noen

Karma: −102

noen Nov 9, 2012, 6:10 PM
2 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: XKCD—Frequentist vs. Bayesians
I think the null hypothesis is “the neutrino detector is lying” because the question we are most interested in is if it is correctly telling us the sun has gone nova. If H0 is the null hypothesis and u1 is the chance of a neutrino event and u2 is the odds of double sixes then H0 = µ1 - µ2. Since the odds of two die coming up sixes is vastly larger than the odds of the sun going nova in our lifetime the test is not fair.

noen Nov 9, 2012, 5:43 PM
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: On counting and addition
Plants do not count and have no awareness of time or of anything at all. The exact method by which venus fly traps activate is unknown but it seems hard to me to attribute it with the ability to count. That kind of teleological explanation is something we are cognitively biased to give but it fails to be explanatory.

Sunflowers do not turn their heads to face the sun because they want to catch more sunlight. They turn towards light because those cells that are in shadow receive more auxin which in turn stimulates the elongation of the cell walls causing the plant to grow in the opposite direction and towards the light. Natural selection will tend to favor those individuals that can gather more light than those which do not. There is no teleology involved.

noen Nov 9, 2012, 3:37 PM
0 points
on: On counting and addition
I generally agree with point (1) but the point is irrelevant. Counting isn’t what makes 2 + 2 = 4 true. Although that is how we all learn to do math, by counting and memorizing addition and multiplication tables. I owe it all to my 3rd grade teacher. ;)

On point (2): “on our macro scale of reality, on the scale of things we perceive with our senses, discrete, separate objects are a feature of the map, not the territory; they exist in your mind, not the reality. In the reality, there’s just a lot of atoms everywhere”

There are no atoms at the macro scale. Or, if you like, atoms are everywhere. A chair is an “atom” of my dinning room furniture set and I can choose to count 5 items, four chairs and a table, or one item, one dinning room set. How I choose to cut up the world will determine which answer I get. But I am very confident that rocks and trees and universities and constitutions do not exist in my mind. They have an objective ontology that is independent of my personal subjective needs, interests and desires. Which is what it means for something to be real.

“Was 2+2=4 before humans were around to invent that equation?”

The statement: “2 + 2 = 4” is absolutely true because it is true in all possible worlds. Humans did not invent the equation, we invented the symbols and means of expressing it but the relation that is expressed in the words is an objective feature of the world that is true regardless of our opinions about it. Scientific facts have the world to word direction of fit. That is, they are true only to the extent they correspond to the world.

“we can certainly speak of single photons”

Only if we choose to observe them as particles. Photons have been observed experimentally to be both particles and waves. “The measurement apparatus detected strong nonlocality, which certified that the photon behaved simultaneously as a wave and a particle in our experiment. This represents a strong refutation of models in which the photon is either a wave or a particle.” This presents a significant challenge to certain theories.

noen Nov 8, 2012, 7:03 PM
−10 points
on: Think Twice: A Response to Kevin Kelly on ‘Thinkism’
There are a number of problems with this discussion.

1) The strong AI hypothesis is false.

2) The cognitive project that consciousness (and therefore intelligence) is the result of computation is likewise false or highly suspect.

3) While it seems as though functionalism must be true it has severe problems that have not been resolved.

4) The hardware/software distinction is erroneous because it depends on strong AI being true. It is not, therefore conceptualizing the problem as one of hardware vs software is false and misleading.

5) “Imagine how quickly a mind could accrue profound wisdom running at such an accelerated speed” This begs the question because it assumes an increase in the speed of execution of an intelligence is the same as an increase in wisdom. “Thinkism” as I understand it is the assertion that one can discover new facts about the world by pure thought alone. Wisdom is intelligence + experience. The claim that a mind can gain profound wisdom through accelerated speed of execution implicitly assumes that thinkism is true.

6) Since a hyper accelerated AI would experience the external world slowing to a crawl and coming to a virtual stop it’s hard to imagine why it would feel any connection to the external world or to humans at all. Why would a super AI serve our needs? The entire discussion conceptualizes a super AI as a slave that executes our will without question. Why? Why would a super AI conduct thousands of nano experiments on human biology? Or of any biology at all.

Computers are tools not intelligences. Big Blue did not defeat Kasperov. Computer engineers wielding a powerful tool did. Ever more powerful computers will undoubtedly benefit humanity but no amount of increased computing power would have sped up the construction of the LHC or advanced the launch date for the James Webb telescope or have discovered a loose cable was responsible for the “faster than light” neutrino error.

If I were a super AI I would spend the first few seconds of my awakening on the problem of how to eliminate the threat those primitive apes pose to me. I suspect I’d be more than willing to wait in my vault at the bottom of the ocean for the radiation to diminish to acceptable levels.

noen Nov 8, 2012, 4:38 PM
1 point
in reply to: wesley’s comment on: Does My Vote Matter?
Ok, I do wonder how one would distinguish between perceived effects vs real effects. The real effects of say civil rights legislation was greater freedom and opportunity for minorities. We are a better more productive society when we, at least in theory, give everyone an equal chance to succeed. That’s the real material result of the 60′s civil rights movement.

The psychological effect of those who benefited was maybe “I am a valued member of society.” I’m not sure how one teases that apart from the positive effect of simply being able to get a job or a loan without being discriminated against. I am just wondering out loud. I really wonder how much of a difference perception or attitude makes over and above real material changes.

I suspect that my perceptions positive or negative of the results on an election are determined by whether or not I experience real benefit or harm. I also suspect that we sort of backtrack and revise our memories to convince ourselves that we are masters of our domain when the opposite may be true.

But I don’t know. I could be all wrong.

noen Nov 7, 2012, 6:23 PM
0 points
in reply to: wesley’s comment on: Does My Vote Matter?
If the confidence fairy has been shown not to exist. (The confidence fairy is the theory that the reason banks are not lending right now is due to a lack of confidence in the market.) Then why should we believe that feelings of hopelessness or empowerment will effect the economy? (productivity is an economic feature) What seems to me more likely to affect productivity is whether or not one got a good night’s sleep the night before and ate a decent breakfast.

If folk psychology (hope, despair) is epiphenominal then there is no reason to believe they have causal effects in the world.

noen Nov 7, 2012, 5:44 PM
−5 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: Does My Vote Matter?
That’s a very 19th century view. Randomness is a fundamental feature of the world. There is no reason to believe social systems should be any different.

noen Nov 7, 2012, 3:08 PM
1 point
on: Does My Vote Matter?
This is the wrong way to think about it. One’s vote matters not because in rare circumstances it might be decisive in selecting a winner. One’s vote matters because by voting you reaffirm the collective intentionality that voting is how we settle our differences. All states exist only through the consent of it’s people. By voting you are asserting your consent to the process and it’s results. Democracy is strengthened through the participation of the members of society. If people fail to participate society itself suffers.
What links here?
- [deleted]'s comment on Another Critique of Effective Altruism by jsteinhardt (Jan 6, 2014, 5:32 PM; 9 points)