it’s weird as a biologist to say, I don’t think life is all that interesting a category. I think the categories of different types of minds, I think, is extremely interesting. And to the extent that we think our categories are complete and are cutting nature at its joints, we are going to be very poorly placed to recognize novel systems. So for example, a lot of people will say, “Well, this is intelligent and this isn’t,” right? And there’s a binary thing, and that’s useful occasionally for some things. I would like to say, instead of that, let’s admit that we have a spectrum, but instead of just saying, “Oh, look, everything’s intelligent,” right? Because if you do that, you’re right, you can’t do anything after that. What I’d like to say instead is, no, no, you have to be very specific as to what kind and how much. In other words, what problem spaces they’re operating in?…

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