Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
(Talking to camera): ... run it.
You run? You do run.
(Talking to you): Hi everybody! (End attempt of being cheerful)
It's long enough so I'll start already.
what's
this going to be about
Well, I'm going to talk about Friedrich Nietzsche
and modern science
well, as the title says.
Actually, in English you're allowed to call him Nietzsche
but I'll go on to pronounce it
in German
so Nietzsche,
just because you guys
won't be able to do so
Anyway
who was Nietzsche
Well, a famous or
infamous and
rarely understood German philosopher
I won't bother you with
biographical details right now
but the point is that in my opinion
modern science
simplifies understanding Nietzsche
or at least
justifies to review him
for since Nietzsche's death in
1900
a lot of things happened in science
theory of relativity
quantum mechanics
but also
a lit later
um... a little bit later
modern neuroscience
and all of this things are much closer to Nietzsche then his
contemporary science was
because back then
science was much more platonic
So, who am i
and what qualifies me to talk about science
Well. just to prove to you guys that I didn't manufacture my scientific knowledge
from
random youtube videos or something
here as my bachelor's diploma in
well,
biology
but more precisely
it's
biochemistry for me
Well.
that's my name obviously
while the name I use is Torben, I never used Jan
and
the ETH Zurich
right
that one here
is
quite good in worldwide university rankings, you can check it yourself
if you want to
and right at the moment I'm still at the ETH for my Master's
which is in neuroscience
okay
yeah
A last thing you
might want to know about me: I'm studying in Switzerland but I am German
So, back to the subject now.
Since I hopefully earned some credibility.
so what is that great about
Nietzsche?
And what is
Science's role
and that greatness?
Well, Nietzsche says
exactly like science
that all phenomenons in this world arise
out of this world
So, that no beyond or god
has an influence on this world
and, by extension
actually going farther then science here.
that this
world is the only thing that
is
But unlike science which just wants to
describe things,
Nietzsche in fact
manages to
assume
just this world, nothing
but this world
just this universe, yeah?
and still
give the whole
thing
A purpose
a meaning
Now, science makes us
small
It reduces us to some weak,
physical processes
that are irrelevant
considering the scale of the universe
Science's
highest aim is
to finally reduce us to nothing
Nothing special, a curious incident on some funny little planet, right?
not going to last long, not going to change much
but Nietzsche
he manages to view
the world with
similar objectivity
and yet
to make us
great
So, as a skeptical human being like me
one has to face the problem that religion seems to be able to give
some people
a meaning in their life, but
that it just doesn't make any sense critically viewed
Religious doctrine
and science on the other hand
makes sense
a lot of sense yeah
but totally fails to give us a purpose
Unless you consider evolution of course and think making as a many children as possible
would be the fullest life one can achieve
still a bit unsatisfying isn't it?
Well, as you know
from seeing my diploma
I know some scientists
And even more students of science
Hell, I'm one myself
And most
either hold on to
other people
or concepts or even some
remnant mysticism
in all cases this means
that they separate
their image of humanity
they separate their image of humanity and life from their scientific view
of everything, right?
while actually this scientific view
scientific
perspective
is supposed to be able to describe the whole world
so why do they separate?
And I am saying that if one is to apply
Nietzsche
This separation becomes needless
He, he offers
A scientific
and yet
Purpose-giving Weltanschauung
Thus... worldview
sounds incredible?
I spend some time thinking about this, believe me
years
and I'm a very skeptical man, and to me
It makes sense
so just listen, OK?
Also it's not like
religion
if you find any mistakes just write me and I'll think about it and
correct my statements if necessary
i'm not going to say anything that is
scientifically wrong
I'll just interpret
known observations
in a fresh
new and
somewhat bold way
yeah
So, I actually wanted to start
with Nietzsche
Nietzsche
but I noticed
why many people don't get him
well, the thing is
he's not really going
this follows from that
that from these
and so on
instead everything eventually connects to all the rest
if you read long enough
So he is working similarly to the brain, or to the world
lots of interactions, right?
but hard to explain
therefore
I'll start with science
that's easier
So what's
the universe made of?
One possible description
would be mass and energy
spacetime
would be a property of them
thus derived from them
but you could just as well
call the whole thing spacetime and describe mass and energy
as a curvature (curvatures!) of it
The point is
these are just descriptions for exactly the same thing
so let's stick with mass and energy
Mass and energy
are equivalent according to the theory of relativity
With energy equaling
mass times lightspeed in vacuum squared
thus...
E = mc^2
E = mc^2
right?
You heard about this.
This means that you can transform
both into the respective other
for example when antimatter and matter collide you will have annihilation and all of
that matter (meant: Mass!) would become energy
and the other way round for example
for example when you heat
something it becomes heavier
Now, since they are mutually
transformable
you can say
philosophically
that they are in fact one
substance
and from this
everything is made
So you could call
this substance
Mass-energy
mass/energy or something
but I'll call it information
instead. Why?
Well, because it is very important
when you're doing science
never to think
that your equations
and descriptions
were... well... real.
