Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

TVP Teamspeak Q&A Seminar - 2012-07-15 - Reinforcement and Programming, Biological and Robotic

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
The Venus Project TeamSpeak Seminar, July 15, 2012. I want to talk a little bit about robots and human behavior, the major difference between cybernated organisms and human systems. A lot of people think that programing is exactly the same in people and robotics. It is not. The major difference is that you can design a robot to walk over, pick up up an object put it in an another place. But if the robot before in even moves, if you put the object in a place the robot will going to put it in it will still walk over and grab nothing in particular. That's programmed. The difference between human systems and robots it's not linear. That means that the robot can do certain things that you program into it, and if you look at that under a microscope you can see magnetic domains that will make the robot walk over to a given area and sit in a chair. If you pull a chair away, the robot will walk and sit on nothing and fall over. That's programmed. The human system differs considerably. When you work on a human being, let's put it this way, or a chimpanzee or any animal, I'll work with a chimp this time. I will put the chimp in a box, a big box, and in that box a rod sticking out different (?)lenghts with a cue, a circle, triangle, different patterns. And you don't have to teach it anything, it will walk in and sooner or later it will touch those things. When it touches any one of them, water will come forth, touches another one, food, touches another one, a soft bed comes out of the wall. If the animal is put there for a long enough time it will use those rods appropriately. Any animal has a range of behavior, when put in an environment it doesn't respond like a robot. It looks at the evironment and seeks reinforcement, food. If the leaves are circular where the food is, it will go to the circular leaves. That's called associative memory. Programmed computers have no associative memory, they follow a pattern. (?)If you look at a phonograph record with a microscope, you'll see zigzags cut in the record. Those zigzags are representations of voice of a person. While the record is playing, if it's somebody singing Caruso, or somebody else, can't deviate from those patterns. Robots that are programmed can't deviate from those programs, unless you have a path alongside of it and you show variations instead of a circle, (?)wider lips, the animals will touch that thing thinking it a circle because they're not that critical, and it gets burned slightly so it will not touch that again. That's what the animal has that the robot doesn't have. If the robot touches something and it doesn't reinforce it, how do you reinforce a robot? If it gets stunned that wouldn't bother it at all, but a robot can learn to respond to different figures. When he sees a triangle presses a button, he get lubricated, but he doesn't feel good when he gets lubricated, so there's not reason to retain that action. It's only when a human touches something and they feel good touching it, that they repeat it. A robot cannot touch on something and say "Hei, that feels good." They can reach out and pull back, but they can't make anything of it, do you understand that? The reason I said do you understand that is because there's so much conflict today about robots and people, "will robots take over?". Not if they're programmed not to take over. If they're programmed to take over, they can only shoot a guy in a certain uniform. And if the guys stays put in a given area, the robot can walk over unless you condition the robot, through the eyes, to follow anything that moves and shoot it. Is the robot an assasin? No. It's programmed to shoot, that's quite different. Human beings have, some people believe, ten to fifty billion neurons, a robot has hundred of thousands of associative sets, not billions. So if you learn that a cup gives you water, anything that looks like a cup, might support water. We can deviate from our programming. Our programming apears rigid but alongside of it is associative memory, that I touched that and felt pain, I touched the other thing and I didn't felt pain. I got something; a robot never looks at a thing and says "that's interesting". If you were to float in midair in front of a robot, say "Hei, now, that is interesting." It can't do that, it can do only what it's programmed to do. A man can see things and be programmed and compare it to something else. That's a major difference between programmed behavior and human programming. Humans have a lot of association prior to programming, so the other associations if it reminds of them he can deviate. That's why people walk out of here when I speak with different interpretations. Kurzweil talks about implanting when nanotechnology comes about, implanting something in the head, you know like a second brain that may be so fast that could take over the other brain in the person. - This is something he's raised. - Well, you can do that, it doesn't give them leverage like, "I wonder about that, I never seen that happen." A man could say that. A man can look at an event and say "That's strange the way that paper holds up that speaker." A robot does not do that; it looks at the speaker. It doesn't even look at it and say "that looks like the speaker", unless you put a speaker in front of the robot and say "That's a speaker". So when the eyes "that's a speaker", when you turn sideways he doesn't know what that is. When it turn it sideways and say "that's also a speaker," if you rotate a speaker in many positions so the robot has associations with a shape in different positions you can call it a speaker. But if you call an orange an orange, but if you cut it in half it can't call it an orange. It doesn't say it looks like half an orange. Do you understand that? Okay. But this thing that Kurzweil is putting out like the Singularity is when you start to implant things in people's heads that have so many more calculating ability or... - If it is not connected to the other neurons it won't do anything. - It couldn't take over. No, unless it's connected. Well, he's proposing that it is connected somehow that there is some interface between... If there is an interface, organic neurons respond to certain rate of speed, anything beyond that rate it can't respond. Electronic systems travel