I do appreciate discussing but anyone who know DD knows that knowledgeable Socratic method is best. He is the ultimate tutor. This guy seems to think he is David's intellectual peer. I certainly don't.
Must be a fine culmination for you to converse with David Deutsch in this way.. For us, your viewers, a wonderful addition to our long and gradually enlightening conversation for which you have provided the theatre. -Feeling lucky and grateful to have had the expansion of David's books and means and room to analyze them....Thanks, Brett!
Thanks a lot Brett, i have the book in portuguese “ O Início do Infinito “ from David Deutsch and hmmm it was a revelation, Deutsch is the Thinker . But with tokcast it was the possibility of continuing the thinking and the conversation about the ideas of that magnific book. Salut from Porto, Portugal.
What I don't quite understand is how good "unscientific" explanations work. Can the criterion of good explanations which is "hard to vary" be applied to determine the explanatory power of any philosophical statement? If so can you give an example? Thank you in advance
Let's take the trope philosophy example: solipsism. This basically says: reality behaves exactly the same way that we should expect if realism were true BUT add to that the axiom "only you exist and it's all a dream". That additional axiom changes "realism" into solipsism - but it is "easy to vary". Consider that it works just as well if it's you and your partner who dream it all into existence. Or if all humans are. Or if it's a simulation. Or many simulations. Or a deception by a demon. So these alternatives to realism are easy to vary. They cannot be refuted by experiment (they are not scientific claims) - but rather by argument. They are bad explanations because they are so easy to vary and solve no problems beyond which vanilla realism does. Indeed they create more problems (where does the dreamer/simulation/demon exist and so on).
Yes. Throughout "The Beginning of Infinity" but especially early on in Chapter 1. I also provide some additional context on that here: th-cam.com/video/tgWaWvZWxNc/w-d-xo.html
Thank you. Any pointer to one of the recent (say post-ChatGPT) your or Deutsch's positions on AI replacement of jobs? Also feel much of the currents fears are also based on his distinction between AI and AGI (e.g. see his contribution in Possible Minds (ed. Brockman))
Haha. It's not a problem except insofar as: video takes ~5x more effort to edit. I could be producing more that basically has 95% of the same information content for 5x less energy.
@@bretthall9080 Fair enough, as is so often the case the content consumer (myself) has failed to consider the effort required from the content producer. That said, I'm a weird consumer who has difficult focusing on spoken content without having something to occupy my eyes as well. Seriously, I sat here watching this whole video even though the vast majority of the information content was undoubtedly the audio. I'm sure I must be in the minority given the popularity of audio-only podcasts.
Article: not so much. But see here for an explanation of where David is coming from compared to most people who speak about ethics/morality: m.th-cam.com/video/5kPSI6djlwE/w-d-xo.html
There must be some knowledge that is implicit otherwise you have no basis for saying that there isn't. If the mind is mostly inconsistent than that claim is likely a nonsense coming from an inconsistent mind.
This keeps getting better, the more often I revisit this interview. 🙏
Congrats on this! Lived up to the hype, the discussion on undecidability was 🔥
wagmi
@@jamesnicholls7139 gm 🌞
I do appreciate discussing but anyone who know DD knows that knowledgeable Socratic method is best. He is the ultimate tutor. This guy seems to think he is David's intellectual peer. I certainly don't.
Your communication is so clear and compelling, not to mention your guests'.
Hi Brett, congratulations on the 100th episode. Your work has greatly increased the value I've gotten from David's books, so thank you very much.
Must be a fine culmination for you to converse with David Deutsch in this way.. For us, your viewers, a wonderful addition to our long and gradually enlightening conversation for which you have provided the theatre. -Feeling lucky and grateful to have had the expansion of David's books and means and room to analyze them....Thanks, Brett!
Thanks a lot Brett, i have the book in portuguese “ O Início do Infinito “ from David Deutsch and hmmm it was a revelation, Deutsch is the Thinker .
But with tokcast it was the possibility of continuing the thinking and the conversation about the ideas of that magnific book. Salut from Porto, Portugal.
Wow it's so amazing to hear you talking to David Deutsch finally!
"Audio-only" works for me. Less bandwidth/faster downloading. Thanks for doing what you do.
Hooray! Looking forward to listening to this.
"There's a very famous one called God" Brilliant!
Thank you for helping me understand his ideas.
PS When's the third book out ;-)
Your guess is as good as mine, Mr. Hurn :)
What I don't quite understand is how good "unscientific" explanations work. Can the criterion of good explanations which is "hard to vary" be applied to determine the explanatory power of any philosophical statement? If so can you give an example? Thank you in advance
Let's take the trope philosophy example: solipsism. This basically says: reality behaves exactly the same way that we should expect if realism were true BUT add to that the axiom "only you exist and it's all a dream". That additional axiom changes "realism" into solipsism - but it is "easy to vary". Consider that it works just as well if it's you and your partner who dream it all into existence. Or if all humans are. Or if it's a simulation. Or many simulations. Or a deception by a demon. So these alternatives to realism are easy to vary. They cannot be refuted by experiment (they are not scientific claims) - but rather by argument. They are bad explanations because they are so easy to vary and solve no problems beyond which vanilla realism does. Indeed they create more problems (where does the dreamer/simulation/demon exist and so on).
Is there a article or some piece of text explaining the conjurer? I think I heard him say it in a TED Talks, but some text would be cool.
Yes. Throughout "The Beginning of Infinity" but especially early on in Chapter 1. I also provide some additional context on that here: th-cam.com/video/tgWaWvZWxNc/w-d-xo.html
Thank you. Any pointer to one of the recent (say post-ChatGPT) your or Deutsch's positions on AI replacement of jobs? Also feel much of the currents fears are also based on his distinction between AI and AGI (e.g. see his contribution in Possible Minds (ed. Brockman))
Congrats Brett this is great!
Love this!
Another way to resolve the 10:1 ratio of audio-only listeners to TH-cam viewers is to make your content rely even more heavily on visuals. :)
Haha. It's not a problem except insofar as: video takes ~5x more effort to edit. I could be producing more that basically has 95% of the same information content for 5x less energy.
@@bretthall9080 Fair enough, as is so often the case the content consumer (myself) has failed to consider the effort required from the content producer. That said, I'm a weird consumer who has difficult focusing on spoken content without having something to occupy my eyes as well. Seriously, I sat here watching this whole video even though the vast majority of the information content was undoubtedly the audio. I'm sure I must be in the minority given the popularity of audio-only podcasts.
Nice!
Do you have a article where you flush out David’s take on ethics?
Article: not so much. But see here for an explanation of where David is coming from compared to most people who speak about ethics/morality: m.th-cam.com/video/5kPSI6djlwE/w-d-xo.html
@@bretthall9080 Thank you for the reply, I’ll check it out.
Our messiah has spoken.
I’d say we have access to only one thing and that is consciousness
Tankyo bro do lern me ting
51:23 the mind
There must be some knowledge that is implicit otherwise you have no basis for saying that there isn't. If the mind is mostly inconsistent than that claim is likely a nonsense coming from an inconsistent mind.