Dennis Hackethal
@dennis.hackethal·Joined Jun 2024·Ideas
Founder Veritula.
Author. Software engineer. Ex Apple. Translator of The Beginning of Infinity.
dennishackethal.com
#4557·Yurii Pytomets, about 1 month agoIt’s bad
Is prejudgment and conformism any good? Popper is famous for his theory of scientific revolutions, de-facto theory of accepting a fact that you have only merely a "current paradigm", that inevitable ignores observational facts in the name of infrastructural and logistical cost of maintenance more-or-less consistent consensus tradition. And readiness to throw it all away as soon as there will be just enough black swans around. Wouldn't it be more honest and humbly just to accept the inconsistency as a basis?
What you describe sounds more like Kuhn’s stance, not Popper’s.
#4556·Yurii Pytomets, about 1 month agodeath
Everything leads there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3xIs0aajN4
Even if that were true, that doesn’t mean we need to endure unhappiness or stasis until then.
#4556·Yurii Pytomets, about 1 month agodeath
Everything leads there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3xIs0aajN4
Not necessarily, no. It’s a soluble problem.
“truenesslessnessless”, “beingnesslessnessless”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”
What? You’re rambling.
“truenesslessnessless”, “beingnesslessnessless”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”
What? You’re rambling.
#4549·Yurii Pytomets revised about 1 month agoirrational
What's bad in being irrational? Ration overrated and has pretty indirect relation with the common sense. How rationality will help you to stand the right up, and do the thing? And what if you can't? In general: why not considering each judgement, as a true one? Let's talk about that: each person has it's own experience, which you will never live thru, and from their personal perception of this reality, their point absolutely have right to make sense. Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else. Could you prove that that person actually live in the same world you do? How you can be sure that everything you know make sense, and next moment you will not wake up, saying: what a weird dream I saw! How you would measure a truenesslessnessless, how can you expect that successful strategy will not fail next day? Let's touch the ground for a moment: what we ACTUALLY know about us, and the place where we are? If you like me, you know about this world only two things:
1. the World is such so it's existence, essence, the law, a form of being -- inevitable leads to appearing there of you;
2. and you, wonderfully, has an ability -- to perceive an experience, live thru time and flow of entropy, learn, learn something about your own existence, beingnesslessnessless, learn about limit of own ability to learn -- marvelously comprehend something despite all of that, something, or maybe, at least, one -- for sure -- the World is such the place you know about for sure exactly one thing -- whereinit thisnesslessnesslesssness of is allows to exist in it the you one, who able to perceive and comprehend it. And that's it. Everything behind that -- our imagination. But you are here, and I respect it, and welcoming you. So I'm totally open to trust any story of your own perspective on this journey, because: who I am to judge, what is true. And it's okay for me if you are not or notn't.
3. Because things here always falls into two items: the ones which lands in first or second.
4. And the rest ones.
Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else.
This stance is known as relativism. It’s bad. Popper, Deutsch, and several others philosophers have already refuted it. You’re advocating an outdated idea.
There’s an objective way to form a rational preference for one idea over another. Veritula explains that in the idea you criticize.
#4549·Yurii Pytomets revised about 1 month agoirrational
What's bad in being irrational? Ration overrated and has pretty indirect relation with the common sense. How rationality will help you to stand the right up, and do the thing? And what if you can't? In general: why not considering each judgement, as a true one? Let's talk about that: each person has it's own experience, which you will never live thru, and from their personal perception of this reality, their point absolutely have right to make sense. Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else. Could you prove that that person actually live in the same world you do? How you can be sure that everything you know make sense, and next moment you will not wake up, saying: what a weird dream I saw! How you would measure a truenesslessnessless, how can you expect that successful strategy will not fail next day? Let's touch the ground for a moment: what we ACTUALLY know about us, and the place where we are? If you like me, you know about this world only two things:
1. the World is such so it's existence, essence, the law, a form of being -- inevitable leads to appearing there of you;
2. and you, wonderfully, has an ability -- to perceive an experience, live thru time and flow of entropy, learn, learn something about your own existence, beingnesslessnessless, learn about limit of own ability to learn -- marvelously comprehend something despite all of that, something, or maybe, at least, one -- for sure -- the World is such the place you know about for sure exactly one thing -- whereinit thisnesslessnesslesssness of is allows to exist in it the you one, who able to perceive and comprehend it. And that's it. Everything behind that -- our imagination. But you are here, and I respect it, and welcoming you. So I'm totally open to trust any story of your own perspective on this journey, because: who I am to judge, what is true. And it's okay for me if you are not or notn't.
