Search Ideas
75 ideas match your query.:
CR is an evolutionary theory. There's no need for correspondence in Darwinism. Therefore, we don't need it in CR either.
Guess: We can generalise economics further and let it be subsumed by epistemology.
When we choose to try to solve certain problems, we always make trade-offs from a place of scarcity. Likewise, our conjectures wouldn't evolve without the competition enabled by scarcity in our minds.
Wait, I've probably misunderstood but in #2228 it seemed like you thought pruning was needed for scarcity, which is needed for competition between ideas and their evolution.
And you equated pruning with the meta algorithm.
And now you say the meta algoritm/pruning is not needed for the evolution of ideas?
By the same logic, wouldn't neo-Darwinism also disqualify as a strand, since it's subsumed by Popperian epistemology?
Yeah nice, seems true. There's no objective explicit/inexplicit ratio for knowledge, it depends on the person's background knowledge.
May have misunderstood, but do you mean that explanatory knowledge corresponds to truth, whereas biological/evolutionary knowledge doesn't?
I think that was refuted by Lucas Smalldon and others: https://barelymorethanatweet.com/
Hmm never thought of that, interesting! I think since the disease involves continuous loss of brain volume, hardware decay seems like the best explanation.
In general I think it makes sense to speak of diseases in neurology (e.g. Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, stroke) as bad hardware and psychiatric disease as bad software. But it could very well be that some of those diagnoses are miscategorised.
Most people (except in Alzheimer's, etc.) don't run out of memory in the brain. If there's no scarcity for the space of ideas, why do they have to compete?
Yeah that's definitely a possible medical condition, e.g. in psychosis or after having ECT. Don't think it's the best explanation for Alzheimer's though, where the loss of brain volume is so apparent.
Alright, I remember the meta algorithm from your book but can't recall if you adress this criticism: If there's no need for a meta algorithm in biological evolution, why must there be one for the evolution of ideas?
Wait, do you view the pruning as separate from the mere competition of ideas, or simply its hardware consequences?
Haha not a programmer so understood maybe half of it, but I think I see what you mean. There'll always be inexplicit parts to every explanation. My concept of explanations is that there must be at least some explicit part for it to be called an explanation. That's why genes aren't explanations.
Yeah that's definitely a possible medical condition, e.g. in psychosis or after having ECT. Don't think it's the best explanation for Alzheimer's though, where the loss of brain volume is so apparent.
Wait, do you view the pruning as separate from the mere competition of ideas, or simply its hardware consequences? In Darwinian evolution, competition and pruning are the same phenomena. Would expect the same for the mind.
Hmm never thought of that, interesting! I think since the disease involves continuous loss of brain volume, harsware decay seems like the best explanation.
In general I think it makes sense to speak of diseases in neurology (e.g. Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, stroke) as bad hardware and psychiatric disease as bad software. But it could very well be that some of those diagnoses are miscategorised.
That pruning mechanism is what constitutes natural selection in the mind.
Makes sense, thanks Dennis. Constant pruning is the explanation that retains scarcity and competition, while making the brain seem to have much more memory than it does.
Most people (except in Alzheimer's, etc.) don't run out of memory in the brain. If there's no scarcity for the space of ideas, why do they have to compete?
Of course, memory isn't infinite. But most people don't seem to run out of it in their lifetimes. Is it more accurate to say that ideas compete for working memory, which is scarcer?
Most people (except in Alzheimer's, etc.) don't run out of memory in the brain. If there's no scarcity for the space of ideas, why do they have to compete?
Yeah, thanks! Are ideas also guesses of how to survive in the mind and across substrates, or is there more to ideas?
Yeah (3) is interesting. Constructor theory is the contender I can think of for a future fifth strand. Any other suggestions?
@dennis-hackethal*, could you expand your argument in Lucas' blog post that self-similarity must entail correspondence?
Can't think of how it could be otherwise. Do you have any examples of inexplicit explanations?