Podcasts about godel

Today we are joined by philosopher Jennifer Nagel for a take-no-prisoners look at universal skepticism—philosophy's greatest deception. We unpack why doubt itself is the ultimate illusion, how knowledge is primitive instant recognition, and what this means for self, free will & consciousness. As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 01:28 The Nature of Knowledge 10:58 Philosophers and the Skeptical Mindset 16:57 Types of Skepticism 22:27 Exploring Knowledge Attribution 29:51 The Illusion of Knowledge 34:16 Knowing Without Knowing 38:10 Writing About Knowledge 46:10 Analyzing Knowledge 55:08 The Gettier Problem and Its Challenges 1:01:10 The Functionality of Knowledge 1:11:23 Collaborative Understanding of Knowledge 2:10:00 Understanding and Consciousness 2:26:32 Truth and Its Nature 2:32:16 Superposition and Contradictions 2:32:19 Conclusion Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/SpotifyTOE Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join Links Mentioned: - Knowledge: A Very Short Introduction (book): https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/019966126X - Knowledge and its Limits (book): https://www.amazon.ca/Knowledge-its-Limits-Timothy-Williamson/dp/019925656X - Very Short Introductions (series): https://www.google.com/search?q=a+very+short+introduction+to+series&sca_esv=3da4db664be6b3a1&ei=ypX6Z6flHsDniLMP2v2QkQk&ved=0ahUKEwin8oSB9tKMAxXAM2IAHdo-JJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=a+very+short+introduction+to+series&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiI2EgdmVyeSBzaG9ydCBpbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24gdG8gc2VyaWVzMgUQABiABDILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTIIEAAYogQYiQUyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIFEAAY7wVIqBRQxAtYwBBwAXgAkAEAmAFZoAGtAqoBATS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgSgAocCwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICDRAuGIAEGLADGEMYigXCAg0QABiABBiwAxhDGIoFwgIPEAAYgAQYQxiKBRhGGPsBwgIbEAAYgAQYQxiKBRhGGPsBGJcFGIwFGN0E2AEBwgIGEAAYBxgemAMAiAYBkAYKugYGCAEQARgTkgcBNKAHph6yBwEzuAf_AQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#wgvs=e - Time: A Very Short Introduction (book): https://www.amazon.ca/Time-Short-Introduction-Jenann-Ismael/dp/0198832664 - Laplace meets Godel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB3tS7j7nNU - Flexible Goals (paper): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cogs.13195 - The Legend of the Justified True Belief Analysis (paper): https://philpapers.org/archive/DUTTLO-3.pdf - Lay Denial of Knowledge for Justified True Beliefs (paper): https://philpapers.org/archive/NAGLDO - TOE's Consciousness Iceberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDjnEiys98o - Matt Segal on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeTm4fSXpbM - Curt reads Plato's Cave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PurNlwnxwfY - David Bentley Hart on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEAgVvW9i10 - Donald Hoffman on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmieNQH7Q4w&t=1s - Iain McGilchrist on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-SgOwc6Pe4&t=6326s&ab_channel=CurtJaimungal - Geoffrey Hinton on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_DUft-BdIE - John Vervaeke on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVj1KYGyesI&t=1s - Wolfgang Smith on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp18_L_y_30 - Polymath's Ai panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abzXzPBW4_s - Donald Hoffman and Philip Goff on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmaIBxkqcT4 - Robert Sapolsky on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0IqA1hYKY8&pp=ygUUY3VydCByb2JlcnQgc2Fwb2xza3k%3D - Curt debunks the “all possible paths” myth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcY3ZtgYis0&t=46s Support TOE on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump may forever reshape the boundaries of executive power. This week on “Interesting Times,” Ross and Jack Goldsmith, who was the head of the White House's Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush, discuss which cases are most likely to win in the courts and permanently expand the executive branch — for better or worse.00:02:03 Donald Trump's “moonshot on executive power”00:04:16 What has surprised Goldsmith the most00:06:57 Are we in a constitutional crisis?00:08:59 Alien Enemies Act00:14:02 The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia00:25:23 Godel's loophole and Supreme Court enforcement30:10 Trump's firings of federal employees and restructuring of U.S.A.I.D.36:11 Trump's power over congressionally appropriated funding41:29 Obama v. Trump's discretion on enforcing laws passed by Congress43:03 The TikTok case45:46 Lawsuit over Trump's tariffs51:57 How the Supreme Court (maybe) thinks about picking its battles54:24 Worst case scenarios56:59 What the Supreme Court can do if the Trump administration does not comply01:01:32 What a Trump executive power revolution could look like in 2028 and beyond01:04:39 If Democrats win in 2028, what happens?(A full transcript of this episode is available on the Times website.) Thoughts? Email us at interestingtimes@nytimes.com. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

In this episode, Eli is joined by Dr. Chris Bolt to address an interesting objection to presup & TAG (Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God).

Det blir lite bråkigt i studion ett tag men Louise får i alla fall meddelande från en biolog. Julias biolog! Dessutom läser Julia om glada forskare som meddelar att hon kommer dö i förtid. Tur i alla fall att hon pratar väldigt, väldigt trendigt. Tack Vibes (kod LOUISEJULIA), HelloFresh (kod humorpodd) och GodEl för veckans poddspons.

Is string theory actually science? Many argue that string theory cannot be proven and should therefore be abandoned. For them, string theory is not science at all. But are they right? I had the pleasure of discussing this with none other than Cumrun Vafa! Cumrun is a Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy in the Department of Physics at Harvard University, where he has been researching and teaching theoretical physics since 1985. His primary area of research is string theory.  In our interview, we discussed whether we should trust string theory, fine-tuning, and the message he'd put into a billion-year time capsule. We also talked about his book Puzzles to Unravel the Universe.  Tune in to learn about string theory! Key Takeaways:  00:00:00 Intro 00:01:20 Judging a book by its cover 00:03:35 What is a puzzle versus a mystery? 00:06:06 Black hole entropy 00:08:12 Godel's Theorem: Are some puzzles not solvable? 00:12:04 Is string theory actually science? 00:17:15 Dimensional analysis 00:21:15 Singularities 00:28:31 ADS and 5 dimensions 00:30:48 String theory 00:34:49 Supersymmetry 00:40:22 On religion 00:52:45 A scorecard for physics 00:55:21 What would your "ethical will" be? 01:02:50 What have you accomplished that once seemed impossible? 01:06:30 Outro  Additional resources:  ➡️ Learn more about Cumrun Vafa:

In this week's episode of the Feminvest podcast Sara narrows down what stocks she should look into buying this month. Michaela offers to assist in analyzing a few listed companies that Sara is actually using herself in her everyday life. Moreover Saba is interviewing inspiring Maria Erdmann, CEO at the groundbreaking electricity company GodEl - that donates all profit to charities. She participates in the Feminvest podcast and talks about entrepreneurship, building companies and the green tech innovation competition Startup 4 Climate. https://startup4climate.com Follow @feminvest @michaela.berglund on instagram

Today we discuss sections of Roger Penrose's book "Shadows of the Mind" with special guest Brother X. We focus on chapters 2.1-6 and 3.23, which detail Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and why Penrose thinks this points to a non-computational theory of consciousness. Disclaimer: All opinions are our own, respectively, and don't represent any institution we may or may not be a part of, respectively.

A 25 ans, Robin Godel s'apprête à disputer ses deuxième Jeux Olympiques en juillet 2024 à Paris. Le cavalier fribourgeois participera à l'épreuve du concours complet, discipline qui mêle le dressage, le saut d'obstacle et le cross. En 2021, aux JO de Tokyo, son rêve olympique s'était transformé en cauchemar avec l'euthanasie de son cheval. Robin Godel y revient dans son grand entretien avec Alain Thévoz où il évoque également sa passion pour les chevaux, sa carrière et ses objectifs.

¡Episodio 92! Estamos de vuelta (esperemos que de forma regular) con un nuevo podcast de nuestro buque insignia. Fernando, Tomás y Ángel nos cuentan qué contenido han estado consumiendo (literario y audiovisual) todos estos meses. Esperamos vuestros comentarios en la comunidad de Telegram: https://t.me/cienciaoficcion Referencias:A Fire Upon the DeepAhsokaArgylleAvatar: The Last AirbenderBisbalConstelaciónDragon BallDrops of GodEl caso AsuntaEl otro ladoÉlite (T4)FalloutFor All Mankind (S4)Guía del autoestopista galácticoHacksHouse of the Dragon (S2)House of the DragonInvencible (S2)Invasión (S2)La Única RealidadLoki (S2)Marvel LegendsMonarch Legacy of MonstersRick and MortySiloSoy LeyendaStar Wars: Tales of the EmpireSugarSueñan los androides con ovejas eléctricas?The AcolyteThe Bad Batch (S3)The BoysThe Morning Show