almost at the speed of light. Neural associations are relatively slow. So if you try to speed up digestion of food in a human, digestion acids flow at a certain rate. If you were to triple the rate it might digest portions of the intestines. You can take a bear, let's take a bear and put it in a room this size with a bunch of objects sticking out, they have to stick out, forty of them, a bear might learn how to use twelve of them but not forty, it won't remember forty, it doesn't have the neuronal amount to remember, well a bear could remember because when a bear walks to an environment, "this bush has berries, and remembers where the bush is, this area has animals that I can eat," a bear can build up maybe thousands of associations, but first you have to study the range of the animal. How many levers an animal can remember will tell you what his outside response will be. You find a bear to learn to work forty seven levers and beyond that, little beyond that or a little less, if that's true. Then you know what the bear can respond to in the environment, forty different systems. A human can generate associations with thousands of things in the environment, a human, if a human learns to eat certain foods and he has to climb a tree to get it, if you put that fruit at the base of the tree, he won't climb the tree, a robot will, do you understand that? If you program a robot to climb a tree to get the apple, it will do that, but if you put the apple on the ground or (?) "Ah!" and that simplifies things. No, unless you build in something special in the robot to handle unforseen variables, and that's what people don't know how to do yet. They don't know how to program a robot to say "What have we here?" Because a robot the word what have we here, doesn't mean anything to a robot. - It means something to a human being. - The roboticists and Kurzweil too are bringing up you know when the robot does become connected to the environment, and does have enough information that it surpass people and overtake people. No, a robot does not ask questions, a robot does not say "I've been here before, I've seen that before, they don't have enough neurons to build all kinds of associations. Do you thing that it is possible that they could do that, if they could use biological? Well if it's programmed, no. But if a robot is self programming then the reason for robot's actions are very different than human systems. When a human puts something to it's mouth it tastes good, when a robot (?)does it, there's nothing, there's no reward. Now what's a reward to a robot? Sitting down, does it say "I'm so tired, now I feel better." He doesn't feel, so when he sits down he doesn't say "It's good to have a chair in my area." He doesn't give a shit about those things. If the light gets so bright that the eyes of the robot turn off, he says "I can't see" if you wire him that way, but he doesn't turn down the light unless you wire it that way. Then he turns off the light when it gets bright, but not because it's bright, because he has sensors that turn off the light. You were explaining last night this in terms of humans have to have experience to... Yes, that means a robot doesn't seek experience, a robot doesn't want to know why some tires wear out faster than others. So he doesn't take a microscope and looks at the rubber under a microscope. A robot is not equipped that way, they don't have pleasure and pain, if they had pleasure and pain, if they did they would have preferences, do you understand? If a robot cuts wood with a rotary saw or the wood is shoved in there, automatically cuts it. If you put a human there it will cut it too; it doesn't say "wait there's a person, I don't want to cut that." The robot cannot do anything, unless it's programmed to do it. And it could be programmed to cut wood but could it would cut anything else shoved in there. If you interfere with its programing it doesn't say "Hei, wait a while, you are interfering with programming." If radar picks up fog in San Francisco, the airplane might fly above the weather. the airplane moves up based on what's up there; if it's fog it moves up, but it doesn't move up to avoid the fog, that's human projection. The robot moves up because there was fog ahead, its sensors bounce back and give it a thing that controlls the elevators and makes it move up. If it's raining the robot may open an umbrella above itself, but when to rain drops hit the umbrella they may contact with two terminals, so the (?)flows across that opens the umbrella. But the robot says "it's raining I'm going to get wet", no, none of that, I'm talking about robotics today. You can only say why the robots won't take on over today, with what we know about robotics, but if they find a new system, I don't know about that so I can't talk about it. If you can give machines feelings, I don't see how you do that with steel robotics. I can't see where machines say to another machine, "That was a nice thing you did, helping the old lady across the street," because that's a value system; I might help anybody across the street, that's having difficulty, not necessarily an old lady. But an old lady (?)might make many assumptions; you see her as your mother or your grandmother (?)across the street, but if your grandmother was the biggest pain in the ass that you've ever met, you'll never help an old lady across the street. Do you understand that? Okay. So you say "What's the matter with that guy, he wouldn't help the old lady?" Nothing is to matter with anybody, they all reflect their background. So when people say "do you think the robots will take over"? There's no basis for it if they're programmed a certain way. They can't be programmed to take over. Do you see any scenario where they will surpass people? Yes, if you make organic people. So you know what that means? With feelings. The guy heats (?)it and it's hot, he pulls it away, and then he has to have a enough neurons, or enough electrical circuits to remember that when steam is coming out of a cup, it's too hot to put in your mouth. You have to build in equipment to receive that information, and that is not well understood today. But you talked about something from outer space comes here they wouldn't be humanoid. That's right. They don't care, they wouldn't want to talk to anybody. I want to say this about human beings: with all their neurons, they still will crowd maybe hundreds of thousands of people to see the king and queen. They will go (?)and wait all day even if it's raining a little. They want to see the queen. Now the queen can never utter stuff that will be beneficial to them. The king can never say "By the way, if you turn your car this way you get more miles per gallon." The king can never say anything of use, yet these people gather to see a movie star, or they will gather to see someone or want their autograph, which is a nothing thing, it just means that you've made contact with somebody. So people will crowd to see a baseball player which can never say anything that will enhance their lives, unless the kid says to the baseball player " - How can I become good?