WEBVTT - TechStuff Rerun: Machine Consciousness

0:00:04.400 --> 0:00:07.800
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.

0:00:12.080 --> 0:00:15.160
<v Speaker 1>Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,

0:00:15.280 --> 0:00:18.200
<v Speaker 1>Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio,

0:00:18.560 --> 0:00:22.000
<v Speaker 1>and I love all things tech and I owe you

0:00:22.000 --> 0:00:25.360
<v Speaker 1>guys an apology where you're having a rerun episode today.

0:00:25.880 --> 0:00:29.600
<v Speaker 1>That's because I came down with food poisoning. You could

0:00:29.600 --> 0:00:32.880
<v Speaker 1>probably hear. I don't quite sound like my normal self.

0:00:32.920 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 1>I apologize for that as well, but it completely laid

0:00:37.120 --> 0:00:40.400
<v Speaker 1>me low and I was unable to do any work,

0:00:41.040 --> 0:00:43.839
<v Speaker 1>and so I wasn't able to research right and record

0:00:43.840 --> 0:00:47.479
<v Speaker 1>an episode, and I feel badly about that. I really

0:00:47.520 --> 0:00:50.400
<v Speaker 1>love you guys, and I love being able to create

0:00:51.040 --> 0:00:55.240
<v Speaker 1>great podcasts for you. But yeah, I just I was

0:00:55.360 --> 0:00:58.640
<v Speaker 1>in bed with a fever pretty much all day yesterday.

0:00:58.720 --> 0:01:02.960
<v Speaker 1>So this is a rerun from two thousand nineteen about

0:01:03.040 --> 0:01:07.160
<v Speaker 1>machine consciousness. I figured this is a good companion piece

0:01:07.440 --> 0:01:09.840
<v Speaker 1>to some of the things we've talked about recently with

0:01:09.920 --> 0:01:14.520
<v Speaker 1>artificial intelligence and machine learning and artificial neural networks and

0:01:14.560 --> 0:01:17.679
<v Speaker 1>all of that sort of stuff. And um, it's it's

0:01:17.720 --> 0:01:21.959
<v Speaker 1>again one of those tricky concepts. Consciousness is a difficult

0:01:21.959 --> 0:01:25.560
<v Speaker 1>thing to define, even for humans. So sit back and

0:01:25.680 --> 0:01:28.800
<v Speaker 1>enjoy this rerun, and I am going to go and

0:01:28.840 --> 0:01:32.240
<v Speaker 1>eat some apple sauce. I'll talk to you again at

0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:35.000
<v Speaker 1>the end of the episode. There's a topic I have

0:01:35.080 --> 0:01:38.840
<v Speaker 1>touched on on several occasions in past episodes, but I

0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:42.680
<v Speaker 1>really wanted to dig down today into this topic because

0:01:42.720 --> 0:01:46.360
<v Speaker 1>it's one of those that's fascinating and is an underpinning

0:01:46.360 --> 0:01:50.280
<v Speaker 1>for tons of speculative fiction and horror stories. And since

0:01:50.320 --> 0:01:52.760
<v Speaker 1>we're now in October, I think here this would be

0:01:53.080 --> 0:01:57.560
<v Speaker 1>kind of thematically linked to Halloween text style. It turns

0:01:57.600 --> 0:02:00.880
<v Speaker 1>out that's pretty hard to do. Halloween tech anology stories

0:02:01.000 --> 0:02:05.080
<v Speaker 1>have already covered stuff like haunted house technology. So today

0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:08.520
<v Speaker 1>we're going to talk about consciousness and whether or not

0:02:08.720 --> 0:02:13.720
<v Speaker 1>it might be possible that machines could one day achieve consciousness. Now,

0:02:14.000 --> 0:02:17.560
<v Speaker 1>I could start this off by talking about the Turing test,

0:02:17.680 --> 0:02:20.560
<v Speaker 1>which many people have used as the launch point for

0:02:20.560 --> 0:02:24.920
<v Speaker 1>a machine intelligence and machine consciousness debates. The way we

0:02:25.000 --> 0:02:28.160
<v Speaker 1>understand that test today, which by the way, is slightly

0:02:28.200 --> 0:02:32.240
<v Speaker 1>different from the test that Alan Turing first proposed, is

0:02:32.280 --> 0:02:36.160
<v Speaker 1>that you have a human interviewer who, through a computer interface,

0:02:36.560 --> 0:02:40.120
<v Speaker 1>asks questions of a subject, and the subject might be

0:02:40.160 --> 0:02:43.840
<v Speaker 1>another human, or it might be a computer program posing

0:02:44.040 --> 0:02:47.600
<v Speaker 1>as a human and the the interviewer just sees text

0:02:47.639 --> 0:02:50.280
<v Speaker 1>on a screen. So if the interviewer is unable to

0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:53.919
<v Speaker 1>pass a certain threshold of being able to tell the difference,

0:02:53.960 --> 0:02:56.160
<v Speaker 1>to be able to determine whether it was a machine

0:02:56.280 --> 0:02:59.720
<v Speaker 1>or a person, then the program or machine that's being

0:02:59.760 --> 0:03:02.680
<v Speaker 1>test did is said to have passed the Turing test.

0:03:03.160 --> 0:03:06.239
<v Speaker 1>It doesn't mean the program or machine is conscious or

0:03:06.360 --> 0:03:10.960
<v Speaker 1>even intelligent, but rather says that to outward appearances, it

0:03:11.200 --> 0:03:16.440
<v Speaker 1>seems to be intelligent and conscious. See, we humans can't

0:03:16.440 --> 0:03:21.000
<v Speaker 1>be absolutely sure that other humans are conscious and intelligent.

0:03:21.320 --> 0:03:25.400
<v Speaker 1>We assume that they are because each of us knows

0:03:25.520 --> 0:03:28.800
<v Speaker 1>of our own consciousness and our own intelligence. We have

0:03:29.160 --> 0:03:34.720
<v Speaker 1>a personal experience with that direct personal experience, and other

0:03:34.760 --> 0:03:38.920
<v Speaker 1>people seem to display behaviors that indicate they too possess

0:03:39.120 --> 0:03:43.160
<v Speaker 1>those traits, and they too have a personal experience. But

0:03:43.280 --> 0:03:46.640
<v Speaker 1>we cannot be those other people, and so we have

0:03:46.760 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 1>to grant them the consideration that they too are conscious

0:03:50.280 --> 0:03:54.320
<v Speaker 1>and intelligent. And I agree that is very big of us.

0:03:54.920 --> 0:03:59.080
<v Speaker 1>This is actually called the problem of other minds in

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:02.240
<v Speaker 1>the field of philosophy, and the problem is this, It

0:04:02.320 --> 0:04:05.960
<v Speaker 1>is impossible for any one of us to step outside

0:04:06.000 --> 0:04:10.640
<v Speaker 1>of ourselves and into any other person's consciousness. We cannot

0:04:10.760 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>feel what other people are feeling or experience their thoughts firsthand.

0:04:15.880 --> 0:04:18.839
<v Speaker 1>We are aware of our own abilities, but we are

0:04:18.960 --> 0:04:23.840
<v Speaker 1>only aware of the appearance that other people share those abilities.

0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:27.960
<v Speaker 1>So assuming that other people also experience consciousness rather than

0:04:28.080 --> 0:04:31.800
<v Speaker 1>imitating it, really, really, well, that's a step we all

0:04:31.920 --> 0:04:36.479
<v Speaker 1>have to take. Turings point is that if we do

0:04:36.640 --> 0:04:40.440
<v Speaker 1>grant that consideration to other people, why would we not

0:04:40.640 --> 0:04:44.159
<v Speaker 1>do it to machines as well? I mean, the machine

0:04:44.200 --> 0:04:47.520
<v Speaker 1>appears to possess the same qualities as a human. This

0:04:47.560 --> 0:04:51.480
<v Speaker 1>is a hypothetical machine, so we cannot experience what that

0:04:51.560 --> 0:04:54.240
<v Speaker 1>machine is going through, just as we can't experience what

0:04:54.400 --> 0:04:58.480
<v Speaker 1>another person is going through, at least not the intrinsic

0:04:58.640 --> 0:05:02.720
<v Speaker 1>personal level. So why would we not grant the machine

0:05:03.040 --> 0:05:06.640
<v Speaker 1>the same consideration that we would grant to people? And

0:05:06.880 --> 0:05:10.000
<v Speaker 1>touring was being a little cheeky, But while I just

0:05:10.040 --> 0:05:12.839
<v Speaker 1>gave kind of a super fast, high level description of

0:05:12.880 --> 0:05:16.160
<v Speaker 1>the touring test, that's not actually where I want to start.

0:05:16.640 --> 0:05:20.680
<v Speaker 1>I want to begin with the concept of consciousness itself. Now.

0:05:20.720 --> 0:05:23.240
<v Speaker 1>The reason I want to do This isn't just to

0:05:23.800 --> 0:05:26.960
<v Speaker 1>make a longer podcast. It's because I think one of

0:05:26.960 --> 0:05:31.680
<v Speaker 1>the most fundamental problems with the discussion about AI intelligence,

0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:35.520
<v Speaker 1>self awareness, and consciousness is that there tends to be

0:05:35.600 --> 0:05:39.640
<v Speaker 1>a pretty large disconnect between the biologists and the doctors

0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:44.000
<v Speaker 1>who specialize in neuroscience, particularly cognitive neuroscience, and does have

0:05:44.120 --> 0:05:48.160
<v Speaker 1>some understanding about the nature of consciousness and people. And

0:05:48.200 --> 0:05:51.120
<v Speaker 1>then you have computer scientists who have a deep understanding

0:05:51.160 --> 0:05:54.839
<v Speaker 1>of how computers process information. And while we frequently will

0:05:54.880 --> 0:05:59.600
<v Speaker 1>compare brains to computers, that comparison is not one to one.

