Dennis Hackethal’s Blog

@zarzuelazen

This is the kind of vacuous nonsense that has earned philosophy its bad, navel-gazey reputation.

@recursus

I agree that we start with conjecture and can then test against brain activity. Thank you; you have helped me realize something important about neuroscience.

@recursus

Then how can we hope to reconstruct the software that caused these patterns? I think there are infinitely many pieces of software that would result in the same pattern.

@recursus @RatCritical @Malcolm_Ocean @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

Yes, we're in agreement here; though I had already agreed that architecture influences speed. But let me ask you this: can two different algorithms, when run, result in the exact same movement in hardware?

@recursus @RatCritical @Malcolm_Ocean @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

Do these performance characteristics not lie in the algorithm itself? Would X not also take 10 years to run on a desktop computer? (Assuming that computer would have the same memory and processing power as the brain you're comparing it to.)

@recursus @RatCritical @Malcolm_Ocean @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

Or to clarify (something I should have clarified before): hardware architecture can and does influence speed and processing power. But it doesn't qualitatively change anything about which algorithms the universal system can run.

@recursus @RatCritical @Malcolm_Ocean @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

Yup, agreed.

@recursus @RatCritical @Malcolm_Ocean @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

"not all algorithms that solve a given computational problem are equally efficient or robust"

Indeed, because this concerns the architecture of software.

@recursus @RatCritical @Malcolm_Ocean @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

"Not all architectures are equally good for running a given algorithm"

A universal computer, no matter its architecture, can run any computable algorithm (within its memory constraints).

@Malcolm_Ocean @RatCritical @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

When a computer breaks, shit can get weird, too: the fan keeps running, or the housing gets really hot, or it randomly flashes bright colors, some keys work while others do not, it keeps beeping for no apparent reason, it runs all programs fine except the calculator app... etc.

@Malcolm_Ocean @RatCritical @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

It does not. Evolution only optimizes the ability of the gene to spread through the population.

@Malcolm_Ocean @RatCritical @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

Evolution does not optimize for efficient ways to organize any alleged modules.

@RatCritical @Malcolm_Ocean @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

If we knew how to program consciousness and ran it on a computer made of chewing gum and vacuum tubes, those interested would start studying the properties of chewing gum in order to understand consciousness.

@RatCritical @Malcolm_Ocean @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

Somewhere in the brain there is memory, and somewhere there is a processor. Like in all computers. So what?

In order to understand brain functionality, one needs to understand the software that's running on the brain.

@RatCritical @Malcolm_Ocean @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat

I haven't read it, but the problem with learning about the brain's functionality from its architecture (hemispheres, regions, parts, etc) is this: the brain is a universal computer. Since it's universal, its architecture does not matter.

@bnielson01

I’ve only read one of his stories, and remember it being alright. But I love the video games by @frictionalgames which are Lovecraftian.

RT @andrewdoyle_com:
Politicians should never be invoking the skin colour of their opponents.

This is the cancer of wokeness: it convinces…

@ks445599 @bnielson01 @ToKTeacher

AlphaGo is machine learning. Machine learning is “learning from experience”. It’s empiricism. It’s impossible. Whatever is happening there, it’s not learning. No explanatory or any other alleged kind of knowledge is created.

@SimonDeDeo @wileyprof

Me neither. Finished it yesterday. Was a pain to get through.

@ToKTeacher @bnielson01

I should add that it gets worse, though. I know some decision makers in Silicon Valley who know damn well it has nothing to do with intelligence but choose to call it that anyway because it sells. That’s fraud.

@ToKTeacher @bnielson01

Indeed.

@bnielson01 @ToKTeacher

Learning is the creation of knowledge. Narrow AI is the following of predefined steps; the same as all programming so far. Using the term "learning" for something that clearly isn't learning is utterly misleading and dishonest (I'm mad at the industry, not you.)

@ExmuslimsOrg

Hehehe @DeepakChopra is this you in disguise?

