What do you get when you mix nerds and sex research? A deep dive into the world of fetish statistics, men's calibration about women's sexual preferences, and the crazy underground world of financial domination. Stay tuned as Aella walks the boys through the world of gangbangs, camming, OnlyFans, escorting, findom, and even live-tests Vaden's wild hypothesis against her huge, thick, dataset.
\n\n(additional sources used for episode prep that weren't mention in the episode)
\n\nSend us $500 and call us your Queen, you steaming pile of s***: incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Special Guest: Aella.
","summary":"Aella joins the boys for a chat on fetishes, gangbangs, OnlyFans, addiction, and the crazy underground world of Financial Domination (aka 'findom'). ","date_published":"2024-04-18T05:15:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/e8ecc2d6-cb6e-4671-831a-85926885ed3c.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":63949843,"duration_in_seconds":3996}]},{"id":"7d4c2549-169b-4b7b-88ae-00fc440a7f1e","title":"#65 - Libertarianism II: Economic Issues (w/ Bruce Nielson)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/65","content_text":"Back at it again, as we coerce you into listening to Part 2 of our four part series on Libertarianism, with Mr. Bruce Nielson (@bnielson01). In this episode we cover the Economic Issues section of Scott Alexander's (non-aggressive and principled) non-libertarian FAQ, and discuss his four major economic critiques of the libertarian view that free and voluntary trade between consenting, informed, rational individuals is the best possible thing ever, with no downsides at all. Also, can we interest you in buying some wasps? \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nLoose ends from last episode - coercion and the Non-Aggression Principle \nWhat distinguishes a conservative like Bruce from a libertarian? \nExternalities\nBoycotts and Coordination Problems \nIrrational Choices \nLack of Information \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nThe Non-libertarian FAQ \nPlanet Money on the Porcupine Freedom Festival\n\n\nVaden's blog posts on Libertarianism / Austrian Economics / Anarcho-Captialism / Whateveryawannacallit\n\n\nFirst: Is Austrian Economics the Best Explanation of Economics?\nSecond: Can we predict human behaviour? A discussion with Brett Hall\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nThe Argument:\n\nIn a free market, all trade has to be voluntary, so you will never agree to a trade unless it benefits you.\n\nFurther, you won’t make a trade unless you think it’s the best possible trade you can make. If you knew you could make a better one, you’d hold out for that. So trades in a free market are not only better than nothing, they’re also the best possible transaction you could make at that time.\n\nLabor is no different from any other commercial transaction in this respect. You won’t agree to a job unless it benefits you more than anything else you can do with your time, and your employer won’t hire you unless it benefits her more than anything else she can do with her money. So a voluntarily agreed labor contract must benefit both parties, and must do so more than any other alternative.\n\nIf every trade in a free market benefits both parties, then any time the government tries to restrict trade in some way, it must hurt both parties. Or, to put it another way, you can help someone by giving them more options, but you can’t help them by taking away options. And in a free market, where everyone starts with all options, all the government can do is take options away.\n\nThe Counterargument:\n\nThis treats the world as a series of producer-consumer dyads instead of as a system in which every transaction affects everyone else. Also, it treats consumers as coherent entities who have specific variables like “utility” and “demand” and know exactly what they are, which doesn’t always work.\n- https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\n\nWhat is an externality?\n\n1.1: What is an externality?\n\n\nAn externality is when I make a trade with you, but it has some accidental effect on other people who weren’t involved in the trade.\n\n\nSuppose for example that I sell my house to an amateur wasp farmer. Only he’s not a very good wasp farmer, so his wasps usually get loose and sting people all over the neighborhood every couple of days.\n\nThis trade between the wasp farmer and myself has benefited both of us, but it’s harmed people who weren’t consulted; namely, my neighbors, who are now locked indoors clutching cans of industrial-strength insect repellent. Although the trade was voluntary for both the wasp farmer and myself, it wasn’t voluntary for my neighbors.\n\nAnother example of externalities would be a widget factory that spews carcinogenic chemicals into the air. When I trade with the widget factory I’m benefiting – I get widgets – and they’re benefiting – they get money. But the people who breathe in the carcinogenic chemicals weren’t consulted in the trade.\n\n2.3: How do coordination problems justify regulation of ethical business practices?\n\n... Let’s say Wanda’s Widgets has one million customers. Each customer pays it $100 per year, for a total income of $100 million. Each customer prefers Wanda to her competitor Wayland, who charges $150 for widgets of equal quality. Now let’s say Wanda’s Widgets does some unspeakably horrible act which makes it $10 million per year, but offends every one of its million customers.\n\nThere is no incentive for a single customer to boycott Wanda’s Widgets. After all, that customer’s boycott will cost the customer $50 (she will have to switch to Wayland) and make an insignificant difference to Wanda (who is still earning $99,999,900 of her original hundred million). The customer takes significant inconvenience, and Wanda neither cares nor stops doing her unspeakably horrible act (after all, it’s giving her $10 million per year, and only losing her $100).\n\nThe only reason it would be in a customer’s interests to boycott is if she believed over a hundred thousand other customers would join her. In that case, the boycott would be costing Wanda more than the $10 million she gains from her unspeakably horrible act, and it’s now in her self-interest to stop committing the act. However, unless each boycotter believes 99,999 others will join her, she is inconveniencing herself for no benefit.\n\nFurthermore, if a customer offended by Wanda’s actions believes 100,000 others will boycott Wanda, then it’s in the customer’s self-interest to “defect” from the boycott and buy Wanda’s products. After all, the customer will lose money if she buys Wayland’s more expensive widgets, and this is unnecessary – the 100,000 other boycotters will change Wanda’s mind with or without her participation.\n\n3.1: What do you mean by “irrational choices”?\n\nA company (Thaler, 2007, download study as .pdf) gives its employees the opportunity to sign up for a pension plan. They contribute a small amount of money each month, and the company will also contribute some money, and overall it ends up as a really good deal for the employees and gives them an excellent retirement fund. Only a small minority of the employees sign up.\n\nThe libertarian would answer that this is fine. Although some outsider might condescendingly declare it “a really good deal”, the employees are the most likely to understand their own unique financial situation. They may have a better pension plan somewhere else, or mistrust the company’s promises, or expect not to need much money in their own age. For some outsider to declare that they are wrong to avoid the pension plan, or worse to try to force them into it for their own good, would be the worst sort of arrogant paternalism, and an attack on the employees’ dignity as rational beings.\n\nThen the company switches tactics. It automatically signs the employees up for the pension plan, but offers them the option to opt out. This time, only a small minority of the employees opt out.\n\nThat makes it very hard to spin the first condition as the employees rationally preferring not to participate in the pension plan, since the second condition reveals the opposite preference. It looks more like they just didn’t have the mental energy to think about it or go through the trouble of signing up. And in the latter condition, they didn’t have the mental energy to think about it or go through the trouble of opting out.\n\nIf the employees were rationally deciding whether or not to sign up, then some outsider regulating their decision would be a disaster. But if the employees are making demonstrably irrational choices because of a lack of mental energy, and if people do so consistently and predictably, then having someone else who has considered the issue in more depth regulate their choices could lead to a better outcome.\n\n4.1: What do you mean by “lack of information”?\n\nMany economic theories start with the assumption that everyone has perfect information about everything. For example, if a company’s products are unsafe, these economic theories assume consumers know the product is unsafe, and so will buy less of it.\n\nNo economist literally believes consumers have perfect information, but there are still strong arguments for keeping the “perfect information” assumption. These revolve around the idea that consumers will be motivated to pursue information about things that are important to them. For example, if they care about product safety, they will fund investigations into product safety, or only buy products that have been certified safe by some credible third party. The only case in which a consumer would buy something without information on it is if the consumer had no interest in the information, or wasn’t willing to pay as much for the information as it would cost, in which case the consumer doesn’t care much about the information anyway, and it is a success rather than a failure of the market that it has not given it to her.\n\nIn nonlibertarian thought, people care so much about things like product safety and efficacy, or the ethics of how a product is produced, that the government needs to ensure them. In libertarian thought, if people really care about product safety, efficacy and ethics, the market will ensure them itself, and if they genuinely don’t care, that’s okay too.\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us negative positive externalities and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nHow much would you pay for a fresh nest of high quality, free range wasps? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.","content_html":"Back at it again, as we coerce you into listening to Part 2 of our four part series on Libertarianism, with Mr. Bruce Nielson (@bnielson01). In this episode we cover the Economic Issues section of Scott Alexander's (non-aggressive and principled) non-libertarian FAQ, and discuss his four major economic critiques of the libertarian view that free and voluntary trade between consenting, informed, rational individuals is the best possible thing ever, with no downsides at all. Also, can we interest you in buying some wasps?
\n\n\n\n\nThe Argument:
\n\nIn a free market, all trade has to be voluntary, so you will never agree to a trade unless it benefits you.
\n\nFurther, you won’t make a trade unless you think it’s the best possible trade you can make. If you knew you could make a better one, you’d hold out for that. So trades in a free market are not only better than nothing, they’re also the best possible transaction you could make at that time.
\n\nLabor is no different from any other commercial transaction in this respect. You won’t agree to a job unless it benefits you more than anything else you can do with your time, and your employer won’t hire you unless it benefits her more than anything else she can do with her money. So a voluntarily agreed labor contract must benefit both parties, and must do so more than any other alternative.
\n\nIf every trade in a free market benefits both parties, then any time the government tries to restrict trade in some way, it must hurt both parties. Or, to put it another way, you can help someone by giving them more options, but you can’t help them by taking away options. And in a free market, where everyone starts with all options, all the government can do is take options away.
\n\nThe Counterargument:
\n\nThis treats the world as a series of producer-consumer dyads instead of as a system in which every transaction affects everyone else. Also, it treats consumers as coherent entities who have specific variables like “utility” and “demand” and know exactly what they are, which doesn’t always work.
\n\n
\n- https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/What is an externality?
\n\n1.1: What is an externality?
\n\n\n\n\nAn externality is when I make a trade with you, but it has some accidental effect on other people who weren’t involved in the trade.
\nSuppose for example that I sell my house to an amateur wasp farmer. Only he’s not a very good wasp farmer, so his wasps usually get loose and sting people all over the neighborhood every couple of days.
\n\nThis trade between the wasp farmer and myself has benefited both of us, but it’s harmed people who weren’t consulted; namely, my neighbors, who are now locked indoors clutching cans of industrial-strength insect repellent. Although the trade was voluntary for both the wasp farmer and myself, it wasn’t voluntary for my neighbors.
\n\nAnother example of externalities would be a widget factory that spews carcinogenic chemicals into the air. When I trade with the widget factory I’m benefiting – I get widgets – and they’re benefiting – they get money. But the people who breathe in the carcinogenic chemicals weren’t consulted in the trade.
\n\n2.3: How do coordination problems justify regulation of ethical business practices?
\n\n... Let’s say Wanda’s Widgets has one million customers. Each customer pays it $100 per year, for a total income of $100 million. Each customer prefers Wanda to her competitor Wayland, who charges $150 for widgets of equal quality. Now let’s say Wanda’s Widgets does some unspeakably horrible act which makes it $10 million per year, but offends every one of its million customers.
\n\nThere is no incentive for a single customer to boycott Wanda’s Widgets. After all, that customer’s boycott will cost the customer $50 (she will have to switch to Wayland) and make an insignificant difference to Wanda (who is still earning $99,999,900 of her original hundred million). The customer takes significant inconvenience, and Wanda neither cares nor stops doing her unspeakably horrible act (after all, it’s giving her $10 million per year, and only losing her $100).
\n\nThe only reason it would be in a customer’s interests to boycott is if she believed over a hundred thousand other customers would join her. In that case, the boycott would be costing Wanda more than the $10 million she gains from her unspeakably horrible act, and it’s now in her self-interest to stop committing the act. However, unless each boycotter believes 99,999 others will join her, she is inconveniencing herself for no benefit.
\n\nFurthermore, if a customer offended by Wanda’s actions believes 100,000 others will boycott Wanda, then it’s in the customer’s self-interest to “defect” from the boycott and buy Wanda’s products. After all, the customer will lose money if she buys Wayland’s more expensive widgets, and this is unnecessary – the 100,000 other boycotters will change Wanda’s mind with or without her participation.
\n\n3.1: What do you mean by “irrational choices”?
\n\nA company (Thaler, 2007, download study as .pdf) gives its employees the opportunity to sign up for a pension plan. They contribute a small amount of money each month, and the company will also contribute some money, and overall it ends up as a really good deal for the employees and gives them an excellent retirement fund. Only a small minority of the employees sign up.
\n\nThe libertarian would answer that this is fine. Although some outsider might condescendingly declare it “a really good deal”, the employees are the most likely to understand their own unique financial situation. They may have a better pension plan somewhere else, or mistrust the company’s promises, or expect not to need much money in their own age. For some outsider to declare that they are wrong to avoid the pension plan, or worse to try to force them into it for their own good, would be the worst sort of arrogant paternalism, and an attack on the employees’ dignity as rational beings.
\n\nThen the company switches tactics. It automatically signs the employees up for the pension plan, but offers them the option to opt out. This time, only a small minority of the employees opt out.
\n\nThat makes it very hard to spin the first condition as the employees rationally preferring not to participate in the pension plan, since the second condition reveals the opposite preference. It looks more like they just didn’t have the mental energy to think about it or go through the trouble of signing up. And in the latter condition, they didn’t have the mental energy to think about it or go through the trouble of opting out.
\n\nIf the employees were rationally deciding whether or not to sign up, then some outsider regulating their decision would be a disaster. But if the employees are making demonstrably irrational choices because of a lack of mental energy, and if people do so consistently and predictably, then having someone else who has considered the issue in more depth regulate their choices could lead to a better outcome.
\n\n4.1: What do you mean by “lack of information”?
\n\nMany economic theories start with the assumption that everyone has perfect information about everything. For example, if a company’s products are unsafe, these economic theories assume consumers know the product is unsafe, and so will buy less of it.
\n\nNo economist literally believes consumers have perfect information, but there are still strong arguments for keeping the “perfect information” assumption. These revolve around the idea that consumers will be motivated to pursue information about things that are important to them. For example, if they care about product safety, they will fund investigations into product safety, or only buy products that have been certified safe by some credible third party. The only case in which a consumer would buy something without information on it is if the consumer had no interest in the information, or wasn’t willing to pay as much for the information as it would cost, in which case the consumer doesn’t care much about the information anyway, and it is a success rather than a failure of the market that it has not given it to her.
\n\nIn nonlibertarian thought, people care so much about things like product safety and efficacy, or the ethics of how a product is produced, that the government needs to ensure them. In libertarian thought, if people really care about product safety, efficacy and ethics, the market will ensure them itself, and if they genuinely don’t care, that’s okay too.
\n
How much would you pay for a fresh nest of high quality, free range wasps? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Special Guest: Bruce Nielson.
","summary":"In our second episode on Libertarianism, we finally dive into the meat of Scott Alexander's excellent critique, and cover four major flaws with the libertarian position - externalities, coordination problems, irrational choices, and lack of information. Buckle up. ","date_published":"2024-03-28T13:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/7d4c2549-169b-4b7b-88ae-00fc440a7f1e.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":89321638,"duration_in_seconds":5582}]},{"id":"4b390d3c-7472-44ff-86ac-a36d3c7ccca8","title":"#64 - Libertarianism I: Intro and Moral Issues (w/ Bruce Nielson)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/64","content_text":"Liberty! Freedom! Coercion! Taxes are theft! The State is The Enemy! Bitcoin! Crypto! Down with the central banks! Let's all return to the Gold Standard! \n\nHave you encountered such phrases in the wild? Confused, perhaps, as to why an afternoon beer with a friend become an extended diatribe against John Maynard Kaynes? Us too, which is why we're diving into the ideological source of such views: Libertarianism.\n\nWelcome to Part 1 of a four part series where we, with Bruce Nielson (@bnielson01) as our battle-hardened guide, dive into Scott Alexander's non-libertarian FAQ. Ought George help, or ought George respect the government's property rights? Let's find out. \n\nAnd make sure to check out Bruce's excellent The Theory Of Anything podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theory-of-anything/id1503194218\n\nWe discuss\n\n\nVarieties of libertarianism \nWhy are some libertarians so ideological?\nIs taxation theft? \nThe problem of public goods \n\"Proprietary communities\" and the perfect libertarian society \nWhy the perfect libertarian society doesn't escape taxation\nAre we living in the libertarian utopia right now? \nTaxes as membership fees \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nThe Non-libertarian FAQ \nGeorge ought to help\nThe Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman \n\n\nVaden's blog posts on Libertarianism / Austrian Economics / Anarcho-Captialism / Whateveryawannacallit\n\n\nFirst: Is Austrian Economics the Best Explanation of Economics?\nSecond: Can we predict human behaviour? A discussion with Brett Hall\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\n0.2: Do you hate libertarianism?\nNo.\n\nTo many people, libertarianism is a reaction against an over-regulated society, and an attempt to spread the word that some seemingly intractable problems can be solved by a hands-off approach. Many libertarians have made excellent arguments for why certain libertarian policies are the best options, and I agree with many of them. I think this kind of libertarianism is a valuable strain of political thought that deserves more attention, and I have no quarrel whatsoever with it and find myself leaning more and more in that direction myself.\n\nHowever, there’s a certain more aggressive, very American strain of libertarianism with which I do have a quarrel. This is the strain which, rather than analyzing specific policies and often deciding a more laissez-faire approach is best, starts with the tenet that government can do no right and private industry can do no wrong and uses this faith in place of more careful analysis. This faction is not averse to discussing politics, but tends to trot out the same few arguments about why less regulation has to be better. I wish I could blame this all on Ayn Rand, but a lot of it seems to come from people who have never heard of her. I suppose I could just add it to the bottom of the list of things I blame Reagan for.\n- https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us curtail freedom and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nHow do you summon libertarians at a party? Finish the punchline and tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.","content_html":"Liberty! Freedom! Coercion! Taxes are theft! The State is The Enemy! Bitcoin! Crypto! Down with the central banks! Let's all return to the Gold Standard!
\n\nHave you encountered such phrases in the wild? Confused, perhaps, as to why an afternoon beer with a friend become an extended diatribe against John Maynard Kaynes? Us too, which is why we're diving into the ideological source of such views: Libertarianism.
\n\nWelcome to Part 1 of a four part series where we, with Bruce Nielson (@bnielson01) as our battle-hardened guide, dive into Scott Alexander's non-libertarian FAQ. Ought George help, or ought George respect the government's property rights? Let's find out.
\n\nAnd make sure to check out Bruce's excellent The Theory Of Anything podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theory-of-anything/id1503194218
\n\n\n\n\n0.2: Do you hate libertarianism?
\n\n
\nNo.To many people, libertarianism is a reaction against an over-regulated society, and an attempt to spread the word that some seemingly intractable problems can be solved by a hands-off approach. Many libertarians have made excellent arguments for why certain libertarian policies are the best options, and I agree with many of them. I think this kind of libertarianism is a valuable strain of political thought that deserves more attention, and I have no quarrel whatsoever with it and find myself leaning more and more in that direction myself.
\n\nHowever, there’s a certain more aggressive, very American strain of libertarianism with which I do have a quarrel. This is the strain which, rather than analyzing specific policies and often deciding a more laissez-faire approach is best, starts with the tenet that government can do no right and private industry can do no wrong and uses this faith in place of more careful analysis. This faction is not averse to discussing politics, but tends to trot out the same few arguments about why less regulation has to be better. I wish I could blame this all on Ayn Rand, but a lot of it seems to come from people who have never heard of her. I suppose I could just add it to the bottom of the list of things I blame Reagan for.
\n
\n- https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/
How do you summon libertarians at a party? Finish the punchline and tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Special Guest: Bruce Nielson.
","summary":"First episode in a series on libertarianism. Coercion, taxation, freedom, liberty, every annoying keyword you've ever heard! Let's have it out. ","date_published":"2024-03-06T19:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/4b390d3c-7472-44ff-86ac-a36d3c7ccca8.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":81105815,"duration_in_seconds":6758}]},{"id":"60abb63c-a659-4774-8dcf-bca464f43e0e","title":"#63 - Recycling is the Dumps","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/63","content_text":"Close your eyes, and think of a bright and pristine, clean and immaculately run recycling center, green'r than a giant's thumb. Now think of a dirty, ugly, rotting landfill, stinking in the mid-day sun. Of these two scenarios, which, do you reckon, is worse for the environment? \n\nIn this episode, Ben and Vaden attempt to reduce and refute a few reused canards about recycling and refuse, by rereading Rob Wiblin's excellent piece which addresses the aformentioned question: What you think about landfill and recycling is probably totally wrong. Steel yourselves for this one folks, because you may need to paper over arguments with loved ones, trash old opinions, and shatter previous misconceptions.\nCheck out more of Rob's writing here. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nThe origins of recycling and some of the earliest instances\nEnergy efficiency of recycling plastics, aluminium, paper, steel, and electronic waste (e-waste) \nWhy your peanut butter jars and plastic coffee cups are not recyclable \nModern landfills and why they're awesome \nHow landfills can be used to create energy \nBuilding stuff on top of landfills\nWhy we're not even close to running out of space for landfills\nEconomic incentives for recycling vs top-down regulation\nThe modern recycling movement and its emergence in the 1990s \n> - Guiyu, China, where e-waste goes to die. \nThat a lot of your \"recycling\" ends up as garbage in the Philippines \n\n\nError Correction\n\n\nVaden misremembered what Smil wrote regarding four categories of recycling (Metals and Aluminum / Plastics / Paper / Electronic Waste (\"e-waste\")). He incorrectly quoted Smil as saying these four categories were exhaustive, and represented the four major categories recycling into which the majority of recycled material can be bucketed. This is incorrect- what Smil actually wrote was: \n\n\n\nI will devote the rest of this section (and of this chapter) to brief appraisals of the recycling efforts for four materials — two key metals (steel and aluminum) and plastics and paper—and of electronic waste, a category of discarded material that would most benefit from much enhanced rates of recycling. \n- Making the Modern World: Materials and De-materialization, Smill, p.179 \n\n\nA list of the top 9 recycled materials can be found here: https://www.rd.com/list/most-recyclable-materials/\n\nSources / Citations\n\n\nShare of plastic waste that is recycled, landfilled, incinerated and mismanaged, 2019\nSource for the claim that recycling glass is not energy efficient (and thus not necessarily better for the environment than landfilling): \n\n\nGlass bottles can be more pleasant to drink out of, but they also require more energy to manufacture and recycle. Glass bottles consume 170 to 250 percent more energy and emit 200 to 400 percent more carbon than plastic bottles, due mostly to the heat energy required in the manufacturing process. Of course, if the extra energy required by glass were produced from emissions-free sources, it wouldn’t necessarily matter that glass bottles required more energy to make and move. “If the energy is nuclear power or renewables there should be less of an environmental impact,” notes Figgener.\n- Apocalypse Never, Shellenburger, p.66\n\nCloth bags need to be reused 173 times to be more eco-friendly than a plastic bag: \nSource for claim that majority of e-waste ends up in China: \n\n\nPuckett’s organization partnered with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to put 200 geolocating tracking devices inside old computers, TVs and printers. They dropped them off nationwide at donation centers, recyclers and electronic take-back programs — enterprises that advertise themselves as “green,” “sustainable,” “earth friendly” and “environmentally responsible.” ... \nAbout a third of the tracked electronics went overseas — some as far as 12,000 miles. That includes six of the 14 tracker-equipped electronics that Puckett’s group dropped off to be recycled in Washington and Oregon.\n\nThe tracked electronics ended up in Mexico, Taiwan, China, Pakistan, Thailand, Dominican Republic, Canada and Kenya. Most often, they traveled across the Pacific to rural Hong Kong. (italics added.)\n\nNPR interview on the fact that some manufacturers will put recycling logos on products that aren't recyclable. \nBloomberg investigative report on tracking plastic to a town in Poland that burns it for energy. \nVideo about the apex landfill\nGuiyu, China. Wiki's description: \n\n\nOnce a rice village, the pollution has made Guiyu unable to produce crops for food and the water of the river is undrinkable. Many of the primitive recycling operations in Guiyu are toxic and dangerous to workers' health with 80% of children suffering from lead poisoning. Above-average miscarriage rates are also reported in the region. Workers use their bare hands to crack open electronics to strip away any parts that can be reused—including chips and valuable metals, such as gold, silver, etc. Workers also \"cook\" circuit boards to remove chips and solders, burn wires and other plastics to liberate metals such as copper; use highly corrosive and dangerous acid baths along the riverbanks to extract gold from the microchips; and sweep printer toner out of cartridges. Children are exposed to the dioxin-laden ash as the smoke billows around Guiyu, finally settling on the area. The soil surrounding these factories has been saturated with lead, chromium, tin, and other heavy metals. Discarded electronics lie in pools of toxins that leach into the groundwater, making the water undrinkable to the extent that water must be trucked in from elsewhere. Lead levels in the river sediment are double European safety levels, according to the Basel Action Network. Lead in the blood of Guiyu's children is 54% higher on average than that of children in the nearby town of Chendian. Piles of ash and plastic waste sit on the ground beside rice paddies and dikes holding in the Lianjiang River.\n\n\n\nBen's back-of-the-napkin math\n\nConsider the Apex landfill in Las Vegas. This handles trash for the whole city, which is ~700K people. The base of the landfill is currently 9km2 , but they've hinted at expanding it in the future. So let's assume they more than double it and put it at 20km2 . The estimates are that this landfill will handle trash for ~300 years \"at current rates\". I'm not sure if that includes population growth, so let's play it safe and assume not. So how much space does each person need landfill wise for the next 300 years? We have 20km2 / 700K people = 28.5 m2 per person for 300 years. For 400M people, that's roughly 12,000 km2. The US is roughly 10,000,000 km2. That's 0.012% of the US needed for landfills for the next 300 years. We definitely have the space. \n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us fill up landfills and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhat do you like to bring to your local neighbourhood tire-fire? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"Close your eyes, and think of a bright and pristine, clean and immaculately run recycling center, green'r than a giant's thumb. Now think of a dirty, ugly, rotting landfill, stinking in the mid-day sun. Of these two scenarios, which, do you reckon, is worse for the environment?
