When multiple parrot the same 'how is babby formed' meme it makes me think the forum has been invaded by bird people simply echoing the songs they know. Maybe birds and humans aren't so different after all. Squawk?
The question of whether or not when you see something, you see only the light or you see the thing you’re looking at, is one of those dopey philosophical things that an ordinary person has no difficulty with. Even the most profound philosopher, sitting eating his dinner, has many difficulties making out that what he looks at perhaps might only be the light from the steak, but it still implies the existence of the steak which he is able to lift by the fork to his mouth. The philosophers, who were unable to make that analysis, and that idea have fallen by the wayside from hunger.
I totally disagree that people intuitively understand Plato's cave (which is what Feynman is referring to). Simply listen to the arguments in support of things like the flat Earth and you will hear people explicitly referring to what they see as being reality instead of the scientific process of discovery. This quote is a gross over simplification of what epistemology is and takes for granted a lot of thinking which goes hand in hand with a scientific education. If we don't have people exploring what we know and why we know it, the foundation is able to be undercut by people with "intuition" contradicting what a scientist says.
That’s not what Feynman is saying. He was against cargo-cult science based on end-results and appearances only. What he is referring to here is what he goes into at length about the “deep meaning” behind “why” something is happening, rather than just describing “what” is happening.
It’s similar to what David Hume, the great skepticist, observed centuries earlier, that one cannot really explain the endless “why” of physical processes, just the “how” of the apparent physical law determined by correlation.
I agree. Seems like what Feynman really wants to say here is “this isn’t a question I’m personally interested in”, but frames it as “it’s dumb to be interested in this question”.
We are only experiencing the end result of what our senses sample and our brain processes. That’s clearly true. How much that end result diverges from the real thing is difficult to answer, but in a straight forward way you can look at an optical illusion to see that there is some divergence.
I, too, can speculate about what Feynman's message is, and while I think you are right in supposing he was not interested in the problem, I also think he is saying that not much in life depends on answering the question. It's not like even philosophy itself is hung up on this issue in the way that, for example, fundamental physics seems to be at something of an impasse over string theory.
Neither our sensory perception nor our language are entirely accurate representations of the world we live in, but they are both good enough for most purposes, so long as we don't get nerd-swiped into obsessing over questions of what it all means.
I very much doubt that many flat-earthers and the like would be likely to change their minds on reading the Republic. After all, they have already rejected much more pragmatic arguments.
It's also contradictory to the answer Feyneman gave in his "Aunt Minnie is in the hospital" story in response to being asked "If you get hold of two magnets, and you push them, you can feel this pushing between them. Turn them around the other way, and they slam together. Now, what is it, the feeling between those two magnets?":
A somewhat similar approach can be taken to the simulation question itself - rather than the default response of pondering the likelihood of it being true or how it might be implemented, I much prefer the ~"Is there any utility in the question itself?" approach taken by George Hotz starting at the 2:30 point in this interview on the Lex Fridman podcast:
[Hotz] ...it wasn't a very practical talk about how to actually escape a simulation, it was more about a way of restructuring an us-versus-them narrative. If we continue on the path we're going with technology, I think we're in big trouble - like, as a species, and not just as a species but even me as an individual member of the species. So if we could change rhetoric to be more like...to think upwards...like, to think about that we're in a simulation and how we could get out...already we'd be on the right path. What you actually do once you do that, well, I assume I would have acquired way more intelligence in the process of doing that, so I'll just ask that.
[Fridman] So the the thinking upwards, what kind of ideas, what kind of breakthrough ideas do you think thinking in that way could inspire, and what did you say, upwards? Upwards into space are you thinking?
[Hotz] The space narrative that held for the modernist generation, doesn't hold as well for the postmodern generation. Like Elon Musk...like we're gonna build rockets, we're gonna go to Mars, we're gonna colonize the universe. The race to space. That was a great modernist narrative, but it doesn't seem to hold the same weight in today's culture. I'm hoping for good postmodern narratives that replace it.
