[0:34:02-0:36:58] Now they delve into a discussion of exactly what AI is and means. I do think artificial intelligence will force us into asking more questions about ourselves, but that does not mean these series of 0s and 1s are the same as the organic creatures we are. It is already apparent that AI assists us in so many ways today, from the computers in our pockets to the surgeries completed with robots. There is no doubt that these machines will help us learn more so much faster and efficiently than ever before. However, I do not think this will change fundamental human nature or replace us in any meaningful way like so many people seem to fear.

[0:36:58-0:39:37] Alright, so Tucker then says, “If the Industrial Revolution, the steam-powered loom in England gave rise to Marxism in the first and second world wars and Vietnam and Korea and every other conflict for a hundred years, the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. You know, technological change causes displacement, the fall of religions, the fall of empires, the murder of millions. So what will AI do?” Wow. This sounds like a Marxist professor talking about how awful the Industrial Revolution was for all of humanity rather than focusing on how many millions of lives new technology and innovation saved. To hear this sentiment coming from someone “on the right” is doubly astonishing. Truly, there is not much difference between the religious right and the atheist left when a morality of death is at the center of each. And then Tucker jumps to autonomy and AI somehow taking free will away from humans. That is quite the jump, in my opinion, since nothing can stop a man from using his own mind and, therefore, his free will to make decisions.

[0:39:37-0:43:47] “I don’t really have any reasons for saying no, other than my animal sense tells me, ‘No.’ […] That was my ‘instinct’ speaking, which I regard as a kind of coequal with my rational sense.” Ayn Rand sums up perfectly that

An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic . . . Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 121)

So, another thing that separates us from any other animals is our need to learn what will allow us to survive. It is not automatic. If you are having a “gut feeling” about something, it means that your subconscious has some kind of answer that you are not yet consciously aware of yet or your emotions are sending out signals of danger but that is not knowledge. And Bryan’s admittance of his own depression taking over his life means that he lacked the desire to live and was making decisions counter to life. That has nothing to do with his own mind being wrong or untrustworthy but everything to do with how he was interpreting his situation. It made sense to him at the moment to go for that brownie to bring momentary pleasure in the face of the utter sense of hopelessness he felt. That is not irrational per se, but it is not the best way to live or find genuine happiness and he learned to overcome that hole he put himself in.

[0:43:47-0:44:35] Amazing. Tucker says, “And it does strike me, if you’re looking back into history that this is the only period, post-war, post-World War II where you’ve had a society at scale that assumes that there’s nothing beyond itself. […] Why did every previous generation assume that there was a God, but we don’t?”

First of all, not all people have believed in religion, and many were forced into whatever religion controlled their region for the majority of human history. You’d be killed if you thought otherwise. And while it’s true that there is a growing number of atheists in this world, Christianity and Islam still reign supreme. We are seeing this atrophying in religion because of all the newest science and technology that has been created. There are many answers we now have that we simply did not have before. Creation myths were the best way for homo sapiens to explain how things happened and that is why religion was the first stepping stone toward philosophy in explaining our world and how it works. The more we care to learn about things like our appendixes, the more we understand that everything can be explained in this world and not in some divine, unknowable realm.

To which Bryan replies that it doesn’t really matter whether we believe in god or not, “we already agree on don’t die—all of us do.” Now, I have explained in a previous video that this is simply not true. Those depressed or terminally ill people out there no longer believe in “don’t die.” It is a choice people have to make daily. I just think Bryan Johnson’s premise is wrong, and Tucker sniffs this out with him by continuing to bring back the idea of self-harm.

