Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
You is kidding right? How could you not is do this?
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
That one can derive predictions from explanations is one thing, but the purpose of the mind—to create those explanations—is another. It's a different focus.
Many schools of thought place too much emphasis on prediction and ~none on explanation, so the distinction is important.
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
Ah—daydreams (and "proper" dreams) are likewise produced by ideas. Such ideas may temporarily produce faux sense data, some more realistic-looking than others, which are then interpreted by other ideas and produce the sensation of the dream.
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
PS The amount of questions at once is a bit overwhelming. I'll be happy to keep answering if you ask one question at a time. In case it is helpful, you may also find many answers to your questions in my book: amazon.com/Window-Intelli…
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
Where do counterfactual sensations that fuels the reality simulator in the mind come from?
Not sure I understand.
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
Do problematic and problem free ideas have the same opportunity to replicate?
I conjecture yes.
The purpose of the mind is to predict the future?
No, see what KS said. Its purpose is to explain the world.
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
Ideas predict sensations and are refuted when they fail to?
You mean if the prediction does not come true? Then yes, the mind may consider those ideas refuted. But note that most ideas do not predict sensations. Most ideas aren't about sensations at all.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
It doesn't feel like my thought process is random [...]
Yes, it isn't. It has the appearance of design.
Is this just old ideas with free variables being reused, not creation of new ideas?
Maybe sometimes. But overall minds do create genuinely new ideas.
As a former employee and fan, I’m sad to see Apple devolving.
Racism is bad, yes. But the ends don’t justify the means. Tim spreads profoundly totalitarian concepts and sentiments in the name of good intentions.
I miss Steve. This wouldn’t have happened under him. twitter.com/tim_cook/statu…
@hollymathnerd @ConceptualJames
Yes you’re so right. Also, as a white person, I really shouldn’t be eating brown food.
Twitter’s code base isn’t public. So why advertise these changes? To signal how amazing and inclusive they are. twitter.com/TwitterEng/sta…
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
- Maybe?
- Yes
- Maybe?
- No, ideas don’t come to us through the senses
The majority of what? By what logic? Protection from what?
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
Is this process fast enough to explain how we learn new things?
Yes. Evolution in a mind happens orders of magnitude faster than gene evolution and even meme evolution.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
Where does the selection pressure come from?
From the scarcity of resources (brain's memory capacity and processing speed), competition between ideas for these resources, potential development of predatory ideas, and, most importantly, criticism (error correction).
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
Why are some replicas invoked more often than others?
Because they are better at getting themselves invoked. The details will vary depending on the idea in question.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
So, an idea can replicate when it is invoked and then not always perfectly to create variation?
Yes. Some ideas may mutate into passive replicators, much like some genes in biological evolution, in which case they replicate whenever an associated idea is invoked.
@SlaytonBenjamin
Including all of a mind's ideas in its copy is a little bit like if organisms inherited characteristics their ancestors acquired during their lifetime.
@SlaytonBenjamin
Yeah if the copy includes all of your ideas then you copy your entire being. But if you copy only the mind's scaffold—the basic building blocks—then you have a child.
I think the former would happen rarely and was thinking in terms of the latter when I wrote the previous tweet.
@tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
Yes--though I want to stress once more that the theory is not about memes. I think there are rational and anti-rational replication strategies within minds, too, but the corresponding ideas aren't necessarily memes.
A “purely rational” idea would indeed have a hard time spreading through a mind’s “purely anti-rational” idea pool, but changes happen gradually. A mutation might make an idea slightly less anti-rational. Maybe it can still spread. Repeat, etc.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
How much of [them are] needed for a replica to be created?
That depends on the idea's implementation and its memory and performance characteristics.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
How does an idea claim [them]?
Mostly by being invoked. + potentially through other ideas’ side effects, which may cause beneficial changes in the environment.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
What resource are replicating ideas competing for?
Several. The brain's memory storage and processing power, and attention of the mind's meta algorithm to get themselves invoked. Probably other things, too, depending on the implementation details of the idea in question.
