Activity feed
Add followup question
> An example I have previously given is the flickering flags computation in the tv show (books) *The Three-Body Problem*. This computation depends on a mind defining states and logical relations. I am not familiar with this example, but that sounds like an inversion of the real relationship between reality and consciousness. See Ayn Rand’s ‘The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made’. Certain types of computation give rise to the mind in the first place, so I don’t see how the mind could come beforecomputation.computation.↵ ↵ Or are you saying there are *certain kinds* of computation that require a mind?
#1498 · Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoI think you run into circular dependence if you exhaustively try to account for brain function by information processing. Even Claude Shannon’s definition of information depends on a «mind/perspective» defining a range of possible states. The world devoid of any perspective would have infinite states and systems depending on how you «view the world». An example I have previously given is the flickering flags computation in the tv show (books) The Three-Body Problem. This computation depends on a mind defining states and logical relations.
An example I have previously given is the flickering flags computation in the tv show (books) The Three-Body Problem. This computation depends on a mind defining states and logical relations.
I am not familiar with this example, but that sounds like an inversion of the real relationship between reality and consciousness. See Ayn Rand’s ‘The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made’. Certain types of computation give rise to the mind in the first place, so I don’t see how the mind could come before computation.
#1498 · Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoI think you run into circular dependence if you exhaustively try to account for brain function by information processing. Even Claude Shannon’s definition of information depends on a «mind/perspective» defining a range of possible states. The world devoid of any perspective would have infinite states and systems depending on how you «view the world». An example I have previously given is the flickering flags computation in the tv show (books) The Three-Body Problem. This computation depends on a mind defining states and logical relations.
An example I have previously given is the flickering flags computation in the tv show (books) The Three-Body Problem.
Where?
#1498 · Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoI think you run into circular dependence if you exhaustively try to account for brain function by information processing. Even Claude Shannon’s definition of information depends on a «mind/perspective» defining a range of possible states. The world devoid of any perspective would have infinite states and systems depending on how you «view the world». An example I have previously given is the flickering flags computation in the tv show (books) The Three-Body Problem. This computation depends on a mind defining states and logical relations.
I think you run into circular dependence if you exhaustively try to account for brain function by information processing.
It’s not meant to be exhaustive. I’m not saying the brain is a computer and only a computer. It does other stuff too but that alone doesn’t mean it’s not a computer.
Improve copy
I think you run into circular dependence if you exhaustively try to account for brain function by information processing. EvenClaudClaude Shannon’s definition of informationis dependent upondepends on a «mind/perspective» defining a range of possible states. The world devoid of any perspective would have infinite states and systems depending on how you «view the world». An example I have previously given is the flickering flags computation in the tv show (books)Three body problem.*The Three-Body Problem*. This computationis dependentdepends on a mind defining states and logical relations.
## How to Structure Discussions Overall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correcting errors.That’s a standard Popperian insight.↵ ↵ But(Popper)↵ ↵ But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:16 unchanged lines collapsed
Credit Popper
## How to Structure Discussions Overall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correctingerrors.↵ ↵ Buterrors. That’s a standard Popperian insight.↵ ↵ But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:16 unchanged lines collapsed
Explain that Veritula cannot help with inexplicit ideas
12 unchanged lines collapsedVeritula works best for conscientious people with an open mind – people who aren’t interested in defending their ideas but in correcting errors. That’s one of the reasons discussions shouldn’t get personal. Veritula *can* work to resolve conflicts between adversaries, but I think that’s much harder. Any situation where people argue to be right rather than to find truth is challenging. In those cases, it’s best if an independent third party uses Veritula on their behalf to adjudicate the conflictobjectively.objectively.↵ ↵ Veritula only works for *explicit* ideas. For example, you may have an inexplicit criticism of an idea, but Veritula can’t help with that until you’re able to write the criticism down, at which point it’s explicit. (The distinction between explicit vs inexplicit ideas goes back to David Deutsch. ‘Inexplicit’ means ‘not expressed in words or symbols’.)
#1288 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, 5 months agoIf we use Claud Shannon’s framework of understanding information as reducing uncertainty, a light switch doesn’t contain information. But the problem with all kinds of information is that it is dependent on how you subjectively define states and uncertainty. Information is always relative to a certain «perspective».
Superseded by #1289. Knut, when you unmark an idea as a criticism, remember to ‘neutralize’ the old version.
Improve copy
If we useClaudClaude Shannon’s framework ofunderstandinginformation as reducing uncertainty, a light switch doesn’t contain information. But the problem with all kinds of information is that itis dependentdepends onhow yousubjectivelydefinedefinitions of states and uncertainty. Information is always relative to a certain «perspective».
Alan Forrester[^1] [says‘no’](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/228643/197081):↵ ↵ >‘no’](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/228643/197081), the brain is not a *quantum* computer but a classical one:↵ ↵ > Quantum mechanics has almost no bearing on the operation of the brain, except insofar as it explains the existence of matter. You say that signals are carried by electrons, but this is very imprecise. Rather, they are carried by various kinds of chemical signals, including ions. Those signals are released into a warm environment that they interact with over a very short timescale.4 unchanged lines collapsed
Fix misquote
4 unchanged lines collapsed> Quantum mechanical processes like interference and entanglement only continue to show effects that differ from classical physics when the relevant information does not leak into the environment. This issue has been explained [in] the context of the brain by Max Tegmark in [The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009). In the brain, the leaking of information should take place over a time of the order 10^−13 − 10^−20 s. The timescale over which neurons fire etc.is 0.001−0.1s.is 0.001 − 0.1s. So your thoughts are not quantum computations or anything like that. The brain is a classical computer. [^1]: Forrester is a former henchman of the very toxic [Elliot Temple](https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/what-you-should-know-about-elliot-temple). Approach with extreme caution.
