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
You think you see consciousness behind the pain because that's what your existing explanation says. You should criticize your explanation and see if there are other ways to interpret dog behavior.
That includes pain, which you can witness them responding to. Therefore they are conscious.
We can see the response but not the pain. So the 'therefore' doesn't follow. There, another refutation.
I've also explained that robots could be programmed to respond the same way as dogs, so dog behavior cannot be indicative of consciousness.
I just said I had previously pointed out your truth-is-manifest mistake. Now you're making the same mistake again: "[dogs] obviously aren't robots [...]" (the word "obviously")
You're engaging in further analysis which you claimed wasn't necessary.
...Instead you offer something unrelated (and aggressive again because you accuse me of having bad intentions) that I'm now also supposed to refute, in addition. So this very response of yours is in line with my theory that it's harder to change your mind than it is mine and why.
This doesn't address what I said about your (probably tacitly held and very common) methodology. It's switching arguments again: I present a theory for why it's harder to change your mind than mine. You don't refute that theory...
I understand that that's what you think. I don't think it means you didn't switch your argument.
Then you contradict yourself because by your own argument: a robot when lit on fire experiences "immense suffering". You can't now claim it doesn't and explain why because you said yourself that "no analysis is needed".
You also insist your arguments are true when I've already refuted them, no counter-refutation provided: twitter.com/AstralKing7/st…
The "no analysis needed" thing is the manifest-truth error I have pointed out previously.
I, on the other hand, am looking for a single refutation of my general argument, and when that refutation comes, I will change my mind about the entire topic. I don't think you're prepared to do that. So in principle it's much easier to change my mind than yours.
And it doesn't work because you can always think of more things for me to refute, meaning you can always keep your opinion the same.
This is representative of a more general trend I notice in our discussion: you seem to expect a refutation of everything you think is true about animal sentience. That places a huge burden on me that I don't place on you.
You also switched your argument. First you claimed "Pain responses require the ability to feel pain". You focused on pain responses. Now you're talking about the feeling of pain.
That one example does not prove that they are.
I'm not after proof. I'm after good explanations.
Btw videos of dogs yelping in pain or whatever don't prove that they're conscious either. Evidence is ambiguous: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/evidence…
I don't doubt dogs have pain receptors and pain responses. I doubt that they feel it. That they suffer from it. A quite sophisticated ability to interpret pain is needed to translate it into suffering.
Why don't you conclude that robots responding to pain are conscious?
Are you trying to say that I contradicted myself by claiming 1) sophisticated behavior can be pre-programmed and 2) physicists' discoveries cannot be pre-programmed?
Without a mind there's no consciousness, yes? Can we agree on that?
That one example does not prove that they are.
I'm not after proof. I'm after good explanations.
Plus, even if they were, how would you know that consciousness wasn't an essential part of the algorithm?
Because again, something that is executed mindlessly isn't conscious
Doesn't that make anarchism the best alternative since it is the absence of a political system?
Ah yes, 'the realities' and probably also 'lived experiences'. twitter.com/SurviveThrive2…
Or, again, just persuade ppl to get the vaccine. You can get the outcome you desire without resorting to violence.
If you don't like surrounding yourself with unvaccinated ppl, it's quite presumptuous to 'invite' them to leave the country. You're free to stay home. Or better yet: solve the problem in a way that makes both sides happy.
You're again vastly overstating the risks of COVID. And governments are starting to stop people from leaving the country, such as the Australian government setting the bar very high for re-entry.
And because we live in a society, you don't get to coerce others or exile them.
But maybe one day you'll get to start your own society, where you are free to coerce adults and torture children to your heart's desire.
Also note the irony of Hyo lumping all Germans together and attacking a vulnerable minority (children), ascribing the same attribute to all of them based on nationality – which is something racists do.
With ‘socialized’ healthcare, fat people hurt everyone’s wallet.
Some ppl’s answer: ‘force fat ppl to work out’
Others’: ‘make healthcare a personal responsibility instead of a collective one’ twitter.com/nntaleb/status…
RT @angela4LNCChair:
Californians, please call/email your state level representatives and tell them to oppose this bill.
What other countries does this remind you of? twitter.com/disclosetv/sta…
Yea I grew up in Germany and this isn’t normal at all. Nor have people there “internalised” racism. Hyo is grossly overstating things and repeating woke lingo in parrot fashion.
It's also telling that, when they don't do as you want them to, it's them you think should leave, not you.
You're saying they're free to decide because they can either get the vaccine or leave. That's not freedom to decide. They should be able to pursue happiness in their own way without your approval.
