ChrisG

I use Twitter to follow people I value reading; occasionally engage in civil discussion; maybe ask a few questions; welcome having my views challenged & changed. Not here to promote myself nor troll, I don't want any followers. Hence anonymity and no photo. Hope that explains.

@gabemckeownuk @unherd You're very welcome. I've just subscribed to your substack too, looking forward to more of your writing.

My new piece for @unherd explores how Britain has mastered the art of legislating compassion, yet despite endless promises being made at the government level, when the time comes for delivery, they never materialise. unherd.com/2025/07/the-se…

@Barristerblog @elonmusk And use this setting too, btw.

@Barristerblog @elonmusk Yeah, it works, I've been using if for ages, cuts out so much trash.

One of the many nasty newidh things about 'X' is the way that when you've watched a video clip, unless you're very quick on the draw you immediately get another video that you didn't ask for, usually someone shouting an advert at you. @elonmusk

"If you weren't conscious, you wouldn't ask the question whether god exists or not." Interesting take. Nancey's definition of consciousness is unclear, hoped to ask her but not on X. Is this a view you've considered and/or discussed Annaka? @annakaharris youtu.be/1cs6Qr5JKjg?t=…

@TOKphysics @ToKTeacher Please clarify what 'better' means here. How do we measure 'better' when comparing two problems? Thanks.

We solve the worst of our problems only to multiply the number of better, more interesting problems. This is why the world around us improves. @ToKTeacher

@ylecun @jon_barron @RichardDawkins But consciousness isn't required for the brain to solve problems and execute tasks, that can all be subconscious. As @annakaharris explains here, maybe consciousness isn't really doing anything proactively, rather just making us aware of decisions taken? youtu.be/s-QWtw_tK1Q

I might very well be a minor side-effect of the limitations of our brain: our brains are too small to solve every problem at the same time. So, it needs to focus its attention on one task at a time. This requires a mechanism to oversee the process and configure the mind for each successive subtask. Perhaps this executive orchestra director is what gives us the illusion of consciousness.

Will AI eventually gain consciousness?

@hoovlet @JustMisogyny @slakademic @MForstater @Emmabarnett @BBCWomansHour @BBCWomensHour Carole, your diagram implies hormones determine whether bi-potential gonads become testes or ovaries - don't think that's right. As per @FondOfBeetles diagrams, genes determine gonad-type, then hormones produced by those gonads (e.g. AMH & T) determine further sex-development

It seems that in a tiny minority of men, there are remnant cells from the Mullerian ducts, which then develop into endometrial tissue in adulthood under the influence of high estrogen. 👇🏽Mullerian ducts are present in all of us in early fetal life, and in females, they develop into fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix and upper part of the vagina. Also in early development, in males, testes produce a hormone (anti-mullerian hormone, or AMH) that causes the Mullerian ducts to regress, and testosterone directs the development of the male equivalent, the Wolffian ducts, to develop into male internal genitalia. But in these rare men, some of the embryonic Mullerian cells appear to remain, and in an environment of high estrogen, this can stimulate the proliferation of these cells (high estrogen stimulates endometriosis in women). SO I would think that any male with high E would be at increased risk, but the increase would be from infinitesimal a little less infinitesimal. There are plenty of males on E and to my knowledge, no concomitant increase in male endometriosis. I suppose that could happen, but according to the most well-supported theory of how this works, they would need to be among the males who happen to have remnant Mullerian cells in their reproductive tract.

@DrewZi3 @Crowd33 @BSeradjeh @DavidDeutschOxf @seanmcarroll Incremental forever? Do you expect our current explanation of seasons to be refuted at some point, a better explanation in the offing?

@ChrisGuk1 @Crowd33 @BSeradjeh @DavidDeutschOxf @seanmcarroll It’s not though. The context is about what evidence or observation does. Scientific progress is about finding invariant, comprehensively true theories. We approach that goal incremental through conjecture and refutation.

