Ian Crossland | Are We Living In A Simulation And Can AI Save Us? OAP #23
Chase Geiser is joined by Ian Crossland.
Ian is a Co-Founder of Minds.com, A Regular on Timcast IRL, A Guitar Player, Actor, Influencer, & More.
EPISODE LINKS:
Chase's Twitter: www.twitter.com/realchasegeiser
Ian's Twitter: www.twitter.com/iancrossland
Ian's Website: http://iancrossland.net
Minds: Minds.com
PODCAST LINKS:
Anchor: https://anchor.fm/oneamerican
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IAmOneAmerican
I solemnly ask of every man who hears this case to let his own mind pronounce a verdict upon it.
You have heard the testimony of the state's witnesses.
The confession of Peter Keating has made clear that Howard Rourke is a ruthless egoist who has destroyed Kirkland Holmes for his own selfish motive.
The issue which you are to decide is the crucial issue of our age.
Has man any right to exist if he refuses to serve society?
Let your verdict give us the answer.
The state rests.
The defense may proceed.
Your Honor, I shall call no witnesses.
This will be my testimony and my summation.
Take the oath.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
I do.
Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire.
He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.
Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision.
The great creators, the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors, stood alone against the men of their time.
Every new thought was opposed.
Every new invention was denounced.
But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead.
They fought, they suffered, and they paid, but they won.
No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers.
His brothers hated the gift he offered.
His truth was his only motive.
His work was his only goal.
His work, not those who used it.
His creation, not the benefits others derived from it.
The creation which gave form to his truth.
He held his truth above all things and against all men.
He went ahead, whether others agreed with him or not, with his integrity as his only banner.
He served nothing and no one.
He lived for himself.
And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind.
Yeah, like in 2011, 2012, I was in college, like right in the middle of college, and it was like where you went to see all the girls you were into, whether or not they were dating anybody.
And it was kind of, I guess, before like everybody's parents got on, like right before.
They, in about 2011, the company went public, like you just mentioned.
And then they changed an algorithm on the site that made it so you could no longer organically reach all of your followers.
So I think it went from like being able to automatically reach, if you had 10,000 followers or that all of them with a post from your group to like 1% of that naturally organically.
Yeah.
And then you had to pay to boost your posts to get your followers to see your posts.
And it destroyed all these people's careers.
We had all these friends that had different groups that were like posting articles and memes and then they direct to their website.
And it just decimated their business plan, I guess you'd call it, their business strategy.
It was really sad to see.
And after that, ever since the suppression of not being able to reach your fans, it just doesn't have the same like zang of even like Twitter, in my opinion.
And, you know, I spent a lot of time trying to go through my Facebook feed and filter out political content, even though I'm a political content creator type person, because I was just, I missed following groups, various pages that were totally unrelated to news.
And sort of all those interests wound up getting washed out.
I guess the Facebook algorithms just determined that the highest engagement was sort of rage engagement with political news.
Oh, I remember during the Boston bombing or right around that time, we were also posting articles on Facebook and getting mad traction.
And I did an article on the Boston bombing and it got so much traction.
And then we, one of our executives was like, let's do more articles on that.
And I realized like, I don't want to push that.
I don't want to push fear for clicks.
So I didn't.
You know, Minds had an opportunity to like, we could have been like front and center media.
Like, you know how Gab got all that attention back like four or five years ago, like massive media.
We've always kind of had that opportunity to go splatter the mainstream, but it seems kind of, in my opinion, I feel it's kind of empty to like publicize something that to make it seem bigger than it is.
So it's been just this organic, relatively slow organic growth.
Well, and the other thing, too, like with what you mentioned by, you know, wanting to push a story just because you know that it has high click potential is once you've said something once, you shouldn't have to say it eight million times.
Like with the Trump stuff, you know, it's case, like case in point.
How many fucking times have we seen the same articles bashing any given number of things that Trump did, whether it was have too many scoops of ice cream or whatever?
Like if I'm just chilling on the internet and watching shows, I'll be on YouTube watching a lot of gameplay footage of like Slay the Spire.
That's a big game I like a lot.
