We discuss

• Do you wish you could change your own interests?
• Methods of information ingestion
• Taking books off their pedestal bit
• Intellectual influences
• Veganism (why Ben is, why Vaden isn't)
• Anti-rational memes
• Fricken Andrew Huberman again
• Stoicism
• Are e-fuels the best of the best or the worst of the worst?

Questions

1. (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.

2. (Andrew) Any other books you'd say added to your personal philosophical development as DD, KP have? Who and why?

3. (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...)

4. (Lorcan) What do you think about efuels? Listen to this take by Fully Charged.

References

• Lying and Free Will by Sam Harris
• Doing Good Better by MacAskill
• Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
• Mortal Questions by Thomas Nagel
• Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs
• Peace is Every Step and True Love by Thich Nhat Hanh
• Seeing like a State by James Scott
• The Truth Behind Cage-Free and Free-Range | STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW

People

Producers of rational memes:

• Everything: Christopher Hitchens, Vladimir Nabokov, Sam Harris, George Orwell, Scott Alexander, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Steven Pinker
• Sex and Relationships: Dan Savage
• Environment/Progress: Vaclav Smil, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, Hans Rosling, Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Shellenburger, Alex Epstein
• Race: Glenn Loury, John Mcwhorter, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster, Chloe Valdery
• Woke: John Mcwhorter, Yasha Mounk, Coleman Hughes, Sam Harris, Douglas Murrey, Jordan Peterson, Steven Hicks, James Lindsay, Ben Shapiro
• Feminism: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christina Hoff Summers, Camille Paglia (Note: Then follow each thinker's favorite thinker, and never stop. )

Producers of anti-rational memes:

• Eric Weinstein
• Bret Weinstein
• Noam Chomsky (See A Potpourri Of Chomskyan Nonsense: https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/001592/v6.pdf)
• Glenn Greenwald
• Reza Aslan
• Medhi Hassan
• Robin Diangelo
• Ibraam x Kendi
• George Galloway
• Judith Butler

Socials

• Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
• Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
• Help 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.
• Click dem like buttons on youtube

What aren't you interested in, and how might you fix that? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com

Support Increments

We discuss

• Potty training, taking babies seriously, and adult diapers
• Why Vaden never daydreams, fantasizes, or minds spending 10 hours in a car
• Whether the subjective notions of certainty, belief, or confidence deserve a spot in the objective world of epistemology
• Whether sports are authoritarian
• Whether spreading Popper's epistemology is a moral imperative
• The role of school and educational institutions
• Whether emergence is the result of the interplay between physical reality and the reality of abstraction

Questions

1. (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?

2. (Tom) Can fallibilism, anti-authoritarianism, anti-justificationism, and critical rationalism overall operate effectively in the highly competitive space of sports, especially professional sports?

3. (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?

4. (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?

Socials

• Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
• Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
• Help 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).
• Click dem like buttons on youtube over hur.

Who is more annoying in the mornings? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com

Support Increments

• Is hypnosis a real thing?
• Types of universality contained within the genetic code
• Pressures associated with turning political/philosophical ideas into personal identities
• How do emotions/feelings interface with our rational/logical mind? How should they?
• Vaden's (hopefully one-off) experience with Bipolar Type-1 and psychosis
• Is 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.

Questions

1. (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)?

2. (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

3. (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 ?

4. (Tom Nassis) Is the sole purpose of all forms of thinking problem-solving? Or can thinking have purposes other than solving a problem?

Quotes

Reach 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.

In 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.

Beginning of Infinity, p.158 (emph added)

References

• Derren brown makes people forget their stop
• Bari 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"
• Sad existentialist cat

Send Vaden an email with a thought you have not designed to solve a problem at incrementspodcast.com

Socials

• Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
• Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
• Toss 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.

Support Increments

• Ben's dark and despicable hidden historicist tendencies
• Expounding upon (one of our many) critiques of Bayesian Epistemology
• Ben's total abandonment of all of his principles
• Similarities and differences between human and computer decision making
• What can the critical rationalist community learn from Effective Altruism?
• Ben's new best friend Peter Turchin
• How to have effective disagreements and not take gleeful petty jabs at friends and co-hosts.

Questions

1. (Michael) A critique of Bayesian epistemology is that it "assigns scalars to feelings" in an ungrounded way. It's not clear to me that the problem-solving approach of Deutsch and Popper avoid this, because even during the conjecture-refutation process, the person needs to at some point decide whether the current problem has been solved satisfactorily enough to move on to the next problem. How is this satisfaction determined, if not via summarizing one's internal belief as a scalar that surpasses some threshold? If not this (which is essentially assigning scalars to feelings), by what mechanism is a problem determined to be solved?
2. (Michael) Is the claim that "humans create new choices whereas machines are constrained to choose within the event-space defined by the human" equivalent to saying "humans can perform abstraction while machines cannot?" Not clear what "create new choices" means, given that humans are also constrained in their vocabulary (and thus their event-space of possible thoughts)
3. (Lulie) In what ways could the critical rationalist culture improve by looking to EA?
4. (Scott) What principles do the @IncrementsPod duo apply to navigating effective conversations involving deep disagreement?
5. (Scott) Are there any contexts where bayesianism has utility? (steelman)
6. (Scott) What is Vaden going to do post graduation?

Quotes

“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)

Contact us

• Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
• Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ
• Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link

Send Ben an email asking him why god why over at incrementspodcast.com

Support Increments

Questions:

1. Hey do you guys have a Patreon page or anyway to support you?
2. (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.
3. (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!

References:

• Episode 9: Introduction to Computational Theory, Theory of Anything podcast
• David Deutsch on Coleman Hughes' podcast: Multiverse of Madness
• John Cleese's excellent new book Creativity

Contact us

• Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
• Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ
• Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link

Support
You 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.

Support Increments