@ChipkinLogan @scotthortonshow

Very well written. It really is denial of knowledge creation again: all the wealth is allegedly already present, just needs to be redistributed "fairly".

@onnlucky @bnielson01 @ks445599 @mizroba

Well, then maybe you should read more Popper (something I have recommended to you before).

Or at least google "Popper/Bühler four functions of language".

You will then learn that most of the things you listed require explanations, not merely descriptions.

@onnlucky @bnielson01 @ks445599 @mizroba

They're not. The point is it doesn't matter if it's vocalized or only descriptive. Popper explained that the descriptive function of language is built on top of the signaling function.

@onnlucky @bnielson01 @ks445599 @mizroba

None of the things you just listed require spoken language. The only way I can make sense of this is that you thought we were talking about programming language or something. We weren't.

@markcannon5 @bnielson01 @mizroba

Yes. Whoever builds an AGI will be its parent. His obligation will be to help it learn.

@bnielson01 @ks445599 @mizroba

Yes. Language is not required to make a universal explainer. How could it be? You need to be one in order to learn language in the first place. Again, no instruction from without possible.

Have the terms "eco-induction" or "green induction" been coined yet? Might be useful to refer to this sort of idea.

That's what this idea suggests: that there is knowledge somehow already present in the biosphere (not as adaptations!), and we just need to harvest/ingest it.

"How much do species and ecosystems contribute to the size and growth of economies?"

They don't. Only people do. And only explanations guessed by people tell us which resources, species, and ecosystems are at all relevant to economic growth. twitter.com/NaturePortfoli…

@DeepakChopra

"But if [@DavidDeutschOxf] is right that evolution has led to humans as the ultimate knowers, where did this knowing arise?" from sfgate.com/opinion/chopra…

That is a problem the theory of evolution solves. David addresses it in "The Beginning of Infinity".

@ks445599 @bnielson01 @mizroba

Indeed. It could start making all kinds of conjectures about reality and criticize them. It just won't be able to test them. For example, it will know that it exists, and that therefore things can exist. It can then guess that other things might exist, too, what they may be, etc.

@bnielson01 @ks445599 @mizroba

I think you're flirting with induction here. A child does not learn to be intelligent, especially not via instruction from without. He is born intelligent. What knowledge he creates using that intelligence and whether IO may help with that are different matters.

RT @JeffBezos:
It’s time to go back to the Moon, this time to stay. @LockheedMartin @northropgrumman @DraperLab @blueorigin #gradatimferoci…

"How can we build beneficial AGI?" is yet another "Who should rule?" question. It should be replaced with "How can we detect our errors in building AGI?" and then, once built, "How can we help AGI learn?"

@FallingIntoFilm @ToKTeacher

Stopping doing one thing and starting doing another is easily programmed and doesn’t involve the halting problem.

@EvanOLeary @ReachChristofer

It wouldn’t need to be made of DNA. If it wants to study chemical reactions they can be exosomatic.

@EvanOLeary @ReachChristofer

Ah, yes. Though to be clear, an AGI running on a computer is a completely non-biological phenomenon. No genes required.

@EvanOLeary @ReachChristofer

That's fine, but then I still don't understand your original comment: twitter.com/EvanOLeary/sta…

@EvanOLeary @ReachChristofer

Sure. But in order to learn about music?

@EvanOLeary @ReachChristofer

Why would it have to be able to perform organic chemical reaction experiments in order to be able to learn anything?

@EvanOLeary @ReachChristofer

Not sure I follow. Care to elaborate? I don’t think any biological substrate is needed.

@bnielson01

Hehe indeed.

I’m... not even mad. The article should be titled “In Flagrant Disregard of Computational Universality”. Some real gems in there. twitter.com/CloserToTruth/…

@reasonisfun @HeuristicWorld @dela3499 @ToKTeacher @Crit_Rat @RatCritical @BretWeinstein

Yet they can, and frequently do, lead to death. I suspect this is similar to how genes have to keep their hosts alive but often don’t.

@HeuristicWorld @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat @dela3499 @RatCritical @BretWeinstein

Thanks.

