What this covers
David Krakauer
We live in a complex world, meaning one that is increasingly connected, evolving, technological, volatile, and potentially poised for catastrophe. And yet we continue to treat the world as if it were a simple world: linear, unchanging, disconnected, and infinitely exploitable.
Complexity science is an approach to understanding and surviving in a complex world. In this lecture, David Krakauer will expose the limitations of simple assumptions in economics, medicine and healthcare, artificial intelligence, and global governance. We need an entirely new framing of nature, of the human role in the natural and technological world, and what it means to prosper on a living planet.
Learn more, follow us on social media and check out our podcasts: https://linktr.ee/sfiscience
Source description (no synthesized summary yet).
Complexity science emerged as a unified framework synthesizing principles from 18th-19th century physics, engineering, and evolution to understand systems that solve problems through mechanisms of emergence screened off from lower-level reductionist explanation.
- Physics (Hamilton's principle) is necessary but not sufficient for understanding complex adaptive systems—emergence requires additional principles
- Complexity science integrates four pillars: dynamical systems, statistical mechanics, computation, and evolution, all addressing 'problem-solving matter'
- Reductionist approaches (amyloid hypothesis, rational actor models, AI hype) fail because they ignore emergence and the multi-level nature of complex phenomena
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
Alzheimer's disease was long considered to be caused by one single mechanism—the amyloid hypothesis, where proteins aggregate and kill neurons—and therefore treated as solvable by one drug targeting the amyloid cascade, but after hundreds of millions of dollars in research, the approach completely failed and as of 2024 drugs like aducanumab are not even on the market, representing exactly the kind of reductionism that the Santa Fe Institute was built to oppose.
“uh adcanumab I'm sure many of you have heard of this uh Alzheimer's disease for long time was considered to be the result of one single mechanism it's called sometimes the amalo hypothesis and the idea is that proteins aggregate they stick together they form fibral those fibres essentially kill neurons and by virtue of those neurons dying you suffer from dementia one simple mechanism for an extraordinarily disconcerting and worrying disease how great that one drug is required to solve the problem that interfaces directly with the amalo Cascade guess what after hundreds of millions of dollars it completely failed and as of 2024 it's not even on the market okay this is exactly the kind of reductionism that the Santa Fe Institute was built to oppose right Alzheimer's has not got one cause and there never will be a single treatment”
James Watt took a machine invented by Christian Huygens to regulate the rotational angular velocity of a windmill blade and used it to regulate the speed of a steam engine, creating the so-called Watt centrifugal governor, which is the first cybernetic machine ever made—a system of feedback control.
“James wat took a machine that had been invented by Christian hyans to regulate the rotational angular velocity of a windmill blade and use them to regulate the speed of an engine this is the so-called watt centrifugal governor and this is what James W said about it to regulate the supply of steam when the valve is parallel to the outside of the Ring it shuts the opening nearly perfectly but when its plane lies at an angle to the ring it emits more or less Steam according to the degree it is opened consequently the Piston is acted upon with more or less Force okay so thermodynamics statistical mechanics and mechanisms of control this device is the first cybernetic machine that was ever made uh a system of feedback control”
In 1858, Darwin received a letter from Alfred Russell Wallace who was in Indonesia (Ternate) proposing the idea of natural selection, causing Darwin to fear he had been 'scooped' after 22 years of delay, so they jointly published their work, though neither attended the presentation—Lyell and Hooker presented it using the metaphor of the Watt centrifugal governor to explain natural selection as a feedback control mechanism.
“we get to 1858 he's writing his Barnacle book and he gets a letter this is a very famous letter it's a letter from this man Alfred Russell Wallace who sends him a letter from turn8 an island in Indonesia where he says he's got this new idea this new idea which is essentially natural selection and and Darwin throws a wobbly and uh he says oh my god I've been scooped I knew about this 22 years ago why didn't I publish so they jointly publish uh and neither of them turn up uh Alfred Russell Wallace has a perfectly good excuse he's around the other side of the world and Charles Darwin is just a missing thr and so he doesn't present it it's presented by actually Charles ly and hooker and what metaphor do they use to explain natural selection we have also here an acting cause or principle to account for that balance so often observed in nature the action of this principle is exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine”
Babbage presented his lectures on the analytical engine in 1840 to the Italian royal family (hoping totalitarian despots would fund him better than British Parliament), left his papers in Turin, and Luigi Menabrea transcribed his lectures into French, after which Ada Lovelace (Lord Byron's daughter and a friend of Babbage) translated it into English and added an appendix containing the first computer program ever written—a program for computing the Bernoulli sequence—and went on to explain that the real future value of computers would be to be composers of music and ideas.
“in 1840 he went to Chin where just were to actually see babbage's papers and he presented a series of lectures on what he called the analytical engine which was the first real concept of a general purpose computer and he was so frustrated with British Parliament who wouldn't fund him he thought that the Italian roal family the seavoy family because they were totalitarian despots they would fund him because you only had to convince one person as opposed to uh he was unsuccessful he left his papers in chin um and this is one of his absolutely beautiful diagrams for one of the cogs in the analytical engine he gave the lecture it was transcribed by an Italian mathematician Luigi manaba into French and adah Lovelace Lord Byron's daughter who was a friend of Charles babage translated it into English and she added an appendix to her translation which is here which is the first computer program it's actually a computer program for the computation of the Buon buoni sequence buoni numbers kind of an amazing thing she actually went on to explain that actually the real value of computers in the future would be to be composers so she was completely Visionary”
Leibniz took basic mathematical concepts of optimization and applied them to absolutely everything, including society and metaphysics in his works Essays in Theodicy (how we account for evil in a world overseen by an omnipotent, omniscient transcendent being) and Monadology, arguing that 'as there are an infinity of possible universes in the ideas of God, but only one can exist, there must be a sufficient reason for the choice of God which determines him to select one rather than another'—meaning that of all possible worlds, the world we live in is the one selected by God as the best of all possible worlds.
“and the interesting thing about lietz is he took this basic mathematical concept of optimization and applied it to absolutely everything and the book that voler was actually criticizing or the two was this one on the left the essays in The Odyssey which is how we account for evil in a world that is essentially overseen and controlled by an omnipotent omniscient you know Transcendent being uh and the book on the right the onm monadology and what lianet did is he took his insights from mathematics and physics and applied them to society and metaphysics and this is what he says now as there are an Infinity of possible universes in the ideas of God and but for one of them can ex and but one of them can exist there must be a sufficient reason for the choice of God which determines him to select one rather than another so of all the possible Worlds the world we live in is the one selected by God and this reason is to be found only in the fitness or in the degree of perfection which these worlds possess”
The period of the Industrial Revolution (19th century) produced thermodynamics and statistical mechanics—a different kind of physics from planetary physics—that emerged from studying engineered devices like steam engines, and the two great formulas of that period are the entropy formula from Clausius in thermodynamics and the entropy formula from Boltzmann in statistical mechanics, both of which express that any work that you engage in will generate disorder, measured as the number of configurations of an average measurement.
