Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Marwa interviews Curt Jaimungal on UFOs, Religion, God, Free Will

Episode Date: February 15, 2024

Full episode where Marwa interviews Curt Jaimungal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JGoDc9BUL8Marwa's Soft Robotics channel: https://www.youtube.com/@marwaeldiwiny

Marwa L. Dewini has a podcast on soft robotics where she interviews people like Gary Nolan, Jacques Vallée, and Michael Levin. She recently interviewed me on heaven, hell, the cognitive perils of both eastern and western interpretations of religion, free will, that is randomness versus non-determinism, and even UFOs. Her channel is in the description. Check it out. Yeah, these are great questions. So, I, well, yes, I think life is random, but random doesn't mean, yeah, I think life is non-determined. So there's a distinction between something being not determined and something being random. Usually those are conflated, but random technically means

that we have a probability distribution and non-determined just means it's not determined. Since if you have the halting of an arbitrary Turing machine is a non-determined problem, but it's not random. There's no probability distribution on this, on this problem. Does this arbitrary Turing machine halt? This is something that Scott Aronson talks about when he talks about free will. He says that many of the people who are against free will make the mistake that they'll say, look, you're either determined or you're not determined. So either the laws of physics actually determine you or they're not, in which case they're quantum mechanical and thus they're random. He's like, no, no, no, no, no. There's a difference. You're either determined or you're not determined. Sure.

But you can't then go from you're not determined to you're randomly determined. That's different. Randomness is a subset of non-determinacy or of being non-deterministic. Sorry. But it's unknown if randomness is an inclusive subset. So it's the entire subset. Or if it's smaller. It's unknown.

How would you like to perceive yourself if you recognize yourself for the first time? I think that's like sort of experiment based on your conversation. So how you perceive yourself. So how do I, how would I perceive myself if I was to encounter myself for the first time? For first time.

Yeah. So it's a good question. Yeah. Well, what I would say, I'm someone who takes a I think it's called a battering ram.

A battering ram to problems that are either impenetrable you can't you can't move through them or yeah, they're impervious or that I'm taking a battering ram to a sunflower seed. Like, the answers are so simple that it's foolish to use such tools.

Did you find the truth or the reality for our existence? I think that's a question not even close yeah not even close not even close at least i don't think so maybe it's in front of one's nose the whole time that's something that people say in the more spiritual circles but i don't think so yeah but i'm curious about this your materialistic worldview change it to spiritual man how this the transitioning yeah i wouldn't even say that i'm that i'm that i've dropped materialism and that i've gained spiritualism i wouldn't even say that i i i think both the the idealist mindset so the one that thinks consciousness is fundamental and the one that thinks material is fundamental so something physical and and dead is fundamental both suffer from the same left brain issues of abstraction.

I think they're both the same theory or the same framework. They just use different words. I think it's a reductionist framework. I'm not a reductionist. So do you still believe that maybe there's a God or nothing in that case? Yeah, there indeed could be a God. I'm not taking that off the table. I take that possibility extremely seriously. And what other beliefs that you think that changed in you since you've been covering these topics?

There's any other beliefs that changed in you? Man, Mara, these are great questions. These are extremely deep questions. So these are delusive questions. Let me think about how to answer this. Well, okay, let me take something mathematical. So in math, math is based in logic. It's usually based in classical logic,

which means something's true or something's not true, or that you can... If something... There's something called the law of the excluded middle. So either not A is the case or A is the case. And that you can... If you have both of them, then you have what's called the principle of explosion,

and anything is true. I don't know. I don't buy classical logic. I also don't buy intuitionist logic. So intuitionist is generally thought of as the alternative to classical logic. There's something called paraconsistent logic, which is Grand Priest is the current Grand Priest is a professor of logic. He's the current popularizer of it or the current grand priest is a professor of logic he's the current popularizer of it or the current proponent of it major proponent of it it says that yeah you can have a and not a and still not explode and he says that that's actually how our thoughts work because we're inconsistent people so look if our brains are computational why is it like are you

saying are you saying that you're a rational person, but yet you're inconsistent? Thus, you should believe anything. If you are based in classical logic, because it means you have some belief, I don't know what one, but you believe that you're, you're not infallible. So you have some belief somewhere, call it BN, belief number N, out of the thousands and thousands of beliefs you have. And then there's some other belief, say BM, Out of the thousands and thousands of beliefs you have. And then there's some other belief, say BM. Could be belief 2588.

