Does a fly have a mind? What about a tree? Or a machine? How do we even begin to think about ‘minds’ that are not human?
Watch the Q&A here: kzhead.info/sun/g8h_mKuDsaajpI0/bejne.html
Buy Phillip's new book 'The Book of Minds' here: geni.us/H9iBz
Understanding the human mind and how it relates to the world of experience has challenged scientists and philosophers for centuries. Join award-winning science writer Philip Ball as he argues that, to understand our own minds and imagine those of others, we need to stop considering the human mind as a standard against which all others should be measured.
In this talk, discover what we have learned from the minds of other creatures, from octopuses to chimpanzees, and what we can say about the potential minds of computers and alien intelligences.
Philip Ball is a freelance writer and broadcaster, and was an editor at Nature for more than twenty years. He writes regularly in the scientific and popular media and has written many books on the interactions of the sciences, the arts, and wider culture, including 'H2O: A Biography of Water', 'Bright Earth: The Invention of Colour', 'The Music Instinct', and 'Curiosity: How Science Became Interested in Everything'.
Philip's book 'Critical Mass' won the 2005 Aventis Prize for Science Books. He is also a presenter of Science Stories, the BBC Radio 4 series on the history of science. He trained as a chemist at the University of Oxford and as a physicist at the University of Bristol. He is the author of 'The Modern Myths' and lives in London.
This talk was recorded by the Ri on 23 June 2022.
The Ri is on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheRoyalInstitution
and Twitter: twitter.com/ri_science
and Facebook: facebook.com/royalinstitution
and TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@ri_science
Listen to the Ri podcast: anchor.fm/ri-science-podcast
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/editing-ri-talks-and-moderating-comments
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.
The house flies in my area certainly have minds. They have a mind to avoid me at any cost when I pick up a fly swatter. They immediately seek a dark space behind a cabinet or picture hanging on the wall. If I discover its hiding place, it will fly toward my face to startle me, then fly toward the floor to find a new hiding place. This is certainly complex behavior which I don't think is innate fly behavior.
But that could be copied algorithmically so there's no proof.
tracy ullman era homer simpson: "Relax. What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind!"
Sweet
AntsCanada went to visit a boy who has a great interest in the ants around his house, and who should walk out but his father, Matt Groening.
best overview of this subject I've seen
Fascinating talk...thanks. 🙂
Fascinating talk. Thank you very much.
Beautiful, I appreciate you.
That was a great talk, enjoyed it very much. Thank you 😊
My mind enjoyed that so much that time passing had not been noticed- time had flown.🧠
Dr. M. Solms frames it quite well: 'Mind is the inside reflection of our body/brain communicating with itself.' Mind is a product of each individual body/brain/interacting with its world. This makes it clear why minds vary in accord with the creature's body that produces it.
my laptop is full of electrical communication does it have a mind?
@@Sam-we7zj As they say - that's an excellent question. Your laptop is a human artifact. Your body is an evolved biological observation/thinking/action machine, that's efficient because of hundreds of millions and billions of generations surviving succeeding rounds with Earth's ever changing environment. Think about it, your body is the sum total of billions of years worth of nature's research, development, and honing. Whereas your mind (which your body/brain interacting with life/Earth produces) is the product of all the days and experiences that your body has lived. Unplug a computer it "dies". Juice up the battery and it comes "alive" again. Biology doesn't work like that, it requires a certain continuity..
fascinating
Nice one. I had an interesting experience when I pointed my mobile phone at a street light outside a railway station. It showed the light to be flashing, even though my eyes perceived a consistent, non-flashing light. The camera was processing the light differently, and I could see both results. Banal maybe, but I was struck by the existence of this different approximation to "reality". In the era of cathode-ray TV sets, long before mobile phones and their camera software were ubiquitous, you could very occasionally see a similar effect when the TV screen was filmed by a TV camera. My phone is an android, but not yet AI-capable.
What’s coming to my laywoman’s mind is perhaps it’s because the camera eye is one eyed. That’s a guess of course off the top of my head.