3. Because things here always falls into two items: the ones which lands in first or second.
4. And the rest ones.
What's bad in being irrational?
Irrationality leads to stasis, unhappiness, and ultimately death.
#4549·Yurii Pytomets revised about 1 month agoirrational
What's bad in being irrational? Ration overrated and has pretty indirect relation with the common sense. How rationality will help you to stand the right up, and do the thing? And what if you can't? In general: why not considering each judgement, as a true one? Let's talk about that: each person has it's own experience, which you will never live thru, and from their personal perception of this reality, their point absolutely have right to make sense. Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else. Could you prove that that person actually live in the same world you do? How you can be sure that everything you know make sense, and next moment you will not wake up, saying: what a weird dream I saw! How you would measure a truenesslessnessless, how can you expect that successful strategy will not fail next day? Let's touch the ground for a moment: what we ACTUALLY know about us, and the place where we are? If you like me, you know about this world only two things:
1. the World is such so it's existence, essence, the law, a form of being -- inevitable leads to appearing there of you;
2. and you, wonderfully, has an ability -- to perceive an experience, live thru time and flow of entropy, learn, learn something about your own existence, beingnesslessnessless, learn about limit of own ability to learn -- marvelously comprehend something despite all of that, something, or maybe, at least, one -- for sure -- the World is such the place you know about for sure exactly one thing -- whereinit thisnesslessnesslesssness of is allows to exist in it the you one, who able to perceive and comprehend it. And that's it. Everything behind that -- our imagination. But you are here, and I respect it, and welcoming you. So I'm totally open to trust any story of your own perspective on this journey, because: who I am to judge, what is true. And it's okay for me if you are not or notn't.
3. Because things here always falls into two items: the ones which lands in first or second.
4. And the rest ones.
“truenesslessnessless”, “beingnesslessnessless”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”
What? You’re rambling.
#4524·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoAyn Rand on why middle-of-the-roaders can be worse than outright opponents:
[Page 1]
August 21, 1946Mrs. Rose Wilder Lane
Route 4, Box 42
Danbury, Connecticut[…]
Now to your second question: “Do those almost with us do more harm than 100% enemies?” I don’t think this can be answered
[Page 2]
Page 2 Mrs. Rose Wilder Lane August 21, 1946with a flat “yes” or “no”, because the “almost” is such a wide term and can cover so many different attitudes. I think each particular case has to be judged on his own performance, but there is one general rule to observe: those who are with us, but merely do not go far enough, yet do not serve the opposite cause in any way, are the ones who do us some good and who are worth educating. Those who agree with us in some respects, yet preach contradictory ideas at the same time, are definitely more harmful than the 100% enemies. The standard of judgement here has to be the man’s attitude toward basic principles. If he shares our basic principles, but goes off on lesser details in the application of these principles, he is worth educating and having as an ally. If his “almost” consists of sharing some of the basic principles of collectivism, then we ought to run from him faster than from an out-and-out Communist.
As an example of the kind of “almost” I would tolerate, I’d name Ludwig von Mises. His book, “Omnipotent Government”, had some bad flaws, in that he attempted to divorce economics from morality, which is impossible; but with the exception of his last chapter, which simply didn’t make sense, his book was good, and did not betray our cause. The flaws in his argument merely weakened his own effectiveness, but did not help the other side.
As an example of our most pernicious enemy, I would name Hayek.[**] That one is real poison. Yes, I think he does more harm than Stuart Chase. I think Wendell Willkie did more to destroy the Republican Party than did Roosevelt. I think Willkie and Eric Johnston have done more for the cause of Communism than Earl Browder and The Daily Worker. Observe the Communist Party technique, which asks their most effective propagandists to be what is known as “tactical non-members”. That is, they must not be Communists, but pose as “middle-of-the-roaders” in the eyes of the public. The Communists know that such propagandists are much more deadly to the cause of Capitalism in that “middle-of-the-road” pretense.