The only thing that's real
is nature
the natural world
with all of its noise
chaotic interactions
that will always prevent
that the predictions of your nice fancy equations
ever are totally correct
Now what you've got to wrap your head around is
that every realization of mass/energy is individual
And that's why I called it information.
yeah, the physical equations tend to
let you think elsewise but this is just wrong
Sure, they are good
descriptions
I don't deny this
but nonetheless everything including every little particle is individual
for example
Let's have a look at a photon in space.
now you'll ask
what's supposed to be
individual
on a photon?
it has so few properties
Well, what's individual are not only the properties it has
but also their combination
So what are it's properties?
position
direction
and wavelength
respectively frequency
position and
direction
are obviously defined relatively to all other stuff in the universe
since there is no absolute coordinate system
anyway if you have a look at
these three properties you'll see that they are all individual
let's assume our photon comes from the surface of some star.
because of position
and direction
You could tell exactly (within the limits of uncertainty principle) from what specific
point
of the star's surface it comes
because of its wavelength
you can tell
what collision of atoms
which is what generates
heat radiation
made it fly
It was a specific event at this specific
point of the star
and no (other) photon in the universe will have this exact
wavelength
since we're talking
infinite
decimal places here
neither
will any photon in the universe have the exactly same position and direction
So all properties are individual even for a photon
And if you now go and say "Wait a moment Torben
that's quite obvious since we're talking heat
radiation
which has a continuous spectrum
but what about emission spectrums
where there are discreet
bands?
remember quantum mechanics"
Then I'll say
i do
remember quantum mechanics, mate!
and quantum mechanics tells us
that there is a natural bandwidth (meant: linewidth)
This means even if we assume a
stationary
excited state atom
free from interactions with
others
which actually is never really the case for example because
gravity has infinite reach
Anyway if we assume it
It's emission spectrum would
still have bandwidths
albeit
small ones
so don't ask me why; it seems to be because of
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
but I'm no physicist
Anyway. So even in this case we have a little
continuum
with wavelengths
that have
infinite decimal places
and if you have a moving atom
Doppler shift
will increase bandwidth
and if you have other atoms close by
interaction will have a huge effect on emission spectrums
just go at Wikipedia
look up emission spectrum
and have a look at the one of
iron
It's just all over the place
So, wherever our little space photon comes from
no other photon in the universe will be identical
And if this photon now hits a stone on some planet
it could get reflected
then it's position and direction would be specific to where it was reflected
if it had the right wavelength
the photon could be absorbed by the stone instead
in this case an electron of the stone would be excited to a higher energy
band
And where energy bands lie
is individually determined by the specific
impurities and irregularities in the specific stone's crystal
structure
such things always
occur in crystal structures
So the interpretation
of the photon
would also be individual
as would the resulting
warming of the stone and it's
surroundings
It would result from the electron "telling" its surroundings "Hey, I was just hit by
this photon"
and the heat capacity
So, now the heat capacity of the surroundings would obviously depend
on what information
respectively
mass-
energy
it exactly consists of
including
how warm it is already
meaning it would have a more complex
individuality
than the photon, so to speak
So, for the record
Firstly
all information
meaning everything in the universe
is individual
Secondly
all information
that is... everything that exists, yeah.
interacts with all other information.
just think of gravitation having infinite reach again
but often other interactions with closer range are stronger
but even through these
closer range interactions most stuff is connected
indirectly
Thirdly
in these interactions
all incoming information
is perceived and interpreted in a way that arises from the individual combination
of the individual information
that is already there
and the one that comes in, right?
Combination of the two.
if for example our photon
let's say it's in the visible range
had hit a space debris
glass pain
it would quite likely not
have been interpreted respectively perceived but passed through instead
Now, since
travelling
information
be it energy be it matter
what you could
call
communication between objects, right? The travelling information is communication
but since it is not
substantially
distinguishable
from these objects
because communication has to be either in mass or in energy
and because of the equivalence of mass and energy
it follows
that everything that interacts
therefore everything that is
always
changes
and not superficially
but essentially
The only
exception would be totally symmetric interaction
which never happens because
the universe is to chaotic and as I said
individual
Therefore it follows directly from the equivalence of mass and energy that everything
changes or
more poetically:
passes
Now...
since we (now) know that objects
change all the time
we should ask ourselves whether we are justified to speak about objects at all
when describing the universe
Additionally until now we always found that smaller objects and interactions make up
larger objects
or so called objects.
protons and neutrons
make up atomic nuclei
yeah, indivisible... as if! While for protons and neutrons themselves
it's quarks
that make them up.
Even adding to this
Modern quantum mechanics maintains that some particles can hold multiple positions
at once
further discrediting the
everyday idea of
objects.
So
do objects exist?
I'd like to have a little excursus now,
it will be about ganglion cells
simplified though, don't worry
Ganglion cells are in our retina
And already in the retina
there is a
first processing of information
of the information the visual receptor cells gather from light
As a part of this processing
you can imagine the ganglion cells as
a filter
of sort
all we see passes through it
and they exist in
two bigger variants
ON and OFF center ganglion cells
And I want to talk a bit about
ON center ganglion cells
They are activated
when light
hits the center of the cells receptive field
while light on the surroundings has the opposite effect
it lowers their activity
So...
you can have a look at this nice little drawing here
these are the receptor cells
wait a moment
these are the receptor cells
Here are the bipolar cells, here are (is) the ganglion cell
and light comes in from here
what you see is here
and
goes through all of this
is perceived by the receptor cells as they
react to light
and the bipolar cells now have two
possibilities to react to light, it depends on their type
the ones in blue are OFF...
