The Theory of Anything

This week we are joined by fellow traveler Dan Gish to discuss LLMs and AGI. Does it really, truly make sense to think that OpenAI or DeepMind are not at least an important stepping stone towards the creation of human-level creativity? What does it mean when CritRats assert that these AI algorithms are the opposite of human intelligence because they are obedient whereas we are disobedient?

Here we discuss fidesim and critical rationalism. Fideism has many definitions, but at least how we are thinking of it, it is the idea that something like faith has validity in the process of moving closer to truth through reason.

This week we discuss a short interview with Karl Popper from 1969 where he discusses God and religion. Specifically, he makes a case for agnosticism, asserts that all men are religious, and discusses the problem of evil. We use this as a starting point to consider if we live in an inherently meaningful universe or one ruled by something like entropy. We discuss arguments for the former related to fine tuning, causation, and beauty.

Bonus: Bruce proclaims himself one of those much hated Fideists! (A group disliked by both rationalists and religionists alike.)

This week Bruce speaks about the work or Michael Levin, who is a biologist know for his work on cell cognition and collective intelligence or the idea that electrical signals between cells influence the formation of biological systems. His work has potentially massive implications in cancer research and other fields.

Though rarely identified with 3rd way evolution, his work has more than a passing similarity to it. Like 3rd way evolutionists, he seeks to expand evolutionary theory beyond the alleged reductionism of a gene-centric or neo-Darwinian approach. Presumably, these bioelectric effects could be considered a kind of epigenetic or evolutionary process existing outside the genome.

However, unlike the 3rd Way evolutionists, he's ready to back up his views with clever and shocking experiments that confront popular interpretations of gene-centric evolution head on.

Can Levin's work possibly help us determine who is more right in the argument between 3rd Way evolutionists like Denis Noble or James Shapiro vs mainstream evolutionary biologists like Zach Hancock?

How well do the collection of assertions called “3rd way evolution” stand up to criticism? Here, in our second of at least 3 episodes on this topic, Bruce considers the criticisms of Denis Noble and James Shapiro by YouTuber and evolutionary biologist Zach Hancock in his epic video on the subject.  Perhaps the role of epigenetics is overstated, Lamarckism is not back,  and neo-Darwinism is not dead after all.

This week we discuss neo-Darwinism vs post-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism meaning a gene centric view of evolution, which is also called the great synthesis since it unifies natural selection with genetics and paleontology and perhaps even human psychology.

Post-Darwinism is a view that emphasizes factors outside random mutation, like epigenetics or the assertion that organisms and cells can alter their own genome in a beneficial way.

Here Bruce specifically concentrates on the work of biologist James Shapiro’s critical look at Richard Dawkins’ neo-Darwinism.We consider, does it really make sense to see our bodies and minds as tools governed by our masters DNA? Does post-Darwinism, also called “third way evolution,” offer a meaningful alternative to both neo-Darwinism and the theism of intelligent design? Does this way of looking at biology say something about the very nature of reality and the laws of physics?

This is part 1 of a loose series. Part 2 will cover criticisms of Noble and Shapiro. Part 3 will cover the work of Michael Levin. However, you don't really need to listen to them in order and we provide context each time.

This time we discuss Nassim Nicholas Taleb's article "IQ is Largely a Pseudoscientific Swindle" -- a title whose compliment is that he's claiming IQ is a bit scientifically valid. But which bits does he claim are valid?

We use this article as a springboard to consider: Do the numbers produced by an IQ test say something meaningful or useful about human minds? Would these tests be better off in the dustbin of history? Are they ever useful? And is there overlap between Taleb's take on IQ and the negative view of these tests held by many critical rationalists? What does Taleb agree (or disagree) with CritRats over when it comes to IQ?

Bruce takes a deep dive into Stephen Wolfram’s ideas regarding computational universality, which may go further than the Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis in that Wolfram’s theories imply that all of nature could be simulated even by relatively simple systems, so even nature itself may be computational rather than something that can just be simulated on a turning machine or quantum computer. Stephen Wolfram is a renowned physicist, computer scientists, and entrepreneur.

Bruce also talks about the related ideas on philosophy of computation promoted by Rudy Rucker, who is a mathematician, computer scientist, and science fiction author associated with cyberpunk genre. Both thinkers believe, rightly or wrongly, that the complexity of life and the universe can be explained by relatively simple computational rules.

Our Christmas gift to you this year is episode 100: an interview with The Man (TM) himself!

