Popper's problem-oriented epistemology (with David Deutsch and Eli Tyre)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2021
- David Deutsch and Eli Tyre have a conversation about Karl Popper's epistemology, Critical Rationalism. They go into detail about how knowledge grows via creative problem-solving, and discuss evolutionary creativity, AI, and more.
TWITTER
● David Deutsch: / daviddeutschoxf
● Eli Tyre: / epistemichope
David Deutsch's book The Beginning of Infinity:
www.thebeginningofinfinity.com/ 
Наука
Tankyo David for lern me new tings
Eli’s enthusiasm in this conversation is excellent.
Mind blown !! Great discussion 🤙🏽🔥 Prof Deutsch “holy shit” 🤣🤣
This was a fun conversation, it was like David Deutsch holding office hours for this young man who really wants to understand lol.
Refreshing to see someone genuinely taking a moment openly to digest new ideas and attempt to understand and even adopt them - even at this level. Sad but true
Eli, you did a great job as someone with mininal exposure to this subject and were able to catch on quick to big shifts in thinking. It is helpful to watch you think through the discussion points and common stumbling blocks.
Eli is an earnest conversation partner in all mediums. Much respect :)!
I am assuming you know Eli to make such a statement ... For me, he is too choppy in his speech and delivery ... No offense Eli but try to calm down and speak more deliberately ... Professor Deutch deserves better....
@@billmallin4565 lol what a weirdo thing to say
@@billmallin4565 iam shares a different opinion than you, Bill. There's nothing wrong with that.
Fantastic conversation thank you so much.
This is great and sounded like there might be more of these coming? I hope so
this was a really interesting conversation! thank you!
This is awesome! Great job Eli (and of course David).
Finally DD has publicly had a conversation like this. Just wow!
Thank you so much for this conversaation, I like it. It is always very enriching to listen to you and to read you.
Great conversation , its quite sad that people here in little old England have not a clue who David Deutsch is or any of the other good minds that contribute to the growth of the enlightenment project , you dont need to be smart you just need to think with an open mind and take on board ideas that challenge our narrow perspectives . Given our contribution to world knowledge we still appear to favour false eyebrow to highbrow culture and revel in it !
David, I love your mind . From my heart.
I think we should view knowledge as something that Popper himself has once called before (not quite sure where): an "expectation". It is best here to not confuse between the anthropomorphic sense of expectation with the strict sense of "expectation" (which will always be used in quotes) here.
Knowledge is a form of "expectation" of any organism (or non-organism, in fact, like computers). What the sunflower does when sunlight hits its surface is to act out the pre-existing "expectation" that was built into its biological body. The immune system can be said to do the same: it enacts a certain "expectation" after coming across specific genes or proteins that were previously formed "expectations". The stability of the immune system over an extended period of time works because it "expects" the environment to be in a certain way.
In a theoretical system, from some premises, you can "expect" certain conclusions given some rules of logic. A "problem" arises when your "expectation" is betrayed: when something *unexpected* happens. You also *learn* something new when you encounter something you didn't expect - this is why for Popper a "successful criticism" is in fact what you learn, rather than a "failed criticism" (in terms of his discussion of science, "falsification" vs "corroboration"). You learn through your mistakes (which are usually something which go awry to your expectation), rather than confirmations of your expectation (which you already expect, nothing *new* is really learned).
Here, when we say "a fact/observation is theory-laden", we're really saying "an observation is carried out based on some already held *expectation*". You "observe the sun coming up each day" only because you *expect* to some extent that it will be the case: otherwise you wouldn't even go outside to check in trying to check it.
"New knowledge" is created when you (1) encounters a "counter-expectation" (knowledge of ignorance) and (2) conjectures/forms a new, plausible expectation (plausible representation) of the world. However, the important difference between (1) and (2) is that (1) is the *finding* of a problem and (2) is the potential *solution* of a problem. In a sense, (1) is "final" while (2) is not. (2) is just a conjecture (a fallible "expectation"), while (1) contradicts an expectation. A powerful criticism (pointing out of a flaw in our expectations) is (logically) final, but a solution (a conjecture, an expectation) is always (logically) fallible.
All "conjectures" are just "expectations".
In "understanding" something, you also need to learn how to apply your "expectation" in new ways that you previously did not consider.
David, what do you think about Stoicism?
Are there any courses on Constructor Theory yet? :)
OK I just want to try and clarify - and I would love to know if I'm wrong but I think what he's saying near the end is that a human + an add-on is not better than a human without an add-on, because nothing about the human person is a priori changed by the inclusion of an a posterori add-on. Rather, the brain in the human making decisions will use all the add-ons available to it under normal circumstances. To become a better person, your brain would have to be able to make better choices by the virtue of being a better brain, that better brain can make better decisions, and just like the first human, will use all the add-ons available to it. They will make better decisions with the same addons.