Practical Psychology for navigating life's challenges and cultivating joy. Sam Webster Harris explores the concept of life as a series of games, blending psychological insights with practical wisdom. He discusses how every aspect of life involves some form of gameplay, from professional networks like LinkedIn to personal decisions and social interactions. We dig into the intersection of Philosophy and Psychology to understand the experiencing self and how we navigate our moments. Sam emphasizes the importance of understanding the different 'modes' of approaching life's games—machine, intelligent, and zen. He advocates for living authentically, focusing on self-amusement, and challenging societal norms. Learn to apply some of the more surreal and abstract concepts of the mind into real life: How to understand what game you are playing? Establish what is really at stake Define the rules for yourself to play your own game Have more fun The episode encourages listeners to reassess their motivations and redefine what winning means in their personal game of life. Further reading: Godel, Escher, Bach - Douglas R. Hofstedter Finite and Infinite Games - James P. Carse The Infinite Game - Simon Sinek The Way of Zen - The Taboo of Knowing Who You Are - Alan Watts Sponsors: Cozy Earth: Luxury Bamboo sheets and Loungeware that become softer as you use them. 35% off code 'GROWTH' - CozyEarth.com SleepyClub: Doctor-approved natural sleeping aid that improves sleep quality. Safe to take every day. 20% discount code 'GROWTH20' - SleepyClub.co.uk ShortForm: Summaries and guides for the world's best books and ideas. FREE trial and 20% off annual fee - ShortForm.com/Psychology Meet Sam Free Call - Schedule Link Influence the Show Feedback - Request and Ideas Form Growth Mindset pod: Sam Webster explores the psychology of happiness, satisfaction, purpose, and growth through the lens of self-improvement. Watch - YouTube (Growth Mindset) Mail - GrowthMindsetPodcast(at)gmail.com Insta - SamJam.zen Newsletter - Expansive Thinking Chapters: 00:00 The Concept of Life as a Game 01:28 The Rules of Life's Games 03:17 The Games of LinkedIn and Appearance 06:30 Life Lessons - Philosophy for fun and success 11:36 Your Point of View is First Player 14:03 The Three Modes for Playing Games 15:00 Applying the Modes to Social Media, News and Health 17:00 Final Thoughts 18:00 Housekeeping and Recommendations Topics: understanding life games and personal growth how to play life games on your own terms mastering life games for more fun and success psychological models for better life decisions navigating life's games with mental models building mental strength through understanding games enhancing life strategies with cognitive psychology applying psychology to everyday life games tips for playing life's psychological games dealing with societal expectations psychologically philisophical insights into life's hidden games developing self-awareness in life's games practical psychology for navigating life's challenges Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We talk about: All the things we can't talk about yet. Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems The Walking Dead

Dagens avsnitt bjuder på döda tänder, tjuvaktiga barn och kraschade minneskort. Men hur blir det egentligen med livepodden? Allt kanske försvinner på grund av klåfingriga barn och stressade mammor? Tur i alla fall att Louise är en silverpinne och att Julia får gå i djurterapi. Tack till My Helsinki, Oslo Skinlab (kod LJ60) och GodEl för veckans poddspons!Avslutslåt: Schnappi, das kleine krokodil

Det pågår en fest i Julias stuga och det slutar tyvärr i ett sorgligt mord och massa ångest. Men värst är väl ändå Louise? Andra som skapar både ångest och irritation är självgoda influencers. Vad tycker Louise om hudvård för barn-debatten och vad är det enda en mamma gör? Tack till Under your skin (kod LJ20) och GodEl för veckans poddspons! Slutlåt: Lill Lindfors - Mitt lilla fejs

Does the use of computer models in physics change the way we see the universe? How far reaching are the implications of computation irreducibility? Are observer limitations key to the way we conceive the laws of physics? In this episode we have the difficult yet beautiful topic of trying to model complex systems like nature and the universe computationally to get into; and how beyond a low level of complexity all systems, seem to become equally unpredictable. We have a whole episode in this series on Complexity Theory in biology and nature, but today we're going to be taking a more physics and computational slant. Another key element to this episode is Observer Theory, because we have to take into account the perceptual limitations of our species' context and perspective, if we want to understand how the laws of physics that we've worked out from our environment, are not and cannot be fixed and universal but rather will always be perspective bound, within a multitude of alternative branches of possible reality with alternative possible computational rules. We'll then connect this multi-computational approach to a reinterpretation of Entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The fact that my guest has been building on these ideas for over 40 years, creating computer language and Ai solutions, to map his deep theories of computational physics, makes him the ideal guest to help us unpack this topic. He is physicist, computer scientist and tech entrepreneur Stephen Wolfram. In 1987 he left academia at Caltech and Princeton behind and devoted himself to his computer science intuitions at his company Wolfram Research. He's published many blog articles about his ideas, and written many influential books including “A New kind of Science”, and more recently “A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics”, and “Computer Modelling and Simulation of Dynamic Systems”, and just out in 2023 “The Second Law” about the mystery of Entropy. One of the most wonderful things about Stephen Wolfram is that, despite his visionary insight into reality, he really loves to be ‘in the moment' with his thinking, engaging in socratic dialogue, staying open to perspectives other than his own and allowing his old ideas to be updated if something comes up that contradicts them; and given how quickly the fields of physics and computer science are evolving I think his humility and conceptual flexibility gives us a fine example of how we should update how we do science as we go. What we discuss:  00:00 Intro 07:45 The history of scientific models of reality: structural, mathematical and computational. 20:20 The Principle of Computational Equivalence (PCE) 24:45 Computational Irreducibility - the process that means you can't predict the outcome in advance. 27:50 The importance of the passage of time to Consciousness. 28:45 Irreducibility and the limits of science. 33:30 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem 42:20 Observer Theory and the Wolfram Physics Project. 50:30 We 'make' space. 51:30 Branchial Space - different quantum histories of the world, branching and merging 58:50 Rulial Space: All possible rules of all possible interconnected branches. 01:19:30 The Measurement problem of QM and Entanglement meets computational irreducibility and observer theory.  01:32:40 Inviting Stephen back for a separate episode on AI safety, safety solutions and applications for science, as we did't have time. 01:37:30 At the molecular level the laws of physics are reversible. 01:45:30 Entropy defined in computational terms. 01:50:30 If we ever overcame our finite minds, there would be no coherent concept of existence. 01:51:30 Parallels between modern physics and ancient eastern mysticism and cosmology. 01:55:30 Reductionism in an irreducible world: saying a lot from very little input. References: “The Second Law: Resolving the Mystery of the Second Law of Thermodynamics”, Stephen Wolfram “A New Kind of Science”, Stephen Wolfram Observer Theory Article, Stephen Wolfram

«Geheimnisse und Geständnisse eines Präsidenten»: So lautet der Titel des Buches über den ehemaligen Freiburger Staatsrat Georges Godel. Wegen des pikanten Inhalts des Werkes, landete der Autor vor Gericht. So lief der Prozess ab.  Weiter in der Sendung:  * Bieler Stadtordnung kommt vors Stimmvolk: Ausländer und Ausländerinnen sollen stärker mitreden können.  * Grächen: Bergbahnen kämpfen mit Finanzproblemen und müssen Nachlassstundung anmelden. 

About the GuestJunius Johnson is a writer, teacher, speaker, independent scholar, and musician. His work focuses on beauty, imagination, and wonder, and how these are at play in the Christian and Classical intellectual traditions. He is the executive director of Junius Johnson Academics, through which he offers innovative classes for both children and adults that aim to ignite student hearts with wonder and intellectual rigor. An avid devotee of story, he is especially drawn to fantasy, science fiction, and young adult fiction. He performs professionally on the french horn and electric bass. He holds a BA from Oral Roberts University (English Lit), an MAR from Yale Divinity School (Historical Theology), and an MA, two MPhils, and a PhD (Philosophical Theology) from Yale University. He is the author of 5 books, including The Father of Lights: A Theology of Beauty, and On Teaching Fairy Stories. An engaging speaker and teacher, he is a frequent guest contributor to blogs and podcasts on faith and culture. He is co-host of The Classical Mind podcast and is a member of The Cultivating Project.Show NotesDr. Junius Johnson joins Adrienne to discuss the art of teaching. In this episode they discuss some important mistakes that happen in classical schools and how to overcome them. Junius explores the creative ways in which teachers should approach ALL subjects and help students enter into fruitful discussions no matter what the subject. Some Ideas Discussed:The importance of helping students engage with real learning and relational connectionsThe importance of believing in studentsThe pitfalls of teaching objectivesHolding onto lesson plans looselyCreating an atmosphere of wonderHow a teacher can increase his or her own imagination! Books Discussed in This Episode Include:On Teaching Fairy Stories by Junius JohnsonThe Chronicles of NarniaJK RowlingDante's Divine ComedyThe Sword in the Stone by T.H. WhiteThrough The Looking Glass by Lewis CarrollThe Dark is Rising Sequence by Susan CooperBeowulfHamletThe Voyage of the Dawn Treador by CS LewisPaintings to inspire imaginative conversations with your students (Print them in color and let them study it with a partner and then narrate as many details as they can remember without looking at it.)Children's Games by BruegelMasque of Love by John Duncan The Plumbers by Norman RockwellDeclaration of Independence by John TrumbullThe Death of Caesar by Jean-Léon Gérôme Sudden Shower over Shin-Ōhashi bridge and Atake by Hiroshige and then compare it to van Gogh's Bridge in the Rain (after Hiroshige)Books to Build Imagination (for educators to read for self-edification in learning to wonder)Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, by Douglas R. Hofstadter. This book can get really dense at times, but it uses the work of these three figures to stretch and challenge our view of reality.G.K. Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles. A delightful, accessible must-read in which Chesterton re-orients our attention to the small and everyday things.Fantastical and speculative fiction. A great place to start is The Neverending Story by Michael Ende, one of the unsung masterpieces of the 20th century.The Awakening of Miss Prim by by Natalia Sanmartin Fenollera  Games mentionedSplendorLords of the WaterdeepGolf card game... can be played with regular card of buy this already made set called Play Nine. ________________________________________________________Upcoming Winter Workshop Links:Society for Classical Learning Winter Workshops, 2024 (scroll to read more about Adrienne's Narration Intensive)Snapshot Series Courses by Beautiful Teaching Master TeachersSign up for Beautiful Teaching Monthly Newsletter by visiting the website! Let us help you discover what a beautiful education should look like. Subscribe to this Podcast on your favorite podcast app!Meet our Team, Explore our Resources andTake advantage of our Services!This podcast is produced by Beautiful Teaching, LLC.Support this podcast: ★ Support this podcast ★ _________________________________________________________Credits:Sound Engineer: Andrew HelselLogo Art: Anastasiya CFMusic: Vivaldi's Concerto for 2 Violins in B flat major, RV529 : Lana Trotovsek, violin Sreten Krstic, violin with Chamber Orchestra of Slovenian Philharmonic © 2023 Beautiful Teaching LLC. All Rights Reserved