“But all we need to know is that for an expensive belief to travel through history with some population over a long period of time, it must be paying its way somehow.”

No. Static memes don’t survive by solving problems (“paying [their] way”).

@ChurchoftheSim @HeuristicWorld @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat @dela3499 @RatCritical @BretWeinstein

LOL, "rational religion". Classic example of a static meme trying to compromise, creating garbage in the process. "Sure, 100% religion is bad, but let's reduce it only to 50%" (or 20% or whatever).

@HeuristicWorld @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat @dela3499 @RatCritical @BretWeinstein

Broadly speaking: Yes, absolutely. It denies creativity by claiming that everything important that can be known is already known, it punishes dissent, creates bad explanations... in short: actively prevents progress.

I am not familiar with Weinstein's take on it.

@madeofmistak3

The discovery of the equivalence of software engineering and reason, if I say so myself.

@KittJohnson_

Possible, but unimportant. A single UTM could simulate all of that.

RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
My robotic TED talk is online at last: ted.com/talks/david_de…

@RatCritical @HeuristicWorld @ReachChristofer @B_crawford_19

Thanks, but it appears my most recent comments were rejected. So was a post I made today.

Is there a way to permanently whitelist me? I am not that active on Reddit otherwise, so I have no idea how soon my comment karma will rise to sufficient levels.

@physicsJ

Could one do a brisk walk near the poles of the earth as well to keep up?

@ReachChristofer

I wrote detailed responses, but apparently they were all removed because my Reddit karma is not high enough to post comments in this Subreddit.

A critical discussion of @ReachChristofer's latest episode with me. twitter.com/FoundAtaraxia/…

@markcannon5

"There is no distinction between the computer and the program. They are one and the same."

Utter nonsense.

@ReachChristofer @SamHarrisOrg @DavidDeutschOxf

A correction to a mistake I made: our computers are technically not Turing complete because they have finite memory. We may choose to consider them Turing complete for practical purposes.

@NickHudsonCT

Any run of the mill computer also has software interacting with hardware and vice versa. It does not chance the distinction between the two.

The "neuroscience of learning": topos.house/residency.html

The brain is a computer. People learn via a program on that computer. We need to study that program, not the computer.

@aroraharshita33 @james_ough

Here's your answer: you could, but only by increasing the brain's processing speed somehow.

The second link states you're trying to understand how humans learn. That's the right question to ask, but have you looked into whether we already know a fair amount about this? (We do.)

@MartvMegen @ReachChristofer @SamHarrisOrg @DavidDeutschOxf

Yes. Can you guess why?

I was on @ReachChristofer's podcast. We spoke about evolution, knowledge, machine learning, and the benefits of building AGI - among other things.

Thanks for having me!

soundcloud.com/doexplain/2-wh… twitter.com/ReachChristofe…

@DoqxaScott @DKedmey

Yes. Computation is when you use physical objects to represent abstract ones.

@DKedmey

We have a good explanation of computation, no?

RT @ChipkinLogan:
Episode 3 of Fallible Animals, titled Progress as Error-Correction, is out now on iTunes, Youtube and Spotify!

https://…

@ChipkinLogan

Nice! Also, looking forward to learning about constructor theory.

RT @PessimistsArc:
'The Decline of Intellect' (The New York Times, 1900)

“The human intellect, like “the service” has long been “going to…

@madeofmistak3

Good.

@FamilyGuyonFOX

He's so smooth

@ks445599 @markcannon5 @dela3499 @DavidDeutschOxf

I’m guessing he’s talking about weighted connections between neurons as inspired by neural networks, AKA coefficient matrix. Not about weighing ideas.

@dela3499 @DavidDeutschOxf

Hmm. How does one emulate it without an explanation?

@DavidDeutschOxf

You write in “Possible Minds” that “digital immortality [...] is on the horizon for humans, too, perhaps sooner than AGI”. What technology are you thinking of here?

