Search Ideas
1940 ideas match your query.:
For any finite sequence of behavior, it seems possible in principle to posit a sufficiently elaborate fixed program that produces it. The same would apply to human behavior.
I disagree. Human behavior is so far off the mark I can’t explain it in terms of preprogramming only. I don’t know how to explain poems and rocket ships. Biological evolution had no reason to create any of the knowledge needed to make rocket ships, so preprogramming doesn’t make sense as an explanation.
If monkeys suddenly started making rocket ships one day, I would have trouble explaining that, for the same reason.
Ultimately the criterion will depend on an explanation of how the underlying program works. There can’t be a purely behavioral criterion, as DD argues in BoI ch. 7 (IIRC). But until we have that, some behavior is so blatantly robotic, like a Roomba, that I think we can reasonably conclude it has nothing to do with consciousness.
Explanations of animal behavior can be phrased fully in terms of unconscious, purely dogmatic information processing. We can write the programs and simulate animals on a computer. We don’t need consciousness for any of it. But we can’t write the program that would simulate a person on a computer. That program would result in consciousness. There’s an asymmetry there.
Can I prove that dogmatic programs don’t give rise to consciousness? No. But I think that’s the wrong epistemological standard. I can’t prove that rocks aren’t conscious either. What I do know is that I don’t invoke the concept of consciousness when explaining rocks (whatever little there is to explain about them).
I usually find that terms like “phenomenal experience” and “cognition” are confusing and make discussions harder. Ultimately, there’s one type of consciousness and one type of information processing that gives rise to it. I don’t think distinctions between different types of ‘cognition’ or ‘experience’ are worth drawing, if they even exist in reality at all.
My talk about hard to vary at Conjecture Con 2026 is now online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LfEPLmjxNk
Apparently Scribd profiles are public? 🤷♂️ https://www.scribd.com/user/430906064/Dennis-Hackethal
I don’t think animals are sentient.
I realize this view sounds outlandish to most but it’s a considered, researched conclusion.
There’s lots of evidence of insentience in the way animals behave. If they were sentient, they would not behave the way they do: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/evidence-of-animal-insentience
Dozens of videos compiling and explaining evidence of animal insentience: https://libertythroughreason.com/insentience-in-animals-and-sleepwalkers/
Additional reasoning:
This suggests that phenomenal experience can occur independently of the active critical capacities you take animals to lack.
I don’t think so, since, as you write yourself, the critical attitude while dreaming is only “diminished”, not completely gone.
Hi Vincent, welcome to V. Nice meeting you at Conjecture Con.
But why must phenomenal experience emerge only together with universal creativity?
Idk why you switched from “consciousness” to “phenomenal experience” here. But the argument is that behavior that may just as well be preprogrammed and then executed mindlessly is not evidence of consciousness (because it is, again, mindless).
I have seen no evidence of any animal behavior that could not have been preprogrammed. If you know of any, please show me.
What should do when two explanations are equally hard to vary? Which can I rationally prefer? Can I pick one at random?
No because as they call each other, they traverse the tree, going down it each step of the way. They don’t remain at the same level.
They must be decisive, since pending criticisms and rational adoptability are defined in terms of each other (see #5114). If a criticism is pending, we must by definition adopt it (if we want to be rational). These two concepts are a package deal.
A single additional day won’t cause much strength loss, if any.
I may still know depending on the numbers. If my strength dips a lot, then it’s not plausibly due to poor sleep (I didn’t sleep that poorly) and I should ease up on the cut anyway.
But knowing I’m losing muscle would inform my decision about stopping the cut sooner.
I’ve been sleeping poorly in general lately. Who’s to say tonight’s sleep will be better? It may even get better because I work out today.
But if I still hit PRs while on aggressive cut and having slept poorly, that data point would be all the more meaningful for it.
But this is the first time I’m doing a cut this aggressive for more than just a week. I’m approaching the two-week mark. I know eventually I won’t be able to maintain strength, but it would still be good to know where the cut-off point is, roughly.
That was at maintenance/slight surplus. Now I’m doing an aggressive cut at 1600 cals/day and the body has more reason to keep fat and shed muscle. So time may be of the essence.
True but it’s already been 5 days since my last workout.
I want to go to the gym today but I didn’t sleep well last night.
No because the discussion graph is acyclic.
No because there’s always a finite amount of deeply nested criticisms.