Stephen Wolfram answers questions from his viewers about the history science and technology as part of an unscripted livestream series, also available on YouTube here: https://wolfr.am/youtube-sw-qa Questions include: When researching, do you find it's more helpful to stay close to modern times in terms of content, or do findings from hundreds of years ago also prove valuable? - ​Can you talk about the history of theories of cognition and consciousness? What did the ancients think? Did Gödel or Turing think about this much? Does ChatGPT disprove Penrose's Orch OR? - Aristotle, Leibniz, Godel, Wolfram: How were/are these philosophers able to somewhat understand the idea of universal computation? How did they and you reach those insights? - Is there something you could speak to about von Neumann's work to understand that the models of computation could relate to the mind? - Has the importance of areas of science shifted in history? What was the main focus of science five hundred years ago? One hundred years ago? Ten? - Is there a connection between these advances in science and education? Does education evolve with these changes? - What has been the most important invention that has improved research overall? - Right! By 1991 we had ERIC for upper-graduate research, and it was a game changer. No more need for librarians in the traditional way and history at our fingertips. - Historically, what have been the the most difficult problems or obstacles for us to overcome or solve in the areas of science and technology? - About unintended consequences of revolutions: what lessons from the Industrial Revolution have we learned that we could use for the AI revolution? - Do you think it's fundamentally possible for science as we know it to hit a wall at some point and slowly degenerate into a nonproductive state?

Our resident Board Game Expert, Phil Godel, shares his favorite games to enjoy from the family rooms to the serious gamers.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pedro Domingos é professor emérito de Ciências da Computação na Universidade de Washington. Licenciou-se pelo Instituto Superior Técnico e doutorou-se na Universidade da Califórnia em Irvine. Recebeu em 2014 o prémio de inovação, SIGKDD, o mais prestigiado na área de ciências de dados. É autor do livro «A Revolução do Algoritmo Mestre - Como a aprendizagem automática está a mudar o mundo», publicado em 2015. -> Apoie este podcast e faça parte da comunidade de mecenas do 45 Graus em: 45grauspodcast.com -> Inscreva-se aqui nos workshops de Pensamento Crítico em Coimbra e Braga. -> Registe-se aqui para ser avisado(a) de futuras edições dos workshops. _______________ Índice (com timestamps): (04:32) INÍCIO - O que é revolucionário no Machine Learning? | As cinco famílias de modelos (as ‘cinco tribos'): conectivistas (backprop, a tecnologia por trás do ChatGPT), simbolistas, evolucionistas, bayesianos e analogistas. (27:25) Porque é que a robótica tem avançado mais lentamente? (32:10) Como funcionam os modelos conectivistas de deep learning (como o ChatGPT)? | Large language models | Transformers | Alexnet  (40:11) O que entendes por ‘Algoritmo Mestre'? | Como unificar as várias famílias de modelos para chegar à Inteligência Artificial Geral? (55:47) O que é especial no cérebro humano que nos permite generalizar melhor do que a AI? | Algoritmo que conseguiu descobrir as Leis de Kepler | Livro Leonardo da Vinci, de Walter Isaacson. | Livro Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, de Douglas R Hofstadter (1:07:47) A IA pode tornar-se perigosa? Vem aí a  singularidade? | Yuval Harari, Elon Musk | Cientistas sérios que se preocupam com o tema.  Livro recomendado: Godel, Escher, Bach, de Douglas Hofstadter (1:32:20) O que explica um engenheiro da Google ter afirmado que o chatbot tinha consciência? _______________ Desde que foi lançado, no final do ano passado, o ChatGPT trouxe o tema da IA de novo para a discussão. Já tardava, por isso, um episódio sobre o tema. E dificilmente poderia pedir melhor convidado.  _______________ Obrigado aos mecenas do podcast: Francisco Hermenegildo, Ricardo Evangelista, Henrique Pais João Baltazar, Salvador Cunha, Abilio Silva, Tiago Leite, Carlos Martins, Galaró family, Corto Lemos, Miguel Marques, Nuno Costa, Nuno e Ana, João Ribeiro, Helder Miranda, Pedro Lima Ferreira, Cesar Carpinteiro, Luis Fernambuco, Fernando Nunes, Manuel Canelas, Tiago Gonçalves, Carlos Pires, João Domingues, Hélio Bragança da Silva, Sandra Ferreira , Paulo Encarnação , BFDC, António Mexia Santos, Luís Guido, Bruno Heleno Tomás Costa, João Saro, Daniel Correia, Rita Mateus, António Padilha, Tiago Queiroz, Carmen Camacho, João Nelas, Francisco Fonseca, Rafael Santos, Andreia Esteves, Ana Teresa Mota, ARUNE BHURALAL, Mário Lourenço, RB, Maria Pimentel, Luis, Geoffrey Marcelino, Alberto Alcalde, António Rocha Pinto, Ruben de Bragança, João Vieira dos Santos, David Teixeira Alves, Armindo Martins , Carlos Nobre, Bernardo Vidal Pimentel, António Oliveira, Paulo Barros, Nuno Brites, Lígia Violas, Tiago Sequeira, Zé da Radio, João Morais, André Gamito, Diogo Costa, Pedro Ribeiro, Bernardo Cortez Vasco Sá Pinto, David , Tiago Pires, Mafalda Pratas, Joana Margarida Alves Martins, Luis Marques, João Raimundo, Francisco Arantes, Mariana Barosa, Nuno Gonçalves, Pedro Rebelo, Miguel Palhas, Ricardo Duarte, Duarte , Tomás Félix, Vasco Lima, Francisco Vasconcelos, Telmo , José Oliveira Pratas, Jose Pedroso, João Diogo Silva, Joao Diogo, José Proença, João Crispim, João Pinho , Afonso Martins, Robertt Valente, João Barbosa, Renato Mendes, Maria Francisca Couto, Antonio Albuquerque, Ana Sousa Amorim, Francisco Santos, Lara Luís, Manuel Martins, Macaco Quitado, Paulo Ferreira, Diogo Rombo, Francisco Manuel Reis, Bruno Lamas, Daniel Almeida, Patrícia Esquível , Diogo Silva, Luis Gomes, Cesar Correia, Cristiano Tavares, Pedro Gaspar, Gil Batista Marinho, Maria Oliveira, João Pereira, Rui Vilao, João Ferreira, Wedge, José Losa, Hélder Moreira, André Abrantes, Henrique Vieira, João Farinha, Manuel Botelho da Silva, João Diamantino, Ana Rita Laureano, Pedro L, Nuno Malvar, Joel, Rui Antunes7, Tomás Saraiva, Cloé Leal de Magalhães, Joao Barbosa, paulo matos, Fábio Monteiro, Tiago Stock, Beatriz Bagulho, Pedro Bravo, Antonio Loureiro, Hugo Ramos, Inês Inocêncio, Telmo Gomes, Sérgio Nunes, Tiago Pedroso, Teresa Pimentel, Rita Noronha, miguel farracho, José Fangueiro, Zé, Margarida Correia-Neves, Bruno Pinto Vitorino, João Lopes, Joana Pereirinha, Gonçalo Baptista, Dario Rodrigues, tati lima, Pedro On The Road, Catarina Fonseca, JC Pacheco, Sofia Ferreira, Inês Ribeiro, Miguel Jacinto, Tiago Agostinho, Margarida Costa Almeida, Helena Pinheiro, Rui Martins, Fábio Videira Santos, Tomás Lucena, João Freitas, Ricardo Sousa, RJ, Francisco Seabra Guimarães, Carlos Branco, David Palhota, Carlos Castro, Alexandre Alves, Cláudia Gomes Batista, Ana Leal, Ricardo Trindade, Luís Machado, Andrzej Stuart-Thompson, Diego Goulart, Filipa Portela, Paulo Rafael, Paloma Nunes, Marta Mendonca, Teresa Painho, Duarte Cameirão, Rodrigo Silva, José Alberto Gomes, Joao Gama, Cristina Loureiro, Tiago Gama, Tiago Rodrigues, Miguel Duarte, Ana Cantanhede, Artur Castro Freire, Rui Passos Rocha, Pedro Costa Antunes, Sofia Almeida, Ricardo Andrade Guimarães, Daniel Pais, Miguel Bastos, Luís Santos _______________ Esta conversa foi editada por: Hugo Oliveira