“and out of those machines came the science that we now call thermodynamics and statistical mechanics this stuff Caro's famous book on Reflections on the Motive Power of fire um Tate's sketch of thermodynamics the mechanical theory of heat the theory of heat and introduction to gas Theory by boltzman this is a different kind of physics this isn't the physics of planets even though now it turns out we can use this kind of physics it's a physics that came out of the study of engineered devices and the two great formula at least as far as I'm concerned of that period were these and I showed them really for artistic effect the two entropy Formula One from Claus from ther dyamics and from from boltzman in statistical mechanics that is that any work that you engage in will generate disorder”
In 1856 (the same year Kant wrote his monographs on seismology), Kant also wrote in the Critique of Judgment the beautiful remark 'There will never be a Newton of the blade of grass,' which is a poetic statement that it is impossible to create a deterministic, universal theory of biological systems comparable to Newton's physics, reflecting his belief that higher-order systems require explanatory principles beyond physics.
“in 1856 the same year that Emanuel Kent wrote his monographs on seismology he also wrote in the critique of judgment this very beautiful thing that will enrage Jeffrey uh there will never be a Newton of the blade of grass which is a kind of a beautiful poetic remark which is a natural philosophical extrapolation from his beliefs that he presented in his early work which is a position incidentally which I strongly share”
Leibniz's fundamental error was ontological reductionism: because extremization of an action is true in physics, he believed it must be true everywhere—a direct implication of his view that physics is how God operates—and therefore everything observed must happen for a good reason, which is the reductionist position that to understand the complex world (cultural world), one must understand it in terms of principles of physics.
“but the problem with liet as I said is that he was an ontological reductionist he said that if the extremization of an action was true in physics then it should be true everywhere right because that's how God operates and so the way we understand the complex what we would call the complex world the cultural world let's say uh is in terms of principles of physics and therefore everything that we observe has to happen for a good reason”
Voltaire and his partner Émilie du Châtelet (a hidden figure in history and the more gifted mathematician) were not anti-physics—they translated Newton and introduced his work—but were deists rather than theists, believing God created physical law but had no interest in the human world, so physics was not visible to God, and anything that happened after God's creation was of no concern to God and had no bearing on what occurred at other levels.
“now voler was not anti- physics in fact volair and a hidden figure in history which I'm now going to add to the original book there she is Emily dehat this was volta's partner for 16 years actually Vol lived with her and her husband which was kind of volish and and he was quite happy I mean it's great right and um and she was by far the more gifted mathematician and so she should be mentioned um so it wasn't that they were anti physics anti- Newton they translated Newton they introduced his work um but they were deists not theists okay um what that means is interestingly that God created physical law but he had no interest in the human world you know that's that's not visible to God physics is anything that happens afterwards is of no concern and so it's it's not that he was an the extremization of the action it's that he thought it had no bearing on what happened at other levels”
When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859, he removed the governor metaphor and replaced it with gravity as the mechanism for natural selection, reasoning that the governor 'feels like a little widget' without the universality of gravity, but this was 'a terrible metaphor' that doesn't work, and Darwin himself acknowledges this by treating gravity as merely metaphorical language.
“now when daan published the Origin of Species in 1859 he took that out and he replaced the governor with gravity he thought Governor is this little widget doesn't feel like a universal principle and need to put something more Grand in its place and he put gravity in its place which is completely pointless it doesn't work at all and he says as much um it has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power JY but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets everyone knows this as meant as a metaphor and blah blah blah it was a terrible metaphor”
Alzheimer's disease and all complex diseases of living systems will not have a single cause and there will never be a single treatment, and this fact will be true for all complex diseases—a principle that the Santa Fe Institute was fundamentally built to oppose reductionist approaches to these problems.
“Alzheimer's has not got one cause and there never will be a single treatment and that will be true for all complex diseases of living systems”
When Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's conjecture, he went through deductions entirely in mathematical language, and the correctness of the proof has absolutely nothing to do with his brain, psychology, neuroscience, economics, who trained him, or any other lower-level mechanism—the proof is truly emergent, explaining mathematical truth through purely mathematical means without reference to the substrate implementing it.
“the mathematical statement of the problem he goes through a whole series of deductions and he culminates with a proof actually he made a mistake first time round and he had to go back and fix it but the point about the proof is it's entirely made in a mathematical language okay there is nothing to be gained by looking at um his brain right there's you could sort of do neurom maath you say no actually somehow if I knew something about Andrew W's brain I'd get an insight into that proof and and that's absolutely nonsense the truth of that proof has absolutely nothing to do with his brain the fact that he chose to work on that problem has something to do with his brain and if he didn't have a brain he couldn't proov the theorem but the correctness of the proof has nothing to do with psychology or Neuroscience or any other field of science other than mathematics okay it also has nothing to do with economics how much he was paid or the market for mathematicians okay it's irrelevant and it also has nothing to do with who he was trained by all of those would be interesting exercises in themselves to understand something about Andrew Wilds but they don't bear on the correctness of a proof”
The failure of the amyloid hypothesis to treat Alzheimer's disease has generated soul-searching and reflection on why people were seduced by 'the ultimate reductionist premise' of that treatment, illustrating a moment when simplicity outweighs the complexity science of emergence.
“and this of course as you generated a huge amount of s of soul searching and reflection on why people were so seduced by the ultimate reductionist premise of that treatment so for me this is when Simplicity outweighs the complexity science of emergence”
Economic rationality based on non-cooperative game theory (developed by John Nash and building on work by von Neumann) is a mathematically elegant equilibrium theory for strategic interactions that is 'extraordinarily simple' but is often presented as a normative theory when it is really just a thought experiment, and the extension of this simple model to real economic systems represents another case where simplicity outweighs complexity science.
