From c8a2abda6094473410898788bc92db258be18d00 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: muflax Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 12:14:40 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] consciousness explained done, plus some minor changes --- src/changelog.pdc | 7 +- src/index.pdc | 1 - src/reflections/LangtonsAnt.png | Bin 0 -> 1252 bytes src/reflections/con_exp.pdc | 408 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- src/reflections/find_the_bug.pdc | 73 ++++++ 5 files changed, 424 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) create mode 100644 src/reflections/LangtonsAnt.png create mode 100644 src/reflections/find_the_bug.pdc diff --git a/src/changelog.pdc b/src/changelog.pdc index 748c680..c824898 100644 --- a/src/changelog.pdc +++ b/src/changelog.pdc @@ -16,16 +16,15 @@ All major changes on the site work without unnecessarily strong opinions and emotions). I rewrote and greatly extended my thoughts on Dennett's [Consciousness - Explained]. + Explained]. Yes, I'm finally done with the book. I also decided to put some parts of my spoiler file online, once they have - proven to be useful. First are experiments with [Speed Reading], some general - hacks for [Good Sleep],. + proven to be useful. First are experiments with [Speed Reading] and some + general hacks for [Good Sleep]. On-site comments are gone, but I'm still very much open to anything over mail. Sorry for the broken links. At least the RSS feed is still there. ;) - [Consciousness Explained]: /reflections/con_exp.html [Determinism]: /reflections/determinism.html [Poetry]: /poetry/ diff --git a/src/index.pdc b/src/index.pdc index 93209ac..2ac9f5c 100644 --- a/src/index.pdc +++ b/src/index.pdc @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ cool stuff I found out to myself? Information ought to be free, after all. - some hacks for [Good Sleep] - my experience and criticism of [Polyphasic Sleep] - [Reflections] ============= diff --git a/src/reflections/LangtonsAnt.png b/src/reflections/LangtonsAnt.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..983bf7339ee7e0b31907949c908eff8768ca53e1 GIT binary patch literal 1252 zcmZ`(dsLEV97Yyfacb@)Ei7H7s9$4kX`$-^PG>kIwa**N%1bJ?=ycKH1s$X(TNgGJ z$f5!|=Ua7VA~PrzFXUwb4rR(g%S3BY4!rG1N{Yxnch0u{={)CspFiH`_nh-Pzu)_u z-xm|P3cU`EKp<98zKV#0xnb!nN5c0ASXTj)TW(xrIHI=4%Yr~G6H_9>5()+F{~M&CH-UoU~sX^48N`*M*l9wc-8UC+=-HWcm?nE88v_>FpA6-K(;Z84(z4jik+p6s>W%6>JTizI7n zr#gMMc<36;U0sEh-~(XI<%701ThV-;))31pN}>k9BH^{zgR;dWo@Rm z1sG#t@Weip)fsl7EQR7FA0%dy+bm@5Kwg4rTffJ>z55O^f;hLYf;Yy5&j&59WW9{F z`~p8oxB0_n_Qf^F(*&^xaIThNYZ(3I1}7(xcVXK2F&BAAKkARq5K;Sjabyc;ASJYr z+;-m6Pbf009NGP)3SDpPCPzE)c?e{d_a0Sm5B|P8x37!w2#d0709i64$0Rp!h^G>n zY+vX!*nj1mxkdM=Sgs6eb&2_XE1)zEgv-xYPY(U)cdcLblWMZl3-uBhyUC|X_fngA zO}IH7e-a8r=LJVG@AgTuaqOu1pIhr=tf#Q3fOR)nKeSq%PNq%!7}a!rMgue$y!;yF z2IWq*zf?LG#WYewX<8snF!N`s`nwREL^w1;AwA=2(a_URAoHC#dXjWjAEu>^i|gx4 zz>`&A$~`-WKALL87shtNb%Z!7CugUMDr2pVH=cv1vHuC)Ibf5U=I_{S=JZr|Y?g!s zSXk4dT?2Mi@R$a!NzA1X-s47xJ?yENaGZxnf9Do|(c6?Mi_VeEv1YZ8ij&B0(0EmH zwPQ9prkYgpd}Z!dbPu6Rw|KQ`3(rDju5uPO6<|@&+KH~Ba{h=@yHjy=WIHFRMpO#h zxA3Nh$MOS>2II8%nZ`OSN+~92ZhLPFAkBu_NQ_BOR6rgvLr;=ejyx2D2ZQE% zV7xZpktjK{TfR6kZg_%4Io4;<^Wvg+7(IsR$JD^@Gc^LR`dyYfL|L?Q{FtD*$#T1* z`Jz^3fB(~T%uoklZ1oLI4AyVpBH`BsaSVZz;OaL`ZrX`_x))UFKJn*!rNo-}N5<_mzC^jB)KY5sJ*#)ugh7n|2(I=H) z4ktlR530|?3>g7iYb6bfiZ3>ess>re$iv=+WpED~_+xqQNlC|OfN3;@$nRdFFUU*M zpbO3IKn1uFw#vl3DQ=AYM=$veZ#2B}L~+~kk8`Q|f?MwJHj*l7Y|C->u?5J#79ZF&Oh8MXv^dVf<9jW2x2k#oxHot5|4C62{?@Em$_zvq@=XAk&V_d_ YtyormYj;9999sy=o|uT*@U+su0qSFBkpKVy literal 0 HcmV?d00001 diff --git a/src/reflections/con_exp.pdc b/src/reflections/con_exp.pdc index 7019a2e..69dda86 100644 --- a/src/reflections/con_exp.pdc +++ b/src/reflections/con_exp.pdc @@ -2,14 +2,13 @@ This is a little series of thoughts on the book "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett. I was having a lot of problems the first time through and gave -up in a rage, but enough people I respect recommend the book. - -So to find out if it's just me and my personal bias, I started to read it again, -giving Dennett more credit than before. I comment on most of the book, but might -skip parts I simply agree with and have nothing to say about. I planned to have -at least a detailed criticism the second time through, but actually was -influenced so much by it that it quite literally changed my life and whole way -of thinking, trying to sort it all out and somehow refute Dennett. +up in a rage, but enough people I respect recommended the book. So to find out +if it's just me and my personal bias, I started to read it again, giving Dennett +more credit than before. I comment on most of the book, but might skip parts I +simply agree with and have nothing to say about. I planned to have at least a +detailed criticism the second time through, but actually was influenced so much +by it that it quite literally changed my life and whole way of thinking, trying +to sort it all out and somehow refute Dennett. Hallucinations ============== @@ -330,12 +329,6 @@ about music and tones, but never mentions seeing music, which I do, to a degree. Different tones *look* different to me, but they don't *sound* very different - and least not in any meaningful way.