Note also that the theory is not about cultural environments in the sense of memes or society but about the dynamics within a single mind.
The neo-Darwinian theory of the mind does not reject realism or the notion of objective, absolute truth. Ideas are still either true or false.
A true idea may spread through a mind--or not. It depends on whether that mind values truth-seeking.
An epistemologist is a mind trying to understand itself.
It is a mind trying to become self-referential.
Once self-referential, it can copy itself. E.g. onto a computer.
.@ella_hoeppner joined me on the podcast to talk about how Popperian epistemology influenced her intelligence research, her theory of AGI called "CTP Theory," the role of replicators (or lack thereof) in the mind, and much more. Enjoy.
Meaning: they’re going to fire white people for being white.
They’re confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
I predict that in the next few years covert corporate racism against white people will become as overt as it has in some non-corporate circles. twitter.com/kfc/status/127…
The list of companies pushing the woke agenda is getting longer. We can’t avoid using ALL of Apple, LinkedIn, Spotify, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc.
I feel silly even posting this on Twitter.
Serious question: what to do? Where to go? twitter.com/jtLOL/status/1…
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Also, what’s wrong with promoting one’s material? Do you get this mad every time you see a company advertising one of their products?
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Actually you did clarify what you consider "real research." I'll just leave you with this: one shouldn't judge information based on its source, only its content. + I need to be able to refer to stuff I previously published--why else would I publish it in the first place?
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Yes you’ve been talking about me a lot. Why not talk about animals instead?
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
What’s “w/e”?
Btw that SoundCloud track was posted by someone else so I couldn’t possibly be paid for it. I was a guest on someone else’s show.
If you had been interviewed about your views I’d be fine with you sharing that interview here.
What do you consider “real research”?
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I’ve written about it in my book. Can I share that or would that be pompous again? Does it have to be someone else’s work?
Also I’ve written plenty here in this thread. Nobody has refuted any of it.
And no SoundCloud doesn’t pay me.
@ehsaanehmad @ChipkinLogan
In Constructor Theory, wealth is--I think--the set of all physical transformations one can cause.
@steaknbacon13 @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Let me edit your sentence lightly:
The article explains one reason [for dogs suffering] as the dog having suffered [...]
Do you see how this is circular?
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I have spent many hours on this and probably googled more than you. I'm guessing you think the only possible reason I could think animals are not conscious is that I'm an idiot. I assure you I have done my homework.
Pick one of those animal behaviors and I will try to explain it
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
No, not because it's me talking. And no, SoundCloud doesn't pay me.
It's about what I say, not about me.
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Can you please expand on what you think sounds pompous?
Re SoundCloud, I shared it because I think the conversation is good and explains the issue well.
My answer isn’t “watch my soundcloud,” it’s “you could refute me by giving evidence of creativity in an animal.”
It’s peculiar until we realize that the truth is hard to come by.
It’s peculiar there are still people opposing vaccines. Or people who think the Earth is flat. Etc.
These things take time. 200 years isn't that long. Gradually, some countries have been trying some amounts of voluntarism. There are no guarantees, but maybe one day we can try ever more and switch to a public life free of coercion.
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I don't know why you keep insulting me. It's not going to change my mind. Does it make you feel better? I'm not angry at you btw and I respect that you care about animals.
You could change my mind if you refuted my explanation I gave earlier for why animals aren't conscious.
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I agree that if animals can suffer, it's better to kill them quickly and with mercy. Do you think it would be even better not to kill them at all? If so, why aren't you a vegan? Many things are natural but still horrendous.
@steaknbacon13 @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I read the article in full. It points to behaviors, which, as I said earlier, makes for circular reasoning.
Again, what's needed is an explanation.
Conjecture: it may have to do with governments piggy-backing on static memes, which were the norm for most of human history (see BoI). As such, voluntarism may only be made possible by the relatively recent departure from staticity.