Personally, I feel sick whenever I come up against a compromising conservative. But my attitude is this: if the man compromises because of ignorance, I consider him worth enlightening. If he compromises because of moral cowardice (which is the reason in most cases), I don’t want to talk to him, I don’t want him on my side, and I don’t think he is worth converting.
As to George Peck, I don’t know enough about him to be able to tell whether he is worth educating or not. I have just received a letter from him in answer to mine. It is a very nice letter, in that he tries to answer criticism honestly, but I am appalled by his mental confusion. He maintains, for instance, that Hitler is worse than Stalin. I don’t know by what possible standard one can establish degrees of evil as between dictators representing exactly the same
[Page 3]
Page 3 Mrs. Rose Wilder Lane August 21, 1946principle. I am afraid that George Peck means well, but has not given our cause a serious study. Perhaps, he is worth educating. But stay away from Hayek, if you want my opinion; he is worse than hopeless.
Now, am I a good correspondent?
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Ayn Rand
p.s.
I had just finished this letter to you, when, strangely enough, I received an appalling answer to the question you asked me—a final proof that our “almost” friends are our worst enemies. It was the worst shock in all my experience with political reading. I received the Economic Council Letter of August 15th. (Incidentally, I subscribed to that Letter mainly in order to get your book reviews.) And I read that Merwin K. Hart, a defender of freedom and Americanism, is advocating a death penalty for a political offense.I am actually too numb at the moment to know what to say. I don’t have to explain to you that once such a principle is accepted, it would mean the literal, physical end of Americans; nor to ask you to guess who would be the first people executed under such a law; nor to remind you that the crucial steps on the road to dictatorship, the laws giving government totalitarian powers, were initiated by Republicans—such as the draft bill, or the attempt to pass a national serfdom act for compulsory labor.
I know that you know all that. What I wonder is: is it in your spiritual power to discuss this with Hart? If you can, if you have arguments that would reach him—please do it. I confess I’m helpless in such an instance. It’s too monstrous.
[…]
**F. A. Hayek, who shared the 1947 Nobel Prize in Economics. For AR’s marginal comments on Hayek’s best-known work, The Road to Serfdom, see Mayhew ed., Ayn Rand’s Marginalia, pp. 145–60.
In her August 24, 1946, response, Lane wrote, “That Council Letter gave me the same shock…. I can take it up with Hart and I shall.”
Getting Bryan Caplan to write a blurb for Aaron’s book was the worst thing Aaron could have done to promote its values. Caplan is a clown who believes in freedom for children except when it comes to math, which he thinks children need to be forced to learn because it’s important. Real poison. See #1051.
#4534·Yurii Pytomets revised about 1 month agoHello, and nice to meet you. Your twit https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2031465139401093501 bring me here.
It seemed relevant to my curiosity about AGI topic, so since I believe in synergy and want to be surrounded more by such context, signed up to the website, just in case.If you interested to discuss and share some AGI-relevant thoughts, I'm in, just let me know. Not a professional at this topic (just an average software engineer), but investigated topic for quire a while, so, I believe, have something to put on the table. And with LLM came to our live -- the path from the vision to the result -- become notable closer, so, who know, maybe we can really bring something beautiful to life.
And with LLM came to our live -- the path from the vision to [AGI] -- become notable closer…
Have you read any David Deutsch, or listened to any interviews of him? The Beginning of Infinity is very good. You might enjoy chapter 7, where he explains why chatbots don’t bring us closer to AGI.
This article of his is also good.
Let me know what you think of his stance.
I have a new Services page where you can hire me for software engineering, philosophy consulting, and more: https://dennishackethal.com/services.html
Welcome to Veritula, Edgar. I recommend reading this guide to learn about Veritula and rationality.
Also, one of our many discussions could be a starting point for you to join our discourse.
What brings you to Veritula?
Welcome to Veritula, @netsu. Check out this guide to understand how Veritula works and learn more about rationality. You may also find one of our discussions interesting.
What brings you to Veritula?