[0:44:35-0:46:54] This is yet another idea that I have discussed before, and it boggles my mind every time I come across it. Tucker says, “There’s no meaning without a power beyond ourself, is there? I mean there is only this sort of, like, shallow, silly, or sense meaning that we attach to various things, like sex or living longer or feeling good or whatever, but there’s no meaning beyond our physical, momentary experience. Whereas a person who acknowledges a power beyond himself attaches ultimate moral meaning to events. […] No God, no meaning.” I simply cannot fathom a person who does not look at their spouse for who they are and love them for their values and physical form. How could you feel anything higher than what is right in front of you? I plan on worshipping, yes, worshipping my baby when she arrives because of the potential she has and the perfection that she already is. To me, that does feel spiritual, but it does not need to ascend to some higher plane to be real and intense. It almost feels like Christians live with this foggy window between them and reality, unable to feel spiritually for the things that are the here and now. Even an insect who lives for a day has no clue that his life is tiny, momentary, fleeting; he survives by his instincts and lives with every fiber of his being for that brief time, as if he would live forever in such a manner. Humans do not live like bugs, though; we produce and make marks all over the future of our race. We leave ripples in our wake and our names can be carried on past our lives. Why do you need anything more?

And, of course, Bryan Johnson comes back with the biological “squirtings” idea that that’s where our meaning comes from, rather than understanding that human beings get meaning from the values they achieve throughout their lives. It is a process that requires action, not just chemical integrations, though we do rewire our brains with every experience we have. And it is true that we do live and experience in a particular body where mind and body are inextricably intertwined. But the body without the mind is nonexistent; we are more than those chemical processes our body goes through. We must use our rational minds to survive, which is why we need a code of morality in the first place. In my opinion, you cannot “engineer” meaning for an individual human being. They must figure out what that is for themselves through their own personal experiences and physical nature in space.

[0:46:54-0:50:18] Rightly, Tucker points out that we still need a code of morality to Bryan. But then he goes and says something silly: “If I feel like killing you because it pleases me, how can we oppose that?” As Dostoyevsky believed (and as I’ve addressed before), he thought that people without religion would murder each other left and right. I, among many others out there, are “good without god.” We are living our lives in peace as atheists. How is that possible? Because there is such a thing as a secular moral code to live by. Let me shout again, “Objectivism!” Reality is the only thing I “follow” to come up with my code. Would killing another person make me feel good? No. Would I end up in prison for life for it? Yes. Would it lead to my rational happiness to be trapped in a cage for the rest of my life or be haunted by the flashbacks of committing such a heinous crime? No. So why do it? If Tucker took one psychology class, then he would, hopefully, understand that people do seemingly “crazy” things for typically obvious reasons. There are all kinds of reality-based reasons that people harm each other; they don’t require a mysterious demon on their back to harm themselves or another for money, fame, revenge, justice, you name it—there’s almost always a reason for the action taken.

And then Tucker dares to say that we can’t say murder is “wrong” without god and Bryan Johnson just goes along with it. Ayn Rand discusses crime in particular as:

A crime is a violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others—i.e., the recourse to violence—that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime—and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime. (Ayn Rand, “Political Crimes,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 176)

So it is wrong to kill someone because they have a right to their own life. Though, this can be teetering on the brink of a trolley problem if the killing is given without the proper context. I don’t have the space to look at the law in depth here, but that is why we have a court system in the first place—to determine if a killing (or any other crime) was in self-defense or not. Killing in self-defense to protect your own life is not morally wrong; it’s what becomes necessary for your own survival, so it can neither be right nor wrong. Ayn Rand has always said that “morality ends where a gun begins” (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 133). A moral system can only be followed when a man has a choice; that choice is simply robbed from him whenever another threatens to kill him and vice versa.

Unfortunately, both men lack the clear answer that Ayn Rand has provided, and which Tucker believes remains “unsolved.”

[0:50:18-0:54:31] This was another doozy when Tucker asks, “Without God, how can we say, and why would we say, that life is better than death? I mean, the religious person, the Christian, says life is better than death because God creates life.” At no point did I grow up thinking that death was better than life. I am baffled that a Christian honestly wonders why life is better than death. Only if you truly believe in this blissful afterlife that you have no proof exists could you see death as anything other than horrifying and an enemy to mankind. Life is much more exciting, first of all, than oblivion and more than what I imagine would be a dull place after the high wears off in the afterlife. You can only feel the highest of highs on earth and develop a greater understanding when you have lost a value and felt the lowest of the lows. Death is simply a negation of life, the absence of life. I do not want to be a void; I want to live. And the world is beautiful to me on its face, not because someone divine created it. Nature creates its own wondrous patterns, and it excites me to learn about them, and as humans have learned, every species has evolved with these attributes due to some advantage for their survival. We have this beautiful and still very mysterious mind, and I gaze in spiritual wonder at its beauty with no need to have a sole creator of the entire world. Yet, I believe that I go to that same spiritual realm of emotion that a Christian does but completely devoid of god.