0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:03.400
<v Speaker 1>It is largely a comparison of convenience, and in some

0:06:03.480 --> 0:06:06.440
<v Speaker 1>cases you could argue it's not terribly useful, it might

0:06:06.480 --> 0:06:10.080
<v Speaker 1>actually be counterproductive. And so I think at least some

0:06:10.200 --> 0:06:13.919
<v Speaker 1>of the speculation about machine consciousness is based on a

0:06:14.000 --> 0:06:18.200
<v Speaker 1>lack of understanding of how complicated and mysterious this topic

0:06:18.360 --> 0:06:21.640
<v Speaker 1>is in the first place, and this ends up being

0:06:21.680 --> 0:06:27.600
<v Speaker 1>really tricky. Consciousness isn't an easily defined quality or quantity.

0:06:27.720 --> 0:06:30.359
<v Speaker 1>Some people like to say, we don't so much define

0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:34.080
<v Speaker 1>consciousness by what it is, but rather what it isn't,

0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:36.280
<v Speaker 1>And this will also will will kind of bring us

0:06:36.279 --> 0:06:40.040
<v Speaker 1>into the realm of philosophy. Now, I'm gonna be honest

0:06:40.080 --> 0:06:43.440
<v Speaker 1>with you, guys, the realm of philosophy is not one

0:06:43.640 --> 0:06:47.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm terribly comfortable in. I'm pretty pragmatic, and philosophy deals

0:06:47.960 --> 0:06:51.720
<v Speaker 1>with a lot of stuff that is, at least for now, unknowable.

0:06:52.000 --> 0:06:56.120
<v Speaker 1>Philosophy sometimes asks questions that we do not and cannot

0:06:56.240 --> 0:06:59.680
<v Speaker 1>have the answer to, and in many cases we may

0:06:59.760 --> 0:07:02.440
<v Speaker 1>never ever be able to answer those questions. And the

0:07:02.480 --> 0:07:06.360
<v Speaker 1>pragmatist in me says, well, why bother asking the question

0:07:06.640 --> 0:07:09.239
<v Speaker 1>if you can never get the answer. Let's just focus

0:07:09.279 --> 0:07:13.200
<v Speaker 1>on the stuff we actually can answer. Now, I realize

0:07:13.480 --> 0:07:16.960
<v Speaker 1>this is a limitation on my part. I'm owning that

0:07:17.600 --> 0:07:21.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm not out to upset the philosophical apple cart. I'm

0:07:21.040 --> 0:07:24.520
<v Speaker 1>just of a different philosophical bent. And I realized that

0:07:24.840 --> 0:07:28.320
<v Speaker 1>just because we can't answer some questions right now, that

0:07:28.400 --> 0:07:32.680
<v Speaker 1>doesn't necessarily mean they will all go unanswered for all time.

0:07:33.040 --> 0:07:35.680
<v Speaker 1>We might glean a way of answering at least some

0:07:35.880 --> 0:07:39.320
<v Speaker 1>of them, though I suspect a few will be forever unanswered.

0:07:39.960 --> 0:07:43.720
<v Speaker 1>If we go with the Basic Dictionary definition of consciousness,

0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:47.920
<v Speaker 1>it's quote the state of being awake and aware of

0:07:47.960 --> 0:07:52.080
<v Speaker 1>one's surroundings end quote. But what this doesn't tell us

0:07:52.680 --> 0:07:56.280
<v Speaker 1>is what's going on that lets us do that. It

0:07:56.320 --> 0:08:00.280
<v Speaker 1>also doesn't talk about being aware of oneself, which we

0:08:00.400 --> 0:08:04.160
<v Speaker 1>largely consider consciousness to be part of. Is not just

0:08:04.280 --> 0:08:07.720
<v Speaker 1>aware of your surroundings, but aware that you exist within

0:08:07.760 --> 0:08:12.360
<v Speaker 1>those surroundings, your relationship to your surroundings, and things that

0:08:12.360 --> 0:08:16.280
<v Speaker 1>are going on within you, yourself, your feelings, and your thoughts.

0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:18.160
<v Speaker 1>The fact that you can process all of this, you

0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:22.120
<v Speaker 1>can reflect upon yourself. We tend to group that into

0:08:22.200 --> 0:08:26.080
<v Speaker 1>consciousness as well. So how is it that we can

0:08:26.160 --> 0:08:29.480
<v Speaker 1>feel things and be aware of those feelings? How is

0:08:29.520 --> 0:08:32.960
<v Speaker 1>it that we can have intentions and be aware of

0:08:33.000 --> 0:08:37.199
<v Speaker 1>our intentions. We are more complex than beings that simply

0:08:37.280 --> 0:08:41.480
<v Speaker 1>react to sensory input. We are more than beings that

0:08:41.559 --> 0:08:46.000
<v Speaker 1>respond to stuff like hunger, fear, or the desire to procreate.

0:08:46.240 --> 0:08:50.800
<v Speaker 1>We have motivations, sometimes really complex motivations, and we can

0:08:50.840 --> 0:08:53.959
<v Speaker 1>reflect on those. We can examine them, we can question them,

0:08:53.960 --> 0:08:57.520
<v Speaker 1>we can even change them. So how do we do

0:08:57.559 --> 0:09:00.760
<v Speaker 1>this now? We know this is special because some of

0:09:00.800 --> 0:09:03.880
<v Speaker 1>the things we can do are shared among a very

0:09:04.000 --> 0:09:08.680
<v Speaker 1>few species on Earth. For example, we humans can recognize

0:09:08.679 --> 0:09:12.439
<v Speaker 1>our own reflections in a mirror, starting it around age

0:09:12.520 --> 0:09:15.920
<v Speaker 1>two or so, we can see the mirror image and

0:09:16.000 --> 0:09:19.679
<v Speaker 1>we recognize the mirriage images of us. Now, there are

0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:23.160
<v Speaker 1>only eight species that can do this that we know

0:09:23.200 --> 0:09:27.360
<v Speaker 1>about anyway. Those species are the great apes. So you've

0:09:27.360 --> 0:09:34.360
<v Speaker 1>got humans, guerrillas, orangutans, binobos, and chimpanzees, the magpie, the dolphin,

0:09:34.840 --> 0:09:37.600
<v Speaker 1>and that's it. Oh and the magpies are birds, right,

0:09:37.960 --> 0:09:41.800
<v Speaker 1>that's that's all of them. Recognizing one's own form and

0:09:41.840 --> 0:09:45.200
<v Speaker 1>a mirror shows a sense of self awareness, literally, of

0:09:45.280 --> 0:09:49.000
<v Speaker 1>awareness of one's self. Now, there are a lot of

0:09:49.040 --> 0:09:53.160
<v Speaker 1>great resources online and offline that go into the theme

0:09:53.200 --> 0:09:57.679
<v Speaker 1>of consciousness. Heck, there are numerous college level courses and

0:09:57.840 --> 0:10:01.679
<v Speaker 1>graduate level courses dedicated to this topic. So I'm not

0:10:01.720 --> 0:10:05.280
<v Speaker 1>going to be able to go into all the different hypotheses, arguments,

0:10:05.400 --> 0:10:09.280
<v Speaker 1>counter arguments, et cetera in this episode, but I can

0:10:09.280 --> 0:10:13.719
<v Speaker 1>cover some basics. Also, highly recommend you check out v

0:10:13.880 --> 0:10:18.920
<v Speaker 1>Sauces video on YouTube that's titled what Is Consciousness? Because

0:10:19.120 --> 0:10:22.240
<v Speaker 1>it's really good. And No, I don't know Michael, I

0:10:22.280 --> 0:10:25.160
<v Speaker 1>have no connection to him. I've never met him. This

0:10:25.240 --> 0:10:27.959
<v Speaker 1>is just an honest recommendation from me. And I have

0:10:28.440 --> 0:10:32.080
<v Speaker 1>no connection whatsoever to that video series. The video includes

0:10:32.120 --> 0:10:34.840
<v Speaker 1>a link to what v Sauce dubs a lean back,

0:10:35.240 --> 0:10:38.440
<v Speaker 1>which is a playlist of related videos on the subject

0:10:38.480 --> 0:10:42.319
<v Speaker 1>at hand, in this case, consciousness. Those are also really fascinating.

0:10:42.320 --> 0:10:44.320
<v Speaker 1>But I do want to point out that, at least

0:10:44.320 --> 0:10:47.240
<v Speaker 1>at the time of this recording, a couple of the

0:10:47.320 --> 0:10:50.560
<v Speaker 1>videos in that playlist have since been delisted from YouTube

0:10:50.559 --> 0:10:52.720
<v Speaker 1>for whatever reason. So there are a couple of blank

0:10:52.760 --> 0:10:55.800
<v Speaker 1>spots in there. But what those videos show, and what

0:10:55.960 --> 0:11:00.560
<v Speaker 1>countless papers and courses and presentations also show, is that

0:11:00.640 --> 0:11:05.120
<v Speaker 1>the brain is so incredibly complex and nuanced that we

0:11:05.200 --> 0:11:08.720
<v Speaker 1>don't know what we don't know. We do know that

0:11:08.760 --> 0:11:11.160
<v Speaker 1>there are some pretty funky things going up in the

0:11:11.200 --> 0:11:13.720
<v Speaker 1>gray matter up in our noggins, and we also know

0:11:14.040 --> 0:11:19.040
<v Speaker 1>that many of the explanations given to describe consciousness rely

0:11:19.240 --> 0:11:23.400
<v Speaker 1>upon some assumptions that we don't have any substantial evidence for.

