S. Emiya:
Someone wrote this reply to me on Reddit:
"The physical behavior of computers, whether mechanical or electric, is indeed governed by the laws of physics. But that is a disingenuous comparison, as the computations performed by computers are governed entirely by the binary bits of data, not by the more chaotic underlying physics. All computations performed by a computer arise from binary bits stored via only two distinct physical state-types in the hardware, regardless of underlying variance in the physics mechanism.
The human mind also can't calculate with 100% accuracy the value of an irrational number. But that is also a disingenuous comparison, as the human mind does not need to simulate the minute physical behavior of brain matter. We have no reason to assume that consciousness arises from binary bits of data stored via only two distinct physical state-types in brain matter; it is not reasonable to ignore the effects of underlying variance in the physics mechanism."
S. Emiya:
And this was my response:
But that is a disingenuous comparison, as the computations performed by computers are governed entirely by the binary bits of data
I already explained that we know the human brain is a universal classical computer. Computations performed by the human brain are not "governed" entirely by binary bits of data. If you disagree that the human brain is a universal classical computer please explain why you disagree.
Yes, in modern binary computers the behavior of the computer is "governed" by binary bits. It isn't the bits that are important though, rather the information encoded into the bits. That information is what determines which computations will be performed. And that information could be encoded in binary, ternary, quaternary or any other physically possible method of encoding. No matter how the information is encoded, when it is run on a universal classical computer the computations will be the same. The different methods of encoding are computationally equivalent.
Do you think the human brain has a special method of encoding input information that allows it to do more than just universal classical computation? Why couldn't the information encoded in this way also be encoded in binary? How does the "underlying variance in the physics" contribute to the consciousness of the human brain?
But that is also a disingenuous comparison, as the human mind does not need to simulate the minute physical behavior of brain matter.
Does a mechanical computer need to simulate the minute physical behavior of its components? What does this have to do with irrational numbers?
S. Emiya:
We have no reason to assume that consciousness arises from binary bits of data stored via only two distinct physical state-types in brain matter
That's because the brain is not a binary computer. It is a universal classical computer though. And we know that any computations done on one universal classical computer can be done on any other universal classical computer. So anything that your brain can do can be done on a binary computer as well. Hardware is independent of computation. The relevant difference is the specific computations being done, which are determined by software.
it is not reasonable to ignore the effects of underlying variance in the physics mechanism.
What effect in specific am I ignoring?
curi:
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But you don’t either. Why not do some organized learning activities?
S. Emiya:
i like learning activities
S. Emiya:
can you point out anything specific I said that was incorrect in my comment?
S. Emiya:
i wasn't too sure on this one which is why I posted here
curi:
you shouldn't be too sure on any of them since you have never exposed anything significant to criticism here, nor done any learning process that one could reasonably expect would result in expertise at topics like these.
curi:
why don't you join the basecamp and do some of the practice and learning i've been trying to get ppl to do?
S. Emiya:
i did join the basecamp earlier today
curi:
cool
curi:
I already explained that we know the human brain is a universal classical computer. Computations performed by the human brain are not "governed" entirely by binary bits of data. If you disagree that the human brain is a universal classical computer please explain why you disagree.
curi:
saying you already explained something without a source, to someone who apparently did not understand, listen or agree (something went wrong) is not an effective way to discuss
curi:
it isn't acknowledging that there is a problem going on, or reasonably trying to fix it
curi:
the second sentence is too vague for me to even judge whether i agree with it
curi:
you wrote a long multi-part response to someone who is completely lost
curi:
Yes, in modern binary computers the behavior of the computer is "governed" by binary bits. It isn't the bits that are important though, rather the information encoded into the bits.
curi:
i don't think this has anything to do with his confusions, and it's unclear or wrong. bits normally refer to information and you're trying to distinguish them without defining any terms or there being any clear reason to differentiate.
curi:
there's lots more but i don't think talking about it is useful b/c you need prerequisite skills before addressing these things in detail. if you just wanted an overview of the matter that'd be different but you're trying to make advanced, complicated detail points without being a good enough writer, logician, debater, understanding of what the other guy is thinking, bias-avoider, etc.
