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
😂 At least he didn’t end up getting treated by a quack.
Bizarre if this is what ends Fauci’s career, not his technocratic, authoritarian treatment of people. But I’ll take it.
What part of this tweet didn’t you understand? twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
Judging by headline only, I see no moral problem with that treatment of dogs, but I worry that this may have been funded by taxpayer money, which is highly immoral. twitter.com/disclosetv/sta…
“At some point people who haven’t been vaccinated (for whatever medical, religious or philosophical reason) will be forced to pay through the nose, just to participate in society.” twitter.com/EssexPR/status…
Virophobia is a serious problem that worsens climate change. Only Greta can save us now.
He looks like the neighborhood pedophile offering candy from a windowless van.
Californians were forced, with the threat of overwhelming violence, to pay for the production of this video. twitter.com/libsoftiktok/s…
@krazyander @ReachChristofer @wrwveit @RealtimeAI
It’s not my theory, it’s David Deutsch’s.
‘Bandwagon fallacy’ is a good term for it. twitter.com/LPMisesCaucus/…
RT @ReachChristofer:
Discussing animal sentience with scientist/philosopher @wrwveit and author/AGI-researcher @dchackethal this Sunday, pl…
‘But without government, who’d unleash robot dogs on the people?’
(‘Robot dog’ is a tautology btw.) twitter.com/MichaelPSenger…
RT @TheLaurenChen:
Respect @ChickfilA 🙌 pic.twitter.com/6OLkEJNOPz
Definitely. Tax money should be spent to police speech for the benefit of these poor souls. twitter.com/ClimateWarrior…
RT @marvosdigital:
Eins der besten #Bücher. Insbesondere für alle Freunde von Verboten… #nurfortschrittistnachhaltig
Yes you’re a well trained dog great job here’s a treat
RT @MikeLoychik:
The Second Amendment is the only thing stopping the Democrats from turning America into Australia.
I’ve heard this too but then read an article presenting evidence that it makes virtually no difference.
RT @cwt_news:
🤡🌎 police now checks coffee cups aren’t empty as part of the mask mandate enforcement pic.twitter.com/yo6Qf17ti1
Got it. I’m not interested in discussing how to evaluate theories at the moment. I appreciate you not ignoring my questions or criticisms.
@hubertus_knabe @ManuelaSchwesig @FranziskaGiffey
Das gesamte Zitat ist hier zu lesen: goodreads.com/quotes/736527-…
@hubertus_knabe @ManuelaSchwesig @FranziskaGiffey
“[T]he real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws, and that is the wage that many workers receive [due to] a government-mandated minimum wage, because they lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force.”
Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics
A theory of computation […] is the theory of how you can use physical objects to represent abstract objects. […] Computers are ways of instantiating abstract objects and their relationships in physical objects and their motion.
Software changes the arrangement of matter of the hardware on which it runs.
But yes: the software instructs the hardware in some specific way, and the resulting movements instantiate abstractions, such as numbers or consciousness.
Did I say I was confident?
In any case, your approach to evaluating theories is wrong. You seem to have read BoI. So are you familiar with Popperian epistemology?
Those people certainly cannot be expected to do Zoom calls like the peasants do.
OK but that’s about determining how oneself should act, not predicting how someone else will.
That said, how do you square that with the video I linked?
@minobenjo @reasonisfun @manylooseends
Also, it can be said very respectfully, like: ‘I hadn’t thought about it that way – I think I disagree but maybe we can talk about it another time.’ None of that strikes me as coercive in the slightest.
@minobenjo @reasonisfun @manylooseends
I think it’s even less than saying ‘you’re wrong’ since it leaves room for the possibility that the other person is right, and that oneself is wrong.
1) I vaguely recall reading passages of hers on Aristotle and them being much more elaborate.
2) “Aristotle was dope on logic” sounds like a purposefully uncharitable interpretation of what Rand probably said instead. She was a careful thinker and didn’t write like that.
OK? I’m not sure what to do with this information.
Why are we obligated to never sanction evil?