I'll do it's a turn-based strategy game in the guise of a card game where like you have a deck and as you go through floor by floor, you fight enemies, you know, you use your cards to try and defeat them.
And then you get new cards and you kind of build this deck as you go and you can take cards out sometimes.
So every game is different.
Every time you play the replayability, you get different cards.
So it's like a, you never know what you're going to get.
You get like a small random pool to choose from every time.
It's extremely, yeah, if you look into ever looking to slay spire, it's like the best, probably the best turn-based strategy in the world right now.
Now, now, general guy, he's made out to be they're made out to all be badasses.
But in retrospect, it's kind of like imperial propaganda.
Like he's like an imperial, he wants to restore the empire.
He's like, the emperor was kidnapped.
We need to restore the Han.
south south like i want to become the emperor and it's like all about so the good guy the hero the luke skywalker actually wants to reinstall the emperor And so it's kind of like, it's very Chinese in that way.
You know, I shouldn't even joke about that because the Romans had a republic going on and then they actually became an empire where there was like an emperor that put his face on the coins.
Well, and I don't think that like throughout history, this may be the first time that we've had departments or sections of the government that are deep state.
Like in Rome, you didn't have like their version of the FBI that was actually pulling strings.
Like the emperor actually did have all the power.
And now I feel like presidents, whether it's Trump or Biden, like they, they have a little bit of power, but really there's a lot more influence going on that's kind of behind closed doors.
They'd have spurts where they would have a couple of good runs, you know, and so it must have just been a really talented emperor that was really good at navigating determining loyalty and navigating, you know, who needs to be motivated, who needs to be rewarded, right?
Or moved away.
And then they would have spurts where, yeah, you'd have like a year where there were three emperors.
It'd be like four months, this guy, three weeks, this guy.
Yeah, that's a, that's a, that's very interesting.
I actually haven't thought of that question in depth.
I know that there's like a lot of books that have come out about decentralized leadership in terms of in private organizations that kind of are trendy.
And obviously decentralized is a big trend word just because of blockchain technology and cryptocurrency and how it's considered more secure.
But I don't, yeah, I guess it is kind of an oxymoron to say decentralized power because by definition, power is the ability to just make shit happen from a centralized point.
So I guess you could have decentralized power if you had consensus among all the nodes, right?
So if you had like a system in which, like if we had like a true democracy, not where we voted to elect officials to make decisions, but where we actually, as a people, just voted on every bill, right?
That would be decentralized power.
And I guess that would require, it would still be power, but it would require consensus for anything to ever happen, right?
So if you're going to pass legislation in an authentic democracy, like, hey, are we going to pass this stimulus bill?
Everybody would vote.
You know, I'll be voting all the time every day.
And you could still make shit happen.
It would be decentralized, but it would require consensus in a way that traditional power structures don't.
I like it too, but at the same time, it's like then you got to deal with, you know, people are, I believe that people are good and I believe that people are smart, but I also believe that they're bad and stupid.
I mentioned this on the IRL show a little bit that like if we could vote rather than vote for a representative to vote for us, if we could all like all 10,000 of us that have this one representative could just kind of just all 10,000 of us could vote yes or no one by one.
And then the majority of that 10,000 would be the yes or the no vote for that person, that representative, that node.
So the representative would just be replaced by like a digital node that would then calculate all its constituents yes or no's and then say like this portion, this portion of the representation said yes.
And so you'd have like 460 nodes all like with a yes, a final yes or no tally from their constituents.
I think for certain things, we could do that.
We don't need like drastic heat of the moment decisions made for things that aren't war, more or less.
A lot of right, you know, well, and wouldn't it be neat if there was some sort of like a government sponsored program online, right?
Where you could go in and with your social security number, make an account, just like a banking account, right?
And after you do that, you could vote on every single bill.
And so it wouldn't actually have an impact on whether or not a bill would pass.
But what it would do is publicly show what the constituents of constituents of every representative actually think about an issue.
Then you could score your representatives at the end of their term or when they go up for re-election based on how often their vote actually aligned with the will of their specific constituents.
So like, hey, you can vote if you want.
