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
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
Non-dualism isn't reductionism, no.
Why not?
How does a immaterial thing move a material thing?
Programs are instantiated in material substrates. That's how they move other material substrates. Again, all computation requires physical substrates.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
And same issue I stumbled upon in this thread:
You don't know that they're not my "epistemic peers". Maybe I have fancy biology degrees. You don't know that. (But again, it doesn't matter.)
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
Argument from authority, invalid. Truth is truth whether they're my peers or not.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
Thinking that it can't is reductionism which is false. Paraphrasing Deutsch, it's the program that instructs its computer, not the other way round. Programmers understand this deeply and don't find it mysterious at all. And they're right not to.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
And I do not discard it with the same goal in mind. So that still doesn't really tell us anything.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
Souls are supernatural, programs are not. And dualism is true. (Well, pluralism, but w/e.)
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
See twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
I suggest continuing the discussion there in a single thread so this doesn't branch off.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
That quote literally says "There's no dispute [...]".
But again, it doesn't matter. We shouldn't care about what people think or if they agree or not or whether they're scientists or not, but about what's true.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
People have bodies that can be felt, yes. Deutsch explains why computation always requires a physical substrate, so again there's not conflict here.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
And btw, I think Dawkins replicator-centric view of evolution has been mainstream science ever since he wrote The Selfish Gene at the latest, possibly since much earlier than that. Not that it matters for figuring out what's true.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
Shouldn't judge ideas by source or consensus (ie what's "mainstream"), see this thread:
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
He's a philosopher, too (not that it matters...). Deutsch argues very convincingly that people are abstractions. So if he's right there's no conflict there.
@Der_Prometheus @grain99806254 @RichardDawkins
Sorry I keep throwing blog posts at you but I think that post explains it well with more details than Twitter will allow me to type.
@Der_Prometheus @grain99806254 @RichardDawkins
Why would consciousness be a binary attribute [...]?
I think it has to do with a rare genetic mutation humans inherited from their ancestors and other animals didn't:
@Der_Prometheus @grain99806254 @RichardDawkins
First off, humans are animals.
Agreed.
Second, how do you know non-human animals are missing the program that would make them conscious?
If animals were conscious, I think they'd be less algorithmic. Modus tollens.
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
Care to elaborate?
@grain99806254 @Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
All humans share a program that makes them conscious. (This is David Deutsch's idea about people really being programs not bodies, roughly summarized.) That's the program animals are missing. So no solipsism. I'm heavily influenced by DD on animal consciousness too btw.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
People had the 'scientific method' (not really a 'method' per se but that's a different story) when they all agreed that time passes equally fast for all observers. Einstein showed them they were wrong. (And his explanation was good regardless of his credentials.)
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
I don't know that... nor do I think it would matter if you provided good astrophysical explanations.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Some, not all questions. You answered the last one. Not the previous one.
The question was how you know that I'm not a biologist or zoologist.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
He definitely does. He entertains their ideas and therefore knows where and why they're wrong. He doesn't just say 'creationists are silly'. He explains why they're wrong, which he can only do once he understands their position.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Why do you ignore some of my questions?
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Indeed. You'd have an easier time arguing against flat earthers too if you entertained their ideas rather than dismissing them out of hand.
Back in the day it was flat earthers who dismissed the idea that the earth is a sphere because they thought it was "silly" btw.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Right. So you're contradicting yourself, as I've explained. And, meta, contradicting yourself once more by claiming you're not contradicting yourself.
@fman123 @BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Why would anyone care that people agree with each other about something they may well be wrong about?
Take @BallWw123f's favorite example: people used to all agree that the earth is flat. That was consensus. Didn't prevent them from being wrong.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
[...] I’m not contradicting myself.
Then you either don't think I'm a lay person, or that I make "extraordinary scientific claims". But I think you think both of those things.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
I’m not actually considering you’re argument.
That's the problem. Again, be much easier for you to make your case if you did.
@fman123 @BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
I don't really care about the consensus.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Do I need to bring up the word disingenuous again?
No.
Or are you now resorting to an argument in bad faith?
No.
Answer q?
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Right, so her opinion isn't indifferent in that case after all?
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
[...] I would disregard a lay person making extraordinary scientific claims like yourself.
You're not disregarding me but engaging with me a lot. So you either don't think I'm a lay person, or that I make "extraordinary scientific claims", or you're contradicting yourself.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Now you're saying her opinion is indifferent, earlier you said you'd count it:
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Btw, I don't think you know that I'm not a biologist or zoologist.