My interpretation of his thinking is, regardless of whether we are actually in a simulation, it is possible to think of reality as a simulation - it (and the characters within it) behaves like a simulation, and it can be acted upon as one can act upon a simulation (changing variables, observing the result, etc)...so, let us (humanity) start to collectively conceptualize it in this manner, and collectively act upon it in a logical, coordinated, systemic manner. The benefit of this approach is it can help humanity and the individuals within it break out of this kind of "trance" we seem to be in where we kind of act and think as if the state of the world is mostly beyond our control, that ~"nothing can be done" beyond that what we are doing now (what we have ~always done).
Whether this idea would actually work is obviously speculative, but considering the existential predicament we find ourselves in, it seems to me like a fairly decent idea, especially compared to the competing ideas.
Feynman enjoyed holding forth about philosopy of science, demarcation and so on but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that he had unusually good judgement on those issues: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508180 . But then Michael Jordan and Cristiano Ronaldo aren't particular authorities when it comes to questions of good sportsmanship.
> Independent of his admitted naiveté and the job crisis in American physics, it is interesting to record how some leading physicists reacted to the physics he was doing. Clauser (2002a, p.71) reports that while he "was actually performing the first experimental test of the CHSH-Bell predictions as a postdoc at UC-Berkeley, [... he] made an appointment with Prof. Richard Feynman to discuss these same questions. Feynman was very impatient with [him]." Feynman's stance was: "Well, when you have found an error in quantum-theory's experimental predictions, come back then, and we can discuss your problem with it. " 82
> At this seminar, Aspect finished his talk by quoting a certain paper whose author derived results similar to Bell's inequalities and went on to discuss whether it was "a real problem." According to Aspect, this author gave an answer so unclear that he "had found it amusing to quote it as a kind of joke to conclude this presentation." Only at this point, did Aspect reveal the name of the author, Richard Feynman. According to Aspect, nobody in the audience laughed until Feynman laughed. Feynman checked the quotation and wrote to Aspect conceding he was right. 93
> [note 93]: [...] Feynman's quotation, in Feynman (1982, p. 471), is: "It has not yet become obvious to me that there's no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem. So that's why I like to investigate things."
Feynman in his Nobel lecture described a formulation of classical electrodynamics that did not use electromagnetic waves where charged particles acts directly on each other. He tried to apply that to the quantum case, but eventually gave up.
Still if such formulation is possible than the light that apparently reaches the philosopher from the food is an artifact of a model.
This doesn't seem to be correct. The article talks about reinforcement learning agents optimizing a communication game to trade off color description accurately vs. effort.
The words they use aren't real words, they're partitions of the color space, and the researchers found that the partitions the agents came up with to win the game were similar to human partitioning of the color space.
Now, did the design of the game and the reward function smuggle in human notions of reasonableness that made the outcome a foregone conclusion? Maybe that's a more reasonable criticism, I don't know.
The study relies on "colors" defined by human perception, which could be interpreted as a form of training, when all inputs are restricted to that definition.
The efficiency/complexity insight doesn't rely on that data, but the human-like output produced by human-like color data combined with communications limitations does rely on it, and that's what the article is all about.
AI intended to replicate human behavior replicates human behavior
Edit: It’s like domesticating wolves for the purpose of training them to run around an obstacle course at Westminster to showcase what it would be like if they were still wolves
A quick read of the article leads me to believe that the AIs were inventing language tokens of their own. What makes you think it was trained on human data?
Seems so, but that's less important than the title suggests. The paper is far beyond me (I can't even figure out what the "IB plane" is) but the key insight is how complexity tracks with communications efficiency when their models make their own communication methods between each other.
There's a birdcoin joke in here somewhere. https://youtu.be/7oclPZx520k amazing how they reason about different ways the cap could go in. And I wonder how hard it was to train and how scalable.
The results are visually striking but also to be expected if the sensors already captured the necessary data (to the computer) and is obscured (to the human) by the relative (instead of absolute) perception.
What I find innovative here is the concept of thinking about anything that is hard to do as a human (night vision) but for which we can affect the state of (in this case, the light switch) in order to train a model to overcome the difficulty.
Sorry to belabor the obvious but I thought it was worth a description which may motivate other use cases.
Curious what answers HN found interesting? Algolia Search: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fanswers.yahoo.com%2F