And these two are in contradiction. You just don't know where in your whole spectrum of beliefs. If what you are, if you believe yourself to be a rational, computationally driven person, and it's classical, then you should believe anything. You should technically explode. So, sorry, logically technically explode, not physically explode, like mentally explode. But yet we don't. So why not? Maybe it's because we're either not computational. Okay, that's one possibility. Maybe it's because if we're computational, it's not on the same classical logical foundation. And so that's, Graham Priest would lie there.

Maybe a third option is that we're actually not inconsistent. I don't know who would say that. That would have to be an arrogant person, an extremely haughty person who believes plenty about themselves. And by the way, that's a technical term. An arrogant agent is a technical term. It means that they don't have any contradictions in their beliefs. Sorry, it means they believe that they don't have contradictions in their belief. So Raymond Smully is a mathematician who outlined all these different types of reasoners. And an arrogant reasoner is one that believes this is super interesting, Mara,

there's something called doxastic logic, the logic of belief. Super interesting. I can't wait to explore that some more on the channel. But he's exploring, okay, what are the consequences of doxastic logic, different belief logics. And one of them is look, what happens if you believe that you're not inconsistent? Sorry? Yes, that's look, what happens if you believe that you're not inconsistent? Sorry. Yes, that's correct. What happens if you believe that you're not inconsistent?

Well, anyway, you can, there are various paradoxes around this. So I want to also ask you what are the most challenging discourse in the channel? Like,

it was very challenging and maybe, yeah, maybe recent or at the start that very challenging topic in the channel they have covered so far. Chris Langan was one that took quite some time to prepare. So Chris Langan is someone who is an extremely bright individual who didn't go to university,

and he has an unexampled theory of everything, everything, sorry, called the CTMU, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe. It's impenetrable, it's unfathomable, or maybe he's taking something that's ineffable and putting words to it. But either way, so is anyone else who believes they have a philosophical theory of everything

or a metamathematical theory of everything. And he does. And it took some time for me to go through. And see, most people who develop toes, they're either a string theorist, so a physical toe person, or a loop quantum gravitist who believes that eventually they'll get to the standard model. Or they're just one or two people working in isolation. I know what that's like to be just so lonely working on something like...

I know what it's like to be lonely. And what happens is that for these people working on their toes, like Chris Langen or Stephen Wilfrum or Eric Weinstein, some people will say, yeah, but why can't you explain your toe to me simply? The reason is that they've gone off into many tangents in their own mind where something makes total sense to them, but they've done so alone because academia is not kind to them for whatever reason or because, well, for whatever reason. And so it's as if they're developing their own field and now mara when you interview someone your your podcast is at least titled about soft robotics but if you're interviewing

someone in any field that isn't your own and you're unfamiliar with it it sounds like gibberish even like the first year level sounds like gibberish like what what is a Krebs cycle? And what is the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis? Like these are actual words, but they sound like they're just made up and someone would say, well, why don't you explain it to me? In order to explain something simply, you often need to go through this decocketing process of several different professors explaining it to one another and having students and explaining it to them over the course of years, explaining it to one another and having students and explaining it to them over the course of years, having a variety of other people in that field explain it to one another and then come up with books and books and books. Even Einstein, when he came out with special relativity, said,

I can't explain my own theory in 5,000 words. There was some contest where there's like, explain special relativity in 5,000 words. That's actually plenty of time. 5,000 words is plenty. Even 1,000 words is plenty. He's like, I can't do it. And it's because there wasn't that back and forth and decocketing process between different researchers. So these people like Stephen Wolfe from Eric Weinstein and Chris Langen, they're off in their own world in large part.