0:11:24.120 --> 0:11:27.840
<v Speaker 1>You can't really assert something to be true if it's

0:11:27.880 --> 0:11:31.320
<v Speaker 1>based on a premise that you also don't know to

0:11:31.440 --> 0:11:34.360
<v Speaker 1>be true. That's not how good science works. This is

0:11:34.400 --> 0:11:37.680
<v Speaker 1>also why I reject the arguments around stuff like ghost

0:11:37.760 --> 0:11:41.840
<v Speaker 1>hunting equipment. The use of that equipment is predicated on

0:11:41.880 --> 0:11:45.920
<v Speaker 1>the argument the ghosts exist and they have certain influences

0:11:45.960 --> 0:11:49.600
<v Speaker 1>on their environment. But we haven't proven that ghosts exist

0:11:49.679 --> 0:11:52.080
<v Speaker 1>in the first place, let alone that they can affect

0:11:52.120 --> 0:11:55.720
<v Speaker 1>the environment. So selling a meter that supposedly detects a

0:11:55.760 --> 0:12:00.200
<v Speaker 1>ghostly presence from electromagnetic fluctuations makes no logical sense. Pens

0:12:00.840 --> 0:12:02.880
<v Speaker 1>For us to know that to be true, we would

0:12:02.920 --> 0:12:06.800
<v Speaker 1>already have to have established that one ghosts are real

0:12:07.440 --> 0:12:11.320
<v Speaker 1>and two that they have these electromagnetic fluctuation effects, and

0:12:11.360 --> 0:12:15.240
<v Speaker 1>we haven't done that. It's like working science in reverse.

0:12:15.320 --> 0:12:17.440
<v Speaker 1>That's not how it works. Anyway. There are a lot

0:12:17.480 --> 0:12:22.160
<v Speaker 1>of arguments about consciousness that suggests perhaps there's some ineffable

0:12:22.240 --> 0:12:25.679
<v Speaker 1>force that informs it. You can call it the spirit

0:12:25.960 --> 0:12:29.400
<v Speaker 1>or the soul or whatever. So that argument suggests that

0:12:29.480 --> 0:12:32.760
<v Speaker 1>this thing we've never proven to have existed is what

0:12:32.960 --> 0:12:37.320
<v Speaker 1>gives consciousness its own and that's a problem. We can't

0:12:37.760 --> 0:12:40.360
<v Speaker 1>really state that. I mean, you can't say the reason

0:12:40.440 --> 0:12:42.959
<v Speaker 1>this thing exists is that this other thing that we've

0:12:43.000 --> 0:12:47.120
<v Speaker 1>never proven to exist makes it exist. Well, that you've

0:12:47.160 --> 0:12:50.920
<v Speaker 1>just made it harder to even prove anything. And we

0:12:51.000 --> 0:12:54.560
<v Speaker 1>have evidence that also shows that that whole idea doesn't

0:12:54.600 --> 0:12:58.479
<v Speaker 1>hold water. The evidence comes in the form of brain disorders,

0:12:58.520 --> 0:13:02.200
<v Speaker 1>brain diseases, and brain image. We have seen that disease

0:13:02.240 --> 0:13:06.240
<v Speaker 1>and damage to the brain affects consciousness, which suggests that

0:13:06.280 --> 0:13:12.040
<v Speaker 1>consciousness manifests from the actual form and function of our brains,

0:13:12.360 --> 0:13:16.719
<v Speaker 1>not from any mysterious force. Our ability to perceive, to

0:13:16.800 --> 0:13:20.280
<v Speaker 1>process information, to have an understanding of the self, to

0:13:20.360 --> 0:13:23.800
<v Speaker 1>have an accurate reflection of what's going on around us

0:13:24.280 --> 0:13:27.400
<v Speaker 1>within our own conceptual reality, all of that appears to

0:13:27.440 --> 0:13:31.800
<v Speaker 1>be predicated primarily upon the brain. Now, originally I was

0:13:31.840 --> 0:13:34.400
<v Speaker 1>planning to give a rundown on some of the prevailing

0:13:34.480 --> 0:13:38.320
<v Speaker 1>theories about consciousness. In other words, I want to summarize

0:13:38.320 --> 0:13:43.079
<v Speaker 1>the various schools of thought about how consciousness actually arises.

0:13:43.440 --> 0:13:46.920
<v Speaker 1>But as I dove down into the research, it became

0:13:46.960 --> 0:13:50.800
<v Speaker 1>apparent really quickly that such a discussion would require so

0:13:50.920 --> 0:13:55.679
<v Speaker 1>much groundwork and more importantly, a much deeper understanding on

0:13:55.720 --> 0:13:59.480
<v Speaker 1>my part than would be practical for this podcast. So

0:13:59.559 --> 0:14:03.120
<v Speaker 1>instead of talking about the higher order theory of consciousness

0:14:03.280 --> 0:14:08.160
<v Speaker 1>versus the general workspace theory versus integrated information theory, I'll

0:14:08.200 --> 0:14:11.439
<v Speaker 1>take a step back and I'll say there's a lot

0:14:11.440 --> 0:14:14.880
<v Speaker 1>of ongoing debate about the subject, and no one has

0:14:14.880 --> 0:14:19.320
<v Speaker 1>conclusively proven that any particular theory or argument is most

0:14:19.360 --> 0:14:23.080
<v Speaker 1>likely true. Each theory has its strengths and its weaknesses,

0:14:23.440 --> 0:14:26.920
<v Speaker 1>and complicating matters further is that we haven't refined our

0:14:27.040 --> 0:14:32.680
<v Speaker 1>language around the concepts enough to differentiate various ideas. That

0:14:32.720 --> 0:14:36.440
<v Speaker 1>means you can't talk about an organism being conscious of

0:14:36.480 --> 0:14:41.240
<v Speaker 1>something and that degree of consciousness is somehow inherently specific,

0:14:41.280 --> 0:14:44.720
<v Speaker 1>it's not. That's the issue. So, for example, I could

0:14:44.720 --> 0:14:48.240
<v Speaker 1>say a rat is conscious of a rat terrier, type

0:14:48.280 --> 0:14:51.400
<v Speaker 1>of dog that hunts down rats, and so as a

0:14:51.440 --> 0:14:54.640
<v Speaker 1>result of this consciousness of the rat terrier, the rat

0:14:54.680 --> 0:14:57.280
<v Speaker 1>attempts to remain hidden so as not to be killed.

0:14:57.600 --> 0:15:00.360
<v Speaker 1>But does that mean the rat merely perceived eaves the

0:15:00.440 --> 0:15:02.560
<v Speaker 1>rat terrier and thus is trying to stay out of

0:15:02.560 --> 0:15:05.760
<v Speaker 1>its way, And that's as far as the consciousness goes,

0:15:06.520 --> 0:15:08.720
<v Speaker 1>or doesn't mean that the rat actually has a deeper,

0:15:08.800 --> 0:15:13.280
<v Speaker 1>more meaningful awareness of the rat terrier. The language isn't

0:15:13.360 --> 0:15:17.600
<v Speaker 1>much help here, and moreover, there's debate about what degrees

0:15:17.680 --> 0:15:22.080
<v Speaker 1>of consciousness there even are. Also, while I've been harping

0:15:22.080 --> 0:15:25.320
<v Speaker 1>on consciousness, that's not the only concept we have to consider.

0:15:25.440 --> 0:15:30.440
<v Speaker 1>Another is intelligence, which is distinct from consciousness, and there

0:15:30.480 --> 0:15:36.840
<v Speaker 1>are some similarities. Like consciousness, intelligence is predicated upon brain functions. Again,

0:15:36.960 --> 0:15:40.520
<v Speaker 1>a long history of investigating brain disorders and brain damage

0:15:40.560 --> 0:15:43.800
<v Speaker 1>indicates this as it can affect not just consciousness but

0:15:43.880 --> 0:15:49.000
<v Speaker 1>also intelligence. So what is intelligence? Well, get ready for this,

0:15:49.120 --> 0:15:53.880
<v Speaker 1>But like consciousness, there's no single agreed upon definition or

0:15:54.200 --> 0:15:57.920
<v Speaker 1>theory of intelligence. In general, we use the word intelligence

0:15:57.960 --> 0:16:02.320
<v Speaker 1>to describe the ability to think, to learn, to absorb knowledge,

0:16:02.360 --> 0:16:06.080
<v Speaker 1>and to make use of it to develop skills. Intelligence

0:16:06.160 --> 0:16:09.240
<v Speaker 1>is what allowed humans to learn how to make basic tools,

0:16:09.280 --> 0:16:11.680
<v Speaker 1>to gain an understanding of how to cultivate plants and

0:16:11.720 --> 0:16:16.400
<v Speaker 1>develop agriculture, to develop architecture, to understand mathematic principles, and

