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
In order:
Not generally. A chemistry lab may blow up during an experiment or something, but that’s an exception. Extinction of ideas is fundamentally non violent.
Those may all be drivers but can be overwritten. GPPS still susceptible to irrational memes.
Thanks for listening :) It’s part of the appendix of his book “Objective Knowledge”: amazon.com/Objective-Know…
Got it. Yes. Two possibilities that could make you correct in the first place:
1) if creativity is solely genetic and requisite knowledge of DNA created (so indirectly caused their own understanding)
2) understanding means replication so genes “understand” themselves in a way.
I watched it on the assumption that that’s the one. I can see now how extinction can be seen as a constructor of future possibilities. Still unclear about your remark re DNA/RNA.
RT @fermatslibrary:
B. F. Goodrich Company patented a Möbius strip conveyor belt. It lasts longer since the wear and tear is spread uniform…
Huh, you’re right. @DavidDeutschOxf, have you changed your mind on people being universal constructors?
@EvanOLeary do you mean the video on this page? edge.org/conversation/c…
Problems also don’t label ideas. If that were the case there’d be information about new knowledge already existing. That’d be induction.
BoI p. 59 “[People] are ‘universal constructors’”.
p. 76 a constructor is “a device capable of causing other objects to undergo transformations without undergoing any net changes itself”.
A problem is a conflict between theories. It doesn’t do anything.
People are constructors. I don’t think problems are.
Creativity is the only thing I know of capable of creating explanations. As David says in BoI, the creative program may be part genetic, part meme.
Nervous systems on their own don’t create explanations. They’re just hardware
The podcast is now on YouTube as well. I plan to make a video or two that have screen recordings to show some code, so having all episodes there for context seems to make sense.
Not sure what you mean. Knowledge in DNA not explanatory. At most it explains how to spread through population at expense of rivals.
RT @PessimistsArc:
1981: “If teachers don’t stand up to the growing invasion of computers in the classroom, there’s a good chance literacy…
Episode 4 of the podcast on artificial creativity is out. Again, heavily inspired by @DavidDeutschOxf.
Sure, if you like. :) That’s more of a science though, since it’s falsifiable by observation.
Many scientists have the wrong PoS (empiricism, instrumentalism, positivism). That can lead them astray since there is no way to do science without PoS. But they all have one. And when they do create knowledge anyway, they’re doing something that’s the object of the study of PoS.
@WiringTheBrain @PrincetonUPress
For the wiring of our brains to shape who we are, it would need to violate the universality of computation.
I haven’t watched it yet, but in case it’s related: I explain in episode three why contributions to AGI based on neuroscience would likely need to violate the universality of computation.
The podcast is now on @Spotify… Approval on Apple podcasts still pending.
It’s pending review on Apple Podcasts. Will roll out to more apps as well.
The third episode of the series on artificial creativity is out, again heavily inspired by @DavidDeutschOxf: soundcloud.com/dchacke/artifi…
@thethinkersmith @DavidDeutschOxf
Wow, thank you :) I’m glad you like it!
The second episode of the series on artificial creativity is out: soundcloud.com/dchacke/artifi…
Starting an audio series on artificial creativity, heavily inspired by @DavidDeutschOxf. soundcloud.com/dchacke/artifi…
Do I have your permission to quote some passages from The Beginning of Infinity for a podcast series I am planning to make?
Or rather, their implementation is still “prescribed”, but their output is not exactly predictable. Input/output pairs can’t be reliably reproduced.
I’m not sure. Isn’t creativity encoded in our genes and must therefore be programmable?
Not being able to relate output to input in a prescribed way just means the program isn’t pure. Eg Math.random(), Date.now(), etc. Those functions are impure but programmable.
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
Foul.
In every “Before allowing them to read”
The mind-forg’d manacles I hear. twitter.com/nfergus/status…
The reason I ask is because I think it means something else - assuming you’re using the term the same way it’s used in “universal explainer” for example - but I want to make sure I understand your position first.
“We cannot get away from the laws of physics. They apply to everything all the time, that’s what “universal” means.” podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tok… at 11:15
@ToKTeacher Can you please elaborate on what you think “universal” means?
RT @webdevMason:
Westerners now have such a reflexive tendency to associate having society-level preferences at all with a rapacious colo…
RT @HumanProgress:
The radicalization of the environmentalist movement, as seen on the streets of London over the past week, is acceleratin…
What’s the third picture? Presumably Germany minus French occupied land? And something’s missing in Silesia there, too?
“The Creative Brain” on Netflix is a great example of the nonsense neuroscientists spew about creativity.
@ReachChristofer @reasonisfun @ToKTeacher @AndrewREsquibel
I wonder if some brains are slower than other solely in terms of hardware. My guess is “no” or “negligibly so” unless there are genetic mutations.
Apparently @DavidDeutschOxf speaks German, too? daviddeutsch.org.uk/donna-clara/
@ToKTeacher @TheCrookedMan @DavidDeutschOxf @SGerbies @timbutterly @HermesofReason @webdevMason
That is so cool!