You don't have to, but you could just swipe.
You know, it doesn't have to be secure because it's not actually making an impact on the law, but it is going to be give an idea of, you know, hey, this guy's an asshole because he just never does what his constituents say.
I like the idea of using our social security numbers a little more for like online personality transactions like voting.
Sometimes I talk to people and they're like, no, I don't want anyone to see my, like, you don't have to publicly show the social security number, but just use it.
So like if you get Life Lock, you're going to be fine.
I mean, didn't the CEO of Lifelock put his social security number on a billboard?
LifeLock's like an identity protection service.
You pay 20 bucks a month or whatever.
And then, you know, if your identity ever gets stolen, then they take care of it.
And yeah, I think that was his big marketing push was, you know, it was like, try to steal my identity and it was social security number on all the billboards.
We were sponsoring his videos 2018 or something, 2017, 2018.
And so there's a period of time, if you go back and look at some of his old stuff, where he would have the minds light bulb in the corner of the video.
And then at the end of the video, he'd be like, and follow me on Mines.
And then I ended up meeting him at a talk he gave downtown New York City.
We all went out and started talking about living in a simulation.
But I mean, even if you, even if you don't call it simulation theory, it still could be like, I mean, if you think about the traditional Christian idea of creation, it's like, how is that not a simulation?
Like, God created the universe and he's like the mastermind behind it and we're all running in it.
So I don't think that I bounce a basketball in, you know, Texas and it hits the ground at the same time as any other basketball hits the ground or any other baseball hits a bat.
I think there's, if you, if you had a machine that was incredibly, you know, accurate at measuring space-time phenomena that could zoom in, you would always see a slight difference in the exact moment that any given things actually occurred.
I think the whole thing is binary and incredibly dense, and it's like rapid, fast ripples all the way to the end of the universe and back every single time anything happens.
And I don't agree with everything that he said in it as I remember it.
So this could be a butchering.
So anybody on YouTube can just, again, tell me I'm a dumbass.
But when I read it, I was in high school and I believe that there was a fairly groundbreaking claim made in it about how the universe could not be infinite because if the universe was infinite, then the sky would be infinitely bright because the number of stars in the universe would be infinite.
And my thinking on that is, you know, it's just, it's possible that it could be infinite and all those other stars are just so far away that light hasn't reached Earth yet.
So and that, like I said, that could be a butchering.
It seems like it seems like such a simple hole in that argument that it's hard for me to even believe now in retrospect that Stephen Hawking made that case because he's such a brilliant guy.
I swear to God, the only reason I started this podcast is so that I could work my way up to like more and more awesome conversations with more and more awesome.
I'm glad I'm doing it now and not 15 years ago when I started.
I was still kind of like, I would get starstruck in the early days in LA as an actor.
And it was like, it was, I was, I was getting better at just treating people normal when I would meet them, but it was still like, you know, I'd meet like, I don't, I don't freaking know.
French Stewart.
He's a friend of mine.
I would want to meet, but I actually got along with French.
Me and me and him were fine.
But like, I just see people in Hollywood.
I saw Vince Vaughan and I was like, oh, it's Vince Vaughn.
Oh, my God.
My heart starts beating.
And I was able to get that out of my system, kind of.
And now I just look at people like other monkeys.
Like, we're all just like, I'm here to help you.
You're here to help me.
We're all humans on earth.
Everyone takes a crap.
Like, everyone needs to eat and stay warm at night.
And it's a shame that some of these brilliant minds have been kind of cornered into having to be political voices.
Like they have to because they're being censored and all the shit's going on that's crazy and they're the only reasonable people that are willing to speak out.
And it's like, man, like in a perfect world, Eric would talk about, you know, finance algorithms and physics.
And it's a shame that he's got to like make the argument for free speech because like it's so obvious and his mind is so well equipped to just blow away the standard understanding or consensus around physics.
It's like all these minds have just been totally kind of cornered into this one industry.
And Nassim Harriman, who if you studied his work at all, I haven't studied it, but I'm familiar with him.
His, the science community is just like silent on Nassim Harriman for, and I don't want to project that because they're not.