0:16:16.480 --> 0:16:20.240
<v Speaker 1>all sorts of stuff. So in humans, we tend to

0:16:20.320 --> 0:16:23.680
<v Speaker 1>lump consciousness and intelligence together. We tend to think in

0:16:23.800 --> 0:16:27.520
<v Speaker 1>terms of being intelligent and being self aware, but the

0:16:27.600 --> 0:16:30.840
<v Speaker 1>two need not necessarily go hand in hand. There are

0:16:30.840 --> 0:16:33.360
<v Speaker 1>many people who believe that it could be possible to

0:16:33.400 --> 0:16:38.800
<v Speaker 1>construct an artificial intelligence or an artificial consciousness independently of

0:16:38.840 --> 0:16:42.000
<v Speaker 1>one another. When we come back, I'll explain more, but

0:16:42.120 --> 0:16:52.880
<v Speaker 1>first let's take a quick break. So in a very

0:16:53.040 --> 0:16:57.080
<v Speaker 1>general sense. The group of hypotheses that fall into the

0:16:57.160 --> 0:17:02.760
<v Speaker 1>integrated information theory umbrella state that consciousness emerges through linking

0:17:02.920 --> 0:17:07.679
<v Speaker 1>elements in our brains. These would be neurons processing large

0:17:07.760 --> 0:17:11.520
<v Speaker 1>amounts of information, and that it's the scale of this

0:17:11.800 --> 0:17:15.959
<v Speaker 1>endeavor that then leads to consciousness. In other words, if

0:17:16.000 --> 0:17:19.880
<v Speaker 1>you have enough processors working on enough information and they're

0:17:19.920 --> 0:17:23.280
<v Speaker 1>all interconnected with each other and it's very complicated, bang,

0:17:23.800 --> 0:17:28.760
<v Speaker 1>you get consciousness. Now, it is clear our brains process

0:17:28.800 --> 0:17:31.840
<v Speaker 1>a lot of information. If you do a search in

0:17:31.920 --> 0:17:36.680
<v Speaker 1>textbooks or online, you'll frequently encounter the stat their brains

0:17:36.760 --> 0:17:40.520
<v Speaker 1>have around one hundred billion neurons in them and ten

0:17:40.680 --> 0:17:45.440
<v Speaker 1>times as many glial cells. Neurons are like the processors

0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:47.879
<v Speaker 1>in a computer system, and glial cells would be the

0:17:47.960 --> 0:17:52.440
<v Speaker 1>support systems and insulators with those processors. Anyway, those numbers

0:17:52.480 --> 0:17:56.280
<v Speaker 1>have since come under some dispute, as an associate professor

0:17:56.320 --> 0:18:02.240
<v Speaker 1>at Vanderbilt University named Susanna Herculano who sell She explained

0:18:02.240 --> 0:18:06.879
<v Speaker 1>that the old way of estimating how many neurons the

0:18:06.880 --> 0:18:10.080
<v Speaker 1>brain had appeared to be based on taking slices of

0:18:10.119 --> 0:18:13.120
<v Speaker 1>the brain. Estimating the number of neurons in that slice

0:18:13.200 --> 0:18:16.439
<v Speaker 1>and then kind of extrapolating that number to apply across

0:18:16.480 --> 0:18:19.600
<v Speaker 1>the brain in general. But that ignores stuff like the

0:18:19.680 --> 0:18:22.679
<v Speaker 1>density of cells and the distribution of the cells across

0:18:22.720 --> 0:18:26.160
<v Speaker 1>the brain. So what she did, and this also falls

0:18:26.160 --> 0:18:29.800
<v Speaker 1>into the category of Halloween horror stories, is she took

0:18:29.800 --> 0:18:33.920
<v Speaker 1>a brain and she freaking dissolved it. She could then

0:18:33.920 --> 0:18:37.600
<v Speaker 1>get account of the neuron nuclei that was in the

0:18:37.640 --> 0:18:43.000
<v Speaker 1>soupy mix. By her accounting, the brain has closer to

0:18:43.160 --> 0:18:47.479
<v Speaker 1>eighties six billion neurons and just as many glial cells.

0:18:47.880 --> 0:18:50.359
<v Speaker 1>Still a lot of cells, mind you, But you gotta

0:18:50.359 --> 0:18:52.400
<v Speaker 1>admit it's a bit of a blow to lose fourteen

0:18:52.480 --> 0:18:58.000
<v Speaker 1>billion neurons overnight. Still, we're talking about billions of neurons

0:18:58.040 --> 0:19:02.120
<v Speaker 1>that interconnect through an incredib doably complex system in our brains,

0:19:02.720 --> 0:19:06.640
<v Speaker 1>with different regions of the brain handling different things. And so, yeah,

0:19:06.720 --> 0:19:10.040
<v Speaker 1>we're processing a lot of information all the time, and

0:19:10.119 --> 0:19:13.359
<v Speaker 1>we do happen to be conscious. So could it be

0:19:13.440 --> 0:19:17.440
<v Speaker 1>possible that with a sufficiently powerful computer system, perhaps made

0:19:17.480 --> 0:19:21.399
<v Speaker 1>up of hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of

0:19:21.440 --> 0:19:25.840
<v Speaker 1>individual computers, each with hundreds of processors, that you could

0:19:25.960 --> 0:19:29.560
<v Speaker 1>end up with an emergent consciousness, or, as some people

0:19:29.560 --> 0:19:33.760
<v Speaker 1>have proposed, could the Internet itself become conscious due to

0:19:33.840 --> 0:19:37.000
<v Speaker 1>the fact that it is an enormous system of interconnected

0:19:37.080 --> 0:19:42.760
<v Speaker 1>nodes that's pushing around incredible amounts of information. Well maybe,

0:19:43.400 --> 0:19:47.800
<v Speaker 1>maybe it's possible. But here's the kicker. This theory doesn't

0:19:47.800 --> 0:19:52.720
<v Speaker 1>actually explain the mechanism by which the consciousness emerges. See,

0:19:53.400 --> 0:19:56.920
<v Speaker 1>it's one thing to process information, it's another thing to

0:19:57.000 --> 0:20:01.119
<v Speaker 1>be aware of that experience. So when I perceive a color,

0:20:01.600 --> 0:20:04.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm not just perceiving a color. I'm aware that I'm

0:20:04.960 --> 0:20:08.560
<v Speaker 1>experiencing that color. Or to put it in another way,

0:20:08.800 --> 0:20:11.639
<v Speaker 1>I can relate something to how it makes me feel,

0:20:11.880 --> 0:20:16.040
<v Speaker 1>or some other subjective experience that's personal to me. So

0:20:16.280 --> 0:20:20.200
<v Speaker 1>a machine might objectively be able to return data about

0:20:20.240 --> 0:20:23.000
<v Speaker 1>stuff like what is a color of a piece of paper?

0:20:23.400 --> 0:20:26.040
<v Speaker 1>That analyzes the light that's being reflected off that piece

0:20:26.080 --> 0:20:29.120
<v Speaker 1>of paper, it compares that light to a spectrum of colors.

0:20:29.240 --> 0:20:31.080
<v Speaker 1>But that's still not the same thing as having the

0:20:31.119 --> 0:20:35.440
<v Speaker 1>subjective experience of perceiving the color. And there may well

0:20:35.520 --> 0:20:39.320
<v Speaker 1>be some connection between the complexity of the interconnected neurons

0:20:39.320 --> 0:20:41.760
<v Speaker 1>in our brains and the amount of information that we're

0:20:41.800 --> 0:20:46.960
<v Speaker 1>processing and our sense of consciousness, But the theory doesn't

0:20:46.960 --> 0:20:51.640
<v Speaker 1>actually explain what that connection is. It's more like saying, hey,

0:20:51.840 --> 0:20:56.320
<v Speaker 1>maybe this thing we have, this consciousness experience, is also

0:20:56.440 --> 0:21:00.440
<v Speaker 1>linked to this other thing, without actually making the link

0:21:00.480 --> 0:21:03.840
<v Speaker 1>between the two. It appears to be correlative but not

0:21:04.000 --> 0:21:08.720
<v Speaker 1>necessarily causal to relate that to our personal experience. Imagine

0:21:08.760 --> 0:21:12.600
<v Speaker 1>that you've just poofed into existence. You have no prior

0:21:12.680 --> 0:21:16.160
<v Speaker 1>knowledge of the world, or the physics in that world,

0:21:16.280 --> 0:21:19.760
<v Speaker 1>or basic stuff like that, So you're drawing conclusions about

0:21:19.760 --> 0:21:23.840
<v Speaker 1>the world around you based solely on your observations as

0:21:23.840 --> 0:21:26.720
<v Speaker 1>you wander around and do stuff. And at one point

0:21:27.200 --> 0:21:30.639
<v Speaker 1>you see an interesting looking rock on the path, so

0:21:30.720 --> 0:21:32.719
<v Speaker 1>you bend over and you pick up the rock, and

0:21:32.720 --> 0:21:35.960
<v Speaker 1>when you do, it starts to rain, and you think, well,

0:21:36.000 --> 0:21:38.639
<v Speaker 1>maybe I caused it to rain because I picked up

0:21:38.720 --> 0:21:41.720
<v Speaker 1>this rock. And maybe it happens a few times where

0:21:41.760 --> 0:21:43.760
<v Speaker 1>you pick up a rock and it starts to rain,

0:21:44.040 --> 0:21:47.040
<v Speaker 1>which seems to support your thesis. But does that mean

0:21:47.160 --> 0:21:51.480
<v Speaker 1>you're actually causing the effects that you are observing. If so,

0:21:51.880 --> 0:21:55.639
<v Speaker 1>what is it about picking up the rock that's making

0:21:55.680 --> 0:21:59.439
<v Speaker 1>it rain? Now, even in this absurd case, that I'm making.