“there's a very important paper it's a paper that is included in the foundational papers of complexity science it was written by John Nash here's my statement about sausages so um when I first met John Nash and I I think some of mentioned this before here but I'll mention it again because it's fun I was in Princeton at the time and I was waiting for a bus to go from The Institute for Advance study into town and I've worked in Game Theory and I hadn't met John at the time and I'm sitting down and say oh my God that's John Nash Professor Nash it's just wonderful to meet you my name is David krackow and he looked at me and he said CRA hour Frankfurter hamburger and so so yeah so they're all comestibles um but they're all cities and Jewish surname and so you get the city of provenance but they also turn out to be sausages armies and other things like that so uh anyway there's John Nash and he works on this extraordinary formalism building on the work of onyan others um what we now call non-cooperative game theory that becomes an industry in economics and is incredibly influential in political science it's in some sense the kind of intellectual Armature supporting mutually assured destruction it's extraordinarily simple equilibrium mathematical theory for strategic interactions the thing is it's not a normative Theory it's just a thought experiment that's rigorously fleshed out”
A critical observation about emergence is that 'emergence tends to fail as a concept when the system fails and you have to go down to a lower level of explanation,' which means that biomedical science's focus on studying failure (disease) leads to bias in theories of causation that are actually biased by the failure mode of emergence, contributing to reductionist errors in medicine.
“there's a very interesting property of emergence which is emergence tends to fail as a concept when the system fails and you have to go down to a lower level of explanation and it's actually one of the problems with biomedical science because it only studies failure and so our theories of causation are biased by the failure mode which is actually the failure mode of emergence but is a complicated concept”
Krakow illustrates emergence with the example that 'it's very inefficient to communicate with each other by transmitting action potentials of 86 billion neurons' but one can say 'something like that's a good idea,' which is a 'coarse-grain representation of a very high-dimensional space of brain activation,' and emergence of language may be required to coordinate populations on timescales shorter than a lifespan.
“it's very inefficient to communicate with each other by transmitting action potential of 86 billion neurons in our brain it's just not going to happen right it'll take us forever but I can say to something like that's a good idea that statement is a coar grain representation of a very high dimensional space of brain activation and it could be that emergence of language right is required to coordinate populations on time scales that are shorter than a lifespan so I think there might be an argument for it but I've not seen a a proof or theory of this”
Ulam played a fundamental role in developing experimental mathematics and hybrid approaches to science using computers, which led to primitive ideas at the time but much more developed later of what became known as complexity, and he was involved in early conversations about founding an Institute like the Santa Fe Institute.
“he played this this very F fundamental role in developing this um sort of hybrid way of doing science kind of experimental mathematics if you like and um uh that led to ideas primitive ideas at the time but much more developed later of what became known as complex ity and uh he was certainly involved in early conversations to do with having an Institute like the Santa Fe Institute which you hear more about uh when David talks”
Out of the Lisbon earthquake came two very important works: a series of papers on the causes of earthquakes by Emanuel Kant (who started as a seismologist and physicist before becoming known as a philosopher) and Voltaire's novel Candide (or The Optimist).
“out of this earthquake came two very important works for our purposes uh one a series of papers on the causes of earthquakes by Emanuel Kant who you know as a philosopher but who started as a seis olist and physicist um and the other book candid or The Optimist written by Voltaire”
Dr. Pangloss was inspired by Gottfried Leibniz, a great polymath and pioneer in early computer science, who in his mathematical work derived methods for determining minima and maxima of functions and invented the calculus in order to do so, which upset Isaac Newton who thought Leibniz had stolen his work.
“does anyone in this audience know who the inspiration for Dr pangos was livets livets here is um a manuscript by godfried livet uh great polymath mathematician Pioneer in what we would now think of as computer science uh and this is a paper in which he derived a method for determining Minima and Maxima of functions and in order to do so he had to invent the calculus this incidentally is the paper that so upset Isaac Newton because he thought and maybe he was right at least he declared it to be right when he oversaw the tribunal that decided who had invented the calculus um that he had and so that's lietz”
Charles Babbage was a great 19th-century historian and critic/commentator on machines who traveled throughout Britain interviewing designers, industrialists, and engineers to determine how they made their machines, and aimed to build a machine that could supersede not just the skill and power of the human arm (as other machines did) but the skill and power of the human mind—what we would now call a computer.
“the great historian or critic commentator on machines in the 19th century with Charles babage um and he wrote this book called on the economy of manufacturers of manufacturer and he traveled all over Britain interviewing designers industrialists Engineers to determine how they made their machines and he says the object of the present volume is to point out the effects and the advantages arise from the use of tools and machines um and to trace both the causes and the consequences of applying Machinery to supersede the skill and power of the human arm this was the kind of prosthetic principle at play but what babage really wanted to do was to supersede the skill and power of the human mind that was his ultimate goal he wanted to build a different kind of machine a machine that we would Now call a computer”
Phil Anderson, a Nobel Prize winner and one of the founders of the Santa Fe Institute, wrote a foundational paper called 'More is Different' which addresses the concept of emergence—how problem-solving matter produces or contends with emergence—and understanding emergence is crucial for addressing contemporary world problems.
“the person I think who is most insightful on that topic was one of the founders of the Santa Fe Institute and that's Phil Anderson who won the Nobel Prize and condensed metaphysics in this paper that he wrote called more is different so somehow problem solving matter produces or contends with this idea of emergence and and I'm going to go on when I talk at the very end about some of the problems of the Contemporary world as being in some sense dismissive or not sufficiently understanding of the importance of that con”
Machine learning and large language models will be very important ingredients in future science, but the hype around them (claiming they will solve climate, poverty, and disease) represents 'simplemindedness' and 'Dr. Pangloss speaking English'—applying reductionist thinking to complex multifactorial problems.
“but it's not true for those reasons okay there's no what does you mean disease what it's so fool I don't know where to begin and um not to say that machine learning and large language model won't be a very important ingredient in all future science that's true right but this is simplemindedness this is Dr pangloss speaking English and actually there's a very nice paper by uh Terry saginowski at the sulk on what's called uh the reverse churing test and Melanie I you may talk about it tomorrow this is very nice it's been discovered in the last few years by analyzing transcripts between users of chat gbt and llama or whatever that the intelligence of the machine is a mirror of the intelligence of the interlocutor right that if in other words um if you ask clever questions it gives clever answers if you ask stupid questions it gives stupid answers so what llms really are is mirrors they are very very expensive IQ tests okay that's the idea of the reverse TR test”
Ulam laid foundational work in nonlinear science and nonlinear dynamics, which led ultimately to ideas of chaos, and he developed the Monte Carlo method while at Los Alamos, which has had extraordinary impact on computation of problems across the entire spectrum of science and technology.