Welcome to Veritula, Phillip. I recommend reading this guide to understand how Veritula works.
Nice article on Popper and Deutsch. You attribute to Popper “the idea that truth is difficult to attain, and that we can only ever get closer to it.” You imply that we cannot fully reach truth.
Do you have some quote/citation where Popper says something to that effect?
How to tell a serious epistemologist from a hobby epistemologist: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2031465139401093501
Fix typo
A ‘supercession’ isn’t some special flag in the system – it’s just another criticism that can be countercriticized. So I hesitate to implement special functionality for ‘special’ criticisms.
A ‘supersession’ isn’t some special flag in the system – it’s just another criticism that can be countercriticized. So I hesitate to implement special functionality for ‘special’ criticisms.
#4504·Benjamin Davies, about 2 months agoI would prefer to find out I was reading an outdated version of something before I started reading it, not at the end, and not in the comments.
Outdated is different from superseded. The versions show at the top of the idea. That signals at least potential ‘supersession’ before you start reading.
#4504·Benjamin Davies, about 2 months agoI would prefer to find out I was reading an outdated version of something before I started reading it, not at the end, and not in the comments.
A ‘supercession’ isn’t some special flag in the system – it’s just another criticism that can be countercriticized. So I hesitate to implement special functionality for ‘special’ criticisms.
Ayn Rand on why middle-of-the-roaders can be worse than outright opponents:
[Page 1]
August 21, 1946Mrs. Rose Wilder Lane
Route 4, Box 42
Danbury, Connecticut[…]
Now to your second question: “Do those almost with us do more harm than 100% enemies?” I don’t think this can be answered
[Page 2]
Page 2 Mrs. Rose Wilder Lane August 21, 1946with a flat “yes” or “no”, because the “almost” is such a wide term and can cover so many different attitudes. I think each particular case has to be judged on his own performance, but there is one general rule to observe: those who are with us, but merely do not go far enough, yet do not serve the opposite cause in any way, are the ones who do us some good and who are worth educating. Those who agree with us in some respects, yet preach contradictory ideas at the same time, are definitely more harmful than the 100% enemies. The standard of judgement here has to be the man’s attitude toward basic principles. If he shares our basic principles, but goes off on lesser details in the application of these principles, he is worth educating and having as an ally. If his “almost” consists of sharing some of the basic principles of collectivism, then we ought to run from him faster than from an out-and-out Communist.
As an example of the kind of “almost” I would tolerate, I’d name Ludwig von Mises. His book, “Omnipotent Government”, had some bad flaws, in that he attempted to divorce economics from morality, which is impossible; but with the exception of his last chapter, which simply didn’t make sense, his book was good, and did not betray our cause. The flaws in his argument merely weakened his own effectiveness, but did not help the other side.
As an example of our most pernicious enemy, I would name Hayek.[**] That one is real poison. Yes, I think he does more harm than Stuart Chase. I think Wendell Willkie did more to destroy the Republican Party than did Roosevelt. I think Willkie and Eric Johnston have done more for the cause of Communism than Earl Browder and The Daily Worker. Observe the Communist Party technique, which asks their most effective propagandists to be what is known as “tactical non-members”. That is, they must not be Communists, but pose as “middle-of-the-roaders” in the eyes of the public. The Communists know that such propagandists are much more deadly to the cause of Capitalism in that “middle-of-the-road” pretense.
Personally, I feel sick whenever I come up against a compromising conservative. But my attitude is this: if the man compromises because of ignorance, I consider him worth enlightening. If he compromises because of moral cowardice (which is the reason in most cases), I don’t want to talk to him, I don’t want him on my side, and I don’t think he is worth converting.
As to George Peck, I don’t know enough about him to be able to tell whether he is worth educating or not. I have just received a letter from him in answer to mine. It is a very nice letter, in that he tries to answer criticism honestly, but I am appalled by his mental confusion. He maintains, for instance, that Hitler is worse than Stalin. I don’t know by what possible standard one can establish degrees of evil as between dictators representing exactly the same
[Page 3]
Page 3 Mrs. Rose Wilder Lane August 21, 1946principle. I am afraid that George Peck means well, but has not given our cause a serious study. Perhaps, he is worth educating. But stay away from Hayek, if you want my opinion; he is worse than hopeless.