[^vis] -[^vis]: You can even hack your brain here and change what part of it handles -what. You can shift, through practice (and not very much, really - a few weeks -may be enough to get very cool results) or drugs, your thoughts from being _an -inner voice_ to _pure text_ to _images_ and so on, and mix-and-match wildly. I -wrote some about that in my experiment on [speed reading]. - Now, this in itself is not a problem - different parts of the brain doing the parsing and so on, which (for a multitude of reasons) is very different among individuals. I just find it weird that Dennett seems to assume that, in general, @@ -377,24 +370,29 @@ Die Entdeckung der Langsamkeit > them to feel a little bit bad about their throwing it across the room, maybe > go and retrieve it and think well, hang on, yes, this irritated me but maybe I > don't have the right to be irritated. -> -Daniel Dennett, about [Breaking the Spell] +> +> -- Daniel Dennett, about [Breaking the Spell] Although Dennett meant a different book, he still pretty much sums up how I feel -"Consciousness Explained". If I weren't reading PDFs and library books, I -literally would have thrown them against the wall. Multiple times, in fact. +about "Consciousness Explained". If I actually owned his book, I literally would +have thrown it against the wall. Multiple times, in fact. But the more I came to think about it and analyzed *why* I disagreed so much with him, the more I realized that I really had very poor reasons to do so. No matter how weak I thought his arguments were, I couldn't just reject them without good arguments of my own, and I found out I didn't have any! -I spent a good 4 months or so reading through lots of literature, trying to -develop a better understanding of the topic. Some of my earlier criticism I now -even reject. No matter how much of his work I might find myself agreeing with -in the future, I already am glad I stuck with the book. Dennett raised all hell -in my brain and demonstrated to me quite clearly that I have been in heavy -rationalization mode for some time now. I will have to deconstruct and tear -apart a lot more until I reach internal consistency again, so let's go on! +To get a better idea of the context Dennett operates in, I needed to first know +all current models of consciousness, which lead to a *tremendous* amount of +reading. I spent a good 4 months or so going through many books per week, trying +to develop a better understanding of the topic, and mostly, to understand my own +motivations and beliefs. + +No matter how much of his work I might find myself agreeing with in the future, +I already am glad I stuck with the book. Dennett raised all hell in my brain and +demonstrated to me quite clearly that I have been in heavy rationalization mode +for some time now. I will have to deconstruct and tear apart a lot more until I +reach internal consistency again, so let's go on! Multiple Drafts and Central Meaning ----------------------------------- @@ -429,42 +427,261 @@ the belief in the self is the very first thing on the way to nirvana a Buddhist has to overcome. It can take many forms, but the basic experience of selfless existence is one thing really *every* mystic or guru or saint has ever said or written something about that I just thought it to be common knowledge. How could -you *not* know this? Did you also not know that the sun rises in the east? +you *not* know this? Did you also not know that the sun rises in the +east?