curi:
i tried giving direct responses to things like this for years and it never worked. DD tried too and gave up. i figured out why it's not working (lots of missing skills and knowledge underlying the topics).
curi:
ppl think something like that they can read a book, like BoI, and then they will have learned what it says.
curi:
this never ever works, b/c BoI doesn't guide one through an organized learning process including practice.
curi:
it also doesn't even try to address a lot of knowledge necessary to its ideas which hardly anyone learns in school or anywhere else
curi:
in other words, relative to what ~everyone knows, it skips a lot of steps
S. Emiya:
"the second sentence is too vague for me to even judge whether i agree with it"
His claim was that "All computations performed by a computer arise from binary bits stored via only two distinct physical state-types in the hardware."
My thinking was that brains are computers that perform computations, but not by storing binary bits in hardware. Do you not agree with that?
curi:
for example it doesn't try to teach ppl what a tree is, nor how or why to use them in philosophy, nor how to use logic effectively in discussions when reading and writing
curi:
Do you not agree with that?
curi:
i think you have no idea how brains work and talking about it is a distraction from learning anything important
S. Emiya:
"i don't think this has anything to do with his confusions, and it's unclear or wrong. bits normally refer to information and you're trying to distinguish them without defining any terms or there being any clear reason to differentiate."
That's a good point. I was trying to point out that it's not the abstract idea of 0's or 1's that we care about but rather the information encoded in those 0's and 1's.
curi:
you don't know the details of the hardware implementation of human minds, and don't need to make claims about it
curi:
if you want to be effective you need to do easier things successfully, establish a track record of success, and progressively move on to harder things
curi:
when you skip so many steps, as you have (and as most people do), it's very hard to engage with you
curi:
there are around 4 living people who are actually good at CR
curi:
i've seen many people try to learn or debate CR stuff
curi:
i've tried to help many ppl
curi:
i have experience with what does and does not work
S. Emiya:
"you don't know the details of the hardware implementation of human minds, and don't need to make claims about it"
Yeah you're right. I'm not sure why I was confident in saying that the human brain wasn't binary.
S. Emiya:
"when you skip so many steps, as you have (and as most people do), it's very hard to engage with you"
Is there a recommended list of steps that we should go through?
S. Emiya:
I looked on the basecamp but I was kind of confused. Is it a message board? Or a project tracking application?
curi:
it has both
curi:
one of the main steps is to engage with material by experts. instead of debating DD's writing you could try to analyze what it says, understand it more, and share that for criticism. you can do the same thing with my writing.
curi:
people mostly can't and won't do this, due to a variety of blockers. one is they have little control over how they use time. so i've suggested in several places like https://3.basecamp.com/4983193/buckets/20858411/messages/3473611519 that people work on time tracking.
curi:
another blocker is that people are bad at managing projects. the main theme on basecamp recently has been trying to get people to practice small projects in order to better understand how to organize projects.
curi:
another is that people's standards for when they are done learning something, and ready to move on, are way too low. much more thoroughness is needed with hard ideas like CR.
S. Emiya:
In your post on animal rights you say that suffering is related to value judgements like not wanting a particular outcome or thinking something is bad. Do you think it would be fair to say that suffering is "knowledge that you dislike something"?
curi:
why are you trying to change the topic?
S. Emiya:
"you could try to analyze what it says, understand it more, and share that for criticism. you can do the same thing with my writing."
S. Emiya:
I did make a post on the basecamp
curi:
also, did we have conversations with you using a different name before?
curi:
i remember a (maybe) different guy involved with cybersecurity who changed names at some point
S. Emiya:
i may have responded to one of your posts on reddit
S. Emiya:
i never changed my name in the discord though
curi:
ok
curi:
i think you must disagree with and/or not understand some stuff i said, but you aren't giving enough feedback for us to sort that out.
curi:
and the question about animal rights is an advanced topic, so bringing that up is in broad disagreement with what i think will be productive.
S. Emiya:
i disagree with a lot of things you say. but i respect you a lot. and i know there must be a good reason for you to have the opinions that you do
curi:
why do you debate ppl on reddit but have not written out a criticism of any of my ideas?
curi:
(iirc)
S. Emiya:
well i think i disagree with some of the things you say regarding objectivism
S. Emiya:
but i don't know enough about it
S. Emiya:
to offer meaningful criticism
curi:
do you mean that you disagree with classical liberal type ideas?