They're off in their own world. It doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means you have to take the time to go to their island and look around and ask questions about the trees and familiarize yourself with the place. For me, Chris Langan was one of the most difficult. Thomas Campbell was also difficult because his, he said, you need to do this sort of meditation in order to understand my theory and you need to do it for at least two months and so i just i did it i did his version of meditation for two months or at least two months and so just as a time sink that was the most difficult since you mentioned academia i i want to ask you about that uh later but maybe i i agree with the sentiment about academia and i

since i'm coming from it i i it's it's very difficult. And I'm curious about your point of view in general, since you talk to many people. But what do you think about academia, just from your worldview about it? Yeah. I think it's the, I think that there, I think it's like, it's an amazing place and it has its cons as well. There's pros and cons. So there are broadly two classes of people. There are the academic types that are the hard-nosed scientific types. And I've, I understand that I'm excluding the humanities and other portions of the university for this.

So I'm familiar with STEM. So let's just think the academia is all STEM, even though it's not. So there are those types of rigorous, exact, high-fidelity people. Then there are the more imprecise, hand-wavy people on the spiritual side that are touching on something meaningful.

And academia is almost about removing meaning. Mathematics is all about abstracting away. Of course, again, there are exceptions here. Some people study meaning, but then you're also studying it from a white coat perspective with glasses on in a diagnosing manner that distances yourself from it. And each side, the spiritual crowd and the academic side, they tend to not like one another.

The academic side sees the spiritual side as being irresponsible and making too many large claims and especially abusing quantum, the word quantum. And then the spiritual side thinks the academic side is just brainwashed and they're too rational and too logical. And there's so much more that's outside that. And both sides have a correctness about them. Something I don't like about the academic side is that it crushes spirits around the time when they're 22 to 27. They're like, hey, do your PhD. When you're your most creative. And what this

means is like, you specialize when you're your most creative. And what this means is like you specialize when you're your most creative rather than here. I'm going to continue to pay you to learn, not research. Research is different. You have to output something to research. And that's something many people don't know. They think, oh, I researched this topic. What do you mean?

Oh, I looked it up on Wikipedia. Academics don't mean that when they say research. Research means what you find on Wikipedia was sourced by the research. the research is the the what's on wikipedia is the output of research rather than the process of of research i like the creativity part because i think it's just a little stifling i feel that's uh when you mention eric weinstein and others they aren't on all islands so i i don't know that creativity part is just difficult. And I may be curious from you, where do you find this creativity and freedom? Where do you find it through the channel?

What it means to you, the creativity here? Yeah, for me, I would say that I'm interested in being a generalist specialist. So we're in this world where you have to be more and more specialized. And we used to have someone that I admire tremendously is Leonardo da Vinci. I feel such a resonance with his character. So firstly, he integrated several disparate fields. He was self-taught. Now, of course, he had a mentor in the artistic

domain, but he was more than just a painter. He was prideful, even though he hid it. He didn't like to talk about himself. He was almost unboundedly curious. So there's so many

qualities of his that I jive with. There's no Renaissancenaissance man any longer, or renaissance woman. There's no renaissance person. Because you have to specialize. The academic world is, you need to get hired. In order to get hired, you have to have a history of publication. In order to publish, you need to tackle a problem that's achievable. Achievable and interesting, but still not fantastically interesting. Otherwise, it would be so difficult to make progress unless you get lucky. There are just a few, a handful of situations where that occurs. Most of the time, you take something on that your advisor is knowledgeable enough in that

your advisor has their own point of view. You tend to adopt something that's similar to your advisor. enough in that your advisor has their own point of view. You tend to adopt something that's similar to your advisor. And your exploration is now only if it aids my PhD. So I'm just realizing this now. So Leonardo da Vinci, he couldn't stand trapped birds, birds in cages. He would buy birds that were in cages, like spend his own money, even though he's poor. He was so poor, he would almost lie about his resume to the Medici's, who were the people who would fund him. He'd be like, I will make you weapons of war. I will design your streets.