\n\nIn this episode, Ben and Vaden attempt to reduce and refute a few reused canards about recycling and refuse, by rereading Rob Wiblin's excellent piece which addresses the aformentioned question: What you think about landfill and recycling is probably totally wrong. Steel yourselves for this one folks, because you may need to paper over arguments with loved ones, trash old opinions, and shatter previous misconceptions.
\nCheck out more of Rob's writing here.
\n\n\nI will devote the rest of this section (and of this chapter) to brief appraisals of the recycling efforts for four materials — two key metals (steel and aluminum) and plastics and paper—and of electronic waste, a category of discarded material that would most benefit from much enhanced rates of recycling.
\n
\n- Making the Modern World: Materials and De-materialization, Smill, p.179
A list of the top 9 recycled materials can be found here: https://www.rd.com/list/most-recyclable-materials/
\n\nShare of plastic waste that is recycled, landfilled, incinerated and mismanaged, 2019
Source for the claim that recycling glass is not energy efficient (and thus not necessarily better for the environment than landfilling):
\n\n\nGlass bottles can be more pleasant to drink out of, but they also require more energy to manufacture and recycle. Glass bottles consume 170 to 250 percent more energy and emit 200 to 400 percent more carbon than plastic bottles, due mostly to the heat energy required in the manufacturing process. Of course, if the extra energy required by glass were produced from emissions-free sources, it wouldn’t necessarily matter that glass bottles required more energy to make and move. “If the energy is nuclear power or renewables there should be less of an environmental impact,” notes Figgener.
\n
\n- Apocalypse Never, Shellenburger, p.66
Cloth bags need to be reused 173 times to be more eco-friendly than a plastic bag:
Source for claim that majority of e-waste ends up in China:
\n\n\nPuckett’s organization partnered with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to put 200 geolocating tracking devices inside old computers, TVs and printers. They dropped them off nationwide at donation centers, recyclers and electronic take-back programs — enterprises that advertise themselves as “green,” “sustainable,” “earth friendly” and “environmentally responsible.” ...
\n\n
\nAbout a third of the tracked electronics went overseas — some as far as 12,000 miles. That includes six of the 14 tracker-equipped electronics that Puckett’s group dropped off to be recycled in Washington and Oregon.The tracked electronics ended up in Mexico, Taiwan, China, Pakistan, Thailand, Dominican Republic, Canada and Kenya. Most often, they traveled across the Pacific to rural Hong Kong. (italics added.)
\n
NPR interview on the fact that some manufacturers will put recycling logos on products that aren't recyclable.
Bloomberg investigative report on tracking plastic to a town in Poland that burns it for energy.
Video about the apex landfill
Guiyu, China. Wiki's description:
\n\n\nOnce a rice village, the pollution has made Guiyu unable to produce crops for food and the water of the river is undrinkable. Many of the primitive recycling operations in Guiyu are toxic and dangerous to workers' health with 80% of children suffering from lead poisoning. Above-average miscarriage rates are also reported in the region. Workers use their bare hands to crack open electronics to strip away any parts that can be reused—including chips and valuable metals, such as gold, silver, etc. Workers also "cook" circuit boards to remove chips and solders, burn wires and other plastics to liberate metals such as copper; use highly corrosive and dangerous acid baths along the riverbanks to extract gold from the microchips; and sweep printer toner out of cartridges. Children are exposed to the dioxin-laden ash as the smoke billows around Guiyu, finally settling on the area. The soil surrounding these factories has been saturated with lead, chromium, tin, and other heavy metals. Discarded electronics lie in pools of toxins that leach into the groundwater, making the water undrinkable to the extent that water must be trucked in from elsewhere. Lead levels in the river sediment are double European safety levels, according to the Basel Action Network. Lead in the blood of Guiyu's children is 54% higher on average than that of children in the nearby town of Chendian. Piles of ash and plastic waste sit on the ground beside rice paddies and dikes holding in the Lianjiang River.
\n
Consider the Apex landfill in Las Vegas. This handles trash for the whole city, which is ~700K people. The base of the landfill is currently 9km2 , but they've hinted at expanding it in the future. So let's assume they more than double it and put it at 20km2 . The estimates are that this landfill will handle trash for ~300 years "at current rates". I'm not sure if that includes population growth, so let's play it safe and assume not. So how much space does each person need landfill wise for the next 300 years? We have 20km2 / 700K people = 28.5 m2 per person for 300 years. For 400M people, that's roughly 12,000 km2. The US is roughly 10,000,000 km2. That's 0.012% of the US needed for landfills for the next 300 years. We definitely have the space.
\n\nWhat do you like to bring to your local neighbourhood tire-fire? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"A deep dive into the world of recycling! Is it clean, green, and everything that is right with the world? Or is it wasteful, inefficient, and one big pile of virtue signaling? ","date_published":"2024-02-14T10:45:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/60abb63c-a659-4774-8dcf-bca464f43e0e.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":64532299,"duration_in_seconds":4009}]},{"id":"db9bb47c-e74e-43aa-b7e6-9f3550e239ab","title":"#62 (Bonus) - The Principle of Optimism (Vaden on the Theory of Anything Podcast) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/62","content_text":"Vaden has selfishly gone on vacation with his family, leaving beloved listeners to fend for themselves in the wide world of epistemological confusion. To repair some of the damage, we're releasing an episode of The Theory of Anything Podcast from last June in which Vaden contributed to a roundtable discussion on the principle of optimism. Featuring Bruce Nielson, Peter Johansen, Sam Kuypers, Hervé Eulacia, Micah Redding, Bill Rugolsky, and Daniel Buchfink. Enjoy! \n\nFrom The Theory of Anything Podcast description: Are all evils due to a lack of knowledge? Are all interesting problems soluble? ALL the problems, really?!?! And what exactly is meant by interesting? Also, should “good guys” ignore the precautionary principle, and do they always win? What is the difference between cynicism, pessimism, and skepticism? And why is pessimism so attractive to so many humans? \n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us solve problems and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhich unsolvable problem would you most like to solve? Send your answer via quantum tunneling to incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guests: Bruce Nielson and Sam Kuypers.","content_html":"Vaden has selfishly gone on vacation with his family, leaving beloved listeners to fend for themselves in the wide world of epistemological confusion. To repair some of the damage, we're releasing an episode of The Theory of Anything Podcast from last June in which Vaden contributed to a roundtable discussion on the principle of optimism. Featuring Bruce Nielson, Peter Johansen, Sam Kuypers, Hervé Eulacia, Micah Redding, Bill Rugolsky, and Daniel Buchfink. Enjoy!
\n\nFrom The Theory of Anything Podcast description: Are all evils due to a lack of knowledge? Are all interesting problems soluble? ALL the problems, really?!?! And what exactly is meant by interesting? Also, should “good guys” ignore the precautionary principle, and do they always win? What is the difference between cynicism, pessimism, and skepticism? And why is pessimism so attractive to so many humans?
\n\nWhich unsolvable problem would you most like to solve? Send your answer via quantum tunneling to incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Special Guests: Bruce Nielson and Sam Kuypers.
","summary":"Listen to Vaden's dulcet tones on Bruce Nielson's Theory of Anything Podcast discussing the principle of optimism. ","date_published":"2024-01-31T19:15:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/db9bb47c-e74e-43aa-b7e6-9f3550e239ab.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":54937324,"duration_in_seconds":9937}]},{"id":"e4357549-eb00-4824-8de7-822f7a647743","title":"#61 - Debating Free Will: Frankenstein's Monster and a Filmstrip of the Universe (with Lucas Smalldon)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/61","content_text":"While you're reading this you're having a thought. Something like \"wow, I love the Increments podcast\", or \"those hosts are some handsome\" or \"I really wish people would stop talking about free will.\" Do you have a choice in the matter? Are you free to choose what you're thinking in any given moment, or is it determined by your genetics, environment, and existing ideas? Is the universe determined, are we all Frankenstein's monster? How does one profitably think about that question? Today we have Lucas Smalldon on to help us think through these questions. \n\nWe reference Lucas's blog post titled reconciling-determinism-and-free-will. Because it's is barely more than a tweet, we've included the entire post here as well: \n\n\n\nReconciling Free Will with Determinism\n\nFree will and determinism seem to conflict with each other. But the apparent conflict disappears when we understand that determinism and free will simply describe the world from radically different perspectives and at fundamentally different levels. Free will makes sense only within the context of the physical world, whereas determinism makes sense only from a perspective that is outside the physical world. Consider the determinist statement, “The future exists and has always existed”. It seems like a contradiction in terms, but only because our language forces us to express the idea misleadingly in terms of the past and future. If we assign special meanings to the temporal words in the statement—namely, if by the future we mean “objectively real events that from the perspective of our present have not yet happened”; and if by always we mean “transcending time itself” rather than the usual “existing across all time”—then the contradiction resolves. Assigning these special meanings allows us to express determinism as atemporal and objective: as a description of a physical reality of which time is an attribute. Conversely, free will, which is by far the more intuitive concept, is needed to explain certain kinds of events (i.e., choices) that occur within time, and thus within the physical world that determinism describes from the outside. Determinism and free will are compatible. We really do make choices. It’s just that, from an atemporal determinist perspective, these choices have “always” existed.\n\n\n\nFollow Lucas on twitter or check out his blog. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nLevels of explanation regarding free will \nThe (in)compatibility of different levels of explanation\nWhy the lack of free will does not hinge on reductionism\nMemetic arguments for the non-existence of free will \nWhether we can have moral responsibility without free will \nThe universe as a filmstrip \nWhether we're all just Frankenstein's monster \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us find freedom and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nHow much do you want to want Frankenstein's monster? Send your answer down the tubes and over to incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Lucas Smalldon.","content_html":"While you're reading this you're having a thought. Something like "wow, I love the Increments podcast", or "those hosts are some handsome" or "I really wish people would stop talking about free will." Do you have a choice in the matter? Are you free to choose what you're thinking in any given moment, or is it determined by your genetics, environment, and existing ideas? Is the universe determined, are we all Frankenstein's monster? How does one profitably think about that question? Today we have Lucas Smalldon on to help us think through these questions.
\n\nWe reference Lucas's blog post titled reconciling-determinism-and-free-will. Because it's is barely more than a tweet, we've included the entire post here as well:
\n\nFree will and determinism seem to conflict with each other. But the apparent conflict disappears when we understand that determinism and free will simply describe the world from radically different perspectives and at fundamentally different levels. Free will makes sense only within the context of the physical world, whereas determinism makes sense only from a perspective that is outside the physical world. Consider the determinist statement, “The future exists and has always existed”. It seems like a contradiction in terms, but only because our language forces us to express the idea misleadingly in terms of the past and future. If we assign special meanings to the temporal words in the statement—namely, if by the future we mean “objectively real events that from the perspective of our present have not yet happened”; and if by always we mean “transcending time itself” rather than the usual “existing across all time”—then the contradiction resolves. Assigning these special meanings allows us to express determinism as atemporal and objective: as a description of a physical reality of which time is an attribute. Conversely, free will, which is by far the more intuitive concept, is needed to explain certain kinds of events (i.e., choices) that occur within time, and thus within the physical world that determinism describes from the outside. Determinism and free will are compatible. We really do make choices. It’s just that, from an atemporal determinist perspective, these choices have “always” existed.
\n\nFollow Lucas on twitter or check out his blog.
\n\nHow much do you want to want Frankenstein's monster? Send your answer down the tubes and over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Special Guest: Lucas Smalldon.
","summary":"We have Lucas Smalldon on for a good ol' fashion free will debate. In particular, we discuss his blog post \"Reconciling Free Will with Determinism\" and try to sort of the age old question of whether or not we have the ability to make choices. ","date_published":"2024-01-17T09:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/e4357549-eb00-4824-8de7-822f7a647743.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":99082295,"duration_in_seconds":6169}]},{"id":"1c458a1d-9763-4387-9217-c1c90d50df23","title":"#60 - Creativity and Computational Universality (with Bruce Nielson) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/60","content_text":"Today we [finally] have on someone who actually knows what they're actually talking about: Mr. Bruce Nielson of the excellent Theory of Anything Podcast. We bring him on to straighten us out on the topics of creativity, machine intelligence, Turing machines, and computational universality - We build upon our previous conversation way back in Ask Us Anything I: Computation and Creativity, and suggest listening to that episode first. \n\nGo follow Bruce on twitter (https://twitter.com/bnielson01) and check out his Theory of Anything Podcast here. \n\n(Also Vaden's audio was acting up a bit in this episode, we humbly seek forgiveness.) \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nDoes theorem proving count as creativity?\nIs AlphaGo creative?\nDeterminism, predictability, and chaos theory\nEssentialism and a misunderstanding of definitions\nAnimal memes and understanding\nTuring Machines and computational universality\nPenrose's \"proof\" that we need new physics \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nAsk Us Anything I: Computation and Creativity (Listen first!)\nLogic theorist \nAlphaGo movie \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us fund more 64 minute-long blog posts and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nCreate us up an email with something imaginatively rote, cliche and formulaic, and mail that creative stinker over to incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Bruce Nielson.","content_html":"Today we [finally] have on someone who actually knows what they're actually talking about: Mr. Bruce Nielson of the excellent Theory of Anything Podcast. We bring him on to straighten us out on the topics of creativity, machine intelligence, Turing machines, and computational universality - We build upon our previous conversation way back in Ask Us Anything I: Computation and Creativity, and suggest listening to that episode first.
\n\nGo follow Bruce on twitter (https://twitter.com/bnielson01) and check out his Theory of Anything Podcast here.
\n\n(Also Vaden's audio was acting up a bit in this episode, we humbly seek forgiveness.)
\n\nCreate us up an email with something imaginatively rote, cliche and formulaic, and mail that creative stinker over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Special Guest: Bruce Nielson.
","summary":"Bruce Nielsen makes his first appearance on the podcast to push us on machine intelligence and creativity, computational universality, Roger Penrose, and everything in between! ","date_published":"2024-01-03T22:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/1c458a1d-9763-4387-9217-c1c90d50df23.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":85473698,"duration_in_seconds":7122}]},{"id":"6363ebbf-c232-45f7-adbc-140ab1f61037","title":"#59 (C&R, Chap 8) - On the Status of Science and Metaphysics (Plus reflections on the Brett Hall blog exchange) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/59","content_text":"Back to the C&R series baby! Feels goooooood. Need some bar-room explanations for why induction is impossible? We gotchu. Need some historical background on where your boy Isaac got his ideas? We gotchu. Need to know how to refute the irrefutable? Gotchu there too homie, because today we're diving into Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 8: On the Status of Science and Metaphysics. \n\nOh, and we also discuss, in admittedly frustrated tones, the failed blog exchange between Brett Hall and Vaden on prediction and Austrianism. If you want the full listening experience, we suggest reading both posts before hearing our kvetching:\n\n\nVaden's post \nBrett's \"response\" \n\n\nHold on to your hats for this one listeners, because she starts off rather spicy. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWhy Kant believed in the truth of Newtonian mechanics \nNewton and his assertion that he arrived at his theory via induction \nWhy this isn't true and is logically impossible\nWas Copernicus influenced by Platonic ideals?\nHow Kepler came up with the idea of elliptical orbits \nWhy finite observations are always compatible with infinitely many theories \nKant's paradox and his solution \nPopper's updated solution to Kant's paradox \nThe irrefutability of philosophical theories \nHow can we say that irrefutable theories are false?\nAnnnnnd perhaps a few cheap shots here and there about Austrian Economics as well. \n# References \nSome background history on Copernicus and why Ben thinks Popper is wrong \n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nListening to this statement you may well wonder how I can possibly hold a theory to be false and irrefutable at one and the same time—I who claim to be a rationalist. For how can a rationalist say of a theory that it is false and irrefutable? Is he not bound, as a rationalist, to refute a theory before he asserts that it is false? And conversely, is he not bound to admit that if a theory is irrefutable, it is true?\n\nNow if we look upon a theory as a proposed solution to a set of problems, then the theory immediately lends itself to critical discussion—even if it is non-empirical and irrefutable. For we can now ask questions such as, Does it solve the problem? Does it solve it better than other theories? Has it perhaps merely shifted the problem? Is the solution simple? Is it fruitful? Does it perhaps contradict other philosophical theories needed for solving other problems?\n\nBecause, as you [Kant] said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes con- sciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas. These ideas, it is true, are produced by us, and not by the world around us; they are not merely the traces of repeated sensations or stimuli or what not; here you were right. But we are more active and free than even you believed; for similar observations or similar environmental situations do not, as your theory implied, produce similar explanations in different men. Nor is the fact that we create our theories, and that we attempt to impose them upon the world, an explanation of their success, as you believed. For the overwhelming majority of our theories, of our freely invented ideas, are unsuccessful; they do not stand up to searching tests, and are discarded as falsified by experience. Only a very few of them succeed, for a time, in the competitive struggle for survival.\n\\ \nC&R Chapter 2\n\nSocials\n\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us fund more hour-long blog posts and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover anger management here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWould you rather be wrong or boring? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"Back to the C&R series baby! Feels goooooood. Need some bar-room explanations for why induction is impossible? We gotchu. Need some historical background on where your boy Isaac got his ideas? We gotchu. Need to know how to refute the irrefutable? Gotchu there too homie, because today we're diving into Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 8: On the Status of Science and Metaphysics.
\n\nOh, and we also discuss, in admittedly frustrated tones, the failed blog exchange between Brett Hall and Vaden on prediction and Austrianism. If you want the full listening experience, we suggest reading both posts before hearing our kvetching:
\n\nHold on to your hats for this one listeners, because she starts off rather spicy.
\n\n\n\n\nListening to this statement you may well wonder how I can possibly hold a theory to be false and irrefutable at one and the same time—I who claim to be a rationalist. For how can a rationalist say of a theory that it is false and irrefutable? Is he not bound, as a rationalist, to refute a theory before he asserts that it is false? And conversely, is he not bound to admit that if a theory is irrefutable, it is true?
\n\nNow if we look upon a theory as a proposed solution to a set of problems, then the theory immediately lends itself to critical discussion—even if it is non-empirical and irrefutable. For we can now ask questions such as, Does it solve the problem? Does it solve it better than other theories? Has it perhaps merely shifted the problem? Is the solution simple? Is it fruitful? Does it perhaps contradict other philosophical theories needed for solving other problems?
\n\nBecause, as you [Kant] said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes con- sciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas. These ideas, it is true, are produced by us, and not by the world around us; they are not merely the traces of repeated sensations or stimuli or what not; here you were right. But we are more active and free than even you believed; for similar observations or similar environmental situations do not, as your theory implied, produce similar explanations in different men. Nor is the fact that we create our theories, and that we attempt to impose them upon the world, an explanation of their success, as you believed. For the overwhelming majority of our theories, of our freely invented ideas, are unsuccessful; they do not stand up to searching tests, and are discarded as falsified by experience. Only a very few of them succeed, for a time, in the competitive struggle for survival.
\n\n
\n\\
\nC&R Chapter 2Socials
\n
Would you rather be wrong or boring? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"Chapter 8 of conjectures and refutations! Back on the horse baby, talkin' bout Kant, induction, irrefutability, induction - all the good stuff. Oh, and also Vaden's failed blog exchange w/ Brett Hall","date_published":"2023-12-22T12:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6363ebbf-c232-45f7-adbc-140ab1f61037.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":82956119,"duration_in_seconds":5184}]},{"id":"3a8fead7-5245-4579-9da9-b01ab43ad972","title":"#58 - Ask Us Anything V: How to Read and What to Read","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/58","content_text":"Alright people, we made it. Six months, a few breaks, some uncontrollable laughter, some philosophy, many unhinged takes, a little bit of diarrhea and we're here, the last Ask Us Anything. After this we're never answering another God D*** question. Ever. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nDo you wish you could change your own interests? \nMethods of information ingestion \nTaking books off their pedestal bit \nIntellectual influences\nVeganism (why Ben is, why Vaden isn't) \nAnti-rational memes \nFricken Andrew Huberman again \nStoicism \nAre e-fuels the best of the best or the worst of the worst?\n\n\nQuestions\n\n\n(Andrew) Any suggested methods of reading Popper (or others) and getting the most out of it? I'm not from a philosophy background, and although I get a lot out of the books, I think there's probably ways of reading them (notes etc?) where I could invest the same time and get more return.\n(Andrew) Any other books you'd say added to your personal philosophical development as DD, KP have? Who and why?\n(Alex) Are you aware of general types of insidious anti-rational memes which are hard to recognise as such? Any ideas on how we can go about recognising them in our own thinking? (I do realise that perhaps no general method exists, but still, if you have any thoughts on this...)\n(Lorcan) What do you think about efuels? Listen to this take by Fully Charged. \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nLying and Free Will by Sam Harris \nDoing Good Better by MacAskill \nAnimal Liberation by Peter Singer \nMortal Questions by Thomas Nagel \nDeath and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs \nPeace is Every Step and True Love by Thich Nhat Hanh \nSeeing like a State by James Scott \nThe Truth Behind Cage-Free and Free-Range | STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW\n\n\nPeople\n\nProducers of rational memes:\n\n\nEverything: Christopher Hitchens, Vladimir Nabokov, Sam Harris, George Orwell, Scott Alexander, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Steven Pinker \nSex and Relationships: Dan Savage\nEnvironment/Progress: Vaclav Smil, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, Hans Rosling, Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Shellenburger, Alex Epstein\nRace: Glenn Loury, John Mcwhorter, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster, Chloe Valdery\nWoke: John Mcwhorter, Yasha Mounk, Coleman Hughes, Sam Harris, Douglas Murrey, Jordan Peterson, Steven Hicks, James Lindsay, Ben Shapiro\nFeminism: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christina Hoff Summers, Camille Paglia\n(Note: Then follow each thinker's favorite thinker, and never stop. ) \n\n\nProducers of anti-rational memes:\n\n\nEric Weinstein\nBret Weinstein\nNoam Chomsky (See A Potpourri Of Chomskyan Nonsense: https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/001592/v6.pdf)\nGlenn Greenwald\nReza Aslan\nMedhi Hassan\nRobin Diangelo\nIbraam x Kendi\nGeorge Galloway\nJudith Butler\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us fund the anti-book campaign and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help therapy costs here.\nClick dem like buttons on youtube\n\n\nWhat aren't you interested in, and how might you fix that? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"Alright people, we made it. Six months, a few breaks, some uncontrollable laughter, some philosophy, many unhinged takes, a little bit of diarrhea and we're here, the last Ask Us Anything. After this we're never answering another God D*** question. Ever.
\n\n(Andrew) Any suggested methods of reading Popper (or others) and getting the most out of it? I'm not from a philosophy background, and although I get a lot out of the books, I think there's probably ways of reading them (notes etc?) where I could invest the same time and get more return.
(Andrew) Any other books you'd say added to your personal philosophical development as DD, KP have? Who and why?
(Alex) Are you aware of general types of insidious anti-rational memes which are hard to recognise as such? Any ideas on how we can go about recognising them in our own thinking? (I do realise that perhaps no general method exists, but still, if you have any thoughts on this...)
(Lorcan) What do you think about efuels? Listen to this take by Fully Charged.
Producers of rational memes:
\n\nProducers of anti-rational memes:
\n\nWhat aren't you interested in, and how might you fix that? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"In this episode we finally conclude our AUA series. We cover subjects like \"how to read and learn more effectively\", \"can you change your own interests\", \"which books/authors have influenced you the most\", veganism, rational/anti-rational memes, stoicism, and e-fuels. ","date_published":"2023-11-29T04:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/3a8fead7-5245-4579-9da9-b01ab43ad972.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":96525582,"duration_in_seconds":6032}]},{"id":"a50a749a-e1a5-428f-8fc6-777b91efd289","title":"#57 (Bonus) - A calm and soothing discussion of The Patriarchy","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/57","content_text":"We we're looking for a nice light topic for our patron only episode, so Vaden naturally chosen to chat about the patriarchy. I guess he didn't get into enough trouble in his personal life talking about it so he wanted to make his support and admiration for the patriarchy public. \n\nThis is a sneak preview into the land of patreon bonus episodes, so be sure to fork over some cold hard cash if you'd like a bit more mansplaining in your life. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nHarassment of women in various spheres of life \nThe patriarchy as a set of facts versus a causal explanation\nWhy conflating these two notions of the patriarchy harms progress \nDomains where women are doing better than men (hint: education, mental health, and psychopathy) \nWhy it's so hard to talk about this \nWhy Canada is different than Afghanistan (OR IS IT) \n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us pay for men's rights posters and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help with upholding the patriarchy here. \nClick dem like buttons on youtube over hur.\n\n\nWho is a better meninist? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com ","content_html":"We we're looking for a nice light topic for our patron only episode, so Vaden naturally chosen to chat about the patriarchy. I guess he didn't get into enough trouble in his personal life talking about it so he wanted to make his support and admiration for the patriarchy public.
\n\nThis is a sneak preview into the land of patreon bonus episodes, so be sure to fork over some cold hard cash if you'd like a bit more mansplaining in your life.