So that evil doesn’t feel emboldened. So that good has a chance over evil. It’s in the essay you quoted.
And why is that so important we must be coercive to do it?
We don’t.
And why do we care what evil-doers think?
See 1).
My question wasn’t rhetorical, why not just answer it?
There are ways to quote fragments that are wrong, too, just like leaving out italics is wrong. It’s a small mistake, and it’s not a big deal.
Sources help others and yourself check the accuracy of the quote.
[…] always in those situations.
LOL, that isn’t at all the same as ‘always’ as you originally said.
There are more problems […]
Such as?
And it’s worse than that because it’s meta […]
Then you can always expand on your criticism, as Rand noted. But I’m guessing you wouldn’t want that because it’d be ‘coercive’. In which case, who’s limiting it to a meta level?
What’s a crux?
Saying you disagree can imply criticism. The other person will be guessing what your criticism might be, and it might be hard not to do this.
I don’t see a problem with that.
Yea they follow the law to employ physical coercion which you seem to prefer over the very mild ‘I disagree’. Also he doesn’t have ‘autonomy’ to threaten to throw people off of rooftops. Some might call that incitement and/or intent of violence or both and they’d be right.
I didn’t say the evil person’s mind should be changed, let alone by force. Saying ‘I disagree’ isn’t changing anyone’s mind nor is it force nor is it education. It’s merely a mild, respectful indication that one doesn’t share an opinion.
You’ve answered my other questions since this previous tweet – why not this one?
Usually 1 but for some it could be 2. It’s hard to say. And for some 2 can determine 1.
Whatever the case, we’re not trying to predict people’s actions, we’re trying to understand whether animals are conscious, are we not?
No, arrangement and movement are not hardware, they’re properties of hardware. And when hardware pieces are arranged and move in an adapted way (compare William Paley’s watch), that adaptation requires knowledge, which is an abstraction. That knowledge is software.
RT @realchrisrufo:
SCOOP: @Walmart has launched a critical race theory training program that denounces the United States as a “white suprem…
I just realized that my saying
[Physical coercion is] a much greater coercion than just saying ‘I disagree’.
may come off as me granting that saying ‘I disagree’ is a little coercive. I’m not sure that’s the case (I’m leaning toward ‘no’).
Your tax dollars at work: sparing no effort to remove tire from idiot elk’s neck. twitter.com/NottheBee/st…
It sounds a bit like pacifism: ‘even in the face of great evil, don’t do anything to attack evil – don’t even say 'I disagree’ – because evil might not want to hear it.‘
Regardless of “must” – the part “in situations where” implies that Rand did not mean always. She wants ppl to speak out when evil could be encouraged by silence and/or one’s values are being attacked.
I think my way [of quoting] is less misleading.
You think quoting without sources, and changing quotes without notification, is less misleading than providing sources and leaving quotes intact?
If you call the police, they might not only tell him they disagree, but physically coerce him. That’s a much greater coercion than just saying ‘I disagree’.
Also, anyone could forever shield himself from any criticism whatsoever just by telling people he doesn’t want to hear it.
There’s a risk with writing a piece later rather than speaking up in the moment. When one doesn’t speak up in the moment, it can be misconstrued as the sanctioning of evil in that moment, and the evil-doers may never read that piece, and feel emboldened by one’s sanctioning.
Fair enough, that’s interesting. It’s on my reading list.
That’s actually somewhat more reminiscent of BioShock 1 than I originally thought: twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
I’d also guess she said more about Aristotle than that he “was dope on logic”.
I don’t know about the analytic-synthetic distinction, but ignoring any particular development doesn’t mean she’s ignoring tradition altogether. For example, I mostly ignore EA developments, but that doesn’t mean I ignore tradition.
So, when some muslim tells you that gays should be thrown off of rooftops, you’d rather not say ‘I disagree’ because he might not want to hear it?
You’re potentially introducing more errors by quoting inaccurately (let alone without sources, btw). Guessing what somebody means is already hard enough given an accurate quote – it shouldn’t be made harder by quoting inaccurately.