“ulam's major contributions as far as the the the foundings of the Santa Institute were that um he was someone that really laid the foundations of what we call nonlinear science nonlinear Dynamics and that led ultimately to ideas of chaos and so on and one of the things that he did very early on um and and inspired also B by John noyman was to recognize the power of computation of computers in solving major problems that were not ad meable to traditional mathematical methodologies and um in that he developed some while he was uh still at Los Alamos something that became very famous uh which was called the Monte Carlo method which has had an extraordinary impact in terms of computation uh of problems arranging across the entire spectrum of Science and Technology”
Charles Darwin lived on the HMS Beagle in a space of about 10 ft by 10 ft with two other men for five years, during which the captain (Fitzroy) ensured there was a well-stocked library including Charles Lyall's Principles of Geology (which established that the Earth is dynamic and changing slowly under natural forces—the idea of uniformitarianism) and later Darwin read Malthus's Principles of Population, which argued that populations grow exponentially while resources grow linearly, creating competition for finite resources.
“Darwin lived here he lived in a uh space of about 10 ft by 10 ft with two other men for five years so you know think about a trip to marenbach I mean they kind of did it um and when he was on that boat uh Fitzroy the captain was very religious but very well read and he made sure that there was a very well stocked library on the beagle in fact Darwin's room was not only shared with a mast and two other men but with the library and in that Library was a book by Charles Lyall the principles of geology this is the book that says that the Earth is dynamic and it's changing slowly under the action of natural forces okay so nothing stays the same and he called this idea uniformitarianism Darwin read that book and was much inspired by it when he got back from the Beagle Voyage he read this book malthus's principles of population this is a very important book uh in this book Malthus points out the populations grow exponentially but resources grow linearly”
A common statement about generative AI is that 'Generative AI is the key to solving some of the world's biggest problems such as climate change poverty and disease' and 'has the potential to make the world a better place for everyone,' but Krakow argues this statement is simplistic and false: there's 'no what does you mean disease'—the statement conflates vastly different problems into a single solution narrative.
“and here's one of my favorites generative AI is the key to solving some of the world's biggest problems such as climate change poverty and disease it has the potential to make the world a better place for everyone I think Mark zacher Bird's concept of everyone is different from everyone's but I think this statement is true for him for other reasons um but it's not true for those reasons okay there's no what does you mean disease what it's so fool I don't know where to begin”
Phil Anderson's statement that 'the arrogance of the past physicist and his intensive research may be behind us' (referring to reductionist physicists) but 'we have yet to recover from that of some molecular biologists determined to try to reduce everything about the human organism to only chemistry, from the common cold and all mental disease to the religious instinct' indicates the persistence of reductionist thinking across scientific fields.
“and here's what he says the arrogance of the past I physicist and his intensive research may be behind us this is a Nobel prize winning physicist talking about the Discover of the positron said the rest is chemistry but we have yet to recover from that of some molecular biologists determined to try to reduce everything about the human organism to only chemistry from the common cold and all mental disease to the religious instinct each level can require a whole new conceptual structure”
Voltaire wrote in his response to the Lisbon earthquake that 'the sages of that country could think of no means more effectual to prevent utter ruin than to give the people a beautiful Auto defay for it had been decided by the University of quebra that the burning of a few people alive by a slow fire and with great ceremony is an infallible secret to hinder the Earth from quaking'—sarcastically critiquing the clerical response of the Inquisition.
“this is what Vol Vol wrote after the earthquake had destroyed 34s of Lisbon the sages of that country could think of no means more effectual to prevent utter ruin than to give the people a beautiful Auto defay for it had been decided by the University of quebra that the burning of a few people alive by a slow fire and with great ceremony is an infallible secret to hinder the Earth from quaking okay okay so that's the volair you know the sort of an clerical volair the Abolitionist volter the advocate of freedom of expression and the separation of the power of church and state”
In Candide, the real antagonist is not the church but Dr. Pangloss, a character who embodies the philosophy that 'all that is for the best' and 'it is impossible that things should be other than they are for everything is right'—representing Leibniz's optimistic rationalism that this is 'the best of all possible worlds'.
“the real antagonist in candid wasn't the church but someone else and I'm sure some of you read the book many of you might have and it's Dr pangloss the character in the novel who says this for said he all that is for the best if there is a volcano at Lisbon it cannot be elsewhere it is impossible that things should be other than they are for everything is right”
Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Conjecture, which states that the equation x^n + y^n = z^n has no solutions for n equal to or greater than three (looks like a version of the Pythagorean theorem but is an enormously difficult problem), and this problem demonstrates that 'it's often the simplest things that are the most complex things and complex things are often rather trivial.'
“you remember this uh Andrew WS who proved the firmat conjecture right that's this point that three integers um raised to power n this equation has no solutions for n equal to or greater than three it looks like some version of the Pythagoras Theorem it looks absolutely trivial a child should be able to prove this is not true that happens to be not the case turns out to be an enormously difficult problem it's a very interesting just as a a sort of a editorial remark that it's often the simplest things that are the most complex things and complex things are often rather trivial”
Reductionism (exemplified by Leibniz and Steven Weinberg) claims that to understand the temporal evolution of phenomena at every level of a hierarchy, one must look at the most reduced level, making higher-level phenomena epiphenomena—this is 'a manifestly false statement' as demonstrated by the mathematical example of Fermat's proof.
“liit was a reductionist and within this framework this is what that means it means to understand the temporal evolution of every level every hierarchy of phenomena the only real way to understand their evolution is to look at the most reduced level this is the kind of position of people like Steven Weinberg and even Roger Penrose to a certain point degree right that if I want to understand things like Consciousness I really have to understand physics right everything else is an epip phenomenon this is a manifestly false statement and the reason I gave the mathematical example is because I think that one's incontestable”
Emergence means that different levels of explanation appear to be supported by mechanisms of protection that allow rigorous explanations to be provided at almost an infinite number of distinct levels, making poetry operating according to its own rules every bit as rigorous as mathematical physics.
“so okay so that's a bit on immer Ence right emergence is this interesting phenomena where different levels appear supported by mechanisms of protection that allow explanations to be provided that are equally rigorous at almost an infinite number of distinct levels right so that come back to it's kind of profound because it means that poetry operating according to to its own own rules is every bit as rigorous as mathematical physics”
In emergence, phenomena at the lower level are 'screened off' from the phenomenon at hand through mechanisms of protection (called 'mesoscopic protectorates' by SFI physicists David Pines and Robert Laughlin), which also serve as mechanisms of robustness, allowing explanations to be provided at multiple hierarchical levels with equal rigor.