Also note that you could still coerce your children even if those who don't want to do that to their children stay in your country.
So I really don't see why you'd need to exile them, other than maybe a desire to coerce adults, too.
Somebody should make a Minecraft version where before you can build any dwelling you need permission from the government.
You won’t last the first night.
You place too much emphasis on the legality of the situation. As if an injustice could become just simply because some people in a parliament building somewhere signed off on it.
You then realized this essentially means 'might makes right'. Which is disgusting, so you couldn't say that. You had to dodge the question and find ways to distract from it.
It wasn't aimed at strawmanning your position, nor was I implying that you were obtuse. Based on how defensive you're getting I think here's what happened: you realized your answer would be 'yes, if the cops entered your home aggressively, as long as it's legal, it would be okay'
That's not a pain response.
Why not? Because pain responses require consciousness?
And there is zero reason to believe that's what's happening when you dog yelps.
See once more the algorithmic nature of dogs, as evidenced by the buggy swimming motion.
I just gave an example of a response: "[The robot] withdraws its hand because the measured temperature is above a pre-set threshold."
@ks445599 @LaurentWada @Neuro_Skeptic
But he put 'force' in quotes! Look how peaceful a person he is!
It's similar to the arguments against animal sentience in the book. They're there, and they also follow from Deutschian epistemology, but they're not laid out explicitly (though more explicitly than any pro-anarchy stance).
It may not contain any explicit refutations. Like my quote above, I think arguments for anarchism are sprinkled throughout and highly implicit. But I do think that (a gradually, slowly achieved) anarchism follows logically from Deutschian epistemology.
And what are you willing to do to those who do not want to go to school or be injected against their will? How far are you willing to go? twitter.com/LaurentWada/st…
You're trying to appear gentle by denying forcing your kids but then contradict yourself in the very next sentence. twitter.com/LaurentWada/st…
You should focus less on the group and more on the individual. You should respect individual's differing preferences more and emphasize persuasion and freedom over group think.
So, since you like 'the group' so much, shouldn't you be in favor of that?
You're subscribing to an evil doctrine, collectivism, which sees individuals as "sacrificial animals" (Auguste Comte). youtube.com/watch?v=7RFlPm…
And as a grown up [...]
You're implying that people who don't want to 'get with the program' are immature. People generally don't want to be perceived as immature, so you're pressuring them into agreement. You're arguing from intimidation: aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argume…
Agreement requires consent. I have pointed out that Biden promotes force, not consent. (As do you, I think.)
Can you answer my question before asking more questions?
Can doing physics be genetically programmed?
No. Physicists make genuine discoveries. A discovery cannot be pre-programmed or else the program would be the discovery.
... programmed to have the same ability instead of having me point out the same thing over and over.
And if that's a Deutsch quote [...]
It isn't. Asterisks indicate emphasis, not a quote.
You can do two things at this point: refute the notion that if something can be preprogrammed and then executed mindlessly that something is not indicative of consciousness; OR next time you say 'but this ability requires consciousness' ask yourself first if a robot could be ...
You can even program it to scream 'ouch that hurt'. No consciousness required.
Pain responses require the ability to feel pain [...]
They do not. Again, you could build a robot which has heat receptors on its hands, measures temperature, and, when touching a hot stove, withdraws its hand because the measured temperature is above a pre-set threshold.
You DO have freedom when it comes to receiving your vaccine. When the helpful gentlemen dressed in green and…
BoI isn't compatible with any idea it refutes, eg inductivism, tentatively held or not.
School teaches children to try to impress their peers, yes.
So, to be clear, you do not think children should be forced to go to school?
And if they need help discovering new interests that’s fine but they shouldn’t be forced to go to school for that or do it any other particular way.
Can we agree that force is bad?
Of course it’s possible. But it’s thanks to school that people would even doubt that.
Children are naturally really good at pursuing interests and having fun until that’s tortured out of them by schools.
RT @firstofequals:
Compliance with mandatory vaccination will give you all the freedom you've been missing.
It's only those who refuse to…
Usually they aren’t. It can also be an argument from intimidation: courses.aynrand.org/lexicon/argume…
But yes, having kids sure turns many people into totalitarians. Like those denying that children even have preferences, and implying that it's therefore ok to coerce them.
I never said I know what children want. Nor do I need to know that. Nor do I need to have children to value their freedom. I'm saying they should be free to pursue what they want, as all people should, and they shouldn't be coerced, as no person should.
You've said that.
To be clear, you're asking for evidence that computers could be built out of pretty much anything, or that animals aren't conscious?