Now, am I a good correspondent?
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Ayn Rand
p.s.
I had just finished this letter to you, when, strangely enough, I received an appalling answer to the question you asked me—a final proof that our “almost” friends are our worst enemies. It was the worst shock in all my experience with political reading. I received the Economic Council Letter of August 15th. (Incidentally, I subscribed to that Letter mainly in order to get your book reviews.) And I read that Merwin K. Hart, a defender of freedom and Americanism, is advocating a death penalty for a political offense.I am actually too numb at the moment to know what to say. I don’t have to explain to you that once such a principle is accepted, it would mean the literal, physical end of Americans; nor to ask you to guess who would be the first people executed under such a law; nor to remind you that the crucial steps on the road to dictatorship, the laws giving government totalitarian powers, were initiated by Republicans—such as the draft bill, or the attempt to pass a national serfdom act for compulsory labor.
I know that you know all that. What I wonder is: is it in your spiritual power to discuss this with Hart? If you can, if you have arguments that would reach him—please do it. I confess I’m helpless in such an instance. It’s too monstrous.
[…]
**F. A. Hayek, who shared the 1947 Nobel Prize in Economics. For AR’s marginal comments on Hayek’s best-known work, The Road to Serfdom, see Mayhew ed., Ayn Rand’s Marginalia, pp. 145–60.
In her August 24, 1946, response, Lane wrote, “That Council Letter gave me the same shock…. I can take it up with Hart and I shall.”
#4522·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoPodge wrote in the FoR book club:
[A]n institution that forbids action unless unanimity is reached seems not to function coherently. There are two possibilities. If postponement is uncontroversial, then no special rule is needed, since institutions for adjudicating between competing preferences are only operative when there is disagreement. If postponement itself is contested, then it’s not clear how this rule could be applied consistently, because not acting on x is itself a choice about which we are conflicted.
Sometimes postponement is impossible due to external factors, say. But maybe you can create a new option in time.
Even if you can’t create a completely new option, you could create an option saying, ‘in this situation, I have to act, and I’m running out of time to come up with new ideas, so I’m deciding to do X because Y’. And then that option, as I just phrased it, may have no pending criticisms, in which case you can still act on it. So the rule of not acting on problematic ideas remains intact because ideas are discrete and immutable.
The way out of such conundrums as Podge described them is usually (always?) to create new options (see BoI ch. 13).
#2281·Dennis HackethalOP revised 6 months agoRational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
Podge wrote in the FoR book club:
[A]n institution that forbids action unless unanimity is reached seems not to function coherently. There are two possibilities. If postponement is uncontroversial, then no special rule is needed, since institutions for adjudicating between competing preferences are only operative when there is disagreement. If postponement itself is contested, then it’s not clear how this rule could be applied consistently, because not acting on x is itself a choice about which we are conflicted.
Clarify what I mean
Maybe fun = profitable thinking. Not in the sense of ‘thoughts that lead to good monetary decisions’. I mean it in the literal sense that there’s wealth being created inside your mind.
Maybe fun = profitable thought. Not in the sense of ‘thought that leads to good monetary decisions’. I mean it in the literal sense that there’s a kind of wealth being created inside your mind.
Clarify what I mean
Maybe fun = profitable thinking.
Maybe fun = profitable thinking. Not in the sense of ‘thoughts that lead to good monetary decisions’. I mean it in the literal sense that there’s wealth being created inside your mind.
#4474·Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoCan there be such a thing as too much fun?
Can there be such a thing as too much profit?In both cases, I think ‘no’. And I wonder if the fear of ‘too much’ fun and ‘too much’ profit is fundamentally the same thing.
Like, when parents worry that their kids are having too much fun, and when socialists are suspicious of companies turning a profit… is that an expression of the same fear?
Maybe the role of profit in the economy is the same as that of fun in a single mind: it signals successful discovery of common preferences.
Maybe fun = profitable thinking.
Idea: ability to lock an idea to prevent edits. If you submit the first version, you get to lock the idea. Useful especially on your own profile that you might use as more of a blog and don’t necessarily want others changing your ideas.