Quantum mechanics has almost no bearing on the operation of the brain, except insofar as it explains the existence of matter. You say that signals are carried by electrons, but this is very imprecise. Rather, they are carried by various kinds of chemical signals, including ions. Those signals are released into a warm environment that they interact with over a very short timescale.
Quantum mechanical processes like interference and entanglement only continue to show effects that differ from classical physics when the relevant information does not leak into the environment. This issue has been explained [in] the context of the brain by Max Tegmark in The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. In the brain, the leaking of information should take place over a time of the order 10−13 − 10−20 s. The timescale over which neurons fire etc. is 0.001−0.1s. So your thoughts are not quantum computations or anything like that. The brain is a classical computer.
-
Forrester is a former henchman of the very toxic Elliot Temple. Approach with extreme caution. ↩
#1454 · Amaro Koberle, 3 months agoJust intuitively, I feel like there's a difference between forcing others not to force you, and forcing others not to copy you. I feel like defending against others using your scarce means towards their ends is just, while defending against others using non-scarce means towards their end is wicked. Since I impose no opportunity cost on someone by copying information, they have no claim on my scarce means as recompense. The copy-ability of information gives us this nice non-zero-sum situation where we can have our cake and eat it too because we don't have to economize on non-scarce things.
Correction: In some sense copying information does impose a cost, but I think of that cost more akin to the cost imposed on an incumbent producer by his competing alternatives in a free market.
When I distribute Harry Potter for free, I am simply offering better terms for access to the information than JK Rowling, so in a free market I should be the one that ends up distributing because I solve the same problem at a lower price.
‘When I distribute other people’s bicycles for free, I am simply offering better terms for access to bicycles than the stores that sell them, so in a free market I should be the one that ends up distributing because I solve the same problem at a lower price.’ 🤡
Just intuitively, I feel like there's a difference between forcing others not to force you, and forcing others not to copy you. I feel like defending against others using your scarce means towards their ends is just, while defending against others using non-scarce means towards their end is wicked. Since I impose no opportunity cost on someone by copying information, they have no claim on my scarce means as recompense. The copy-ability of information gives us this nice non-zero-sum situation where we can have our cake and eat it too because we don't have to economize on non-scarcethings.things.↵ ↵ Correction: In some sense copying information does impose a cost, but I think of that cost more akin to the cost imposed on an incumbent producer by his competing alternatives in a free market.↵ ↵ When I distribute Harry Potter for free, I am simply offering better terms for access to the information than JK Rowling, so in a free market I should be the one that ends up distributing because I solve the same problem at a lower price.
#1451 · Amaro Koberle, 3 months agoDo you agree that scarcity is at least a central consideration in determining whether copying information in disregard of consent should be considered a crime or not?
Copyright infringement usually isn’t a crime.
#1451 · Amaro Koberle, 3 months agoDo you agree that scarcity is at least a central consideration in determining whether copying information in disregard of consent should be considered a crime or not?
No I disagree, for all the reasons I already gave in response to #1346.
#1347 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoBut digital money isn’t physically scarce like someone’s body. Your argument rests on physical property being special in some way.
Do you agree that scarcity is at least a central consideration in determining whether copying information in disregard of consent should be considered a crime or not?
This duplicate is symptomatic of a larger and common issue of just reverting back to one’s previous arguments when one hasn’t fullyaddressedprocessed the counterarguments. Veritula helps you avoid doing that because you can just look up each idea’s ‘truth status’. If it has outstanding criticisms, you don’t invoke it again. You either save it first or work on something else.
This duplicate is symptomatic of a larger and common issue of just reverting back to one’s previous arguments when one hasn’t fully addressed the counterarguments. Veritula helps you avoid doing that because you can just look up each idea’s ‘truth status’. If it has outstanding criticisms, you don’t invoke it again. You either save it first or work on something else.
#1447 · Amaro Koberle, 3 months agoJust intuitively, I feel like there's a difference between forcing others not to force you, and forcing others not to copy you. I feel like defending against others using your scarce means towards their ends is just, while defending against others using non-scarce means towards their end is wicked. Since I impose no opportunity cost on someone by copying information, they have no claim on my scarce means as recompense. The copy-ability of information gives us this nice non-zero-sum situation where we can have our cake and eat it too because we don't have to economize on non-scarce things.
Duplicate of #1346.
#1371 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
Just intuitively, I feel like there's a difference between forcing others not to force you, and forcing others not to copy you. I feel like defending against others using your scarce means towards their ends is just, while defending against others using non-scarce means towards their end is wicked. Since I impose no opportunity cost on someone by copying information, they have no claim on my scarce means as recompense. The copy-ability of information gives us this nice non-zero-sum situation where we can have our cake and eat it too because we don't have to economize on non-scarce things.
The comment has since been removed.#1371 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.