You referred to my quotes, not other parts of the original text. But yes, here she says “must” – only to follow it up by saying that ‘I disagree’ can be sufficient. Which doesn’t strike me as criticism, let alone unsolicited.
Simply saying ‘I disagree’ isn’t criticism, I don’t think.
It seems to me to be both about the self and about ideas.
Related to electromagnetism: I recently learned that, ironically, people used to think that only living beings could produce electricity…
…to computation. Many think they are, but that’s just a modern-day version of the old belief that there is some ‘vital essence’, something only living beings have that can’t be reproduced artificially, which is a kind of mysticism.
You don’t think it possible that a particular arrangement or movement of certain materials could be the cause of concioisness?
I do – maybe neutron stars can be used to compute, maybe they can’t. I don’t know. But we do know that nervous systems aren’t special when it comes…
Using the latter as a proxy for the former doesn’t always work because people are often more confident before they detect and correct errors, so much so that in some cases they switch to a new theory that explains the errors.
There the difference lies in whether enough effort has gone into detecting and correcting errors (an objective improvement), not increasing confidence (a feeling).
Since you advocate for “proceed[ing] with caution”, shouldn’t you be?
Right – doesn’t that underline my point that it’s difficult to know the intended meaning because, due to theory-‘ladenness’, it’s not obvious?
I don’t see a conflict there, do you?
There’s no conflict between her using ‘need’ and requiring ‘I don’t agree with you’ either because they’re used in different scenarios. (Also she’s saying ‘need not’!)
Btw I’m not sure ‘I don’t agree with you’ is criticism?
It seems to me that she says: always judge (at least mentally); don’t provide unsolicited criticism at all times; make your judgment known if your values are being attacked or denounced or if your silence can be taken as agreement with evil; a simple ‘i disagree’ can suffice.
You originally wrote “[o]ne should always pronounce a judgement.” (emphasis added) The screenshot you shared shows she did not mean always. Not even in the last sentence: most of the time when one judges one’s values aren’t being attacked or denounced.
I’ve only seen emphases added, not removed, and then it’s pointed out. I suppose you could write ‘[emphasis removed]’ or something but it’s not as good as when an emphasis is added because readers won’t know where it was removed.
I don’t think I’ve heard or seen that. It’s also really hard to know whether it changes the meaning the author intended, so it’s safer to just quote literally.
RT @HumanProgress:
“The number of reported [extreme weather] events are increasing, but that is mainly due to better reporting, lower thres…
Always remember that your villa was built on ant land.
If you don’t want it to be a misquote it does.
@royalsociety @acmedsci @WHO @ISC
Sounds like the road to climate lockdowns…
Popper writes somewhere in his LScD (paraphrasing from poor memory) that although our theories are always tentative, our actions need not be.
Allowing the possibility that one could be wrong – which one should always do – doesn’t mean one shouldn’t take ideas seriously, or act on them with hesitation.
[…] I’ll need to look deeper into your provided arguments for this.
Why don’t you do that before asking me to provide them again? Fair warning that if you keep ignoring things I’ve already written in the FAQ I may not be interested in discussing much more.
…And how information is processed is a matter of software.
Can you please provide an outline of the argument?
You could build a computer out of nervous systems, metal and silicon, or chewing gum and vacuum tubes. It follows that the physical substrate doesn’t matter all that much as long as it can process information…
It wouldn’t be epistemically equivalent because “conciousness requires neuron signalling” has been refuted, whereas my position has not.
I’m not an expert on Rand’s views but it seems she made a mistake which, borrowing from Karl Popper, could be called ‘the myth of the legal framework’: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/objectiv…
I think a good and relevant criticism of objectivism (which, incidentally, connects with Popper’s epistemology) is mine, on how objectivist legal philosophy makes a mistake which Popper called ‘the myth of the framework’: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/objectiv…
More generally speaking, much of the criticism of Rand which I have read is bad. One mistake people make is they criticize things she already addressed or never said, or they employ manipulative discussion tactics (like the argument from intimidation) which she has long debunked.