History of post ‘Choosing between Theories’

Revision 2 · Jun 03, 2025 10:04pm · View this (the most recent) version (v3)

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ I’ve skimmed the beginning of the paper by Salmon which Kieren linked to, and

> […] Popper’s account of scientific knowledge involves generalisations and their observational tests.

That sounds like a misrepresentation of Popper’s account of scientific -knowledge, which+knowledge. That account is not about generalizations, but *explanations*, which can’t be obtained by generalizing, only through guesses and criticism.

Salmon references a work I do not own and do not wish to purchase at this time, so it’s hard to say whether he’s wrong or I’m wrong. Which brings us, again, to the question of how to choose between conflicting theories (or claims in this case). The problem is that of *breaking symmetry*, which is an idea by [Elliot Temple](/posts/what-you-should-know-about-elliot-temple), see [Curiosity – Symmetry](https://curi.us/1470-symmetry) and [Curiosity – Epistemology](https://curi.us/1978-epistemology).

Revision 1 · Feb 13, 2025 6:51pm · View this version (v2)

@@ -1,46 +1,46 @@
# Your audio devices might divulge your private information. Here's how to protect yourself.

Websites can track you based on your audio devices. Depending on the names of your devices, you may also be making yourself more easily identifiable to websites.

Say your name is John Appleseed, so you name your AirPods 'John Appleseed's AirPods'. If you have given a website permission to use your microphone and you have your AirPods connected, the website now knows your full name. I noticed this while using a site earlier today. Once I had connected my AirPods, it displayed their name back to me.

Apple's naming convention is '-first name-'s AirPods'. That's what they're named automatically when you first set them up. It's better than the full name, but you may not want websites to know your first name, either. If you have a common name, divulging it may not seem like an issue, but it still narrows a website's visitors down a significant amount.

To be sure, not *every* website will have access to the names of your audio devices – only those websites you give permission to use your microphone. But just because you let a website use your microphone does not mean you want it to know who you are, let alone track you.

Here's the proof. It only takes a single line of code for a website to list the names of all your audio devices once you've granted access to your microphone. Don't worry if you don't understand the code, just focus on the second -line that lists+and following lines where the -names:+device names are listed:

```js
(await navigator.mediaDevices.enumerateDevices()).map(device => device.label)
// => ['Default - John Appleseed's AirPods (Bluetooth)',
//     'John Appleseed's AirPods (Bluetooth)',
//     'Internal Microphone (Built-in)',
//     ...]
```

Worse, each audio device has a unique device ID. That means changing the names of your devices isn't enough. Even the IDs of *internal* audio devices can be read, such as your laptop's built-in speakers. That sucks because you can't remove them like you could AirPods or other bluetooth headphones/speakers.

The MDN Web Docs, a widely used 'authority' on documenting all things web, [say the following](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/MediaDeviceInfo) about device IDs:

> [The device ID] is an identifier for the represented device that is persisted across sessions. It is un-guessable by other applications and unique to the origin of the calling application. It is reset when the user clears cookies (for Private Browsing, a different identifier is used that is not persisted across sessions).

Let's go through it step by step. First, the fact that device IDs are "persisted across sessions" means, roughly speaking, that refreshing the page or even restarting the browser won't change them. Second, un-guessability by other applications means you cannot be tracked *across* the web. However, and third, the uniqueness of each ID coupled with its persistent nature makes you trackable on the same website. Fourth, it is claimed that clearing cookies resets the IDs. I tried it on a site that did not set any cookies to begin with, then cleared all site data, including cookies for good measure. *It did not change the device IDs; I remained completely trackable.* (I'm currently running Chrome version 100.0.4896.127.) Maybe it works on sites that *do* set cookies, I don't know. But users shouldn't have to know or care. I have also tried [renaming](https://support.apple.com/guide/airpods/rename-your-airpods-deva392f031a/web) *and* [resetting](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209463) my AirPods, as well as restarting my computer, none of which changed their ID, either.

Interestingly, there is a warning further down the quoted page:

> **Note:** For security reasons, the `label` field is always blank [as is the `deviceId` field] unless an active media stream exists or the user has granted persistent permission for media device access. The set of device labels could otherwise be used as part of a fingerprinting mechanism to identify a user.