0:21:59.840 --> 0:22:02.800
<v Speaker 1>You could argue that if there's never an instance in

0:22:02.800 --> 0:22:05.880
<v Speaker 1>which picking up the rock wasn't immediately followed by rain,

0:22:06.359 --> 0:22:08.960
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot of evidence to suggest the two are linked,

0:22:09.280 --> 0:22:12.520
<v Speaker 1>but you still can't explain why they are linked, why

0:22:12.560 --> 0:22:16.080
<v Speaker 1>does one cause the other. And that's a problem because

0:22:16.359 --> 0:22:20.280
<v Speaker 1>without that piece, you're never really totally sure that you're

0:22:20.320 --> 0:22:23.400
<v Speaker 1>on the right track. That's kind of where we are

0:22:23.480 --> 0:22:26.600
<v Speaker 1>with consciousness. We've got a lot of ideas about what

0:22:26.680 --> 0:22:29.920
<v Speaker 1>makes it happen, but those ideas are mostly missing key

0:22:30.000 --> 0:22:35.000
<v Speaker 1>pieces that explain why it's happening. Now, it's possible that

0:22:35.080 --> 0:22:38.760
<v Speaker 1>we cannot reduce consciousness any further than we already have,

0:22:39.320 --> 0:22:41.959
<v Speaker 1>and maybe that means we never really get a handle

0:22:42.080 --> 0:22:44.800
<v Speaker 1>on what makes it happen. It's also possible that we

0:22:44.840 --> 0:22:49.080
<v Speaker 1>could facilitate the emergence of consciousness and machines without knowing

0:22:49.480 --> 0:22:53.240
<v Speaker 1>how we did it. Essentially, that would be like stumbling

0:22:53.320 --> 0:22:56.879
<v Speaker 1>upon the phenomenon by luck. We just happened to create

0:22:56.880 --> 0:23:00.520
<v Speaker 1>the conditions necessary to allow some form of artificial ansciousness

0:23:00.560 --> 0:23:03.879
<v Speaker 1>to emerge. Now, I think this might be possible, but

0:23:03.960 --> 0:23:07.000
<v Speaker 1>it strikes me as a long shot. I think of

0:23:07.000 --> 0:23:10.000
<v Speaker 1>it like being locked in a dark warehouse filled with

0:23:10.119 --> 0:23:13.760
<v Speaker 1>every mechanical part you can imagine, and you start trying

0:23:13.800 --> 0:23:16.639
<v Speaker 1>to put things together in complete darkness, and then the

0:23:16.720 --> 0:23:18.919
<v Speaker 1>lights come on and you see that you have created

0:23:18.960 --> 0:23:22.840
<v Speaker 1>a perfect replica of an F fifteen fighter jet. Is

0:23:22.880 --> 0:23:27.359
<v Speaker 1>that possible? Well, I mean, yeah, I guess, but it

0:23:27.400 --> 0:23:32.240
<v Speaker 1>seems overwhelmingly unlikely. But again, this is based off ignorance.

0:23:32.480 --> 0:23:34.760
<v Speaker 1>It's based off the fact that it hasn't happened yet,

0:23:35.200 --> 0:23:39.280
<v Speaker 1>so I could be totally wrong here. Now, on the

0:23:39.280 --> 0:23:43.760
<v Speaker 1>flip side of that, programmers, engineers, and scientists have created

0:23:43.840 --> 0:23:47.600
<v Speaker 1>computer systems that can process information in intricate ways to

0:23:47.640 --> 0:23:50.520
<v Speaker 1>come up with solutions to problems that seem, at least

0:23:50.560 --> 0:23:53.960
<v Speaker 1>at first glance, to be similar to how we humans think.

0:23:54.440 --> 0:23:57.880
<v Speaker 1>We even have names for systems that reflect biological systems,

0:23:57.920 --> 0:24:01.679
<v Speaker 1>like artificial neural networks. Now the name might make it

0:24:01.760 --> 0:24:06.480
<v Speaker 1>sound like it's a robot brain, but it's not quite that. Instead,

0:24:06.760 --> 0:24:09.320
<v Speaker 1>it's a model for computing in which components in the

0:24:09.359 --> 0:24:13.800
<v Speaker 1>system act kind of like neurons. They're interconnected and each

0:24:13.840 --> 0:24:17.800
<v Speaker 1>one does a specific process. The nodes in the computer

0:24:17.880 --> 0:24:21.600
<v Speaker 1>system connect to other nodes, so you feed the system

0:24:21.680 --> 0:24:24.840
<v Speaker 1>input whatever it is you want to process, and then

0:24:25.119 --> 0:24:28.800
<v Speaker 1>the nodes that accept that input performs some form of

0:24:28.840 --> 0:24:33.800
<v Speaker 1>operation on it, and then send that resulting data the

0:24:33.800 --> 0:24:38.600
<v Speaker 1>the answer after they've processed this information onto other nodes

0:24:38.800 --> 0:24:42.320
<v Speaker 1>in the network. It's a nonlinear approach to computing, and

0:24:42.359 --> 0:24:46.080
<v Speaker 1>by adjusting the processes each node performs this is also

0:24:46.160 --> 0:24:49.679
<v Speaker 1>like known as adjusting the weight of the nodes, you

0:24:49.720 --> 0:24:53.200
<v Speaker 1>can tweak the outcomes. Now, this is incredibly useful. If

0:24:53.240 --> 0:24:56.840
<v Speaker 1>you already know the outcome you want, you can tweak

0:24:56.880 --> 0:25:00.080
<v Speaker 1>the system so that it learns or is trained to

0:25:00.119 --> 0:25:04.800
<v Speaker 1>recognize something specific. For example, you could train a computer

0:25:04.880 --> 0:25:08.320
<v Speaker 1>system to recognize faces, so you would feed it images.

0:25:08.520 --> 0:25:10.800
<v Speaker 1>Some of the images would have faces in them, some

0:25:10.880 --> 0:25:13.960
<v Speaker 1>would not have faces in them. Some might have something

0:25:14.000 --> 0:25:15.880
<v Speaker 1>that could be a face, but it's hard to tell.

0:25:15.960 --> 0:25:19.320
<v Speaker 1>Maybe it's a shape in a picture that looks kind

0:25:19.320 --> 0:25:22.440
<v Speaker 1>of like a face, but it's not actually someone's face. Anyway,

0:25:22.480 --> 0:25:25.359
<v Speaker 1>you train the computer model to try and separate the

0:25:25.440 --> 0:25:29.040
<v Speaker 1>faces from the non faces, and it might take many

0:25:29.160 --> 0:25:32.280
<v Speaker 1>iterations to get the model trained up using your starting

0:25:32.359 --> 0:25:35.639
<v Speaker 1>data your training data. Now, once you do have your

0:25:35.640 --> 0:25:38.119
<v Speaker 1>computer model trained up, you've tweaked all the nodes so

0:25:38.160 --> 0:25:42.520
<v Speaker 1>that it is reliably producing results that say, yes, this

0:25:42.640 --> 0:25:45.200
<v Speaker 1>is a face or no, this isn't. You can now

0:25:45.400 --> 0:25:49.240
<v Speaker 1>feed that same computer model brand new images that it

0:25:49.280 --> 0:25:52.359
<v Speaker 1>has never seen before, and it can perform the same

0:25:52.359 --> 0:25:57.000
<v Speaker 1>functions you have taught the computer model how to do something.

0:25:57.359 --> 0:26:01.359
<v Speaker 1>But this isn't like spontaneous intelligens and it's not connected

0:26:01.359 --> 0:26:05.360
<v Speaker 1>to consciousness. You couldn't really call it thinking so much

0:26:05.359 --> 0:26:10.360
<v Speaker 1>as just being trained to recognize specific patterns. Pretty well. Now,

0:26:10.400 --> 0:26:13.600
<v Speaker 1>that's just one example of putting an artificial neural network

0:26:13.640 --> 0:26:16.639
<v Speaker 1>to use. There are lots of others, and there are

0:26:16.680 --> 0:26:20.880
<v Speaker 1>also systems like IBM S Watson, which also appears at

0:26:21.200 --> 0:26:24.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, casual glance to think. This was helped in

0:26:24.600 --> 0:26:27.960
<v Speaker 1>no small part by the very public display of Watson

0:26:28.119 --> 0:26:31.720
<v Speaker 1>competing on special episodes of Jeopardy, and which went up

0:26:31.760 --> 0:26:36.120
<v Speaker 1>against human opponents who were former Jeopardy champions themselves. Watson

0:26:36.240 --> 0:26:40.440
<v Speaker 1>famously couldn't call upon the Internet to search for answers.

0:26:40.800 --> 0:26:44.159
<v Speaker 1>All the data the computer could access was self contained

0:26:44.240 --> 0:26:48.800
<v Speaker 1>in its undeniably voluminous storage, and the computer had to

0:26:48.880 --> 0:26:52.320
<v Speaker 1>parse what the clues and Jeopardy were actually looking for

0:26:52.680 --> 0:26:55.200
<v Speaker 1>then come up with an appropriate response, And to make

0:26:55.280 --> 0:26:59.600
<v Speaker 1>matters more tricky, the computer wasn't returning a guaranteed right answer.