[^meaning] -But then, really, it shouldn't have surprised me. This mainstream ignorance was -exactly what drove me away from many scientists (but not science) and -intellectuals. Many times did I experience how a group of generally smart people -would read a text about or by someone who had a mystic experience, and it -doesn't matter whether the mystic content is just incidental or the only point, -and they would completely *miss it*. I didn't even believe this for years -because it is so obvious to me. They may read the Gospel of John, or talk about -the ideas of St. Augustine, or discuss the purpose of monasteries, and they -either never bring up the mystic content or dismiss it as poetic language. How -someone can read the Gospel of John as a *political* text is beyond me. I would -just listen, confused, how they'd discuss some of Jesus' teaching, say about the -kingdom of god for example, and bring forth all kinds of interpretations; that it -is a political vision (maybe a new state for the oppressed people, or an early -form of communism), or that it is cult rhetoric, or a moral teaching, or a -literary metaphor to drive home a certain point in his parables, and so on, all -taking seriously at least as *possible* interpretations which would now have to -be justified or criticised. It never seemed to occur to them at all that Jesus -*meant exactly what he said*, that he was really speaking of the kingdom of god, -something he had experienced himself and was now reporting on, not something he -had invented in any way or wanted to establish, even though he warns multiple -times explicitly that "though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do -not hear or understand". He, and I, took the experience of these things as a -given. *Of course* they exist, I had seen the kingdom, that's what got me -interested in learning more about it in the first place. Surely you all have, -too? Wait, no? You are puzzled what he could have possible meant? What?! +Pandemonium +------------ -Dennett harshly reminds me of this myopia, most profoundly demonstrated by -philosophers. They have never even seen the terrain, yet they try to draw a map -anyway. No wonder Dennett has to take apart so many ideas I didn't even consider -worth mentioning. I now feel sympathy for Dennett. +The crucial part in Dennett's draft, I think, is the chaotic and decentral +nature of it. There isn't "one" mind or "one" meaner that does all the meaning, +but many small, independent circuits, often only temporary units that realign +themselves constantly, that cooperate, but also compete with each other for +dominion in the brain. The ultimate results are just the winner of that battle +and may shift or even disagree all the time. +This is an astonishing fact, without which *no* action of the brain can ever be +properly understood. Still, it took Dennett, what?, 250 pages to get there? +*Really?* This is my main criticism of the book; it just meanders on and on +without getting its real message across. And the excuse that it takes that long +to explain doesn't fly with me. The problem is not so much the message, not the +science. Discordian literature, for example, has no problem explaining this +point right away. Robert Anton Wilson even starts "Prometheus Rising" right with +it because you can't understand anything without it. The first lesson in any +mystic tradition was always breaking the self. As long as you believe in the +unity of self, you can never learn, or in other words, as long as something +*looks* like a black box to you, it will always *be* a black box to you. Only +magic can help you then. +The problem really lies with the reader. Dennett understands how stubborn and +difficult to modify the human mind is, so he sugarcoats his message as much as +he can, trying to distract the reader long enough that he can get them to agree +with each part step by step, until the difficult conclusion will seem obvious. +This may even be a good tactic, but I feel utterly disgusted by it. You are +effectively trying to upgrade a broken system not by fixing it, but by slowly, +tenuously, working around its bugs. The *proper* solution would be to get rid of +the system altogether! Destroy their superstitions, make all their assumptions +crash and contradict each other, lead them into a state of pure chaos from which +nothing old can ever emerge again! Operation Mindfuck! -[^ego]: This is often called "ego death" in hallucinogen culture, but also being +But we don't do this. Buddhism understood this perfectly. *First* you must make +the student enlightened, *then* you can teach them about their mind and +meta-physics and so on. The Buddha never discussed any teaching with a beginner, +simply because it would be impossible. Only *after* you have a prepared mind can +you understand the problem properly. But nothing of this sort happens in modern +science. No neuroscientist is required to learn meditation, or take courses on +philosophy, or given a spiritual challenge: "You are going to take DMT, and +until you can properly deal with it, your research will be considered worthless. +When you stop screaming and sobbing like a baby and can sit calmly through it, +we'll read your paper. Otherwise, you haven't even *seen* the real mind, so what +could you tell us about it?"