Shambling Zombie Thoughts

Written by  on May 27, 2015

I just returned from this workshop and, as usual, the most interesting stuff happens in between talks and over pints of beer in the evening. One of the interesting discussions happened over 2 non-consecutive evenings. It started with a question from one of the other attendees about whether or not I’d heard of memetics. I had, mainly due to a cultural evolution working group I participated in when I was still at the SFI. But I took the opportunity to whip my whipping boy, again, and suggested that memetics is a metaphor and, depending on where you land regarding the ubiquity of metaphor, any study of memetics should loudly exclaim its assumptions up front. This exploded into a 3-way argument about the grounding of thought. I took the position that all thoughts are inextricably grounded in physiology, whereas the other 2 took (variations of) the position that ideas are somewhat independent of the physiological structures that implement them. We all agree that until/unless we can find the maps between the physiology and the ideas, it’s still useful to study the transmission of ideas as if it were independent, much like studying chemistry without having to always refer back to physics.

In any case, that discussion [d]evolved into a discussion about determinism and free will. I am forced to claim that ideas are epiphenomenal, or at least, limited to constraining their generators. I.e. thoughts are an effect, not a cause. My competitors in the discussion insisted that ideas can cause behaviors. Of course, I brought up the evidence that we make decisions before we’re conscious of those decisions. I also brought up the challenge that they bear the burden to distinguish emotion from thought and instinct from reason (or involuntary reflexes from idea-caused behaviors).

All of this is expected during a conference on agent-based modeling (ABM), of course. But I suppose it left me pre-adapted to these articles:

and a reconsideration of my own log entry: Atheism and the Meaning of Life.

Determinism and Free Will in ABM

ABM has a very sloppy history. The phrase is used to describe lots of different types of models, most of which have no clear concept of an agent. To my mind, most models described as ABMs are simply discrete time models, which have been in common use for a very long time. I typically define an agent as an encapsulated object that has control over its own agenda. This means that, by definition, it cannot be purely reactive to its context. It must embody some type of “free will”, some unpredictability or other idiosyncratic attributes. These models typically require the installation of a pseudo-random number generator (pRNG) inside the agent. Without that, the object becomes a slave to whatever other processes call its methods or change its state. (Another way might be to embed some actual parallelism inside the agent, allowing its behavior to be a function of some other stochastic process.)

But embedding a pRNG inside the agent does not magically imply that the symbols or sub-symbols used by the agent are independent of its context. The underlying grammar, the space of potential states of the agent is defined by its interface with the outside world. Only its selection of points in its state space is free. Everything else is bound.

This formalizes the argument against memes evolving independently from the underlying machinery in which they’re implemented.

Progressivism in Evolution

In the 2nd installment of the argument, a 4th player made the comment that he simply did not want to think that all his thoughts and feelings were purely and directly derived from his (cumulative) context. He claimed that the other position, where ideas can be causative … inspiring even, was more appealing, more beautiful. I didn’t give him the chance, but I suspected he would go on to cite something like what Einstein said about the beautiful theory being more likely true. (Of course, Einstein wasn’t a biologist, which has a different concept of beauty … namely those that have excruciatingly exquisite messiness.) But the inevitable idea that there is no obvious purpose to a purely determined life. If ideas are epiphenomenal, then why do we do what we do? Why are we as we are? Is there purpose … intention to any act?

In response, I invoked the idea that I learned (or badly inferred, to help him with plausible deniability) from this friend of mine that evolution is (fundamentally) a way for mechanisms to progressively grow more and more complex … to steadily harness order from an ever more disordering universe. At which point my beauty-invoking discussant brightened a bit. He made the comment that viewing evolution this way, combined with the context-driven deterministic epiphenomenality of ideas leads to a kind of social cohesion that is sometimes lacking in, at least, economic thought. We are all part of the same machine, pursuing a common dream.

The Supernatural as Artificial Social Cohesive

This finally leads me back to my own log entry on a local group meeting where a bunch of local atheists seem to continue to avoid trying to find any true biological explanation of religious belief or faith in the supernatural. A point I raised at that humanist meeting was in response to a comment that churches tend to have a physical location, which provides some of the glue that holds the congregation together. It’s a rallying point, something very concrete around which the group can cohere. The same function is served by concepts of God, faith, and good behavior, even if those concepts are demonstrably false. What my beauty-seeking discussant above was looking for was some concept/idea around which we could all cohere, much like 2 competing Christian denominations might disagree about, say, drinking alcohol or whatnot, they can still cohere around their idealism, Christ. The common dream of biological species banding together to harvest the increasingly rarified order in a heat death universe might provide that for some who find determinism a bit depressing otherwise.

Intuition and Emotion vs. Symbolic Thought and Language

And finally, the article by the neoreactionary invokes that group of humanist/atheists for me because I’m consistently disagreeing with them in a deeply urgic way. This usually manifests in the distinction I make between agnostic (without knowledge) versus atheist (without gods). But with the launch description of The Future Primaeval, and their break with the LessWrong crowd and subsequent break with MoreRight, I recognized that my discomfort with atheism is very similar to my discomfort with the hyper-rationalists (like the LessWrong crowd).