To find a proof, is not it to produce a new knowledge? Indeed it is necessary to show imagination to find the solution or to write an algorithm. Karl Popper said that to learn was to modify a previous knowledge, that is to say to change conjectures (to walk well, to drive well, to calculate correctly). In the weak sense, to learn was to automate a gesture, a procedure (learning to walk, to drive, to calculate). In all learning there was first the testing of various conjectures (intellectual or physical and motor)
Yes it's true a conclusion never brings us new knowledge because it was contained in the theory from the start, but yet we do not always know all the consequences of a theory. Can we not find a new knowledge, a new idea if we find a consequence that we have never thought of before?
@@Philosophie21 Yes, a proof requires conjecture and criticism, we don’t just look at a sentence and derive stuff from it. We have to conjecture what might be consistent with the sentence and then try to connect the two, again through guess work. Logical laws allow us to eliminate the possibilities.
Crossing the chasm from problems and remedies to a a collective language of co- creating outcomes and impacts will precede the next human evolution.
Random= mutation happens before selection pressure is applied
What problem is a painter, dancer or musician solving for?
Nice parameters for what is and is not creative thought; invention..
Does free choice imply creativity?
To explain the choice, I will not use the idea of creativity, as this idea does not apply in all cases. There are good, bad and indifferent choices. I would say that the real choice, in the sense that it is the best and that it is not disguised (alcoholic dependence ...), stems from the reflection and the competition of various possibilities that are offered ours. By our ideas or theories we will be determined to choose better according to a given situation. Certain theories and certain ways of being allow freedom and others not. Being stubborn, being an anarchist leads us to select certain choices. Having a correct theory of knowledge affects almost all of our choices. Difference between inductivism and Darwinism for example, or between determinism and indeterminism.
5:25 There are things that the brain does that aren't thinking.
I think I agree but I'm not sure. What differentiates thinking brain actions from not thinking brain actions?
Isn't automatism matter behaving according the laws of physics and isn't thinking also matter behaving according to the laws of physics?
Level of complexity might be answer to that problem but I have some doubts about that. There a many very complex things our brains get up we don't tend to call thinking (hormone regulation for one) and it might be that not all things we call thinking are less complex. It should be easily decidable, all we need is a reliable verifiable measure of brain activity complexity and some thinking and not thinking brain activates.
It's a hard question to answer without invoking some special spirit, what-is-like-to-be thing or splitting a person in two in some way whether body and mind or body and spirit.
It can only be explained by emergent level abstractions. Knowledge itself is an abstraction. A person in an abstraction. Freedom is an abstraction. All of these are evolving phenomena. They are real and objective. Just not physical.
@@patmoran5339You need to be more careful. All explanations are abstractions. There are no such things as explanations that are not at an emergent level.
@@drewzi2044 Thought and mind are abstractions as well. I am trying to explain that these explanations cannot be reducible to processes at the molecular level and below. DD refers to these as quasi-autonomous or almost self-contained. Perhaps I should have specified the "It" to mean "Thought".
@@patmoran5339 No explanations are reducible to the molecular level. None.
I do actually think that the novelty of the world consistently creates problems for human minds to solve. The degree to which we think is reduced by how much of the world is familiar to us, but this familiarity can never be total. Learning an instrument and songs on that instrument consists in reducing this unfamiliarity, until it becomes second nature.
Simple answer to twin baby, even if all the things are the same at t1, at time n, baby 2 won't necessarily have the same guess as baby 1, since the content of guesswork is always undetermined by any prior state. Deutsch wants to attack the premise that they are not the same person. Which is not a clear refutation.
Simple hypothesis: creative thinking is contributory to human evolution.
Memetic evolution
Teen wondering in the woods
Heroes in a half shell
Deutsch agrees with Heidegger about the concept of Dasein it seems.
What is Dasein?
@@patmoran5339 Desein is being-in-the-world that becomes aware of the world in so far as it poses problems.
@@drewzi2044 That is not a concept. It is a circularity. It is like saying X is like X because it is like X.
@@patmoran5339 You haven’t made yourself clear.
@@drewzi2044Heidegger seems to be the one with a clarity problem. Nothing can be defined only in terms of itself.
Then if zeebra met lion for the firste time both having machinery for motion the motivation adding new idea ( predation) give birth to the non existent concept of chasing
INFINTUM 🤖🌱
Perhaps the worst and at the same time the most hilarious interview I have ever seen. It's like Buster from Arrested development interviews Albert Einstein.