- Practice, lots of practice." Okay? And if the kid can never hit the (?)basket, then tell them to go to a neurologist to see if it's nervous system is working properly. Man can do that. But no computer turns to another computer and says "What is your range of sensitivity?" If you could do that to a computer and say "I can sense water falling, I sense a ball falling, but if you move it too fast, my sensors can only pick up seventeen images per second." So if I met a robot I would check it's range, then I know what it could do. How do you check it's range? You put it in an environment and see how fast it makes adjustments for everything in that environment. Yes? Do you think that robotics in some form like you say (?)may come here they may be very different in some form, they could be the next step in evolution and surpass humans. They will be the next step in evolution, but they have no reason to reproduce themselves as a robot. A man wants a family, he has an orgasm that produces a person, he doesn't have sex to reproduce, although some people think they do. If sex were not pleasurable, animals would not reproduce, Animals don't know that having sex will produce offspring, they can't know that. Yes? - So what is a human in a mechanistic sense? - A human has lots of range, if he didn't he wouldn't exist. If you don't have the range to know that lava will burn you and kill you and if there's a lava flow and you grin and sit there, your species is gone. But if you react to heat, you have heat sensors in your fingers, you go away. They say "well, the man didn't want to get burned, that's why he went away," No, he had heat sensors and that made him back away, that's what I mean by mechanistic," If I say "he backed away because he didn't want to be burned," the kid drew his hand out of the fire because it hurt, that's true, but if the kid had no nerves, no heat sensors, the hand will remain in the fire and begin to smoke, and he'd grin, okay. So when I say human beings are responding organisms, so is a robot, but they are responding to a track, the human is responding to his background and his programming do you understand the difference? Yes, physiology and his programming; a human being, a robot will climb a hill no matter how high it is and he'd wear out climbing that... A human being would go 150 feet and say "boy, I got to sit down and rest a while", because he can feel fatigue, a robot can't. Yes? So you don't that it is possible to create a synthetic organism of such complexity that it could actually feel? Yes we could. But right now, the kind of organisms we have do not feel; they have to have long experience. So what does it mean to feel? What means to feel? If the robot put lubricating oil and it felt good, just like you feel good when you eat, If you don't eat, you're hungry, got no food, when you put something in your mouth, you tend to chew on it. Kids suck any part of the body, and when they get to the breast, they get milk. Now why do men have breasts, if there's purpose to everything? They don't feed the young. They found out that on certain islands when men nurse babies, they eventually produce milk, did you know that? Okay. That's interesting. Man is very different than a program; a program is a record turning with magnetic differences, and all the robot does is follow that programming. A robot cannot turn off unless a circuit breaks, unless you cut the wires, or a robot might even say "Welcome to this house, have a seat," but if you stand, and the robot is not programmed to say "I said have a seat," if you don't move in that direction, you can program (?)the robot to say have a seat, but the robot doesn't feel good whether you're sitting or standing, it has no reason to perpetuate that action, but if you can give a robot feelings of some kind or the equivalent of feelings which is very hard to do without organic matter, it's organic sensors that have pain. A dog if it goes up to a guy that offers the food and wacks the dog, the dog will not go back. If you hold lubricating oil before a robot, it doesn't give a shit, it doesn't come up and say "I need lubrication". It can't, unless it's programmed to do so. If it is programmed to stick it's hand out and then the lubricant is injected into it, it doesn't go there for lubrication, it goes there as a response to a certain shape, visual. Yes? So can you make a robot with what they call "an instinct for survival" per se? Well you can simulate a robot when ice particles, big ice (?) are falling from the skies, he can go like that, or he can pick up a stainless steel umbrella, to prevent that from hitting him, but not from prevention of injury. The robot doesn't say "I did this because I didn't want to be injured." I can make him say that, when this thing's falling, you say "why did you open the umbrella?" say I opened it because I didn't want to be injured. That's not true. That's a human path that I (?) in the brain. Is it possible to create a a robot with what you may term "a conscience for a sense of self"? No, you can only simulate it, only if it's organic. A bear will not lie on a bunch of spikes sticking up, even though it never encounter it. The spikes sticking up to the bear through associative memory means pain, so he looks for soft grass. They say dogs turn around before they lie down. That's true, they do. They do turn around, but the people that study animal behavior, believe, they honestly believe that the dog over years of sitting in the grass, turns around to level the grass before he sat down. You can't inherit that. The dog, if he turned around... so I interrupted dogs just before they sat down, after they turn around, they turn around, and make a noise, and they turn around again, make a noise, I interrupted, to see if the dog would just sit down anyway. Now, and sometimes you