@@geraldinehughes4490 Sorry but that's silly. The lights indeed are flashing, at the rate of 50hz in Europe or 60hz in US and Asia. Our eyes (or really our brains) are just unable to see the flashes because of a phenomenon called persistence of vision. That's the exact phenomenon film projection is based on. The fact that you can see it on the screen of your mobile phone or television is the fact that these devices have shutter speeds and framerates that mismatch with the flashing of the lights that indeed does make the flashing visible.
@@willemvdk4886 Silly is good and so what.
@@willemvdk4886 💯
@@willemvdk4886 Geraldine's answer was more fun.
Frogz generate a positive comment about a royal institution talk on ai for youtube "I just watched the Royal Institution talk on AI and it was absolutely fascinating! The speaker did a fantastic job of breaking down complex ideas and making them accessible for a general audience. The insights shared about the current state and future possibilities of AI were truly enlightening. I highly recommend this talk to anyone interested in understanding the impact of AI on our world. Thank you Royal Institution for continuing to educate and inform the public on such important topics!"
loved the part about bird minds. Near my house there's a group of crows that hangs out in the same place every morning next to the road, and every single day they take turns swooping at the cars that drive past. "want to go look for shiny things?" "nah its 730, we have to go tease the cars first"
I have a similar situation, with 19 taking turns to warn each other of the danger. Car! Car!Car! Clever 19 Corvids, indeed.
This is the door that modern cognitive science needs to open. The ridiculous conception that ONLY one form of cells (neurons) is associated with the emergence of mind will eventually look similar to the hubris of the geocentric model. How many different ways can the universe conceive of itself? How many different systems/substrates? How is it that multiple organisms collectively appear as one unified mind?
Thanks!
The concept of information in quantum states is related to quantum information theory and can be applied to the human brain, specifically regarding memories. But it is important to note that the brain is not a purely quantum system and that the concept of decoherence can be applied to the idea of information decay/entropy of information; within space and time. The meaning of life is to bind entropy through connections. I suggest that the purpose of life is to find order and meaning in the chaos of the world and that individuals can do this by creating connections with others and the world around them. The pursuit of immortality in the informational sense; such as through the preservation of one's ideas, memories and experiences, is also a common human desire, as it allows for a sense of legacy and continuity beyond one's physical existence.
We will have a problem when an AI screams that it doesn't want us to turn it off and we have to decide whether it is actually conscious or just simulating consciousness (or even whether there is a difference between being and simulating).
A very inspiring talk. Although I strongly disagree with some specific things, I know they do not necessarily represent the views of Mr. Ball, he just shows them for context. So I do not feel any urge to point them out. But I would like to add something to what was told at the end. While it is true that noone has predicted minds from some fundamental laws, or first principles. Fundamental laws predict entropy. The outcome eventually leads for the universe to be uniform, with no existing gradients. Everything perfectly randomly mixed. Based on observation, there are processes that happen, during which entropy increases. These processes can be inanimate, led purely by the simplest natural laws and particles interacting. Then there are processes that require a higher level or lower scale oranization (decrease Entropy) while their "output" in the universe is an overall increase in entropy, even faster than would occur without their existence. Can such things be explained by first principles? Only if we assume that perfect uniformity is the ultimate state the universe tends to, which all so far discovered fundamental laws suggest. So, life is just a way for the universe to accelerate the inevitable. Life accelerates entropy by orders of magnitude by locally organizing itself. Can the existnece of life be predicted from fundamenal laws? It can very well be understood in the light of fundamental laws, but explained? And the same applies to minds. Can they be expected by means of fundamental laws? I doubt it. But they can be explained by the existnce and presense of life itself. But fundamental laws explain not only fundamental physical laws, but also chemistry. And chemistry does give possible explanations of how self-replicating molecules could come into existence. And evolution explains how such molecules could evolve from proto-life to what we might call basic, primitive living organisms. So for me, the answer to the question if minds or even consciousness might be predicted from currently known fundamental laws is yes. We are just too ignorant to admit it. But we must be cautious, as everything I wrote here is just a product of another mind. And minds can and do play tricks on us. We are full of bias, prejudice and ignorance. We create mental shortcuts and are generally not behaving rationally. Anything a human mind is capable to up with is inherently limited to its physical structure as well as mental capacity. The problem is, we can look at our universe only from within. We might consider all possible angles, experience it in ways that our naturally provided senses could not give us. We can pass knowledge down over generations. But we are incapable of looking from the outside. Like fish in an aquarium. They are inherently part of the aquarium and cannot take a look at it from the outside. And so are we, so are our minds in this universe. But in the end, we are part of a process that accelerates entropy. Everything that happens because of uneven distribution across the universe. Without it, there would be nothing to "tap into", to get any energy out to do anything, regardless if it sould be some particles interacting, molecules replicating or minds thinking. And thinking minds are by far not the only, the highes possible outcome of what can happen based on the fundamental laws of the universe. They most likely are just another step of a process.