\n\nWho is a better meninist? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"A sneak preview into what is usually reserved for our patrons! We talk patriachy as causal explanation vs patriarchy as description. Let's get spicy ","date_published":"2023-11-15T07:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/a50a749a-e1a5-428f-8fc6-777b91efd289.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":59030464,"duration_in_seconds":3689}]},{"id":"d4e62324-29eb-46bd-99c1-d97f3b2ae8b7","title":"#56 - Ask Us Anything IV: Certainty, Emergence, and Popperian Imperatives","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/56","content_text":"Perhaps you thought, in your infinite ignorance, that the release of the previous episode marked the end of the age of the AMA! But nay my friends, the age of the AMA has just begun! We'll answer your questions until the cows come home; until Godot arrives; until all the world's babies are potty-trained. Or, at least, until we stop laughing. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nPotty training, taking babies seriously, and adult diapers \nWhy Vaden never daydreams, fantasizes, or minds spending 10 hours in a car\nWhether the subjective notions of certainty, belief, or confidence deserve a spot in the objective world of epistemology \nWhether sports are authoritarian \nWhether spreading Popper's epistemology is a moral imperative \nThe role of school and educational institutions \nWhether emergence is the result of the interplay between physical reality and the reality of abstraction\n\n\nQuestions\n\n\n(Tom) Can any thinking take place completely independent of any certainty (explicitly acknowledged or inexplicit) whatsoever? Or can we introduce alternative terms to 'certainty' and 'confidence' to describe how individuals process their convictions, consent, and agreement? If 'certainty' and 'confidence' connote justificationism, can a fallibilist dismiss these terms entirely?\n(Tom) Can fallibilism, anti-authoritarianism, anti-justificationism, and critical rationalism overall operate effectively in the highly competitive space of sports, especially professional sports? \n(Andrew) If our best theory of how to make rapid progress comes from Popper's epistemology, should making it more widely known/understood be considered a moral imperative? If not, why? If so, thoughts? \n(Andrew) This one has been hanging about in my notes for a couple of years so I'm not sure it's a great question any more, but something zingy about the interplay between reality, abstractions and their effects on each other has pushed me to add it here: Is emergence the result of the interplay between physical reality and the reality of abstractions?\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nHelp us pay for diapers and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help with Diarrhea removal here). \nClick dem like buttons on youtube over hur.\n\n\nWho is more annoying in the mornings? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"Perhaps you thought, in your infinite ignorance, that the release of the previous episode marked the end of the age of the AMA! But nay my friends, the age of the AMA has just begun! We'll answer your questions until the cows come home; until Godot arrives; until all the world's babies are potty-trained. Or, at least, until we stop laughing.
\n\n(Tom) Can any thinking take place completely independent of any certainty (explicitly acknowledged or inexplicit) whatsoever? Or can we introduce alternative terms to 'certainty' and 'confidence' to describe how individuals process their convictions, consent, and agreement? If 'certainty' and 'confidence' connote justificationism, can a fallibilist dismiss these terms entirely?
(Tom) Can fallibilism, anti-authoritarianism, anti-justificationism, and critical rationalism overall operate effectively in the highly competitive space of sports, especially professional sports?
(Andrew) If our best theory of how to make rapid progress comes from Popper's epistemology, should making it more widely known/understood be considered a moral imperative? If not, why? If so, thoughts?
(Andrew) This one has been hanging about in my notes for a couple of years so I'm not sure it's a great question any more, but something zingy about the interplay between reality, abstractions and their effects on each other has pushed me to add it here: Is emergence the result of the interplay between physical reality and the reality of abstractions?
Who is more annoying in the mornings? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"Perhaps you thought, in your infinite ignorance, that the release of the previous episode marked the end of the age of the AMA! But nay: the age of the AMA has just begun!","date_published":"2023-11-01T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/d4e62324-29eb-46bd-99c1-d97f3b2ae8b7.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":78287515,"duration_in_seconds":4892}]},{"id":"c5cbb89f-530a-45dc-a83a-7b1bf87df4a9","title":"#55 - Is all thought problem-solving? ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/55","content_text":"Our argument at the end of last episode spilled over into discord, DMs, and world news, so we felt compelled to dedicate a full episode to addressing the question \"Is all thought problem solving?\" Some arguments make history, like whether atomic bombs were required in WWII, whether all philosophy is simply a language game, and whether the chicken did indeed come before the egg. Will this be one of them? \n\nWe cover: \n\n\nHow Vaden listens to podcasts and why he thinks Andrew Huberman sucks (but studies show that Andrew Huberman is great!) \nPopper's evolutionary take on problem-solving \nProblems defined as \"disappointed expectations\"\nWhether all volitional thought is problem-solving \nAre irrefutable theories ever valuable, or should they all be discarded a-priori? \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nAll life is problem-solving\nIn Search of a Better World\nEpisode 51 of Increments, where we discuss \"implicit definitions\". \n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nMen, animals, plants, even unicellular organisms are constantly active. They are trying to improve their situation, or at least to avoid its deterioration. Even when asleep, the organism is actively maintaining the state of sleep: the depth (or else the shallowness) of sleep is a condition actively created by the organism, which sustains sleep (or else keeps the organism on the alert). Every organism is constantly preoccupied with the task of solving prob- lems. These problems arise from its own assessments of its condition and of its environment; conditions which the organism seeks to improve.\n\n\nIn Search Of A Better World, p.vii\n\n\nAt bottom, this procedure seems to be the only logical one. It is also the procedure that a lower organism, even a single-cell amoeba, uses when trying to solve a problem. In this case we speak of testing movements through which the organism tries to rid itself of a troublesome problem. Higher organisms are able to learn through trial and error how a certain problem should be solved. We may say that they too make testing movements - mental testings - and that to learn is essentially to tryout one testing movement after another until one is found that solves the problem. We might compare the animal's successful solution to an expectation and hence to a hypothesis or a theory. For the animal's behaviour shows us that it expects (perhaps unconsciously or dispositionally) that in a similar case the same testing movements will again solve the problem in question.\n\nThe behaviour of animals, and of plants too, shows that organisms are geared to laws or regularities. They expect laws or regularities in their surroundings, and I conjecture that most of these expectations are genetically determined - which is to say that they are innate.\n\n\nAll Life is Problem Solving, p.3\n\n\n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nSolve all our problems and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here\nToss us some coin over hur (patreon subscription approach or the ko-fi, the \"just give us cash you animals\" approach), and click dem like buttons on youtube over hur.\n\n\nDo studies show that Ben or Vaden is correct? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"Our argument at the end of last episode spilled over into discord, DMs, and world news, so we felt compelled to dedicate a full episode to addressing the question "Is all thought problem solving?" Some arguments make history, like whether atomic bombs were required in WWII, whether all philosophy is simply a language game, and whether the chicken did indeed come before the egg. Will this be one of them?
\n\nWe cover:
\n\n\n\n\nMen, animals, plants, even unicellular organisms are constantly active. They are trying to improve their situation, or at least to avoid its deterioration. Even when asleep, the organism is actively maintaining the state of sleep: the depth (or else the shallowness) of sleep is a condition actively created by the organism, which sustains sleep (or else keeps the organism on the alert). Every organism is constantly preoccupied with the task of solving prob- lems. These problems arise from its own assessments of its condition and of its environment; conditions which the organism seeks to improve.
\n\n\n
\n\n- In Search Of A Better World, p.vii
\nAt bottom, this procedure seems to be the only logical one. It is also the procedure that a lower organism, even a single-cell amoeba, uses when trying to solve a problem. In this case we speak of testing movements through which the organism tries to rid itself of a troublesome problem. Higher organisms are able to learn through trial and error how a certain problem should be solved. We may say that they too make testing movements - mental testings - and that to learn is essentially to tryout one testing movement after another until one is found that solves the problem. We might compare the animal's successful solution to an expectation and hence to a hypothesis or a theory. For the animal's behaviour shows us that it expects (perhaps unconsciously or dispositionally) that in a similar case the same testing movements will again solve the problem in question.
\n\nThe behaviour of animals, and of plants too, shows that organisms are geared to laws or regularities. They expect laws or regularities in their surroundings, and I conjecture that most of these expectations are genetically determined - which is to say that they are innate.
\n\n\n
\n- All Life is Problem Solving, p.3
\n
Do studies show that Ben or Vaden is correct? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"We return to the argument from last episode: Is all thought problem-solving? This epic showdown might catalyze the next world war, listen accordingly. ","date_published":"2023-10-09T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/c5cbb89f-530a-45dc-a83a-7b1bf87df4a9.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":51986598,"duration_in_seconds":3249}]},{"id":"d8df9bc8-2935-4592-b1b3-db3aea025b55","title":"#54 - Ask Us Anything III: Emotional Epistemology","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/54","content_text":"Back again with AUA #3 - we're getting there people! Only, uhh, seven questions to go? Incremental progress baby. Plus, we see a good old Vaden and Ben fight in this one! Thank God, because things were getting a little stale with Vaden hammering on longtermism and Ben on cliodynamics. We cover: \n\n\nIs hypnosis a real thing?\nTypes of universality contained within the genetic code \nPressures associated with turning political/philosophical ideas into personal identities \nHow do emotions/feelings interface with our rational/logical mind? How should they? \nVaden's (hopefully one-off) experience with Bipolar Type-1 and psychosis\nIs problem solving the sole purpose of thinking? Vaden says yes (with many caveats!) and Ben says wtf no you fool. Then we argue about how to watch TV.\n\n\nQuestions\n\n\n(Neil Hudson) Are there any theories as to the type of universality achievable via the genetic code (in BOI it is presumed to fall short of coding for all possible life forms)?\n(Neil Hudson) Wd be gd to get your take on: riffing on the Sperber/Mercier social thesis v. individual, if one is scarce private space/time then the need to constantly avow one’s public identity may “swamp” the critical evaluation of arguments one hears? Goes to seeking truth v status\n(Arun Kannan) What are your thoughts on inexplicit knowledge (David Deutsch jargon) and more broadly emotions/feelings in the mind ? How do these interplay with explicit ideas / thoughts ? What should we prioritize ? If we don't prioritize one over the other, how to resolve conflicts between them ? Any tips, literature, Popperian wisdom you can share on this ?\n(Tom Nassis) Is the sole purpose of all forms of thinking problem-solving? Or can thinking have purposes other than solving a problem?\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nReach always has an explanation. But this time, to the best of my knowledge, the explanation is not yet known. If the reason for the jump in reach was that it was a jump to universality, what was the universality? The genetic code is presumably not universal for specifying life forms, since it relies on specific types of chemicals, such as proteins. Could it be a universal constructor? Perhaps. It does manage to build with inorganic materials sometimes, such as the calcium phosphate in bones, or the magnetite in the navigation system inside a pigeon’s brain. Biotechnologists are already using it to manufacture hydrogen and to extract uranium from seawater. It can also program organisms to perform constructions outside their bodies: birds build nests; beavers build dams. Perhaps it would it be possible to specify, in the genetic code, an organism whose life cycle includes building a nuclear-powered spaceship. Or perhaps not. I guess it has some lesser, and not yet understood, universality.\n\nIn 1994 the computer scientist and molecular biologist Leonard Adleman designed and built a computer composed of DNA together with some simple enzymes, and demonstrated that it was capable of performing some sophisticated computations. At the time, Adleman’s DNA computer was arguably the fastest computer in the world. Further, it was clear that a universal classical computer could be made in a similar way. Hence we know that, whatever that other universality of the DNA system was, the universality of computation had also been inherent in it for billions of years, without ever being used – until Adleman used it.\n\nBeginning of Infinity, p.158 (emph added) \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nDerren brown makes people forget their stop\nBari Weiss's conversation with Freddie deBoer on psychosis, bipolar, and mental health. This conversation addresses the New York Times article which views having schizophrenia, bipolar, etc as no better or worse than not having schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. Also contains Vaden's favorite euphemism of 2022: \"Nonconsensus Realities\"\nSad existentialist cat\n\n\nSend Vaden an email with a thought you have not designed to solve a problem at incrementspodcast.com \n\nSocials\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nToss us some coin over hur (patreon subscription approach or the ko-fi, just give us cash you animal approach), and click dem like buttons on youtube over hur. \n","content_html":"Back again with AUA #3 - we're getting there people! Only, uhh, seven questions to go? Incremental progress baby. Plus, we see a good old Vaden and Ben fight in this one! Thank God, because things were getting a little stale with Vaden hammering on longtermism and Ben on cliodynamics. We cover:
\n\n(Neil Hudson) Are there any theories as to the type of universality achievable via the genetic code (in BOI it is presumed to fall short of coding for all possible life forms)?
(Neil Hudson) Wd be gd to get your take on: riffing on the Sperber/Mercier social thesis v. individual, if one is scarce private space/time then the need to constantly avow one’s public identity may “swamp” the critical evaluation of arguments one hears? Goes to seeking truth v status
(Arun Kannan) What are your thoughts on inexplicit knowledge (David Deutsch jargon) and more broadly emotions/feelings in the mind ? How do these interplay with explicit ideas / thoughts ? What should we prioritize ? If we don't prioritize one over the other, how to resolve conflicts between them ? Any tips, literature, Popperian wisdom you can share on this ?
(Tom Nassis) Is the sole purpose of all forms of thinking problem-solving? Or can thinking have purposes other than solving a problem?
\n\n\nReach always has an explanation. But this time, to the best of my knowledge, the explanation is not yet known. If the reason for the jump in reach was that it was a jump to universality, what was the universality? The genetic code is presumably not universal for specifying life forms, since it relies on specific types of chemicals, such as proteins. Could it be a universal constructor? Perhaps. It does manage to build with inorganic materials sometimes, such as the calcium phosphate in bones, or the magnetite in the navigation system inside a pigeon’s brain. Biotechnologists are already using it to manufacture hydrogen and to extract uranium from seawater. It can also program organisms to perform constructions outside their bodies: birds build nests; beavers build dams. Perhaps it would it be possible to specify, in the genetic code, an organism whose life cycle includes building a nuclear-powered spaceship. Or perhaps not. I guess it has some lesser, and not yet understood, universality.
\n\nIn 1994 the computer scientist and molecular biologist Leonard Adleman designed and built a computer composed of DNA together with some simple enzymes, and demonstrated that it was capable of performing some sophisticated computations. At the time, Adleman’s DNA computer was arguably the fastest computer in the world. Further, it was clear that a universal classical computer could be made in a similar way. Hence we know that, whatever that other universality of the DNA system was, the universality of computation had also been inherent in it for billions of years, without ever being used – until Adleman used it.
\n\nBeginning of Infinity, p.158 (emph added)
\n
Send Vaden an email with a thought you have not designed to solve a problem at incrementspodcast.com
\n\nAsk us anything? Ask us everything! Back at it again with AUA Part 2/N. We wax poetic and wane dramatic on a number of subjects, including:
\n\nQuestions
\n\nQuotes
\n\n\n\n\n“The words or the language, as they are written or spoken,” he wrote, “do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be ‘voluntarily’ reproduced and combined...this combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought— before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others.” (Einstein)
\n
Contact us
\n\nSend Ben an email asking him why god why over at incrementspodcast.com
","summary":"Ask us anything? Ask us everything! Back at it again with AUA Part 2/N. We wax poetic and wane dramatic on disagreements, decision-making, EA, and probability","date_published":"2023-08-14T11:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/1ffe1058-61dd-4c4d-8d9e-383a97549241.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":90414601,"duration_in_seconds":5650}]},{"id":"e60dc6c5-1d0a-4061-85b0-e97bcb4b060f","title":"#52 - Ask Us Anything I: Computation and Creativity","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/52","content_text":"We debated calling this episode \"An ode to Michael,\" because we set out to do an AMA but only get through his first two questions. But never fear, there are only 20 questions, so at this rate we should be done the AMA by the end of 2024. Who said we weren't fans of longtermism? \n\nQuestions:\n\n\nHey do you guys have a Patreon page or anyway to support you?\n(Michael) Not clear that humans are universal explainers. Standard argument for this is \"to assume o.w. is to appeal to the supernatural,\" but this argument is weak b/c it does not explain why humans could in principle explain everything. But all Deutch's ideas rests on this axiom. It's almost tautological - there could be things humans cannot explain, but we wouldn't even know about these things b/c we wouldn't be able to explain them. I think this argument that humans are universal explainers and thus can achieve indefinite progress needs more rigor.It might be a step jump from animals to humans, but why could there not be more step jumps in intelligence beyond human intelligence that we do not even know about? I'd love to get your thoughts on this.\n(Michael) Another pt I'd love to get your perspectives on is the idea of the \"creative program.\" Standard discussion is \"humans are special because we are creative, and we don't know what the creative program is.\" But we need to make progress on creativity at some point and it kind of feels like we are using the word \"creativity\" as a vague suitcase word to encapsulate \"everything we don't yet know about intelligence.\" Simply saying \"humans are creative\" without properly defining what it means to be creative in a way that we can evaluate in machines is not helping us make progress on developing creative AI. It's unsatisfying to hear critiques of AI that say \"this AI model is not 'truly intelligent' because it is not creative\" without also proposing a way to evaluate its creativity. In this sense, critiques of AI that say AI is \"not creative\" are bad explanations because these critiques are easy to vary. Without a proposing a proper test for creativity that can actually evaluated, it is not possible for us to conduct a test to refute the critique. I'd love to get your thoughts on how we can construct evaluations for creativity in a way that enables us to make scientific progress on understanding the creative algorithm!\n\n\nReferences:\n\n\nEpisode 9: Introduction to Computational Theory, Theory of Anything podcast\nDavid Deutsch on Coleman Hughes' podcast: Multiverse of Madness \nJohn Cleese's excellent new book Creativity \n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nSupport\nYou can support the project on Patreon (monthly donations, https://www.patreon.com/Increments) or Ko-fi (one time donation, https://ko-fi.com/increments). Thank you! \n\nHow much explaining could a universal explainer explain if a universal explainer could explain explaining? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"We debated calling this episode "An ode to Michael," because we set out to do an AMA but only get through his first two questions. But never fear, there are only 20 questions, so at this rate we should be done the AMA by the end of 2024. Who said we weren't fans of longtermism?
\n\nQuestions:
\n\nReferences:
\n\nContact us
\n\nSupport
\nYou can support the project on Patreon (monthly donations, https://www.patreon.com/Increments) or Ko-fi (one time donation, https://ko-fi.com/increments). Thank you!
How much explaining could a universal explainer explain if a universal explainer could explain explaining? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
","summary":"Our first ask us anything episode! We get through a whopping ... two questions. ","date_published":"2023-07-10T07:30:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/e60dc6c5-1d0a-4061-85b0-e97bcb4b060f.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":70556524,"duration_in_seconds":4409}]},{"id":"bdd4d364-d829-4857-abc8-d121dccdaf5a","title":"#51 - Truth, Moose, and Refrigerated Eggplant: Critiquing Chapman's Meta-Rationality","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/51","content_text":"Vaden comes out swinging against David Chapman's work on meta-rationality. Is Chapman pointing out a fatal flaw, or has Popper solved these problems long ago? Do moose see cups? Does Ben see cups? What the f*** is a cup? \n\nWe discuss \n\n\nChapman's concept of nebulosity \nWhether this concept is covered by Popper \nThe relationship of nebulosity and the vagueness of language \nThe correspondence theory of truth \nIf the concept of \"problem situation\" saves us from Chapman's critique \nWhy \"conjecture and criticism\" isn't everything \n\n\nReferences\n\n\nThe excellent Do Explain podcast. Go listen, right now!\nIn the cells of the eggplant, David Chapman\nChapman's website\nJake Orthwein on Do Explain, Part I \n\n\nChapman Quotes \n\n\nReasonableness is not interested in universality. It aims to get practical work done in specific situations. Precise definitions and absolute truths are rarely necessary or helpful for that. Is this thing an eggplant? Depends on what you are trying to do with it. Is there water in the refrigerator? Well, what do you want it for? What counts as baldness, fruit, red, or water depends on your purposes, and on all sorts of details of the situation. Those details are so numerous and various that they can’t all be taken into account ahead of time to make a general formal theory. Any factor might matter in some situation. On the other hand, nearly all are irrelevant in any specific situation, so determining whether the water in an eggplant counts, or if Alain is bald, is usually easy.\n\n\nDavid Chapman, When will you go bald?\n\n\nDo cow hairs that have come out of the follicle but that are stuck to the cow by friction, sweat, or blood count as part of the cow? How about ones that are on the verge of falling out, but are stuck in the follicle by only the weakest of bonds? The reasonable answer is “Dude! It doesn’t matter!”\n\n\nDavid Chapman, Objects, objectively\n\n\nWe use words as tools to get things done; and to get things done, we improvise, making use of whatever materials are ready to hand. If you want to whack a piece of sheet metal to bend it, and don’t know or care what the “right” tool is (if there even is one), you might take a quick look around the garage, grab a large screwdriver at the “wrong” end, and hit the target with its hard rubber handle. A hand tool may have one or two standard uses; some less common but pretty obvious ones; and unusual, creative ones. But these are not clearly distinct categories of usage.\n\n\nDavid Chapman, The purpose of meaning\n\n\n\nPopper Quotes \n\n\nObservation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, a problem. And its description presupposes a descriptive language, with property words; it presupposes similarity and classification, which in their turn presuppose interests, points of view, and problems. ‘A hungry animal’, writes Katz, ‘divides the environment into edible and inedible things. An animal in flight sees roads to escape and hiding places . . . Generally speaking, objects change . . . according to the needs of the animal.’ We may add that objects can be classified, and can become similar or dissimilar, only in this way—by being related to needs and interests. This rule applies not only to animals but also to scientists. For the animal a point of view is provided by its needs, the task of the moment, and its expectations; for the scientist by his theoretical interests, the special problem under investigation, his conjectures and anticipations, and the theories which he accepts as a kind of background: his frame of reference, his \"horizon of expectations\".\n\n\nConjectures and Refutations p. 61 (italics added)\n\n\nI believe that there is a limited analogy between this situation and the way we ‘use our terms’ in science. The analogy can be described in this way. In a branch of mathematics in which we operate with signs defined by implicit definition, the fact that these signs have no ‘definite meaning’ does not affect our operating with them, or the precision of our theories. Why is that so? Because we do not overburden the signs. We do not attach a ‘meaning’ to them, beyond that shadow of a meaning that is warranted by our implicit definitions. (And if we attach to them an intuitive meaning, then we are careful to treat this as a private auxiliary device, which must not interfere with the theory.) In this way, we try to keep, as it were, within the ‘penumbra of vagueness’ or of ambiguity, and to avoid touching the problem of the precise limits of this penumbra or range; and it turns out that we can achieve a great deal without discussing the meaning of these signs; for nothing depends on their meaning. In a similar way, I believe, we can operate with these terms whose meaning wehave learned ‘operationally’. We use them, as it were, so that nothing depends upon their meaning, or as little as possible. Our ‘operational definitions’ have the advantage of helping us to shift the problem into a field in which nothing or little depends on words. Clear speaking is speaking in such a way that words do not matter.\n\n\nOSE p. 841 (italics in original)\n\n\nFrege’s opinion is different; for he writes: “A definition of a concept ... must determine unambiguously of any object whether or not it falls under the concept . . . Using a metaphor, we may say: the concept must have a sharp boundary.” But it is clear that for this kind of absolute precision to be demanded of a defined concept, it must first be demanded of the defining concepts, and ultimately of our undefined, or primitive, terms. Yet this is impossible. For either our undefined or primitive terms have a traditional meaning (which is never very precise) or they are introduced by so-called “implicit definitions”—that is, through the way they are used in the context of a theory. This last way of introducing them—if they have to be “introduced”—seems to be the best. But it makes the meaning of the concepts depend on that of the theory, and most theories can be interpreted in more than one way. As a result, implicity defined concepts, and thus all concepts which are defined explicitly with their help, become not merely “vague” but systematically ambiguous. And the various systematically ambiguous interpretations (such as the points and straight lines of projective geometry) may be completely distinct.\n\n\nUnending Quest, p. 27 (italics added)\n\n\nWhat I do suggest is that it is always undesirable to make an effort to increase precision for its own sake—especially linguistic precision—since this usually leads to loss of clarity, and to a waste of time and effort on preliminaries which often turn out to be useless, because they are bypassed by the real advance of the subject: one should never try to be more precise than the problem situation demands. ... One further result is, quite simply, the realization that the quest for precision, in words or concepts or meanings, is a wild-goose chase. There simply is no such thing as a precise concept (say, in Frege’s sense), though concepts like “price of this kettle” and “thirty pence” are usually precise enough for the problem context in which they are used. \n\n\nUnending Quest, p. 22 (italics in original)\n\n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nHow nebulous is your eggplant? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"Vaden comes out swinging against David Chapman's work on meta-rationality. Is Chapman pointing out a fatal flaw, or has Popper solved these problems long ago? Do moose see cups? Does Ben see cups? What the f*** is a cup?
\n\nWe discuss
\n\nReferences
\n\nChapman Quotes
\n\n\n\n\nReasonableness is not interested in universality. It aims to get practical work done in specific situations. Precise definitions and absolute truths are rarely necessary or helpful for that. Is this thing an eggplant? Depends on what you are trying to do with it. Is there water in the refrigerator? Well, what do you want it for? What counts as baldness, fruit, red, or water depends on your purposes, and on all sorts of details of the situation. Those details are so numerous and various that they can’t all be taken into account ahead of time to make a general formal theory. Any factor might matter in some situation. On the other hand, nearly all are irrelevant in any specific situation, so determining whether the water in an eggplant counts, or if Alain is bald, is usually easy.
\n\n\n
\n\n- David Chapman, When will you go bald?
\nDo cow hairs that have come out of the follicle but that are stuck to the cow by friction, sweat, or blood count as part of the cow? How about ones that are on the verge of falling out, but are stuck in the follicle by only the weakest of bonds? The reasonable answer is “Dude! It doesn’t matter!”