He mentioned like every single thing else except being an artist. Artist was last. Because he's like, okay, that's what will get me hired. He used his money, even as a pauper, essentially, to buy birds and then free them. Academia, in some sense, is taking a bird right when they're supposed to learn to fly and putting them in a cage. But it's not as if I'm criticizing it, but I don't know of an alternative. Academia is a money-making institution as well. How the heck else are you supposed to get some money if you're not going to produce outputs? How are you going to produce outputs if you're not tackling interest, sorry, tackleable problems? So it's not as if I'm saying something that's unheard of in academia, and it's not as if I'm saying something controversial or even so deleterious to academia's reputation. I appreciate this point. But also another topic about, I think, since I had a developer in the podcast

and he also had the sentiment about academia and they don't like to talk about taboo topic like UFOs or things like that. From your channel, the UFOs discussions, how was the variation of the responses to this topic? It's sensational to to that to something contradict what we know maybe in religion and and i i'm curious about the contradictions and the feedback that you received about the this topic yeah yeah on air there's oh sorry off air many of the people

who you would think of as just i don't want to give it away but too many but but hard-nosed again hard-nosed mathematicians or physicists they would then ask me about the topic like kirk like what have you learned about so-and-so i'm like why don't you ask me that on air like show that you're actually interested because people have this idea that it's something that's scorned and it is scorned publicly so there's a concept called a called oh boy it's it's a an illusion of sorts i've forgotten the term i'll come back to it but anyhow there's basically the the concept i've even though i forgotten the word collective collective illusion the collect a collective illusion is one where you believe other people to hold this belief and so you publicly state that you also hold that belief

even though you don't and no one does so an instance an example of this would be in the 1960s many most white people were apparently against segregation but they thought their neighbors weren't and so they would say i am i am for segregation i want there to be segregation it turns out that no one well the majority of people didn't want that so it was a collective illusion and i have a feeling that the stigma in in the ufo world is a collective illusion is that we have to say because we want to appear we want to give the pretense of being intellectual and perspicacious. So we're like, hey, look, I'm this keen, shrewd academic. I'm going to discount the UFO topic, even though if you check my browser history, I'm extremely interested in it. So I have a feeling

that something like that is going on. Maybe I'm curious, since this topic, did you have any paranormal activity? I don't know, like experience in your life? Something unusual that you didn't even know what it is. You mentioned you already, yeah. I have plenty that's unusual, but I wouldn't call it paranormal, no. But do you believe about this abduction stories? Because that's another part. Do you believe these stories or the people you talk with? Do you think it's real

or or just illusion yeah i believe that the people who are saying that it's real are i believe that many of them are being truthful i believe that many of them are not being truthful i don't know how to discern although i oh but but i but it doesn't matter there's a mixture just like there's a mixture of truth in any domain and sorry truth telling and honesty in any domain what do I make of that? I don't know what to make of it I don't think it's as simple as a psy-opt

some people say it's a psychological operation that the government is just lying to you I don't think it's so simple I think there may be something else going on if it's a terrene explanation so nothing that's paranormal or extraterrestrial or even terrestrial but from some millions and millions of years ago i would consider that by the way to be non-terrene so non-ex non an explanation that doesn't involve our government or ourselves or black projects and so on. I don't know if it's as simple as a psychological operation. And even if it were, to me, that itself is so fascinating.

Like it would be the largest, by orders of magnitude, the largest psychological operation that's been done in history. And by the way, it's illegal for thes government to do that so there's some wild violations of of american rights occurring if one thinks it's just like it's a psyop but some people will say oh it's obviously it's obviously a psyop and then they'll just end it i'm like that's like saying it's obviously just oh it's obviously just there's obviously slavery happening in the government okay what do you mean like are you not interested in that is that not interesting or worth investigating further oh it's obviously child sacrifice okay yeah i guess i ask you do you think life is random and do you believe in heaven or hell i think that's a question always just pop in mind and i'm curious what you think. Do you think life is random sometimes?