0:27:00.000 --> 0:27:02.520
<v Speaker 1>The computer had to come to a judgment on how

0:27:02.600 --> 0:27:05.520
<v Speaker 1>confident it was that the answer it had arrived at

0:27:05.840 --> 0:27:09.480
<v Speaker 1>was the correct one. If the confidence met a certain threshold,

0:27:10.040 --> 0:27:13.560
<v Speaker 1>then Watson would submit an answer. If it did not

0:27:13.800 --> 0:27:18.080
<v Speaker 1>meet that threshold, Watson would remain silent. It's a remarkable achievement,

0:27:18.359 --> 0:27:20.840
<v Speaker 1>and it has lots of potential applications, many of which

0:27:20.840 --> 0:27:24.800
<v Speaker 1>are actually in action today. But it's still not quite

0:27:24.920 --> 0:27:27.879
<v Speaker 1>at the level of a machine thinking like a human,

0:27:27.960 --> 0:27:30.199
<v Speaker 1>and I don't think anyone at IBM would suggest that

0:27:30.240 --> 0:27:34.240
<v Speaker 1>it possesses any sense of consciousness. When we come back,

0:27:34.440 --> 0:27:38.240
<v Speaker 1>i'll talk about a famous thought experiment that really starts

0:27:38.240 --> 0:27:42.160
<v Speaker 1>to examine whether or not machines could ever attain intelligence

0:27:42.200 --> 0:27:52.840
<v Speaker 1>and consciousness. But first let's take another quick break. And

0:27:53.080 --> 0:27:57.840
<v Speaker 1>now this brings me to a famous thought experiment proposed

0:27:57.920 --> 0:28:01.240
<v Speaker 1>by John Searle, a philosoph of her who questioned whether

0:28:01.359 --> 0:28:04.760
<v Speaker 1>we could say a machine, even one so proficient that

0:28:04.800 --> 0:28:10.240
<v Speaker 1>could deliver reliable answers on demand, would ever truly be intelligent,

0:28:10.480 --> 0:28:12.880
<v Speaker 1>at least on a level similar to what we humans

0:28:12.960 --> 0:28:18.400
<v Speaker 1>identify as being intelligent. It's called the Chinese room argument,

0:28:18.640 --> 0:28:23.399
<v Speaker 1>which Searle included in his article titled Minds, Brains, and

0:28:23.520 --> 0:28:28.080
<v Speaker 1>Programs for the Behavioral and Brain Sciences Journal. Here's the

0:28:28.119 --> 0:28:32.359
<v Speaker 1>premise of the thought experiment. Imagine that you are in

0:28:32.359 --> 0:28:36.040
<v Speaker 1>a simple room. The room has a table and a chair.

0:28:36.520 --> 0:28:40.480
<v Speaker 1>There's a ream of blank paper, there's a brush, there's

0:28:40.520 --> 0:28:44.080
<v Speaker 1>some ink, and there's also a large book within the

0:28:44.160 --> 0:28:47.800
<v Speaker 1>room that contains pairs of Chinese symbols. In the book.

0:28:48.240 --> 0:28:50.800
<v Speaker 1>Oh and we also have to imagine that you don't

0:28:50.880 --> 0:28:55.320
<v Speaker 1>understand or recognize these Chinese symbols. They mean nothing to you.

0:28:55.920 --> 0:28:58.360
<v Speaker 1>There's also a door to the room, and the door

0:28:58.480 --> 0:29:01.560
<v Speaker 1>has a mail slot, and every now and again someone

0:29:01.640 --> 0:29:04.480
<v Speaker 1>slides a piece of paper through the slot. The piece

0:29:04.480 --> 0:29:08.080
<v Speaker 1>of paper has one of those Chinese symbols printed on it,

0:29:08.560 --> 0:29:11.120
<v Speaker 1>and it's your job to go through the book and

0:29:11.200 --> 0:29:14.960
<v Speaker 1>find the matching symbol in the book, plus the corresponding

0:29:15.080 --> 0:29:17.959
<v Speaker 1>symbol in the pair, because remember I said there were

0:29:17.960 --> 0:29:21.400
<v Speaker 1>symbols that were paired together. You then take a blank

0:29:21.480 --> 0:29:26.280
<v Speaker 1>sheet of paper, You draw the corresponding symbol from that

0:29:26.440 --> 0:29:29.880
<v Speaker 1>pair onto the sheet of paper, and finally you slip

0:29:29.960 --> 0:29:33.080
<v Speaker 1>that piece of paper through the mail slot, presumably to

0:29:33.120 --> 0:29:35.800
<v Speaker 1>the person who gave you the first piece of paper

0:29:36.240 --> 0:29:39.080
<v Speaker 1>and the original part of this problem. So to an

0:29:39.080 --> 0:29:42.640
<v Speaker 1>outside observer, let's say it's actually the person who's slipping

0:29:42.720 --> 0:29:45.760
<v Speaker 1>the piece of paper to you, it would seem that

0:29:45.840 --> 0:29:51.480
<v Speaker 1>whomever is inside the door actually understands Chinese symbols. They

0:29:51.480 --> 0:29:57.160
<v Speaker 1>can recognize the significance of whatever symbol was was contributed,

0:29:57.320 --> 0:30:00.200
<v Speaker 1>was sent in through the mail slot, and then match

0:30:00.240 --> 0:30:04.040
<v Speaker 1>it to whatever the corresponding data is for that particular symbol,

0:30:04.280 --> 0:30:06.760
<v Speaker 1>and then return that to the user. So to the

0:30:06.800 --> 0:30:10.080
<v Speaker 1>outside observer, it appears as though whatever is inside the

0:30:10.160 --> 0:30:15.320
<v Speaker 1>room comprehends what it is doing. But argues sirle, that's

0:30:15.320 --> 0:30:19.960
<v Speaker 1>only an illusion because the person inside the room doesn't

0:30:20.000 --> 0:30:23.240
<v Speaker 1>know what any of those symbols actually means. So, if

0:30:23.280 --> 0:30:26.360
<v Speaker 1>if this is you, you have no context. You don't

0:30:26.440 --> 0:30:30.480
<v Speaker 1>know what any individual symbol stands for, nor do you

0:30:30.560 --> 0:30:34.800
<v Speaker 1>understand why any symbol would be prepared with any other symbol.

0:30:35.040 --> 0:30:37.640
<v Speaker 1>You don't know the reasoning behind that. All you have

0:30:38.200 --> 0:30:40.640
<v Speaker 1>is a book of rules. But the rules only state

0:30:40.920 --> 0:30:45.200
<v Speaker 1>what your response should be given a specific input. The

0:30:45.280 --> 0:30:48.360
<v Speaker 1>rules don't tell you why either on a granular level

0:30:48.400 --> 0:30:51.479
<v Speaker 1>of what the symbols actually mean or on a larger

0:30:51.520 --> 0:30:54.760
<v Speaker 1>scale when it comes to what you're actually accomplishing in

0:30:54.800 --> 0:30:58.080
<v Speaker 1>this endeavor. All you are doing is filling a physical

0:30:58.160 --> 0:31:01.440
<v Speaker 1>action over and over based on a set of rules

0:31:01.680 --> 0:31:05.080
<v Speaker 1>you don't understand. And Searle then uses this argument to

0:31:05.080 --> 0:31:07.520
<v Speaker 1>say that, essentially we have to think the same way

0:31:07.600 --> 0:31:12.280
<v Speaker 1>about machines. The machines process information based on the input

0:31:12.320 --> 0:31:16.200
<v Speaker 1>they receive and the program that they are following. That's it.

0:31:16.720 --> 0:31:21.120
<v Speaker 1>They don't have awareness or understanding of what the information is.

0:31:21.680 --> 0:31:25.240
<v Speaker 1>Searle was taking aim at a particular concept in AI,

0:31:25.400 --> 0:31:29.560
<v Speaker 1>often dubbed strong AI or general AI. It's a sort

0:31:29.600 --> 0:31:34.200
<v Speaker 1>of general artificial intelligence. So it's something that we could

0:31:34.320 --> 0:31:37.760
<v Speaker 1>or would compared directly to human intelligence, even if it

0:31:37.800 --> 0:31:41.320
<v Speaker 1>didn't work the same way as our intelligence works. The

0:31:41.440 --> 0:31:44.000
<v Speaker 1>argument is that the capacity and the outcomes would be

0:31:44.000 --> 0:31:46.920
<v Speaker 1>similar enough for us to make the comparison. This is

0:31:46.960 --> 0:31:50.080
<v Speaker 1>the type of intelligence that we see in science fiction

0:31:50.200 --> 0:31:54.800
<v Speaker 1>doomsday scenarios where the machines have rebelled against humans, or

0:31:54.840 --> 0:31:59.400
<v Speaker 1>the machines appear to misinterpret simple requests, or the machines

0:31:59.440 --> 0:32:03.440
<v Speaker 1>come to conclud lusions that, while logically sound, spell doom

0:32:03.760 --> 0:32:07.560
<v Speaker 1>for us all. The classic example of this, by the way,

0:32:07.600 --> 0:32:11.320
<v Speaker 1>is appealing to a super smart artificial intelligence and you say,

0:32:11.440 --> 0:32:14.400
<v Speaker 1>could you please bring about world peace because we're we're

0:32:14.440 --> 0:32:18.120
<v Speaker 1>all sorts of messed up, and the intelligence processes this

0:32:18.200 --> 0:32:22.120
<v Speaker 1>and then concludes that while there are at least two humans,

0:32:22.560 --> 0:32:25.000
<v Speaker 1>there can never be a guarantee for peace because there's

0:32:25.000 --> 0:32:30.200
<v Speaker 1>always the opportunity for disagreement and violence between two humans,

0:32:30.240 --> 0:32:33.760
<v Speaker 1>and so to achieve true peace, the computer then goes

0:32:33.840 --> 0:32:37.320
<v Speaker 1>on a killing spree to wipe out all of humanity. Now,

0:32:37.360 --> 0:32:42.080
<v Speaker 1>Cerl is not necessarily saying that computers won't contribute to

0:32:42.160 --> 0:32:45.840
<v Speaker 1>a catastrophic outcome for humanity. Instead, he's saying they're not

0:32:45.920 --> 0:32:50.440
<v Speaker 1>actually thinking or processing information in a truly intelligent way.