Not all of them are.
A lot of people are into it.
But his theories, I mean, ultimately, his Schwarzschild proton paper seems like it solves Einstein's field equation and explains like the universe is equal density and every proton is two protons spinning around each other at the speed of light, depositing matter into the vacuum.
And then the vacuum is like calculating all the data that was just turned into it and then turning, giving you back a proton with like calculated localized data based on the super positions experience.
They're all just looking at something from a different angle or distance or perspective, but they're all like different ways of explaining something that's real.
And so it's sad to see them like fight over which one's right.
Well, I had I had Joseph Massey on the show last night.
He's a he's a successful poet and he kind of got caught up in the Me Too movement bullshit.
And it appears to be fairly political why it happened to him rather than legitimate.
And he was kind of saying the same thing happens in the poetry community.
He's like, listen, the more successful you are as a poet, the more every other poet hates you.
Right.
So, and you see it in the science community.
It's like, listen, if you have a reasonable theory that comes out that is counter the existing theories, but perhaps better, then you're about ready to face a ton of backlash in the academic community because people's, their pride gets damaged.
It's like that scene in Goodwill Hunting, that famous scene where Matt Damon and his sort of mentor character, not Robin Williams, but the mathematician one.
He's on his knees in his office crying because he can't do the math as well as Matt Damon's character will, right?
And it's like, you know, he's like, it kills me to know that there's someone out, there's someone like you out there.
You know, there's only a handful of people in the world that can think at this level.
And it kills me to know there's someone like you out there who's sort of beyond where I am.
It happens in archaeology as well, from what I've learned from Graham Hancock, who I think he's, he's, according to him, he's not an archaeologist.
He would tell you that he's like a journalist ultimately or like a, you know, something like that.
But but the whole like Egypt, the history of Egypt is hotly debated.
The age of the pyramids and like that he and Randall Carlson have so much evidence that there was a great flood 12,800 years ago and all this erosion on the Sphinx, like rain erosion.
They're like, it hasn't rained in Egypt in like 10,000 years.
So obviously the Sphinx is 10,000 years old.
But they don't, you know, these Egyptian scientists, they don't want to like lose the theory to some new person.
It's wonky to me because when I think about how genetically speaking, Homo sapiens have been around, the theories range from 150 to 300,000 years, right?
And how often is there an ice age, like every 10,000 years?
I don't know either, but the point is, regardless, it's happened several times, multiple times since human beings have been, as we know them, human beings.
Yeah, even if it's every 100,000 years, it's happened.
And I know there's many ice ages and then there's big ones, but it's like, it's not that unreasonable to imagine that society has been advanced multiple times and declined multiple times.
And I'm not talking about like Atlantis, flying machines, internet, but you know, sophisticated and that it could easily be forgotten.
Like, I just find it very hard to believe that writing was invented 8,000 years ago if human beings have been around for 8,000 years.
We're really like, we think the Romans, the Greeks were like the Bible is like our oldest history book or one of our oldest history books.
But man, dude, I heard that we're in an ice age, that we're actually still coming out of it, and that we were, we would, but 12,800 years ago, when the comet struck, it melted all the ice caps, like all the ice, but it didn't end the ice age.
It just melted the ice.
So we're still in the ice, which is why there's why we still have ice on the caps.
So is it possible then that like global warming isn't actually causing the melting of the ice and that it's just the natural yeah, like we're leading the ice age?
You know what?
It's really unfortunate because climate change, for example, that's something that I agree is like a really important issue to get to the bottom of.
Like if it's real, I want to know.
And if it's not real, I also genuinely want to know.
Like I don't care who's right, whether it's Republicans or Democrats.
I just want to know what's actually going on.
And I've looked into it a few times, you know, not extensively, but it's hard for me to determine for myself what to believe in terms of global warming because you see like different studies from different scientists, different areas where they're like, listen, this is natural or listen, this is man-made.
It seems like it is naturally happening due to like volcanic activity, solar storms, but also that carbon monoxide, methane, and carbon dioxide are also contributing to greenhouse effect, which is also heating it up.
But then I think like, well, humans are natural.