Bruce stumbles over himself fan-boying as he asks all his burning (but geeky) questions about cosmology, the omega point, and probability. How do Deutsch and Tipler differ on optimistic end-time cosmology? Is the Omega point refuted by observation (Deutsch) or not (Tipler)? Does heat death contradict the principle of optimism? Is it a bummer? Does stochasticity really not exist? And is it rational to wear a mask during COVID? How do you apply epistemology to a question like that when you lack enough data to severely test your theories but still need to make a decision?

Peter asks: Are free will and downward causation related? Do our genes attempt to coerce us? Why are explanatory and computational universality so confusing? And what if studies show that authoritative parenting is best for children?

AKA "David Deutsch DESTORYS the Simulation Hypothesis"

Bruce take a deep dive into solipsism in the form of the brain in a vat thought experiment, Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis, and related ideas. Does the Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis suggest we could live in a simulation? What does critical rationalism say about these theories?

We take a deep dive into Karl Popper’s philosophical ideas about music that he outlines in four chapters in this intellectual autobiography Unended Quest:

• “Music,”
• Speculations about the Rise of Polyphonic Music,”
• “Two Kinds of Music,” and
• “Progressivism in Art, Especially in Music.” 

We are joined by Peter’s brother, Chris Johansen, who is a straight-ahead jazz tenor saxophonist living in NYC. 

We discuss how Popper’s ideas on classical music intersect with Chris’s ideas on jazz, as well as the role of conservatism in music. We examine how Popper’s thinking on music influenced his concept of the 3 worlds and his ideas on such concepts as dogmatism, essentialism, and historicism. 

Plus, you get Bruce's rant about the importance of constraints in music, science, criticism, and Popper's epistemology. Bruce argues that absent at least the attempt to outline epistemological conventions (i.e. constraints) you can't error correct Popper's epistemology and you lose what makes it special.

Here we interview AI researcher Kenneth Stanley, who makes the case that in complex systems, pursing specific objectives can actually be counterproductive. Instead, whether in machine learning, business, science, education, or art, we should pursue what is interesting. It is in this search for novelty—fueled by curiosity—where innovation and open-ended knowledge creation occurs.

Get Ken's book!

Forgive the clickbait title. The episode should probably actually be called "The (Lack of) Problem of Induction" because we primarily cover Popper's refutation of induction in C&R Chapter 8.

This episode starts our deep dive into answering the question "What is the difference between a good philosophical explanation and a bad explanation?"

To answer that question we go over Karl Popper's "On the Status of Science and of Metaphysics" from his book Conjectures and Refutations Chapter 8. In this chapter Popper first explains why he believes 'there is no such thing as induction' (from page 18 of Logic of Scientific Discovery) by offering his historical and logical refutation of induction.

In this episode we go over Popper's refutation of induction in chapter 8 of C&R in detail and then compare it to Tom Mitchell's (of Machine Learning fame) argument of the 'futility of bias free learning.' We show that Mitchell's and Popper's arguments are actually the same argument even though Mitchell argues for the existence of a kind of induction as used in machine learning.

Bruce argues that the difference is not a conceptual or theoretical difference but just a difference in use of language and that the two men are actually conceptually fully in agreement. This makes machine learning both a kind of 'induction' (though not the kind Popper refuted) and also gives machine learning an interesting and often missed relationship with critical rationalism.

Then Bruce asks the most difficult question of all: "Is there anyone out there in the world other than me that is interested in exploring how to apply Karl Popper's epistemology to machine learning like this?"

This week we discuss the book Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton (1908), perhaps the most famous defense of the Christian tradition. We contrast this with Karl Popper’s talk, “Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition” (1948), from his collection of essays, Conjectures and Refutations. We consider: What is the role of tradition in science and knowledge? Is there a relationship between liberalism and Christianity? Is Chesterton actually a rationalist? What are the paradoxes of Christianity? Is there a link between madness and rationality?

Is the universal explainer hypothesis falsifiable? How does the concept of universality relate to human minds? Is anything truly beyond human comprehension? And how would you frame universality as an interesting topic at a party?

This week we also feature a guest, Dan Gish, a fellow traveler Bruce has connected with on Twitter. Dan (on Twitter) had questions about if the incomprehensibility of LLMs refuted the universal explainer hypothesis. This was Bruce's attempt to give him an honest answer to Dan's questions.

How do humans form 'fuzzy categories'? How does this all relate to essentialism? Is essentialism false? Or is it partially true? And how does this all relate to Critical Rationalism?