\n\n\n
\n\n- David Chapman, Objects, objectively
\nWe use words as tools to get things done; and to get things done, we improvise, making use of whatever materials are ready to hand. If you want to whack a piece of sheet metal to bend it, and don’t know or care what the “right” tool is (if there even is one), you might take a quick look around the garage, grab a large screwdriver at the “wrong” end, and hit the target with its hard rubber handle. A hand tool may have one or two standard uses; some less common but pretty obvious ones; and unusual, creative ones. But these are not clearly distinct categories of usage.
\n\n\n
\n- David Chapman, The purpose of meaning
\n
Popper Quotes
\n\n\n\n\nObservation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, a problem. And its description presupposes a descriptive language, with property words; it presupposes similarity and classification, which in their turn presuppose interests, points of view, and problems. ‘A hungry animal’, writes Katz, ‘divides the environment into edible and inedible things. An animal in flight sees roads to escape and hiding places . . . Generally speaking, objects change . . . according to the needs of the animal.’ We may add that objects can be classified, and can become similar or dissimilar, only in this way—by being related to needs and interests. This rule applies not only to animals but also to scientists. For the animal a point of view is provided by its needs, the task of the moment, and its expectations; for the scientist by his theoretical interests, the special problem under investigation, his conjectures and anticipations, and the theories which he accepts as a kind of background: his frame of reference, his "horizon of expectations".
\n\n\n
\n\n- Conjectures and Refutations p. 61 (italics added)
\nI believe that there is a limited analogy between this situation and the way we ‘use our terms’ in science. The analogy can be described in this way. In a branch of mathematics in which we operate with signs defined by implicit definition, the fact that these signs have no ‘definite meaning’ does not affect our operating with them, or the precision of our theories. Why is that so? Because we do not overburden the signs. We do not attach a ‘meaning’ to them, beyond that shadow of a meaning that is warranted by our implicit definitions. (And if we attach to them an intuitive meaning, then we are careful to treat this as a private auxiliary device, which must not interfere with the theory.) In this way, we try to keep, as it were, within the ‘penumbra of vagueness’ or of ambiguity, and to avoid touching the problem of the precise limits of this penumbra or range; and it turns out that we can achieve a great deal without discussing the meaning of these signs; for nothing depends on their meaning. In a similar way, I believe, we can operate with these terms whose meaning wehave learned ‘operationally’. We use them, as it were, so that nothing depends upon their meaning, or as little as possible. Our ‘operational definitions’ have the advantage of helping us to shift the problem into a field in which nothing or little depends on words. Clear speaking is speaking in such a way that words do not matter.
\n\n\n
\n\n- OSE p. 841 (italics in original)
\nFrege’s opinion is different; for he writes: “A definition of a concept ... must determine unambiguously of any object whether or not it falls under the concept . . . Using a metaphor, we may say: the concept must have a sharp boundary.” But it is clear that for this kind of absolute precision to be demanded of a defined concept, it must first be demanded of the defining concepts, and ultimately of our undefined, or primitive, terms. Yet this is impossible. For either our undefined or primitive terms have a traditional meaning (which is never very precise) or they are introduced by so-called “implicit definitions”—that is, through the way they are used in the context of a theory. This last way of introducing them—if they have to be “introduced”—seems to be the best. But it makes the meaning of the concepts depend on that of the theory, and most theories can be interpreted in more than one way. As a result, implicity defined concepts, and thus all concepts which are defined explicitly with their help, become not merely “vague” but systematically ambiguous. And the various systematically ambiguous interpretations (such as the points and straight lines of projective geometry) may be completely distinct.
\n\n\n
\n\n- Unending Quest, p. 27 (italics added)
\nWhat I do suggest is that it is always undesirable to make an effort to increase precision for its own sake—especially linguistic precision—since this usually leads to loss of clarity, and to a waste of time and effort on preliminaries which often turn out to be useless, because they are bypassed by the real advance of the subject: one should never try to be more precise than the problem situation demands. ... One further result is, quite simply, the realization that the quest for precision, in words or concepts or meanings, is a wild-goose chase. There simply is no such thing as a precise concept (say, in Frege’s sense), though concepts like “price of this kettle” and “thirty pence” are usually precise enough for the problem context in which they are used.
\n\n\n
\n- Unending Quest, p. 22 (italics in original)
\n
Contact us
\n\nHow nebulous is your eggplant? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
","summary":"We discuss David Chapman's work on nebulosity, the correspondence theory of truth, and how it relates to Karl Popper's epistemology. ","date_published":"2023-05-29T04:30:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/bdd4d364-d829-4857-abc8-d121dccdaf5a.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":69211532,"duration_in_seconds":4325}]},{"id":"62e2393d-0457-42d0-a5eb-06453dc39596","title":"#50 - On the Evolutionary Origins of Storytelling, Art, and Science","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/50","content_text":"Fifty godd*** episodes! 'Tis been a ride full of debate, drinks, questionable arguments, Ben becoming both a dualist and a social media addict, and Vaden stalwartly not changing his mind about a single thing. \n\nTo celebrate, we dive into a thesis which connects many strands of what we've discussed over the years: Brian Boyd's work on art and fiction. Boyd provides an evolutionary account of why we're heavily invested in both creating and consuming fictional narratives. If this was simply a fun habit without any real advantage, such a propensity would have been selected against long ago because creating fiction requires an enormous amount of time. This raises the question: What is the advantage of fiction? Why is producing it adaptive? \n\nBrian Boyd is a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Auckland. His most well-known for his scholarship on Vladimir Nabokov, and is currently writing a biography on Karl Popper. You can understand why Vaden got so excited about him. \n\nNote:\nWe spend a lot of time giving background context for Boyd's theory - if you want to skip all that and get right to the theory itself, we've added chapter markers to take you there. \n\nAdded after publishing : Looks like chapter markers aren't working correctly on some players, discussion of theory begins at 00:40:43 \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nReflections on our 50th episode! \nNon-evolutionary theories of art and fiction, and why they fail \nBoyd's thesis that art results from playing with pattern and information \nFiction as a kind of art which results from playing with social information \nHow these theories explain why art is adaptive \nThe link between art and creativity \nHow Boyd's theory improves on the two other major evolutionary theories of art\n\n\nReferences \n\n\nOn the Origin of Stories\nStacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks. Essay from the book Stalking Nabokov \nSteven Pinker's thesis on art \nGeoffrey Miller's thesis \n\n\nQuotes \n\n\nWe crave information. But because we have a much more open-ended curiosity than other animals, we have a special appetite for pattern. We crave the high yield of novel kinds of pattern. So we not only chase and tussle, we not only play physically, but we also play cognitively, with patterns of the kinds of information that matter most to us: sound, sight, and, in our ultrasocial species, social information. We play with the rhythm and pitch and shape of sounds in music and song; with colors and shapes in drawing and painting and mudpies or sandcastles; and with patterns of social information in pretend play and story. In the social world, we see patterns of identity (who are they?), personality (what are they like?), society (whom are they related to? whom do they team up with? how do they rank?). In the world of events, we see patterns of cause and effect. In the world of social events, we see patterns of intention, action, and outcome. (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd) \n\nTo sum up: I’ve explored the hypothesis that art—or at least many forms of art—exploit visual aesthetics for no direct adaptive reason. Making and looking at art does not, and probably never did, result in more surviving offspring. There are, to be sure, adaptive explanations why certain visual patterns give human beings aesthetic, intellectual and sexual pleasure: they are cues to understandable, safe, productive, nutritious or fertile things in the world. And since we are a toolmaking, technological species, one of the things that we can do with our ingenuity, aside from trapping animals, detoxifying plants, conspiring against our enemies and so on, is to create purified, concentrated, supernormal, artificial sources of these visual pleasures, just for the sheer enjoyment experienced by both maker and viewer. (Pinker) \n\nIn the 1950s, when Desmond Morris supplied chimpanzees in his care with paint, brushes, and paper, they threw themselves into painting provided they received no external reward. Those who were offered food would make a few perfunctory strokes and break off quickly to seek another tasty morsel. But those whose motivation remained uncorrupted by “payment” developed a fierce commitment to painting. They painted intensely, persisting, while the session lasted, until they thought a sheet finished, though they would never glance at their work later. (On the Origin of Stories, pg 94) \n\nOur capacity to understand other minds so well, which arises especially from our cooperative disposition, allows us to understand false belief: we appreciate clearly that others may not know information relevant to the situation that we happen to know. That also means that we realize * we * may not know what we need to know, and that realization drives human curiosity. (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd) \n\nVery young children do not readily think offline, away from the here and now. They do not easily recall their recent past, but they can easily use the present props of toys, whether homemade or manufactured, to conjure up scenarios involving agents that hook their attention. They learn to think in a sustained fashion in ways decoupled from the here and now, first by using physical props as fellow agents, then gradually by raiding the readymade stories and characters of their culture. By building on our sociality, fiction stretches our imaginations, taking us from our immediate present along tracks we can easily follow offline because they are the fresh tracks of agents. (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd) \n\nIn the 1989 TV movie The Naked Lie the unpleasant and self-centered Webster shows no sympathy for a prostitute who has been killed. When Victoria asks him, “What if it were your sister?” he sneers: “I don’t have a sister, but if I did, she wouldn’t be a hooker.” Later in the movie Victoria muses to another character: “You know that sister Webster doesn’t have? Well, she doesn’t know how lucky she is.” We easily follow Victoria’s initial counterfactual, Webster’s counterfactual refutation of her condition, and Victoria’s comically contradictory counterfactual consequence, the sister who, because she does not exist, cannot know how lucky she is not to do so if she has to suffer Webster as her brother. Stories help train us to explore possibility as well as actuality, effortlessly and even playfully, and that capacity makes all the difference. (On the Origin of Stories, pg 188) \n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nWhat patterns have you been playing with recently? Tell us your story over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com \n\nImage Credit: Kinza Riza, from the Atlantic article. ","content_html":"Fifty godd*** episodes! 'Tis been a ride full of debate, drinks, questionable arguments, Ben becoming both a dualist and a social media addict, and Vaden stalwartly not changing his mind about a single thing.
\n\nTo celebrate, we dive into a thesis which connects many strands of what we've discussed over the years: Brian Boyd's work on art and fiction. Boyd provides an evolutionary account of why we're heavily invested in both creating and consuming fictional narratives. If this was simply a fun habit without any real advantage, such a propensity would have been selected against long ago because creating fiction requires an enormous amount of time. This raises the question: What is the advantage of fiction? Why is producing it adaptive?
\n\nBrian Boyd is a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Auckland. His most well-known for his scholarship on Vladimir Nabokov, and is currently writing a biography on Karl Popper. You can understand why Vaden got so excited about him.
\n\nNote:
\nWe spend a lot of time giving background context for Boyd's theory - if you want to skip all that and get right to the theory itself, we've added chapter markers to take you there.
Added after publishing : Looks like chapter markers aren't working correctly on some players, discussion of theory begins at 00:40:43
\n\nWe discuss
\n\nReferences
\n\nQuotes
\n\n\n\n\nWe crave information. But because we have a much more open-ended curiosity than other animals, we have a special appetite for pattern. We crave the high yield of novel kinds of pattern. So we not only chase and tussle, we not only play physically, but we also play cognitively, with patterns of the kinds of information that matter most to us: sound, sight, and, in our ultrasocial species, social information. We play with the rhythm and pitch and shape of sounds in music and song; with colors and shapes in drawing and painting and mudpies or sandcastles; and with patterns of social information in pretend play and story. In the social world, we see patterns of identity (who are they?), personality (what are they like?), society (whom are they related to? whom do they team up with? how do they rank?). In the world of events, we see patterns of cause and effect. In the world of social events, we see patterns of intention, action, and outcome. (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd)
\n\nTo sum up: I’ve explored the hypothesis that art—or at least many forms of art—exploit visual aesthetics for no direct adaptive reason. Making and looking at art does not, and probably never did, result in more surviving offspring. There are, to be sure, adaptive explanations why certain visual patterns give human beings aesthetic, intellectual and sexual pleasure: they are cues to understandable, safe, productive, nutritious or fertile things in the world. And since we are a toolmaking, technological species, one of the things that we can do with our ingenuity, aside from trapping animals, detoxifying plants, conspiring against our enemies and so on, is to create purified, concentrated, supernormal, artificial sources of these visual pleasures, just for the sheer enjoyment experienced by both maker and viewer. (Pinker)
\n\nIn the 1950s, when Desmond Morris supplied chimpanzees in his care with paint, brushes, and paper, they threw themselves into painting provided they received no external reward. Those who were offered food would make a few perfunctory strokes and break off quickly to seek another tasty morsel. But those whose motivation remained uncorrupted by “payment” developed a fierce commitment to painting. They painted intensely, persisting, while the session lasted, until they thought a sheet finished, though they would never glance at their work later. (On the Origin of Stories, pg 94)
\n\nOur capacity to understand other minds so well, which arises especially from our cooperative disposition, allows us to understand false belief: we appreciate clearly that others may not know information relevant to the situation that we happen to know. That also means that we realize * we * may not know what we need to know, and that realization drives human curiosity. (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd)
\n\nVery young children do not readily think offline, away from the here and now. They do not easily recall their recent past, but they can easily use the present props of toys, whether homemade or manufactured, to conjure up scenarios involving agents that hook their attention. They learn to think in a sustained fashion in ways decoupled from the here and now, first by using physical props as fellow agents, then gradually by raiding the readymade stories and characters of their culture. By building on our sociality, fiction stretches our imaginations, taking us from our immediate present along tracks we can easily follow offline because they are the fresh tracks of agents. (Stacks of Stories, Stories of Stacks - Boyd)
\n\nIn the 1989 TV movie The Naked Lie the unpleasant and self-centered Webster shows no sympathy for a prostitute who has been killed. When Victoria asks him, “What if it were your sister?” he sneers: “I don’t have a sister, but if I did, she wouldn’t be a hooker.” Later in the movie Victoria muses to another character: “You know that sister Webster doesn’t have? Well, she doesn’t know how lucky she is.” We easily follow Victoria’s initial counterfactual, Webster’s counterfactual refutation of her condition, and Victoria’s comically contradictory counterfactual consequence, the sister who, because she does not exist, cannot know how lucky she is not to do so if she has to suffer Webster as her brother. Stories help train us to explore possibility as well as actuality, effortlessly and even playfully, and that capacity makes all the difference. (On the Origin of Stories, pg 188)
\n
Contact us
\n\nWhat patterns have you been playing with recently? Tell us your story over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
\n\nImage Credit: Kinza Riza, from the Atlantic article.
","summary":"Why do humans engage in art and storytelling? For our 50th episode, we explore Brian Boyd's thesis that art evolved from selection pressure to better understand the patterns and information around us. ","date_published":"2023-04-24T12:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/62e2393d-0457-42d0-a5eb-06453dc39596.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":74019143,"duration_in_seconds":7253}]},{"id":"d190df1f-0cf0-4161-ba5f-544066c08c1f","title":"#49 - AGI: Could The End Be Nigh? (With Rosie Campbell)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/49","content_text":"When big bearded men wearing fedoras begin yelling at you that the end is nigh and superintelligence is about to kill us all, what should you do? Vaden says don't panic, and Ben is simply awestruck by the ability to grow a beard in the first place. \n\nTo help us think through the potential risks and rewards of ever more impressive machine learning models, we invited Rosie Campbell on the podcast. Rosie is on the safety team at OpenAI and, while she's more worried about the existential risks of AI than we are, she's just as keen on some debate over a bottle of wine. \n\nWe discuss:\n\n\nWhether machine learning poses an existential threat \nHow concerned we should be about existing AI \nWhether deep learning can get us to artificial general intelligence (AGI)\nIf AI safety is simply quality assurance\nHow can we test if an AI system is creative? \n\n\nReferences:\n\n\nMathgen: Randomly generated math papers \n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nFollow Rosie at @RosieCampbell or https://www.rosiecampbell.xyz/\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nProve you're creative by inventing the next big thing and then send it to us at incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guest: Rosie Campbell.","content_html":"When big bearded men wearing fedoras begin yelling at you that the end is nigh and superintelligence is about to kill us all, what should you do? Vaden says don't panic, and Ben is simply awestruck by the ability to grow a beard in the first place.
\n\nTo help us think through the potential risks and rewards of ever more impressive machine learning models, we invited Rosie Campbell on the podcast. Rosie is on the safety team at OpenAI and, while she's more worried about the existential risks of AI than we are, she's just as keen on some debate over a bottle of wine.
\n\nWe discuss:
\n\nReferences:
\n\n\n\nContact us
\n\nProve you're creative by inventing the next big thing and then send it to us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Special Guest: Rosie Campbell.
","summary":"The delightful Rosie Campbell joins us on the podcast to debate AI, AGI, superintelligence, and rogue computer viruses. ","date_published":"2023-03-22T10:15:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/d190df1f-0cf0-4161-ba5f-544066c08c1f.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":81494098,"duration_in_seconds":5093}]},{"id":"b39c48d9-c89a-4ad9-a09f-32168d870961","title":"#48 (C&R Chap. 18) - Utopia and Violence ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/48","content_text":"You may, perchance, have noticed that the sweeping utopian movements of the past did not end well. And most of them involved an horrific amount of violence. Is this connection just chance, or is there something inherent to utopian thinking which leads to violent ends? We turn to Chapter 18 of Conjectures and Refutations where Popper gives us his spicy take. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nHow do you \"see\" your early memories? \nVaden corrects the record on a few points \nRationality grounded in humility versus goal-oriented rationality \nIf ends can be decided rationally \nHow and if goal-oriented rationality leads to violence \nWorking to reduce concrete evils versus working to achieve abstract goods \n\n\n** Link to chapter **:\n\n\nhttps://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20672078\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nA rationalist, as I use the word, is a man who attempts to reach decisions by argument and perhaps, in certain cases, by compromise, rather than by violence. He is a man who would rather be unsuccessful in convincing another man by argument than successful in crushing him by force, by intimidation and threats, or even by persuasive propaganda.\nPg. 478 \n\nI believe that we can avoid violence only in so far as we practise this attitude of reasonableness when dealing with one another in social life; and that any other attitude is likely to produce violence—even a one-sided attempt to deal with others by gentle persuasion, and to convince them by argument and example of those insights we are proud of possessing, and of whose truth we are absolutely certain. We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell. Only if we give up our authoritarian attitude in the realm of opinion, only if we establish the attitude of give and take, of readiness to learn from other people, can we hope to control acts of violence inspired by piety and duty.\nPg. 479 \n\nIn the latter case political action will be rational only if we first determine the final ends of the political changes which we intend to bring about. It will be rational only relative to certain ideas of what a state ought to be like. Thus it appears that as a preliminary to any rational political action we must first attempt to become as clear as possible about our ultimate political ends; for example the kind of state which we should consider the best; and only afterwards can we begin to determine the means which may best help us to realize this state, or to move slowly towards it, taking it as the aim of a historical process which we may to some extent influence and steer towards the goal selected. Now it is precisely this view which I call Utopianism. Any rational and non-selfish political action, on this view, must be preceded by a determination of our ultimate ends, not merely of intermediate or partial aims which are only steps towards our ultimate end, and which therefore should be considered as means rather than as ends; therefore rational political action must be based upon a more or less clear and detailed description or blueprint of our ideal state, and also upon a plan or blueprint of the historical path that leads towards this goal.\nPg. 481-482 \n\nThe Utopian method, which chooses an ideal state of society as the aim which all our political actions should serve, is likely to produce violence can be shown thus. Since we cannot determine the ultimate ends of political actions scientifically, or by purely rational methods, differences of opinion concerning what the ideal state should be like cannot always be smoothed out by the method of argument. They will at least partly have the character of religious differences. And there can hardly be tolerance between these different Utopian religions. Utopian aims are designed to serve as a basis for rational political action and discussion, and such action appears to be possible only if the aim is definitely decided upon. Thus the Utopianist must win over, or else crush, his Utopianist competitors who do not share his own Utopian aims and who do not profess his own Utopianist religion.\nPg. 483 \n\nWork for the elimination of concrete evils rather than for the realization of abstract goods. Do not aim at establishing happiness by political means. Rather aim at the elimination of concrete miseries. Or, in more practical terms: fight for the elimination of poverty by direct means—for example, by making sure that everybody has a minimum income. Or fight against epidemics and disease by erecting hospitals and schools of medicine. Fight illiteracy as you fight criminality. But do all this by direct means. Choose what you consider the most urgent evil of the society in which you live, and try patiently to convince people that we can get rid of it.\nPg. 485 \n\nBut do not try to realize these aims indirectly by designing and working for a distant ideal of a society which is wholly good. However deeply you may feel indebted to its inspiring vision, do not think that you are obliged to work for its realization, or that it is your mission to open the eyes of others to its beauty. Do not allow your dreams of a beautiful world to lure you away from the claims of men who suffer here and now. Our fellow men have a claim to our help; no generation must be sacrificed for the sake of future generations, for the sake of an ideal of happiness that may never be realized. In brief, it is my thesis that human misery is the most urgent problem of a rational public policy and that happiness is not such a problem. The attainment of happiness should be left to our private endeavours.\nPg. 485 \n\nIt is a fact, and not a very strange fact, that it is not so very difficult to reach agreement by discussion on what are the most intolerable evils of our society, and on what are the most urgent social reforms. Such an agreement can be reached much more easily than an agreement concerning some ideal form of social life. For the evils are with us here and now. They can be experienced, and are being experienced every day, by many people who have been and are being made miserable by poverty, unemployment, national oppression, war and disease. Those of us who do not suffer from these miseries meet every day others who can describe them to us. This is what makes the evils concrete. This is why we can get somewhere in arguing about them; why we can profit here from the attitude of reasonableness. We can learn by listening to concrete claims, by patiently trying to assess them as impartially as we can, and by considering ways of meeting them without creating worse evils\nPg. 485 \n\nI believe that it is quite true that we can judge the rationality of an action only in relation to some aims or ends. But this does not necessarily mean that the rationality of a political action can be judged only in relation to an _historical end._\nPg. 486 \n\nThe appeal of Utopianism arises from the failure to realize that we cannot make heaven on earth. What I believe we can do instead is to make life a little less terrible and a little less unjust in each generation. A good deal can be achieved in this way. Much has been achieved in the last hundred years. More could be achieved by our own generation. There are many pressing problems which we might solve, at least partially, such as helping the weak and the sick, and those who suffer under oppression and injustice; stamping out unemployment; equalizing opportunities; and preventing international crime, such as blackmail and war instigated by men like gods, by omnipotent and omniscient leaders. All this we might achieve if only we could give up dreaming about distant ideals and fighting over our Utopian blueprints for a new world and a new man.\nPg. 487 \n\n\n** References ** \n\n\nEA Forum post showing data on forecasting accuracy across different time horizons: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hqkyaHLQhzuREcXSX/data-on-forecasting-accuracy-across-different-time-horizons#Calibrations\nVox article talking about PELTIV's: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23569519/effective-altrusim-sam-bankman-fried-will-macaskill-ea-risk-decentralization-philanthropy\n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nDo you see your sweeping utopian blueprints in first person or third person? Send these blueprints over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com \n\nImage credit: Engin_Akyurt","content_html":"You may, perchance, have noticed that the sweeping utopian movements of the past did not end well. And most of them involved an horrific amount of violence. Is this connection just chance, or is there something inherent to utopian thinking which leads to violent ends? We turn to Chapter 18 of Conjectures and Refutations where Popper gives us his spicy take.
\n\nWe discuss
\n\n** Link to chapter **:
\n\n\n\nQuotes
\n\n\n\n\nA rationalist, as I use the word, is a man who attempts to reach decisions by argument and perhaps, in certain cases, by compromise, rather than by violence. He is a man who would rather be unsuccessful in convincing another man by argument than successful in crushing him by force, by intimidation and threats, or even by persuasive propaganda.
\n\n
\nPg. 478I believe that we can avoid violence only in so far as we practise this attitude of reasonableness when dealing with one another in social life; and that any other attitude is likely to produce violence—even a one-sided attempt to deal with others by gentle persuasion, and to convince them by argument and example of those insights we are proud of possessing, and of whose truth we are absolutely certain. We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell. Only if we give up our authoritarian attitude in the realm of opinion, only if we establish the attitude of give and take, of readiness to learn from other people, can we hope to control acts of violence inspired by piety and duty.
\n\n
\nPg. 479In the latter case political action will be rational only if we first determine the final ends of the political changes which we intend to bring about. It will be rational only relative to certain ideas of what a state ought to be like. Thus it appears that as a preliminary to any rational political action we must first attempt to become as clear as possible about our ultimate political ends; for example the kind of state which we should consider the best; and only afterwards can we begin to determine the means which may best help us to realize this state, or to move slowly towards it, taking it as the aim of a historical process which we may to some extent influence and steer towards the goal selected. Now it is precisely this view which I call Utopianism. Any rational and non-selfish political action, on this view, must be preceded by a determination of our ultimate ends, not merely of intermediate or partial aims which are only steps towards our ultimate end, and which therefore should be considered as means rather than as ends; therefore rational political action must be based upon a more or less clear and detailed description or blueprint of our ideal state, and also upon a plan or blueprint of the historical path that leads towards this goal.
\n\n
\nPg. 481-482The Utopian method, which chooses an ideal state of society as the aim which all our political actions should serve, is likely to produce violence can be shown thus. Since we cannot determine the ultimate ends of political actions scientifically, or by purely rational methods, differences of opinion concerning what the ideal state should be like cannot always be smoothed out by the method of argument. They will at least partly have the character of religious differences. And there can hardly be tolerance between these different Utopian religions. Utopian aims are designed to serve as a basis for rational political action and discussion, and such action appears to be possible only if the aim is definitely decided upon. Thus the Utopianist must win over, or else crush, his Utopianist competitors who do not share his own Utopian aims and who do not profess his own Utopianist religion.