...react with...
are OFF cells, right? They react with
lowering their activity
when the receptor cell that is connected to them receives light
and the white one
reacts with
increasing its activity
and now these are... in a very simplified circuit...
connected to the ganglion cell
and the ganglion cell
Has access to the optic nerve
and will
send the information to the brain
And here are other receptor cells and so on, so a lot of these
(ganglion cell) axons
build the optic nerve
and now if we for example look at a wall of a house
It's just white
and the light (information) would go (via receptor and bipolar cells)
through this ganglion cell
so the response would be
the ON
in the center would like that it's
bright
and would
increase the activity of the cell
But the
surround
would counter this increase in activity because
It would like darkness but receives light
So, totally
the cell activity would be low
OK, just checking whether the camera was still running
uh...
so
But if we would look at
the edge of the wall instead, right? Here is the wall of the house,
and here is the night sky
the ON center would still be happy
part of the OFF surround
would still be unhappy
but this part of the OFF surround would be happy
so totally
the activity of this ganglion cell
would be higher
than in this example
What could such a cell do?
Well,
one function of these cells
is obviously to enhance contrast
we thus
see everything
with increased
contrast.
biologically very useful
just think about it yourself.
However it
illustrates
something I said before:
information that is already there
perceives things
There is no absolute, objective perception
And I think
that psychologically and historically
this enhanced perception
of transitions
was part of what let to the idea
that everything is made
of objects
certainly not the only reason for this
but an important one.
but if one says for example an atom
would be an object
you're doing it wrong
It has no clearly defined edge
historically
the physicists
drew conclusions
As if they were watching
an atom
through their ganglion cells
which is obviously impossible
they thought their perception of the macroscopic world
would also hold true
for the electron-microscopic one
Well, the rest is history, quantum mechanics showed how wrong they were
So, the excursus... is done
I'll come back to perception later on
But how is the world build up now?
or what would be a better description if not objects?
I owe you an answer there
I don't want to just deconstruct
things without putting something new
in their place.
so
Excuse the cut, the camera ran out of battery charge
So how is the world build up now?
Let's
for a moment assume
object
representation
yeah?
So
circles are to be understood as objects
and arrows
as interactions
and now if you
look at this one
This four circles
in blue
you recognize
a hydrogen molecule
Right? Two protons
two electrons
Now, what these little arrows show is that
(to speak of) interactions
only make(s) sense when they are interpreted from
what is already there.
So the electrostatic interaction wouldn't
make any sense if there wasn't a charge here to interpret it
um...
I omitted this arrows
between the two protons because
it's complicated enough already
and
obviously in such a system
there would be
interactions of interactions
because if you have for example
for example
the strength of this interaction
would pull the electron towards
this proton
and then it would
interact less strongly with this proton
so it would influence this and this interaction
and so on
additionally
as I said objects can be understood as
being made from
smaller objects
and their interactions
For example if we
replace
this proton here with a
helium
helium atom for a short
time, right?
Just for getting this.
it would be
made up from two neutrons and two protons
And all of
them would again have interactions
So strong
nuclear force
would bind this neutrons to each other
as well as
to the protons
and this would
prevent the protons from just going somewhere
to get rid of each other
and now
if we look at the system like this again with electrons involved
Wouldn't it be right to say now that
the protons interact strongly
with the electrons
while
they also interact strongly with the neutrons
but the neutrons wouldn't interact with the electron at all
or at least
very weak(ly)
so why do we talk about the nucleus
as an object
instead of
defining three objects like the neutrons, the protons, and the electrons
but then again
quite obviously the effect
that the neutrons have on the protons
strongly influences the protons behavior towards the electrons
because the protons wouldn't even be kept in place weren't it
for the neutrons
So why don't we treat
all three of them as one big object
as one
helium atom for example if we have a 2nd electron
Wouldn't this be more...
...the better description?
but then again it would still interact with other objects like other atoms
So...
is there only like one huge object in the whole universe?
Long story short
just
by looking at a smaller
or larger scale
you don't gain much
It is quite arbitrary
what you define as an object, where you
draw your borders
around an object
because of all this interactions on multiple levels
Additionally
these kind of interaction
could be described
as made from
field particles
for example photons for electromagnetic fields
this what I draw here
drew here
right?
So...
is interaction always made from objects?
well
there obviously is the wave-particle duality which makes this a bit
difficult
Additionally the photons would quite fluently arise and disappear again in
this system
which obviously again will change the nuclei and the
electrons
because again of the equivalence of mass and energy, as I said
Additionally
this whole system would be connected to neighboring molecules and the
whole universe
so to conclude
so-called objects do not only
continuously change
because their medium of communication is equal
to their medium of existence
they also can
always
be broken down into smaller
objects, with their own
interactions
that have flowing transitions into what
were larger objects on our first level of looking at it (and the other way round in going larger scale!)
another important notice
interpreting information
changes both the information
and the interpreter
because the interpreter
also is nothing but
information or mass-energy. Remember the equivalence of mass and energy
Compare
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
right here
and now
if we combine
all of this
all
borders
that separate things,
that define objects
are introduced
by our
perception
and the thoughts that arise from it
they have no (innate) existence in matter and energy
Shortly put
all borders are arbitrary
Now, since objects don't exist we also cannot speak of interactions between them
So if I say
this circles
do not really exist; it would be also stupid to say "Well, these arrows exist" because
they are dependent on the circles
to exist
the only thing that really exists
is the eternal flux of information
the eternal flux of information
the process
of interacting information respectively interacting
mass-energy
You can compare Taoism on this.