“the key point about emergence is that as I said before to understand the progress of the mathematical concern you don't have to look at the lower levels they're making progress too Andrew Wild's brain is also changing in time but it's not material and there are very good reasons for that uh and in our field we call those mechanisms of protection made very famous by actually some SFI Affiliated physicists David Pines and Robert llin where they called this the principle of mesoscopic protectorates what makes it possible to ignore lower levels somehow they are screened off from the phenomenon at hand we would call those also mechanisms of robustness now within this framework voler and chatet were emergentist they were saying yes there are rules of physics and if you're making physical measurements you need to know them but if you're making measurements at a higher level even though they're operating they're not Material”
Alan Turing was despairing at people's efforts to define intelligence in terms of a fundamental theory, so he replaced the theoretical question with a practical test—the Turing test (imitation game)—where a system is intelligent if it can convince you that it is, a move that 'has led to all sorts of simplifications and silly statements.'
“this is one of the key papers uh this is a paper by Alan churing one of our Collective Heroes for all sorts of reasons um and in this paper he was despairing at people's efforts to Define intelligence in terms of having a fundamental theory of intelligence It's Kind interesting if you think about that in relation to aluring and he said look I'm going to get rid of a theory of intelligence and replace it with a test of intelligence and that all know as the imitation game or the touring test um a system is intelligent if it can convince you that it is sort of weird and this has led to all sorts of simplifications and silly statements”
In response to a question about emergence applied to ideas, Krakow proposes that one can 'start anywhere' in ontological order—with mind, then math, then physics, then chemistry, then biology; or with physics first then chemistry then biology then mind—and what matters is 'closing the cycle' and rigorously tracing the path back from one's point of insertion, suggesting no level is more 'fundamental' than any other.
“um so I thought one thing that you were doing with starting which would be fine with with a kind of platonism that it's mind first and physics and chemistry and biology second and in fact David Ward and I who's here recently wrote a piece called the reality or aorus where we make the claim that you can start anywhere right you could start with mind mind makes math math makes quantum gravity quantum gravity makes whatever fields and time that makes chemistry makes biology and so on or you could just start with you can start anywhere it simply doesn't matter as long as you close the cycle so I don't believe in the concept of foundational fundamental science I believe that any point is equally foundational it's just that you have to rigorously trace out the path back to your point of insertion once you've done so”
The reverse Turing test (proposed by Terry Saginowski) shows that the intelligence of a large language model is a mirror of the intelligence of the user: if you ask clever questions, it gives clever answers; if you ask stupid questions, it gives stupid answers—so LLMs are fundamentally mirrors and expensive IQ tests, not genuine intelligence systems.
“there's a very nice paper by uh Terry saginowski at the sulk on what's called uh the reverse churing test and Melanie I you may talk about it tomorrow this is very nice it's been discovered in the last few years by analyzing transcripts between users of chat gbt and llama or whatever that the intelligence of the machine is a mirror of the intelligence of the interlocutor right that if in other words um if you ask clever questions it gives clever answers if you ask stupid questions it gives stupid answers so what llms really are is mirrors they are very very expensive IQ tests okay that's the idea of the reverse TR test I kind of funny and a bit alarming”
The principle of optimization (that of all possible paths, the path that minimizes some quantity like time, distance, or energy is taken) is one of the most powerful concepts in mathematical physics, generalized in the 19th century to Hamilton's principle or the principle of stationary action (also called the principle of least action), and is probably the most important idea in physics.
“that idea of the best of all possible world the principle of optimization is one of the most powerful Concepts in mathematical physics it's generalization in the 19th century led to What's called the Hamilton's principle or the principle of stationary action M persus called it the principle of least action and it says that of all possible paths that say for example light could take through space or that a mask mask could take through the solar system um is the path that minimizes some quantity time for example or distance or energy and mathematically that consists in extremizing the action finding the stationary points of the action functional which is here demonstrated by setting the so-call lran to zero now this is this is correct this is marvelous this is the world of physics this idea is probably the most important idea in physics”
In response to a question about why complexity science uses the term 'complex,' Krakow explains that Warren Weaver distinguished between 'simplicity' (classical mechanics), 'disorganized complexity' (statistical phenomena like gases), and 'organized complexity' (what he was interested in), and the formal measure is Kolmogorov complexity: the length of the theory required to describe the observation—complex systems require longer, non-compressible descriptions.
“I mean why was that utilized what's complex about them because looking at emerging behaviors they're simple well I mean maybe depends on the Observer um the um the origin of that term uh from the Warren Weaver paper is um he talked about Simplicity by which he meant classical mechanics classical phenomena he then talked about what he called disorganized complexity by which he meant statistical phenomena like the behavior of gases uh understood through statistical physics and somewhere between these two he was interested in organized complexity as he called it um the formal answer to your question has to do with something called kogo complexity which is how compressible the phenomenon is you can think about it as the length of the theory required to to describe the observation and it turns out that you can write down uh Newton's law of gravitation and it will apply anywhere in the universe but if I right and with extraordinary predictive accuracy because you're dealing with a very simple system but I can write down a theory for a blade of grass and it won't work for a dandelion and so the description length of the systems you study grow in proportion they scale in a certain way they're extensive are theories”
Robert Solow, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, wrote a paper called 'How Did Economics Get That Way?' arguing that 'to the extent that economists have the ambition to behave like physicists they face two dangerous pitfalls: the temptation to believe that the laws of economics are like the laws of physics (exactly the same everywhere on Earth and at every moment), and the part of economics that is independent of history and social context is not only small but dull—complex economics is giant and fascinating.'
“here is a paper by a Nobel Prize winner in economics and he wrote this wonderful paper called how did economics get that way and what and what way did it get and you'll see now why I mentioned lianet and Vol at the beginning and this is what solo writes to the extent that economists have the ambition to behave like physicists they fa two dangerous pitfalls the first is the temptation to believe that the laws of economics and like the laws of physics exactly the same everywhere on Earth and at every moment since hect up that is certainly true about the behavior of heat and light but the part of Economics that is independent of history and social context is not only small but dull and complex economics is Giant and fascinating”
In response to a question about hierarchy vs. heterarchy (Doug Hofstadter's concept where interesting stuff happens through leakage across levels), Krakow acknowledges 'both are interesting' and notes 'most phenomena have leakage across levels,' particularly in failure modes, and medical conditions likely require understanding genetics, biochemistry, and psychology, making multifactorial interventions necessary.