Right. You didn't really give it a chance. It's much harder to argue against an idea you haven't entertained.
I, OTOH, really have entertained the idea that animals can suffer. I used to be vegan. I get where animal-rights activists come from. But I changed my mind.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
In this example she's not contradicting "the current science" but agreeing with it. That's the whole point. And yet you still seem to think that the source of an idea matters even when the idea's content is the same regardless of the source. Surely that can't be right?!
I thought your "I did?" was in response to my "If you entertained my idea before dismissing it as silly you’d know that."
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
So if she doesn't, but she makes the same argument as a zoologist with all his fancy degrees from all his highfalutin schools, you consider her argument less valuable than his, am I understanding you correctly? Since you're qualifying it.
@Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
Also dogs are bred to do things that resonate with humans so dogs (and domesticated animals) are tricky. Better to go off of wild animals (like some of the ones that allegedly "mourn" the dead).
@Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
Yeah I've thought about those behaviors. They could be any number of things and anthropomorphizing and then concluding their conscious would be a bit circular.
Dogs being "depressed" could be buggy again. Same for "mourning" animals.
And again, “no” what? Please answer questions, don’t ignore them.
No, I’m not. If you entertained my idea before dismissing it as silly you’d know that.
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
If a cooking-show host said the same thing, would you count that, too?
This has nothing to do with the earth being flat other than you thinking my argument is “silly”. I explain in my post why humans having bugs is different from animals having bugs.
Judging an idea “silly” before even giving it a chance isn’t fair or productive.
@Pyrrho19 @BallWw123f @RichardDawkins
Fair enough, I could clarify why ‘bug’ is a fitting term from the start. But I think this shouldn’t stop you from reading on, now that you know what I mean. ;-)
@BallWw123f @Pyrrho19 @RichardDawkins
Yes, humans also contain programming, and humans also contain bugs (which I explore later on in the post; I give a specific example). I wasn’t arguing that humans don’t contain programming or bugs.
The reason why people jump in those situations is because of inborn reflexes.
Great! I think lots of people don’t even want to go there although it seems so basic. Like we shouldn’t eat animals even if they’re not sentient. 😅
I don’t think the earth is flat yet I don’t think non-human animals are conscious.
People keep saying the argument is “silly” but they don’t make any positive arguments for why I’m wrong. I’d like to know if and why I’m wrong.
Would you not like to know if and why you’re wrong?
@Pyrrho19 @BallWw123f @RichardDawkins
Maybe if you read till the end you wouldn’t consider it nonsense?
I think calling it a “bug” is apt because dogs (conscious or not) contain programming, and when programming doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to, we call that a bug.
@Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
I agree: I don’t think the level of sophistication of a dog’s knowledge, say, tells us anything about whether it can suffer. (But the argument goes both ways!)
@Der_Prometheus @RichardDawkins
The best I’ve heard so far I believe originated with Peter Singer. Paraphrasing from poor memory: that smarts (or lack thereof) don’t determine whether an animal can suffer.
Again, do you agree that if animals aren’t sentient they can’t suffer, yes or no?
I beg to differ. (Though "dog treading water while hearing a tap" sounds like you did read my blog post.)
So there's nothing anyone could say that would change your mind about animals being sentient, huh? What if those who believe animals are sentient are like flat earthers?
But what if you’re wrong? The post should be interesting even if you don’t share the conclusion. There are videos of dogs swimming mid-air! Could be fun.
Do you agree that if animals aren’t sentient they can’t suffer?
If animals are sentient then I agree they can suffer. I just don't think they're sentient, and so I conclude they can't suffer.
Again, have you read my blog post? It contains an argument for why they may not be sentient.
What's wrong with the idea that they don't suffer? Would you like to read my blog post and see for yourself before you come to a conclusion? There may be things you or I haven't thought of.
No, I’m not joking. And I wasn’t talking about pain but suffering. (I had a feeling it would have been better had Dawkins differentiated between the two more clearly.) Lastly, we shouldn’t judge ideas by source (“accredited biologist[s]”).
Doubtful animals suffer at all given how algorithmic they are: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/buggy-do…
There is truth in almost every one of these statements. But I doubt people will take them seriously because they’re from children. Instead they’ll find them ‘cute’ or something. twitter.com/SteveStuWill/s…
RT @CrimeADay:
If Congress was a subscription service you would definitely cancel it.