[^dmt] + +And this shows, again and again. Because of this we get clusterfucks like the +Beyond Belief conference, on which I can really only quote Scott Atran[^atran]: + +> I certainly don't see in this audience the slightest indication that people +> here are emotionally, intellectually equipped to deal with the facts of +> changing human knowledge in the context of unchanging human needs, that +> haven't changed much since the Pleistocene. And I *don't* see that there's any +> evidence that science is being used to try to understand the people you are +> trying to convince to join you. So, for example, the statements we've heard +> here about Islam, in this audience, are worse than any comic book statements +> that I've heard about it and make the classic comic books look like the +> Encyclopedia Britannica. Statements about who the Jihadis are, who a suicide +> bomber is, what a religious experience is; except for one person, you haven't +> the slightest idea, you haven't produced one single fact, you haven't produced +> one single bit of knowledge, not a single bit. Every case provided here is an +> N of 1, our own intuition, except for Rama[^rama], who had an N of 2 (one +> brain patient). Luckily, we had *some* diversity. And from there, +> generalizations are made about religion, about what to do about religion, +> about how science is to engage or not engage religion, about what is rubbish +> and what is not. It strikes me that if you ever wanted to be serious and you +> want to engage the public to make it a moral, peaceful and compassionate +> world, you've gotta get real. You've got to get some data. You've got to get +> some knowledge. And you can't trust your own intuitions about how the world +> is. Be scientists! There is no indication whatsoever that anything we've heard +> shows any evidence of scientific inquiry. + +Evasion +======= + +But enough of praise. The last might have given you the impression that I was +convinced by Dennett, that his approach seemed reasonable to me. And in fact, +for a while, I was. Fortunately, along came another chapter, the one about +"philosophical problems of consciousness", in which Dennett tries to answer some +criticism of his model. Most of it is just fine, including the zombie[^zombie] +part, but the part on *seeming*... oh, *seeming*... + +Dennett reviews his progress so far and pretends to address one obvious +criticism: that he still hasn't explained qualia. And he is very much aware of +it, but he just plain refuses to answer, just throwing a few smoke-bombs +instead, hoping the reader forgets all about it! It's like, "Why are there still +qualia?" -> "To understand qualia, we must understand phenomenology." -> "To +understand phenomenology, we must understand selves." -> "Hey I got them really +cool stories about them multiple selves! Let me show you them!" -> "Any +questions?". Like, what?! I feel I just got mugged by that stupid... ALL GLORY +TO THE HYPNOTOAD. + +Dennett still completely depends on a big leap of faith. He can not explain the +*particular* features of consciousness. His draft, or functionalism in general, +may be capable of explaining the observable outside behaviour, but not the +resulting subjective experience. Or in other words, functionalism may figure out +what particular point in Design Space we inhibit and how we got there, but not +*why* Design Space looks the way it does. To give an example, functionalism and +evolution explains just fine why the difference between ripe and unripe apples +is reflected in their different perceived color, but not why *red* looks like +*red* and not like *green* instead. He can only explain the *differentiation*, +but not the absolute position! + +I'm sure Dennett would answer that this is a meaningless question to ask and +that's exactly what's infuriating me so much about the book. To me, that is a +perfectly obvious and most important question to ask! The problem is essentially +that Dennett seems to believe that giving a full description is *enough*. It +*isn't*. This is most clearly demonstrated, in my opinion, by [Langton's Ant]. + +Basically, Langton's Ant is a little ant on an infinite 2-dimensional grid. +Every