Picking up where we left off last week, Bruce gets deeper into Douglas Hofstadter’s ideas on language and the mind and his assertion that “analogy-making lies at the heart of intelligence.” Bruce considers how Hofstadter’s theories may be interwoven with ideas on language and cognition promoted by Steven Pinker in "How the Mind Works" along with, as usual, the epistemology of Karl Popper and David Deutsch. We again consider if this is an inductive theory? And how should critical rationalists view theories like this?

This is the first of our two part series (that may or may not be released back-to-back) where Bruce delves into the work Douglas Hofstadter, specifically the book Surfaces and Essences. We consider what is the relationship—if there is any—between critical rationalism and Hofstadter's idea that analogy is a core mechanism of human cognition. Is it fair to criticize Hofstadter's ideas as being inductivism in disguise? Could something like what Hofstadter suggests (i.e. analogy) be central to human consciousness and creation of AGI?

Here we discuss a 1992 interview with David Deutsch where he makes the case that video games are inherently educational, not addictive, and that children should not be stopped from playing as much as they want. We contrast the view of humans, science, and knowledge promoted there by David Deutsch with the more pessimistic view of thinkers such as Jonathan Haidt today. Bruce and Peter reflect on their own mixed feelings on this issue both as critical rationalists and parents.

Bruce summarizes his (unique?) understanding of Karl Popper’s epistemology that (possibly?) straddles the line between orthodox and unorthodox and is Influenced both by Deutsch, more old school Popperians, and his own unique interpretation of critical rationalism. Bruce claims that the key difference between regular "folk epistemology" (i.e. how humans reason without a correct understanding of epistemology) and "Popper's epistemology" (aka "Critical Rationalism" or the correct epistemology) is due to Popper's epistemology having a 'second axis' that regular folk epistemology entirely lacks. This 'second axis' is rooted in a choice to make your theories bold and risky by maximizing empirical content.

This makes Popper's epistemology 2-dimensional instead of 1-dimensional.

If this fact is missed, Bruce claims your epistemology collapses back to be regular old folk epistemology and you are no longer doing critical rationalism.

Refutation, corroboration, explanation, induction, falsification, verisimilitude, “the Popperian war on words,” and “Popper’s ratchet” -- from past podcasts! -- are all touched upon.

Bruce wraps up his epic 6 part series on knowledge and the 'two sources hypothesis' (i.e. Deutsch's theory that all 'knowledge' comes from only two sources: Biological evolution and human minds).

What happens if we take all the non-two sources examples of 'adapted information that cause itself to remain so' (e.g. the walking robot, the immune system, trade secrets, animal learning, animal memes, etc.) and give them their own theory distinct from the theory of 'knowledge'? Sort of like a theory of "a simulacrum of knowledge" (to uses Deutsch's own term) or "Simul-Knowledge" for short.

This turns out to be remarkably easy: you just take the constructor theory of knowledge without any implicit additional criteria. Doing this has immediate profound implications that impact how we see and understand Deutsch's theory of knowledge.

What is the “problem of open-endedness”? Bruce explores how what might sound like an esoteric machine-learning issue may actually be interwoven with our deepest theories on evolution, human consciousness, and knowledge creation.

Also included: Bruce's guide to how NOT to argue with a Creationist.

References:

How does ChatGPT really work? Is there a relationship between a program like ChatGPT and artificial general intelligence (AGI)?

Bruce Caldwell (a scholar interested in Popper and Hayek) wrote a long paper in the Journal of Economic Literature (March 1991) called 'Clarifying Popper'. In this episode, Bruce Nielson summarizes and discusses Caldwell’s paper on how Popper’s ideas could be applied to economics. How well did Bruce Caldwell do in his goal of clarifying Popper's epistemology?

Out next episode is another interview with Brian Boutwell and we discuss this paper a few times. So this summary will help those that don't have access to it.

Brian Boutwell is a professor of criminal justice at the University of Mississippi who specializes in “quantitative genetics, with a focus on environmental and psychological risk factors for antisocial and violent behavior.” He has a TED talk, numerous articles in Quillette, and has been published in many journals. Here we discuss his upcoming meta-analysis on twin studies soon to be published in Nature.

We discuss the following two articles:

Is the government hiding a secret UFO recovery program? What should the critical rationalist attitude be towards these kinds of claims? Why exactly would aliens want to hide from us? We discuss these questions and much more.