0:32:50.480 --> 0:32:54.000
<v Speaker 1>They are arriving in outcomes through a series of processes

0:32:54.320 --> 0:32:57.640
<v Speaker 1>that might appear to be intelligent at first glance, but

0:32:57.680 --> 0:33:00.640
<v Speaker 1>when you break them down, it all reveal themselves to

0:33:00.720 --> 0:33:04.600
<v Speaker 1>be nothing more than a very complex series of mathematical processes.

0:33:04.800 --> 0:33:07.800
<v Speaker 1>You could even break it down further into binary and

0:33:07.880 --> 0:33:11.400
<v Speaker 1>say that ultimately each apparent decision would just be a

0:33:11.440 --> 0:33:15.160
<v Speaker 1>particular sequence of switches that are in the on or

0:33:15.280 --> 0:33:18.920
<v Speaker 1>off position, and the stats of each switch would be

0:33:19.000 --> 0:33:21.880
<v Speaker 1>determined by the input and the program you were running,

0:33:22.120 --> 0:33:27.800
<v Speaker 1>not some intelligent artificial creation that is reasoning through a problem. Essentially,

0:33:28.120 --> 0:33:34.480
<v Speaker 1>Cearle's argument boils down to the difference between syntax and semantics.

0:33:35.240 --> 0:33:38.360
<v Speaker 1>Syntax would be the set of rules that you would

0:33:38.400 --> 0:33:42.560
<v Speaker 1>follow with those symbols. For example, in English, the letter

0:33:42.680 --> 0:33:46.760
<v Speaker 1>Q is nearly always followed by the letter you. The

0:33:47.120 --> 0:33:51.400
<v Speaker 1>few exceptions to this rule mostly involved romanizing words from

0:33:51.480 --> 0:33:55.720
<v Speaker 1>other language, uh, in which the letter Q represents a

0:33:55.800 --> 0:33:59.960
<v Speaker 1>sound that's not natively present in English. So you could

0:34:00.120 --> 0:34:03.160
<v Speaker 1>program a machine to follow the basic rule that the

0:34:03.280 --> 0:34:06.920
<v Speaker 1>symbol Q should be followed by the symbol you, assuming

0:34:06.960 --> 0:34:10.200
<v Speaker 1>you're eliminating all those exceptions I just mentioned. But that

0:34:10.280 --> 0:34:15.360
<v Speaker 1>doesn't lead to a grasp of semantics, which is actual meaning. Moreover,

0:34:15.680 --> 0:34:18.720
<v Speaker 1>Searle asserts that it's impossible to come to a grasp

0:34:18.800 --> 0:34:22.960
<v Speaker 1>of semantics merely through a mastery of syntax. You might

0:34:23.080 --> 0:34:27.480
<v Speaker 1>know those rules flawlessly, but Searle argues, you still wouldn't

0:34:27.560 --> 0:34:30.920
<v Speaker 1>understand why there are rules, or what the output of

0:34:30.920 --> 0:34:35.080
<v Speaker 1>those rules means, or even what the input means. There

0:34:35.120 --> 0:34:38.360
<v Speaker 1>are some general counter arguments that philosophers have made to

0:34:38.480 --> 0:34:43.520
<v Speaker 1>Searle's thought experiment, and according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

0:34:43.560 --> 0:34:49.040
<v Speaker 1>which is a phenomenal resource, it's also incredibly dense. But

0:34:49.360 --> 0:34:53.200
<v Speaker 1>these counter arguments tend to fall into three groups. The

0:34:53.280 --> 0:34:56.520
<v Speaker 1>first group agrees with Searle that the person inside the

0:34:56.560 --> 0:35:00.520
<v Speaker 1>room clearly has no understanding of the Chinese symbols. But

0:35:00.600 --> 0:35:04.200
<v Speaker 1>the group counters the notion that the system as a

0:35:04.200 --> 0:35:06.880
<v Speaker 1>whole can't understand it. In fact, they say the opposite.

0:35:06.880 --> 0:35:09.719
<v Speaker 1>They say, yes, the person inside the room doesn't understand,

0:35:09.760 --> 0:35:14.840
<v Speaker 1>but you're looking at a specific component of a larger system.

0:35:15.080 --> 0:35:18.320
<v Speaker 1>And if we consider the system, or maybe a virtual

0:35:18.440 --> 0:35:23.200
<v Speaker 1>mind that exists due to the system, that does have

0:35:23.280 --> 0:35:26.560
<v Speaker 1>an understanding, this is sort of like saying a neuron

0:35:26.719 --> 0:35:30.840
<v Speaker 1>in the brain doesn't understand anything. It sends along signals

0:35:30.880 --> 0:35:35.480
<v Speaker 1>that collectively and through mechanisms we don't fully understand, become

0:35:35.600 --> 0:35:39.240
<v Speaker 1>thoughts that we can become conscious of. So in this argument,

0:35:39.320 --> 0:35:41.680
<v Speaker 1>the person in the room is just a component of

0:35:41.719 --> 0:35:45.040
<v Speaker 1>an overall system, and the system possesses intelligence even if

0:35:45.040 --> 0:35:48.799
<v Speaker 1>the component does not. The second group argues that if

0:35:49.000 --> 0:35:52.600
<v Speaker 1>the computer system either could simulate the operation of a brain,

0:35:53.160 --> 0:35:56.480
<v Speaker 1>perhaps with billions of nodes, approaching the complexity of a

0:35:56.560 --> 0:36:00.120
<v Speaker 1>human brain with billions of neurons, or if the system

0:36:00.120 --> 0:36:03.520
<v Speaker 1>were to inhabit a robotic body that could have direct

0:36:03.560 --> 0:36:08.279
<v Speaker 1>interaction with its environment, then the system could manifest intelligence.

0:36:08.920 --> 0:36:13.480
<v Speaker 1>The third group rejects Searle's arguments more thoroughly and on

0:36:13.560 --> 0:36:17.759
<v Speaker 1>the basis of various grounds, ranging from Searle's experiment being

0:36:17.840 --> 0:36:20.480
<v Speaker 1>too narrow in scope to an argument about what the

0:36:20.520 --> 0:36:24.520
<v Speaker 1>word understand actually means. This is where things get a

0:36:24.560 --> 0:36:27.880
<v Speaker 1>bit more loosey goosey, and sometimes I feel like arguments

0:36:27.880 --> 0:36:32.080
<v Speaker 1>in this group amount to oh yeah, but again, I'm pragmatic,

0:36:32.239 --> 0:36:35.280
<v Speaker 1>so I tend to have a pretty strong bias against

0:36:35.320 --> 0:36:38.399
<v Speaker 1>these arguments, and I recognize that this means I'm not

0:36:38.520 --> 0:36:42.560
<v Speaker 1>giving them fair consideration because of those biases. A few

0:36:42.600 --> 0:36:45.399
<v Speaker 1>of these arguments take issue with Searle's assertion that one

0:36:45.600 --> 0:36:50.520
<v Speaker 1>cannot grasp semantics through an understanding of syntax. And here's

0:36:50.560 --> 0:36:54.360
<v Speaker 1>something that I find really interesting. Searle originally published this

0:36:54.520 --> 0:36:59.360
<v Speaker 1>argument way back in nineteen It's been nearly forty years

0:36:59.680 --> 0:37:03.080
<v Speaker 1>since first proposed it, and to this day, there is

0:37:03.120 --> 0:37:06.920
<v Speaker 1>no consensus on whether or not his argument is sound.

