
You’ve never seen history this way.
Two minutes on how history’s greatest thinkers made progress, from Aristarchus to Einstein, and how you can follow along.
youtube.com/watch?v=umSnUjhT…
Pinker doesn’t think it’s a decidable problem.
Deutsch is trying to explain to him that it’s already been decided.
We *already know* that a universal computer made of silicon is functionally equivalent to one made of meat.
David Deutsch (@DavidDeutschOxf) and I discuss AGIs and subjectivity on the Joe Walker Podcast (@JosephNWalker):
David Deutsch:
I think it’s inevitable that AGIs will be capable of having internal subjectivity and qualia, because that’s all included in the letter G in the middle of the name of the technology.
Me:
Well, not necessarily, because the G could be general computational power, the ability to solve problems, and there could be no one at all who’s actually human.
David Deutsch:
But there ain’t nothing here but computation. It’s not like in Star Trek: Data lacks the emotion chip, and it has to be plugged in. But there’s nothing possibly in that chip apart from more circuitry like he’s already got.
Me:
But, of course, the episode that you’re referring to is one in which the question arose: Is it moral to reverse engineer Data by dismantling him, therefore stopping the computation? Is that disassembling a machine, or is it snuffing out a consciousness? Because there is an alternative view that subjectivity depends also on whatever biochemical substrate our particular computation runs on. And I think there’s no way of ever knowing.
David Deutsch:
I think we can answer that question before we ever do any experiments, even today, because there’s no difference in principle between a computer that runs partly by electricity and partly by chemicals and one that runs entirely on silicon chips. Because the latter can simulate the former with arbitrary accuracy.
Me:
Well, we don’t have to solve the problem this afternoon in our conversation, but, in fact, I think it is not solvable. But the simulation doesn’t necessarily mean that it has subjectivity. It could just mean it’s a simulation; that is, it’s going through all the motions. It might even do it better than we do, but, you know, there’s no one home. There’s no one actually being hurt.
David Deutsch:
Well, you can be a dualist. You can say that there is mind in addition to all the physical stuff. But if you want to be a physicalist, then there’s this thought experiment where you remove one neuron at a time and replace it with a silicon chip, and you wouldn’t notice.
Me:
Well, that’s the question. An external observer wouldn’t notice. How do we know that, from the point of view of the brain being replaced—every neuron by a chip—it’s like falling asleep? That when it’s done and every last neuron is replaced by a chip, you’re dead, subjectively, even though your body is still making noise?
David Deutsch:
That means that when your subjectivity is—there is something happening in addition to the computation. And that’s dualism.
Me:
I mean, again, I don’t have an opinion one way or another, which is exactly my point. I don’t think it’s a decidable problem. But it could be that that extra something is not ghostly substance. It could be that the stuff that the brain is made of is responsible for that extra ingredient of subjective experience, as opposed to intelligent behavior. I think we’re going to be having the same debate a hundred years from now.
David Deutsch:
Yeah, maybe one of the AGIs will be participating in the debate by then.
Veritula retweeted
Strongly recommend this. I've tried to grasp the history of computation - but failed. Not this time: It's well-written, relatively short and easy to digest. And interesting! Well done @dchackethal
Babbage designed engines for numbers.
Lovelace saw they could do more.
Turing found one machine to do anything another could, and argued it could think.
Deutsch made it quantum and said only the program is missing.
The new chronicle on Veritula:
veritula.com/discussions/can…
Veritula retweeted
.@veritula now has an MCP endpoint. Connect your AI to veritula.com/mcp to search ideas and read discussions. No account needed.
Veritula retweeted
You likely know about the 1919 eclipse testing general relativity.
But did you know Einstein’s first calculations agreed with Newton’s?
Prev. eclipse tests had failed bc of bad weather, giving Einstein time to fix his calculations!
@veritula chronicle: veritula.com/discussions/how…
Pinker doesn’t think it’s a decidable problem.
Deutsch is trying to explain to him that it’s already been decided.
We *already know* that a universal computer made of silicon is functionally equivalent to one made of meat.
David Deutsch (@DavidDeutschOxf) and I discuss AGIs and subjectivity on the Joe Walker Podcast (@JosephNWalker):
David Deutsch:
I think it’s inevitable that AGIs will be capable of having internal subjectivity and qualia, because that’s all included in the letter G in the middle of the name of the technology.
Me:
Well, not necessarily, because the G could be general computational power, the ability to solve problems, and there could be no one at all who’s actually human.