RT @PessimistsArc:
1878: Thomas Edison proves a cynic wrong, blowing his mind by proving sound can be captured and replayed. Podcast: https…
RT @PessimistsArc:
Real fears about the 🚲
• Turning us into hunchbacks
• Making women too independent
• Making women dress indecently (n…
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
@reasonisfun @robinhanson
Setting aside one’s own curiosity in favour of what one (or someone) thinks important is a c…
“The sense of self that is lost during those moments of epiphany [while meditating] is just that: the loss of personhood, not a glimpse into the true nature of self.” Very well said @ToKTeacher podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tok…
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
Prophecies. twitter.com/HumanProgress/…
And today it’s @elonmusk et al talking about AI risks.
My response: “We haven’t really cracked artificial creativity yet, and it’s just nagging me”. Then they just get confused and turn away. :)
@Crit_Rat
Progress opposing fools. They could have written the same about horses hundreds of years ago.
Chinese medicine is bullshit. You’re taking advantage of gullible people. Reported.
@davidarredondo @DavidDeutschOxf @ks445599 @Crit_Rat @desgren
My guess is quantum computation, but can’t say for sure.
I admire David for remaining so composed in the face of the nonsense Rees says. Many would have gotten frustrated rather quickly.
RT @EmilyDreyfuss:
Just a few telepresence robots hobnobbing at #TED2019, one of whom is physicist @DavidDeutschOxf https://t.co/TriHuNUUv9
@Ptolemy_3 @DoqxaScott @EricRWeinstein
It is not faith. We have good explanations of what progress is and how it works and why, as well as how and why it’s attainable.
Wenn dich AI interessiert, hör dir das mal an. Hoffe, dir geht’s bald besser. cbc.ca/amp/1.4696754
It’s a never ending, beautiful journey. twitter.com/Calvinn_Hobbes…
Also nonsense. Our minds are much better than any other animal’s because we can create new explanatory knowledge. Innovations help us prosper. Progress is achievable and has been achieved only thanks to reason and science. Advocating against using “too much” reason is anti-human.
Nonsense. People are universal explainers, unlimited progress is possible. Read “The Beginning of Infinity” by David Deutsch.
- What’s the issue with logic, reason and science? Name one case where using them less would be better.
- We don’t put faith in them. That would itself be illogical, unreasonable and unscientific. Faith means “don’t ask questions”.
RT @ToKTeacher:
Justified True Belief. https://t.co/e8IdnlIVIL
Is this a little bit like life? And if so, would understanding the origin of life help us understand how creativity works, and vice versa?
2/2
The creative algorithm was originally used to replicate memes. When turned on itself, it tries to replicate creativity (e.g. in AGI research); it tries to replicate itself.
½
As in “falsifiable by observation”? It can’t be. It’s a philosophical principle. You can criticize it, though.
@ChipkinLogan @DavidDeutschOxf
We should expect our theories to contain mistakes. Problems with constructor theory may sooner or later be discovered, which will require an even better/deeper explanation. There are no “final” theories.
@dela3499 @DavidDeutschOxf @dautingthomas
Yeah I wonder what an example would be as well. Up until now I thought there was only one universal creativity. Is it that there would be a difference in code quality across different implementations of creativity?
@dela3499 @cthulhupotamus @DavidDeutschOxf @bensomer_ville @fieryfalliblist @Crit_Rat @gleason_colum
Love me some Debussy Delight. I also recommend Stravinsky Strudel.
As an individual’s knowledge grows, so does the amount of information he can use to create new explanations. Therefore, I would expect his creation of new knowledge to get slower over time. Yet we don’t seem to observe that. How can we explain that?
Oooh I love listening to new material of his. Thanks for sharing!
None? My phone can recognize me, too. I don’t think it’s conscious.
Damn, that’s cray cray in a good way right there!
I still don’t get it. Why do we need an alternative theory to falsify another? If I have a theory and any one of its predictions doesn’t come true, the entire theory is refuted by modus tollens alone, no?
Can you please elaborate on “Theories don’t need to be falsifiable to be science.” They need to be hard to vary, but also falsifiable, no?
RT @ChipkinLogan:
The vast majority of the history of humanity is mired with tyranny, poverty, and misery.
How lucky we are to live in the…
RT @ChipkinLogan:
Explanation, not prediction, is the purpose of science @bgreene twitter.com/bgreene/status…
Regrettably, yes. The three stages of adopting critical rationalism that I’ve observed: 1) “Anything that’s not induction is stupid or navel gazing” 2) “Actually, this is neat!” moves on to something else 3) “Holy shit this is amazing and I’ll apply it” Few make it to 3 :(
Agree with Brett here. I’ve read four or five of Popper’s books and still struggle with LScD. My first Popper book was “All Life is Problem Solving”, after I read BoI and FoR (in that order). I think it’s the last book he published before his death. It’s great!
RT @DoqxaScott:
“Everyone can and should be a scientist. Because being a scientist just means wanting to understand the world, and using th…
@ToKTeacher @mizroba @LTF_01 @Locus_of_Ctrl
Not to mince words, but I wonder if we should distinguish self awareness from self recognition? Self recognition is the thing we could easily program today, whereas self awareness requires creativity.
@TobyJIB @DavidDeutschOxf @dela3499 @ChipkinLogan
Given what the announcer said moments before, it seems to me he’s just restating the final anthropic principle. But I can’t say for sure.
A friend from college and I would watch many episodes of South Park and a few animes (Death Note, Elfenlied, and others) that way. We’d talk on Skype and play the video at the same time and he would usually mute his video while listenting to my sound.
That’s not true. You don’t know what to observe without some hypothesis of what to look for and where something of interest might be.