call the dog over then you chase it away. Then if you do that four five times, he doesn't come to you when you call him. That's associative memory based on feelings, rejection, whatever it may be to a dog. So if a robot got up one morning and said "The bed I slept was not comfortable," then that means that they attained that. I can't see that; I can see a robot saying "I rather have soft rubber," it can even squeeze it and say "It is not soft enough", but that isn't real feelings, that's generated or a role that they are playing, just as the record says "Good morning, welcome to Disney Land." There are many records at Disney Land. The record doesn't give a shit whether you are there or not. Every twenty minutes it says "Welcome to Disney Land! Enjoy yourself and bring the kiddies, next time!" And the public (?) "How nice!" They assume lots of things, robots assume nothing, they carry out a program, so far. Now, production machinery, if you change, say it just fills perfume bottles with nozzels five hundred bottles at a time. If you brought milk bottles (?)up there, and say fill it with milk, you have to redesign the programming so when the white substance passes a visual mechanism, the things absorb the milk and they eject it. The way that work is the nozzle goes into the bottle and has a another nozzle, along side it, and it creates a vacuum. The one along aside it is vacuum, the one here pours the milk in. As the milk fills up it cuts the vacuum, so no more milk flows. One tube sucks the air out of the bottle and that brings milk into it; when it hits the tube that sucks the air out, that means it's full. So the machine doesn't say "I think the bottle is nearly full" and turns off a little in advance. No, there's no reflection in a robot. Like I said I can make a robot that simulates reflection. If you wack it really hard it could say "Ouch, my knee!" but that's impact that illicits that response but the robot does not hurt, do you understand that? No? I just don't...where do you draw the line as what's robotic and what's organic, because if you have an artificial heart or, you know what's stopping us from putting nerve and neurons... An artificial heart that's stimulated by the nervous system - it beats fast when you have to climb stairs, and when you climb stairs with an artificial heart, it doesn't beat faster to give you more circulation and oxigen unless it's connected, unless it has responders in it to respond to more energy required to climb up steps. - Say if we cut somebody's... - It depends on the rig. But you can't make an inorganic heart, a mechanical heart that feels emotionally. Like if your pants drop, you cover yourself; in the islands if a guy's jock strapt fellls off he doesn't cover himself. Do you know what I mean? He doesn't feel embarrassment. People don't feel embarrassment if they have been covered nude. Embarrassement is a learned behavior. If a women's top fell down, she'd go like that. But if she's brought up in a nudist colony, she wouldn't do that. - So, do you stil disagree with me? - Well no, I just, as far as we are today... - I just... - That's what I'm talking about, where we are today. How to we really know were we are today, because of programmers, do you think we really know what technology is capable of doing today? If you know how to check out human responses, otherwise you can't know. For example, "What made me different? What made me think that robots can't do anything unless they're programmed to do so? Roboticists don't talk this way. They talk as though one day we'll be able to do almost anything. Well, that's a projection that's crude. So what I did, years ago, is I made a robot that turned its head, but it never said "yes" or never went through anything that I didn't wired him. If I took a model airplane and I wanted it to do a barrel roll, that means this, I had to work the ailerons at a hundred and fifty feet, the robot has to have a gadget called "air pressure manometer". It moves in as the air pressure changes so at a hundred feet the ailerons would move, So it won't do a barrel roll near the ground, it'd break the wings off. But the robot, do you understand the ailerons move, it can do a barrel roll, if I wanted to do a loop, the elevators move, but it can do a loop unless it's two hundred feet off the ground because it would hit the ground at the half cycle of the loop. So I have to know what the range of that plane and its ailerons will do. If you meet a human being and say "Are you an individual?" and he says "Yes, I am." "Tell me how to stop wars with your individuality." He doesn't know, he can only recite like a robot unless he had been conditioned to say "I have to do a study on that, I may be able to come up with an idea. Where do you get that? In school. So even those questions, you have to know, if I met a man from Mars, like I said, I would say "What do you think I ought to know?" I wouldn't talk to him, say, "Do you want to meet my wife or my kids? That would have no meaning. Anything that can travel like I always said, a hundred million light years through space, is not like us. And they don't require a pat on the shoulder and say "You've travelled that great distance just to get here?" They'd say "Yes we have", but they're not interested in that conversation, can you understand that? Alright. So I'm talking about the world today, and the values today. Can we make a machine with feelings? If we make it of organic material. If we can replicate life; right now, there's a thing called coal points, which was developed in Mexico about sixty years ago. Some Mexican took (?)varnish, (?) mixed together and a bubble formed and it divided into two. then the other one divided into two; they simulated organic ocurrences, but they're not organic, they're not living. They don't move away from pain. All living systems that we know of, if you put a match near a moth, or any other animal, it will move away from it. If it doesn't, they don't exist, they get wiped out. There are many animals that did not feed their young, they just found food and ate it, they're gone, they can't reproduce. Do you understand that? So nature probably, produced billions of experiments that didn't work, just like a lab or research. So when you meet another type creature, you always have to say "What have we here?" And the answer is "I don't know", until you measure that creature's response to heat, cold, water, and if it has no mouth, no asshole, if it can convert