Increments

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? Topics we touch: We take your twitter questions! Filos 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? Dan 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. Karl 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? WTF is up with Bret and Eric Weinstein The allure of reflexive contrarianism The (horrible! awful! stop it!) tendency of academics to use convoluted language to impress their non-peers The notion of "secular gurus" and what distinguishes a secular guru from a person with a large platform And the special responsibility of researchers to communicate clearly. References: Animal Suffering Bruce Nielson's blog post on whether animals experience qualia, and his second on animal emotions. We mostly discuss the first. Weinsteins Eric Weinstein's excellent first appearance on Sam Harris's podcast Geometric Unity website Geometric Unity pdf See Timothy Nguyen on the Wright Show and Decoding the Gurus for an excellent overview of the whole scandal ... and check out Timothy Nguyen on Eigenbros for a deep dive into the technical nitty-gritty Norbert Blum's original paper purporting to show that P is not equal to NP. A nice answer on Stack Exchange detailing why Blum's proof was wrong. Quotes: Every 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. Karl 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.Support Increments

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: Does Deutschian epistemology give us with Free Will? Should one identify as a critical rationalist? Does membership in a community, or identification with a label, affect our ability to give and receive criticism? How has reading Deutsch and Popper changed our lives? Can trauma get stored in the body? How often do we cry? Check out Chris on twitter (@ReachChristofer) and Do Subscribe to Do Explain. References: The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch Behave by Robert Sapolsky Lecture on Depression by Sapolsky Do Explain episode with Chris and Matt Goldenberg on emotional processing Temple Grandin discussing the "black-hat" horse. Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk Sir Peter Brian Medawar whom Richard Dawkins referred to as 'the wittiest of all scientific writers'. Blow your nose, dry your eyes, and send us a tear-stained email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Special Guest: Christofer Lövgren.Support Increments

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. So 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%. Intro segment: "The Sentience Debate": The moral value of shrimps, insects, and oysters Relevant timestamps: 10:05: "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." 25:47: "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." 46:47: "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." 1:01:59: "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." Main References: Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction - Wikipedia How Policymakers Can Improve Crisis Planning The Good Judgment Project - Wikipedia Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?: Tetlock, Philip E.: 9780691128719: Books - Amazon.ca Additional references mentioned in the episode: The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable - Wikipedia Book Review: Superforecasting | Slate Star Codex Pandemic Uncovers the Limitations of Superforecasting – We Are Not Saved My Final Case Against Superforecasting (with criticisms considered, objections noted, and assumptions buttressed) – We Are Not Saved Use your Good Judgement and send us email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Support Increments

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? To answer these questions, we dive into Chapter 9 of Conjectures and Refutations: Why are the Calculi of Logic and Arithmetic Applicable to Reality?. But before we get to that, we touch on some of the good stuff: evolutionary psychology, cunnilingus, and why Robin is better than Batman. References: Conjectures 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 Ben on Do Explain with Christofer Lovgren Debate between Spelke and Pinker Very Bad Wizards discussing the paper "Oral Sex as Infidelity detection" (episode, paper). Sturgeon's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law#:~:text=Sturgeon%27s%20law%20(or%20Sturgeon%27s%20revelation,science%20fiction%20author%20and%20critic. Eugene Wigner's paper The Unreasonable Effective of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Stoic versus Aristotelian logic. Here is a nice discussion of the differences between the two. Rob Wiblin's tweet that all probabilities are subjective probabilities (in an otherwise very good thread). Buhler's three functions of language: (i) Expressive, (ii) Signaling, and (iii) Descriptive. See the "Organon Model". Piece on Brett Weinstein and Ivermectin. Quotes: “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.” “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.” Send us the most bizarre use of evolutionary psychology you've seen at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Support Increments

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: The Ogre does what ogres can, Deeds quite impossible for Man, But one prize is beyond his reach: The Ogre cannot master speech. About a subjugated plain, Among its desperate and slain, The Ogre stalks with hands on hips, While drivel gushes from his lips - August 1968, W H Auden Send us an email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com Image from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-august-1968-red-square-protest-and-its-legacy Audio updated: 05/07/2021Support Increments

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. We cover all sorts of ground in this episode, including: Mistakes we made in our thought experiments episode Is it possible to over-theorize? Wild animal suffering Don't fish eat other fish?! Feline family planning Antinatalism Moral Cluelessness Population ethics and the repugnant conclusion (Ha!) Similarities and differences between theoretical physics and theoretical philosophy References: Organization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS) Lukas Gloor's post on population ethics Wild Animal Initiative Pigeon Contraception (yes, really) Hilary Greaves on moral cluelessness (talk+transcript, paper) Better Never to Have Been by David Benatar. Dan 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. How 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. Update 13/06/21: The original title of this episode was "Meta-ethics Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)"Special Guest: Dan Hageman.Support Increments

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 How mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences Counterfactual reasoning in mathematics Intra versus extra mathematical explanation Alternate logics Mathematical thought experiments The use of probability in the courtroom References: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner. Proofs and Refutations by Imre Lakatos. Mark 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.Support Increments

Join a lively discussion as one speaker embraces cat parenthood, sparking joy and humor. Delve into Karl Popper's Three Worlds, where reality intertwines with subjective experiences and human creations. Explore philosophical dilemmas, including whether prime numbers exist independently of humans. The conversation navigates the complexities of abstractions, mathematical truths, and logical systems, challenging reductionist views while celebrating the creative evolution of thought. Prepare for a stimulating exploration of reality and our understanding of existence!

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: Realism and antirealist interpretations of quantum theoryThe advisory styles of Dennis Sciama and John Wheeler and the standardization of education Reconciling the Harris / Deutsch perspectives on Free WillRestorative and Rehabilitative justiceA universe in which Ben spontaneously explodes into dust while speakingLinks: Sam's recent paper with David DeutschFrom Micro to Macro, by Vlatko Vedral Hayek's Constitution of LibertySam 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.Support Increments

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. Support Increments