\n\n
\nPg. 483Work for the elimination of concrete evils rather than for the realization of abstract goods. Do not aim at establishing happiness by political means. Rather aim at the elimination of concrete miseries. Or, in more practical terms: fight for the elimination of poverty by direct means—for example, by making sure that everybody has a minimum income. Or fight against epidemics and disease by erecting hospitals and schools of medicine. Fight illiteracy as you fight criminality. But do all this by direct means. Choose what you consider the most urgent evil of the society in which you live, and try patiently to convince people that we can get rid of it.
\n\n
\nPg. 485But do not try to realize these aims indirectly by designing and working for a distant ideal of a society which is wholly good. However deeply you may feel indebted to its inspiring vision, do not think that you are obliged to work for its realization, or that it is your mission to open the eyes of others to its beauty. Do not allow your dreams of a beautiful world to lure you away from the claims of men who suffer here and now. Our fellow men have a claim to our help; no generation must be sacrificed for the sake of future generations, for the sake of an ideal of happiness that may never be realized. In brief, it is my thesis that human misery is the most urgent problem of a rational public policy and that happiness is not such a problem. The attainment of happiness should be left to our private endeavours.
\n\n
\nPg. 485It is a fact, and not a very strange fact, that it is not so very difficult to reach agreement by discussion on what are the most intolerable evils of our society, and on what are the most urgent social reforms. Such an agreement can be reached much more easily than an agreement concerning some ideal form of social life. For the evils are with us here and now. They can be experienced, and are being experienced every day, by many people who have been and are being made miserable by poverty, unemployment, national oppression, war and disease. Those of us who do not suffer from these miseries meet every day others who can describe them to us. This is what makes the evils concrete. This is why we can get somewhere in arguing about them; why we can profit here from the attitude of reasonableness. We can learn by listening to concrete claims, by patiently trying to assess them as impartially as we can, and by considering ways of meeting them without creating worse evils
\n\n
\nPg. 485I believe that it is quite true that we can judge the rationality of an action only in relation to some aims or ends. But this does not necessarily mean that the rationality of a political action can be judged only in relation to an _historical end._
\n\n
\nPg. 486The appeal of Utopianism arises from the failure to realize that we cannot make heaven on earth. What I believe we can do instead is to make life a little less terrible and a little less unjust in each generation. A good deal can be achieved in this way. Much has been achieved in the last hundred years. More could be achieved by our own generation. There are many pressing problems which we might solve, at least partially, such as helping the weak and the sick, and those who suffer under oppression and injustice; stamping out unemployment; equalizing opportunities; and preventing international crime, such as blackmail and war instigated by men like gods, by omnipotent and omniscient leaders. All this we might achieve if only we could give up dreaming about distant ideals and fighting over our Utopian blueprints for a new world and a new man.
\n
\nPg. 487
** References **
\n\nContact us
\n\nDo you see your sweeping utopian blueprints in first person or third person? Send these blueprints over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com
\n\nImage credit: Engin_Akyurt
","summary":"Violent utopias? Utopian violence? Are the rationalists going to destroy the world? Chapter 18 of Conjectures and Refutations coming in hot. ","date_published":"2023-02-24T12:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/b39c48d9-c89a-4ad9-a09f-32168d870961.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":58261837,"duration_in_seconds":3641}]},{"id":"762ad0a7-96d2-4f2b-be8b-b0133e282e68","title":"#47 (Bonus) - Dualism, Reductionism, and Explanation Pancakes ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/47","content_text":"Second holiday season bonus episode! Vaden joins Chesto on The Declaration podcast to talk about monism, dualism, the reality of abstractions, emergence, and reductionism. This convo was recorded in 2019, but much of the content is evergreen and we think it still makes for interestin' listenin'. Except the sound quality, which leaves much to be desired. Thanks Blue Yeti. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nThe mind-body problem \nWhy Vaden is a filthy pluralist and Chesto is a sober, sane, rational materialist \nReductonism vs dualism vs pluralism\nThe reality of abstractions \nWhy explanations are central to science \nWould you get into a Star Trek transporter? \nAnd, a little bit out of left field, some advice for talking about mental health \n\n\nReferences: \n\n\nGödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid \nBeginning of Infinity\nChesto's instagram for your eyes and soundcloud for your ears. \n\n\nErrata:\n\n\nIn the Domino example from BOI the prime number was 641, not whatever number Vaden said \nThe Voyager spacecraft launched in 1977, not 1972\n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nAre emails real? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. \n\nPhoto credit: https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/11/07/optimization-dominoes-and-frankenstein/","content_html":"Second holiday season bonus episode! Vaden joins Chesto on The Declaration podcast to talk about monism, dualism, the reality of abstractions, emergence, and reductionism. This convo was recorded in 2019, but much of the content is evergreen and we think it still makes for interestin' listenin'. Except the sound quality, which leaves much to be desired. Thanks Blue Yeti.
\n\nWe discuss:
\n\nReferences:
\n\nErrata:
\n\nContact us
\n\nAre emails real? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
\n\nPhoto credit: https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/11/07/optimization-dominoes-and-frankenstein/
","summary":"Vaden goes on The Declaration podcast to argue about dualism, the reality of abstractions, emergence, and reductionism. ","date_published":"2023-01-16T09:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/762ad0a7-96d2-4f2b-be8b-b0133e282e68.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":88811310,"duration_in_seconds":5550}]},{"id":"4b26dbf2-7bcd-44e6-ac65-c3dbca70c897","title":"#46 (Bonus) - Arguing about probability (with Nick Anyos)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/46","content_text":"We make a guest appearance on Nick Anyos' podcast to talk about effective altruism, longtermism, and probability. Nick (very politely) pushes back on our anti-Bayesian credo, and we get deep into the weeds of probability and epistemology. \n\nYou can find Nick's podcast on institutional design here, and his substack here. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nThe lack of feedback loops in longtermism \nWhether quantifying your beliefs is helpful \nObjective versus subjective knowledge \nThe difference between prediction and explanation\nThe difference between Bayesian epistemology and Bayesian statistics\nStatistical modelling and when statistics is useful \n\n\nLinks\n\n\nPhilosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics by Andrew Gelman and Cosma Shalizi\nEA forum post showing all forecasts beyond a year out are uncalibrated. \nVaclav smil quote where he predicts a pandemic by 2021:\n\n\nThe following realities indicate the imminence of the risk. The typical frequency of influenza pan- demics was once every 50–60 years between 1700 and 1889 (the longest known gap was 52 years, between the pandemics of 1729–1733 and 1781–1782) and only once every 10–40 years since 1889. The recurrence interval, calculated simply as the mean time elapsed between the last six known pandemics, is about 28 years, with the extremes of 6 and 53 years. Adding the mean and the highest interval to 1968 gives a span between 1996 and 2021. We are, probabilistically speaking, very much inside a high-risk zone.\n\n- Global Catastropes and Trends, p.46\n\nReference for Tetlock's superforecasters failing to predict the pandemic. \"On February 20th, Tetlock’s superforecasters predicted only a 3% chance that there would be 200,000+ coronavirus cases a month later (there were).\" \n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nErrata\n\n\nAt the beginning of the episode Vaden says he hasn't been interviewed on another podcast before. He forgot his appearence on The Declaration Podcast in 2019, which will be appearing as a bonus episode on our feed in the coming weeks. \n\n\nSick of hearing us talk about this subject? Understandable! Send topic suggestions over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. \n\nPhoto credit: James O’Brien for Quanta Magazine","content_html":"We make a guest appearance on Nick Anyos' podcast to talk about effective altruism, longtermism, and probability. Nick (very politely) pushes back on our anti-Bayesian credo, and we get deep into the weeds of probability and epistemology.
\n\nYou can find Nick's podcast on institutional design here, and his substack here.
\n\nWe discuss:
\n\nLinks
\n\nVaclav smil quote where he predicts a pandemic by 2021:
\n\n\nThe following realities indicate the imminence of the risk. The typical frequency of influenza pan- demics was once every 50–60 years between 1700 and 1889 (the longest known gap was 52 years, between the pandemics of 1729–1733 and 1781–1782) and only once every 10–40 years since 1889. The recurrence interval, calculated simply as the mean time elapsed between the last six known pandemics, is about 28 years, with the extremes of 6 and 53 years. Adding the mean and the highest interval to 1968 gives a span between 1996 and 2021. We are, probabilistically speaking, very much inside a high-risk zone.
\n\n- Global Catastropes and Trends, p.46
\n
Reference for Tetlock's superforecasters failing to predict the pandemic. "On February 20th, Tetlock’s superforecasters predicted only a 3% chance that there would be 200,000+ coronavirus cases a month later (there were)."
Contact us
\n\nErrata
\n\nSick of hearing us talk about this subject? Understandable! Send topic suggestions over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
\n\nPhoto credit: James O’Brien for Quanta Magazine
","summary":"Ben and Vaden make a guest appearance on Nick Anyos' podcast on criticisms of effective altruism. As usual, they end up arguing about probability for most of it. ","date_published":"2022-12-19T12:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/4b26dbf2-7bcd-44e6-ac65-c3dbca70c897.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":85872117,"duration_in_seconds":7156}]},{"id":"6ce3560d-1cbd-414c-8e21-54bd37bc5711","title":"#45 - Four Central Fallacies of AI Research (with Melanie Mitchell)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/45","content_text":"We were delighted to be joined by Davis Professor at the Sante Fe Insitute, Melanie Mitchell! We chat about our understanding of artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and whether it's reasonable to expect us to be able to build sophisticated human-like automated systems anytime soon. \n\nFollow Melanie on twitter @MelMitchell1 and check out her website: https://melaniemitchell.me/\n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nAI hype through the ages \nHow do we know if machines understand? \nWinograd schemas and the \"WinoGrande\" challenge. \nThe importance of metaphor and analogies to intelligence \nThe four fallacies in AI research: \n\n\n1. Narrow intelligence is on a continuum with general intelligence\n2. Easy things are easy and hard things are hard\n3. The lure of wishful mnemonics\n4. Intelligence is all in the brain\n\nWhether embodiment is necessary for true intelligence\nDouglas Hofstadter's views on AI \nRay Kurzweil and the \"singularity\" \nThe fact that Moore's law doesn't hold for software\nThe difference between symbolic AI and machine learning \nWhat analogies have to teach us about human cognition \n\n\nErrata \n\n\nBen mistakenly says that Eliezer Yudkowsky has bet that everyone will die by 2025. It's actually by 2030. You can find the details of the bet here: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/my_end-of-the-w.html. \n\n\nReferences:\n\n\nNY Times reporting on Perceptrons. \nThe WinoGrande challenge paper\nWhy AI is harder than we think\nThe Singularity is Near, by Ray Kurzweil\n\n\nContact us\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nEliezer was more scared than Douglas about AI, so he wrote a blog post about it. Who wrote the blog post, Eliezer or Douglas? Tell us at over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Special Guest: Melanie Mitchell.","content_html":"We were delighted to be joined by Davis Professor at the Sante Fe Insitute, Melanie Mitchell! We chat about our understanding of artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and whether it's reasonable to expect us to be able to build sophisticated human-like automated systems anytime soon.
\n\nFollow Melanie on twitter @MelMitchell1 and check out her website: https://melaniemitchell.me/
\n\nWe discuss:
\n\nErrata
\n\nReferences:
\n\nContact us
\n\nEliezer was more scared than Douglas about AI, so he wrote a blog post about it. Who wrote the blog post, Eliezer or Douglas? Tell us at over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Special Guest: Melanie Mitchell.
","summary":"We chat with Melanie Mitchell about our understanding of artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and whether it's reasonable to expect us to be able to build sophisticated human-like automated systems anytime soon. ","date_published":"2022-10-31T10:45:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6ce3560d-1cbd-414c-8e21-54bd37bc5711.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":51348374,"duration_in_seconds":3209}]},{"id":"6c02f356-e380-4b16-a69c-d43b882b4746","title":"#44 - Longtermism Revisited: What We Owe the Future","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/44","content_text":"Like moths to a flame, we come back to longtermism once again. But it's not our fault. Will MacAskill published a new book, What We Owe the Future, and billions (trillions!) of lives are at stake if we don't review it. Sisyphus had his task and we have ours. We're doing it for the (great great great ... great) grandchildren. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nWhether longtermism is actionable \nWhether the book is a faithful representation of longtermism as practiced \nWhy humans are actually cool, despite what you might hear \nSome cool ideas from the book including career advice and allowing vaccines on the free market \nBen's love of charter cities and whether he's is a totalitarian at heart \nThe plausability of \"value lock-in\"\nThe bizarro world of population ethics \n\n\nReferences:\n\"Bait-and-switch\" critique from a longtermist blogger: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9Y6Y6qoAigRC7A8eX/my-take-on-what-we-owe-the-future\n\nQuote: \"For instance, I’m worried people will feel bait-and-switched if they get into EA via WWOTF then do an 80,000 Hours call or hang out around their EA university group and realize most people think AI risk is the biggest longtermist priority, many thinking this by a large margin.\"\n\nContact us \n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nHow long is your termist? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com ","content_html":"Like moths to a flame, we come back to longtermism once again. But it's not our fault. Will MacAskill published a new book, What We Owe the Future, and billions (trillions!) of lives are at stake if we don't review it. Sisyphus had his task and we have ours. We're doing it for the (great great great ... great) grandchildren.
\n\nWe discuss:
\n\nReferences:
\n"Bait-and-switch" critique from a longtermist blogger: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9Y6Y6qoAigRC7A8eX/my-take-on-what-we-owe-the-future
Quote: "For instance, I’m worried people will feel bait-and-switched if they get into EA via WWOTF then do an 80,000 Hours call or hang out around their EA university group and realize most people think AI risk is the biggest longtermist priority, many thinking this by a large margin."
\n\nContact us
\n\nHow long is your termist? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"Could have seen this one coming. We discuss Will MacAskill's new book \"What We Owe the Future.\" ","date_published":"2022-10-03T10:45:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6c02f356-e380-4b16-a69c-d43b882b4746.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":59599306,"duration_in_seconds":3724}]},{"id":"49557cb4-fb21-4217-84d4-137505705a3e","title":"#43 - Artificial General Intelligence and the AI Safety debate","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/43","content_text":"Some people think that advanced AI is going to kill everyone. Some people don't. Who to believe? Fortunately, Ben and Vaden are here to sort out the question once and for all. No need to think for yourselves after listening to this one, we've got you covered. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nHow well does math fit reality? Is that surprising? \nShould artificial general intelligence (AGI) be considered \"a person\"? \nHow could AI possibly \"go rogue?\"\nCan we know if current AI systems are being creative? \nIs misplaced AI fear hampering progress? \n\n\nReferences: \n\n\nThe Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics\nProhibition on autonomous weapons letter\nGoogle employee conversation with chat bot\nGary marcus on the Turing test\nMelanie Mitchell essay. \nDid MIRI give up? Their (half-sarcastic?) death with dignity strategy \nKerry Vaughan on slowing down AGI development. \n\n\nContact us \n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nWhich prompt would you send to GPT-3 in order to end the world? Tell us before you're turned into a paperclip over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"Some people think that advanced AI is going to kill everyone. Some people don't. Who to believe? Fortunately, Ben and Vaden are here to sort out the question once and for all. No need to think for yourselves after listening to this one, we've got you covered.
\n\nWe discuss:
\n\nReferences:
\n\nContact us
\n\nWhich prompt would you send to GPT-3 in order to end the world? Tell us before you're turned into a paperclip over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"Is advanced AI going to kill everyone? How close are we to building AGI? Is current AI creative? Put aside your philosophy textbooks, because we have the answers. ","date_published":"2022-08-28T15:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/49557cb4-fb21-4217-84d4-137505705a3e.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":65129742,"duration_in_seconds":4070}]},{"id":"15a2e62d-ea06-460f-9748-6dec393c8666","title":"#42 (C&R, Chap 12+13) - Language and the Body-Mind Problem","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/42","content_text":"Ben and Vaden sit down to discuss what is possibly Popper's most confusing essay ever: Language and the Body-Mind Problem: A restatement of Interactionism. Determinism, causality, language, bodies, minds, and Ferris Buhler. What's not to like! Except for the terrible writing, spanning the entire essay. And before we get to that, we revolutionize the peer-review system in less than 10 minutes. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nProblems with the current peer-review system and how to improve it \nThe Mind-Body Problem\nHow chaos theory relates to determinism \nThe four functions of language\nWhy you don't argue with thermometers \nWhether Popper thinks we can build AGI \nWhy causality occurs at the level of ideas, not just of atoms \n\n\nReferences \n\n\nLink to the essay, which you should most definitely read for yourself. \nBen's call to abolish peer-review \nDiscrete Analysis Math Journal \nPachinko \nKarl Buhler's theory of language \n\n\nQuotes \n\n\nThis, I think, solves the so-called problem of 'other minds'. If we talk to other people, and especially if we argue\nwith them, then we assume (sometimes mistakenly) that they also argue: that they speak intentionally about\nthings, seriously wishing to solve a problem, and not merely behaving as if they were doing so. It has often been seen\nthat language is a social affair and that solipsism, and doubts about the existence of other minds, become\nselfcontradictory if formulated in a language. We can put this now more clearly. In arguing with other people (a thing\nwhich we have learnt from other people), for example about other minds, we cannot but attribute to them intentions,\nand this means, mental states. We do not argue with a thermometer. \n- C&R, Chap 13\n\nOnce we understand the causal behaviour of the machine, we realize that its behaviour is purely expressive or\nsymptomatic. For amusement we may continue to ask the machine questions, but we shall not seriously argue with it--\nunless we believe that it transmits the arguments, both from a person and back to a person. \n- C&R, Chap 13\n\nIf the behaviour of such a machine becomes very much like that of a man, then we may mistakenly believe that\nthe machine describes and argues; just as a man\"who does not know the working of a phonograph or radio may\nmistakenly think that it describes and argues. Yet an analysis of its mechanism teaches us that nothing of this kind\nhappens. The radio does not argue, although it expresses and signals.\n- C&R, Chap 13\n\nIt is true that the presence of Mike in my environment may be one of the physical 'causes' of my saying, 'Here is \nMike'. But if I say, 'Should this be your argument, then it is contradictory', because I have grasped or realized that it is\nso, then there was no physical 'cause' analogous to Mike; I do not need to hear or see your words in order to realize\nthat a certain theory (it does not matter whose) is contradictory. The analogy is not to Mike, but rather to my\nrealization that Mike is here.\n- C&R, Chap 13\n\nThe fear of obscurantism (or of being judged an obscurantist) has prevented most anti-obscurantists from saying\nsuch things as these. But this fear has produced, in the end, only obscurantism of another kind.\n- C&R, Chap 13\n\n\nWhen's the last time you argued with your thermometer? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com \n\nImage Credit: http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/modernlanguages/research/groups/linguistics/","content_html":"Ben and Vaden sit down to discuss what is possibly Popper's most confusing essay ever: Language and the Body-Mind Problem: A restatement of Interactionism. Determinism, causality, language, bodies, minds, and Ferris Buhler. What's not to like! Except for the terrible writing, spanning the entire essay. And before we get to that, we revolutionize the peer-review system in less than 10 minutes.
\n\nWe discuss
\n\nReferences
\n\nQuotes
\n\n\n\n\nThis, I think, solves the so-called problem of 'other minds'. If we talk to other people, and especially if we argue
\n\n
\nwith them, then we assume (sometimes mistakenly) that they also argue: that they speak intentionally about
\nthings, seriously wishing to solve a problem, and not merely behaving as if they were doing so. It has often been seen
\nthat language is a social affair and that solipsism, and doubts about the existence of other minds, become
\nselfcontradictory if formulated in a language. We can put this now more clearly. In arguing with other people (a thing
\nwhich we have learnt from other people), for example about other minds, we cannot but attribute to them intentions,
\nand this means, mental states. We do not argue with a thermometer.
\n- C&R, Chap 13Once we understand the causal behaviour of the machine, we realize that its behaviour is purely expressive or
\n\n
\nsymptomatic. For amusement we may continue to ask the machine questions, but we shall not seriously argue with it--
\nunless we believe that it transmits the arguments, both from a person and back to a person.
\n- C&R, Chap 13If the behaviour of such a machine becomes very much like that of a man, then we may mistakenly believe that
\n\n
\nthe machine describes and argues; just as a man"who does not know the working of a phonograph or radio may
\nmistakenly think that it describes and argues. Yet an analysis of its mechanism teaches us that nothing of this kind
\nhappens. The radio does not argue, although it expresses and signals.
\n- C&R, Chap 13It is true that the presence of Mike in my environment may be one of the physical 'causes' of my saying, 'Here is
\n\n
\nMike'. But if I say, 'Should this be your argument, then it is contradictory', because I have grasped or realized that it is
\nso, then there was no physical 'cause' analogous to Mike; I do not need to hear or see your words in order to realize
\nthat a certain theory (it does not matter whose) is contradictory. The analogy is not to Mike, but rather to my
\nrealization that Mike is here.
\n- C&R, Chap 13The fear of obscurantism (or of being judged an obscurantist) has prevented most anti-obscurantists from saying
\n
\nsuch things as these. But this fear has produced, in the end, only obscurantism of another kind.
\n- C&R, Chap 13
When's the last time you argued with your thermometer? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
\n\nImage Credit: http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/modernlanguages/research/groups/linguistics/
","summary":"We wrestle with chapter 12 and 13 of Conjectures and Refutations, on the topic of the mind-body problem, theories of language, determinism, and causality. This one is a real doozy folks. ","date_published":"2022-07-20T18:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/15a2e62d-ea06-460f-9748-6dec393c8666.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":48629968,"duration_in_seconds":3039}]},{"id":"8ed5f8dd-a838-4df0-8791-af0372ee011d","title":"#41 - Parenting, Epistemology, and EA (w/ Lulie Tanett) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/41","content_text":"We're joined by the wonderful Lulie Tanett to talk about effective altruism, pulling spouses out of burning buildings, and why you should prefer critical rationalism to Bayesianism for your mom's sake. Buckle up! \n\nWe discuss:\n\n\nLulie's recent experience at EA Global \nBayesianism and how it differs from critical rationalism \nCommon arguments in favor of Bayesianism \nTaking Children Seriously \nWhat it was like for Lulie growing up without going to school \nThe Alexander Technique, Internal Family Systems, Gendlin's Focusing, and Belief Reporting \n\n\nReferences \n\n\nEA Global\nTaking Children Seriously \nAlexander Technique\nInternal Family Systems\nGendlin Focusing\n\n\nSocial Media Everywhere \nFollow Lulie on Twitter @reasonisfun. Follow us at @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod, or on Youtube. \n\nReport your beliefs and focus your Gendlin's at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Lulie Tanett.","content_html":"We're joined by the wonderful Lulie Tanett to talk about effective altruism, pulling spouses out of burning buildings, and why you should prefer critical rationalism to Bayesianism for your mom's sake. Buckle up!
\n\nWe discuss:
\n\nReferences
\n\nSocial Media Everywhere
\nFollow Lulie on Twitter @reasonisfun. Follow us at @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod, or on Youtube.
Report your beliefs and focus your Gendlin's at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Special Guest: Lulie Tanett.
","summary":"We're joined by the wonderful Lulie Tanett to talk about effective altruism, pulling spouses out of burning buildings, and why you should prefer critical rationalism to Bayesianism for your mom's sake.","date_published":"2022-06-20T16:15:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/8ed5f8dd-a838-4df0-8791-af0372ee011d.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":77460808,"duration_in_seconds":4695}]},{"id":"fb63e5c1-91c1-4fd9-87e2-0b5d095949fe","title":"#40 - The Myth of The Framework: On the possibility of fruitful discussion ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/40","content_text":"Is there any possibility of fruitful dialogue with your mildly crazy, significantly intoxicated uncle at Thanksgiving dinner? We turn to Karl Popper's essay, The Myth of the Framework, to find out. Popper argues that it's wrong to assume that fruitful conversation is only possible among those who share an underlying framework of beliefs and assumptions. In fact, there's more to learn in difficult conversations which lack such a framework. \n\nWe discuss\n\n\nWhat is The Myth of the Framework? \nThe relationship between the myth of the framework and epistemological and moral relativism\nModern examples of the myth, including Jon Haidt's recent Atlantic essay and Paul Graham's Keep your identity small. \nWhy there's more to learn from conversations where the participants disagree, and why conversations with too much agreement are uninteresting \nLinguistic relativism and the evolution of language as a refutation of the myth \nThe relationship between the myth of the framework and the Enigma of Reason\n\n\nQuotes \n\n\nI think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan. \n\n- Paul Graham, Keep your identity small\n\nThe story of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit. Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past.\n\nIt’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families.\n\n- Jonathan Haidt, Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid\n\nThe proponents of relativism put before us standards of mutual understanding which are unrealistically high. And when we fail to meet these standards, they claim that understanding is impossible. \n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34\n\nThe myth of the framework can be stated in one sentence, as follows. A rational and fruiful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.\n\nAs I have formulated it here, the myth sounds like a sober statement, or like a sensible warning to which we ought to pay attention in order to further rational discussion. Some people even think that what I describe as a myth is a logical principle, or based on a logical principle. I think, on the contrary, that it is not only a false statement, but also a vicious statement which, if widely believed, must undermine the unity of mankind, and so must greatly increase the likelihood of violence and of war. This is the main reason why I want to combat it, and to refute it.\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34\n\nAlthough I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: _I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strif, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words. This is why my topic is of some practical significance._\n\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34\n\nMy thesis is that logic neither underpins the myth of the framework nor its denial, but that we can try to learn from each other. Whether we succeed will depend largely on our goodwill, and to some extent also on our historical situation, and on our problem situation.\n\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 38\n\n\nReferences \n\n\nWhy the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid, by Jonathan Haidt\nKeep your identity small, by Paul Graham \nThe Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber \nGlenn Loury and Briahna Joy Grey\nNormal Science and its Dangers\n\n\nSocial media everywhere\nFollow us on twitter (@Incrementspod, @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg), and on youtube. \n\nTell us about your shaken framework at incrementspodcast@gmail.com \n\nImage: Cornelis Anthonisz (1505 – 1553) – The Fall of the Tower of Babel (1547)","content_html":"Is there any possibility of fruitful dialogue with your mildly crazy, significantly intoxicated uncle at Thanksgiving dinner? We turn to Karl Popper's essay, The Myth of the Framework, to find out. Popper argues that it's wrong to assume that fruitful conversation is only possible among those who share an underlying framework of beliefs and assumptions. In fact, there's more to learn in difficult conversations which lack such a framework.