the sun's rays into energy, it's a different system. And you're going to have to...How to investigate a system that has no input? You have to think about that and if you can't do that, you can't analyse or predict. Science, theoretically, is the ability to predict the next most probable. When you understand Science you know how to go about and you know what to look for, or you know that you don't have the equipment to look for it. I can't look up a germ's asshole with a microscope, I can only see the whole germ, but I can't get close enough, unless I get another type microscope, super amplified. And if you gave it to the average person, they wouldn't know what they're looking at. So you have to know something about insects, something about what you want to know. If you just look at a man from another country, they're pretty much the same as us, so if you go like that, they know you want water, or that, they know you want food, but if you meet a totally different creature from a different world, where their food comes from the sun, just energy, and you went like that, they wouldn't know what you wanted, unless they have a multiple orientation, which is possible, but highly improbable. The orientation is as you get wiser, and know more, and learn more, you set aside the old. You don't look at a guy and say "He looks like a nice person". You don't have that value system. You say "What use is the world to one another?" Right now is "me for myself", so it's a very little use to the majority, yes? Would you expect that any advanced type of organisms, machine, whatever it might be that could come that far to here, would expect... I wouldn't know why they'd came either. I have no idea, if they're that advanced they can make anything they want to make, they don't need to come here. - But they wouldn't intervene to help us out. - No, I don't think they concern themselves, anymore that you would turn to caterpillars and say "Look, if you crawl on this tree, you're less apt to be picked off by birds. The caterpillar learns that so there would be billions of caterpillars and less birds. So do you like caterpillars more than birds? You must have an attitude about caterpillars, but if you walked, and say "I stepped on a caterpillar", you can't sleep at night, you have a value system that's detrimental to your wellbeing and survival. If you stepped on a caterpillar accidentally and you can't sleep at night, if you stepped on it deliberately, kids do that, because they have the power to do that, they can step on it and they feel (?) But when you think your associative system is real, that's when it becomes a problem. If it's not based on indoctrination, feelings that are superimposed over you, than it's the only thing you know. What language will be adopted during social and emotional interactions for the first city? They'd be too early for the first city, that's a transition. It won't work out too well. You go to school to learn the newer systems. It won't be any conventional language. It will be the more efficient use of conventional language. Can you discuss how much the Planet's mortality rate would change in a Resource Based Economy, taking into consideration no war and crime, no poverty, no starvation? We will maintain a population that coincides with the carrying capacity of the Earth's resources. How to overcome the language barrier in the future? - Education. - First city, TVP city. Okay, so there's no sectarianism in social relations outside of learning and scientific research? Well, people feel good if they're petted and it depends how much dependency you put in... - You're cut off there, I don't know if you're trying to (?) - Okay. - Did you get that last question? - Yes, but that would have to do with education or information. They say, for instance, in some universities, international universities, we can see groups, because of language barriers. I don't know that, it depends on how big the city is, how much is apropriated for the experiment, I can't answer that. Jacque's statement: "People are not intitled to their opinions" is often misunderstood or taken straight out of context, can you briefly touch on this, that people are not intitled to their own opinions? By their own opinions you mean a judgement arrived at without experiment? If a judgment is arrived at without experiment is relatively invalid. You often talk people in this culture, but its always stress that people should have the right to their own opinion. But we're really advocating that instead of that, because people can have all sorts of erroneous opinions, without any research, without any back up, so we usually say, people should have access to information rather then just opinions. - Yes, that's true. Jacque, how do you define freedom in a Resource Based Economy? I don't know what the word freedom means. Does it have any different connotation in a Resource Based Economy, will it be used? No, the word freedom will never be used. If Russia host the first Venus Project city, would Cuba and Venezuela would be under consideration for the next city? We really don't know who or where the first city will be hosted. The people who are bringing us to Russia are interested in having it done, so they are working at it. They are trying to get people who might have the ability to do that. We would love to have a first city in Cuba and a city in Venezuela, we were always interested in having a city in Venezuela. Excuse me Roxanne, in regards to the freedom question, I would like to ask Jacque, "would people have less and equal amount of or more freedom in a Resource Based Economy, then they would be in today's monetary system? I don't know what freedom means, but they would have a wider range of inquiry and a wider range of knowledge in the future than they do today. And a wider range to goods and services and education and access to be able to do certain things that they want to do. You have to really define the term "freedom". Nobody is free to do anything that what they want. This is true, I don't know what the word means. In this culture you are really as free as your purchasing power, it has no meaning, it's really.... You can't eat your children if you're hungry, what do you mean by freedom? There's an old saying that "you can swing your arm as much as you want, as long as you don't hit anybody else." Would you agree with that? That's too insufficient to deal with anything real. It's subject to too many questions. You'd have