ToKCast

Stop Presses. We interrupt regular programming to discuss the announcement of David Deutsch's share in the award of a Breakthrough Prize - one of the highest honours in science. ToKCast does not, as a rule, cover "news" - but this one exception allows me to turn something "timely" into something "timeless". There is a webpage for this episode here: https://www.bretthall.org/breakthrough.html

This is in response to a paper by Objectivist scholar Thomas Miovas Jr who operates a website about Objectivism here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com. The relevant paper can be found here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/induction-in-philosophy-and-the-special-sciences.html?fbclid=IwAR2cNLVGxyguM5R2TXaYe3OVclhw34lAdIKN0Mp13zTLK-J8dPMmnfNVlOs In this episode I discuss induction broadly speaking, the objectivist usage of the term and Thomas Miovas attempts to salvage the word despite noticing issues with it as it is typically formulated. This leads to a comparison between Rand's style of philosophy - especially epistemology and it's tendency towards abstractions and Karl Popper's far more practical and concrete problem centred approach. Herein I look at how theory-laden any observation is - like simply observing how the sky can be blue. What does "The sky is blue" mean? Is there a sky? Is the air blue? What is scattering? Popper's vision of how knowledge is constructed accounts for this complex notion of our minds coming to solve such problems: Rand's on the other hand is left grappling with why we do not "observe the facts of reality" as she, and other objectivists such as Thomas Miovas, claim we can.

Ayn Rand claims we are "observing the facts of reality" when forming concepts. Here I explain why that is wrong and how facts are things we conclude *only at the end* of a long chain of interpretation. This is an excerpt from an episode to be released after this one, also on "objectivist epistemology", and in addition to the previous episode released about "An introduction to objectivist epistemology" by Ayn Rand.

Here I read from Ayn Rand's work "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and reflect upon it by comparing it to actual epistemology (how knowledge is created). We explain the misconceptions in the view that knowledge is all about the goings on in minds and how Rand's epistemology is root-and-branch subjectivist. Ayn Rand is an excellent defender of free trade and capitalism, the inherent value of people: her ideas are pro-human and broadly optimistic. However the epistemology is fundamentally flawed containing pure speculation about how people learn (so-called "concept formation") and disconnected from problems in (for example) science and where knowledge is being constructed. Her examples are highly abstract rather than being based in the concrete reality of the history of ideas and for this reasons she reaches the same conclusions as almost all other philosophers on this topic. Namely that knowledge is derived from reality through our senses (empiricism) and is induced by noticing similarities between objects. This is not explanatory, it is not insightful and it is demonstrably false - as I explain.

The final episode of readings from "The Science of Can and Can't" by Chiara Marietta. This serves as something of a summary chapter with pointers about the future of Constructor Theory.

A version of this on Youtube has music and images as a farewell finale to the "Things that make you go mm?" series. This is about meaning: what is it, is there a meaning for us? Does the question make sense?

Rational and anti-rational memes. Static and dynamic societies. Diversity of ideas and individuality. Credit: "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch

Minds are the makers of memes; ideas that survive. But how is it memes are replicated and transmitted through a culture? What counts as a meme?

The crucial differences between AGI and regular AI: minds vs the mindless. Is "competency" at completing tasks what makes a system "intelligent". I explain why that is, in a deep sense, the opposite to what intelligence may be - or at least the kind of intelligence that is interesting in the I in AGI.

What is a mind? Can we pin it down? To what do the pronouns "I" and "you" really refer? Is the mind different to its contents? What do we know and what are we struggling still to understand?