\n\nWe discuss
\n\nQuotes
\n\n\n\n\nI think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.
\n\n- Paul Graham, Keep your identity small
\n\nThe story of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit. Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past.
\n\nIt’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families.
\n\n- Jonathan Haidt, Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid
\n\nThe proponents of relativism put before us standards of mutual understanding which are unrealistically high. And when we fail to meet these standards, they claim that understanding is impossible.
\n\n
\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34The myth of the framework can be stated in one sentence, as follows. A rational and fruiful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.
\n\nAs I have formulated it here, the myth sounds like a sober statement, or like a sensible warning to which we ought to pay attention in order to further rational discussion. Some people even think that what I describe as a myth is a logical principle, or based on a logical principle. I think, on the contrary, that it is not only a false statement, but also a vicious statement which, if widely believed, must undermine the unity of mankind, and so must greatly increase the likelihood of violence and of war. This is the main reason why I want to combat it, and to refute it.
\n\n
\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34Although I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: _I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strif, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words. This is why my topic is of some practical significance._
\n\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34
\n\nMy thesis is that logic neither underpins the myth of the framework nor its denial, but that we can try to learn from each other. Whether we succeed will depend largely on our goodwill, and to some extent also on our historical situation, and on our problem situation.
\n\n- Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 38
\n
References
\n\nSocial media everywhere
\nFollow us on twitter (@Incrementspod, @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg), and on youtube.
Tell us about your shaken framework at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
\n\nImage: Cornelis Anthonisz (1505 – 1553) – The Fall of the Tower of Babel (1547)
","summary":"We discuss \"The Myth of the Framework,\" an essay by Karl Popper arguing against the thesis that fruitful conversation is impossible unless you share a common framework of beliefs and assumptions. ","date_published":"2022-05-30T12:45:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/fb63e5c1-91c1-4fd9-87e2-0b5d095949fe.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":46039806,"duration_in_seconds":2731}]},{"id":"21d2237b-a7e7-48a7-a37e-4f10ed93f7c1","title":"#39 - The Enigma of Reason","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/39","content_text":"The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book The Enigma of Reason by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies! \n\n*We discuss *\n\n\nReason as a social phenomenon \nThe two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others \nReason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories \nThe \"intellectualist\" vs the \"interactionist\" approach to reason \nNassim Taleb's notion of \"skin in the game\" \nThe consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche \nThe marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings \n\n\nQuotes: \n\n\nThe interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should. \nEoR (pg. 332)\n\nIn our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions. \nEoR (pg. 247)\n\n\nReferences\n\n\nDan Sperber's talk at the Santa Fe Institute\nImage credit: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama\n\n\nSocial media everywhere\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nSend a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book The Enigma of Reason by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies!
\n\n*We discuss *
\n\nQuotes:
\n\n\n\n\nThe interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should.
\n\n
\nEoR (pg. 332)In our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions.
\n
\nEoR (pg. 247)
References
\n\nSocial media everywhere
\n\nSend a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
","summary":"A discussion of The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. ","date_published":"2022-04-27T18:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/21d2237b-a7e7-48a7-a37e-4f10ed93f7c1.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":59999900,"duration_in_seconds":3719}]},{"id":"505f0920-f656-4b63-b205-de68e3826e51","title":"#38 (C&R Series, Ch. 2) - Wittgenstein vs Popper ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/38","content_text":"We cover the spicy showdown between the two of the world's most headstrong philosophers: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper. In a dingy Cambridge classroom Wittgenstein once threatened Popper with a fireplace poker. What led to the disagreement? In this episode, we continue with the Conjectures and Refutations series by analyzing Chapter 2: The Nature of Philosophical Problems And Their Roots In Science, where Popper outlines his agreements and disagreements with Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein. \n\nWe discuss: \n\n\nAre there philosophical problems? \nWhy are scientific disciplines divided as they are? \nHow much of philosophy is meaningless pseudo-babble? (Hint: Not none)\nWittgenstein's background and feud between him and Popper \nWittgenstein 1 and 2 (pre and post Tractatus)\nThe danger of philosophical inbreeding \nTwo of Popper's examples of philosophical problems:\n 1. Plato and the Crisis in Early Greek Atomism\n 2. Immanuel Kant's Problem of Knowledge.\nMusica universalis\nThe Problem of Change\nHow is knowledge possible?\n\n\nQuotes\n\n\nMy first thesis is that every philosophy, and especially every philosophical ‘school’, is liable to degenerate in such a way that its problems become practically indistinguishable from pseudo-problems, and its cant, accordingly, practically indistinguishable from meaningless babble. This, I shall try to show, is a consequence of philosophical inbreeding. The degeneration of philosophical schools in its turn is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been compelled to philosophize by problems which arise outside philosophy—in mathematics, for example, or in cosmology, or in politics, or in religion, or in social life. In other words my first thesis is this. Genuine philosophical problems are always rooted in urgent problems outside philosophy, and they die if these roots decay. \n\nC&R p.95\n\nHis question, we now know, or believe we know, should have been: ‘How are successful conjectures possible?’ And our answer, in the spirit of his Copernican Revolution, might, I suggest, be something like this: Because, as you said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes consciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas. \n\nC&R p.128\n\n\nIf you were to threaten us with a common household object, what would it be? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com, or on twitter: @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod. ","content_html":"We cover the spicy showdown between the two of the world's most headstrong philosophers: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper. In a dingy Cambridge classroom Wittgenstein once threatened Popper with a fireplace poker. What led to the disagreement? In this episode, we continue with the Conjectures and Refutations series by analyzing Chapter 2: The Nature of Philosophical Problems And Their Roots In Science, where Popper outlines his agreements and disagreements with Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein.
\n\nWe discuss:
\n\nQuotes
\n\n\n\n\nMy first thesis is that every philosophy, and especially every philosophical ‘school’, is liable to degenerate in such a way that its problems become practically indistinguishable from pseudo-problems, and its cant, accordingly, practically indistinguishable from meaningless babble. This, I shall try to show, is a consequence of philosophical inbreeding. The degeneration of philosophical schools in its turn is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been compelled to philosophize by problems which arise outside philosophy—in mathematics, for example, or in cosmology, or in politics, or in religion, or in social life. In other words my first thesis is this. Genuine philosophical problems are always rooted in urgent problems outside philosophy, and they die if these roots decay.
\n\nC&R p.95
\n\nHis question, we now know, or believe we know, should have been: ‘How are successful conjectures possible?’ And our answer, in the spirit of his Copernican Revolution, might, I suggest, be something like this: Because, as you said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes consciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas.
\n\nC&R p.128
\n
If you were to threaten us with a common household object, what would it be? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com, or on twitter: @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod.
","summary":"What made Wittgenstein so angry with Popper that he threatened him with a poker? We analyze Chapter 2 of C&R to find out. ","date_published":"2022-03-08T12:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/505f0920-f656-4b63-b205-de68e3826e51.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":61213883,"duration_in_seconds":3825}]},{"id":"13c4c535-99eb-4d21-90c0-1a2af43199af","title":"#37 - Montessori Education w/ Matt Bateman","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/37","content_text":"We're joined today by Matt Bateman, one of the founders of Higher Ground Education, to discuss the Montessori method of education and how it compares to other teaching methodologies. Get ready for tiny furniture, putting on your jacket upside down, and teaching your toddler to make eggs benedict. We discuss: \n\n\nMaria Montessori \nWhat is a Montessori education (besides tiny furniture)? \nHow Montessori classrooms differ from regular ones \nWhy long periods of interrupted problem solving is important for a child's development\nHow Montessori integrates with technology \nDrawbacks of traditional methods of testing and grading, and how they might be amended \nThe importance of cultivating a love of work \nHow Matt wants to reform high school education\n\n\nBio: \n\nMatt is one of the founders of Higher Ground Education, a worldwide Montessori network. He runs Montessorium, Higher Ground’s think tank. He holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania, where he focused on the philosophy of science. Make sure to follow him on twitter for some golden education nuggets \n\nReferences: \n\n\nMatt on the Where We Go Next (formerly New Liberals) podcast. \nMontessorium\nVocational Training for the Soul: Bringing the Meaning of Work to Schools\nMatt's History of Education Course\n\n\nSocial media everywhere\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\nSpecial Guest: Matt Bateman.","content_html":"We're joined today by Matt Bateman, one of the founders of Higher Ground Education, to discuss the Montessori method of education and how it compares to other teaching methodologies. Get ready for tiny furniture, putting on your jacket upside down, and teaching your toddler to make eggs benedict. We discuss:
\n\nBio:
\n\nMatt is one of the founders of Higher Ground Education, a worldwide Montessori network. He runs Montessorium, Higher Ground’s think tank. He holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania, where he focused on the philosophy of science. Make sure to follow him on twitter for some golden education nuggets
\n\nReferences:
\n\nSocial media everywhere
\n\nSpecial Guest: Matt Bateman.
","summary":"We're joined by Matt Bateman, the director of the Montessori think tank Montessorium, to talk all things education. \r\n","date_published":"2022-02-16T11:45:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/13c4c535-99eb-4d21-90c0-1a2af43199af.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":78505272,"duration_in_seconds":4906}]},{"id":"b062dc7c-cdda-4356-9dc3-6fd881a78d25","title":"#36 - Analyzing Effective Altruism as a Social Movement","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/36","content_text":"In what is hopefully the last installment of Vaden and Ben debate Effective Altruism, we ask if EA lies on the cultishness (yes, that's a word) spectrum. We discuss: \n\n\nThe potential pitfall of having goodness as a core value\nAspects of Effective Altruism (EA) that put it on the cultishness spectrum\nDoes EA focus on good over truth?\nBen's experience with EA\nMaking criticism a core value \nHow does one resist the allure of groupthink? \nHow to (mis)behave at parties \nHow would one create a movement which doesn't succumb to cult-like dynamics?\nWeird ideas as junk food \n\n\nError Correction intro segment\n\n\nScott Alexander pointing out that Ivermectin works indirectly via:\n\n\nThere’s a reason the most impressive ivermectin studies came from parts of the world where worms are prevalent, he says. Parasites suppress the immune system, making it more difficult for the human body to fight off viruses. Thus, getting rid of worm infections makes it easier for COVID-19 patients to bounce back from the virus.\n\nSee full post below and summary news article here \n\n\nCzechoslovakia was not a part of the USSR\n @lukeconibear pointing out some climate models and data are publicly available. See for instance\n\n\nGoddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) Chem model: https://github.com/geoschem/geos-chem\nCommunity Earth System Model (CESM): https://github.com/ESCOMP/CESM\nEnergy Exascale Earth System model: https://github.com/E3SM-Project/E3SM\n\n@PRyan pointing out we were confused about the difference between economic growth, division of labour, and free trade \n\n\nJoin the movement at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. \n\nFollow us on twitter at @IncrementsPod and on Youtube. ","content_html":"In what is hopefully the last installment of Vaden and Ben debate Effective Altruism, we ask if EA lies on the cultishness (yes, that's a word) spectrum. We discuss:
\n\nError Correction intro segment
\n\nThere’s a reason the most impressive ivermectin studies came from parts of the world where worms are prevalent, he says. Parasites suppress the immune system, making it more difficult for the human body to fight off viruses. Thus, getting rid of worm infections makes it easier for COVID-19 patients to bounce back from the virus.
\n\nSee full post below and summary news article here
\n\nJoin the movement at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
\n\nFollow us on twitter at @IncrementsPod and on Youtube.
","summary":"Vaden and Ben debate Effective Altruism and provocatively ask \"Is EA a cult?\" and come up with a resounding... Kinda. Maybe. It's hard to say. ","date_published":"2022-01-26T20:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/b062dc7c-cdda-4356-9dc3-6fd881a78d25.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":55645978,"duration_in_seconds":3375}]},{"id":"65a9f039-b895-42a8-9671-9e5670fda797","title":"#35 - Climate Change III: Fossil Fuels","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/35","content_text":"Come experience the thrill of the shill as we discuss the somewhat-controversial natural resource called \"fossil fuels\". In this episode, we drill deep into opto-pessimist Vaclav Smil's excellent book Oil: A Beginner's Guide, in what is possibly our only episode to feature heterodox Russian-Ukrainian science, subterranean sound waves, and that goop lady - what's her name? It's unbelievable, right?\n\nWe discuss:\n\n\nThe science behind fossil fuels: How they're made, found, processed, and used \nEnergy transitions and the shale gas revolution \nGlobal oil dependence and human rights \nThe environmental costs of fossil fuels\nWill we reach Peak Oil? \nWhy natural resources aren't milkshakes \nThe future of fossil fuels\n\n\n(Note to Big Oil: Please send shilling fees to incrementspodcast@gmail.com)\n\nReferences\n\n\nVaclav Smil: We Must Leave Growth Behind \nVaclav Smil: Growth must end. Our economist friends don’t seem to realise that\nOil: A Beginner's Guide\nAbiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia\n\n\nSocial media everywhere\n\n\nFollow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani\nCheck us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ\nCome join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link\n\n\nQuotes\n\nModern life now begins and ends amidst the plethora of plastics whose synthesis began with feedstocks derived from oil - because hospitals teem with them. Surgical gloves, flexible tubing, catheters, IV containers, sterile packaging, trays, basins, bed pans and rails, thermal blankets and lab ware: naturally, you are not aware of these surroundings when a few hours or a few days old, but most of us will become all too painfully aware of them six, seven or eight decades later. And that recital was limited only to common hospital items made of polyvinylchloride; countless other items fashioned from a huge variety of plastics are in our cars, aeroplanes, trains, homes, offices and factories. \n\n\nOil: A Beginner's Guide, p.10\n\n\nA free market has not been one of the hallmarks of the 150 years of oil’s commercial history. The oil business has seen repeated efforts to fix product prices by controlling either the level of crude oil extraction or by dominating its transportation and processing, or by monopolizing all of these aspects. The first infamous, and successful, attempt to do so was the establishment of Standard Oil in Cleveland in 1870. The Rockefeller brothers (John D. and William) and their partners used secretive acquisitions and deals with railroad companies to gain the control of oil markets first in Cleveland, then in the Northeast, and eventually throughout the US. By 1904 what was now known as the Standard Oil Trust controlled just over 90% of the country’s crude oil production and 85% of all sales.\n\n\nOil: A Beginner's Guide, p.32\n\n\nPhotochemical smog was first observed in Los Angeles in the 1940s and its origins were soon traced primarily to automotive emissions. As car use progressed around the world al] major urban areas began to experience seasonal (Toronto, Paris) or near-permanent (Bangkok, Cairo) levels of smog, whose effects range from impaired health (eye irritation, lung problems) to damage to materials, crops and coniferous trees. A recent epidemiological study in California also demonstrated that the lung function of children living within 500m of a freeway was seriously impaired and that this adverse effect (independent of overall regional air quality) could result in significant lung capacity deficits later in life. Extreme smog levels now experienced in Beijing, New Delhi and other major Chinese and Indian cities arise from the combination of automotive traffic and large-scale combustion of coal in electricity-generating plants and are made worse by periodic temperature inversions that limit the depth of the mixing layer and keep the pollutants near the ground.\n\n\nOil: A Beginner's Guide, p.50\n","content_html":"Come experience the thrill of the shill as we discuss the somewhat-controversial natural resource called "fossil fuels". In this episode, we drill deep into opto-pessimist Vaclav Smil's excellent book Oil: A Beginner's Guide, in what is possibly our only episode to feature heterodox Russian-Ukrainian science, subterranean sound waves, and that goop lady - what's her name? It's unbelievable, right?
\n\nWe discuss:
\n\n(Note to Big Oil: Please send shilling fees to incrementspodcast@gmail.com)
\n\nReferences
\n\nSocial media everywhere
\n\nQuotes
\n\nModern life now begins and ends amidst the plethora of plastics whose synthesis began with feedstocks derived from oil - because hospitals teem with them. Surgical gloves, flexible tubing, catheters, IV containers, sterile packaging, trays, basins, bed pans and rails, thermal blankets and lab ware: naturally, you are not aware of these surroundings when a few hours or a few days old, but most of us will become all too painfully aware of them six, seven or eight decades later. And that recital was limited only to common hospital items made of polyvinylchloride; countless other items fashioned from a huge variety of plastics are in our cars, aeroplanes, trains, homes, offices and factories.
\n\nA free market has not been one of the hallmarks of the 150 years of oil’s commercial history. The oil business has seen repeated efforts to fix product prices by controlling either the level of crude oil extraction or by dominating its transportation and processing, or by monopolizing all of these aspects. The first infamous, and successful, attempt to do so was the establishment of Standard Oil in Cleveland in 1870. The Rockefeller brothers (John D. and William) and their partners used secretive acquisitions and deals with railroad companies to gain the control of oil markets first in Cleveland, then in the Northeast, and eventually throughout the US. By 1904 what was now known as the Standard Oil Trust controlled just over 90% of the country’s crude oil production and 85% of all sales.
\n\nPhotochemical smog was first observed in Los Angeles in the 1940s and its origins were soon traced primarily to automotive emissions. As car use progressed around the world al] major urban areas began to experience seasonal (Toronto, Paris) or near-permanent (Bangkok, Cairo) levels of smog, whose effects range from impaired health (eye irritation, lung problems) to damage to materials, crops and coniferous trees. A recent epidemiological study in California also demonstrated that the lung function of children living within 500m of a freeway was seriously impaired and that this adverse effect (independent of overall regional air quality) could result in significant lung capacity deficits later in life. Extreme smog levels now experienced in Beijing, New Delhi and other major Chinese and Indian cities arise from the combination of automotive traffic and large-scale combustion of coal in electricity-generating plants and are made worse by periodic temperature inversions that limit the depth of the mixing layer and keep the pollutants near the ground.
\n\nIn this episode Ben convinces Vaden to become a degrowther. We plan how to live out the rest of our lives on an organic tomato farm in Canada in December, sewing our own clothes and waxing our own candles. Step away from the thermostat Jimmy.
\n\nWe discuss:
\n\nAnd we respond to some of your criticism of the previous episode, including:
\n\nSocial media everywhere
\n\nReferences
\n\nQuotes
\n\nOn Degrowth
\n\nThis would be a way of life based on modest material and energy needs but nevertheless rich in other dimensions – a life of frugal abundance. It is about creating an economy based on sufficiency, knowing how much is enough to live well, and discovering that enough is plenty.
\n\nIn a degrowth society we would aspire to localise our economies as far and as appropriately as possible. This would assist with reducing carbon-intensive global trade, while also building resilience in the face of an uncertain and turbulent future.
\n\nWherever possible, we would grow our own organic food, water our gardens with water tanks, and turn our neighbourhoods into edible landscapes as the Cubans have done in Havana. As my friend Adam Grubb so delightfully declares, we should “eat the suburbs”, while supplementing urban agriculture with food from local farmers’ markets.
\n\n- Samuel Alexander, Life in a 'degrowth' economy, and why you might actually enjoy it
\n\nIt would be nice to hear it straight for once. Global warming is real, it’s here, and it’s mind-bogglingly dangerous. How bad it gets—literally, the degree—depends on how quickly the most profligate countries rein in their emissions. Averting catastrophe will thus require places like the United States and Canada to make drastic cutbacks, bringing their consumption more closely in line with the planetary average. Such cuts can be made more or less fairly, and the richest really ought to pay the most, but the crucial thing is that they are made. Because, above all, stopping climate change means giving up on growth. That will be hard. Not only will our standards of living almost certainly drop, but it’s likely that the very quality of our society—equality, safety, and trust—will decline, too. That’s not something to be giddy about, but it’s still a price that those of us living in affluent countries should prepare to pay. Because however difficult it is to slow down, flooding Bangladesh cannot be an option. In other words, we can and should act. It’s just going to hurt.
\n\n- Daniel Immerwahr, Growth vs the Climate
\n\nOn Perennial Apocalypticism
\n\nMy offices were so cold I couldn't concentrate, and my staff were typing with gloves on. I pleaded with Jimmy to set the thermostats at 68 degrees, but it didn't do any good.
\n- Paul Sabin, quoting Rosalynn Carter in The Bet
Mostafa K. Tolba, executive director of the United Nations environmental program, told delegates that if the nations of the world continued their present policies, they would face by the turn of the century ''an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.''
\n- New York Times, 1982
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees", threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."
\n- AP News, 1989
On Environmental Conservation
\n\nIt’s not the case that humankind has failed to conserve habitat. By 2019, an area of Earth larger than the whole of Africa was protected, an area that is equivalent to 15 percent of Earth’s land surface. The number of designated protected areas in the world has grown from 9,214 in 1962 to 102,102 in 2003 to 244,869 in 2020.
\n\n- Michael Shellenburger, Apocalypse Never, p.75
\n\nThanks to habitat protection and targeted conservation efforts, many beloved species have been pulled from the brink of extinction, including albatrosses, condors, manatees, oryxes, pandas, rhinoceroses, Tasmanian devils, and tigers; according to the ecologist Stuart Pimm, the overall rate of extinctions has been reduced by 75 percent.
\n\n- Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now, p.160
\n\nOn Environmental Optimism
\n\nFollowing China’s ban on ivory last year, 90% of Chinese support it, ivory demand has dropped by almost half, and poaching rates are falling in places like Kenya. WWF
The population of wild tigers in Nepal was found to have nearly doubled in the last nine years, thanks to efforts by conservationists and increased funding for protected areas. Independent
Deforestation in Indonesia fell by 60%, as a result of a ban on clearing peatlands, new educational campaigns and better law enforcement. Ecowatch
See the remaining 294 good news stories here, here, and here
\n\nSet your thermostats to 68, put those gloves on, and send an email over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"Round two of climate change! We talk about the degrowth movement, why economic growth is good for wellbeing, and respond to some of the criticism we received in the previous episode. ","date_published":"2021-11-09T21:30:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/3ce49b47-4808-497b-8e42-da038bf646bc.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":39642592,"duration_in_seconds":3303}]},{"id":"0b609559-ecf5-4343-abcf-8345b031e016","title":"#33 (C&R Series, Ch. 3) - Instrumentalism and Essentialism","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/33","content_text":"Galileo vs the church - whose side are you on? Today we discuss Chapter 3 of Conjectures and Refutations, Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge. This is a juicy one, as Popper manages to simultaneously attack both philosophers and physicists, as he takes on instrumentalism and essentialism, two alternatives to his 'conjecture and refutation' approach to knowledge. We discuss: \n\n\nThe conflict between Galileo and the church \nWhat is instrumentalism, and how did it become popular? \nHow instrumentalism is still in vogue in many physics departments\nThe Problem of Universals\nThe essentialist approach to science \nStars, air, cells, and lightning \n\"What is\" vs \"How does\" questions \nThe relationship between essentialism and language, and its influence on politics. \nViewing words as instruments\n\n\nSee More:\n\n\nInstrumentalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism\nEssentialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism\nThe problem of universals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals\n\n\nQuotes:\nFew if any of the physicists who have now accepted the instrumentalist view of Cardinal Bellarmino and Bishop Berkeley realize that they have accepted a philosophical theory. Nor do they realize that they have broken with the Galilean tradition. On the contrary, most of them think that they have kept clear of philosophy; and most of them no longer care anyway. What they now care about, as physicists, is (a) mastery of the mathematical formalism, i.e. of the instrument, and (b) its applications; and they care for nothing else.\n-- C&R, Page 134 \n\nThus my criticism of essentialism does not aim at establishing the non-existence of essences; it merely aims at showing the obscurantist character of the role played by the idea of essences in the Galilean philosophy of science (down to Maxwell, who was inclined to believe in them but whose work destroyed this belief). In other words my criticism tries to show that, whether essences exist or not, the belief in them does not help us in any way and indeed is likely to hamper us; so that there is no reason why the scientist should assume their existence. \n-- C&R, Page 141. \n\nBut they are more than this, as can be seen from the fact that we submit them to severe tests by trying to deduce from them some of the regularities of the known world of common experience i.e. by trying to explain these regularities. And these attempts to explain the known by the unknown (as I have described them elsewhere) have immeasurably extended the realm of the known. They have added to the facts of our everyday world the invisible air, the antipodes, the circulation of the blood, the worlds of the telescope and the microscope, of electricity, and of tracer atoms showing us in detail the movements of matter within living bodies. All these things are far from being mere instruments: they are witness to the intellectual conquest of our world by our minds.\n\nBut there is another way of looking at these matters. For some, science is still nothing but glorified plumbing, glorified gadgetmaking—‘mechanics’; very useful, but a danger to true culture, threatening us with the domination of the near-illiterate (of Shakespeare’s ‘mechanicals’). It should never be mentioned in the same breath as literature or the arts or philosophy. Its professed discoveries are mere mechanical inventions, its theories are instruments—gadgets again, or perhaps super-gadgets. It cannot and does not reveal to us new worlds behind our everyday world of appearance; for the physical world is just surface: it has no depth. The world is just what it appears to be. Only the scientific theories are not what they appear to be. A scientific theory neither explains nor describes the world; it is nothing but an instrument.\n-- C&R, Page 137-8. \n\nWhat's the essential nature of this podcast? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com ","content_html":"Galileo vs the church - whose side are you on? Today we discuss Chapter 3 of Conjectures and Refutations, Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge. This is a juicy one, as Popper manages to simultaneously attack both philosophers and physicists, as he takes on instrumentalism and essentialism, two alternatives to his 'conjecture and refutation' approach to knowledge. We discuss:
\n\nSee More:
\n\nQuotes:
\nFew if any of the physicists who have now accepted the instrumentalist view of Cardinal Bellarmino and Bishop Berkeley realize that they have accepted a philosophical theory. Nor do they realize that they have broken with the Galilean tradition. On the contrary, most of them think that they have kept clear of philosophy; and most of them no longer care anyway. What they now care about, as physicists, is (a) mastery of the mathematical formalism, i.e. of the instrument, and (b) its applications; and they care for nothing else.