Yeah, these are great questions. So I, well, yes, I think life is random, but random doesn't mean, yeah, I think life is non-determined. So there's a distinction between something being not determined and something being random. Usually those are conflated. But random technically means that we have a probability distribution. And non-determined just means it's not determined. So for instance, if you have the halting of an arbitrary Turing machine is a non-determined problem, but it's not random. There's no probability distribution on this problem. Does this arbitrary Turing machine halt? This is something that Scott Aronson talks about when he talks about free will. He says that many of the people who are against free will make the mistake that they'll

say look you're either determined or you're not determined so you either the laws of physics actually determine you or they're not, in which case they're quantum mechanical and thus they're random. He's like, no, no, no, no, no. There's a difference. You're either determined or you're not determined. Sure. But you can't then go from you're not determined to you're randomly determined.

That's different. Randomness is a subset of non-determinacy, of being non-deterministic. But it's unknown if randomness is an inclusive subset, so it's the entire subset, or if it's smaller. It's unknown. Anyway, you asked about heaven and hell. My present deliberation, and I will put an asterisk on that, so it's my current model or current thinking, is that I don't think hell exists, at least not in the way that it is portrayed as a fiery place. As for heaven, I don't know.

There's some traditions that say heaven is here right now if only you would recognize it so i think that's from jesus said the kingdom of god lays before you if only but men do not see it something like that i don't know yeah it's uh difficult to... Yeah. You're asking some of the questions that... Does heaven and hell exist? Yeah, that's a question that people have debated for millennia. Yeah, that's a great response. We don't know.

Great. That's right. Why did you cry in the podcast with Leogara? Yeah, I don't... And what do you think about his teachings? I don't recall. Yeah, I don't recall. As for Leo's teachings,

I think that the idealist frame of mind is a left brain that's gone awry and doesn't recognize that it's a left brain phenomenon. So the left brain from Ian McGilchrist's work sees abstractions and commonalities. Sounds like, oh isn't that good, isn't that loving? No. There's love in distinction and naming something and pulling something out and being particular. So what I mean by that is racism is a left brain phenomenon or can be viewed like that.

Why? Because it's saying you I'm going to treat like you're just an arbitrary member of your race. You're the same as anyone else. Whereas the right brain is about this situation is different than a situation that came prior or this lip balm isn't just any lip balm. It's Kurt's lip balm. Kurt is different or Marwa is different than someone else You'll see that many of the people who are attracted to the Eastern mode of thinking firstly They have a Western interpretation of what the Eastern mode of thinking is This is something I spoke to a nan video about who studied Eastern philosophy and is Indian and understands the Vedic tradition

He says that what we think of as non dualism is This watered-down Western version, and the East is actually far more variegated than just non-dualism. In fact, materialism is more prevalent in Vedism. So in the Hindu scriptures, then, I don't think Vedism is the same as the Hindu scriptures, but for the sake of just glossing over this point as an approximation, in Vedism, materialism is more prevalent than non-dualism, and we don't think so. And part of that's the marketing, since the 40s or 50s, from India, one of India's prime ministers actually said, we're going to make

non-dualism the pizza of India. This is almost a quote. Meaning that we think of Italy, we think of pizza. And Anand Vaidya is like, it would be such a shame if you went to Italy and all you thought was this is great pizza. And so that's what's happened with non-dualism. But we don't think that. We think because we've heard since the new age, since the 60s with the hippies and the new age sort of enlightenment with psychedelics, we think that, okay, whoa, if I take this psychedelic, if I do meditation, I'm going to get some insight that's an insight about fundamental reality. And look, oh, wow, it comports with what people have been thinking about for thousands of