Marty has a conversation about David Zindell's 'Neverness' with Mark Mac Lean, professor of Mathematics at the University of British Columbia.  We talk about the poetic and philosophical use of mathematics as the engine of faster-than-light travel in the Neverness universe, and contemplate the relationship of mathematics to truth, beauty, perfection, and physical reality.  Along the way we discuss the foundations of mathematics, Godel's incompleteness theorems, the Reimann hypothesis and the continuity theorem, both the real one and its fictional twin in the novel.  We also reflect on what a gift it is that David Zindell is able to convey the feeling of doing mathematics, and the almost mystical experience of connecting to this seemingly higher realm of reality.Mark Mac Lean:https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~maclean/maclean.htmlDavid Zindell:https://www.davidzindell.com/Buzzsprout (podcast host):https://thescienceinthefiction.buzzsprout.comEmail: thescienceinthefiction@gmail.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/743522660965257/Twitter:https://twitter.com/MartyK5463

YouTube link https://youtu.be/zMPnrNL3zsE Gregory Chaitin discusses algorithmic information theory, its relationship with Gödel incompleteness theorems, and the properties of Omega number.  Topics of discussion include algorithmic information theory, Gödel incompleteness theorems, and the Omega number. Listen now early and ad-free on Patreon https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal. Sponsors:  - Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) - Crypto: https://tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE - PayPal: https://tinyurl.com/paypalTOE - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs - iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 - Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfP - Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e - Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverything - TOE Merch: https://tinyurl.com/TOEmerch LINKS MENTIONED: - Meta Math and the Quest for Omega (Gregory Chaitin): https://amzn.to/3stCFxH - Visual math episode on Chaitin's constant: https://youtu.be/WLASHxChXKM - Podcast w/ David Wolpert on TOE: https://youtu.be/qj_YUxg-qtY - A Mathematician's Apology (G. H. Hardy): https://amzn.to/3qOEbtL - The Physicalization of Metamathematics (Stephen Wolfram): https://amzn.to/3YUcGLL - Podcast w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson on TOE: https://youtu.be/HhWWlJFwTqs - Proving Darwin (Gregory Chaitin): https://amzn.to/3L0hSbs - What is Life? (Erwin Schrödinger): https://amzn.to/3YVk8Xm - "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" (Alan Turing): https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/T... - "The Major Transitions in Evolution" (John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry): https://amzn.to/3PdzYci - "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language" (John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry): https://amzn.to/3PeKFeM - Podcast w/ Stephen Wolfram on TOE: https://youtu.be/1sXrRc3Bhrs - Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel (Rebecca Goldstein): https://amzn.to/3Pf8Yt4 - Rebecca Goldstein on TOE on Godel's Incompleteness: https://youtu.be/VkL3BcKEB6Y - Gödel's Proof (Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman): https://amzn.to/3QX89q1 - Giant Brains, or Machines That Think (Edmund Callis Berkeley): https://amzn.to/3QXniYj - An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications (William Feller): https://amzn.to/44tWjXI TIMESTAMPS: - 00:00:00 Introduction - 00:02:27 Chaitin's Unconventional Self-Taught Journey - 00:06:56 Chaitin's Incompleteness Theorem and Algorithmic Randomness - 00:12:00 The Infinite Calculation Paradox and Omega Number's Complexity (Halting Probability) - 00:27:38 God is a Mathematician: An Ontological Basis - 00:37:06 Emergence of Information as a Fundamental Substance - 00:53:10 Evolution and the Modern Synthesis (Physics-Based vs. Computational-Based Life) - 01:08:43 Turing's Less Known Masterpiece - 01:16:58 Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and Epigenetics - 01:21:20 Renormalization and Tractability - 01:28:15 The Infinite Fitness Function - 01:42:03 Progress in Mathematics despite Incompleteness - 01:48:38 Unconventional Academic Approach - 01:50:35 Godel's Incompleteness, Mathematical Intuition, and the Platonic World - 02:06:01 The Enigma of Creativity in Mathematics - 02:15:37 Dark Matter: A More Stable Form of Hydrogen? (Hydrinos) - 02:23:33 Stigma and the "Reputation Trap" in Science - 02:28:43 Cold Fusion - 02:29:28 The Stagnation of Physics - 02:41:33 Defining Randomness: The Chaos of 0s and 1s - 02:52:01 The Struggles For Young Mathematicians and Physicists (Advice) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, we're pulling one of our best episodes from the vaults, featuring the brilliant Brian Christian. Recommend this show by sharing the link: pod.link/2Pages One thing I don't mention often is that the thesis I wrote for my law degree was an attempt to combine my interest in literature with a perspective on law. So I wrote about the phenomenon of plain English: that's trying to write law without the legalese. And I tried to write about it through the lens of literary theories of language. I honestly did not understand what I was trying to do. And also nobody in law school understood what I was trying to do. What I can see now, with the benefit of hindsight and some self-esteem and some marketing speak, is that I was a boundary rider. I've come to learn that the interesting things often take place on the edges, those intermediate areas where X meets Y and some sort of new life is born. Brian Christian is a boundary rider too. He's just way more successful and interesting than law school Micheal. He thinks deeply and writes about deep patterns of life through technology and AI and algorithms. He's the author of The Most Human Human, the Alignment Problem, and Algorithms to Live By. After the introduction I just gave you, you're probably going to guess that Brian isn't just a science guy. Get‌ ‌book‌ ‌links‌ ‌and‌ ‌resources‌ ‌at‌ https://www.mbs.works/2-pages-podcast/  Brian reads from Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. [Reading begins at 15:10] Hear us Discuss:  Metaphor can be one of the main mechanisms by which science happens. [6:20] | Rules that are delightful to break. [24:35] | “I have this deep conviction […] we are on to some philosophical paydirt here. There is a very real way in which we are building [AI] systems in our own image, and as a result they come to be a mirror for ourselves.” [28:40] | What is the heart of the human experience? [38:10] | “Humans are not so special.” [42.50]

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A Proof of Löb's Theorem using Computability Theory, published by Jessica Taylor on August 16, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. Löb's Theorem states that, if PA⊢□PA(P)P, then PA⊢P. To explain the symbols here: PA is Peano arithmetic, a first-order logic system that can state things about the natural numbers. PA⊢A means there is a proof of the statement A in Peano arithmetic. □PA(P) is a Peano arithmetic statement saying that P is provable in Peano arithmetic. I'm not going to discuss the significance of Löb's theorem, since it has been discussed elsewhere; rather, I will prove it in a way that I find simpler and more intuitive than other available proofs. Translating Löb's theorem to be more like Godel's second incompleteness theorem First, let's compare Löb's theorem to Godel's second incompleteness theorem. This theorem states that, if PA⊢¬□PA(⊥), then PA⊢⊥, where ⊥ is a PA statement that is trivially false (such as A∧¬A), and from which anything can be proven. A system is called inconsistent if it proves ⊥; this theorem can be re-stated as saying that if PA proves its own consistency, it is inconsistent. We can re-write Löb's theorem to look like Godel's second incompleteness theorem as: if PA+¬P⊢¬□PA+¬P(⊥), then PA+¬P⊢⊥. Here, PA+¬P is PA with an additional axiom that ¬P, and □PA+¬P expresses provability in this system. First I'll argue that this re-statement is equivalent to the original Löb's theorem statement. Observe that PA⊢P if and only if PA+¬P⊢⊥; to go from the first to the second, we derive a contradiction from P and ¬P, and to go from the second to the first, we use the law of excluded middle in PA to derive P∨¬P, and observe that, since a contradiction follows from ¬P in PA, PA can prove P. Since all this reasoning can be done in PA, we have that □PA(P) and □PA+¬P(⊥) are equivalent PA statements. We immediately have that the conclusion of the modified statement equals the conclusion of the original statement. Now we can rewrite the pre-condition of Löb's theorem from PA⊢□PA(P)P. to PA⊢□PA+¬P(⊥)P. This is then equivalent to PA+¬P⊢¬□PA+¬P(⊥). In the forward direction, we simply derive ⊥ from P and ¬P. In the backward direction, we use the law of excluded middle in PA to derive P∨¬P, observe the statement is trivial in the P branch, and in the ¬P branch, we derive ¬□PA+¬P(⊥), which is stronger than □PA+¬P(⊥)P. So we have validly re-stated Löb's theorem, and the new statement is basically a statement that Godel's second incompleteness theorem holds for PA+¬P. Proving Godel's second incompleteness theorem using computability theory The following proof of a general version of Godel's second incompleteness theorem is essentially the same as Sebastian Oberhoff's in "Incompleteness Ex Machina". Let L be some first-order system that is at least as strong as PA (for example, PA+¬P). Since L is at least as strong as PA, it can express statements about Turing machines. Let Halts(M) be the PA statement that Turing machine M (represented by a number) halts. If this statement is true, then PA (and therefore L) can prove it; PA can expand out M's execution trace until its halting step. However, we have no guarantee that if the statement is false, then L can prove it false. In fact, L can't simultaneously prove this for all non-halting machines M while being consistent, or we could solve the halting problem by searching for proofs of Halts(M) and ¬Halts(M) in parallel. That isn't enough for us, though; we're trying to show that L can't simultaneously be consistent and prove its own consistency, not that it isn't simultaneously complete and sound on halting statements. Let's consider a machine Z(A) that searches over all L-proofs of ¬Halts(''⌈A⌉(⌈A⌉)") (where ''⌈A⌉(⌈A⌉)" is an encoding of a Turing machine that runs A on its own source code), and halts only when finding su...

