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
Competing hypotheses are rarely ambiguous so I don't see a problem there. At least I can't remember running into that.
Not familiar with the problems of introspection.
@Enasnil @RichardDawkins
Just because science demotes humans doesn't mean it's wrong not to demote them. (I'd claim the opposite: it is immoral to demote them.)
So yes: humans are special and do have a higher purpose than anything else in the universe. (See David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity)
Studying the mind directly through epistemology. Karl Popper and David Deutsch have done great work in this area.
No, it's got nothing to do with certainty. It has to do with how good our explanations are.
People used to be very certain that the sun revolves around the earth. How certain we are that animals can or cannot suffer has no bearing on whether they can.
Somebody needs to read The Beginning of Infinity. twitter.com/RBReich/status…
New blog post: 'Animal-Sentience Discussion Tree'
@LytollisRyan @ClimateWarrior7
Ryan importantly points out that there's not just a single climate change. There are multiple "climate changes", each caused by straight white men. In light of this multiplicity we need #climatelockdowns now.
That the brain should be studied to understand consciousness: twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
Like wire in a radio "causing" the voices...
Yeah, that's a nice analogy. Actually, much deeper than a mere analogy.
Again, don't worry about the brain. If we built a computer made of cotton candy and vacuum tubes and programmed it to be conscious you wouldn't study the special properties of cotton candy to understand consciousness, would you?
Hard to walk away from Roger Penrose when the logic supports his position. Every statement is true until shown to be false.
If that's Penrose's stance: isn't it ironic that you speak of 'support' and then in the next sentence claim that support isn't necessary?
@hig_james @BallWw123f @RichardDawkins
Ah, yes. More specificity is needed. Perhaps something like: electrical signals that result in retreat/not doing something again/negative reinforcement more generally.
Would that be better?
@hig_james @BallWw123f @RichardDawkins
You writing that tweet was also driven by electrical signals in your brain. As is ~everything you do. So that doesn't tell us much.
@Enasnil @RichardDawkins
but this would give more importance to humans
What's wrong with that?
[would] make it more likely that this life is some kind of game, test, soul development or simulation.
Why?
I don't the word 'reflex' once in my blog post but if you mean 'algorithmic' here's your answer:
blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-s…
All mammals have a dive reflex, the presence of it in dogs is not surprising
I didn't say it was.
@Annascreativemo @RichardDawkins
You've clearly never seen a dog suffer from separate anxiety.
I have. I've also seen tons of videos said to be 'evidence' that animals are conscious people have thrown at me but so far I've always been able to explain why those videos are not, in fact, evidence.
Yes, humans are animals that suffer, but it doesn't follow that all animals suffer:
@Pyrrho19 @BallWw123f @RichardDawkins
You shouldn't read something you don't want to read.
You did start reading, then you encountered a problem (you didn't like the term 'bug'). I explained why it fits well. The post should make more sense to you now but you're welcome not to read it.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
IIRC he has, and he's explained why that doesn't make sense because before the earth existed there weren't days.
@fman123 @BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Science moving on "a great deal" is the point: 10, 100, or 1000 years from now people may well say the same thing about our view of animals.
@BasedGuy7 @BallWw123f @RichardDawkins
Re behaviors read blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-s… and re nervous systems read blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-s…
@hig_james @BallWw123f @RichardDawkins
Are you talking about suffering more generally [...] or [...] the suffering associated with pain?
Depends on the context. Generally both. It's actually really important that humans can suffer without any physical pain being present.
@hig_james @BallWw123f @RichardDawkins
How are you distinguishing pain and suffering?
Pain, to me, is physical: electrical signals.
@oldvillagesage @RichardDawkins
@Captain_Concept @FluffyKittyA @RichardDawkins
Assuming it is narcissistic, does that have any bearing on the truth of the matter?
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
It doesn't explain anything [...]
It explains a great deal: it explains what people are, an age-old question, finally answered by Deutsch.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
Saying that individual humans are instantiations of a program is like Plato's claim that individual things participate in their Ideal form [...]
It isn't. Plato's got nothing to do with this.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
There's no conflict between animal behavior being algorithmic and goal-oriented.
Re affective & common sense: common sense is often wrong so that something is common sense doesn't tell us much.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
Algorithmic means behavior such as this: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/buggy-do…
And I'm not trying to prove anything.