S. Emiya:
i think i have a perception of the book "atlas shrugged" from hearing others talk about it
S. Emiya:
but I've never read it myself
S. Emiya:
i am also reading the Mises book on liberalism
curi:
the hearsay on AS is very inaccurate, similar to the hearsay about Popper
S. Emiya:
and I will have some questions on that when I finish it
S. Emiya:
if i only have time to read one book though I'm going to focus on BoI or FoR over those other books
curi:
sure i don't really recommend getting into political philosophy, econ, etc.
curi:
do you have a disagreement with what i said today on discord about learning?
S. Emiya:
no not really
S. Emiya:
i don't want to skip steps in the learning process
curi:
did you watch my videos tutoring max?
S. Emiya:
no, i didn't know those were posted
curi:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKx6lO5RmaetREa9-jt2T-qX9XO2SD0l2
S. Emiya:
that's a lot of content, thanks for sharing
S. Emiya:
i do agree that animal rights is an advanced topic but I feel like I have some reasonable questions
S. Emiya:
that would help satisfy my curiosity
curi:
ya i've been making lots of stuff. i don't really understand why some ppl don't find some of it that they would like. i'm not trying to blame you. idk what the issue is. it comes up with other ppl.
curi:
Do you think it would be fair to say that suffering is "knowledge that you dislike something"?
S. Emiya:
yeah I should probably watch more from your youtube channel
curi:
knowing that i dislike losing limbs is not suffering. i haven't lost any. this kinda thing takes more precision. and i don't think this would go anywhere significant even if formulated better.
S. Emiya:
that's true. we could make it "knowing that one dislikes what one is experiencing"
S. Emiya:
it doesn't really matter the definition
curi:
this is jumping into the middle of a topic without having shared knowledge of the premises, goals or problems.
S. Emiya:
my main question is do you think that suffering is knowledge?
curi:
we aren't on the same page to enable some sort of joint project
curi:
my main question is do you think that suffering is knowledge?
my answer to that, as written, and interpreted in my own terminology and worldview, is "no". but i don't think that's a useful answer.
S. Emiya:
If suffering isn't knowledge then what do you think it is?
curi:
seeking meanings for undefined terms is one of the errors Popper warned us against.
curi:
your questions are coming out of a complex problem situation
curi:
you read stuff, had conversations, had experiences, thought about it, etc.
curi:
that is not shared with me. if we were going to discuss it seriously, we'd have to start more at the beginning and explain what we think and mean more to build up to this.
curi:
ppl try to have conversations by assuming they have tons of shared premises with the other person, and this shortcut is mostly a disaster for anything philosophical even if both ppl are conventional and similar.
curi:
discussions of suffering and animals and stuff come out of prior topics which we haven't discussed. like ppl often care about suffering b/c of its connection to morality. sometimes they care about animals b/c they want to know about how to treat them, e.g. whether to farm, kill and eat them. there are other reasons too.
curi:
ppl bring approaches and methodology to this. e.g. some ppl have some predetermined conclusions, find an expert who says that, and then say his authority proves them right. others skim things and want a rough overview and are satisfied. some of those skimmers then say they know a ton about it, and others say they still know little.
curi:
i often run into conflicts with ppl re how much effort to put into things, whether it's ok to reference articles or books, whether a discussion methodology should be specified at all, whether Paths Forward and Idea Trees are appropriate, etc. in general ppl will neither use those nor propose any explicit alternatives. i only have discussion in limited ways in circumstances like that.
curi:
collaborating with other ppl is hard. ppl are different. it's hard to get to know ppl or find enough points of agreement to build anything substantial with. finding ppl from ur own subculture and making a bunch of assumptions only gets you so far (hardly anywhere) and i'm really atypical anyway.
curi:
our culture has an idea of common sense and what an educated person should know. so one might think that could be used as common ground to build on. but i've found most of that stuff highly unreliable. our schools are awful.
curi:
e.g. most ppl make lots of mistakes at math and reading comprehension that affect discussion conclusions.