[0:54:31-1:00:34] Oh, boy, Tucker says, “You would not disagree if I said, ‘Here’s what we know: We know that AI is likely to spawn some improvements, also certain to kill millions of people.’ Millions will die because of this, I don’t think there’s any doubt about it—the chaos alone, right, will cause that.” Why not just blow it all up essentially? Wow, his answer is like a mix of utilitarianism and nihilism and a Luddite mentality. First of all, the lawsuits brought against Elon Musk and his “self-driving” Teslas, as far as I am aware, are all due to user error and not because of the algorithm itself. People are the ones still harming themselves when they don’t use their brains or follow directions. AI is much safer and helps to keep us safer than we’ve ever been before. There is no guarantee, as Bryan is saying, that artificial intelligence will kill millions. There already has been no such apocalyptic scenario as he fears. If anything, more people have survived a surgery that a doctor’s shaking hand would have botched years ago that a robot did without a single error. Heck, I had LASIK done with the help of AI and lasers to fix my nearsightedness, and that was the closest thing I’ve ever seen to a miracle.

Bryan Johnson is able to make somewhat of an argument similar to mine to Tucker that humans are more fallible than AI is, which does seem to be the case thus far. And I’m thankful that at least Bryan was able to say that he does not “accept the premise” of AI killing millions in the future.

[1:00:34-1:07:40] “We don’t have any idea what we’re talking about, and we can’t anticipate the future. We’re limited in our foresight, in our knowledge, and particularly in our wisdom.” And then he comes up with this example of no robot ever being able to tell him why his wife is mad at him and Bryan Johnson says that we can use AI to tell us that answer. To which Tucker says that this is too “mechanistic,” and ignores “the most important universe, which is the spiritual universe.” I shouted here, “Objectivism!” Tucker claims again that we are controlled morally by “spiritual forces, unseen forces” and that he doesn’t see any “evidence” in what Bryan is saying. And Bryan Johnson agrees that this is a very spiritual moment for all of us on this planet and that AI is “neutral” and that we give it meaning, which I agree with. Bryan says he wants to eliminate “the causes of death.” To which Tucker retorts, “But until we can account for why we do it to ourselves, we’re probably not gonna change it. And I think the most obvious explanation is we’re being acted on by demons, whose—and this is how every religion that I’m aware of has described it, correctly, in my opinion—acted on by demons, whose goal is to destroy and kill people and they’re a counterbalance? by God. But, if you don’t agree with that, then you need to substitute another explanation in its place in order to proceed in the hope that we can change.” One more time, I scream: “Objectivism!” There is a battle between “good and evil” as Tucker mentions, but it is not in an unseen realm, it is between individual human beings. It is happening every second of every day, and that is why civilization has emerged to manage those fights through our military, courts, and police, aka our government on a global scale, and with the help of philosophy and psychology and other sciences on an individual scale.

Finally, Bryan Johnson says, “I’m with you; what I heard you say is there’s more to reality than we can see, there’s forces which we can’t identify, and we should address those. We’re on the same page, after the same thing.” Neither man can seem to prove what “forces” are acting on us to determine our actions or our code of morality. Objectivism would say that human beings with free will are driven by their minds to survive, to live, to be happy. That’s it. There is nothing more than that as a species. To live “healthy, wealthy, and wise,” as John Clarke and more famously Benjamin Franklin said, is to live happily on this earth. That should be our only goal, our only mission in life.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4E0jEjQMM; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/history.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/instinct.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/crime.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l79rXk4NQlc&list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMvgfp2mg-AAFnCROvtu9NVR&index=2; https://www.amazon.com/New-Intellectual-Philosophy-Rand-Anniversary/dp/0451163087; https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952; https://www.amazon.com/Return-Primitive-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011841

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.