Everything
always influences and interprets
everything
nothing exists
unchanged
for a long enough time to really call it an object
You got it so far?
I've another example for you
Right? Just to illustrate this.
leaving the layer of atoms
See here I drew a
tree for you. It's a nice tree, isn't it?
you have the leaves here
you have the living, conducting parts like the bast fibers
and the sapwood
again in this object representation
you have the roots here
you have the dead parts, like the bark and the hardwood here
and now,
if you have a look at this
you see that
for example water
would come from the earth
go through
all of this
upwards
and leave to the air
because here the sun
heats the leaves and enables it (them) to
heat the water to get rid off it
pulling all of this stuff (like minerals) through
and
now the question would be
the dead parts are not really connected to this
flow of water or flow of energy, right?
So why do we consider them a part of the tree?
this is because they are physically connected, right?
What I
have here in brown, drew here in brown color
they have a strong physical connection
to all of this other parts
if you would pull the tree out of the air (meant: earth) all of this would come with it
and uh...
Nonetheless
that's just one
sort of interaction, right?
Why do we think it's such important, why do we think it's such important that
this makes us call this thing a tree?
and not include the sun or the air
or the earth in this system "tree"?
Well, the reason is our visual system, right? Here, we look at it
it goes
through our ganglion cells to our brain
and then we perceive it as an object
but it's not only visual system, we could also go there and touch it and stuff and we could
also go chop it down
chop it with an axe, say our muscles to do it
And then we would perceive ourselves as interacting with this thing and
not with the sun and stuff.
This is again a subjective perception
it also excludes
the outside world the rest of the wood and the animals
right? The ecosystem.
and if you go into a smaller layer
you again could not separate the objects so easily
for example on carbon dioxide molecule could be
could be a part
of the air
in one second
then of the leaves
in the next one
and then go down as glucose right afterwards
and be built into some large molecule later on
so the transitions between this
what we call objects are fluent
Now you're probably asking
probably asking
alright Torben
that sounds quite interesting, yeah
but weren't you supposed
to talk about Nietzsche
and the answer is:
I did all the time.
I was explaining
one of Nietzsche's core
concepts
the "Will to Power"
For Nietzsche, it is
nothing less but the driving force of the universe
everything is made from what he calls
power quanta, that
"want"¬ to
increase
their power
meaning that they want
to make the universe
feel
their individuality
And this results in the universe
taking place
as a process of mutual
influence
I just spoke of information
respectively mass-energy
instead of
power quanta
because you guys probably would have
understood
power
and will
in terms of everyday language
I also emphasized
that interpretation of
power
also is a power-driven
process
for example in filtering visual information the ganglion cells
show
their power
Nietzsche never put
such a strong focus on this
As far as I know, at least
so it's just
some new science I added
anyway
Let's return to that huge
announcement I made in the beginning
that a scientific
view of the world could in fact
provide us
with the meaning of life
Well, as you know now,
that was an understatement
It actually provides us with the meaning of
everything in the universe:
To impress
individual
information
onto the world,
the natural world
For this a star sends photons
Photons
induce for example quantum jumps
a lion
hunts
and kills gazelles
and I, well
I create youtube videos
And this applies
as I said to everything
Human beings
differ from
let's say stones
only in information density
and information makeup
and therefore
also in how they communicate themselves
but both
are
only individual
information
nothing more
because there is
not
anything else
there is only this world
but isn't it great to know for example
when we look at a forest
that every tree
is individual
and in the night sky every star
and not only the trees and stars
but also all of their tiniest components?
And that the communication of this individuality
This impressing of this individuality
onto the surroundings
this will to power
to form the universe
ergo the other powers
is
the core
process
of the universe; in fact is the universe
But what does that mean for our life?
first thing first
as you should
be aware of by now
if you listened at all
will to power
has nothing
and I mean nothing
to do with free will
that old
philosophical spook
free will
is a
scientifically ridiculous concept that
according to Nietzsche
was installed
thousands of years ago to secure (and increase)
priestly power
long story short
Nietzsche dislikes priests
Free will
made people think that they could be guilty
of things
so that they would obey the priests
for fear of higher powers
according to Nietzsche
And, if we are honest to ourselves
also according to modern science
there are neither
higher powers
nor
free will
and thus guilt
also doesn't exist
To tackle another
possible misunderstanding
This
is none
of these
ridiculous
"just be yourself" philosophies
This
isn't Hollywood!
Because
at least
if you grew up in today's Western World
it is
quite likely
that you are weak,
cowardly,
and top-heavy.