@Lene_Noir @ChipkinLogan @dino_rosati
Yes, it's about ethics, too. Coercing someone to help others is unethical. Say some third party pointed a gun at you and said "give me money so I can give it to Dennis." Would you think that's okay?
Those who want to help those less fortunate are free to do so.
@steaknbacon13 @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I know those behaviors. Can you explain why those behaviors are evidence of suffering? (Without pointing to the behavior again, because that would be circular.)
@LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
It's great that you summarized my stance. Can you verbalize why you disagree with me?
BTW, animals are also machines: "survival machines" (see Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene"). So being alive or not can't be the deciding factor.
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Did I understand that correctly: you think animals can suffer but it's okay to slaughter them so we can eat them because it's natural? Yes/no?
BTW I changed back to eating meat for other reasons.
@LibertarianJew @ParodiMarcello @liberty_deity
I understand. I used to share your opinions on animal consciousness. Just know that this is not at all an obvious problem. Hope you enjoy the episode :)
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
There is something infinitely special about humans that animals don't have: creativity.
Can you name something your dogs or chimps at the zoo do that requires knowledge they must have created themselves? (That would be evidence you are correct and I am wrong.)
@dino_rosati @ChipkinLogan @Lene_Noir
The fact that you show empathy for those less fortunate without being coerced to show that empathy shows that we don't need coercion to care for each other. Many people share your concern for the powerless and would love to help them. They are free to do so.
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
That's not an explanation, it's just an assertion. And it's a negative one, so I couldn't possibly refute it.
The idea that levels of intelligence correlate with complexity of the species is also something that has been refuted.
I recommend this: soundcloud.com/doexplain/11-a…
@LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Do you think Roombas, which mindlessly execute programmers' instructions, are conscious? They even "cry out" when they get stuck.
@LibertarianJew @ParodiMarcello @liberty_deity
I understand the concern for animal wellbeing btw, I used to be vegan for that reason. But I changed my mind. I have entertained the usual objections and refuted them.
If you're interested, listen in on this conversation where I explain more: soundcloud.com/doexplain/11-a…
@LibertarianJew @ParodiMarcello @liberty_deity
If consciousness = byproduct of creativity, beings can't suffer without creativity.
Re the brain: I don't know if what you're saying is true, but let's assume it is. Suffering, creativity, consciousness etc are matters of software, not hardware, so brain scans won't help.
@ChipkinLogan @dino_rosati @Lene_Noir
- insurances like disability insurance (which already exist) would help if I'm not mistaken.
@0xnaka @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Btw, I argue that the presence of sophisticated knowledge is not evidence of their creativity/consciousness, because no matter how sophisticated, that knowledge may as well have originated through biological evolution, not in the animal itself.
See also soundcloud.com/doexplain/11-a…
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Yes, humans are animals, too--I meant all animals other than humans. There is something different about humans that enables them to suffer that all other animals don't have: creativity.
I may be wrong about this and will elaborate if you'll consider that you may be wrong.
@0xnaka @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
An explanation would be better than a guarantee.
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I know this topic is taboo, but don’t frame it like you’re doing me a favor.
Our best explanations of consciousness and creativity say animals aren’t conscious. Either refute those explanations or accept them.
@LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Now, they still could be conscious anyway, but consciousness seems to have to do with creativity and error correction in particular.
If animals just mindlessly execute their genes’ instructions and don’t create knowledge, that leaves no room for creativity/consciousness.
@LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Ok. If everything is inborn, animals are just mindlessly executing their genetic instructions. They don’t need to be conscious for that. They’re just little robots.
A video series on the Berlin programming language:
@LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Ok there are layers to this so let's go step by step.
I follow David Deutsch here who says that everything animals do can be explained through inborn algorithms they inherit genetically. Biological evolution created those algorithms. Make sense so far?
@LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Right. There is an emotional response--it cries out--but I don't think it suffers. Only people can suffer because they have an ability animals don't have: creativity.
Has to do with how the human mind works vs how animal "minds" work. I can go into more detail if interested.
@LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
As uncomfortable as it is reading those tweets, animals aren’t conscious. They can’t suffer so it isn’t immoral to kill them or hurt them.
However, if he thinks his dog does suffer and he enjoys it anyway or even because of that, then I’m worried about him (but not the dog).
It’s not about resisting things that protect you. It’s about resisting force. You can agree that people should wear masks without agreeing they should be forced to do so.
I wasn’t, but lack of a fitness function and competition over memory and processing power sound promising!
mentioned a paper to me about artificial life once by someone who’s Popperian, IIRC.
I wrote a little functional programming language called Berlin that transpiles to JavaScript. I call it "poor man's Clojure."
Hoping you find it useful.
Docs: berlinlang.org
Source & rationale: github.com/dchacke/berlin…
They are conjectures. We tentatively assume they are true until they are refuted.
You wrote a lot so your content is ~4x longer than mine so it's overwhelming. You also insult David's work and his fans. That leaves little incentive for others to discuss/learn with/from you.
Speaking of the "Bucket Theory of the Mind"... This is what some French artists around the turn of the century thought school could look like in the year 2000 :(
From publicdomainreview.org/collection/a-1… https://t.co/iaV0JIqssV
It's a keen observation, but that problems are inevitable is itself not a problem. It's a good thing: otherwise we wouldn't be able to make infinite progress. In other words: if problems weren't inevitable, we might get stuck and stagnate forever. So it's a feature, not a bug.
.@ChipkinLogan stopped by to talk about economics, epistemology, coercion, the US government's response to the pandemic, Constructor Theory, and more. I learned a lot—I think you will, too.
Enjoy!
They don't qualify "men," so presumably they mean all men, including black ones. Therefore, they're singling out black men for special opprobrium, when three paragraphs earlier they said all black lives matter regardless of their sexual identity.
2/2
They're also self-contradictory.
First they say: "[...] all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity [...]"
Three paragraphs later: "We build a space that [...] is free from [...] environments in which men are centered."
1/
RT @TheAliceSmith:
In a hundred years time...
“Mum, is it true that we used to put men on the moon?”
“Yes, that’s true.”
“Why don’t we d…
@NathanpmYoung @DavidDeutschOxf @DouglasCarswell
Is a legitimate point. I'm agreeing with you.
Oh, I got confused there. By "standard" I was referring to the API standard you mentioned, so when you used the word "standard" again I thought it was still referring to that.
@NathanpmYoung @DavidDeutschOxf @DouglasCarswell
Ah, yes, I would consider that a sort of "negative" coercion -- "you must not do x" -- whereas a positive coercion -- you must do x -- is immoral.
I'd argue negative coercion is morally okay iff it prevents positive coercion. What do you think?
@NathanpmYoung @DavidDeutschOxf @DouglasCarswell
I think how you create the standard is legitimate.
Legitimate how? Because it's government-sanctioned?
Coersion is not always immoral.
Give an example of moral coercion and an explanation of why it is moral?
@NathanpmYoung @DavidDeutschOxf @DouglasCarswell
You could. The question is whether you should.
That standard is almost invariably dictated by those who don't have to meet it themselves (govt) and don't know whether it'd be hard.
And again, even if it were the most trivial undertaking: coercion. is. immoral.
The Case against Commas and Operators:
@NathanpmYoung @DavidDeutschOxf @DouglasCarswell
Do the incumbents also need to update their migration software to support every little new service? What about incumbents with high market share but little cash? Etc
- even if some companies can do this trivially, it isn’t right to use force on them. Better to persuade.
RT @liberty_deity:
Let the truth be known. https://t.co/2n7mTouEml
It’s not real AI because real AI would be a person. This is false advertising.
No such thing as a reliable source, see Popper.
RT @Crit_Rat:
Today, the YouTube algorithm blessed me with an explanation of why arches are stable structures: youtube.com/watch?v=JlL6ZH…
It'…
One of the most influential scientific journals has become vulnerable to political abuse. This is extremely worrisome.