\n-- C&R, Page 134
Thus my criticism of essentialism does not aim at establishing the non-existence of essences; it merely aims at showing the obscurantist character of the role played by the idea of essences in the Galilean philosophy of science (down to Maxwell, who was inclined to believe in them but whose work destroyed this belief). In other words my criticism tries to show that, whether essences exist or not, the belief in them does not help us in any way and indeed is likely to hamper us; so that there is no reason why the scientist should assume their existence.
\n-- C&R, Page 141.
But they are more than this, as can be seen from the fact that we submit them to severe tests by trying to deduce from them some of the regularities of the known world of common experience i.e. by trying to explain these regularities. And these attempts to explain the known by the unknown (as I have described them elsewhere) have immeasurably extended the realm of the known. They have added to the facts of our everyday world the invisible air, the antipodes, the circulation of the blood, the worlds of the telescope and the microscope, of electricity, and of tracer atoms showing us in detail the movements of matter within living bodies. All these things are far from being mere instruments: they are witness to the intellectual conquest of our world by our minds.
\n\nBut there is another way of looking at these matters. For some, science is still nothing but glorified plumbing, glorified gadgetmaking—‘mechanics’; very useful, but a danger to true culture, threatening us with the domination of the near-illiterate (of Shakespeare’s ‘mechanicals’). It should never be mentioned in the same breath as literature or the arts or philosophy. Its professed discoveries are mere mechanical inventions, its theories are instruments—gadgets again, or perhaps super-gadgets. It cannot and does not reveal to us new worlds behind our everyday world of appearance; for the physical world is just surface: it has no depth. The world is just what it appears to be. Only the scientific theories are not what they appear to be. A scientific theory neither explains nor describes the world; it is nothing but an instrument.
\n-- C&R, Page 137-8.
What's the essential nature of this podcast? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"We discuss Popper's delicious criticism of two dominant approaches to knowledge in physics and philosophy departments: instrumentalism and essentialism. \r\n","date_published":"2021-10-25T02:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/0b609559-ecf5-4343-abcf-8345b031e016.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":38566346,"duration_in_seconds":2410}]},{"id":"f0edc4e0-fc1b-4f77-b405-564f571e6444","title":"#32 - Climate Change I: Initial Thought-Crimes","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/32","content_text":"After the immensely positive response to our previous episode on the Weinstein brothers - thanks @robertwiblin! - we thought we would keep giving the people what they want, and what they want is a long discussion on climate change. Specifically, the subject for today is: \"The State of the Climate Debate\". We touch on: \n\n\nThe near perfect partisan split on climate change\nWill there be a climate apocalypse?\nThe promise of nuclear energy as a solution\nThe limitations of renewables\nEnergy portfolios \nThe rebound effect\nDegrowth economics\nActivist tactics and fear mongering\nWhether The Environment has become A Deity in environmentalist circles\n\n\nWe expect very little pushback on this episode. \n\nReferences\n\n\nApocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. \nGreta Thunberg encouraging you to panic\nThunberg's double crossing of the Atlantic in sailboat\nThe Rebound Effect\n\n\nQuotes\n\nBut real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users.\n\n-- Naomi Klein in the Nation\n\nEven if nuclear power were clean, safe, economic, assured of ample fuel, and socially benign, it would still be unattractive because of the political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into.\n\n-- Amory Lovins, quoted from Forbes piece by Michael Shellenberger\n\nSend us panic-induced email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"After the immensely positive response to our previous episode on the Weinstein brothers - thanks @robertwiblin! - we thought we would keep giving the people what they want, and what they want is a long discussion on climate change. Specifically, the subject for today is: "The State of the Climate Debate". We touch on:
\n\nWe expect very little pushback on this episode.
\n\nReferences
\n\nQuotes
\n\nBut real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users.
\n\n\n\nEven if nuclear power were clean, safe, economic, assured of ample fuel, and socially benign, it would still be unattractive because of the political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into.
\n\n-- Amory Lovins, quoted from Forbes piece by Michael Shellenberger
\n\nSend us panic-induced email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
","summary":"We dip our toes into the heated (heating?) waters of the climate debate. Sorry Greta. ","date_published":"2021-10-05T22:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/f0edc4e0-fc1b-4f77-b405-564f571e6444.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":48971440,"duration_in_seconds":3060}]},{"id":"9a7fbc7d-82e1-4c28-88d8-29bc61cd55db","title":"#31 - The Fall of the Weinstein Republic","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/31","content_text":"Today we take your twitter questions before doing a deep dive into the Weinstein fiasco (Bret and Eric, not Harvey.) If you haven't heard of the Weinstein's before, then we suggest you run away before we drag you down into a rabbit hole filled with acronyms, anti-vaxxers, and theories of ... everything? anything? literally anything at all?\n\nTopics we touch:\n\n\nWe take your twitter questions!\n\n\nFilos with a weird one: I have a weird one that could be fun. It seems to me that the idea that we could upload our minds to a computer is nonsense. I agree with Kastrup that what we would upload is a description of our minds and a description of something is not that something. And it seems this desire to immortality is the nerd's reinvention of God via AGI, and heaven via uploading a mind to a silicon substrate. Where do you fall in this mind uploading fantasy? possible? Religious impulse? Reasonable?\nDan would like us to talk about: The pervasive skepticism that seems to run through much the Popperian and Crit Rat communities regarding nonhuman animals’ capacity to suffer, particularly factory farmed animals.\nKarl is interested in: I'm interested in the meta-question of why that issue seems to split the community in two. Why hasn't one view become the dogmatic truth yet as it seems to have in most other communities?\n\nWTF is up with Bret and Eric Weinstein\nThe allure of reflexive contrarianism \nThe (horrible! awful! stop it!) tendency of academics to use convoluted language to impress their non-peers\nThe notion of \"secular gurus\" and what distinguishes a secular guru from a person with a large platform\nAnd the special responsibility of researchers to communicate clearly. \n\n\nReferences:\n\nAnimal Suffering\n\n\nBruce Nielson's blog post on whether animals experience qualia, and his second on animal emotions. We mostly discuss the first. \n\n\nWeinsteins \n\n\nEric Weinstein's excellent first appearance on Sam Harris's podcast \nGeometric Unity website\nGeometric Unity pdf\nSee Timothy Nguyen on the Wright Show and Decoding the Gurus for an excellent overview of the whole scandal\n... and check out Timothy Nguyen on Eigenbros for a deep dive into the technical nitty-gritty\nNorbert Blum's original paper purporting to show that P is not equal to NP. \nA nice answer on Stack Exchange detailing why Blum's proof was wrong. \n\n\nQuotes: \n\n\nEvery intellectual has a very special responsibility. He has the privilege and the opportunity of studying. In return, he owes it to his fellow men (or 'to society') to represent the results of his study as simply, clearly and modestly as he can. The worst thing that intellectuals can do - the cardinal sin - is to try to set themselves up as great prophets vis-à-vis their fellow men and to impress them with puzzling philosophies. Anyone who cannot speak simply and clearly should say nothing and continue to work until he can do so.\nKarl Popper, Against Big Words\n\n\nWhat would you say to your half million twitter followers who want to know your opinion on everything? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.","content_html":"Today we take your twitter questions before doing a deep dive into the Weinstein fiasco (Bret and Eric, not Harvey.) If you haven't heard of the Weinstein's before, then we suggest you run away before we drag you down into a rabbit hole filled with acronyms, anti-vaxxers, and theories of ... everything? anything? literally anything at all?
\n\nTopics we touch:
\n\nReferences:
\n\nAnimal Suffering
\n\nWeinsteins
\n\nQuotes:
\n\n\n\n\nEvery intellectual has a very special responsibility. He has the privilege and the opportunity of studying. In return, he owes it to his fellow men (or 'to society') to represent the results of his study as simply, clearly and modestly as he can. The worst thing that intellectuals can do - the cardinal sin - is to try to set themselves up as great prophets vis-à-vis their fellow men and to impress them with puzzling philosophies. Anyone who cannot speak simply and clearly should say nothing and continue to work until he can do so.
\n
\nKarl Popper, Against Big Words
What would you say to your half million twitter followers who want to know your opinion on everything? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
","summary":"We had a semi-serious conversation about environmentalism in store for you, but we got trapped by the WIN (Weinsteinian institutional narrative). Like a black hole, the epic meltdown of Weinstein's and the confrontation with Tim Nguyen -- apparently the only adult in the room -- pulled us in, and we couldn't avoid talking about it. ","date_published":"2021-09-14T10:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/9a7fbc7d-82e1-4c28-88d8-29bc61cd55db.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":54507156,"duration_in_seconds":3291}]},{"id":"d6a3bee2-95f2-4d67-bdfc-67519b8b4605","title":"#30 - Let's all just have a good cry (w/ Christofer Lövgren) ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/30","content_text":"Christofer Lövgren, host of the marvelous Do Explain podcast and world's most famous Swede (second perhaps only to that Alfred fellow with the peace prize), joins us on the pod to teach us how podcasting is really done. And how to pronounce his last name. When we're not all sobbing, we touch on: \n\n\nDoes Deutschian epistemology give us with Free Will? \nShould one identify as a critical rationalist? \nDoes membership in a community, or identification with a label, affect our ability to give and receive criticism? \nHow has reading Deutsch and Popper changed our lives? \nCan trauma get stored in the body? \nHow often do we cry? \n\n\nCheck out Chris on twitter (@ReachChristofer) and Do Subscribe to Do Explain.\n\nReferences:\n\n\nThe Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch\nBehave by Robert Sapolsky \nLecture on Depression by Sapolsky\nDo Explain episode with Chris and Matt Goldenberg on emotional processing\nTemple Grandin discussing the \"black-hat\" horse. \nBody Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk\nSir Peter Brian Medawar whom Richard Dawkins referred to as 'the wittiest of all scientific writers'. \n\n\nBlow your nose, dry your eyes, and send us a tear-stained email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Special Guest: Christofer Lövgren.","content_html":"Christofer Lövgren, host of the marvelous Do Explain podcast and world's most famous Swede (second perhaps only to that Alfred fellow with the peace prize), joins us on the pod to teach us how podcasting is really done. And how to pronounce his last name. When we're not all sobbing, we touch on:
\n\nCheck out Chris on twitter (@ReachChristofer) and Do Subscribe to Do Explain.
\n\nReferences:
\n\nBlow your nose, dry your eyes, and send us a tear-stained email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Special Guest: Christofer Lövgren.
","summary":"Christofer Lövgren joins us for a wide ranging discussion on community, criticism, and crying.","date_published":"2021-08-30T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/d6a3bee2-95f2-4d67-bdfc-67519b8b4605.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":83367872,"duration_in_seconds":5954}]},{"id":"3cd18700-daac-4eb2-b515-e8022a526436","title":"#29 - Some Scattered Thoughts on Superforecasting","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/29","content_text":"We're back! Apologies for the delay, but Vaden got married and Ben was summoned to be an astronaut on the next billionaire's vacation to Venus. This week we're talking about how to forecast the future (with this one simple and easy trick! Astrologers hate them!). Specifically, we're diving into Philip Tetlock's work on Superforecasting. \n\nSo what's the deal? Is it possible to \"harness the wisdom of the crowd to forecast world events\"? Or is the whole thing just a result of sloppy statistics? We believe the latter is likely to be true with probability 64.9% - no, wait, 66.1%. \n\nIntro segment:\n\n\"The Sentience Debate\": The moral value of shrimps, insects, and oysters\n\nRelevant timestamps:\n\n\n10:05: \"Even if there's only a one in one hundred chance, or one in one thousand chance, that insects are sentient given current information, and if we're killing trillions or quadrillions of insects in ways that are preventable or avoidable or that we can in various ways mitigate that harm... then we should consider that possibility.\"\n25:47: \"If you're all going to work on pain in invertebrates, I pity you in many respects... In my previous work, I was used to running experiments and getting a clear answer, and I could say what these animals do and what they don't do. But when I started to think about what they might be feeling, you meet this frustration, that after maybe about 15 years of research, if someone asks me do they feel pain, my answer is 'maybe'... a strong 'maybe'... you cannot discount the possibility.\"\n46:47: \"It is not 100% clear to me that plants are non sentient. I do think that animals including insects are much more likely to be sentient than plants are, but I would not have a credence of zero that plants are sentient.\"\n1:01:59: \"So the hard problem I would like to ask the panel is: If you were to compare the moral weight of one ant to the moral weight of one human, what ratio would you put? How much more is a human worth than an ant? 100:1? 1000:1? 10:1? Or maybe 1:1? ... Let's start with Jamie.\"\n\n\nMain References:\n\n\nSuperforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction - Wikipedia\nHow Policymakers Can Improve Crisis Planning\nThe Good Judgment Project - Wikipedia\nExpert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?: Tetlock, Philip E.: 9780691128719: Books - Amazon.ca\n\n\nAdditional references mentioned in the episode:\n\n\nThe Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives\nThe Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable - Wikipedia\nBook Review: Superforecasting | Slate Star Codex\nPandemic Uncovers the Limitations of Superforecasting – We Are Not Saved\nMy Final Case Against Superforecasting (with criticisms considered, objections noted, and assumptions buttressed) – We Are Not Saved\n\n\nUse your Good Judgement and send us email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"We're back! Apologies for the delay, but Vaden got married and Ben was summoned to be an astronaut on the next billionaire's vacation to Venus. This week we're talking about how to forecast the future (with this one simple and easy trick! Astrologers hate them!). Specifically, we're diving into Philip Tetlock's work on Superforecasting.
\n\nSo what's the deal? Is it possible to "harness the wisdom of the crowd to forecast world events"? Or is the whole thing just a result of sloppy statistics? We believe the latter is likely to be true with probability 64.9% - no, wait, 66.1%.
\n\nIntro segment:
\n\n"The Sentience Debate": The moral value of shrimps, insects, and oysters
\n\nRelevant timestamps:
\n\nMain References:
\n\nAdditional references mentioned in the episode:
\n\nUse your Good Judgement and send us email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
","summary":"We discuss Philip Tetlock's work on Superforecasting.","date_published":"2021-08-16T14:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/3cd18700-daac-4eb2-b515-e8022a526436.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":33224972,"duration_in_seconds":2720}]},{"id":"99e52867-1669-4c24-ad72-bcedab880c07","title":"#28 (C&R Series, Ch. 9) - Why is Logic Applicable to Reality?","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/28","content_text":"Why do logic and mathematics work so well in the world? Why do they seem to describe reality? Why do they they enable us to design circuit boards, build airplanes, and listen remotely to handsome and charming podcast hosts who rarely go off topic? \n\nTo answer these questions, we dive into Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?. \n\nBut before we get to that, we touch on some of the good stuff: evolutionary psychology, cunnilingus, and why Robin is better than Batman. \n\nReferences: \n\n\nConjectures and Refutations, Chapter 9: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality? https://books.google.ca/books?id=iXp9AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false\nBen on Do Explain with Christofer Lovgren\nDebate between Spelke and Pinker\nVery Bad Wizards discussing the paper \"Oral Sex as Infidelity detection\" (episode, paper). \nSturgeon's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law#:~:text=Sturgeon%27s%20law%20(or%20Sturgeon%27s%20revelation,science%20fiction%20author%20and%20critic.\nEugene Wigner's paper The Unreasonable Effective of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. \nStoic versus Aristotelian logic. Here is a nice discussion of the differences between the two. \nRob Wiblin's tweet that all probabilities are subjective probabilities (in an otherwise very good thread). \nBuhler's three functions of language: (i) Expressive, (ii) Signaling, and (iii) Descriptive. See the \"Organon Model\". \nPiece on Brett Weinstein and Ivermectin.\n\n\nQuotes:\n\n“The indescribable world I have in mind is, of course, the world I have ‘in my mind’—the world which most psychologists (except the behaviourists) attempt to describe, somewhat unsuccessfully, with the help of what is nothing but a host of metaphors taken from the languages of physics, of biology, and of social life.” \n\n“In so far as a calculus is applied to reality, it loses the character of a logical calculus and becomes a descriptive theory which may be empirically refutable; and in so far as it is treated as irrefutable, i.e. as a system of logically true formulae, rather than a descriptive scientific theory, it is not applied to reality.” \n\nSend us the most bizarre use of evolutionary psychology you've seen at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"Why do logic and mathematics work so well in the world? Why do they seem to describe reality? Why do they they enable us to design circuit boards, build airplanes, and listen remotely to handsome and charming podcast hosts who rarely go off topic?
\n\nTo answer these questions, we dive into Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?.
\n\nBut before we get to that, we touch on some of the good stuff: evolutionary psychology, cunnilingus, and why Robin is better than Batman.
\n\nReferences:
\n\nQuotes:
\n\n“The indescribable world I have in mind is, of course, the world I have ‘in my mind’—the world which most psychologists (except the behaviourists) attempt to describe, somewhat unsuccessfully, with the help of what is nothing but a host of metaphors taken from the languages of physics, of biology, and of social life.”
\n\n“In so far as a calculus is applied to reality, it loses the character of a logical calculus and becomes a descriptive theory which may be empirically refutable; and in so far as it is treated as irrefutable, i.e. as a system of logically true formulae, rather than a descriptive scientific theory, it is not applied to reality.”
\n\nSend us the most bizarre use of evolutionary psychology you've seen at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
","summary":"We discuss Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?","date_published":"2021-07-19T01:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/99e52867-1669-4c24-ad72-bcedab880c07.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":44221753,"duration_in_seconds":3685}]},{"id":"1f4cf1ee-82ab-4ca0-b6b3-aa627887ae7d","title":"#27 - A Conversation with Marianne","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/27","content_text":"There are many overused internet keywords that could be associated with this conversation, but none of them quite seem right. So here's a poem instead:\n\nThe Ogre does what ogres can,\nDeeds quite impossible for Man,\nBut one prize is beyond his reach:\nThe Ogre cannot master speech.\n\nAbout a subjugated plain,\nAmong its desperate and slain,\nThe Ogre stalks with hands on hips,\nWhile drivel gushes from his lips\n\n- August 1968, W H Auden\n\nSend us an email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com\n\nImage from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-august-1968-red-square-protest-and-its-legacy\n\nAudio updated: 05/07/2021","content_html":"There are many overused internet keywords that could be associated with this conversation, but none of them quite seem right. So here's a poem instead:
\n\nThe Ogre does what ogres can,
\nDeeds quite impossible for Man,
\nBut one prize is beyond his reach:
\nThe Ogre cannot master speech.
About a subjugated plain,
\nAmong its desperate and slain,
\nThe Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
\nWhile drivel gushes from his lips
Send us an email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
\n\nImage from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-august-1968-red-square-protest-and-its-legacy
\n\nAudio updated: 05/07/2021
","summary":"Marianne recounts her summer. That's all we'll say for now.","date_published":"2021-06-28T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/1f4cf1ee-82ab-4ca0-b6b3-aa627887ae7d.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":87467049,"duration_in_seconds":7288}]},{"id":"ff921187-d5c1-4185-915c-0525e9c17b89","title":"#26 - Moral Philosophy Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/26","content_text":"In a rare turn of events, it just so happened that one or perhaps both of your charming co-hosts spewed a bit of nonsense about Derek Parfit in a previous episode, and we had to bring in a heavy hitter to sort us out. Today we're joined by friend of the podcast Mr. Dan Hageman, immuno-oncologist by day and aspiring ethicist by night, who gently takes us to task for misunderstanding Parfit and the role of ethical theorizing, and for ignoring the suffering of pigeons. The critiques land, and convince Vaden that we should dedicate our resources towards providing safe and affordable contraception for Apex predators.\n\nWe cover all sorts of ground in this episode, including: \n\n\nMistakes we made in our thought experiments episode\nIs it possible to over-theorize? \nWild animal suffering\nDon't fish eat other fish?!\nFeline family planning\nAntinatalism\nMoral Cluelessness\nPopulation ethics and the repugnant conclusion (Ha!) \nSimilarities and differences between theoretical physics and theoretical philosophy\n\n\nReferences:\n\n\nOrganization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS)\nLukas Gloor's post on population ethics\nWild Animal Initiative\nPigeon Contraception (yes, really)\nHilary Greaves on moral cluelessness (talk+transcript, paper)\nBetter Never to Have Been by David Benatar. \n\n\nDan Hageman is a biomed engineer who works in immuno-oncology, but in his not-so-free time strives to sell himself as an amateur philosopher and aspiring 'Effective Altruist'. He spends much of this time trying to keep up with impactful charities focused on the reduction and/or prevention of extreme suffering, and in 2020 helped co-found a hopefully burgeoning side project called ‘Match for More’. He would like to note that the IPAs are to blame for any and all errors/misapprehensions made during his lively discussion with epic friends and podcast hosts, Ben and Vaden.\n\nHow many insect lives are morally equivalent to one human life? Send us your best guess at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. We'll reveal the correct answer in episode 1000. \n\nUpdate 13/06/21: The original title of this episode was \"Meta-ethics Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)\"Special Guest: Dan Hageman.","content_html":"In a rare turn of events, it just so happened that one or perhaps both of your charming co-hosts spewed a bit of nonsense about Derek Parfit in a previous episode, and we had to bring in a heavy hitter to sort us out. Today we're joined by friend of the podcast Mr. Dan Hageman, immuno-oncologist by day and aspiring ethicist by night, who gently takes us to task for misunderstanding Parfit and the role of ethical theorizing, and for ignoring the suffering of pigeons. The critiques land, and convince Vaden that we should dedicate our resources towards providing safe and affordable contraception for Apex predators.
\n\nWe cover all sorts of ground in this episode, including:
\n\nReferences:
\n\nDan Hageman is a biomed engineer who works in immuno-oncology, but in his not-so-free time strives to sell himself as an amateur philosopher and aspiring 'Effective Altruist'. He spends much of this time trying to keep up with impactful charities focused on the reduction and/or prevention of extreme suffering, and in 2020 helped co-found a hopefully burgeoning side project called ‘Match for More’. He would like to note that the IPAs are to blame for any and all errors/misapprehensions made during his lively discussion with epic friends and podcast hosts, Ben and Vaden.
\n\nHow many insect lives are morally equivalent to one human life? Send us your best guess at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. We'll reveal the correct answer in episode 1000.
\n\nUpdate 13/06/21: The original title of this episode was "Meta-ethics Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)"
Special Guest: Dan Hageman.
","summary":"Dan Hageman joins us to celebrate our completely fair treatment of Derek Parfit, to utterly agree with our use of thought experiments, and to deem us the world's most renown meta-ethicists.","date_published":"2021-06-08T12:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/ff921187-d5c1-4185-915c-0525e9c17b89.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":89851192,"duration_in_seconds":5615}]},{"id":"1a5864a9-d5d7-43af-b8d6-e78dcb1d90c3","title":"#25 - Mathematical Explanation with Mark Colyvan","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/25","content_text":"We often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore \n\n\nHow mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences\nCounterfactual reasoning in mathematics \nIntra versus extra mathematical explanation \nAlternate logics \nMathematical thought experiments \nThe use of probability in the courtroom\n\n\nReferences: \n\n\nThe Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner. \nProofs and Refutations by Imre Lakatos. \n\n\nMark Colyvan is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Special Guest: Mark Colyvan.","content_html":"We often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore
\n\nReferences:
\n\nMark Colyvan is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Special Guest: Mark Colyvan.
","summary":"We're joined by professor Mark Colyvan to talk about the philosophy of mathematics, logic, and thought experiments. ","date_published":"2021-05-24T14:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/1a5864a9-d5d7-43af-b8d6-e78dcb1d90c3.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":61259231,"duration_in_seconds":7657}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-8500607","title":"#24 - Popper's Three Worlds","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/24","content_text":"This episode begins with a big announcement! Ben has officially become a cat person, and is now Taking Cats Seriously. Vaden follows up with some news of his own, before diving into the main subject for today's episode - Popper's Three Worlds.\nIn this episode we discuss:The TCS parenting movement Chesto's tweet to DeutschHow Popper's Three Worlds differs from Deutsch's Things/Qualia/Abstractions classificationWould prime numbers exist if humans didn't exist?What constitutes reality?The existence of non-physical entities and the reality of abstractions Having a quick glance at the following wikipedia pages will help ground the conversation:Formal systems Formal languagesModular ArithmeticRules of inferenceAlternative LogicsErrata:Somewhere Vaden says English is a formal language. Nope definitely not - English is natural language, which is distinct from a formal language. Send us your best guess for whether or not we're real at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"This episode begins with a big announcement! Ben has officially become a cat person, and is now Taking Cats Seriously. Vaden follows up with some news of his own, before diving into the main subject for today's episode - Popper's Three Worlds.\n
In this episode we discuss:
Having a quick glance at the following wikipedia pages will help ground the conversation:
Errata:
Send us your best guess for whether or not we're real at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
We are joined by the great Sam Kuypers for a conversation on physics, philosophy, and free will.