Therefore the last thing
you should do
is to be yourself
I certainly was this three things
in parts still am
what you should do is grow
since you also are a process
made from information
you always change
you always change anyway
Therefore you should try to control this change to have it result in
strength and personal growth
Now, most people understand
this control
as a mental thing
as your consciousness, your mind
telling your body
what to do
your body what to do
as in new year's
resolutions
but it this is really, really not what I mean
on the contrary
our mind is much too
strong
It always acts like it was the boss
and fights our bodies
in a stupid
civil war
using weapons like "bad conscience",
shame
and morals
more about that in a later video
So it's about the opposite way of control
the body has to
reintegrate
the mind
and consciousness
which anyway
are parts of it
this would be...
this would be an important step of growth
what do i mean
mind
as a part of the body?
Well, let's go scientific again.
So, it's about two things
firstly
To finally refute free will in case you still believe it exists
Secondly about what we are
we have to know this if we want to communicate our information, right?
to tackle these points I'll go into neuroscience now
but we'll start slowly
a classical assumption
in several sciences is
that there are innate and acquired aspects in us
So, the thesis is that our
bodily development
like size
but also our behavior
(So we also touch psychology here)
are determined
a) By genes
or b) by the environment
It's also known as nature vs. Nurture
reflexes for example
are supposed to be
innate
therefore
nature
a connected
classical idea
would be that our brain's buildup is
genetically blueprinted
with genes
saying where which center and connection goes
for example where visual cortex
and
optic nerve go
during development
so that everything is ready to process light once you're born
then input comes in and would be processed a a program would do it
To have a look at this layman's assumption
it would be that
genes
say
where your eyes go
And in your brain where which center goes, where the optic nerve
goes where the
LGN goes
Lateral Geniculate Nucleus, where the
optic nerve
firstly (mainly, not firstly) goes, then where the further connections
to primary visual cortex for example
and so on
that your genes would give you the blueprints
Well, this isn't the case
Some guys did an experiment
with newborn ferrets
the scientists
redirected the optical nerve
to connect
the eye
with the auditory cortex
the place in the brain that normally is the first to receive
auditory information
from the ears
it actually shouldn't be able to make
any sense of our retina-processed visual information
at least not if it's
function was
predetermined by genes
but surprisingly it
could use the information
its cells developed some rudimentary similarities to visual cortex cells
the ferrets could
effectively see
with
their auditory cortex
just not as well
and this means that the brain is not
purely genetically blueprinted
it also party develops as an
answer to the incoming information
even in something as simple as basic perception
one cannot simply distinguish
innate and
acquired
aspects
and this starts even earlier
the fertilized egg
is essentially spherically symmetric
this is a bit stupid because you just
want to have one head
and it'd better be on the upside, right?
this is cared for by the mother
maternal
maternal effect proteins from the surrounding cells
show
where all
body axis are supposed to go during development
the environment has, filtered and supplied by the mother
who is a part of the environment
obviously
a very early
effect
on the interpretation of the genetical blueprints
another example
unborn childs
move inside their mother's womb
and this process helps
in correctly wiring
the motoric nerves in the brain
It's always
both
environment and genes having power
it just
depends
how much each, yeah.
while as I explained for atoms and trees
the influences are not
separable
remember all borders being arbitrary
another annoying thing
human beings always
like to think
that they were
something special
Well, we are!
as everything is
but that's it
there isn't anything in us that isn't
information, that isn't physical
people always argue there was the mind
with abilities like
abstraction
that animals wouldn't have
well
let's have a look at this
so let's say
I see a part of the back of
a chair
while the rest of the chair is
obstructed
by a table
even if I never saw this specific
chair before
I would immediately know
that a seat and some legs
are connected to the back
and that I could take a seat on the whole thing
and the question is
do I know this thing because my
abstract thoughts
enable me to classify this object as
"back of a chair"
which is part of the like
category
"chair"
which again is part of the
category
things to sit on
So, do I have a sort of
platonic,
ideal
chair in my mind
would for example a cat
which is a good model because they have a similar visual system to ours
would for example a cat not know
how the rest
looks
if it sees nothing but the back?
Let's have a detailed look at the layman's assumption again
would it be
chair is perceived by the eyes, information goes to the brain
would then in the brain
my abstract
thought
right?
brought by genes or nurture or whatever combination
would enable me to recognize objects as
chair
in some strange mystic way
and would the resulting... would the behavior I show like
sitting on the chair
result from this?
So, the layman's assumption I was discussing
culminates in the idea that
well, there are simple functions like seeing which culminate in higher functions like
abstraction and feelings
and that this abstract thinking gives us
the
worldview we have
and this would result in that we always have a map of the surroundings
surroundings
based on abstractly interpreted input, right?
so if there would be different objects
and we would perceive them in different ways like
see them
or hear them
or feel them
and that we would have our perceptive organs here
in this ring
and they would
relay the information to the brain
and the brain would then make our muscles react
in a certain way
So
do we have this map of
the surroundings which is created by stimuli
that are abstractly
interpreted
is the brain a "hinking machine"?
Right? Information go in
and thoughts and
actions go out?