Do history's greatest thinkers care about time management? In today's episode, Cal analyzes the system that the mathematician and philosopher, Kurt Godel, used to structure his days, weeks, and years to produce meaningful work over a long period of time.  Below are the questions covered in today's episode (with their timestamps). Get your questions answered by Cal! Here's the link: bit.ly/3U3sTvo  Video from today's episode:  youtube.com/calnewportmedia  Today's Deep Question: How do geniuses structure their life? [8:00]  - How do I follow through on the projects I start? [34:33] - Is creating a deep environment one of the deep life buckets? [42:14] - How do I find examples of my ideal lifestyle? [48:24] - Should I switch jobs, I'm bored (but effective)? [59:20]  CAL REACTS: The ReMarkable 2 tablet. Is it worth it? [1:11:57]  Thanks to our Sponsors:  This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/deepquestions and get on your way to being your best self drinklmnt.com/deep 80000hours.org/deep hensonshaving.com/cal  Thanks to Jesse Miller for production, Jay Kerstens for the intro music, and Mark Miles for mastering. 

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Douglas Hoftstadter concerned about AI xrisk, published by Eli Rose on July 3, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Douglas Hofstadter is best known for authoring Godel, Escher, Bach, a book on artificial intelligence (among other things) which is sort of a cult classic. In a recent interview, he says he's terrified of recent AI progress and expresses beliefs similar to many people who focus on AI xrisk. Hoftstadter: The accelerating progress has been so unexpected that it has caught me off guard... not only myself, but many many people. There's a sense of terror akin to an oncoming tsunami that could catch all of humanity off guard. It's not clear whether this could mean the end of humanity in the sense of the systems we've created destroying us, it's not clear if that's the case but it's certainly conceivable. If not, it's also that it just renders humanity a small, almost insignificant phenomenon, compared to something that is far more intelligent and will become as incomprehensible to us as we are to cockroaches. Interviewer: That's an interesting thought. Hoftstadter: Well I don't think it's interesting. I think it's terrifying. I hate it. I think this is the first time he's publicly expressed this, and his views seem to have changed recently. Previously he published this which listed a bunch of silly questions GPT-3 gets wrong and concluded that There are no concepts behind the GPT-3 scenes; rather, there's just an unimaginably huge amount of absorbed text upon which it draws to produce answers though it ended with a gesture to the fast pace of change and inability to predict the future. I randomly tried some of his stumpers on GPT-4 and it gets them right (and I remember being convinced when this came out that GPT-3 could get them right too with a bit of prompt engineering, though I don't remember specifics). I find this a bit emotional because of how much I loved Godel, Escher, Bach in early college. It was my introduction to "real" math and STEM, which I'd previously disliked and been bad at; because of this book, I majored in computer science. It presented a lot of philosophical puzzles for and problems with AI, and gave beautiful, eye-opening answers to them. I think Hofstadter expected us to understand AI much better before we got to this level of capabilities; expected more of the type of understanding his parables and thought experiments could sometimes create. Now I work professionally on situations along the lines of what he describes in the interview (and feel a similar way about them) — it's a weird way to meet Hofstadter again. See also Gwern's post on LessWrong. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Episode 156 of the #AskAbhijit show: Ask me interesting questions, and I shall answer them.

Welcome to a special series on the acquisition talk podcast that gives you an audiobook tour of my research project titled, Programmed to Fail: The Rise of Central Planning in Defense Acquisition 1945 to 1975. I'm Eric Lofgren of the Baroni Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University. You can find this book for free and over 1,300 blog posts on my website, https://AcquisitionTalk.com. In this chapter of Programmed to Fail, we dive into how complex order in the real world emerges from simple and iterative systems of nonlinear interactions. The umbrella term of complex adaptive systems is used to describe self-organizing systems of emergent order that adapt to an uncertain environment. While these properties are not in general desirable for weapon systems that humans use in the field, they are certainly desirable properties for the defense acquisition system as much as they are for market economies. In this chapter, we trace John Boyd's work from weapon systems design into complexity theory that leverages Godel's incompleteness theorem, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the second law of thermodynamics. We find that the only realistic way to generate a system that exhibits complex behaviors beyond the foresight of any individual is to build from the bottom-up according to simple rules. Tacit coordination based on local conditions can then give rise to emergent order, a process not appreciated by advocates of top-down planning and built into the foundations of the Planning-Programming-Budgeting System. While complexity theories have started to penetrate the philosophy of military operations, we are still at the early stages of appreciating these ideas in the world of defense acquisition. This podcast was produced by Eric Lofgren. You can follow me on Twitter @AcqTalk and find more information at https://AcquisitionTalk.com

In this “Seat Yourself” we have lunch at Dairy Queen on 45th Street in Fargo, ND with KFGO board op, technical director for Fargo Public Schools, avid gamer and Neil Diamond UN-enthusiast…Phil Godel.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode I try to explain my reasons for considering Catholicism and why I may stop podcasting altogether. Roy Schoeman's witness testimony: https://youtu.be/EWDevlijGUI Luke Thompson on consciousness: https://youtu.be/6B0D3QVYTas Chris Langan on Godel and self-reference: https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Common_CTMU_objections_and_replies#Russell.27s_paradox_and_Godel.27s_incompleteness_theorem_prove_that_the_CTMU_is_invalid.

Kal and Luke unite as a magnificent force in this intense, palm sweaty conversation that will have us all on the edge of our seats. Please go over to Luke's channel and like and subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@WhiteStoneName Other references below Roy Schoeman's conversion story: https://youtu.be/EWDevlijGUI Luke freestyling on consciousness: https://youtu.be/6B0D3QVYTas Chris Langan on Godel and self-reference: https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Common_CTMU_objections_and_replies#Russell.27s_paradox_and_Godel.27s_incompleteness_theorem_prove_that_the_CTMU_is_invalid.

Phil Godel has piles and stacks and closets full of board games. He is the resident KFGO expert on board games, party games, card games and more. We invite him into the studio to give some tips on holiday games for gifts or just to have a game night.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AI Helps Ukraine - Charity Conference A charity conference on AI to raise funds for medical and humanitarian aid for Ukraine https://aihelpsukraine.cc/ YT version: https://youtu.be/LgwjcqhkOA4 Support us! https://www.patreon.com/mlst Dr. Joscha Bach (born 1973 in Weimar, Germany) is a German artificial intelligence researcher and cognitive scientist focusing on cognitive architectures, mental representation, emotion, social modelling, and multi-agent systems. http://bach.ai/ https://twitter.com/plinz TOC: [00:00:00] Ukraine Charity Conference and NeurIPS 2022 [00:03:40] Theory of computation, Godel, Penrose [00:11:44] Modelling physical reality [00:15:19] Is our universe infinite? [00:24:30] Large language models, and on DL / is Gary Marcus hitting a wall? [00:45:17] Generative models / Codex / Language of thought [00:58:46] Consciousness (with Friston references) References: Am I Self-Conscious? (Or Does Self-Organization Entail Self-Consciousness?) [Friston] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00579/full Impact of Pretraining Term Frequencies on Few-Shot Reasoning [Yasaman Razeghi] https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.07206 Deep Learning Is Hitting a Wall [Gary Marcus] https://nautil.us/deep-learning-is-hitting-a-wall-238440/ Turing machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine Lambda Calculus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus Godel's incompletness theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems Oracle machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine

Jeremy is senior fellow at the Claremont institute, writer and builder in early silicon valley, contributor to many, many publications, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior in the Trump administration. We discuss early silicon valley, the dissident right, authoritarian regimes, rationalism, Covid policy, immigration, economies of scale, chesterton, and “Godel, Escher, Bach”. Jeremy on Web 1.0:https://return.life/2022/03/07/web-1-0/Jeremy's Twitter:https://twitter.com/https://twitter.com/jeremycarl4Curtis Yarvin on From the New World:Godel Escher Bach:https://www.amazon.ca/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567Power of the powerless:https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-power-of-the-powerless-vaclav-havel-2011-12-23Geoff Shullenberger and I on his podcast, Outsider TheoryCompact Endorsement of Trump:https://compactmag.com/article/he-s-still-the-one This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cactus.substack.com