[Fingerprinting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_fingerprint) is a tracking mechanism. What the note fails to mention is that once you *do* give access, the website *can* track you. We have also established that device IDs do not change for the same site (at least currently, in Chrome), making tracking even easier. That means renaming your devices won't help (and built-in devices can't be renamed anyway).

## How to protect yourself?

Follow these steps (at your own risk):

1. For your external audio devices, use generic, non-unique names that anyone might use. Do not include any personally identifiable information. 'My Headphones' is a good example of a generic name. [Here's a guide](https://support.apple.com/guide/airpods/rename-your-airpods-deva392f031a/web) on how to rename AirPods; it should work for other bluetooth headphones/speakers, too.
2. Grant websites access to your microphone *sparingly*.
3. Remove access to your microphone after you're done using it. In Chrome, you can do so under Settings > Site Settings > Permissions > Microphone. Under 'Allowed to use your microphone', click on the trash icon next to the applicable site. But be advised that, as long as clearing cookies doesn't make a difference and you haven't cleared your cookies, each device ID will be the same next time you grant access to the same site, meaning the site may recognize you as the same user.
4. Clear your cookies after using the microphone. That's assuming that clearing cookies will change device IDs in the future. Alternatively, use [private browsing](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95464) (also known as incognito browsing), making sure to close all private windows from time to time.

While we're talking about buggy browsers, I should mention that Safari (version 15.4 (17613.1.17.1.13)) lists not only the name of my laptop's built-in camera, but also its device ID, even if I only grant access to the microphone.

Everything I've written in this article presumably applies to non-built-in *cameras*, too, and maybe even other kinds of devices. I have no such devices to test, hence my focus on audio, but I suggest you follow the above steps as much as possible for any external devices you may have.

Original · Oct 26, 2021 5:17am · View this version (v1)

# Choosing between Theories

[Kieren](https://twitter.com/krazyander) has [asked](https://twitter.com/krazyander/status/1452804799682920450) about how to choose between (conflicting) theories:

> Well, aside from violent shakings :) a path forward for me would be a Popperian solution to the practical problem of induction (choosing between different theories for practical purposes).
>
> http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucessjb/Salmon.pdf

I’ve skimmed the beginning of the paper by Salmon which Kieren linked to, and found this sentence on p. 117 noteworthy:

> […] Popper’s account of scientific knowledge involves generalisations and their observational tests.

That sounds like a misrepresentation of Popper’s account of scientific knowledge, which account is not about generalizations, but *explanations*, which can’t be obtained by generalizing, only through guesses and criticism.

Salmon references a work I do not own and do not wish to purchase at this time, so it’s hard to say whether he’s wrong or I’m wrong. Which brings us, again, to the question of how to choose between conflicting theories (or claims in this case). The problem is that of *breaking symmetry*, which is an idea by Elliot Temple, see [Curiosity – Symmetry](https://curi.us/1470-symmetry) and [Curiosity – Epistemology](https://curi.us/1978-epistemology).

Just knowing that two ideas conflict doesn’t tell you which one is wrong (assuming they really do conflict, and assuming only one of them is wrong). As Elliot writes:

> “X contradicts Y” means that “Y contradicts X”.

So the ideas are symmetric in that way, and to make progress, you need to find a way of “breaking the symmetry”, as Elliot calls it.

Justificationism, for example, serves as a way to break symmetry. You can ask: which idea has received more support/is better justified etc? If one believes that justificationism can do this job, then one won’t want to get rid of it without replacement. Which is fair, and which is why it’s not enough to point out to people that justificationism is false. They still need a way to break symmetries, so an alternative is needed.