@HermesofReason

Nvm, I found it: it was called the "Fifth Generation Project" but I cannot find that it was meant to lead to AGI through hardware improvements.

I seem to remember a project for a supercomputer in the 1970s or so. Its architects hoped its speed and memory would lead to AGI. I vaguely remember it being a Japanese project.

I cannot find this online. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

RT @JulieBorowski:
Climate alarmists need to chill. https://t.co/9rJ4XAkP9T

@physicsJ @MorganMJohnsen @businessinsider

Thank you, that's fascinating!

RT @physicsJ:
Light Speed – fast, but slow
#scicomm https://t.co/LfoZ3g38DK

@physicsJ @MorganMJohnsen @businessinsider

Ooh - you mean sometimes the earth pulls harder than others?

@physicsJ @MorganMJohnsen @businessinsider

I noticed the yearly added distance doesn't decrease steadily, but jumps around a bit. Why is that?

@astupple

You slightly misquoted it, which made it harder to find, but I found that passage.

I'd like to help you, but can you clarify what you're struggling with? Popper says right afterwards that if a theory doesn't predict more than the problem you're explaining, you get circularity.

@AijeCarvajal @ToKTeacher

Alternatively, read chapter 1 of "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch.

@AijeCarvajal @ToKTeacher

That was not blame. Do you not need to learn more philosophy? Do you already know everything about philosophy?

The source or format of an argument shouldn't matter, but if it has to be me, you could listen to soundcloud.com/dchacke/artifi….

@AijeCarvajal @ToKTeacher

I am familiar with the common sense conception of knowledge. It is wrong. You need to learn more philosophy in order to understand this.

A good paper to get you started is sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

@AijeCarvajal @ToKTeacher

Automatic or not, that is knowledge. It is encoded in genes. Knowledge does not require a knowing subject.

@MatMcGann

Thanks.

RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
Moral inversion: blaming the nemesis of slavery for slavery; lamenting the existence of the USA; etc.

Blaming the Wes…

@MatMcGann

Thanks. What book is that extract from? I see the author is Richard L Gregory?

@MatMcGann

Fascinating. What book is this?

@ks445599 @SuUm4ya @HunterBergsma @RortyWitt

But that was not your question. I agree that capitalism couldn’t be phased out without coercion. Trying to end capitalism always ends in theft and violence.

Capitalism is what allows for creativity in the first place.

@ks445599 @SuUm4ya @HunterBergsma @RortyWitt

I made a mistake. I misread your tweet as saying “How do you phase out coercion and authoritarianism? Can’t be done”.

To which my answer is, yes, coercion and authoritarianism can be phased out and that would be pure creativity.

@ks445599 @SuUm4ya @HunterBergsma @RortyWitt

Sure it can. Such a state would be pure creativity.

@ChipkinLogan

I don’t know. Just remembered hearing somewhere that Einstein predicted more bending. You may well be right.

@ChipkinLogan

Nice. BTW I think Newtonian physics does predict the bending of light by gravity: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2983…

RT @HumanProgress:
In the year 353, a bishop called Hilary of Poitiers predicted that the world would end in just 12 years, in 365. It is a…

Is he serious?? @BernieSanders is trying to actively destroy a beginning of infinity: that of wealth creation. Static memes galore. twitter.com/BernieSanders/…

RT @PessimistsArc:
When things are scarce pessimists say “The glass if half empty!”

When things are abundant pessimists say “The glass is…

@wster @woj_zaremba @OpenAI

Indeed. @woj_zaremba is actually talking about the prerequisites of being an effective universal constructor but doesn't realize it.

There are only two prerequisites for intelligence:

1. Universal computation
2. Creativity

More disappointments coming out of @OpenAI.

Only humans are intelligent, for only they have the universal ability to create new knowledge. And winning is only ever achieved through knowledge, not environments or tools. twitter.com/woj_zaremba/st…

Reactions to @GretaThunberg’s speech are as rehearsed as the speech itself. “Wow, such condemning words from a child, how inspiring.” She’s a victim of static memes, as is the agreeing audience.