Um, no, it isn't!
this is totally wrong
neither
is "input" passively
perceived
nor is "abstraction" important at all
.
because
seeing,
as everything,
is a process
an action
as
is development of the eye in the first place as I told you already
Light doesn't just go into the eye and is processed
instead
the eye constantly changes its focus
determining
what light goes in
seeing is an
active
dealing with the environment
if the eye wouldn't move at all
Right?
and nothing would change in its field of view either
it quite quickly
wouldn't see
anything at all anymore
because the retina only reacts to changes
Yeah, I simplified this when I talked about ganglion cells in the beginning, OK?
but don't stare at the wall for like two hours now just to check this because
it won't work
The eye always moves a bit.
but in an anesthetized cat
some scientists
paralyzed
the eye muscles
and fixated the head
and when you do this and measure...
they measured electrophysiologically and
quite
early
the eyes
weren't sending
any information anymore
so the eye is always moving and normally in a
non-random way
this is because we learn the way it has to move
relating to
how the visual
input
changed according to the object we face
while we moved
the eyes
in earlier instances of seeing this object
and not only the eyes
tilting the head or walking around an object also changes the visual information we receive from it
if we've done that often enough
we know an object from a whole lot of perspectives
we remember how it would change in our vision if we walked
a bit to the left et cetera
and then when we only see the back of the chair we know how it would look if we went
closer to see over the obstacle in this case the table
And how do we recognize something as a chair
even if we never saw this specific one?
Well, simply because our visual memory is inaccurate
it has a range of tolerance
and if we really don't recognize an object at all you can be sure that we'll go there and
look at it from all sides if we have
any time at all.
it's not
common to happen for adults but children do it all the time
and the memory of a chair also includes
that one can sit on it
this again isn't an abstract idea but the memory of the
movement of sitting down and how it feels
once you sat down
the visual information is associated
with the movement of the muscles and the tactile receptors (reception) that are used
for sitting down
that's
why you can tell whether a chair is comfortable just by looking at it
but that's nothing a cat couldn't do
there isn't any
abstraction
necessary to recognize
an object
because we recognize an object
by recognizing
what we
or more precisely our muscles
could do with it
and what it
could do to us
to our
perception
And yes, "object" includes
other human beings
Regarding
what I just told you
Well, it's not that I thought of this
all by myself,
I can
recommend this book here, by Alva Noë
a neuroscientist and philosopher
and no, I don't know where one gets such a name
Anyway, it is
a good book, I read it almost half before
I got bored and quit
But regarding recognizing the object
by what we could do with it
obviously language is part of this doing
We know
that this thing is
called chair because we remember the word
again as a memory of
perception and movement
we remember
how it sounds
Right? Perception.
how it looks in written form
perception again
and how we move
when saying or writing it
the important thing is
this isn't
this isn't abstract or higher level
it's just as physiological, just
information in action
just
as
Sensory-motoric
as all we know about chairs
and it works just by being associatively linked to this
So, you remember the layman's assumption I presented?
right? with this
map of the environment via abstract thought and
passive...
passively received input
well it's more like this:
we have
a set of perceptions
and a set of movements
which are inseparably linked
influencing each other
As you see here I omitted this little arrow
because
it
should be clear now that it's always there
in every interaction.
(I talked about the arrow that shows interpretation of incoming information)
And I again used the discredited object representation because it's
simpler
to understand
and as I said this is build by genes as well as heuristics
and now what is a chair
this set of perceptions and set of movements
combine
to be a chair.
This is a chair for us.
But there is no "chair"
folder
This isn't some data system
It's all vague
Vague, with fluent transitions
to so-called other objects
To things that look similar to a chair
perception (pointing at it)
in the visual association
and those you can sit on, too (whether or not they look like a chair)
and other wooden things
[pointing at perception and action] (associated) by looks, and feel
and feel
and so on
And this again leads us to the
good old question: What are we?
Well...
we are perception
and action
as I said (when talking about the chair's movement/perception representation)
there are (only) transient borders to all other objects,
to everything else
and therefore if you combine all of this, this is what we are
perception and action
and nothing more
I told you that language is a part of this
I'll
tell you more about this in the second video
And now you can go and say: "Yeah, but what about memory for example?"
Well, memory is all over the place
the connections
for example from pain receptors to the muscles for the reflex
the existence (and strength) of this connection is memory
but also within these arbitrary categories
of perception and action there are lots of these links
as I said the visual perception of a chair is connected to
the tactile one
of which both have
movement components obviously
As I said all borders are arbitrary
The visual perception of a chair is connected to the tactile one through
association
So, within "perception" visual perception is linked to tactile one
and it's also linked to the act of sitting down (pointing at action)
which again has a sense
of balance component and kinaesthetic components...
And this connections are memory. This connections are all that memory is.
As I said there is no
"chair" folder like in some
computer
just a lot of fluent transitions to other perceptions and actions
and the transitions between them (perc. and act.) are also fluent
because there is perception in action and action in perception
Now you could ask:
And where is the outside world in this?
is it like
outside world here (separate circle), arrow to perception?
No, it isn't!
You are doing it wrong.
You are still thinking in the old Cartesian way
of inside and outside
what did I tell you about borders being arbitrary
and about fluent transitions?