years. One of the oldest religions. Well, first of all, that's just one interpretation of the oldest religion. There are various others. And in fact, it's not the most common interpretation. It's what you think is the most common interpretation. Secondly, why does this argument from antiquity, oh, the Vedas said this thousands of years ago, mean anything? Thirdly, the Buddhist tradition contradicts the Vedic tradition. And some people want to pick and choose, but Buddhism believes in the impermanence of the soul, and the Vedic tradition is heavily about rituals and praying, and also the karma and the rebirth of the soul, like the reality of the soul,

and the individualness of the soul. Again, I'm saying certain interpretations, but the point is that there's no single interpretation, and we think there is. People who are on the more mathematical end with an analytical mindset, much like myself, are drawn to these, what are misinterpretations of the Eastern perspective because they're heavily left-brained, but we don't think they are. We think because we're so egotistical and don't realize we are. We think, wow, look how enlightened I am. I'm actually being creative and spiritual. we are, we think, wow, look how enlightened I am. I'm actually being creative and spiritual. No, you're falling prey to more of your cognitive bias, your already indelible cognitive bias. It's actually easier for you to think in terms of everything is the same and undifferentiated. It's cognitively easier. Don't think that your insights are a reflection of reality rather than of a groove inside your neurological framework. Don't mistake in those two. Maybe I want to ask you which maybe model of consciousness that you embraced through your discussion. Or you believe that maybe accurate from the guesses you took too.

But which one, yeah, do you believe maybe the accurate representation what consciousness is to be honest what i think is usually what i think is most accurate is what i don't know so i don't know this guy his name is graziano graziano's i don't know his theory and so from what i read about it, I think it's extremely interesting. I don't understand higher order theories of consciousness. I don't know what they are. So I find them interesting. Now you said, which one do I believe in? And I'm talking about which ones I find interesting. So there's a distinction there. But at least momentarily, I ascribe more reality to what I find interesting. But that's false. I'm just saying that because

it sounds poetic. I don't know. The answer is, I don't know. I can't talk about what I think is the case, but I can talk about what intrigues me. And what I find piquant is what I don't know or what I'm studying, what I'm about to study. I, by the way, I'm going to be doing something called the iceberg on consciousness theories. So I'm extremely excited about this. If you don't mind, can I explain the ice? Yes, right, right. Great job. Great job. You have done your homework. So the iceberg on string theory is something I'm working on right now. I'm so I, I didn't think I would love string theory as much as I do. That doesn't mean that I think string theory is correct.

Like I love string theory in the same way that I love The Office, the show The Office. I don't think The Office is correct. I don't think chess is correct, but I love chess. I don't think that the pawns move like, like people who are pawns don't move forward and then they can only attack at angles, but it's interesting. And so string theory to me is extremely intellectually interesting. And also, by the way, even if it's a wrong route, I think there's something extremely fruitful about being specific and being incorrect. So that's something that that's one of the reasons why the academic side, when they criticize the spiritual side as being wrong and pursuing what's false, I'm okay with that. Let them do so because so much that's fruitful can be revealed from the

corpse of something false. So to me, it doesn't matter if it represents reality or not. Well, it's intriguing to me anyhow. So the iceberg format is one where you take, it's like you're doing an excavation onto a whole field. So soft robotics, there are many topics in soft robotics. So the surface level topics would be, well, what is a soft robot? What is a robot? What are the challenges with movement? Why does it matter? Okay. The number two would be, I don't even know number two. That comes up to the, that's for you to say. That's for what people who are researchers in the field know about. Then number three is what specialized researchers in the field know about. These are different

layers, like a layer of the iceberg. The iceberg format is going through and you explore ever more specialized knowledge where you start with what's common and perhaps known to the majority of people who went to university or watch the Discovery Channel documentaries and popular science books, read them at least. So I'm doing one on string theory and I would like to do one on consciousness theories. This way we get a whole overview of the vast array of consciousness theories. Okay, so we're closing but a few questions. Did you receive any criticism about your style for introvert? To be honest, all I found is really positive and you seem