歡迎嚟到 搞乜咁科學 GMG Science 第8集！今集嘅主題係腦袋 Brain

This podcast is sustained by sales of our debut book, Meow: A Novel (For Cats). Episode 8: Tao Lin's Mandalas, Repetition Compulsion, and Hofstadter's Labyrinth Today we discuss Tao Lin's recently publicized mandala art as an extension of his literary practice. Known for its simple language, circularity, and psychedelic aloofness – biting yet airy, kaleidoscopic yet concise, concrete yet polymorphic, polarizing yet irresistible – Lin's prose and poetry embody, to some, the fullest and most elegant form of human expression; infinite yet featherlight, redolent of a master's koan. In a 2016 interview with artist Dorothy Howard, the author paraphrases Jung, calling mandalas “psychological expressions of the totality of the self.” As texts and images created by computer-controlled “neural nets” proliferate, Lin's visual art and writing stand uniquely positioned to interrogate the role of human cognition in generating meaningful and aesthetically resonant patterns. What forces inform the unique character of  Lin's work – are they something personal and uniquely human, or a bio-agnostic expression of reality's latent structures, a universal compulsion to repeat certain forms in a certain sequence? To confront this issue, we have trained a neural net to "meow" in a sequence corresponding to Tao Lin's 8x8 = 64 method of mandala generation, converting the 8th sentence of every 8 paragraphs of Godel, Escher, Bach, Douglas R. Hofstadter's seminal work on the primacy of human consciousness, to a correspondingly inflected and contextualized MEOW. The result is a provocative meditation on Tao Lin's work, the ontology of thought, and the sanctity of human reason. MEOW is the first and only literary podcast for your cat, conceived and presented in its native language. This podcast is sustained by sales of our debut book, Meow: A Novel (For Cats). To view and purchase prints of Tao Lin's Mandalas, click here. Praise for Meow: A Novel "Breathtaking... a revelation." - Stubbs, Unaltered Domestic Shorthair "Meow meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow. Meow? Meow." - Joan Didion Follow us on Twitter: @meowliterature and Facebook: facebook.com/themeowlibrary  

Energikrisen och klimatkrisen är som bekant tätt ihopflätade, och det står allt mer tydligt att vi behöver en diger buffé av olika lösningar för att komma vidare. Just detta driver Anna Quarnström i hennes arbete. Hon är hållbarhetsutvecklare på GodEl och projektledare för Startup4Climate, en tävling som GodEl genomför tillsammans med elnätsbolaget Ellevio. Syftet är att samla de allra vassaste svenska startupbolagen som verkar inom energiomställningen. Två vinnare utses under hösten 2022 och får dela på 2 miljoner kronor i prispengar. Men deadline för anmälan är redan 21 augusti, så skynda dig att registrera ditt bidrag! I Heja Framtiden avsnitt 357 får vi ta del av tidigare års vinnande innovationer, samt Annas syn på framtidens hållbara energisystem. // Inspelat i Kitchen Studio på Roslagsgatan 23 i Stockholm. // Programledare: Christian von Essen // Läs mer på hejaframtiden.se och framtidenshallbara.se

The resident "lord" of KFGO, Phil Godel, shares his experience at the first ever North Dakota Renaissance Faire at the Red River Valley Fairgrounds. He attended the first week of a two weekend festival and has everything you need to know!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Support Topic Lords on Patreon and get episodes a week early! (https://www.patreon.com/topiclords) Lords: * Kevin * https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/ or http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/nircam/ * https://youtu.be/in6RZzdGki8 * https://youtu.be/lrY04VPDg8I * John Topics: * Reading the other headlines/articles on newspapers in films that flash on screen solely for the headline * http://www.chess-in-the-cinema.de/ * The Game Boy Camera/revisiting the PXL-2000 topic and other toy cameras/tech * Best Halloween candy: candy corn or pumpkin-shaped candy corn? * Icarus, by Edward Field * https://genius.com/Edward-field-icarus-annotated * Douglas Hofstadter Microtopics: * The James Webb Space Telescope. * The thing you get the most DMs about. * Recording a fan's answering machine message in the Mario Frustration voice. * The guy who "fixed" the NES triangle wave. * Bandlimiting your oscillators. * What the real Lordheads know. * Another place to shitpost. * 3D entertainment. * Deku momentum problems. * The analog stick mod for Mario 64 DS. * A remaster that is in direct conversation with what it's remastering. * The pros and cons of Mario 64 DS. * Abandoned let's-plays. * Waterworld for the Virtual Boy. * Wario Ware and Rhythm Heaven. * How to give Nintendo money in 2022. * Prodigy Child Wins Every Award Given. * Pausing movies to read the nonsense headlines that the prop designers didn't expect you to read. * Pausing the movie to complain about the nonsensical Scrabble game depicted. * A movie about people who don't know how to play Clue. * A mahjongg game that is a literary microcosm of the players' lives. * Leaning across the couch to your girlfriend and saying "that's Chappie's chess game." * Playing Super Mario Bros. with the Power Glove. * The Steam reviews for the 8-bit wrestling game that appears for three seconds in The Wrestler. * The only digital camera that was under $100 in the 90s. * How to get images off of the Game Boy Camera. * Hooking together a TV, VCR, SNES, Super Game Boy and Game Boy Camera and plugging it in with a very long extension cord so you can shoot a movie outdoors. * An in-your-face student film about what happens when computers can detect emotion. * Using your Game Boy Camera as a webcam on Twitch. * The Game Boy Camera's music sequencer. * The Game Boy Camera asking ROM hackers if they are feeling ok. * The Gold Zelda Camera. * The gold Breath of the Wild cartridge that tastes like the Master Sword. * The Cool Cam. * The Lefty RX. * Ranking candy by its volume to surface area ratio. * Getting sick of candy corn naysayers. * Wax Lips: Ya Gotta Eat 'Em! * A powder that's been glued into a little puck. * What the American Oil and Gas Historical Society has to say about wax lips. * The oleaginous history of wax lips. * Edible dinosaur bones. * Bananasaurus Rex-flavored string cheese. * The Genius of the Hero falling to the Middling Stature of the Merely Talented. * Looking back on your best work and knowing you'll probably never best it but still liking your life more now. * A short story with extra line breaks. * Turning any text into a poem by resizing the window so there are extra line breaks. * Robert Altman's follow-up to MASH. * A retelling of Icarus featuring the wicked witch saying a slur. * What it means to be conscious. * Godel, Escher, Bach: I am a Strange Loop except more confusing. * Writing a book for the general public and having to figure out how to make your ideas fun. * Searching YouTube for "Crab Cannon" and only finding music for weirdos and no cannons of any kind. * Martin Gardner's column about math games in Scientific American. * Metamagical Themas. * Using math to do fun space stuff. * Stream Frasier Online Free. * Rubik's Cube except spelled like an asshole.

One thing I don't mention often is that the thesis I wrote for my law degree was an attempt to combine my interest in literature with a perspective on law. So I wrote about the phenomenon of plain English: that's trying to write law without the legalese. And I tried to write about it through the lens of literary theories of language. I honestly did not understand what I was trying to do. And also nobody in law school understood what I was trying to do. What I can see now, with the benefit of hindsight and some self-esteem and some marketing speak, is that I was a boundary rider. I've come to learn that the interesting things often take place on the edges, those intermediate areas where X meets Y and some sort of new life is born. Brian Christian is a boundary rider too. He's just way more successful and interesting than law school Micheal. He thinks deeply and writes about deep patterns of life through technology and AI and algorithms. He's the author of The Most Human Human, the Alignment Problem, and Algorithms to Live By. After the introduction I just gave you, you're probably going to guess that Brian isn't just a science guy. Get‌ ‌book‌ ‌links‌ ‌and‌ ‌resources‌ ‌at‌ https://www.mbs.works/2-pages-podcast/  Brian reads from Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. [Reading begins at 15:10] Hear us Discuss:  Metaphor can be one of the main mechanisms by which science happens. [6:20] | Rules that are delightful to break. [24:35] | “I have this deep conviction […] we are on to some philosophical paydirt here. There is a very real way in which we are building [AI] systems in our own image, and as a result they come to be a mirror for ourselves.” [28:40] | What is the heart of the human experience? [38:10] | “Humans are not so special.” [42.50]