In his book *The Beginning of Infinity* (chapter 1), David Deutsch suggests looking at how “hard to vary” an explanation is. As in: can we make arbitrary changes to an explanation without it losing its ability to explain the phenomenon it purports to explain? This is useful, but when comparing two different explanations, I know of no way to methodically compare their ‘hardness to vary’. In some cases it’s more or less apparent – like when comparing, as Deutsch does, a Greek myth that ‘explains’ the seasons by invoking gods to today’s axis-tilt theory: you could replace one Greek god with another and you’d still be able to explain the seasons. The axis-tilt theory, on the other hand, is hard to vary without it breaking apart. It's not easy to replace the earth's axis with something else and not ruin the explanation in the process. But when comparing other theories, breaking the symmetry using ‘hardness to vary’ can be more difficult, particularly when both seem roughly equally hard or easy to vary.

For example, Kieren is looking for a way to break symmetry between the two opposing claims ‘consciousness requires creativity’ and ‘consciousness does not require creativity’. Deutsch has spoken in favor of the former:

> My guess is that every AI is a person: a general-purpose explainer. It is conceivable that there are other levels of universality between AI and ‘universal explainer/constructor’, and perhaps separate levels for those associated attributes like consciousness. But those attributes all seem to have arrived in one jump to universality in humans, and, although we have little explanation of any of them, I know of no plausible argument that they are at different levels or can be achieved independently of each other. So I tentatively assume that they cannot.

<small>— *The Beginning of Infinity*, chapter 7</small>

For clarity, one cannot be a general-purpose explainer without being creative. So Deutsch argues that creativity (at least the universal kind, if there are non-universal kinds) makes a general-purpose explainer, which in turn leads to consciousness.

That means Deutsch breaks the symmetry in two ways:

1. Consciousness (along with other attributes) seems to have arrived in humans together with humans’ ability to explain things. (I have outlined, in detail, [how this may have happened](/posts/the-neo-darwinian-theory-of-the-mind).)
2. He knows of “no plausible argument” that consciousness is at a different level than creativity or can be achieved without it.

Notably, Deutsch does not use his ‘hard to vary’ criterion to break the symmetry here. He instead invokes a historical guess alongside a lack of alternatives.

Something else you could do is find a contradiction within one of the claims. Or you could find that it conflicts with background knowledge which you currently (and tentatively) deem uncontroversial. (Technically, finding a contradiction is a special case of that, since rejecting contradictions in favor of consistency is an approach that is part of our background knowledge. (Maybe all symmetry breaking involves comparisons with background knowledge in some way?))

For example, I have been asked how I decide between two related claims: that consciousness arises from *all* information processing vs. just *some* information processing (namely the creative kind).

I opted to show that the former claim conflicts with background knowledge: if consciousness arises from *all* information processing, even things like calculators must be conscious. But our best explanations of how calculators work, which are very good and part of our background knowledge in this case, don’t invoke consciousness, so we should conclude that calculators are not conscious. Therefore, it cannot be true that all information processing results in consciousness. We can even *build* calculators – and people do so all the time – without understanding how consciousness works. (Whereas, if Deutsch is right that consciousness arises from creativity, then we can’t, say, build artificial general intelligence without understanding how consciousness works.)

For the related claim that consciousness requires creativity, here’s how I break the symmetry: consciousness is a property of information processing. All information processing people have done so far (except in their minds) is execution only, not creative, and, like with calculators, does not lead to consciousness. Then there’s the problem with Lamarckism: that the mere execution of existing knowledge cannot result in new knowledge. So I ask: if ‘execution-only’ information processing cannot be where consciousness lives, the only place we have left to go is *creative* information processing, do we not? I know of no other kind of information processing. (Maybe there’s a ‘destructive’ kind, in the sense of wiping memory on a computer, but destruction can be automated, so it seems to fall under the execution-only kind.)

In other words, we simply run out of alternatives. There seem to be only two: execution-only information processing and creative information processing. Our best explanations of execution-only information processing do not invoke consciousness, so the only place left to go is *creative* information processing. And with the latter, there’s much more room left since we don’t really understand creative information processing at all while we do understand execution-only information processing pretty well.

I’m not sure breaking the symmetry can be boiled down to a recipe. I’m guessing it is itself a creative act and you can always find new ways to do it. In the context of my [neo-Darwinian approach to the mind](/posts/the-neo-darwinian-theory-of-the-mind), the idea that breaks symmetry is the one that has spread through the mind at the expense of its rivals, and whose total number of copies is therefore greater than that of any one of its rivals.