a wide range of variables, as to what you can do. Yes, and you wouldn't be limited to your purchasing power. You'd have access to free education, to pursue what you want in lines that would benefit people really, you would be conditioned to want to do that. Less self-centered behaviour and more social behavior. People will behave toward the well being of others. And they would understand by doing that, that your own lifestyle improves considerably. Your own wellbeing improves that way, much faster than it does than living to yourself today, thinking you can beat the other guy; even if you accumulated millions of dollars the standard of living and the range of what's possible through one self, would be much greater within a cooperative Resource Based Economy. Yes, with respect to freedom, somebody who might ask this question using the term freedom is just concerned will they be restricted more in the future or they will have less restrictions in the future. It's a really simplistic type of question because of what Roxanne touched down, even Joel, touched on something called free will, and that's a very complex question and a thing to comprehend, but the word freedom, yes, the simple answer is that you will have more general freedom than now. Yes, that's true, somebody asked that question, that would be a good answer. Okay, you mentioned the creation of a new language that has physical reference. Would this be a single language, or would each specific discipline have its own language, i.e. language of Mathematics, language of Physics, language of Electronics etc.? Yes, they'd be different languages, you're right. Under the housing section on your website it states you would use concrete in part to build them. Why would you use a material that produces so much large amount of CO2? I said composite materials, mostly. Composite materials mean the elimination of the negative affects. Would you build also out of concrete because you have written about that before? Yes, but the concrete will be modified, so it wouldn't have the negative caracteristics. Jacque, do you have blueprints for large scale behavioral systems? I'm not talking about buildings and structures, I'm asking about physiological blueprints and particular ways of reinforcing behavior. - Yes. - Do you have blueprints for that? Not blueprints, but the methods worked out. Where would the scientists and technicians live? Inside the test city, demo city, outside the city. They would live wherever they chose to, in the city in floating domes or on the hilltop. That will be up to the individual. I think he's kind of asking about the first city. - Where would the scientists live? - Surrounding the labs they work at. And we see sometimes within the first city that they might be rotational inhabitants, that people may be rotating out of the city for a period of time, and some people would be coming and going within the first city, people who want to work within it. Yes, that's very close. How can we be sure nobody programms a robot to be distructive or harmful in any way? Sometimes people have hidden agendas. Yes, well, I would say that in the early training in school you can detect those aberrations and correct them. I have trouble understanding memory in humans. I know Skinner did not identify with the cognitive physiological point of view. (?)He asked you the psychological point of view(?). Where the see our brain as a type storage filing system, could you, Jacque, explain memory in humans? Well, if we didn't remember that certain animals or certain types of fish were find near reefs, we couldn't learn to fish efficiently. So, I would say that associative memory that reinforce the organism, either feed the organism or gave them materials that they sought; if you got materials remembering the shape of a rock that you got the material from, that would be extensional to you, to your survival. The memory that just remember anything in the vecinity is not useful to man. You don't want to remember how large a bear's eyebrows are, because it's no use to you immediately. So having a type of memory that reinforces you is more useful, than the memory of everything that what you see. Jacque, do you agree that the physical reinforcer that comes from the environment is interpreted as emotions, and a chemical substrates that make them? I don't know what you mean by emotions and chemical substrates. Would physical reinforcers in the environment be interpreted as emotions? How do you interpret emotions? Emotions, if you eat food and you feel good, that's emotional. If you want to be with another human being, because you feel good about it, that's emotions. But emotions are not accurate. They don't tell you whether the person is good for you or not. Emotions are subjective. Do you think that any environment reinforcers are always interpreted as emotions? I don't understand... No, if you're reinforced by a city design because it makes people happier, better informed and more reasonable to deal with that's the useful emotion, but if your emotional about a man because he's Polish and you're Polish that's indoctrination. Have you tried to identify the internal mechanisms of the reinforcement from the environment? Yes, many are based on food, many of the emotions are based on flattery, not necessarily based upon scientific scale of performance. Why are people suspicious about technical elitism? My response to this is that how can elitism emerge when the education is available to everyone? Most of them that won't accept this alone. What would you say to them, if somebody accused...? There's no elitism in The Venus Project. Either you have information in certain areas or you have limited information, but there's no elitism. - There's no advantage in it... - No advantage served by elitism. And there's no reinforcement within the society for certain people to enable them to feel that way either. Yes. Jacque, what do you think about the New World Order that certain people prepare now in the secret? Do you think that the New World Order is true? No, The New World Order is always done for advantages of particular groups. We don't have a World Order for advantage groups, we have a world that's planned in accordance with the carrying capacity only. But do you think there's a New World Order, as they speak, a small group of people meeting in secret for controlling things? There may be, but it doesn't matter; any of those plans will (?)fall because if it doesn't include