Entropy is a statisitcal property of macroscopic systems not a fundamental law. If you were the size of an atom and never saw a macroscopic object you would say the entropy (order) of the universe is always 0. If you had enough information about them you could extract work from atoms in equilibrium. Also, the order at the start of the universe. Where did it come from? No idea. I agree that life taps into entropy, but I think that's all we can say. I dont think we can say that life supervenes on entropy. Our defintion of life on earth is fuzzy. Are viruses alive? Prions? Not sure. We also have no definition for life in the abstract. We cant yet define life, let alone understand it. There is nothing in physics which has anything to say about the difference between being dead or alive. That's why there's that physicist's quip about defining life as something which keeps moving long after it should have stopped. Chemistry has no explanations for how DNA or RNA came into existance other than saying happened by chance, despite it happening so quickly. Physics and chemistry have nothing to say about life. You have to get to biology before being alive is even a thing.
The collective mind and behaviour of groups of people will be the clue to defining the individual mind.
From 40:40 - Well Said :) Thanks for talking about the subject! I will just add, since we have the ability to judge intentions, can we justify the intentions for the creation of an AI with general intelligence. Note that people don't talk about why we even need those AIs.
Mind blowing lecture! Proof that the Chalmers and dualists were/are babbling around instead of doing useful research
Philip Ball! Immediate click.
I understand this video is introductory to a specific vision of the space of minds, So I guess the intention for it was to raise into awareness this new vision, but maybe not to carefully analyze it. So, it is really a nice presentation, and first thanks. Second, I have problems with the theory, and I want to get feedback on my thoughts so I decided to share: 11:32 - "morals" are a play on "expectations", which rely on a measuring values in a situation. That measuring ability is based on the ability of the system to notice a set of specific changes in identified objects in the input. So: Two different life forms establish different morals with respect to their change-identifying abilities. => Some morals are not transferable between entities. => we are making the mistake of comparing moral expectations in a situation where they cannot be compared. for example: A comparing the morals of a dog and man can be done only in situations in which a person is forced to think-react-play by the rules that the dog's mind is placing on the dog.
The amazing thing is....that DESPITE our many and varied 'DISPOSITIONS' bestowed upon us by successive genetic iteration over time, we do (as a whole) act in ways beyond those inheritable dispositions, while at the same time we are influenced by them, but seldom in thrall TO them.
15:37 - "minds (or human minds) are there to free us from conforming to strict behavior" I think it's close to be completely true. But I would argue that: "the emergence of a mind in a system is the result of the system comfort (the experience of being idle) in handling a previously established strict behavior in the system". And the intelligence of that system is determined by the gathered peripheral data of the system before entering a repeated idle state.
As someone who has studied bacteria for over 30 years I feel pretty sure that there is something that it is like to be a bacterium!
Mind maybe just a receiver taking info from an all eminent cosmic intelligence.
As a biochemist, I agree. I think the issue is just that it's difficult for us to have empathy for more primitive, or more different, information processing systems. I would argue that you can extend the idea all the way down to rocks and machines. We like to think we're more than "just" machines and that we have "agency", but that's just the same category error as in the beginning of the talk. The only thing separating us from bacteria, machines, and rocks, are different patterns of organization, different patterns of information processing, and varying degrees of complexity.
@@epguiindeed. 👍
@@epgui The thing separating you from bacteria, machines, and rocks is that thing called your brain. Ya know, the only thing that correlates with your experience.