“I'm sure I'm sure both are interesting I um I think most phenomena have leakage across levels uh right if you think so and that's probably and I said I think that's probably true in in Failure modes I think most for example conditions in medicine probably have that property where to have a full understanding you need to understand some genetics some biochemistry all the way up to some psychology right and your intervention into such a system should be multifactorial to respect that fact and there are other cases where it's not true and I think but so I I don't I think you're right and it's an empirical question which systems have which property”
Turner's painting of the opening of a railroad and bridge in 1844 is an allegory of thermodynamics: Turner showed the train as partially invisible/blurry because it was traveling at 30 mph (extraordinarily fast for the time), and importantly showed the interior of the steam engine (the thermodynamics), making visible the mechanism that machines work by and introducing the visual representation of thermodynamic principles.
“this is a beautiful painting many of you know it this is Turner's painting on actually the opening of a bridge and a railroad 1844 and what's interesting about this painting by turn is two things um many things I imagine but one is he made the train partially invisible in blurry because it was traveling so fast 30 m an hour in Santa Fe if someone's traveling at 30 m an hour they're not moving that's not what I believe but it's what people behind me believe uh the other thing he did is he showed the interior of the steam engine this is not possible right he's showing the thermodynamics of steam and you could call this painting if I were to title it I would have called it an allegory of thermodynamics because that's what he was really talking about inside that engine inside that train”
Complexity science stands in relation to the Industrial Revolution as mathematical physics stands to the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century—complexity science is fundamentally the science of machines and represents the genealogy of machine science.
“so I like to say that complexity science stands in relation to the Industrial Revolution as mathematical physics does to the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century we are the descendants of the science of machines that's what complexity science is in its geneology”
At the Santa Fe Institute, we study 'problem-solving matter'—matter that can be configured in such a way as to solve problems, whether they are markets, minds, or machines—and the relevant concepts for understanding problem-solving matter are efficiency, scaling, robustness, resilience, intelligence, and inequality.
“we don't ST study ordinary matter at SFI we study matter that's can be configured in such a way as to solve problems and they can be markets they can be mins they can be machines it doesn't really matter and I have to sort of sorry put a a plug-in for uh article that came out today that I wrote with my colleague Chris kempes on problem solving matter so if you have some time in your hands um you can go and read this paper it was published today in Eon it's very readable and it's got nice pretty pictures and if you study problem solving matter there are just Concepts that are relevant efficiency scaling robustness resilience intelligence inequality”
The key distinction between reductionism and emergentism is that Hamilton's principle (principle of optimization) in the physical world does not imply something like Darwin's principle of optimization in the complex world—it is not that it doesn't matter or isn't playing out, but that it is necessary but not sufficient, and all of complexity science is in some sense an effort to fill in the gap where physics ends and the complex world begins.
“and the way we would say it now is that Hamilton's principle the principle of optimization in the physical world does not imply something like Darwin's principle optimization in the complex world it's not that it doesn't matter it's not that it's not playing out it's necessary but not sufficient and in in some sense you could argue that all of complexity science is an effort to fill in that Gap where physics ends and the complex world begins”
Kant observed in his papers on the causes of earthquakes that the real calamity in Lisbon was not just the physical earthquake itself but urban planning, economics, sociology—slums and the quality of building materials—meaning the catastrophe was about the complex world more than about the physical world.
“the catastroph at Lisbon thus seems to have been exacerbated by its position along the banks of the ters that's the geomorphology and for this reason any town in a country where earthquakes have been experienced several times and where their Direction can be known from previous experiences not be planned in a direction that is the same as that of the earthquakes so what K said is the real Calamity in Lisbon was urban planning right it was about economics and sociology uh about slums about the quality of building materials yes it was about the physical world but it was much more about what we will see as the complex world”
In the same year that Darwin published the Origin of Species (1859), James Clerk Maxwell published a paper on the nonlinear dynamics of the stability of Saturn's rings, but Maxwell realized that what was more important than rings was to study governors and feedback control mechanisms, so Maxwell (understanding gravity much better than Darwin) moved toward the study of machines and their regulation.
“it was a terrible metaphor in fact interestingly the same year of the publication of origin species James clar Maxwell publishes this paper on the nonlinear dynamics of the stability of Saturn's rings okay it's a very important paper it's actually a very interesting concept we now have more advanced concepts to explain the stability of the Rings but even Maxwell realized well that's not such an interesting thing what I really should be working on is Governors and so James CL Maxwell oops sorry James CL Maxwell did the reverse Darwin gave up on this mechanical idea in place of gravity and Maxwell he knew gravity much better than Darwin moved towards the study of machines”
Complexity science's greatest contribution to human culture will not be helping solve the climate problem or disease, but rather providing 'a new kind of intellectual pluralism supported by the concept of emergence' that represents 'a kind of escape from intellectual monomania'—a more profound intellectual contribution than practical problem-solving.
“I think that complexity science's greatest contribution to human culture will be a new kind of intellectual pluralism supported by the concept of emergence in addition to helping solve the climate problem and help us along with disease but I think there's a much more profound contribution intellectually that it can make which is a kind of escape from intellectual monomania”
In response to a question about studying 'the evolution of stupidity,' Krakow states 'I'm not frightened of intelligence but I'm terrified of stupidity' and notes that many people study intelligence but few study stupidity (partly for sociological reasons—narcissism and avoiding negative professional labels), and defines intelligence as 'making difficult problems easy' while stupidity is 'making easy problems hard.'
“I'm not frightened of intelligence but I'm terrified of stupidity right um and it's interesting fact that everyone many people in this audience are now studying intelligence and I think there's a kind of kind of narcissistic Dimension to that because there's a hope that it might sort of reflect I study therefore I am i s um very few people study stupidity and I sometimes joke that you know you want to be called the intelligence Professor not the stupid Professor right so I think there are all sorts of sociological explanations but quite seriously here's a very simple way of saying it um and it relates to that statement I made about problem solving matter so what is intell Ence I'm just going to say very quickly intelligence is making difficult problems easy okay that's what we mean by intelligence uh and you can dress it up as much as you like uh but essentially that's what it is and stupidity is making easy problems hard okay”
The Lisbon earthquake was in some sense the 18th century analog of the COVID crisis for us because it challenged all the systems of the world, generating huge cultural consternation by raising the question of how such a pious city devoted to prayer and disdainful of scientific progress could be the victim of such an annihilating act of God—a problem for theodicy.