It’s not an interview; it’s a conversation.
@@Lulie stop trying to defend a clearly incompetent speaker; this video felt like a parody at times ... How on earth will people take Popperian epistemology seriously when you have such a poor presentation on offer.
For eg. @1:05:40 ... I can't believe he actually thought Deutsch was referring to a technically thought out method that involves an actual stage that reaches level 11 😂😂😂😂😂. Unbelievable
It was refreshing and funny that it wasn’t as polished as usual podcasts
I have my own theory. Which góðs like this. Assumtions in the human mind are road blocks. They stop every creation every critical thinking,
It all depends on how his parents think.
David, this ís Just human behaviour as á heard. We are á group we are simular to Canine . This ís Just á group thing.
They are all assumtions. That ís the problem of not solving any problem.
48:04 AGI will be discovered by a programmer typing furiously from an armchair, covered in Doritos
58:00 we can apply un-controversial ideas without thinking (ideas we have no problems with at the moment)
1:24:40 is there something to human, as humans are to ants
1:30:25 humans are bottlenecked overwhelmingly by software
We "buy" our knowledge with renunciations in thinking! Science is like religion a way of self alienation, a shortened, shadowed, dimmed instrumental thinking, not real or full thinking. In both, religion and science, the subject of knowledge steps each in a specific way next to itself, for self intervention, for reason of self transformation and realization, or to say with Nietzsche: for growth! 😉
Knowledge is a function of utility information (news) for a specific embodied cognitive system!
Its not relevant for a fish to know how to catch an apple..."fishness" doesn't find any utility in learning how to catch apples. So although there is such a thing as an algorithm on how to best catch apples it is not knowledge for a fish!
As for "creativity" a word that I and Parmenides would detest, you cannot create something out of nothing and what can be created out of something is potential already, arguably real somewhere in spacetime. It follows as there is nothing to Nothingness and thus absence of absence out explains the idea of "creativity" as a fallacious concept...it, also a function of our embodied cognitive functional languaging as humans living with epistemic uncertainty regarding our specific needs of what would amount to be phenomenological knowledge for us...this is not to say that knowledge is an illusion, as phenomena are noumena in themselves...in short change common speaking, dreams if dreamed are REAL dreams...just different domains of being. like Checkers and Chess. (Excuse my French I am not a native speaker and I took 5 minutes to write this)
Fred does not know any thing up to two years old. Then comes the chock .
A baby does not know anything until it has reached the two years of age.
Purposs is the the wath the intelligent univers is solving .The second law does not permit middle .it come out of the egg when it enters the black hole .expansion fly out of black holes
ILAI arent you overthinking.? Stop á minute. Ask your thoughts where they Come from.
Then the tree was high to high nature see it coming before it could not awnser anymore
The solution must be the regulator and of the the problem if not then every solution will will offer to solve .Is one of 2 non existent sulution to 1 problem thar arrise is logic friction.Is the sense a state of of less resistance.Is getting a berger a complex equation with many sub variable.Is there a perfect way non friction way a perfectly un simplifiable way from of getting hambergerOr does the craving and destination start to existe.Is preferance a friction
He’s too silly to talk to an intellectual like David. We needed someone more matured to interpret the legend.
It was imemented by female findingnlong necks attractive before trees where to high to reach
Then giraff tusk are not for fighting but neck is the solution of syncronisity in two state in time. Rhe one where giraff is not steve and also the one where giraff is.the two side.Also the force that keeps pulls is must be stronger a little stronger because expansion would not result in solid thing.Universe and matter would simply fly appart not even giving life to hot cooling down and speed slowing down togeter togeter
Then state is ordered after the need for this state come to be. Is logic take symetric order a friction ? optimisation of that order starts to exist when question enter reality then dissipated and become the evident efficiant state that come when need arises.I see this in my mind as nature sefety brake.Then it it helpless to outcomes unless is bas all the possible questions it can ask but it orders is based out of .the universe can reach perfect order.If a quantom.compuyer can make sence of a problem calculating everything and all the variable oof every possible variable.excluding only wath the frog acting like ant.I would being valid because the frig is not an ant.But if this becomes a problem a question then can frog like ant lift as much have a queen.The chase of pthogen is what made immunity response cell reproduction multiplication to being ordered the possibillities variable how a 5 gigit code must become a 10 digit codes after the problem reinvent its own self . existence .Wath is the origins of wath feed and breath. The virus gave birth Before the cell chase made reproduction of that cell a real phisical concept .Wath is the driving force that drive evolution when there was no one ot thing concept to ask it .Then there must be a fondamental state of symetry to and a perfect question of organising and solidifing the state..Is logic friction.Order derive from wath i ask of caos asking