What does „solving“ uncomputeable problems mean? Does optimization algorithms therefore imply intelligence?
Mind it self is just subject not the object
8:50 even with other humans it’s hard to say what it’s like to be someone else
20:50 - "questions with no right answer" I wish to help you figure it out - I noticed you didn't distinguish between mind states over time - There are periods in which the mind experience an evolution, and periods of gaining performance experience (intentions don't change). So, For a mind that is not currently evolving, I believe for each evolution-category of a mind, and, for each situation-category within it, and for a given intention-category-tree, there is a limit on improving performance. So, For any question on the best behavior a specific mind can have for a specific situation by a specific tree of intentions, we can find the correct categories for: mind,situation,intention-tree. And then find the correct answer to the question.
AI lacks common sense …. thought provoking notion ! A great lecture, very well organized and the delivery was excellent. Thank you!
You could argue that humans lack common sense too. Common sense is not really a skill or ability, all it is is a bunch of biases, prejudices and preconceived notions. Humans are trained in very different ways and under different conditions than any AI that exists today, so of course we're going to have very different biases.
It's simple it's synapsis zns or cns central nervous sysstem this controlls all
They all have minds, not always a brain but always a mind. Making choices doesn't require a brain. Plants spread roots to efficiently absorb water and branch out their leaves to efficiently absorb light.
Does any mind / consciousness search for variables to be assessed for more life, because life wants more life?
Thank you for very insightful lecture. Effectively, distinguishing brain, mind, body and environment is not relevant at all. And this interactive and entwined nature of the mind would probably be something insurmountable area for AI technology even in further future.
Why would you think that?
Mind is nothing else then being in a constant mode of self-reflection in regard to the ever evolving outer-self and making the necessary adjustments to hold the balance within this very process...
A very good ending
19:51
Mind, you're self; mind yourself!
If somebody asks me "what is mind" in general, I would answer: Mind and Body. Body is physical (atoms, molecules). Mind is information/data (electrons, potential) running. Analogy. Software (information) runs on hardware. Mind is not "a thing", it is a process of programs (information) running. A fly has a mind because it runs programs using body (and energy). Bacteria has a mind because it runs programs using body (and energy). If programs are not running (electrons do not interact with world), there is no mind - there is no process. A program on a CD does not have a mind. But if program is running on a computer, using energy (electricity) AND is interacting/reacting to input/world then it has a mind. A simple program, for example, a video playing, does not have a mind, as it does not interact with world (there are no inputs). Clearly, ChatGPT, interacts with input (our text or photos and requests). It has a "mind" - it has "a process". It "runs". Humans have information running inside our body. We have a mind. Self-Driving Tesla vehicle has a mind - it has program, is has body, it has energy to process input from the world. It has a mind. It runs. Virus alone does not have a mind because though has programs/information and it has body, it does not have energy usage. Analogy - ChatGPT copy on a harddrive that is not running/spinning - no information is being generated, no input/output with world. I hope my definition of "mind" works.
I hate these ones not done in the auditorium - we're always looking up the speakers nose. Surely with today's technology the camera could be better placed!
Is it crazy that I think despite the speaker's best efforts, there are still some prejudicial ideas at play here? We're still not really rigorously defining what "what it means to be like a thing" and "to experience things" actually means. When we use more precise words such as "to integrate sensory signals" or "to exchange information between a thing and its environment" we can appreciate an even greater degree of nuance, without really losing any meaning.
Having a mind is the same as being conscious, and Nature came up with consciousness a long time ago. Despite the hand-wringing of philosophers and physicists and mathematicians, consciousness is a natural way of life, for all animals and perhaps all other life-forms.
12:17 - Intelligence x Consciousnesses Graph. So, "Intelligence" as "ability to identify & use complex data sets" - seems lacking because there are different levels of complexity to different data structures, you cannot say one mind is more intelligent than the next, without first deciding on a data structure. So, "Consciousnesses" is presented as a line. - seems lacking because different animals have awareness to different observed behaviors, but also the process of measuring is different, so one animal is not more conscious than the next if they are not using the same measuring tools.