to be very genuine and honest. That's what I can see. But did you receive any criticism? And how would you deal with that? Yeah, I received plenty of criticism that's fruitful. So actually, I'm extremely lucky that the majority, it's few and far between, but I read almost every single comment. Between me and my wife, read almost every single comment. Between me and my wife,

we read every single comment. Some of them would say, especially in my older interviews, Kurt, you talk too much. Like, stop talking. Another one was, I would go, yeah, whatever. And it was a bit too much. And I'm like, okay, I didn't even notice that. And so I've learned to just nod silently. It feels a bit awkward. Now it's more natural. But before I had to consciously restrict myself. Putting my hands behind my back, essentially.

Tying them. Yeah. No, it's a positive overall. overall that what I can also see also maybe the question about you mentioned with your episode with Mike Levin about that you're a gomophobe and you wish this robot could clean since this

podcast about robotics any kind of robots you wish to have like do you think could be useful for you I'm just curious about that yeah yes so what i want invented and i hope you or someone who's been on your podcast or someone who gets inspired from your podcast what i want you all to invent quick is what can clean washrooms at least for me i just feel bad horrible for janitors. Feel horrible for them. Also taking care of the elderly. It seems like we're going to have an extreme problem with many people not having kids.

Even when you have kids, like your child, you look at your parents, we're not like our cultures used to be. Our cultures used to respect the elderly. Like actually respect them. Not just view them as a repository of stories and that's it. Like that's the only positive part of them is that, oh, you can tell me about what it was like in the tell me about what i was like when i was a kid dad please that's interesting to me yeah so we'll need some robots to take care of people especially the older people or it would be maybe we don't need them but it would be extremely useful

to have them i like the rabbit have you seen the rabbit that was announced as ces okay i'll send you a link about that so maybe the another question about the difficult times how we deal with difficult and hard times that's just like you started out in your yourself i don't know know if you have these moments and how you deal with them, the difficult moments, yeah. Yeah, I've gone through years and years and years of depression. Like seven years or six years of my life

was just wiped out from depression while I was in university. Yeah. I'm sorry, but I think that's I can imagine it's hard. That's okay. Yeah.

Yeah, like there was a good period there where I was suicidal. Part of what got me out of that was, for me, it was realizing the, rather than being too harsh on myself, I think I wasn't harsh enough. I think that you can be, you can have a twin phenomenon. Some people think you're being overly critical. I think I was underly critical. I don't think I was holding myself to what I should have held myself to.

And I was indolent. And I was shiftless. I started watching, I started, yeah, I watched Tony Robbins and I listened to how one's body can affect one's state. I started working out. I started,

I started a film. I had many goals. I started to have much more drive. I didn't have much drive. That's a bit false. I mean, I've always had drive. I've always been doing something and attacking it with much of my effort, but not as much. I could have squeezed more out of that orange. yeah also i put so much attention on women so much that when they wouldn't want me it would crush me like you wouldn't believe like crush me so then det yes my own happiness from i don't want to say from others i don't i think that's that's a bit false like there's many books now like don't give an f about what what other people think i think that's a bit i think you should care deeply about what people think i think you're

connected to people but there is such such a thing as caring about what people think in the wrong way or too much. Just as much as there is about caring too little. And to be honest, it's unclear. Like this is, it's like, this is the... Some people will well I think that's enough but this is

thank you so much as I say you come across as someone who first of all intellectually

honest and sincere and I appreciate opening up about that so thank you yeah maybe the last

question here I given what you said what what is the goal? I think just to want to achieve in your lifetime. I think that's something. Yeah, it's every day, but what thing, the legacy, let's say. Yeah. So Richard Feynman had on his blackboard when he died, what was left there in the corner was, solve every problem

that's ever been solved. So for me, I have something similar. It's learn every theory that's ever been theorized. It's much more impractical. His was about solving something. In essence, I want to know more about math, physics, logic, and philosophy than any other person ever. Period. So, we'll see. Thank you.