It is more like this:
World (pointing at a circle within "perception"), world (same for "action")
brain or body
would be different circles than
"world"
but only because we define them like this
our everyday
understanding
of body as separated from the brain would be here and the brain as separated from the body would be
somewhere else.
Also in this.
But this is just definition
But how is the world a part of this?
Well, I told you how memory is inaccurate
to enable us to
know
how to use something
without having seen this specific object before. Thus for flexibility.
There's another reason for memory being inaccurate:
Efficiency!
It would be
a total waste of resources to save everything perfectly
we admire computers and certain autists
for their photographic
memory
but to have one
is stupid
and a waste of resources
Why?
I'll tell you why: Because
you always have
the world
as a reference
you don't need
to remember said chair
"perfectly"
because you'll never again
will see "it"
with exactly the same properties
like distance to you and lighting and
other objects near it
Thus, if you would remember it perfectly
you would not only waste a lot of space (physical and memory space)
on details
but also would have to waste even more energy on integrating and
comparing
when you see a slightly different chair (like the same one an instant later)
therefore
the fluent
inaccurate perception/action memory is
much more efficient!
The world
is always used as a reference
when I move my head to the right
the camera goes to the left in my vision
things always do
if it suddenly wouldn't
my brain would go and investigate using other senses (and a change in perspective)
But that's what memory is.
a general guideline
It doesn't need to be perfect because it's not concerned with
truth
or similar ***
but with reality,
with the world.
And that
is always there
as a reference
so the world is a
totally necessary
part
of perception and action
and it's as necessary as for example
organs of perception as the eyes are
Now, world...
world here
does not mean the whole universe (though it's obviously connected)
just the part we use as a reference
and a medium of action
right now
This what I mean with "world"
and this includes
other people.
For other people you are not this perception/action
buildup
but a part of
their world
in this sense, in this sense of
as a reference (and medium of action)
which isn't too different in a way since for example the sense of vision
on its own cannot distinguish whether its owner moves
or something in the world moves.
it just reacts to movement in the visual field.
Now, as you may have noticed I did not call this
movement anymore but action.
Why?
Well, partly because of what I just said,
because it
includes
not only what your muscles do
but also
the resulting
effect on the world
as in
as in chopping
down
a tree
with an axe.
Additionally
this includes
all other changes
"you" induce
also the ones in your body
which includes the brain since it is a part of the body.
For example
chemical ones like the release of neurotransmitters or hormones or something
as banal as gastric acid.
Now you could say
"But wait, Torben!
Neurotransmitter release
is also involved in perception!"
Yeah, you got it mate!
perception and action is again that one of these arbitrary distinctions
every distinction is
there's just mass-energy
or yeah, information
and its Will to Power
OK, the last
thing
you may miss in this description of what
we are
Remember: It is a description
truth
does not exist
but this one is a good
description
unlike for example religious ones
well, the last
thing you may miss are feelings
where is the love,
so to speak
well as I said
actions
include hormone
and neurotransmitter release
However, as you know
outside of the body
serotonin,
the so-called happy hormone
is about as happy as water
feelings
are an inseparable part of this process instead
it's not just the hormones
of this process
for example
serotonin is a part of the
processing of certain stimuli
and actions
there are people who assume that
feelings and qualia
were somehow separated from physical reality
and what these people actually do is begging the question
in fact
there are no feelings
without
context
and context
since we are still talking about us here
means
this
this is the context of feelings
feelings take place
within this.
Now...
if you touch fire. Right? Touch (points at "actions").
the pain receptors (pointing at perception)
would make you pull back (action)
and you would associate the visual perception
of fire
and its warmth
and sound (and the pulling back) with
"do not
touch this thing!" Not touching is also an action.
And this specific
pain
is nothing more
than a part of this
specific
process
sure it
"hurts"
But it's supposed to
because it's the "pull back and don't
do this again" feeling
As I said
it's an inseparable part of this process
and it's
sufficiently described
by this process
there's nothing
more to it
no mystical soul
or something that makes us feel
sure qualia
is individual
as everything
but it still is a physical Will to Power process
Well...
next thing
you could say
that we still are separate from
let's say a cat
the cat
the cat couldn't
read
the word "chair"
True, it couldn't
it can't
but reading
is just an individual interpretation of incoming information
again
so if you look at a neon letter for example
a stone would only interpret the photons
by warming up
determined by its warmth (heat) capacity
a cat would additionally see the letter
which is more complex
we would additionally
see and read it
in some (an individual realization of some) language of course
again very individual
but this are just quantitative differences
it's all
perception/motion
sure
we have a very complex brain
which can handle incoming information in a very complex and very individual way
so that we in turn can act
very individually
and this is part of what makes us great
compared
to a stone and a cat
but most of this (these) processes
in us are
as I just told you
not linguistic
and not conscious
there's a nice result
of AI
research
that I want to share with you guys.
Alright,
the last bit.
so as I said I want to share a result of AI (Artificial Intelligence) research
it's called
Moravec's
paradox
I quote
I quote
"It is comparatively easy
to make computers exhibit adult level performance
on intelligence tests
or playing checkers
and difficult or impossible
to give them
the skills of a one-year-old
when it comes to perception
and mobility"
End of quote.