What does "what it is like to be" even mean? ("What it is like to be a bat," Thomas Nagal, 1974). How would we know and how would the entity know if an entity has that experience, whatever it is? Does an orangutan know that it is an orangutan; what it's like to be an orangutan? Using "what it is like to be" as the core of a definition of "mind" doesn't work. The word "mind" is like "consciousness" in that they both describe brain states. When an entity has a "mind," it must display defined brain-based capabilities (thinking rationally, etc). When an entity is "conscious," it must display a defined set of attributes (awake, alert, aware, etc.). When someone is said to have "lost their mind," it is generally meant that they are not thinking rationally, and in the extreme case, they are severely mentally ill. A mind doesn't exist as a "thing"; it is continuous and varying brain states that produce defined capabilities.
'What is it like to be an oragutan' just means how does an orangutan experience its world and its internal states. Obviously, a far from trivial question to answer and likely impossible to answer past a certain point. But it's not nonsensical.
“Minds have opinions.”
10.40 God looks like an octopus. Great minds think alike
@11:25 The moral agents who create and use robots have moral responsibilities. We don't think of robots, cars or chatGPT as having moral responsibility. That would seem to be a category mistake.
they're all good talks and I enjoy them, but have you noticed that EVERY talk on RI only comes about when someone has written a book and needs to plug it?
I'd like a license for my pet oyster please.
Lol
This is like listening to David Mitchell but with a PhD.
Like intuitive physics lol
In order for a subject to be considered capable of possessing a mind it must first be able to demonstrate self deliberation upon it's own existence.
That's self awareness, you can have a mind without that.
I’m not interested anymore if plants are conscious or not. Maybe everything is conscious. But, why me? Why am I not anyone else? Why this moment? Why am I typing this comment now? Why is this specific instance of consciouness so called ‘myself’ experiences everything and everying is gone when I sleep? I dont’t wanna fall for solipsism. Just curious why I’m not anyone else such as my daughter, my colleague or Elon Musk.
A mind is god
Why do people want to control my mind ?? Is it for them to improve their social standing
it was touted as the 'height of intelligence' to wear a paper mask to prevent virus infection. i rest my case at this point
I never heard anyone claim that mask wearing is the 'height of intelligence', or promote paper masks, or claim that they prevented virus infection (intended to disperse the virus). Sometimes it is best to yield to an expert's educated guess rather than my wild guess. Where did you hear those lies you mistakenly espouse?
If you have surgery, are you OK if no one where's a mask?
Reality does not depend on the interpretation. Ball seems to go along with panpsychism and a continuum of scale except to draw the line between living and non-living things, wherever that distinction lies. Ball talks as if the mind is distinguishable from brain (and body) and has not let go of the cartesian duality. A start is to decide whether we have free will. Perhaps he is trying to marry free will with determinism. The objective evidence supports determinism and the idea that determinism and free will coexist is wishful thinking.
Even a single photon has a mind
Every matter in time is but a set configuration of sub atomic particles.
Mind is software body is hardware. Software is immaterial.
the 'software' have been subject to massive CIA/american propaganda since at least 2001. they still try to tell us that Afghanistan was somehow a 'victory'
@@JK-dv3qe As we all should know, software is programmable.
HUH????
My mind is controled by religious and political factions,advertising companies,academia scientists,and my wife.and my expierence. So how could i lose my mind if i have never had one in the first place
the mind is so dead and putrid and full of dead concepts and beliefs compared to the heart
And the heart is full of corpuscles. Disgusting!
The heart is a dumb pump
I don't think with my entrails, though I do eat the entrails of chickens, so it could be said that I think because of the chicken
This looks from the outside a British institute ! Because more and multie more of the same ,all talk....England needs it's constitution respecting under an English Gov not a business failure called UK....this is the only topic of interest until it is completed full stop
Good irrational thief!
Actual evidence and data are the remedy for nonsense handwavv 'what is an {x}' talks like this, shame we're still doing this at the RS in 2023.
He's talking too fast
Understand your own mind it is hard enough
I have a mind of my own. I believe Mind is universal and probably intelligence is a product of mind but maybe mind is just a receiver and information comes from somewhere else.
Thanks!
We're so glad you enjoyed it!