The World's Smartest Mind: Exploring the Extremes of Thought with Benjamin Labatut

Bestselling author Benjamin Labatut joins Brian Greene for an exploration of the extremes of the human mind, centering on one of its most extraordinary incarnations—polymath John von Neumann--delving into existential dilemmas, moral quandaries, and the profound impacts of scientific discovery.

This program is part of the Big Ideas series, supported by the John Templeton Foundation.

Participant: Benjamin Labatut
Moderator: Brian Greene

00:00 - Introduction
01:27 - Benjamin Labatut Introduction
02:23 - Introduction to Labatut's Maniac
03:56 - Pain and Woe Coming From the Faculty of Reason
09:30 - Father of AI, John von Neumann
14:01 - How AI Might Change Humanity
16:22 - Examining Extreme Personalities
18:20 - Kurt Gödel and Von Neumann
23:20 - Balancing the Rational with Belief
27:29 - Von Neumann's Conception of God
28:56 - Labatut's mixing of reality and imaginary
31:55 - Labatut's view of the medium of the novel
34:46 - Von Neumann's Desire for Legacy
39:48 - Labatut's view of mortality
42:21 - Credits

FOLLOW us on Social Media:
Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
Twitter: / worldscifest
#benjaminlabatut #worldsciencefestival #briangreene #artificialintelligence #johnvonneumann #polymath #themind #ai #computerscience #consciousness #johnvonneumann #vonneumann

[harveybernstein]

“Either you accept truth that cannot be proven or you accept contradiction.” When I heard Labatut say that I shivered. I never thought of that idea being applied to the real world. As a mathematician I have often pondered that concept as being applied to a logical system. However, I never even considered it as a philosophic fact of living in the world. I found that idea to be profoundly deep and yet extremely self-evident.

[TylerKnight]

25 years ago, wandering in a bookstore, I picked up Brian Greene's book Elegant Universe on a whim. It was life-changing, opening the floodgates of curiosity to understand the nature of... well, Nature.

[thesixthbook]

BG really showing his range here. Saw a lot of comments that were shady but this conversation is really what we need in the age of AI! We’re gonna have to get closer to what makes us human.

[SebastianBeresniewicz]

“The mind is alive when it is suffering, when it is unsure” - Wow. As a mystic on one side and an engineer on the other I find this kind of conversation to be deeply insightful.

[raffinee_]

Magnificent. World Science Festival is by far the best channel on Youtube. Thank you BG.

[freditorials]

‘This’… was really special; Brian and Benjamin :hear me. . The nature of that which You’re both discussing here is taken to heart on a daily basis for many of us out here.
At a certain point in life (for some of us) The ‘Transcendent Function” kicks in and humbles us. The SELF emerges from the shadows and eventually the fear of death simply disappears

[carolspencer]

Good evening Brian and Benjamin
Seems we can be walking talking contradictions of reasonable madness, indeed. Loved this.
Thank you kindly for this beautiful although short, shared conversation.
💜

[rickcoyne]

This was so insightful. Another great video Brian. I have always thought that all humans are insecure from the time we are old enough to grasp reality.. I feel in short, Benjamin portrayed my thought in so many eloquent ways. He has a fascinating way to express the human experience. Thank you so much for having him as your guest.

[fredcrown-tamir]

One of the most enjoyable conversations yet.

[mattmiller]

I love Labatut's novels. Looking forward to watching this later.

[ryanfranz]

The mind is a prediction machine, and the main benefit of being intelligent is to make accurate predictions… if you can anticipate the future better than others, you can capitalize on it more and gain an advantage. Suffering is just our experience of the learning signal: when we’re wrong, we update our prediction engine to better account for the error, and the greater the learning, the greater the suffering.

[gracerongli]

What an amazing conversation!!! all things i have been thinking about lately are here...

[marthafernandez]

Excellent. Much was said, most don’t see it. Thank you for posting Peace

[LatentSpaceD]

This was absolutely incredible! Brian, you've been my hero since The Elegant Universe, and Labatut has become a favorite in recent years. What a brilliant pairing of minds—bravo!"

[rudihoffman]

Having read most of the comments before watching, I thought I’d hate his guy. I revile mystics and hand wavers, I idolize rationality. But there is some mind expanding concepts here…maybe. What do you guys think.

[schwingstelle]

what i take away from this video: waving with glasses makes you look smart

[purpletiger]

The comments about the novel form are intriguing. It reminded me of what Doris Lessing said about The Golden Notebook -- that it wasn't a novel or a feminist tract, but a "history". (But it was after all a novel.) Perhaps "novel as fact"? Her reportorial writing style is very strong, it outlives her, it brought her the Nobel Prize, and of course is inspiration for many newer writers.

[mitsaoriginal]

Einstein was actually the super genius of the 20th century.



’’I have, since answering these questions, realized that my “IQ” chart really takes what’s known as “little g”, and correlates it to the IQ range. So it’s really a “little g” chart instead of IQ. This doesn’t matter in terms of how the estimation process works or what it means, just that it’s not a great representation of IQ because IQ itself is only an estimation of “g”.’’— Elliott Kelley

50–70: actions

70–90: labels

90–110: feelings

110–130: logic

130–150: patterns

150–170: fuzzy logic

170–190: fuzzy patterns

190–210: “heart of the problem”It’s the ability to think in terms of non-concepts. like thinking about “an apple that isn’t an apple”. Division by 0 ought to make sense at this level. Another way to think about it is: the mandelbrot fractal measures the number of steps taken to arrive at a fail state. So what if we consider the space of all not-answers to a question, and measure relative differences between them using various metrics? the metric used, and the fractal generated, should be the basis of thought of a 210–230 “g” person. This requires a grasp of the heart of the concept, and uses it to contrast with everything that is not that concept. It’s a fractal map of everything from the hart of the concept to everything else.’’—Elliott Kelley

At the 250-300 range it all about contradictions intuitively is simply a form of synesthesia that I have. Perhaps everyone experiences this to some degree, and if so, you may be able to learn how to recognize it. Basically, when a contradiction occurs, do you notice something I call a “break" in your stream of consciousness? You must be very in tune with your own consciousness. Probably learning to do anything else that requires concentration will help build awareness. Once you have awareness of “breaks" you can use them as a type of superpower that will drastically increase your core intelligence. But this is all assuming you can find a way to experience these “breaks".-- John smith


Von neumanns' Iq was about 190, while einstein was in the 300 range

[vynderma]

I just love Labatut's books! I am him to a degree. At the very end of the conversation when he said that he thought he was going to die young by age 30 but then he had a child is exactly me. I also hate novels.

[markoszouganelis]

I love Open Mind conversations!
Thank you!