I had a nice chat with Sean Carroll about a variety of things preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/1…

@DrewZi3 @Crowd33 @BSeradjeh @DavidDeutschOxf @seanmcarroll Drew, your focus is relentlesly on error. Why? Why assume error, go searching for error? In my simple example of seasons, how would one 'search for error' in that explanation? x.com/DrewZi3/status…

@ChrisGuk1 @Crowd33 @BSeradjeh @DavidDeutschOxf @seanmcarroll I didn’t presume anything about any theory being in error. The method is about searching for error, not presuming it is actually there. The reason we search for error is because if we find it, it gives us a motivation for improvement.

@Crowd33 @DrewZi3 @BSeradjeh @DavidDeutschOxf Key to @seanmcarroll 'Big Picture' is that we describe & talk about reality at different levels. Seasons are due to the tilt of the earth, and postion of earth in its orbit round the sun. Why presume that level of explanation is in error? Most importantly, it 'works'.

@DrewZi3 @ChrisGuk1 @BSeradjeh @DavidDeutschOxf You have a platonic view of knowledge, that explanations are claims about everything we could ever know in the future, therefor they must be wrong and we're just reducing how wrong they are. Human knowledge isn't like that, it's just a claim about what we've observed so far

@DrewZi3 @BSeradjeh @Crowd33 @DavidDeutschOxf We had no idea what rainbows were, someone got inquisitive, noticed clues. No idea why we have repeating pattern of seasons every 12 months (clue: orbit round sun), summer in northern hemisphere when winter in southern & vice versa (clue: tilt of the earth?) Not pure conjecture.

@ChrisGuk1 @BSeradjeh @Crowd33 @DavidDeutschOxf Yes, clues to where error lies.

@DrewZi3 @BSeradjeh @Crowd33 @DavidDeutschOxf Popper's ideas are valuable, but I think we too often exagerate how conjecture occurs, how ideas & hunches arise. Yes there are examples of 'pure wild guessing', but that's not typical. The reality we observe inevitably gives us clues, most of the time.

@ChrisGuk1 @BSeradjeh @Crowd33 @DavidDeutschOxf No one is denying your first paragraph . Your second paragraph is emphasising the wrong aspect of scientific progress, which is always to correct the mistakes of earlier theories while retaining what is true. Observations and evidence are used to locate error

@BSeradjeh @Crowd33 @DavidDeutschOxf Guessing is not random, we're steered by facts, data, observation, clues, whether we realise it or not. Knowledge builds on knowledge, foundations. What is rain? Why do we have seasons? Why do we breathe - theories built on and from data, observation, clues.

@ChrisGuk1 @Crowd33 @DavidDeutschOxf No. The theories are the starting point and make sense of observations. Conflicts/problems are resolved by guessing new theories. There is no "building on foundations" because there are no foundations. A new theory could be wildly different from anything that came before it.

@BSeradjeh @Crowd33 @DavidDeutschOxf We're born with base theories, instincts. And we react to reality in ways we do not control e.g. flinch at the sight of a snake. Those data, those observations, are the starting point, and we build on those foundations. Other theories follow.

@ChrisGuk1 @Crowd33 @DavidDeutschOxf To say we "starting with observation/data" is a misunderstanding of what observation actually entails. There is no observation without theory, some set of ideas that attempt to explain the observation. Say, why would one start with this data, instead of some other?

@Crowd33 @DavidDeutschOxf Still don't get the downplaying of observation/data. David appears to promote a 'be still & just think your way to explanation'. But conjecture isn't random guessing, has to start with us being in the world, interracting with, observing, physical reality? x.com/DavidDeutschOx…

@DavidDeutschOxf why bother exploring base reality when you can just infinitely spin up explanations and criticisms to figure everything out

@charleshymas @KarabergKara @HannahQuirk1 @haylesdixon Thanks, appreciated. I've just emailed you.

@ChrisGuk1 @KarabergKara @HannahQuirk1 @haylesdixon Send me your email and happy to send. I am at Charles.hymas@telegraph.co.uk

@charleshymas @KarabergKara @HannahQuirk1 @haylesdixon Charles, could you post a copy of your FoI request here, and the reply you received from the CPS, thanks.

@charleshymas @KarabergKara @HannahQuirk1 @haylesdixon You sure of that, Charles? All 260 females referred by the police to the CPS in the last 4 years were definitely for the act of rape, not aiding and abetting? You do know that aiding and abetting (male or female) is also recorded & charged as rape, yes?