David Deutsch:
But there ain’t nothing here but computation. It’s not like in Star Trek: Data lacks the emotion chip, and it has to be plugged in. But there’s nothing possibly in that chip apart from more circuitry like he’s already got.
Me:
But, of course, the episode that you’re referring to is one in which the question arose: Is it moral to reverse engineer Data by dismantling him, therefore stopping the computation? Is that disassembling a machine, or is it snuffing out a consciousness? Because there is an alternative view that subjectivity depends also on whatever biochemical substrate our particular computation runs on. And I think there’s no way of ever knowing.
David Deutsch:
I think we can answer that question before we ever do any experiments, even today, because there’s no difference in principle between a computer that runs partly by electricity and partly by chemicals and one that runs entirely on silicon chips. Because the latter can simulate the former with arbitrary accuracy.
Me:
Well, we don’t have to solve the problem this afternoon in our conversation, but, in fact, I think it is not solvable. But the simulation doesn’t necessarily mean that it has subjectivity. It could just mean it’s a simulation; that is, it’s going through all the motions. It might even do it better than we do, but, you know, there’s no one home. There’s no one actually being hurt.
David Deutsch:
Well, you can be a dualist. You can say that there is mind in addition to all the physical stuff. But if you want to be a physicalist, then there’s this thought experiment where you remove one neuron at a time and replace it with a silicon chip, and you wouldn’t notice.
Me:
Well, that’s the question. An external observer wouldn’t notice. How do we know that, from the point of view of the brain being replaced—every neuron by a chip—it’s like falling asleep? That when it’s done and every last neuron is replaced by a chip, you’re dead, subjectively, even though your body is still making noise?
David Deutsch:
That means that when your subjectivity is—there is something happening in addition to the computation. And that’s dualism.
Me:
I mean, again, I don’t have an opinion one way or another, which is exactly my point. I don’t think it’s a decidable problem. But it could be that that extra something is not ghostly substance. It could be that the stuff that the brain is made of is responsible for that extra ingredient of subjective experience, as opposed to intelligent behavior. I think we’re going to be having the same debate a hundred years from now.
David Deutsch:
Yeah, maybe one of the AGIs will be participating in the debate by then.
Veritula retweeted
It’s well known that Ada Lovelace was one of the first to understand that computers can do more than math.
What I didn’t know is that she died of cancer at only 36.
Imagine what could have been if she had lived longer. The digital revolution might have come almost a century sooner!
Babbage designed engines for numbers.
Lovelace saw they could do more.
Turing found one machine to do anything another could, and argued it could think.
Deutsch made it quantum and said only the program is missing.
The new chronicle on Veritula:
veritula.com/discussions/can…
Hilbert declared “We must know. We will know.”
But the day before, in the same city, a 24-year-old Gödel had quietly announced the result that sank part of Hilbert’s program:
veritula.com/discussions/can…
Veritula let’s you experience Ptolemy’s geocentric model first hand.
Try it now: veritula.com/discussions/why…
Thanks, Brad!
Veritula retweeted
Why don’t we feel the Earth move?
Is light a wave or a particle?
How did Mercury overthrow Newton?
Introducing @veritula Chronicles: honoring history’s greatest thinkers, who made progress one idea after another, from Aristarchus to Einstein.
Link in the replies 👇
Claude one-shotted this beautiful animation for an upcoming feature in Veritula 👀
Veritula retweeted
Tell me these new Veritula link previews aren’t sexy
veritula.com/discussions/ani…
Veritula retweeted
My talk at Conjecture Con about David Deutsch’s ‘hard to vary’ is now available to watch online: youtube.com/watch?v=3LfEPLmj…
Veritula retweeted
Many decisions are made by whoever argues loudest.
refute.us makes it whoever’s idea survives criticism.
Buy the apartment? Launch on Friday? Hire her? Put it on the board and try to break it.
Watch the trailer: youtube.com/watch?v=CiA0qaRb…
Veritula retweeted
I enjoyed the presentations at Conjecture Con last weekend. I wanted to give a special shoutout to @TylerJohnMills and @ZakeryMizell.
Tyler talked about his AGI research, Zakery about aesthetics. They’re both on the cutting edge of their respective fields.
Since they’re members of @veritula, I can’t help but be proud. (Though to be clear, they didn’t represent Veritula at the conference.)
Hopefully, recordings of their talks will be available soon. Until then, give them a follow!