We're natural parts of Earth.
I think people tend to think that we're like separated from the animal kingdom and we're like observing this whole thing, but we're in it.
So I think we're just naturally heating it up too.
And that technology is speeding it up.
Why?
I don't know if there's a purpose for it.
But I think that it's totally like balanceable.
If we can recapture the carbon from the air and reuse it, I would imagine that's, and you can use methane for heat.
You can like burn.
I'm burning, it's pretty dirty, but I think if you compress methane in an anaerobic environment, you might be able to produce a lot of heat from it without.
I don't know.
I don't know a lot about methane.
I know that burning it's pretty dirty.
So like, you know, redepositing carbon dioxide onto like palladium to create graphene, we can do that, pull the carbon dioxide out of the air, but then that's going to, we're going to start competing with the trees for carbon dioxide.
We don't want to, we don't want to take too much of it out of the atmosphere.
But I think that the heating of the earth is a natural process that we're in right now.
And I think, I also think, too, that with the advent of the internet and just how easy and quickly we can travel the globe because of airplanes, that people have forgotten just how giant this planet is.
It's really hard to fathom.
But Neil deGrasse Tyson was on Joe Rogan in one episode.
I know he's done it a million times, but he was talking about how if you take a cue ball, and I later on looked this up and he was correct.
If you take a cue ball, it is smoother than the Earth.
The Earth is so big that the peaks and valleys, the highest points and the lowest points on the planet are closer together proportionally to the circumference of the planet than the highest and lowest points on a cue ball.
We don't think about it as big because you can travel to the other side of it in 12 hours or whatever on an airplane, but you go really fucking fast when you're on an airplane.
And it's just huge.
And I looked it up later and I believe that I don't believe it was a cue ball.
It was a bowling ball.
But it's still, it's still like a mind-blowing fact.
And so we, you know, tend to be a fairly arrogant species and we just think that everything we do has such a huge impact.
And it's like, you know, I agree that we're probably behaving in a way that is maybe a little reckless and maybe having an impact.
But it's not like if you, you know, left your, if you leave the lights on, you're going to destroy this planet.
I mean, it's been through a lot and it's pretty big.
If you look at, like, letting out too much smoke in your kitchen while you're cooking, like a grease fire or something.
unidentified
I solemnly ask of every man who hears this case to let his own mind pronounce a verdict upon it.
You have heard the testimony of the state's witnesses.
The confession of Peter Keating has made clear that Howard Rourke is a ruthless egoist who has destroyed Kirkland Holmes for his own selfish motive.
The issue which you are to decide is the crucial issue of our age.
Has man any right to exist if he refuses to serve society?
Let your verdict give us the answer.
The state rests.
the defense may proceed your honor i shall call no witnesses This will be my testimony and my summation.
Take the oath.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
I do.
Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire.
He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.
Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down.
Well, and it's hard too, because like with the way politics works, it's really hard in the United States for us to make really long-term plans and strategies because administrations change every 48 years.
And, you know, if the solution to global warming is, you know, consistent behavior for 100 years, you know, in a strategic and intentional way, then it's going to be difficult because we're going to have 10 to 15 different presidents during that time and they're all going to have to agree to keep doing that plan.
It's, you know, like Trump did a lot of stuff by executive order and it just got reversed, you know, as soon as the administration changed.
And it's like, how are we going to do long-term strategy in the way that China can in the United States?
Do we need like an AI that gives us like a, or do we need like, because I agree with you, we need some sort of long-term strategy, not that can't be changed, but that is at least agreed upon.
Well, an AI wouldn't be able to be corrupted, which is kind of interesting.
In theory, you couldn't corrupt it in terms of like bribing it because you could program it or set it up so it didn't care about that kind of stuff, I guess.
But yeah, what if there was an AI that like we as a society were confident always could always make the right decision according to what our values and goals are?
Like an algorithm that determined values and goals and just kind of compromise between the two.
Maybe we could set it aside to call some shots from a at a time and a place if we needed to, but I would prefer that people are calling the shots for now.
Although people are going to be plugging their minds into the machine pretty soon.