Again, none of those things require consciousness. What distinguishes the honeybee from more primitive organisms is complexity and sophistication, not consciousness. Even the most sophisticated behavior can be pre-programmed by genes and then executed mindlessly.
If cops were illegally entering homes, and INITIATING violence, then I'd agree with you completely.
And if they did so legally you'd disagree?
Btw you should post comments on top of each other, not next to each other.
Threatening to kill someone is violence.
Even if one walked out and broke the law. If peacefully detained and given due process, that's still NOT aggressive violence.
Only if the law doesn't prevent you from doing peaceful things. As it now does in Australia.
I have taught but not young children. All I'm saying is children, like all people, shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to do; that includes going to school if they don't want to go.
Some people wonder how The Beginning of Infinity is compatible with libertarianism.
The book says "problems are soluble". Not "problems are soluble but some are only soluble with government".
So that’s a “no” to my question?
Let's hope this results in some very public and very painful lawsuits for the Australian government. twitter.com/9NewsAUS/statu…
If roads and sidewalks were private property, there could be a variety of them, including those where nudity were allowed. Sadly, they're not private but 'public' property, so there is no such variety, and you have no choice but to use and pay for them at gunpoint.
Again a false and very misleading analogy, but: I'd have no issue with whoever owns roads and sidewalks in a particular area not requiring people to be clothed to use them. I don't make other people's business my own.
Why do you keep posting the same article?
Kids indeed need to (and, more importantly, want to) learn (though not necessarily any of the things you mention). But are you implying that without school, kids couldn't learn any of those things?
Eg I learned to code not in school but by teaching myself using the internet.
If the kids want to be in bible study I think it's fine (though I doubt most kids want that).
What you're getting at – that replacing one authority with another doesn't solve the problem – is true.
Torture indeed doesn't qualify as a nudge – I meant that after some 12 years of said torture and making kids systematically ignore their preferences, getting them to do something they don't want to do often only takes a nudge.
Yes. And they are persuaded to do so. (But the false traffic analogy people always reach for is really getting old.)
RT @Iromg:
Got to love the British sense of humour #AustraliaHasFallen https://t.co/qdwU3VB3Sh
RT @KennethCassel:
It's way easier for me to work 12 hours a day as a founder than it was to put in a solid 6 as an employee working on stu…
RT @TheBabylonBee:
Dangerous New Freedom Variant Causing People To Ignore Government And Live Their Lives babylonbee.com/news/new-dange…
Why would it be any better at that than at building ATM machines like in your recent tweet?
Right… It couldn’t possibly have to do with how bonkers the woke movement is. twitter.com/BreeNewsome/st…
RT @9NewsAUS:
Four Newborns in Adelaide have died after being denied lifesaving heart surgery because it wasn't available in Adelaide, and…
I’m afraid this isn’t so. Children are tortured every day in schools to learn to systematically ignore their own preferences: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-true…
If it’s that important for people to get vaccinated, why not just persuade them? If the virus really is as dangerous as you say, it should be pretty easy to persuade others, no?
Btw I think “vast swaths” is an exaggeration. The data published so far on deaths is questionable because I hear they count deaths with COVID as deaths of COVID.
In any case, the vast, vast, vast majority of people recover just fine after catching it.
The interdependence you describe is voluntary, whereas forcing people to vaccinate isn’t.
If someone purposefully infects others that isn’t okay, but I don’t think that warrants forced vaccines. And those who are worried are, again, free to get the vaccine, stay home, etc.
The unvaccinated don’t threaten others with a lockdown. Governments do.
And it isn’t anyone’s responsibility to keep hospital capacity at a certain level, nor can he be forced to provide it or pay with his job/money/life/freedom. His life isn’t a debt to others.
RT @jakeshieldsajj:
I don’t care who you vote for but if you are in California help save the state and vote yes on recall @GavinNewsom
[...] we should probably also ask you to leave [...]
Asking is fine. But the unvaccinated are free to respond 'no'. You're free to avoid them, of course, by staying home if you like.
Since you’ll be a breeding ground for variants [...]
There are ppl who have claimed that it's the vaccinated who create selection pressure for variants...
I can't tell if you're joking or serious. In case you're serious:
That should be up to each individual hospital. And who says I won't get the vaccine?
There is an alternative to force: persuasion. Biden doesn't mention persuasion. He speaks only of "requirements".
RT @ClimateWarrior7:
More people found outside illegally in the Democratic People's Republic of Australia.
The glorious people's governmen…
A good comment on my blog: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/a-compre…
Translation: ‘Force your employees or you will be forced to force them.’ twitter.com/disclosetv/sta…