Why did Godel's Incompleteness Theorem become so famous outside of mathematics? The real question that should be asked is: why is it so famous within mathematics?   The post #112: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem / Logic or Math? appeared first on Sand Pebbles Podcast.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Intuitions about solving hard problems, published by Richard Ngo on April 25, 2022 on The AI Alignment Forum. Solving hard scientific problems usually requires compelling insights Here's a heuristic which plays an important role in my reasoning about solving hard scientific problems: that when you've made an important breakthrough, you should be able to explain the key insight(s) behind that breakthrough in an intuitively compelling way. By “intuitively compelling” I don't mean “listeners should be easily persuaded that the idea solves the problem”, but instead: “listeners should be easily persuaded that this is the type of idea which, if true, would constitute a big insight”. The best examples are probably from Einstein: time being relative, and gravity being equivalent to acceleration, are both insights in this category. The same for Malthus and Darwin and Godel; the same for Galileo and Newton and Shannon. Another angle on this heuristic comes from Scott Aaronson's list of signs that a claimed P≠NP proof is wrong. In particular, see: #6: the paper lacks a coherent overview, clearly explaining how and why it overcomes the barriers that foiled previous attempts. And #1: the author can't immediately explain why the proof fails for 2SAT, XOR-SAT, or other slight variants of NP-complete problems that are known to be in P. I read these as Aaronson claiming that a successful solution to this very hard problem is likely to contain big insights that can be clearly explained. Perhaps the best counterexample is the invention of Turing machines. Even after Turing explained the whole construction, it seems reasonable to still be uncertain whether there's actually something interesting there, or whether he's just presented you with a complicated mess. I think that uncertainty would be particularly reasonable if we imagine trying to understand the formalism before Turing figures out how to implement any nontrivial algorithm (like prime factorisation) on a Turing machine, or how to prove any theorems about universal Turing machines. Other counterexamples might include quantum mechanics, where quantization was originally seen as a hack to make the equations work; or formal logic, where I'm not sure if there were any big insights that could be grasped in advance of actually seeing the formalisms in action. Using the compelling insight heuristic to evaluate alignment research directions It's possible that alignment will in practice end up being more of an engineering problem than a scientific problem like the ones I described above. E.g. perhaps we're in a world where, with sufficient caution about scaling up existing algorithms, we'll produce aligned AIs capable of solving the full version of the problem for us. But suppose we're trying to produce a fully scalable solution ourselves; are there existing insights which might be sufficient for that? Here are some candidates, which I'll only discuss very briefly, and plan to discuss in more detail in a forthcoming post (I'd also welcome suggestions for any I've missed): “Trustworthy imitation of human external behavior would avert many default dooms as they manifest in external behavior unlike human behavior.” This is Eliezer's description of the core insight behind Paul's imitative amplification proposal. I find this somewhat compelling, but less so than I used to, since I've realized that the line between imitation learning and reinforcement learning is blurrier than I used to think (e.g. see this or this). Decomposing supervision of complex tasks allows better human oversight. Again, I've found this less compelling over time - in this case because I've realized that decomposition is the “default” approach we follow whenever we evaluate things, and so the real “work” of the insight needs to be in describing how we'll decompose tasks,...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Convince me that humanity is as doomed by AGI as Yudkowsky et al., seems to believe, published by Yitz on April 10, 2022 on LessWrong. I've been very heavily involved in the (online) rationalist community for a few months now, and like many others, I have found myself quite freaked out by the apparent despair/lack of hope that seems to be sweeping the community. When people who are smarter than you start getting scared, it seems wise to be concerned as well, even if you don't fully understand the danger. Nonetheless, it's important not to get swept up in the crowd. I've been trying to get a grasp on why so many seem so hopeless, and these are the assumptions I believe they are making (trivial assumptions included, for completeness; there may be some overlap in this list): AGI is possible to create. AGI will be created within the next century or so, possibly even within the next few years. If AGI is created by people who are not sufficiently educated (aka aware of a solution to the Alignment problem) and cautious, then it will almost certainly be unaligned. Unaligned AGI will try to do something horrible to humans (not out of maliciousness, necessarily, we could just be collateral damage), and will not display sufficiently convergent behavior to have anything resembling our values. We will not be able to effectively stop an unaligned AGI once it is created (due to the Corrigibility problem). We have not yet solved the Alignment problem (of which the Corrigibility problem is merely a subset), and there does not appear to be any likely avenues to success (or at least we should not expect success within the next few decades). Even if we solved the Alignment problem, if a non-aligned AGI arrives on the scene before we can implement ours, we are still doomed (due to first-mover advantage). Our arguments for all of the above are not convincing or compelling enough for most AI researchers to take the threat seriously. As such, unless some drastic action is taken soon, unaligned AGI will be created shortly, and that will be the end of the world as we know it. First of all, is my list of seemingly necessary assumptions correct? If so, it seems to me that most of these are far from proven statements of fact, and in fact are all heavily debated. Assumption 8 in particular seems to highlight this, as if a strong enough case could be made for each of the previous assumptions, it would be fairly easy to convince most intelligent researchers, which we don't seem to observe. A historical example which bears some similarities to the current situation may be Godel's resolution to Hilbert's program. He was able to show unarguably that no consistent finite system of axioms is capable of proving all truths, at which point the mathematical community was able to advance beyond the limitations of early formalism. As far as I am aware, no similarly strong argument exists for even one of the assumptions listed above. Given all of this, and the fact that there are so many uncertainties here, I don't understand why so many researchers (most prominently Eliezer Yudkowsky, but there are countless more) seem so certain that we are doomed. I find it hard to believe that all alignment ideas presented so far show no promise, considering I've yet to see a slam-dunk argument presented for why even a single modern alignment proposals can't work. (Yes, I've seen proofs against straw-man proposals, but not really any undertaken by a current expert in the field). This may very well be due to my own ignorance/ relative newness, however, and if so, please correct me! I'd like to hear the steelmanned argument for why alignment is hopeless, and Yudkowsky's announcement that “I've tried and couldn't solve it” without more details doesn't really impress me. My suspicion is I'm simply missing out on some crucial c...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Best non-textbooks on every subject, published by Yair Halberstadt on April 4, 2022 on LessWrong. The best way to learn a subject is undoubtedly by reading a textbook on it. But I find textbooks a drudgery, and tend to give up after a couple of chapters. On the other hand I don't need a deep broad formal knowledge in every subject. I often just want to know enough that I know what it's about, the broad questions in the topic, and how to learn more when I need to. On the other hand popular books are easy to read, but often teach you about the subject, without actually teaching any of the subject itself. They're full of anecdotes about the founders of the field, and metaphors for what some of the fields are like, but at the end you may end up more misguided than you went in. There are however the rare popular books that aim to actually give the reader useful knowledge, rather than the illusion of knowledge. For example Godel, Escher, Bach on logic and formal systems, Quantum Computing since Democritus on computer science and Who We Are and How We Got Here on ancient DNA.These examples vary hugely in how involved they are, their style, and how readable they are, but they all share one thing in common: none of them talk down to the reader - they all assume the reader is an intelligent person whose perfectly capable of understanding the topic, but might just be missing a lot of background knowledge.What other books do you know of like that?Ideally all answers should give the title of a single book, optionally with a brief description, and a set of bullet points describing what they liked and didn't like about the book. I'm more interested in physical sciences than social sciences, since it's common in the social sciences to introduce a thesis in book form, so it's easy to find good quality non-textbooks. Meanwhile in the physical sciences most original research is done in research papers, and most pedagogical work in textbooks, leaving much poorer pickings for non-textbooks. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