“this was in some sense the 18th century analog of the covid crisis for us because it challenged all the systems of the world this is the the original before after picture that newspapers are so fond of vois presenting us with uh that was drawn at the time now the reason I want to talk about this is because this event generated a huge amount of cultural consternation because how could such a Pious city right uh so devoted to prayer uh so disdainful of scientific progress be the victim of such an annihilating act of God okay it was a problem for theodicy”
An interesting fact about intelligence and stupidity is that 'the weird thing about intelligent given my definition is it's efficient stupidity is inefficient,' and Krakow suggests that stupidity 'has much more to do with power than to do with understanding,' without needing to make explicit remarks about the current political situation for the audience to understand the implication.
“and you can dress that up too actually and and I think it's not clear to me why we do that actually because it's more work the weird thing about intelligent given my definition is it's efficient stupidity is inefficient and and I think the clues are that it has much more to do with power than to do with understanding and uh and I think I don't need to make any remarks about the current political situation for you to understand how compelling a remark that was okay”
In response to a question about whether the lecture distinguished physics from complexity, Krakow clarifies that the distinction is 'necessary but not sufficient'—physics is necessary for understanding complex phenomena, but physics alone is insufficient; something must happen beyond Hamilton's principle to explain the complex world.
“so necessary not sufficient right I think this is really the point I I think that all of those ideas are absolutely foundational that's why I spent time on them and uh but what's so interesting right is that physics is universal but as far as the empirical data that we possess now suggests is life is unique now it might be we discover life elsewhere in the universe we haven't thus far and so somehow something has to happen Beyond Hamilton's principle to explain the complex world and so yes necessary but not sufficient”
Complexity science is everything that lives in the space bounded by four principles: machines/dynamical systems, statistical mechanics, computation, and evolution—there is no single simple definition of complexity any more than there is one simple definition of physics or literacy, and trying to find one simple definition is 'a bit of an idiot.'
“So Okay so we've got machine we've got Dynamics we've got statistical mechanics and we've got Evolution and now I'm going to just tell you what complexity science is it's this it's everything that lives in the space bounded by those principles okay there isn't one simple definition of complexity anymore than there's one simple definition of physics or one simple simple definition of literacy right to expect that is to be a bit of an idiot”
People often ask for an abbreviated definition of complexity science because 'you don't want to go and sit down and say what do you work on' with a long technical explanation, and over time (from the 1940s onward) people have tried to come up with increasingly sophisticated definitions, starting with 'dynamical systems with active or purposeful behavior' (from cybernetics) through to modern definitions like 'unitary and autopoetic organization, recursive networks of unitary processes supporting mechanisms of self-production, non-determinate elements' etc., but none of these definitions are particularly helpful.
“now it hasn't stopped people trying trying to Define it right so coming up with some kind of reasonably abbreviated definition because you don't want to go and sit down and say what do you work on you say well I work on you know the nonline Dynamics of evolutionary systems using non-equilibrium statistical mechanics and the theory of computational complexity I mean there are people I've been to dinner parties where people do tell me things like that and then you sort of curse God for having put them next to you but but it's fair right to sort of expect some kind of reasonable abbreviated definition and over the course of time and this is a table taken from the complex world the book that many of you should have bought out front but I saw you walk past me and but it's very it's very affordable and very readable and um and you can just sort of see starting in the '40s this effort to try and come to terms with what this thing is dynamical systems with active or purposeful Behaviour very famous early work in cybernetics um hak's work on sort of decentralized problem solving by markets and on it goes and ending with people like verel matano and urabe on where it's kind of almost not a helpful definition unitary and autoptic organization recursive networks of unitary processes supporting mechanisms of self-production non-determinate elements and so on I'm not sure that those definitions actually help”
The concept of emergence requires a kind of 'closure property' based on protection and screening off of levels, which can be understood through a map metaphor: if you go to a city you've never been to, you need a map to navigate successfully (a higher-level abstraction) independent of the car you're driving or the geology, showing that emergence sometimes works as a framework.
“is is an idea emergent well yes it is emergent from mind it has to satisfy this kind of closure property that I gave of protection and screening off um I the example I like to give and I'm not sure again if I'm going off track because the metaphor will be a map metaphor um if if you go to a city you've never been to uh chances are you don't reach your destination because you don't have a map okay and that has nothing to do with the car you're driving right it's got nothing to do with geology and so on now there is a possibility that you run out of gas gas in which case you have to worry about mechanics and so there's a very interesting property of emergence which is emergence tends to fail as a concept when the system fails and you have to go down to a lower level of explanation”
Stan Ulam was one of the most distinguished mathematicians of the 20th century, born in Lviv (then called Lwów), Poland, recruited to the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos where he worked with Edward Teller and made major contributions to the development of the hydrogen bomb.
“Stan ulam was one of the mo most distinguished mathematicians of the 20th century he was born in what I think they called Poland at the time in uh the city of laav but it's now Lviv because it's in the Ukraine um and he came to the United States in the mid-30s and was ultimately recruited to the Manhattan Project at Los Al where he worked uh in the group of Edward Teller and one of his major contributions interestingly enough was the development with teller of the hydrogen bomb”
In the 18th century, Lisbon was extraordinarily prosperous because it had pillaged the rest of the world for 200 years in what was euphemistically called the Age of Exploration, was extraordinarily pious and religious under the iron grip of the Inquisition, had little regard for the enlightenment occurring elsewhere, and had a population of about a quarter million people.
“uh this is lizbon if you haven't been this is Lisbon in the mid 18th century um it was extraordinarily prosperous uh it was prosperous because it had pillaged the rest of the world uh for 200 years in a euphemistic Epoch called the Age of Exploration uh okay the um it was extraordinarily Pious and religious it was in the iron grip of the Inquisition and had very little regard for what was going on in the rest of the world with respect to the enlightenment had a population of about a quarter of a million people”
On November 1, 1755 (All Saints Day), a huge series of earthquakes hit Lisbon, completely devastating the city, killing about 15% of the population (about 12,000 dwellings destroyed), many churches were destroyed, and the headquarters of the Inquisition was destroyed, and the reverberations were physically felt across Europe and culturally felt across the world.
“on the 1st of November uh 1755 All Saints Day a huge series of earthquakes hit Lisbon I'm sure many of you have heard of the great Lisbon earthquake um it completely devastated the city about 15% of the population died about 12,000 dwellings many churches and the headquarters of the Inquisition yeah I know it's like the only good thing that happened many terrible things that was a good one and um you know the reverberations were quite literally physically felt across Europe and culturally felt across the world”
The phrase 'complexity science' first appears in Warren Weaver's work in 1948, and by the 1960s everyone was using the term, making it not a new thing or a Santa Fe Institute invention but something that goes back at least to the 1940s.