S. Emiya:
what can we do to better spread the ideas of CR?
curi:
learn them yourself first!
S. Emiya:
you got me there haha
curi:
that's what i tell everyone
S. Emiya:
i will learn them
curi:
the majority are hostile to it
curi:
if you want to help others, learn publicly and keep organized records others could use later. that's hard tho. i did a lot publicly but it's not that organized and most ppl find it hard to use. one of the issues is ppl start their journeys in different places than i did. i was already good at certain things (that they aren't) at the start of my CR learning.
curi:
learning publicly is basically necessary anyway b/c my groups are the only place to get quality critical feedback
curi:
for CR
curi:
one of the main issues ppl have with learning is how to judge when they are successful
curi:
how do you know when you learned it right?
curi:
you have to find some stuff where you can make judgments like that effectively and then build on them and expand your ability to do it.
S. Emiya:
do you think debating is a good "test" for your knowledge?
curi:
so like you can check your work for addition, but cannot similarly check it for animal suffering claims.
curi:
debating has some good things but often all involved are confused.
curi:
and often beginners debate their own claims too much, when the majority of attention should go to analyzing and comparing ideas explained by experts.
curi:
ppl should do more collaborative instead of adversarial stuff too
curi:
i find ppl often either read (and watch or listen) a lot and interact too little, or they do lots of interactive stuff but won't read much. using both things effectively is a big deal.
curi:
ppl's main initial goal should be to catch up to what's already known. debate isn't really optimized for that.
S. Emiya:
so here was my thinking on animal suffering:
I think that suffering is related to value judgements like "not wanting a particular outcome or thinking something is bad". I think both of those are examples of knowledge. I have the knowledge that I do not want an outcome where my arm gets chopped off. Or I have the knowledge that having my heart broken by my partner is bad. Or knowledge that I dislike the feeling of starving, etc.
I could be put in any of those situations but without the knowledge that I dislike them. If I didn't have knowledge that I disliked the situations then I don't see why or how I could be suffering.
Specifically, I think that value judgements are creating knowledge of suffering by idea evolution. I think that only humans (or other beings with general intelligence) can create knowledge of suffering in this way. But all knowledge comes from evolution. So if knowledge of suffering can be created by idea evolution then it should also be able to be created by biological evolution.
What arguments are there against the idea that knowledge of suffering could be created by biological evolution?
S. Emiya:
"ppl's main initial goal should be to catch up to what's already known. debate isn't really optimized for that."
That's a good point. In my experience when I try to explain something in a "debate" (on reddit) there are times when I'll realize I don't understand the topic as well as I should. But i could probably come to those same realizations in a more collaborative environment rather than adversarial.
curi:
this is trying to build on topics like what evolution is and how it works, a particular view of knowledge, and some sort of goal(s) that is integrated into a tree or graph of goals.
curi:
one of the things being built on is observing people frowning or crying. that's some actual common ground. we've both had that experience. and a bunch of other experiences in similar ballpark.
curi:
there's a big gap from there to the discussion you're trying to have.
S. Emiya:
i don't think I disagree with you on evolution and how it works, or on what knowledge is or isn't
S. Emiya:
based on articles from fallibleideas.com
curi:
IME ppl are never on the same page with me about that kinda stuff if we haven't discussed it before. issues come up if it's examined.
curi:
like if ppl try to write down their understanding of it, i expect to find parts i disagree with
S. Emiya:
My understanding of evolution is that a population of replicators subject to variance will be taken over by the replicators which are better at replicating than their rivals.
S. Emiya:
And I guess there should be a mention that there needs to be some kind of selection process
S. Emiya:
like natural selection or criticism and experiment
S. Emiya:
And I think that knowledge is useful information, for the most part
curi:
useful to who or what? and what do replicators have to do with knowledge? good night. if you want to post something more complete to curi.us or basecamp i'll reply later.
S. Emiya:
👍
curi:
@S. Emiya
I looked on the basecamp but I was kind of confused. Is it a message board? Or a project tracking application?
That was helpful feedback btw. I just organized it better with the most important info in the Docs & Files section in folders.