Vaden spends most of the episode preparing for a huge debate on free-will, and Ben spends it worried about what alternate versions of himself are up to in parallel universes. Still, we manage to touch on a few topics:
Links:
Sam Kuypers is a DPhil student at the University of Oxford, where he researches foundational issues in quantum theory. He's also one of the founders of the Oxford Karl Popper Society, an Oxford-based student society created to facilitate discussions about science and philosophy.
Follow him on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/crit_rat.
Send us an email or explode into dust - your choice: incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Special Guest: Sam Kuypers.
","summary":"","date_published":"2021-05-03T10:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6a2f50e8-b204-4dd7-9962-a1a133ee876b.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":67531455,"duration_in_seconds":5624}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-8336503","title":"#22 - Thinking Through Thought Experiments","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/22","content_text":"In this episode, we discuss Peter Singer's famous drowning child thought experiment, the role of moral theories, and the role of thought experiments in moral reasoning. From our perspectives, the conversation went something like this: Ben's POV: Bravely and boldly trying to think through problems, Ben puts forward a stunningly insightful theory about the role of moral argumentation. Vaden, jealous of the profundity of Ben's message, tries to disagree but can't. Vaden's POV: What the eff is Ben talking about? I disagree. No wait nvm I agree. Let's change the subject. References in intro segment: Talk by Joseph AgassiRobert Sapolsky's book BehaveMilgram experimentsStanford Prison Experiments (see also: Radio Lab's The Bad Show)References in main segment:Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter SingerThe Organization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS) Reasons and Persons by Derek ParfitGalileo's thought experiment: Parts of Falling ObjectsEinstein's thought experiments Put on a suit and drown a child before sending your best moral theory to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"In this episode, we discuss Peter Singer's famous drowning child thought experiment, the role of moral theories, and the role of thought experiments in moral reasoning. From our perspectives, the conversation went something like this:
Ben's POV: Bravely and boldly trying to think through problems, Ben puts forward a stunningly insightful theory about the role of moral argumentation. Vaden, jealous of the profundity of Ben's message, tries to disagree but can't.
Vaden's POV: What the eff is Ben talking about? I disagree. No wait nvm I agree. Let's change the subject.
References in intro segment:
References in main segment:
Put on a suit and drown a child before sending your best moral theory to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
After a long digression, we finally return to the Conjectures and Refutations series. In this episode we cover Chapter 1: Science: Conjectures and Refutations. In particular, we focus on one of the trickiest Popperian concepts to wrap one's head around - the problem of induction.
References:
And in case you were wondering what happened to the two unfalsifiable theories Popper attacks in this chapter, you'll be pleased to know that they have merged into a super theory. We give you Psychoanalytic-Marxism: http://oldsite.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/janmohamed/Psychoanalytic-Marxism.pdf.
Sent us your favorite unfalsifiable theory at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
audio updated: 29/08/2021
","summary":"","date_published":"2021-03-23T09:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/86b770bb-6b37-44ec-acdc-9d810bee3b7f.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":45649800,"duration_in_seconds":3238}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-8100547","title":"#20 (HTI crossover episode) - Roundtable Longtermism Discussion","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/20","content_text":"Hello and sorry for the delay! We finally got together with Fin and Luca from the excellent HearThisIdea podcast for a nice roundtable discussion on longtermism. We laughed, we cried, we tried our best to communicate across the divide. Material referenced in the discussion:- 80k Hours Problem Profiles- Jon Hamm imprisons us in an Alexa- The Case for Strong Longtermism- A Case Against Strong Longtermism- Nick Bostrom's seminal paper on existential risksQuote: \"[Events like Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. ] have occurred many times and our cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. (italics added)\"- Nick Bostrom's \"A survey of expert opinion\" (errata: Vaden incorrectly said this paper was coauthored by Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord. It's actually authored by Vincent C. Müller and Nick Bostrom - Toby Ord and Anders Sandberg are acknowledged on page 15 for having helped design the questionnaire.) Send us a survey of expert credences over at incrementspodcast@gmail.comSpecial Guests: Fin Moorhouse and Luca Righetti.","content_html":"Hello and sorry for the delay! We finally got together with Fin and Luca from the excellent HearThisIdea podcast for a nice roundtable discussion on longtermism. We laughed, we cried, we tried our best to communicate across the divide.
Material referenced in the discussion:
- 80k Hours Problem Profiles
- Jon Hamm imprisons us in an Alexa
- The Case for Strong Longtermism
- A Case Against Strong Longtermism
- Nick Bostrom's seminal paper on existential risks
Quote: "[Events like Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. ] have occurred many times and our cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. (italics added)"
- Nick Bostrom's "A survey of expert opinion" (errata: Vaden incorrectly said this paper was coauthored by Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord. It's actually authored by Vincent C. Müller and Nick Bostrom - Toby Ord and Anders Sandberg are acknowledged on page 15 for having helped design the questionnaire.)
Send us a survey of expert credences over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Special Guests: Fin Moorhouse and Luca Righetti.
","summary":"","date_published":"2021-03-08T10:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/b82f2199-72ee-4dc7-8a04-a72b67bb3efe.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":93479914,"duration_in_seconds":11684}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-7623718","title":"#19 - Against Longtermism FAQ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/19","content_text":"Back in the ring for round two on longtermism! We (Ben somewhat drunkenly) respond to some of the criticism of episode #17 and our two essays (Ben's, Vaden's) We touch on: Ben's hate mail from his piece on cliodynamicsLongtermism as implying altruistic portfolio shufflingWhat on earth is Bayesian epistemology The Pasadena gameAuthoritarianism and the danger of seeking perfection Arrow's theoremAlternative decision theories focusing on error correction What's the probability of nuclear war before 2100?When are models reliable What problems to work on You will, dear listener, be either pleased or horrified to learn that this will not be our last foray into longtermism. It's like choose your own adventure ... except we're choosing the adventure, and the adventure is longtermism. Next stop is the Hear this Idea podcast!Send us best longterm prediction at incrementspodcast@gmail.com","content_html":"Back in the ring for round two on longtermism! We (Ben somewhat drunkenly) respond to some of the criticism of episode #17 and our two essays (Ben's, Vaden's) We touch on:
You will, dear listener, be either pleased or horrified to learn that this will not be our last foray into longtermism. It's like choose your own adventure ... except we're choosing the adventure, and the adventure is longtermism. Next stop is the Hear this Idea podcast!
Send us best longterm prediction at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
Bit of a personal episode this one is! Ben learns how to be a twitter warrior while Vaden has a full-on breakdown during quarantine. Who knew work addiction was actually a real thing? And that there are 12 step programs for people who identify as being "powerless over compulsive work, worry, or activity"? And that mathematics can create compulsive behavior indistinguishable from drug addiction? Vaden does, now.
\n\nPeople mentioned in this episode:
\n\n- Andrew Wiles (look at his face! the face of an addict!)
\n- Grigori Perelman
\n- Terry Tao's blog post ("There is a particularly dangerous occupational hazard in this subject: one can become focused, to the exclusion of other mathematical activity (and in extreme cases, on non-mathematical activity also) on a single really difficult problem in a field (or on some grand unifying theory) before one is really ready (both in terms of mathematical preparation, and also in terms of one’s career) to devote so much of one’s research time to such a project. " - italics added)
Work slavishly without sleeping or eating to send email over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
","summary":"","date_published":"2021-01-14T12:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/f754242f-7ac5-41ac-a1c8-71c4b97a2b80.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":24741544,"duration_in_seconds":2059}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-6919628","title":"#17 - Against Longtermism","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/17","content_text":"Well, there's no avoiding controversy with this one. We explain, examine, and attempt to refute the shiny new moral philosophy of longtermism. Our critique focuses on The Case for Strong Longtermism by Hilary Greaves and Will MacAskill. We say so in the episode, but it's important to emphasize that we harbour no animosity towards anyone in the effective altruism community. However, we both think that longtermism is pretty f***ing scary and do our best to communicate why.Confused as to why there's no charming, witty, and hilarious intro? Us too. Somehow, Ben managed to corrupt his audio. Classic. Oh well, some of you tell us you dislike the intros anyway. ReferencesThe Case for Strong Longtermism, by Greaves and MacAskillVaden's EA forum post on longtermismThe reddit discussion surrounding Vaden's pieceBen's piece on longtermism (which he has hidden in the depths of Medium because he's scared of the EA forum) Ben on Pascal's Mugging and Expected ValuesGwern and Robin Hanson making fun of Ben's piece Yell at us on the EA forum, on Reddit, on Medium, or over email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"Well, there's no avoiding controversy with this one. We explain, examine, and attempt to refute the shiny new moral philosophy of longtermism. Our critique focuses on The Case for Strong Longtermism by Hilary Greaves and Will MacAskill.
We say so in the episode, but it's important to emphasize that we harbour no animosity towards anyone in the effective altruism community. However, we both think that longtermism is pretty f***ing scary and do our best to communicate why.
Confused as to why there's no charming, witty, and hilarious intro? Us too. Somehow, Ben managed to corrupt his audio. Classic. Oh well, some of you tell us you dislike the intros anyway.
References
Yell at us on the EA forum, on Reddit, on Medium, or over email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Vaden comes battle-hardened and ready to debate and is met with ... a big soft hug from Ben. Ben repents his apocalyptic sins and admits that Vaden changed his mind. Again. God dammit this is getting annoying. To his credit, Vaden only gloats for 10 minutes. Eventually we touch on some other topics:
Much love to everyone and stay safe out there! Send us some feedback at incrementspodcast@gmail.com
","summary":"","date_published":"2020-12-09T16:00:00.000-08:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/0901eddf-9741-49c8-a73f-b93fd083c531.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":36187134,"duration_in_seconds":3012}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-6336580","title":"#15 - Social Media I: Manipulation, Outrage, and Documentaries ","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/15","content_text":"Alright spiders, point this at your brain. Ben and Vaden do a deep dive into the recent Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma and have a genuine debate, just like the good ol' days. Topics touched:Why Vaden dislikes documentaries, and this one in particularIs reliance on social media a problem?The advertisement modelThe relationship between social media and mental health... and political polarization... and outrage in generalEpistemological erosionWars of words and swordsOutraged? Polarized? Radicalized, even? We want to hear about it at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Quotes referenced in episode:\"This point being crossed is at the root of addiction, polarization, radicalization, outrageification, vanityification, the entire thing. This is overpowering human nature, and this is checkmate on humanity.\"- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma\"If we go down the current status quo for, let's say, another 20 years... we probably destroy our civilization through willful ignorance. We probably fail to meet the challenge of climate change. We probably degrade the world's democracies so that they fall into some sort of bizarre autocratic dysfunction. We probably ruin the global economy. Uh, we probably, um, don't survive. You know, I... I really do view it as existential.\"- Jaron Lanier, The Social Dilemma \"We're pointing these engines of AI back at ourselves to reverse-engineer what elicits responses from us. Almost like you're stimulating nerve cells on a spider to see what causes its legs to respond. So, it really is this kind of prison experiment where we're just, you know, roping people into the matrix, and we're just harvesting all this money and... and data from all their activity to profit from.\"- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma\"Although I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words.\"- Karl Popper, The Myth Of The FrameworkReferences:Welcome to the Cult Factory (Tristan Harris's latest appearance on Making Sense)Michael Moore’s 13 Rules for Making Documentary FilmsHow to assess a documentaryTwitter Study showing only 1% of users are polarized, and the rest moderateLiterature review of social media use and mental health by Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge. Conclusion? It's complicated.Study showing self reports of time spent on social media are not reliable. This is relevant because most studies showing a link between social media use and deteriorating mental health rely on self reports. Not Born Yesterday by Hugo MercierErrata: Vaden keeps saying \"Jared Lanier\" when it should be \"Jaron Lanier\". Oops!","content_html":"Alright spiders, point this at your brain. Ben and Vaden do a deep dive into the recent Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma and have a genuine debate, just like the good ol' days. Topics touched:
Outraged? Polarized? Radicalized, even? We want to hear about it at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Quotes referenced in episode:
"This point being crossed is at the root of addiction, polarization, radicalization, outrageification, vanityification, the entire thing. This is overpowering human nature, and this is checkmate on humanity."
- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma
"If we go down the current status quo for, let's say, another 20 years... we probably destroy our civilization through willful ignorance. We probably fail to meet the challenge of climate change. We probably degrade the world's democracies so that they fall into some sort of bizarre autocratic dysfunction. We probably ruin the global economy. Uh, we probably, um, don't survive. You know, I... I really do view it as existential."
- Jaron Lanier, The Social Dilemma
"We're pointing these engines of AI back at ourselves to reverse-engineer what elicits responses from us. Almost like you're stimulating nerve cells on a spider to see what causes its legs to respond. So, it really is this kind of prison experiment where we're just, you know, roping people into the matrix, and we're just harvesting all this money and... and data from all their activity to profit from."
- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma
"Although I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words."
- Karl Popper, The Myth Of The Framework
References:
Errata:
Vaden keeps saying "Jared Lanier" when it should be "Jaron Lanier". Oops!
The third in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 16: Prediction And Prophecy in the Social Sciences. There's a bit more Hitler stuff in this one than usual (retweets ≠ endorsements), but only because he provides a clear example of the motherlode of all bad ideas - historicism. We discuss:
Plus a little easter egg! As always send us a little sumptin' sumptin' at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Quotes:
"In memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny."
- Epigraph of The Poverty of Historicism
"It was not by mere chance that the first forms of civilisation arose where the Aryan came into contact with inferior races, subjugated them and forced them to obey his command. The members of the inferior race became the first mechanical tools in the service of a growing civilisation. Thereby the way was clearly indicated which the Aryan had to follow.
As a conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turned their physical powers into organised channels under his own leadership, forcing them to follow his will and purpose.
By imposing on them a useful, though hard, manner of employing their powers, he not only spared the lives of those whom he had conquered, but probably made their lives easier than they had been in the former state of so-called 'freedom.'" (italics added)
- Mein Kampf (The Stalag Edition), Chapter XI: Nation and Race
“But it is clear that the adoption of the conspiracy theory can hardly be avoided by those who believe that they know how to make heaven on earth. The only explanation for their failure to produce this heaven is the malevolence of the devil who has a vested interest in hell.”
- Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 16: Prediction and Prophecy in the Social Sciences
Stephen is back for round two! In this episode we learn that Vaden wants to live in a panopticon and Ben in a high tech surveillance state. Also, we're all going to use Bing from now on.
Stephen Caines is a research fellow at Stanford law school's CodeX centre for legal informatics, where he specializes in the domestic use of facial recognition technology. He received a J.D. from the University of Miami with a concentration in the Business of Innovation, Law, and Technology.
Bring on da feedback at incrementspodcast@gmail.com; we check it at least once a month ...
Special Guest: Stephen Caines.
","summary":"","date_published":"2020-10-15T07:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/6b148070-e8fd-4878-966b-1db4fdb44426.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":44230239,"duration_in_seconds":3683}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-5860924","title":"#12 (C&R Series, Ch. 17) - Public Opinion and Liberal Principles","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/12","content_text":"In the lead up to the American presidential election, one of the largest and most consequential expressions of public opinion, Ben and Vaden do what they always do and ask: \"What does Popper say about this?\" The second in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 17: Public Opinion and Liberal Principles. Largely irrelevant and probably unhelpful, we touch A thesis that the far left and right are converging vis-a-vis reactionary politicsThe idea that \"truth is manifest\", i.e. obvious The role of free speech and diversity of opinionPolitical polarizationLibertarians and their hate of seatbeltsSend us some hate or some love at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Chapter excerpt:The following remarks were designed to provide material for debate at an international conference of liberals (...). My purpose was simply to lay the foundations for a good general discussion. Because I could assume liberal views in my audience I was largely concerned to challenge, rather than endorse, popular assumptions favourable to these views.","content_html":"In the lead up to the American presidential election, one of the largest and most consequential expressions of public opinion, Ben and Vaden do what they always do and ask: "What does Popper say about this?" The second in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 17: Public Opinion and Liberal Principles. Largely irrelevant and probably unhelpful, we touch
Send us some hate or some love at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Chapter excerpt:
The following remarks were designed to provide material for debate at an international conference of liberals (...). My purpose was simply to lay the foundations for a good general discussion. Because I could assume liberal views in my audience I was largely concerned to challenge, rather than endorse, popular assumptions favourable to these views.
Vaden's arguments against Bayesian philosophy and existential risk are examined by someone who might actually know what they're talking about, i.e., not Ben. After writing a critique of our conversation in Episode 7, which started off a series of blog posts, our good friend Mauricio (who studies political science, economics, and philosophy) kindly agrees to come on the podcast and try to figure out who's more confused. Does Vaden convert?
\nWe apologize for the long wait between this episode and the last one. It was all Vaden's fault.
Hit us up at incrementspodcast@gmail.com!
Note from Vaden: Upon relistening, I've just learned my new computer chair clicks in the most annoying possible way every time I get enthusiastic. My apologies - I'll work on being less enthusiastic in future episodes.
Second note from Vaden: Yeesh lots of audio issues with this episode - I replaced the file with a cleaned up version at 5:30pm September 17th. Still learning...
Traditions, what are you good for? Absolutely nothing? In this episode of Increments, Ben and Vaden begin their series on Conjectures and Refutations by looking at the role tradition plays in society, and examine one tradition in particular - the critical tradition. No monkeys were harmed in the making of this episode.
References:
- C&R, Chapter 4: Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition
Podcast shoutout:
- Jennifer Doleac and Rob Wiblin on policing, law and incarceration
- James Foreman Jr. on the US criminal legal system
audio updated 26/12/2020
The talented Stephen Caines punctures the cloud of confusion that is Ben and Vaden's conception of facial recognition technology. We talk about the development and usage of facial recognition in the private and public spheres, the dangers and merits of the technology, and Vaden's plan to use it a bars. For God's sake don't give that man a GPU.
Stephen is a legal technologist with a passion for access to justice. He is a 2019 graduate of the University of Miami School of Law with a concentration in the Business of Innovation, Law, and Technology. While in law school, his work focused on public interest, legal aid organizations, and non-profits. He was a 2018 Access to Justice Technology Fellow and has worked with the Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. on a variety of technology initiatives aimed at optimizing their operations. Additionally, he worked on the legislative and technology policy team of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Stephen’s current work focuses on developing standards and best practices for the safe and ethical implementation of technology in the public sector.
References:
Special Guest: Stephen Caines.
","summary":"","date_published":"2020-08-06T19:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/50f5924e-ae2e-43e8-8897-2bc447d17bc2.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":59727539,"duration_in_seconds":4974}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-4756712","title":"#8 - Philosophy of Probability III: Conjectures and Refutations","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/8","content_text":"On the same page at last! Ben comes to the philosophical confessional to announce his probabilistic sins. The Bayesians will be pissed (with high probability). At least Vaden doesn't make him kiss anything. After too much agreement and self-congratulation, Ben and Vaden conclude the mini-series on the philosophy of probability, and \"announce\" an upcoming mega-series on Conjectures and Refutations. References:- My Bayesian Enlightenment by Eliezer YudkowskyRationalist community blogs:- Less Wrong- Slate Star Codex- Marginal RevolutionYell at us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. ","content_html":"On the same page at last! Ben comes to the philosophical confessional to announce his probabilistic sins. The Bayesians will be pissed (with high probability). At least Vaden doesn't make him kiss anything. After too much agreement and self-congratulation, Ben and Vaden conclude the mini-series on the philosophy of probability, and "announce" an upcoming mega-series on Conjectures and Refutations.
References:
- My Bayesian Enlightenment by Eliezer Yudkowsky
Rationalist community blogs:
- Less Wrong
- Slate Star Codex
- Marginal Revolution
Yell at us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
Back down to earth we go! Or try to, at least. In this episode Ben and Vaden attempt to ground their previous discussion on the philosophy of probability by focusing on a real-world example, namely the book The Precipice by Toby Ord, recently featured on the Making Sense podcast. Vaden believes in arguments, and Ben argues for beliefs.
Quotes
"A common approach to estimating the chance of an unprecedented event with earth-shaking consequences is to take a skeptical stance: to start with an extremely small probability and only raise it from there when a large amount of hard evidence is presented. But I disagree. Instead, I think the right method is to start with a probability that reflects our overall impressions, then adjust this in light of the scientific evidence. When there is a lot of evidence, these approaches converge. But when there isn’t, the starting point can matter.
In the case of artificial intelligence, everyone agrees the evidence and arguments are far from watertight, but the question is where does this leave us? Very roughly, my approach is to start with the overall view of the expert community that there is something like a one in two chance that AI agents capable of outperforming humans in almost every task will be developed in the coming century. And conditional on that happening, we shouldn’t be shocked if these agents that outperform us across the board were to inherit our future. Especially if when looking into the details, we see great challenges in aligning these agents with our values."
- The Precipice, p. 165
"Most of the risks arising from long-term trends remain beyond revealing quantification. What is the probability of China’s spectacular economic expansion stalling or even going into reverse? What is the likelihood that Islamic terrorism will develop into a massive, determined quest to destroy the West? Probability estimates of these outcomes based on expert opinion provide at best some constraining guidelines but do not offer any reliable basis for relative comparisons of diverse events or their interrelations. What is the likelihood that a massive wave of global Islamic terrorism will accelerate the Western transition to non–fossil fuel energies? To what extent will the globalization trend be enhanced or impeded by a faster-than-expected sea level rise or by a precipitous demise of the United States? Setting such odds or multipliers is beyond any meaningful quantification."
- Global Catastrophes and Trends, p. 226
"And while computers have been used for many years to assemble other computers and machines, such deployments do not indicate any imminent self- reproductive capability. All those processes require human actions to initiate them, raw materials to build the hardware, and above all, energy to run them. I find it hard to visualize how those machines would (particularly in less than a generation) launch, integrate, and sustain an entirely independent exploration, extraction, conversion, and delivery of the requisite energies."
- Global Catastrophes and Trends, p. 26
References:
- Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next Fifty Years
- The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity
- Making Sense podcast w/ Ord (Clip starts around 40:00)
- Repugnant conclusion
- Arrow's theorem
- Balinski–Young theorem
Don't leave yet - we swear this will be more interesting than it sounds ...
... But a drink will definitely help. Ben and Vaden dive into the interpretations behind probability. What do people mean when they use the word, and why do we use this one tool to describe different concepts. The rowdiness truly kicks in when Vaden releases his pent-up critique of Bayesianism, thereby losing both his friends and PhD position. But at least he's ingratiated himself with Karl Popper.
References:
Get in touch at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
audio updated 13/12/2020
In their first somber episode, Ben and Vaden discuss the protests and political tensions surrounding the murder of George Floyd. They talk about defunding the police, the importance of philosophy in politics, and honest conversation as the only peaceful means of error-correction.
References:
Errata:
Love and complaints both welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.
","summary":"","date_published":"2020-06-17T22:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/385fa96f-daa9-4c56-9077-44dbf3fc43f4.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":55352267,"duration_in_seconds":4609}]},{"id":"Buzzsprout-4090301","title":"#4 - The Hubris of Computer Scientists","url":"https://www.incrementspodcast.com/4","content_text":"Are computer scientists recklessly applying their methods to other fields without sufficient thoughtfulness? What are computer scientists good for anyway? Ben, in true masochistic fashion, worries that computer scientists are overstepping their bounds. Vaden analyzes his worries with a random forest and determines that they are only 10% accurate, but then proceeds to piss of his entire field by arguing that we're nowhere close to true artificial intelligence. References\"Good\" isn't good enough, Ben Green. \"How close are we to creating artificial intelligence?\", David Deutsch, Aeon\"Artificial Intelligence - The Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet\", Michael Jordan, Medium\"Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal\", Gary MarcusErrata Vaden says \"every logarithmic curve starts with exponential growth\". This should be \"every logistic curve stats with exponential growth\". Vaden says \"95 degree accuracy\". This should be \"95 percent accuracy.\" The three main rationalists were Descarte, Spinoza, and Leibniz, and the three main empiricists were Bacon, Locke, and Hume. (Not whatever Vaden said) ","content_html":"Are computer scientists recklessly applying their methods to other fields without sufficient thoughtfulness? What are computer scientists good for anyway? Ben, in true masochistic fashion, worries that computer scientists are overstepping their bounds. Vaden analyzes his worries with a random forest and determines that they are only 10% accurate, but then proceeds to piss of his entire field by arguing that we're nowhere close to true artificial intelligence.
References
Errata
Ben persuades Vaden that all prisoners should be let loose. Vaden convinces Ben that he shouldn’t use the word “vista” so regularly. At least they stay on topic this time.
References:
An attempt to clean up the mess we made last episode. Ben still doesn't figure out how not to yell into his microphone, and Vaden finally realizes what Ben was saying and it was … perhaps not so interesting in the first place? Ben, all too pleased with himself, starts yammering on about future generations. Should we care? God — we promise that next week we’ll try to stick to whichever subject we pick.
References:
We attempt to talk about Epistemic Modesty: broadly, the idea that one should be modest in their beliefs when other people (with similar credentials) disagree with them. Vaden however, entirely immodestly, tries abandoning the subject because he’s scared of Ben’s forceful arguments and derails the conversation on to the entirely uncontroversial subject of which systems of moral decision making are best suited for moral progress. A flabbergasted Ben tries to keep up, but too little too late. Most of the time he's just trying to get his microphone to behave anyway.
References:
Ben and Vaden attempt to justify why the world needs another podcast, and fail.
","summary":"","date_published":"2020-05-19T10:00:00.000-07:00","attachments":[{"url":"https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/45338b8e-7c1d-4890-a63b-d00e0e13b608.mp3","mime_type":"audio/mpeg","size_in_bytes":5989910,"duration_in_seconds":496}]}]}