“but this is the first use of the word complexity science that's in 1948 by Warren Weaver so when you ask where it comes from it goes back to the 40s at least that phrase and then from the 60s everyone was using it it's not a new thing it's not a SFI thing it's much older”
Ulam died in 1984, the very year the Santa Fe Institute was founded, which was 40 years ago from the time of this lecture, and the Ulam lecture series (now in its 29th iteration) was named after him as a fitting memorial.
“he died sadly in 1984 the very year that the Santa Fe Institute was founded this 40 years ago and um it was very fitting that when um the idea developed that there should be such an annual leure as we have tonight um that it should be named after Stan so um that's uh so since then we've had what 28 of them and this will be the 29th”
Ulam believed that the development of the hydrogen bomb would put an end to major global wars, and despite extraordinary global and local conflicts occurring since, we have not had a global war since World War II, so 'in that sense so far he's right.'
“ulam thought that that would put the end to Major Wars major Global Wars and despite all of the extraordinary Global conflicts sort local conflicts that are going on uh We've not had a global war since the second world war so in that sense so far he's right”
In response to a question about whether emergence can be optimized, with the questioner noting that natural selection requires an optimal mutation frequency (too much mutation causes breakdown, too little causes insufficient variation), Krakow acknowledges it's an interesting idea but is uncertain how plausible the analogy is, though SFI has done work on optimization of mutation rates.
“oh I don't know um it's an interesting idea I mean in fact the the first I'm not sure how plausible the analogy is but it's very interesting right optimization mutation rates something that we've worked on a lot in fact at SFI um it's an interesting question whether Evolution created a screened off hierarchy um and how far that hierarchy extends”
Darwin got the idea of natural selection around 1836 but procrastinated for 22 years before publishing it, spending 8 years writing a book on barnacles that 'no one in the world has read,' demonstrating that scholars should not worry about what they perceive as wasted time on projects that don't immediately succeed.
“what's remarkable is he gets patent about 1836 he's red ly he's red mouthless he's come up with the idea of natural selection what does he do he procrastinates for 22 years and he spends eight years writing a book on barnacle it's actually kind of amazing to think about it people will say to me you know like God I just spent a month I wasted my time doing calculations and everything is wrong or I spent a year and can't get the paper published Darwin spent eight years working on Barnacles and no one in the world has read that book so you know don't worry about wasting your time”
David Krakow's work has been primarily focused in evolutionary biology and computation from where he got his original degree, with breadth extending across many fields, and he has recently given considerable thought to one of the great revolutions we are going through—machine learning, artificial intelligence—and we may hear something about that.
“his work has primarily been focused even though in its even though it's great breadth in evolutionary biology and computation from where he got his original degree that stories inspires him and so he's often he's given a lot of thought recently to of course one of the great revolutions that we're going through namely machine learning artificial intelligence and so forth and you may be here something about that”
David Krakow is the president of the Santa Fe Institute, was born in Hawaii (like Barack Obama), grew up in Portugal (making him fluent in Portuguese), completed his education in England (making him sound like an Englishman), and is completely devoted to having broad, diverse views and diverse thinking about science.
“he's uh as you've heard as we probably all know he's president of the San Institute um he was curiously like Barack Obama born in Hawaii um but he grew up not in Hawaii but in Portugal so he's fluent in Portuguese but he wasn't his education was only completed in England so when you hear him speak and if you don't know him you will immediately think he's an Englishman but in fact only in a very sort of mongr kind of way and uh this uh this kind of hybrid background that he has I think is also manifested in the fact that he's completely devoted to having broad views very diverse views very diverse thinking about science”
David Krakow has been integral to the Santa Fe Institute for the two-and-a-half of its existence (from ~2002 onward), is an extraordinary widely read polymath, very cultured speaker, big broad thinker, and lovely colleague who can be inspirational, with interests always in big questions like origins of life, origins of ideas, and origins of innovation.
“he's been um integral to The Institute for the TW half of the life of the of of its existence um he um he's an extraordinary widely read person he's a real polymath um he's very cultured he speaks in a very cultured way as you'll hear um a big broad thinker um he's a lovely man I consider him a very good friend and a wonderful colleague he can be quite inspirational and his interest is always in big questions I mean the questions to do mostly with life origins of Life origins of ideas origins of innovation Etc”
In 2012 David Krakow was named on Wired's list of people who are going to change the world.
“in he's a marvelous thinker in 2012 he was is named on W's W's most what do they call it list of people who are going to change the world”
In Krakow's field of evolutionary biology and complexity science, there is work by Deborah Gordon on 'a more realistic approach to understanding economic systems than the simplifications of equilibrium Game Theory,' suggesting that complexity science approaches are being applied to economic systems.
“finally uh my own field uh it's interesting listening to Jeffrey think is that me he's describing like okay I guess that's sort of right in 2011 I gave the ulam lectures three of them actually at the time on intelligence actually so I'm not going to repeat that uh but this is one of the key papers uh this is a paper by Alan churing one of our Collective Heroes for all sorts of reasons um and in this paper he was despairing at people's efforts to Define intelligence in terms of having a fundamental theory of intelligence It's Kind interesting if you think about that in relation to aluring and he said look I'm going to get rid of a theory of intelligence and replace it with a test of intelligence and that all know as the imitation game or the touring test um a system is intelligent if it can convince you that it is sort of weird and this has led to all sorts of simplifications and silly statements”
David Krakow obtained his undergraduate degree in biology and computer science from Royal Holloway College, University of London, and his doctorate in evolutionary biology from Oxford, after which he stayed at Oxford as a research fellow for several years, then moved to the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton before being recruited to the Santa Fe Institute around 2002.
“David got his undergraduate degree in biology and computer science from the Royal holay College University of London and then went on to Oxford to get his Doctorate in evolutionary biology um and after which he stayed in Oxford as a research fellow for a number of years and after a couple of meanderings ended up at the institute for advanced study at Princeton um where he was a fellow for also for a number of years for being recruited to The Institute and I think he can correct me something like 2002”
David Krakow disagrees with the assessment (shared by many) that Moby Dick is the greatest book ever written, arguing it is difficult to believe that a book with no women in it and where the word 'love' never appears could be thought of as the greatest book ever written.
“some of the things that despite his great culture and so on some of the things I disagree with him about is he thinks the greatest book as many of you probably do that ever was written was Moby Dick I don't I think was a great book but how and many of my colleagues think that by the way and it's hard to believe that a book that has no women in it and and the word love never appears could be thought of was the greatest book ever written”