the majority they will be hurt eventually. The (?) New World Order is to serve the (?)advantage point for particular individuals. We don't have a World Order to serve any particular individual, but all people. For the first city how is the social relationship because of language barrier will block this step? And actually university scientists go naturally in their language group, because it's easier to understand, do you feel that because of the different languages there will be natural barriers within universities or amongst people? Only during the transition. So what language and how will education be for the experimental city? It will relate to the city, to the nature of the environment around them and to the means of obtaining a stable type of social operation or (?)ever growing social operation. The microphones have been activated. I've been watching The Venus Project for quite a while now, I agree with most overall goal, but I feel that we need to achieve a target which is more approachable to the masses now, to start the process early; the overall goal is to get enough money, and that's not going to happen anytime soon, so we need a goal to achieve now. Well, we have many different goals to achieve right now, if you take a look at our website under get involved, there's a lot of things we would like to do, take a look at that, we are working toward a global motion picture, we're working towards a first city, we would like to do many things and any help you would like to put in that direction would be extremely appreciated. Yes. Yes, I am aware of what you are saying but what I am saying I asked in the past as well but not made more sense for The Venus Project to grow (?)and money size, make money from a toxic system, show the masses what you can do with toxic money, put it in the correct hands, and make further bases(?) as in Venus Florida, different bases over the world, that explain what's happening to the masses. Yes, put out whatever information you can. Are you talking about doing small communities all over? Yes, you need (?) so we need a lower goal, that's more achievable, so for example, if I had the funds to give you a million pounds, I would rather you spend money on different bases on different parts of the world, that further educate people, whereas if you put it into a film you make five hundred million viewers who watch and agree with that but nothing will change. People (?) physical items in this world, because that's the world we live in. We have always said we would love to do a larger research center, if you have that funds we be glad to put it towards a larger research center where more people could work directly with us, or we would help another group do that in another part of the country if they want to advocate The Venus Project, and they understood what that was, we're all for it. We don't really rule anything out, we do rule out that we're not advocating small little hand tool communities (?)advocating their own kind of direction. A lot of people come to us and say that we're doing community, and we're doing a democratic community and we're doing a consensus community, we're doing a hand tool community with low tech housing and things like that, but they want our technology and they want to call it Resource Based Economy and they want our help in that way. And we don't, it's kind of going backwards, it's not really going as far as we could go so anybody had funding and they wanted to do a larger research center, we're all for it. But the research center would have to demonstrate what The Venus Project is about. Yes, (?) I would like, I feel The Venus Project has to grow with money, has to grow in a monetary system now, but that's the reason the system of The Venus Project will head, because it's too far ahead, it's not going to catch on quick enough, so (?) that's why the system is lower than it is, if not it will be taken down and to beat the system at their own game you need to make money at toxic (?), show the masses toxic money can be converted into real money for the short term goal to make The Venus Project grow. Well, you know that's fine if you want to do that. People want to go out and make money and then put it towards this direction, that's good. We put all our money, all our life towards this direction, so we're not saying "no" to that at all. But that's the only way I can see it going forward. The overall goal is to get to no money, but that's not going to happen in the next fifty years but I believe The Venus Project has to grow, has to do things to make more money, has to get more people involved because I do believe if you'd have the funds, a lot of people would be willing to do manual labor for free (?) toxic system. - We agree with you. - We don't disagree with you, but don't put it all on us. Yes, yes, I understand fully what you said, but I feel that people need (?) We do have to work within this system, absolutely. I don't think that getting rid of the money is the main focus of The Venus Project, the main focus is providing abundance for everybody and making a much better world for everybody, and as a result of providing the abundance for everybody, money will become obsolete. So it's not the main goal to get rid of money, the main goal would be to provide abundance and a much more standard of living for people. Do you see the difference? - Absolutely, Sue, yes. - You're right, I agree with you. Yes, I understand exactly what you're saying, but for the masses to take it on you need a short term goal. A lot of these ideas are constructive, but are not going to happen anytime soon, so smaller goal that is achievable are setting up the foundations for the next fifty years would be more an achievement rather than just going trying to help people in long term period because it's not going to take on, so we need a short term goal, (?) because it's more achievable. You just, you do whatever you can, we agree. Yes, I just want it to give (?) something because generally people kind of link motivation to finances in general. Let say there're different short term-long term goals. If you want to join up the TVP activism groups, I'm sure you'll get more, like way more information in actually quite short period of time of what we do, because we have many projects that are both long term and short term. And it really depends on how you approach each country and each individual and for example you could do a long term goal where you go and educate