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
That's cool you're learning Unity, too. That playlist looks good – I also recommend the Brackeys channel. I did this tutorial recently: youtube.com/watch?v=j48LtU…
And xe should have a homosexual relationship with the Bond person.
RT @SJobs_Stories:
"The most advanced phones are called smartphones - so they say. And they typically combine a phone plus some e-mail capa…
New blog post: ‘Breaking Out of Frames in Unity’
Instead of a shift I think it connects creativity to consciousness because an entity that isn't creative cannot make genuine discoveries.
I'm more interested in refutations of my position than trying to convince you it's true.
“The hair on my legs turns blonde when I tan,” the whistleblower added.
RT @Jaber_Hassoun:
It was my great pleasure and honor to have this conversation with @DavidDeutschOxf
We discussed:
The Fun Criterion
Obj…
- Doesn’t know the singular of ‘stimuli’
- Reduces people to brains & inputs/outputs
- Is maskless herself twitter.com/libsoftiktok/s…
Disgusting, on several levels:
⚡️ “California students will be required to take ethnic studies to graduate high school” by @CalMatters twitter.com/i/events/14465…
I really don't see why an entity performing a preprogrammed algorithm can't be concious (a preprogrammed concious experience).
One reason is that consciousness involves genuine discovery, and preprogramming implies that all the discovering has already happened.
Seeing as we have conflicting views, why do you place the burden on me to refute yours rather than on yourself to refute mine?
RT @PessimistsArc:
Amazing find from 1938 h/t @johnmichaelw @WSTSpod https://t.co/O0ysUt8G9w
RT @CommunistTerror:
From Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia and more: the extent of the deportations to remote parts of the Soviet Union…
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
Der Anfang der Unendlichkeit ist jetzt auch bei zusätzlichen Online-Händlern erhältlich, darunter Thalia, Hugendubel u…
RT @libsoftiktok:
Wait what?! #AustraliaHasFallen twitter.com/The_AlphaX2/st…
"You'll have to squint to see the mouse once the script starts [...]." Sounds about right.
maybe austria is sorta the canada of germany...
That quote in your embedded tweet isn't from the two sections I referenced, so why would we be going in circles? Seems to me you're ignoring the refutations and not counter-refuting them.
@ReachChristofer @CosmicSkeptic
I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss this if Alex is down.
Refutation of complexity leading to consciousness: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-s…
Refutation of brain and nervous system being necessary: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-s…
If you have additional questions/comments I suggest you read the whole article first, odds are I've already addressed them.
@Donqua2 @Numb3rPi @DavidDeutschOxf
Es gibt auch ein Diskussionsforum, wo man sich ueber das Buch austauschen kann: groups.google.com/g/der-anfang-d…
David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity has a great chapter detailing why this pretense is not only false but mathematically impossible:
New blog post: ‘Pathfinding in Unity’
We become conscious of the disappointed expectation of there being another step.
The dog ‘learns’ that, yes, but not creatively, just by updating parameters according to inborn mechanisms.
New blog post: ‘Controlling a Character’s Movements in Unity’
New blog post: 'Being a Beginner Again'
That’s Popper’s example, IIRC. In any case, humans don’t learn how to deal with an unexpected stair through reinforcement.
That's not error correction, it's negative reinforcement.
RT @TheBabylonBee:
Australian Hospitals Over Capacity With People Beaten By Police For Not Wearing Masks babylonbee.com/news/australia…
Steve Jobs understanding the importance of criticism and error correction: twitter.com/SJobs_Stories/…
I understand that. But are you aware that people who don’t seek hard-to-vary explanations are still people?
The creativity component has to [...] select the most hard-to-vary [trial model] that it produced.
You're trying to build a rational AGI, a kind of 'explanation machine', which isn't what the project of AGI is about.
In your model is there some point [of complexity] where you’d agree that it makes sense to say it’s “aware”[?]
No, I think it has nothing to do with complexity: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-s…
It sounds like you’re saying it makes no sense to say a function is aware of what values was given to it upon execution?
yes
This case demonstrates the possible reach of the term “awareness”.
It demonstrates a dilution of 'awareness' to meaninglessness.
They’re just calling things ‘public health threats’ now so they can exercise more power over them. twitter.com/disclosetv/sta…
In all seriousness, a while back a fellow libertarian and I put together an FAQ for when you get asked for the 100th time who’d build the roads… You can just link to the corresponding heading, it’s already written for you. Hope somebody finds this useful
‘Who’d build the roads’ also really got me thinking and I’m afraid I don’t have answer so I’m not a libertarian anymore either. twitter.com/lockoutdays/st…
This is not an uncommon way to explain what a function does.
I have been a programmer for some ten years and I've never heard that. Also I'm not sure how it's supposed to help understand consciousness?
It sounds to me like you misunderstand the role of evidence.
We know this thanks to my neo-Darwinian approach to the mind: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-neo-…
fair enough, I genuinely thought most people thought the dog made conscious decisions, as people usually do
Then making those universal won't be enough. Being able to explore more an existing landscape doesn't make those programs the creators of that landscape: artbrain.org/image-gallery/….
How could this meat robot do that without being conscious? (Watch till the end first)
I suspect the video is a trick: the dog was trained to go over this exact sequence dozens of times with human guidance until it was good enough its owner could make the video to fool people. twitter.com/AnimalNoContex…
That sounds like something that's automatable and already commonplace. So we'd need to ask why applications that do this aren't already conscious, or, if they are, why we haven't noticed.
That's not what I mean when I say 'awareness'. It's too broad a definition. An addition algorithm isn't 'aware' of the parameters it is given like humans are of their surroundings when awake, and calling it that is stretching the concept of 'awareness' to meaninglessness.
Before I answer what may be wrong with what you suggested, let me make sure I understand. By "consciousness is [...] connecting one’s knowledge processing to the broader causal network" you mean integrating new knowledge into one's existing knowledge?
I meant the word "simply" in particular. Once we know how it works it may seem simple in hindsight but right now it's a huge unknown and a difficult problem.
I'd be careful saying things like 'consciousness is simply...' There have been lots of 'explanations' of that sort and so far they have all been wrong.
Awareness seems to, the other ones I don't think so.
Same, I think: twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
(But note that not all "post-programmed behaviour" would be evidence of intelligence.)
Do a search for "The only alternative that is left is that consciousness has to do with the creation of knowledge" on that page.
RT @HumanProgress:
We've all seen the name Pasteur on our milk cartons.
But the French scientist did more than just invent pasteurization…
New blog post: 'A Programmer’s Guide to Revolutions'
I'm not certain and I'm not striving for certainty or reasons for belief.
I think there are several good explanations here: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-s…
@Enasnil @RichardDawkins
Deutsch also explains this here: youtu.be/zoem4rRDms0?t=…
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.