0:37:07.400 --> 0:37:09.800
<v Speaker 1>So why is that? Well, it's because, as I've covered

0:37:09.800 --> 0:37:13.239
<v Speaker 1>in this episode, the concepts of intelligence and more to

0:37:13.280 --> 0:37:18.040
<v Speaker 1>the point, consciousness are wibbly wobbly, though not as far

0:37:18.080 --> 0:37:21.279
<v Speaker 1>as I can tell, Timey, Whymy. When we can't even

0:37:21.400 --> 0:37:26.200
<v Speaker 1>nail down specific definitions for words like understand, it becomes

0:37:26.200 --> 0:37:29.400
<v Speaker 1>difficult to even tell when we're agreeing or disagreeing on

0:37:29.520 --> 0:37:32.640
<v Speaker 1>certain topics. It could be that while people are in

0:37:32.680 --> 0:37:36.080
<v Speaker 1>a debate and are using words in different ways, it

0:37:36.160 --> 0:37:39.640
<v Speaker 1>turns out there actually in agreement with one another. Such

0:37:39.800 --> 0:37:44.480
<v Speaker 1>is the messiness that is intelligence. Further, we've not yet

0:37:44.520 --> 0:37:48.560
<v Speaker 1>observed anything in the machine world that seems, upon closer examination,

0:37:48.680 --> 0:37:52.799
<v Speaker 1>to reflect true intelligence and consciousness, at least as the

0:37:52.840 --> 0:37:55.920
<v Speaker 1>way we experience it. In fact, we can't say that

0:37:55.960 --> 0:38:00.799
<v Speaker 1>we've seen any artificial constructs that have experienced any thing, because,

0:38:00.840 --> 0:38:03.280
<v Speaker 1>as far as we know, no such device has any

0:38:03.440 --> 0:38:07.399
<v Speaker 1>awareness of itself. Now, I'm not sure if we'll ever

0:38:07.440 --> 0:38:11.560
<v Speaker 1>create a machine that will have true intelligence and consciousness,

0:38:12.160 --> 0:38:15.400
<v Speaker 1>using the word true here to mean human like. Now,

0:38:15.440 --> 0:38:19.359
<v Speaker 1>I feel pretty confident that, if it is possible, we

0:38:19.440 --> 0:38:22.640
<v Speaker 1>will get around to it eventually. It might take way

0:38:22.680 --> 0:38:26.120
<v Speaker 1>more resources than we currently estimate, or maybe it will

0:38:26.120 --> 0:38:29.719
<v Speaker 1>just require a different computational approach, maybe it'll rely on

0:38:29.920 --> 0:38:34.040
<v Speaker 1>bleeding edge technologies like quantum computing. I figure, if it's

0:38:34.080 --> 0:38:37.279
<v Speaker 1>something we can do, we will do it. It's just

0:38:37.320 --> 0:38:41.359
<v Speaker 1>a question of time, really, and further, it's hard for

0:38:41.400 --> 0:38:44.640
<v Speaker 1>me to come to a conclusion other than it will

0:38:44.719 --> 0:38:49.960
<v Speaker 1>ultimately prove possible to make an intelligent conscious construct. Now.

0:38:50.000 --> 0:38:53.799
<v Speaker 1>I believe that because I believe our own intelligence and

0:38:53.840 --> 0:38:58.919
<v Speaker 1>our own consciousness is firmly rooted in our brains. I

0:38:59.120 --> 0:39:02.120
<v Speaker 1>don't think there's an anything mystical involved. And while we

0:39:02.200 --> 0:39:04.480
<v Speaker 1>don't have a full picture of how it happens in

0:39:04.480 --> 0:39:07.880
<v Speaker 1>our brains, we at least know that it does happen,

0:39:08.360 --> 0:39:10.560
<v Speaker 1>and we know some of the questions to ask and

0:39:10.640 --> 0:39:13.879
<v Speaker 1>have some ideas on how to search for answers. It's

0:39:13.920 --> 0:39:16.560
<v Speaker 1>not a complete picture, and we still have a very

0:39:16.600 --> 0:39:18.839
<v Speaker 1>long way to go, but I think it's if it's

0:39:18.880 --> 0:39:21.920
<v Speaker 1>possible to build a full understanding of how our brains

0:39:21.960 --> 0:39:25.920
<v Speaker 1>work with regard to intelligence and consciousness, we'll get there too,

0:39:26.120 --> 0:39:31.160
<v Speaker 1>sooner or later. Probably later, I suppose there's still the

0:39:31.280 --> 0:39:35.960
<v Speaker 1>chance that we could create an intelligent and or conscious

0:39:36.040 --> 0:39:40.560
<v Speaker 1>machine just by luck or accident. And while I intuitively

0:39:40.800 --> 0:39:44.040
<v Speaker 1>feel that this is unlikely, I have to admit that

0:39:44.120 --> 0:39:48.880
<v Speaker 1>intuition isn't really reliable in these matters. It feels to

0:39:49.000 --> 0:39:52.680
<v Speaker 1>me like it is the longest of long shots, but

0:39:52.760 --> 0:39:55.400
<v Speaker 1>that's entirely based on the fact that we haven't managed

0:39:55.440 --> 0:39:59.480
<v Speaker 1>to do it up until now, and including now. Maybe

0:39:59.480 --> 0:40:01.960
<v Speaker 1>the right see points of events is right around the corner.

0:40:02.520 --> 0:40:06.040
<v Speaker 1>Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't

0:40:06.320 --> 0:40:09.920
<v Speaker 1>or won't happen at all, And it's good to remember

0:40:10.200 --> 0:40:14.759
<v Speaker 1>the machines don't need to be particularly intelligent or conscious

0:40:15.040 --> 0:40:19.640
<v Speaker 1>to be useful or potentially dangerous. We can see examples

0:40:19.640 --> 0:40:22.160
<v Speaker 1>of that playing out already with devices that have some

0:40:22.280 --> 0:40:26.319
<v Speaker 1>limited or weak AI. And by limited I mean it's

0:40:26.360 --> 0:40:30.200
<v Speaker 1>not general intelligence. I don't mean that the AI itself

0:40:30.280 --> 0:40:33.879
<v Speaker 1>is somehow unsophisticated or primitive. So it may not even

0:40:33.960 --> 0:40:37.520
<v Speaker 1>matter if we never create devices that have true or

0:40:37.600 --> 0:40:41.160
<v Speaker 1>human like intelligence. We might be able to accomplish just

0:40:41.239 --> 0:40:44.600
<v Speaker 1>as much with something that does not have those capabilities.

0:40:45.480 --> 0:40:48.600
<v Speaker 1>And in other words, this is a very complicated topic,

0:40:49.320 --> 0:40:52.720
<v Speaker 1>one that I think gets oversimplified, and a lot of fiction,

0:40:53.080 --> 0:40:58.400
<v Speaker 1>and also just a lot of speculative prognostications about the future.

0:40:58.480 --> 0:41:01.560
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you'll see a lot of videos about how

0:41:01.960 --> 0:41:05.399
<v Speaker 1>in the future AI is going to perform a more

0:41:05.520 --> 0:41:08.760
<v Speaker 1>intrinsic role, or maybe it will be an existential threat

0:41:08.800 --> 0:41:11.839
<v Speaker 1>to humanity or whatever it may be. And I think

0:41:11.880 --> 0:41:15.400
<v Speaker 1>a lot of that is predicated upon, uh, a deep

0:41:15.840 --> 0:41:21.759
<v Speaker 1>misunderstanding or underestimation of how complicated cognitive neuroscience actually is

0:41:21.800 --> 0:41:25.000
<v Speaker 1>and how little we really understand when it comes to

0:41:25.040 --> 0:41:28.480
<v Speaker 1>our own consciousness, let alone how we would bring about

0:41:28.520 --> 0:41:32.120
<v Speaker 1>such a thing in a different device. I hope you

0:41:32.200 --> 0:41:36.720
<v Speaker 1>enjoyed that rerun, uh, and I promise will be back

0:41:36.840 --> 0:41:39.799
<v Speaker 1>to new episodes very soon. I hope to have a

0:41:39.840 --> 0:41:43.759
<v Speaker 1>news episode for you tomorrow. That's the plan. I have

0:41:44.000 --> 0:41:46.719
<v Speaker 1>an interview I have to do for another show today,

0:41:46.760 --> 0:41:49.560
<v Speaker 1>but after that, I plan on jumping on the Tech

0:41:49.640 --> 0:41:53.880
<v Speaker 1>Stuff news episode. So, uh, trying to get back running.

0:41:54.120 --> 0:41:57.479
<v Speaker 1>You know, I'm not a percent yet, but gosh darn ittt,

0:41:58.160 --> 0:42:00.759
<v Speaker 1>it's this. This show is really what keeps me going.

0:42:00.840 --> 0:42:04.160
<v Speaker 1>So we're gonna We're gonna soldier on the show, as

0:42:04.200 --> 0:42:08.040
<v Speaker 1>they say, must keep on going. I know, I make

0:42:08.040 --> 0:42:10.279
<v Speaker 1>that joke a lot all right. Well, that's it. If

0:42:10.320 --> 0:42:13.320
<v Speaker 1>you have any suggestions for future episodes of tech Stuff,

0:42:13.360 --> 0:42:15.560
<v Speaker 1>please reach out to me. The best way to do

0:42:15.640 --> 0:42:18.919
<v Speaker 1>that is on Twitter. The handle is tech stuff h

0:42:19.040 --> 0:42:22.200
<v Speaker 1>s W you guys, take care. I can tell you

0:42:22.200 --> 0:42:26.640
<v Speaker 1>of food poisoning is no fun. Uh, but the show

0:42:27.040 --> 0:42:30.279
<v Speaker 1>sometimes is. All Right, that's it for me. Bye, I'll

0:42:30.280 --> 0:42:38.160
<v Speaker 1>talk to you again really soon. Text Stuff is an

0:42:38.160 --> 0:42:41.880
<v Speaker 1>I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from my Heart Radio,

0:42:42.200 --> 0:42:45.360
<v Speaker 1>visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever

0:42:45.480 --> 0:42:47.000
<v Speaker 1>you listen to your favorite shows.