Search Ideas
2797 ideas match your query.:
To be clear, the boat represents the idea that we should judge criticisms by their strength?
Logically, yes. But in practice, it won’t be the same.
For example:
Idea A: ‘Newtonian gravity is true.’ → Has pending criticisms (some predictions don’t match observation).
Idea B: ‘Newtonian gravity is not true.’ → Also has pending criticisms: ‘Not helpful’; ‘Doesn’t tell us how gravity works’; etc.
Related: https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/2014/08/simple-refutation-of-the-bayesian-philosophy-of-science/
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but if somebody suggests some system they can’t put into practice, then the system is no good.
Then the idea ‘I could either address that pending criticism or, if I fail to do that, look into all the other pending criticisms’ would have no pending criticisms.
If other criteria for the selection of conjectures were built into the system, such as in the genes of a human, the growth of knowledge would be bounded to only conjectures meeting those criteria, even if the variation/conjecture aspect of the process were proceeding via a random process with no built-in knowledge. Fixed criteria means bounded knowledge, means no universality. So for unbounded progress (universality), the criteria must also be varied. But how are they criticized? What criteria for their selection can there be to avoid a regress, except survival?
All subsequent knowledge in the system will be descended from the initial knowledge. So all knowledge in a knowledge-growing system must be either created by or comprised of replicators.
Now also available on PhilPapers: https://philpapers.org/archive/HACTSO-6.pdf
I’ve formalized some of these ideas in my first paper, ‘The Structure of Rational Thought’.
https://www.academia.edu/170297518/The_Structure_of_Rational_Thought
And again, not convinced any external world or feedback is required for open-endedness (per Deutsch). It might merely be very helpful.
Yes, and perhaps this helpfulness is underestimated? One guess is therefore that the plateaus that have occurred is due to the difficulty of escaping the hardware case of the computer. Our vehicles (bodies) allow for much easier physical instantiation of replicators, compared to replicators inside computers.
There must be a minimum amount of available memory needed for a program to be a person. What can the program not do, below that minimum? What is that minimum M bits being used for that cannot be done with M-1 bits?
I usually get conspiracy vibes from anti-fluoride sources, but I haven’t looked into it much.
Gemini's response to that tweet: "The text uses legitimate biochemical concepts—like the fact that fluoride is a potent halogen that hardens minerals and can be toxic in high doses—to build a narrative based on skewed history. It fabricates a geological explanation for Hereford, Texas, to erase the very thing that actually protected the town's teeth: naturally occurring fluoride."
Possibly related: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/what-is-the-difference-between-a-person-and-a-re
Is a quale a sequence of information states? Is this true of any given computation? Does the quale "care" if the states are computed afresh or read from memory?
Indeed. And this is one of the reasons the cynics are wrong. They think true ideas couldn’t be improved further. This worries them because they want unbounded progress. So they conclude our ideas can never be 100% true. Not only is that motivated reasoning but, as you’ve just said, true ideas can still be improved anyway.
I also picture a primordial soup often. Maybe including these autonomous regions or layers I'm grasping at. Soups and "Turing gases" have been programmed and so far always plateau in complexity, even with no predefined criterion, so there's something else going on.
Couldn't it be that there still are limitations of the simulated environment that act as selection criteria? Such as the available memory. The "soup" definitely seems more open to the entire world, which presumably would allow for more open ended evolution (even though that still took a couple of billion years after universality was achieved).
Great, that makes sense. True statements should ofc be criticisable depending on the problem situation.
Like, the criticism flag isn’t just for factual errors, if that’s what you mean.
If you think his comment won’t work as a solution for AGI, then his comment is erroneous from that POV.
Do you think my comment shouldn't count as a criticism? The content of Martin's comment doesn't contain any errors, but it can be criticised as an attempt to solve problems towards AGI
May have found a solution to my salt problem: https://www.instagram.com/p/DZ5cCwQFOtp/
The Kirin Electric Salt Spoon. CNET wrote an article about it: https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/we-tested-an-electric-salt-spoon-that-might-help-you-stick-to-your-low-sodium-diet/
It basically works by using electric signals to trick your brain into thinking it’s tasting salt.
If this is intended to answer my criticism, shouldn’t it be marked as a counter-criticism?