@J318Ryke @LouiseH74531141 @RichardDawkins
But until this isnt proven without doubt no ethical conclusion can be made.
That can never be done because we are fallible and proving theories is impossible (Karl Popper).
@J318Ryke @LouiseH74531141 @RichardDawkins
It is irresponsible to use scientific theories to justify suffering.
I agree. That would be scientism. But I don't use science to justify suffering, because I use philosophy, and I don't justify suffering. IF animals can suffer, I think we shouldn't harm them.
And there's nothing humans can do that a computer with enough space & speed + the right programming & input/output devices couldn't do.
[...] humans can look at simple code and know with certainty that it results in an endless loop [...]
They can't know that with certainty. They can always be mistaken about how the code or the underlying hardware works.
If you loved The Beginning of Infinity why aren't you taking the ideas in it seriously and wasting your time thinking about the brain when you should be thinking about the mind?
We'd need more detail in neurology to use this to rule out consciousness of any level in animals, I think.
You can't need more detail in something that's already ruled out as impertinent.
There are pertinent neurological details that apply.
Computational universality rules that out.
@SmashAGrape @q_douglashofsta @davideagleman
David Deutsch cites I am a Strange Loop and writes in The Beginning of Infinity:
Following Dennett, Hofstadter eventually concludes that the ‘I’ is an illusion.
That sounds like Hofstadter outright denies that consciousness exists, not like he thinks it’s a spectrum.
Idk. I read GEB to the halfway point. Not a fan.
Animals are mostly hardware (DNA) driven. Humans are mostly software (reason) driven. If you are saying this, I agree.
I'm not. Both are software-driven, but their software is different.
Are you familiar with I Am A Strange Loop?
I know of it but haven't read it.
If you read my blog post, I don’t think you understood it…
“just because of that” But I gave many more reasons didn’t I?
Are infant humans conscious?
Yes
How about humans with genetic defects such as mongoloid syndrome, etc.?
Idk
[...] disabling a cat through specific genetically programed response does not prove lack of consciousness.
I'm not after proof.
There should be 'food lockdowns' where, for environmental as well as health reasons, people don't get to eat for a certain amount of time. But if they qualify they can get a passport which will allow them to eat insects. #science
Woher wissen wir, was wir wissen?
Nächsten Dienstag um 19 Uhr MEZ lese ich das erste Kapitel aus David Deutschs Buch Der Anfang der Unendlichkeit auf Clubhouse. Hört mit rein! Jetzt in den Kalender eintragen:
This is the clearest form of that side of the argument I've read. This debate in CR circles is one of the most…
Nothing is more important than diversity.
New blog post: 'Animal-Sentience FAQ'
blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-s…
If you'd like to discuss I encourage you to leave a comment at the bottom of the page – discussing is easier there since there's no character limit.
I thought they were gonna go with constellations next for naming mutants?
This one is "highly mutated" LOL
⚡️ “Is the R.1 variant in California? What to know about the highly mutated COVID strain” by @sfchronicle twitter.com/i/events/14413…
I think it's pretty difficult to stop thinking of animals as conscious. One reason is that many are pressured into caring for animals. But it would be fruitful for them to entertain that animals may not be conscious, then discuss and come to their own conclusion.
Ah, you mean like people who torture animals thinking that animals can suffer?
Then yes, I could imagine that being psychologically harmful to those people.
How are antibiotics going to help with a virus?
RT @Resist_05:
Australia is not OK.. send help.! https://t.co/4USUnM5JES
RT @dvassallo:
My idea validation process:
- Will I enjoy it?
- Can I do it on my own?
- Is it likely to work?
- Is it okay if it does…
RT @libsoftiktok:
If you’re ever having a bad day, just remember there are people living in Australia.
RT @libsoftiktok:
🚨 This insanity is happening on college campuses https://t.co/BrVxICZYqP
Actually, wait. Flight simulators don’t come with a risk of injury. That’s different.
Practicing caring on a non-conscious object, I mean, fine, I guess. But not when you risk injuring yourself?!
First it was about your dog, and now that I've addressed your dog, suddenly it's about rats.
Note how you conveniently ignored all my responses about your dog and how you ignored another question of mine.
Point to a specific rat study and how it taught us more about ourselves that makes us think they're conscious?