It's always good to know how one would change one's own mind. We're fallible: especially if we're passionate about something and spending energy on it we should be prepared to question our convictions because we might be mistaken.
It isn't profound. I'm guessing asking you to consider what it would take to convince you you're (hypothetically) wrong about animal minds is asking you to think forbidden thoughts. The animal-rights community often uses intimidation to get people to care about animals.
The device is pointed at thousands of humans and it always shows 'conscious'. It's also pointed at thousands of animals and always shows 'not conscious'. Would that convince you that animals aren't conscious?
For example, imagine one day in the future ppl invent a device for determining consciousness in things. We have really good explanations of what consciousness is and how it works and how and why the device shows you whether something is conscious when you point the device at it.
I remember you saying that. What I'm looking for is something like: 'if animals were found to do x, or if we found that animals work like y, then I would conclude that they're not conscious.' With specifics for what x or y is.
Indeed they are. Let me rephrase my question: What specific argument would convince you that non-human animals aren't conscious?
But to answer you qu, I could possibly be convinced YOU aren't conscious.
That doesn't answer my question.
So what's your point?
I'm just curious if there's any way you'd change your mind about animals being conscious. This isn't a challenge or anything, just a question.
And there’s nothing that would convince you that animals aren’t conscious while humans are?
RT @TheBabylonBee:
CDC Now Recommends Wearing A Seat Belt Even When You’re Outside The Car babylonbee.com/news/car-manuf…
@listene61181421 @astupple @Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
If error detection and correction is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness then there’s no conflict here.
RT @TheBembridge:
Who funds these bots, and why? https://t.co/0mbM648KW2
From his Conjectures and Refutations, 2002, Routledge, Abingdon, p. 11.
"The theory that truth is manifest—that it is there for everyone to see, if only he wants to see it—this theory is the basis of almost every kind of fanaticism. For only the most depraved wickedness can refuse to see the manifest truth […]." Karl Popper
New blog post: "Buggy Dogs"
@Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
Yes (though AGI is creative in that sense by definition).
@Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
If by "evolutionary process" you mean biological evolution, I don't think anything in that list is conscious. Nor are those things creative in the sense humans are.
@Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
Above I said “consciousness results from creativity” (emphasis added), not that it is creativity: twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
@Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
Following Deutsch (paraphrasing here and mixed with my own thoughts) the capacity to be conscious is binary: one either has it or not. But we can be more conscious of some things than others. I'm more conscious (aware) of my computer right now than I am of my desk.
@listene61181421 @Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
From his Conjectures and Refutations, 2002, Routledge, Abingdon, p. 11.
@listene61181421 @Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
"The theory that truth is manifest—that it is there for everyone to see, if only he wants to see it—this theory is the basis of almost every kind of fanaticism. For only the most depraved wickedness can refuse to see the manifest truth […]." Karl Popper
@listene61181421 @Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
This isn't about Popper or what you know about his ideas. What I'm getting at is that people disagree about what's obvious, and that thinking something is obvious can be dangerous because it can lead one to think less of those who disagree.
@listene61181421 @Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
And since you admire Popper, you'll know what his stance on "the obvious" was?
@listene61181421 @Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
You seem to be implying that people who disagree with you are not "intelligent, thoughtful". Most people don't want to be seen as unintelligent or thoughtless so this is an instance of the argument from intimidation: aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argume…
@Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
I think consciousness results from creativity and only from creativity, so yes, if animals were shown to be creative, I'd have to change my mind about them being conscious.
@Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
OK. Not every non-conscious living human! Or else it would be OK to kill people in their sleep.
But irrevocably non-conscious... Although something in me feels uncomfortable saying it, I think so, yes. ("irrevocably" isn't quite the right word but I can expand)
@Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
To be clear, "cull" = "kill"? (not a native speaker and dictionary is ambiguous on that term)
School was already dystopian pre Covid. But I agree Covid policies make things even worse.
@Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
Well, I think there are decent inexplicit ideas about what consciousness isn't, and what animals do seems to fit that pretty well.
Re mental disability: if a bug is so severe it destroys the algorithm that gives rise to consciousness then that person isn't conscious.
@DKedmey @Soph8B @DavidDeutschOxf
For me x is around 3, so if for a dog it were less that would be interesting—but it wouldn't lead me to conclude that the dog could create explanatory knowledge.
@Soph8B @DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf
I don't know. Nobody does. But following Popper I'm guessing consciousness has something to do with being creative and particularly with error correction and disappointed expectations.