What is a mind? - with Philip Ball

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?

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.

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.

[tarassu]

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.

[petermiesler]

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.

[KaliferDeil]

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.

[DamnFoolishKids]

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?

[JohnClulow]

best overview of this subject I've seen

[frogz]

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!"

[erikziak]

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.

[swinnburn]

My mind enjoyed that so much that time passing had not been noticed- time had flown.🧠

[GreggDurishan]

tracy ullman era homer simpson: "Relax. What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind!"

[gidi]

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.

[xabb]

8:50 even with other humans it’s hard to say what it’s like to be someone else

[gidi]

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.

[TheWeb]

That was a great talk, enjoyed it very much. Thank you 😊

[RickDeckard]

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.

[gidi]

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.

[dakrontu]

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).

[carlswenson]

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"

[justinclifton]

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.

[krishnasa]

Fascinating talk. Thank you very much.

[NoxDNA]

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.