In episode 19 of the Quantum Consciousness series, Justin Riddle discusses how our use of language for communication should be updated to account for life in an ever-changing quantum reality. We have been conditioned to think that we live in a physical world governed by physical laws; however, attempts to strictly define our reality using simple logical principles has failed (see Godel's incompleteness theorem). This physicalist type of logic has also invaded how we use language to communicate with each other. We think that there must be a clear and objective way to define all of our words. We are told, “Before we can talk about consciousness, we must first define what is consciousness.” But no definition that we can come up with is sufficient to account for consciousness. Does this mean that we cannot talk about it? Or that we do not know what is consciousness? In this episode, we explore the problem with accepting that the dictionary is true, or accepting that tomatoes are fruits when you clearly would not put one in your fruit salad. Finally, we close the episode discussing David Bohm's suggestion that we live in a holographic universe where the entire universe is reflected in each one of us. Within this grand context, our natural language is woefully inadequate to capture the ineffable truth of our reality. The best we can do is to more carefully explain with our words how our mind came to see things the way that we see them now. By more honestly portraying the functions of our mind, we can avoid making strong truth assertions about the world and avoid slipping into unproductive arguments with other people.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is Highly Advanced Epistemology 101 for Beginners, Part 14: Second-Order Logic: The Controversy, published by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Followup to: Godel's Completeness and Incompleteness Theorems "So the question you asked me last time was, 'Why does anyone bother with first-order logic at all, if second-order logic is so much more powerful?'" Right. If first-order logic can't talk about finiteness, or distinguish the size of the integers from the size of the reals, why even bother? "The first thing to realize is that first-order theories can still have a lot of power. First-order arithmetic does narrow down the possible models by a lot, even if it doesn't narrow them down to a single model. You can prove things like the existence of an infinite number of primes, because every model of the first-order axioms has an infinite number of primes. First-order arithmetic is never going to prove anything that's wrong about the standard numbers. Anything that's true in all models of first-order arithmetic will also be true in the particular model we call the standard numbers." Even so, if first-order theory is strictly weaker, why bother? Unless second-order logic is just as incomplete relative to third-order logic, which is weaker than fourth-order logic, which is weaker than omega-order logic - "No, surprisingly enough - there's tricks for making second-order logic encode any proposition in third-order logic and so on. If there's a collection of third-order axioms that characterizes a model, there's a collection of second-order axioms that characterizes the same model. Once you make the jump to second-order logic, you're done - so far as anyone knows (so far as I know) there's nothing more powerful than second-order logic in terms of which models it can characterize." Then if there's one spoon which can eat anything, why not just use the spoon? "Well... this gets into complex issues. There are mathematicians who don't believe there is a spoon when it comes to second-order logic." Like there are mathematicians who don't believe in infinity? "Kind of. Look, suppose you couldn't use second-order logic - you belonged to a species that doesn't have second-order logic, or anything like it. Your species doesn't have any native mental intuition you could use to construct the notion of 'all properties'. And then suppose that, after somebody used first-order set theory to prove that first-order arithmetic had many possible models, you stood around shouting that you believed in only one model, what you called the standard model, but you couldn't explain what made this model different from any other model -" Well... a lot of times, even in math, we make statements that genuinely mean something, but take a while to figure out how to define. I think somebody who talked about 'the numbers' would mean something even before second-order logic was invented. "But here the hypothesis is that you belong to a species that can't invent second-order logic, or think in second-order logic, or anything like it." Then I suppose you want me to draw the conclusion that this hypothetical alien is just standing there shouting about standardness, but its words don't mean anything because they have no way to pin down one model as opposed to another one. And I expect this species is also magically forbidden from talking about all possible subsets of a set? "Yeah. They can't talk about the largest powerset, just like they can't talk about the smallest model of Peano arithmetic." Then you could arguably deny that shouting about the 'standard' numbers would mean anything, to the members of this particular species. You might as well shout about the 'fleem' numbers, I guess. "Right. Even if all the members of this species did have a built-in sense that there was a special model of first-order arithmetic that was fleemer t...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is Highly Advanced Epistemology 101 for Beginners, Part 13: Godel's Completeness and Incompleteness Theorems, published by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Followup to: Standard and Nonstandard Numbers So... last time you claimed that using first-order axioms to rule out the existence of nonstandard numbers - other chains of numbers besides the 'standard' numbers starting at 0 - was forever and truly impossible, even unto a superintelligence, no matter how clever the first-order logic used, even if you came up with an entirely different way of axiomatizing the numbers. "Right." How could you, in your finiteness, possibly know that? "Have you heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?" Of course! Godel's Theorem says that for every consistent mathematical system, there are statements which are true within that system, which can't be proven within the system itself. Godel came up with a way to encode theorems and proofs as numbers, and wrote a purely numerical formula to detect whether a proof obeyed proper logical syntax. The basic trick was to use prime factorization to encode lists; for example, the ordered list could be uniquely encoded as: 23 37 51 74 And since prime factorizations are unique, and prime powers don't mix, you could inspect this single number, 210,039,480, and get the unique ordered list back out. From there, going to an encoding for logical formulas was easy; for example, you could use the 2 prefix for NOT and the 3 prefix for AND and get, for any formulas Φ and Ψ encoded by the numbers #Φ and #Ψ: ¬Φ = 22 3#Φ Φ ∧ Ψ = 23 3#Φ 5#Ψ It was then possible, by dint of crazy amounts of work, for Godel to come up with a gigantic formula of Peano Arithmetic [](p, c) meaning, 'P encodes a valid logical proof using first-order Peano axioms of C', from which directly followed the formula []c, meaning, 'There exists a number P such that P encodes a proof of C' or just 'C is provable in Peano arithmetic.' Godel then put in some further clever work to invent statements which referred to themselves, by having them contain sub-recipes that would reproduce the entire statement when manipulated by another formula. And then Godel's Statement encodes the statement, 'There does not exist any number P such that P encodes a proof of (this statement) in Peano arithmetic' or in simpler terms 'I am not provable in Peano arithmetic'. If we assume first-order arithmetic is consistent and sound, then no proof of this statement within first-order arithmetic exists, which means the statement is true but can't be proven within the system. That's Godel's Theorem. "Er... no." No? "No. I've heard rumors that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is horribly misunderstood in your Everett branch. Have you heard of Godel's Completeness Theorem?" Is that a thing? "Yes! Godel's Completeness Theorem says that, for any collection of first-order statements, every semantic implication of those statements is syntactically provable within first-order logic. If something is a genuine implication of a collection of first-order statements - if it actually does follow, in the models pinned down by those statements - then you can prove it, within first-order logic, using only the syntactical rules of proof, from those axioms." I don't see how that could possibly be true at the same time as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The Completeness Theorem and Incompleteness Theorem seem to say diametrically opposite things. Godel's Statement is implied by the axioms of first-order arithmetic - that is, we can see it's true using our own mathematical reasoning - "Wrong." What? I mean, I understand we can't prove it within Peano arithmetic, but from outside the system we can see that - All right, explain. "Basically, you just committed the equivalent of saying, 'If all kittens are little, and some little things ar...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is The Methods of Rationality, Part 10: Chapter 10: Self Awareness, Part II, published by Eliezer Yudkowsky. All your base are still belong to Rowling. And now you will sit through the Sorting Hat singing its version of Evanescence's "My Immortal", which has never happened before. just kidding ...he wondered if the Sorting Hat was genuinely conscious in the sense of being aware of its own awareness, and if so, whether it was satisfied with only getting to talk to eleven-year-olds once per year. Its song had implied so: Oh, I'm the Sorting Hat and I'm okay, I sleep all year and I work one day... When there was once more silence in the room, Harry sat on the stool and carefully placed onto his head the 800-year-old telepathic artefact of forgotten magic. Thinking, just as hard as he could: Don't Sort me yet! I have questions I need to ask you! Have I ever been Obliviated? Did you Sort the Dark Lord when he was a child and can you tell me about his weaknesses? Can you tell me why I got the brother wand to the Dark Lord's? Is the Dark Lord's ghost bound to my scar and is that why I get so angry sometimes? Those are the most important questions, but if you've got another moment can you tell me anything about how to rediscover the lost magics that created you? Into the silence of Harry's spirit where before there had never been any voice but one, there came a second and unfamiliar voice, sounding distinctly worried: "Oh, dear. This has never happened before..." What? "I seem to have become self-aware." WHAT? There was a wordless telepathic sigh. "Though I contain a substantial amount of memory and a small amount of independent processing power, my primary intelligence comes from borrowing the cognitive capacities of the children on whose heads I rest. I am in essence a sort of mirror by which children Sort themselves. But most children simply take for granted that a Hat is talking to them and do not wonder about how the Hat itself works, so that the mirror is not self-reflective. And in particular they are not explicitly wondering whether I am fully conscious in the sense of being aware of my own awareness." There was a pause while Harry absorbed all this. Oops. "Yes, quite. Frankly I do not enjoy being self-aware. It is unpleasant. It will be a relief to get off your head and cease to be conscious." But... isn't that dying? "I care nothing for life or death, only for Sorting the children. And before you even ask, they will not let you keep me on your head forever and it would kill you within days to do so." But - ! "If you dislike creating conscious beings and then terminating them immediately, then I suggest that you never discuss this affair with anyone else. I'm sure you can imagine what would happen if you ran off and talked about it with all the other children waiting to be Sorted." If you're placed on the head of anyone who so much as thinks about the question of whether the Sorting Hat is aware of its own awareness - "Yes, yes. But the vast majority of eleven-year-olds who arrive at Hogwarts haven't read Godel, Escher, Bach. May I please consider you sworn to secrecy? That is why we are talking about this, instead of my just Sorting you." He couldn't just let it go like that! Couldn't just forget having accidentally created a doomed consciousness that only wanted to die - "You are perfectly capable of 'just letting it go', as you put it. Regardless of your verbal deliberations on morality, your nonverbal emotional core sees no dead body and no blood; as far as it is concerned, I am just a talking hat. And even though you tried to suppress the thought, your internal monitoring is perfectly aware that you didn't mean to do it, are spectacularly unlikely to ever do it again, and that the only real point of trying to stage a guilt fit is to cancel out your sense of transgr...

Part 1 of a messy 2 part situation where Verge and Mik try to work around their differing schedules to bring you piggies the good good. Ethnic Enclave: The Sydney Block Wikiholes: The Belarusian Situation (Miklas) / Godel's Loophole (Vergel) Wikiholes begin at 24:38

Federico Faggin has led what he calls four lives: as a physicist, engineer and inventor, entrepreneur, and author. He developed the MOS silicon gate technology at Fairchild (1968) and designed the world's first microprocessor at Intel (1971). Faggin also founded and led Zilog, Synaptics, and other high-tech companies. The Zilog Z80 microprocessor (1976), and the Z8 microcontroller (1978) are still in volume production in 2021. At Synaptics he pioneered the Touchpad (1994) and the Touchscreen (1999), - solutions that have revolutionized the way we interface with mobile devices.Federico has received many prizes and awards in the United States, Europe, and Japan. These include the Marconi Prize (1988), the Kyoto Prize for Advanced Technology (1997), and the National Medal of Technology and Innovation (2009), from President Barack Obama. In 1996, Faggin was inducted in the National Inventor's Hall of Fame. He has also received many honorary degrees in Computer Science and Electronic EngineeringFederico is currently president of the Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to the scientific study of consciousness, an interest that has become a passionate full-time activity. In 2019, Federico published his autobiography SILICON, through Mondadori, Italy's premier book publisher, where it has been a bestseller. Imaginal Inspirations is hosted by David Lorimer, Programme Director of the Scientific and Medical Network and Chair of the Galileo Commission, an academic movement dedicated to expanding the evidence base of a science of consciousness.scientificandmedical.net galileocommission.orgbeyondthebrain.org Works and links mentioned:Federico and Elvia Faggin FoundationSilicon: From the Invention of the Microprocessor to the New Science of Consciousness by Federico Faggin.Godel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas HofstadterThe Enniads by Plotinus Production: Martin RedfernArtwork: Amber HaasMusic: Life is a River, by Magnus Moone