When I was talking to Ben last night, I don't know if you saw the show last night, IRL with Ben Stewart.
He's a fantastic guest.
talks he's a technologist futurist brilliant dude and he was saying that like you know we're gonna have technologies that you'll be able to keep like a few inches away from your head that'll essentially have the same same resolution brain resolution or um that the one actually have to install something exactly Exactly.
I know you can do maybe like a graphene tattoo or certain types of tattoos that can also measure electrical impulses.
It's got to be because it's going to be hard to profit off of that stuff since it's pure carbon.
I mean, if you can make it out of dirt or out of carbon dioxide, it's going to be easy to source and materialize.
And the copper industry is huge.
JP Morgan's copper industry is basically right up alongside Rockefeller, Rockefeller's education industry and their Federal Reserve banking industry.
That copper industry is entrenched.
It's one of the biggest industries on earth is like the precious metal industry.
So to bust them up that they, I don't know, I don't know who controls the media or what all this like where, where it goes, how far up the chain it goes, how, how entrenched the copper industry is with the media industry.
I don't know.
But I know that it's, it's tough to rip, to uproot entrenched industries in general.
And if they have friends in the media that they won't like, like if they were, if, if, if the people that own the copper mines were ready to profit off of graphene, we'd see tons of graphene commercials, I think.
It's not the first time that the, it's not the first time that the healthcare industry has done something like this.
And not a lot of people know this, but I am a hemophiliac.
I have type A hemophilia, which is a bleeding disorder.
It's genetic.
And in the 80s, the medicine made for to treat hemophilia, because the life expectancy without medicine is about 11 years.
The medicine to treat it was made from human blood donations.
And the healthcare companies knew that the medicine was contaminated with hepatitis and HIV for years before the public became aware.
And so people were injecting their kids with this medicine at home and intravenous at home medicine when they had like a swollen knee or a bleeding incident.
And they were basically giving their kids HIV and hepatitis and didn't even know it.
And 10,000 hemophiliacs died of AIDS in the 80s.
Some of them kids, man.
And if you follow the Ryan White story, that's the famous example of the kid that was a hemophiliac that was kicked out of his high school because he had AIDS and he was a hemophiliac and he got it from his medicine.
And Elton John played piano at his funeral and everything.
It was a big deal when he died in, I think, 1990 or 91 or something like that.
And yeah, and they got sued, but nobody went to prison.
And it's like, you gave thousands of people AIDS knowingly so you could make money and no one goes to jail.
I heard that HIV had been, I don't know, and I've never really studied, looked too deeply into this theory, but I heard that HIV had been given to people in the MMR vaccine in the early 80s unintentionally.
I'm not saying it means that it was introduced in the MMR as well, but well, and it's possible too that if you're doing massive vaccine distribution in third world countries, they could have just been reusing needles.
And that would have caused a tremendous spread in HIV too.
So I don't know if it was actually the vaccine itself that was causing the problem or if it was just sort of bad medical practices in terms of administering it.
But the way it had been transmitting, they thought for sure they were getting it through like sitting on a toilet because it had been transmitting so fast.
There's a word for how to make something obsolete, which is cool.
Patreon, we want to remove the middleman from the subscription service so that you get a package that you can install on your computer that lets you upload videos to like a website of your choosing, like Library Odyssey or like YouTube or Vimeo or something.
And then people can subscribe to your content a lot like Timcast.com and then and get your stuff directly from you.
And you'll just be paying these people hosting fees directly or you can host it locally.
And then people can also find other people that are using that software through your through so like if they get the software, they can see like all these people that have websites that are on the Fediverse or connected to the Fediverse and you can bounce around from.
So you kind of, it just, it gets rid of that gatekeeper and it'll kind of decentralize the, yeah.
Send me some, send me some links if there's any links that I should look at about that.
I'm definitely interested in exploring that because this whole censorship thing is a real problem.
And I'm always interested in how innovative approaches can basically make it impossible to silence voices or change the way that we consume information in such a way that traditional power are irrelevant.
It's a big part of why political, I don't get too political because like begging people to change is not nearly as effective as building a system that's better that people just are using.