One of my defenses of theism lies in the very tiny window kept open by universal consciousness and the anthropic universe. I just cannot bring myself to plug that hole, to be hyper-crisp and rely on the Law of Noncontradiction. Hence my fascination with second-order and paraconsistent logic. And it should be relatively obvious how this relates to the somewhat artificial distinction between emotion vs. thought, instinct vs. reason. And this is why A Short Argument for Traditions makes some intuitive sense to me. Being part of this large, overwhelmingly deterministic, order-grasping, machine, implies to some extent that some traditions are best followed until better alternatives present themselves.

Where does this leave us regarding the ontological status of thoughts/ideas/memes? Oh who knows. I’m probably still jet-lagged.

closures

Written by  on May 13, 2015

I debated whether this entry should go here or in my personal log, which contains things one should not talk about in a professional context. As I age, I notice the line between professional and personal blurs and clarifies, depending on the context. So, I left the decision up to which one had the more recent entry. And here we are.

This post on an analogy between Singularity doomsayers and skeptical theists evoked a common whipping boy of mine: the idealism of closure (or the closure that is idealism). By “closure”, I basically mean the computer science concept. For most purposes, though, I extend this to the bound elements of any conceivable context. So, for example, when you’re arguing with someone about the meaning of the word “God”, there is no closure at all because that word is so vague as to be useless. I.e. every variable is a free variable. (Perhaps it’s better to say it’s the trivial closure rather than has no closure.)

The problem with all three positions in that article: skeptical theism, treacherous turn, and the author’s analogy between the two is that all three depend on some form of closure, the idea that some elements of the context are definitely bound (PDF). I maintain, especially in conversations with Singularians, that nothing is closed, that the universe is open. By the way, while the treacherous turn (of some type) might be thought of as the heart of 99% of science fiction out there, it is 100% countered by the openness trope. No matter how super intelligent the AI will be (or no matter how many omni-X properties God has), there will always be some free variable we can pick at to eventually unravel their dastardly plan.

Of course, the trope depends on some fundamental principles, the most important of which is sensitivity to initial conditions (critical to deterministic chaos, which is critically relevant when arguing about what machines will or will not do). Another is the stability of attractors. E.g. how stable is the first mover advantage gained by the first super intelligent AI? My claim is that such attractors are always much less stable than we think they are, than we idealize them to be, especially when writing philosophy books and articles. Yes, if we accept the author’s analogy, it bifurcates the space, making the doomsayer and geek nirvana deeper, more stable attractors than they otherwise would be. But it’s a long leap from stable to irreversible.

HBOOT hacks

Written by  on May 1, 2015

Relying quite a bit on [BOOTSPLASH] iElvis’s Custom One Splash Screens and Tutorial: How to Customize/Modify/Hack your HBoot.img, I finally got around to replacing that blinding white default boot splash from HTC on my One Mini (aka m4). For posterity, the basic processes are as follows.

Replacing the “developer build” text HTC writes when you unlock/S-off the phone with my name in red:

$ adb shell
$ su
# dd if=/dev/block/mmcblk0p12 of=/sdcard/hboot.img
# exit
$ exit
$ adb pull /sdcard/hboot.img
$ emacs hboot.img
M-x hexl-mode

hboot
Replace the text starting with “This build …” with whatever you want. But be sure only overwrite characters. Don’t delete or add because that’ll make your file a different size, perhaps bricking your phone. I tried lots of replacements, but didn’t take the time to figure out how to do it right. So a short string like my name was best. Save the file, then:

$ adb push hboot.img /sdcard/hboot.img
$ adb shell
$ su
# dd if=/sdcard/hboot.img of=/dev/block/mmcblk0p12
# exit
$ exit
$ adb reboot

Replacing the HTC logo with the white background:

$ adb shell
$ su
# dd if=/dev/block/mmcblk0p13 of=/sdcard/defaultsplash.img
# exit
$ exit
$ adb pull /sdcard/defaultsplash.img
$ ./nbimg -w 720 -h 1280 -F defaultsplash.img
$ file defaultsplash.img.bmp
defaultsplash.img.bmp: PC bitmap, Windows 3.x format, 720 x 1280 x 24

defaultsplash.img
Create a new BMP image that matches that one. I use the GIMP, obviously. Then:

$ ./nbimg -F new.bmp
$ mkdir tmp
$ cd tmp
$ unzip ../splash-one-mini_super-mario.zip
Archive: ../splash-one-mini_super-mario.zip
creating: META-INF/
creating: META-INF/com/
creating: META-INF/com/google/
creating: META-INF/com/google/android/
inflating: META-INF/com/google/android/update-binary
inflating: META-INF/com/google/android/updater-script
creating: cache/
inflating: cache/splash.565
$ cp ../new.bmp.img cache/splash.565
$ zip -r newbootimg.zip .
$ adb push newbootimg.zip /sdcard
$ adb reboot recovery

Then in recovery, just install that zip like any other file. Here’s a video showing my new boot splash: