Michael Levin

OK, that just means you got surprised.

I think I think it's much better if you say if you make the optimistic assumption that they come from a structured space, that we have a prayer in hell of actually exploring.

And in some decades, if I'm wrong and it says, you know what we tried, it looks like it really is random to bed.

Fine.

Yeah, you can try to make that distinction, but I think modern cognitive neuroscience will tell you that whatever you think this is, at most, it is a very effective model for predicting the future experiences you're going to have.

I mean, that's not me.

That's predictive processing and active infrared.

Like that's modern neuroscience telling you this, that this isn't anything that I'm particularly coming up with.

All I'm saying is the distinction, the distinction you're trying to make, which is like an old school, like realist, you know, kind of view that is it metaphorical or is it real?

All we have in science are metaphors, I think.

And the only question is, how good are your metaphors?

And I think as agents living in a world, all we have are models of what we are and what the outside world is.

That's it.

And the question is, how good is it a model?

And my claim about this is in some small number of decades,

this will either give rise to a very enabling mapping of the space for AI, for bioengineering, for biology, whatever, or we are going to find out that it really sucks because it really is a random grab bag of stuff and we tried the optimistic research program, it failed, and we're just going to have to live with surprise.

I mean, I doubt that's going to happen, but it's a possible outcome.

Place is weird because it isn't the same as our physical space-time, okay?

I don't think it's that, so calling it a place is a little weird.

Yes.