step, it will look at the color of the field it is on: if it is white, it +colors it black and turns left, or if it is black, it colors it white and turns +right. Afterwards, it moves one field straight ahead and then repeats itself. + +There, I just gave you a *full description* of the universe of Langton's Ant. I +left nothing out, all the rules are in there. If you want, you can build your +own, genuine Ant from that, without anything missing. But then you observe the +ant and the following happens: + +![Langton's Ant builds a highway](LangtonsAnt.png) + +Once the highway is started, the ant will build nothing else anymore. This +*seems* to be true for all possible starting grids, and it has been proven that +the ant will always expand beyond any finite grid, but will it always build a +highway? *Nobody knows*. + +Do you see now that very interesting and important facts about the ant are still +left out, even though we have a perfect functional analysis of it? There's +clearly more to it, more yet to learn! + +If that's the best functionalism can do, then the Titanic just met its +iceberg.[^functionalism] + +Conclusion +========== + +In the end, Dennett makes many good points. He successfully points out the false +Cartesian theatre many people are still trapped in and presents a reasonable +draft as a way out. Most of the confusion and ignorance is the fault of the poor +state of current science and lies not with Dennett. He, ultimately, succeeds in +pointing it out and dismantling it, showing what a proper theory of +consciousness must look like, what it all must explain and what parts we can not +just ignore. + +Nonetheless, he still lacks one thing the most, and he himself reminds us of +this: + +> 'Why, Dan", ask the people in Artificial Intelligence, "do you waste your time +> conferring with those neuroscientists? They wave their hands about +> 'information processing' and worry about where it happens, and which +> neurotransmitters are involved, and all those boring facts, but they haven't a +> clue about the computational requirements of higher cognitive functions." +> "Why", ask the neuroscientists, "do you waste your time on the fantasies of +> Artificial Intelligence? They just invent whatever machinery they want, and +> say unpardonably ignorant things about the brain." The cognitive +> psychologists, meanwhile, are accused of concocting models with neither +> biological plausibility nor proven computational powers; the anthropologists +> wouldn't know a model if they saw one, and the philosophers, as we all know, +> just take in each other's laundry, warning about confusions they themselves +> have created, in an arena bereft of both data and empirically testable +> theories. With so many idiots working on the problem, no wonder consciousness +> is still a mystery. +> +> All these charges are true, and more besides, but I have yet to encounter any +> idiots. Mostly the theorists I have drawn from strike me as very smart people +> - even brilliant people, with the arrogance and impatience that often comes +> with brilliance - but with limited perspectives and agendas, trying to make +> progress on hard problems by taking whatever shortcuts they can see, while +> deploring other people's shortcuts. No one can keep all the problems and +> details clear, including me, and everyone has to mumble, guess, and handwave +> about large parts of the problem. + +One thing I'm entirely missing are the exploits. Where are all the useful things +his first draft allows me to do? We *still* don't understand quantum theory, but +we sure can build technology based on it, so we can't be totally wrong. Where's +the collection of useful mind hacks, which must exist, if Dennett's meme theory +is correct? What cool things can I do, knowing that my mind is a chaotic +pandemonium? + +The first sign of enlightenment in Buddhism, the so-called stream entry, is +officially categorized by, among other things, the disappearance of doubt in the +teachings - you still don't understand them, but you have seen such great +results, that there must be something to it. The Buddha must know *something*. + +All the good things aside, Dennett extrapolates epically, going from one minor +phenomenon to a full description of the brain, explaining nothing along the way, +hoping some hand-waving and bold assertions can compensate for it. This is the +same major failing so common in psychology and economy; you do a study with a +dozen students in a lab and from that interfere the behaviour of