the kids from the next generation the fifteen, seventeen, eighteen year olds. And in twenty years there will be the majority of the voters and the majority of the taxpayers. So from this perspective there is other approaches, but yes, I do believe that a lot of people actually do not put their effort only for money, otherwise we wouldn't have volunteers in the world. Generally people put a lot of effort because they see the point in the idea. And with especially younger generations it is easier to actually provide them this vision for the future because they see it now. Fifteen, seventeen, eighteen year olds see this especially in the countries where capitalism has really grown, see the shit that they live in and you can actually present them and say "You know let's build a better future together" and they're really enthusiastic. There's really a lot of projects that we're doing, and we really like to have you on and kind of show you what we are do and stuff. Yes, cheers man, I'd like to join that. I'm just like, I'm glad you got my questions (?), I got one final question. My friend has been watching the videos and now (?)one in the present system and one(?). You understand exactly what the process is (?) is there any particular department would like to (?)try and force (?)making their mind up? I didn't quite understand that question, can you repeat that? Right. Me and my friend have been watching (?)you for quite a while. Now my friend is in quite a hassle. He's ended up in the present system for three years. Now, is there's any particular direction you'd like him to turn, express to other people, to make people realize what is actually going on? - Read the book "The Best That Money Can't Buy". - Yes, learn as much as you can about this and start talking to others about it. Start talking to the people within the The Venus Project and learning what approaches they have been using and what they have been successful with and just learn as much as you can about it and try different ways to reach people. Okay, thank you, perfect. (?) is the film "Future my love" is going to come out as purchase on DVD or what's the story with that? I don't know, that's not our film, that's Maja Borg's film, I think right now there're going to putting it out for film festivals so it's not being sold right now, that's her interpretation of what she learned after coming here and doing a lot of interviews. Okay, thank you very much, thank you for answering my questions, cheers! Yes. What direction do you propose to educate our children in the world today? I studied many types of methodologies but nothing seems efficient to prepare our children for todays world and to offer something more (?). You're (?) a position to do that yet. Give them as much exposure as you can to science and technology. - Yes, that's the only way I know of. - Yes. Hello, Jacque and Roxanne, I would like to pass one question if I can. Sure, Stan. It seems that people interested in new directions, especially in The Venus Project, when they have some kind of instabilities in the economy or personal economical situations, can you please comment, why do you think that is the case, why people when they have financial security are not interested in new direction? Because everybody's interested in stabilising their own lives, they're interested in a world without war, poverty, unemployment and all of the problems that are manifest in today's culture. They would like to learn how to undo many of those problems and what The Venus Project concerns are is the methods for accomplishing that. Are you saying why do people look towards The Venus Project only where there's instability in their lives or insecurity? Because that's the only thing that motivates people, insecurity and instability. Yes, when they're feeding themselves and they can still pay the mortgage and they can still pay the rent and they can still send their kids to school and pay for their cars, then they're really not interested in learning about new ideas when their needs are being taken cared of, even if the values they're learning and they're in debt all their life, even if that's the case, that's considered the norm in this culture And most people don't look for something else because they're not educated enough, they're really essentially indoctrinated in this culture, they're not really educated so they don't understand the abuses or where it's coming from, they don't understand why they behave the way they do and why other people behave the way they do they're given these ridiculous notions of good and bad and right and wrong and they are just not working hard enough for whatever it is to keep this system going and to keep plugging along in this system, so when they get hit directly, then they want their needs met, they want something to take care of their needs, they're still saying "What's in it for me?" they don't have a collective or cooperative kind of attitude shift, but they want their needs taken care of. So it's then when those people keep looking around. Thank you very much, this is clear answer, and another question, in this lecture, Jacque says that on some particular (?)islands men when they are nursing babies, they can start producing milk, can he please elaborate on that and the mechanisms that works there? When we heard this recently, Joel looked it up on the Internet and you can find it there so we don't remember which island it was. - Do you remember, Joel? - No. Yes, I don't know but take a look on the Internet, you'll find that information. So, we're going to say goodbye for now, and we really appreciate everybody tuning in. Yes, this is so, and keep up the good work. Yes, thanks everyone for all the help you're doing, we'll talk to you next week.

Video Details

Duration: 1 hour, 1 minute and 39 seconds
Year: 2012
Country: United States
Language: English
Producer: The Venus Project
Director: The Venus Project
Views: 14
Posted by: ltiofficial on Feb 19, 2016

TVP Teamspeak Q&A Seminar - Reinforcement and Programming, Biological and Robotic - 2012-07-15

Note: This is LTI's 'internal working location' for this video, so please do not publicly pass around this URL. All completed and fully proofread 'official' translations can be found at the Repository location at, which we highly encourage you to embed &/or pass around.

To join/help with these translation efforts: (LTI Forum)

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub above to caption this video.