So what we perceive as
higher
what we perceive as higher, as abstract, as cognitive
is in fact
simple
in comparison
the bodily things we take for granted...
Oh, they are hard as hell!
It shouldn't surprise you anymore after what I told you
they are in fact more complicated and
most of brain and body
deal with them.
Not with higher thought or whatever.
This means
for our individuality and power
they are much more important than
thought, consciousness and language
thought consciousness and language are within this just
tiny parts, yeah, tiny! Right?
And these simple...
the things we perceive as simple
they influence
thoughts and so on
that's quite obvious
our body in its moving and active perceiving influences our thoughts
language and consciousness
and the other way around, true.
everything is connected in this (and a part of it).
But the other way round is not as strong[ly] because these things are just as tiny as they are
And well,
this was about what we are.
And the answer is:
All of what I just told you.
language surely is a part of it, as a part of the environment as in this very
video you're just
watching
but also in our head.
Part of the
environment (pointing at "world")
here is a bit of language ("world" in "perception")
and here, too ("world" in "action")
and not exactly separable
as everything and as I told you
but I'll talk about language in my second video because
this one
is long enough already, isn't it?
Yeah.
But to conclude
as I said
language and consciousness are just tiny parts
of this inseparable
brain/body/environment network that we are
they are only totally overvalued
for example because of our long time in school
this is as if one would
teach a cat
nothing but
balancing on the garden fence
Granted,
in the end
it would be great in this, but it would carry a huge
loss in possibilities of individual expression
in other movements
for the cat
and thus in power
but we
can fight
this ready-made weakness of ours
we can constrain
consciousness and language to roles
they deserve
an important thing: Them
we must constrain
but the concept of free will
we must eradicate
in us
for "free will"
does
unlike consciousness and language
not exist in
Mass-energy
not exist in nature
and the concept
will nothing but weaken us
But how can we achieve
all of this?
Well, I would recommend lots of sports
variety is of utmost importance in
in these sports
I did 17 hours of sports a week
for some time
and uh... that's necessary in the beginning to fight the long years of
sitting around
handling language
later on you can reduce it a bit maybe to comfortable
10 hours a week
which sports? Well, variable as i said.
Strength training is important
gain some muscles people
three times a week
one day break in between workouts
and eat enough proteins
secondly endurance training
muscle endurance as well as cardio
(Since) if you do (only) strength training for too long
you'll end up being embarrassingly immobile
obviously you won't reach your so-called
full potential
in either strength or endurance if you do both
but that's part of the point
You must get that
capitalistic "faster, higher
further" idea out of your mind
Instead it's about your relation to your body and your
surroundings.
Cue surroundings...
when you run
do it outdoors and without listening to music
you can listen to music excessively
I surely do.
but then
focus on it
Parkour
is also great.
for body control but especially for its concrete way of interacting with your
environment
You should be vaccinated against Tetanus
if you want to take up Parkour
Hell, you should be vaccinated against Tetanus anyway.
Back to sports:
Ball games
are a nice supplement for relieve and for their
social component
And lastly and of great importance:
Martial Arts.
Preferably Wing Chun,
Muay Thai and the like.
The main thing (requirement) is that it
emphasizes... it has to emphasize that
body control is an aim of the art,
but that the main aim
remains
the ability to hit people
if necessary.
Now, if you ask me
women should
put slightly less priority in
martial arts and in gaining muscle,
since
being a strong man
in my opinion includes
stacking a punch
while being a strong woman does not necessarily include it
However, you have to find out
what combination of sports
fits you best. Right? Find that one out for yourself
don't listen too much to me on that
Alright, so
when you've done that much sports for
about a month.
Remember
Around 17 hours a week.
If you would die trying to do 17 hours a week start slower,
obviously
Anyway, after about four weeks of the 17-hour regimen
you are fit to read
"Thus
spoke
Zarathustra"
by Friedrich Nietzsche.
I have it right here!
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the best book
of the world.
Naturally I read the German version, "Also sprach Zarathustra"
when you do so
you will be
happy that you speak German
For its
the most
stunning use of the German language
I ever saw. A bliss, really.
Anyway for most of you it will be the English or some other version and uh...
which i think
isn't too bad either.
Read it slowly, it is
a difficult book
that has to settle well.
and keep on doing
all those sports
if you want to get it.
And if you don't get it at all despite being patient
you're probably
still too top-heavy
than you will have to do even more sports
and try to read Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morality"
it's more accessible
but the ultimate goal of reading Nietzsche always is
"Thus spoke Zarathustra"
you also should keep on watching my videos
I'll go into some detail regarding further of Nietzsche's and of my ideas
and when you finally managed...
when you finally have managed to have your language
and consciousness perceive themselves as the small part of you they in fact are
then
from the battle of all that makes you there will arise
a new
self
That, through fully
integrating
your body and
movements
body and environment
movement and perception
will be much more individual and
stronger
than your current self.
Growth
and strength
are the point here, my friends.
All the best!
Thank you for listening; hopefully I'll see you soon!
If you have any
feedback,
criticism or ideas just write me. And you should also check the link list in the
description.
And
if you enjoyed it
which probably
is the case since you're still listening
after all this time
please recommend me to your friends, okay?
It would be great. So...
thank you
and goodbye everybody.