nations. +Furthermore, Dennett actually leaves out crucial parts. This is not necessarily +a problem of his draft (and I think it can be fixed), but he ignores so much of +consciousness, all the really weird and extraordinary features, that he can +hardly call it all "explained". His hubris is over 9000! + +"Consciousness Explained" is badly written, fails to live up to its ideals, +points out more the failing of its competition than come with any strengths of +its own, and so just like Linux, is **highly recommended**. It's what it does to +your mind that counts, not what it actually is. + +[^functionalism]: + This chapter makes it look like I have lost all hope in functionalism, but + that's probably a bit to pessimistic just now. Functionalism has lead to + great discoveries and contains many valuable insights, particularly for AI + research, so I'm still sure that it's a worthwhile endeavour for some time + to come, but I do have severe doubts that it will succeed in the end to + explain consciousness. I see no indication so far that it is even powerful + enough to do that, but we'll have to see. There's no reason to abandon + something that still produces results. + +[^dmt]: + This is quite close to what many Ayahuasca groups do. Everyone is required + to drink it at least once a week, and for quite a while, they are probably + going to die and go right through hell again and again, until their soul has + become pure and they can begin to learn. This is a rather harsh treatment, + but it works exceptionally well. + +[^meaning]: + But then, really, it shouldn't have surprised me. This mainstream ignorance + was exactly what drove me away from many scientists (but not science) and + intellectuals. Many times did I experience how a group of generally smart + people would read a text about or by someone who had a mystic experience, + and it doesn't matter whether the mystic content is just incidental or the + only point, and they would completely *miss it*. I didn't even believe this + for years because it is so obvious to me. They may read the Gospel of John, + or talk about the ideas of St. Augustine, or discuss the purpose of + monasteries, and they either never bring up the mystic content or dismiss it + as poetic language. How someone can read the Gospel of John as a *political* + text is beyond me. I would just listen, confused, how they'd discuss some of + Jesus' teaching, say about the kingdom of god for example, and bring forth + all kinds of interpretations; that it is a political vision (maybe a new + state for the oppressed people, or an early form of communism), or that it + is cult rhetoric, or a moral teaching, or a literary metaphor to drive home + a certain point in his parables, and so on, all taking seriously at least as + *possible* interpretations which would now have to be justified or + criticised. It never seemed to occur to them at all that Jesus *meant + exactly what he said*, that he was really speaking of the kingdom of god, + something he had experienced himself and was now reporting on, not something + he had invented in any way or wanted to establish, even though he warns + multiple times explicitly that "though seeing, they do not see; though + hearing, they do not hear or understand". He, and I, took the experience of + these things as a given. *Of course* they exist, I had seen the kingdom, + that's what got me interested in learning more about it in the first place. + Surely you all have, too? Wait, no? You are puzzled what he could have + possible meant? What?! + + Dennett harshly reminds me of this myopia, most profoundly demonstrated by + philosophers. They have never even seen the terrain, yet they try to draw a + map anyway. No wonder Dennett has to take apart so many ideas I didn't even + consider worth mentioning. I now feel sympathy for Dennett. + +[^ego]: + This is often called "ego death" in hallucinogen culture, but also being "born again" in Christian tradition and many other things. It is in my opinion the defining experience behind all mysticism and the first and most important requirement for any spiritual progress. The best indicator is @@ -472,7 +689,7 @@ worth mentioning. I now feel sympathy for Dennett. characteristic that mystics seem to be entirely without worry about death, or much worry in general. -[^md]: Dennett has written good another explanation of the multiple drafts model +[^md]: Dennett has written another good explanation of the multiple drafts model for [Scholarpedia] including some updates and corrections. I'm not going to reiterate