There is no reason to assume [...]
More "I'm already right" thinking.
[...] that human language and cognition were required for conscious awareness or feelings. That’s exactly backwards.
Agreed on the language part but when did I claim language was required??
We are all related, after all.
I believe I had already refuted the notion that this has any bearing on the question of whether animals are conscious.
This doesn’t address anything I said. You’re again just looking for confirmation of your existing beliefs. You don’t want to get to the bottom of the matter.
We're not gonna make much headway in this conversation if you're not willing to be critical of your own ideas.
Consider what that means if you're wrong: you'll be stuck with your wrong ideas forever.
I think how defensive you got and how you decided to insult me instead of staying on topic got is evidence of the very claim I was making.
Here's how you can make a robot behave in a way that looks like a pain reaction, no consciousness needed:
gist.github.com/dchacke/d06cb9…
In any case, these threads are getting unwieldy because they're branching off in all kinds of directions and Twitter is terrible for discussing.
Want to continue publicly over email? If so, email me: dennis.hackethal@gmail.com
Also, instead of dismissing something as a language game or irrelevant, and instead of trying to extort agreement from me, you should critically assess your own views and take my comments as honest help with that.
twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
There are more but I'll stop here.
It's only a single word so it can't be a "language [game]". And it answers your question directly so it can't be "not revelant".
This is already enough to refute your claim but here are some more answers to your questions:
I don't think you've actually answered a single question I've posed since we started talking.
Demonstrably false. Notably, the very first word I wrote to you ("Correct") was an answer (which you immediately followed up by ignoring my question):
If the amoeba backs away from threats and predators through mere pain reactions from the nervous system without the associated suffering the survival value is the same as with the associated suffering.
It's a complex behavior.
As I believe I have explained, no matter how complex, behavior can be inborn and pre-programmed. Complexity is not evidence of consciousness.
How could he taste treats, feel bath anxiety, realize I was tricking him, or care about anything?
He doesn't do any of that.
By the way, what does it say about your love for your dog that you deliberately trick him?
And why would a nonconscious dog even try to override his love of treats to avoid a hated bath?
I've given the answer previously in a different context. Because his genes programmed him to.
Here are your answers:
How could he do it without consciousness, Dennis?
I put this together for you: gist.github.com/dchacke/485358…
I stand corrected: you did eventually answer that here twitter.com/AstralKing7/st…
Plus at the very least it must be possible the same way nature did it.
We don't know how to do it currently, but it must be possible. Computational universality is the theory, nature already having done it is your evidence.
No [...]
Yay you answered a question of mine!
Have we ever demonstrated thst we can build a conscious anything, let alone a gum-toothpick computer?
'Demonstrated' by building something? Dunno. But no need to. Follows from computational universality.
Have you still not read my blog post about swimming dogs? It'd be a lot easier to find refutations of your arguments in there than to talk to me. Would save you a lot of time, too.
The creative software running on your brain. It's a continuous process of discovery and knowledge creation.
See how I answer your questions but you don't answer mine? Can you answer mine now, please?
...intelligence does see it. I don't know why you keep trying to coerce me into agreement when I've already explained that won't work.
Also, biological entities can be machines because machines can be made out of tissue. You're implying a contradiction but there is none.
He'd assume everybody capable of reading the book would know he was actually speaking about biological entities, not machines.
You're being very aggressive again. You're implying I'm the only one not seeing what Dawkins meant, whereas everyone else with even basic...
How could there be a quote?
There could be a quote that backs up your claim, of the sort 'what I say about organisms being genes' robots should be understood as a metaphor'. Without such a quote, you should entertain the idea that you may be mistaken about what Dawkins meant
Then I asked if a proposed way to continue the conversation was agreeable to you. You didn't answer, just immediately started pursuing that way.
I don't know the biology of amoebas, so I'm guessing.
We always are.
First I asked how the amoeba could display complex behaviors without being conscious. You didn't answer that. You answers another question I didn't ask, which I have explained. You don't take what I write literally.
It's quite a thing to call your questions more pertinent than mine.
Proof isn't a desirable epistemic goal. For the reasons Deutsch explains, one has to go by good explanations and be critical, not look for confirmation.
This is sophisticated behavior. The nanobot must be conscious, right? twitter.com/weird_sci/stat…