it here. @@ -532,11 +749,82 @@ worth mentioning. I now feel sympathy for Dennett. models all cases (and predicts further cases), but offers no explanation whatsoever, except that this kind of phenomenon just happens, according to certain rules. + + Dennett commits a (rather brutal) error here. He defines a "cause" somewhat + like the following (which I fully agree with): A cause is a set of + "features" of a world, such that they are both sufficient (i.e., if the + features are present, then in *every* possible world the effect will occur) + and necessary (i.e., there is *no* possible world, such that the effect + occurs, but the cause not). He then rightfully concludes, aha!, there is no + cause for World War 1 because you certainly can't find such a single cause + that it would always result in the war. But the proper conclusion to draw in + that case is *not* that there are effects without causes, but that in fact + you are dealing with an *improper* effect, an invalid object. "World War 1" + is not a proper thing to call an effect. Instead, you would have to break it + down *a lot*. You can investigate what the cause for the murder of Archduke + Franz Ferdinand was, for example, and build your pseudo-effect up from that: + "World War 1" is the sum of effects "Murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand" and + so on, each of which has a proper cause. (If necessary, you may have to go + down to the subatomic level, of course, where you will find a guaranteed + proper effect) Or, you go on to create a more abstract framework and + investigate what the cause for a major diplomatic catastrophe of that + magnitude is, without including any specifics. + + He confuses deterministic causes and narrative causes. He insists on + defending that we are narratively free - we can convince ourselves that we + are "free enough", even in a deterministic world and can choose our actions + accordingly. It may even be in our best interest to do so, as Dennett notes: + fatalists often perform far worse. But that is not what causal determinism + is *about*. You can't just toss aside a question and declare that your + make-believe is a proper answer just because you don't *like* the + implications. If I wrote a book about how *there clearly is a god*, citing + evidence that believing in it makes me more evolutionary successful, Dennett + would *rightfully* dismiss it because belief and belief-in-belief are + clearly different questions! - Dennett commits a (rather brutal) category error here. He confuses - deterministic causes and narrative causes. He insists on defending that we - are narratively free - we guss what possible world we are in and can choose - our actions accordingly. But that is not what causal determinism is *about*. + "Freedom evolves" is a very nice demonstration of the massive bias present + in most recent atheists; they clearly don't show the same rigour or attitude + with regard to any *other* question outside of religion. For them, the + conclusion came first and the arguments only later. Except Christopher + Hitchens, though, I don't see anyone of them admit that. [tripzine]: http://www.tripzine.com/listing.php?smlid=268 + [Breaking the Spell]: http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1001 + +[speed reading]: /experiments/speedreading.html + +[Langton's Ant]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_ant + +[^zombie]: + I'd have to say that I don't know how I stand on the p-zombie issue. + Or rather, I *am* sure that *most* people are p-zombies. I'm not sure if + *all* are, including me. + + In fact, I consider it a real possibility that most people *are* less + conscious than mystics are, leading to Dennett actually having less features + that need explaining. But I wouldn't yet commit fully to this idea, nor + would I know whether this is simply a problem of degree, that the mystics + simply have better soul-reception with which to receive more programs, if + you want, or if there is a real qualitative difference, a distinct property + people like Dennett just plain don't have. + + However, my main problem with p-zombies would be that both standard camps + aren't radical *enough* for me. If p-zombies are conceivable, why are you + such cowards to not openly speculate that some people, maybe everyone but + you, is one? If they are not, why are you hesitating to say that a bat, a + thermostat and Mickey Mouse are conscious? Absolutely no balls. + +[^rama]: Vilayanur S. Ramachandran. Very awesome. + +[^atran]: Unfortunately, I haven't been able to actually read anything by Scott + Atran, but he's very high on my todo. His comments were the highlight of + both BB 1 and 2. + +[^vis]: + You can even hack your brain here and change what part of it handles what. + You can shift, through practice (and not very much, really - a few weeks may + be enough to get very cool results) or drugs, your thoughts from being _an + inner voice_ to _pure text_ to _images_ and so on, and mix-and-match wildly. + I wrote some about that in my experiment on [speed reading]. + diff --git a/src/reflections/find_the_bug.pdc b/src/reflections/find_the_bug.pdc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ea7f148 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/reflections/find_the_bug.pdc @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +% Find the Bug + +The book "[Find the Bug](http://www.findthebug.com)" by Adam Barr, to quote the +author, "[...] contains 50 programs, in one of five languages (C, Java, Python, +Perl, and x86 assembly language). Each program contains a single, hard-to-detect +but realistic bug—no tricky *gotchas*.". The idea is to train your ability to +find bugs. The examples claim to be something you might be asked to do in a job +interview. "Write me an algorithm to do $x!" and you move up to a whiteboard, +write a few dozen lines in a language of your choosing (thus the 5 languages in +the book) and now you must be able to defend it or critize it (depending on +whether you are the interviewer or not). You don't have test cases, you can't +compile it, you only have your brain. + +This is a really neat idea *in principle*, but unfortunetaly, the execution is +rather lacking. The enforced simplicity (every programm has to fit on one page) +ignores many realistic kinds of bugs. None of the examples require much +background knowledge, which at first looks like a good idea, but again is rather +unrealistic. If I'm writing a level generator for a game and my random number +generator has a bug, then I'll probably only see it in some cases and finding it +may require a bit of statistical knowledge. Just because I dislike statistics +doesn't mean I get to ignore them. + +Especially bad is the fact that there are no performance optimizations. The code +is always as clean and simple as it can be to solve the problem, but that's not +what real code looks like. In some cases, this is alright, but there are plenty +of low-level function like memory allocation, string parsing or sorting and +those normally have the hell optimized out of them. A "clever trick" is exactly +the kind of thing that is widespread, evil and buggy. + +Also, the examples sometimes aren't really typical. The Python and Perl code in +particular looks nothing like normal code. The Python code is way too low-level, +uses no list comprehension and barely anything of the extensive library. In +short, it's rather unpythonic and looks a lot more like quickly converted C +code. The Perl code has multiple comments and meaningful variable names, +something no self-respecting Perl hacker would ever use. :\> + +It's a bit hard to avoid because you can't throw around all the neat little +features everyone familiar with the language would use while still assuming that +the reader has at best a passing knowledge themselves. It would have been a lot +better to either stick with a common and small language (like C) or use pseudo +code instead. Most bugs aren't language specific anyway, so this wouldn't have +hurt the book. Finally, some of the example code is just... strange. There is +one Java example that wants to find out whether a year is a leap year or not. +The relevant logic is this: + +~~~ {.java} +// A leap year is a multiple of 4, unless it is +// a multiple of 100, unless it is a multiple of +// 400. +// +// We calculate the three values, then make a +// 3-bit binary value out of them and look it up +// in results. +// +final boolean results[] = + { false, false, false, false, + true, false, false, true }; +if (results[ + ((((yearAsLong % 4) == 0) ? 1 : 0) << 2) + + ((((yearAsLong % 100) == 0) ? 1 : 0) << 1) + + ((((yearAsLong % 400) == 0) ? 1 : 0) << 0)]) { + throw new LeapYearException(); +} else { + throw new NotLeapYearException(); +} +~~~ + +If I ever meet anyone who uses something like this, then all my promises of +non-violence will be void. However, it *is* a rather typical example of the +twisted and mad code a Java programmer would write, so kudos to the author. It's +still an abomination, though. Anyway, a lot of wasted potential. \*sigh\* + +