"To put it super crudely it's a sort of disagreement with the idea that informal rationality is just an approximation to the math instead of the other way around." - Srijit Sanyal gives the best one-line description of @Meaningness's views I've heard. Or at least I thought so?
-
-
Replying to @ESYudkowsky
Srijit’s summary is a not-altogether-accurate description of the relationship between informal rationality (“reasonableness”) and formal rationality. Text here from the definitions section of my Eggplant book, which I hope can clarify! https://meaningness.com/eggplant/terms pic.twitter.com/WqXWfc3M6R
4 replies 6 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky
Reasonableness is entwined with perception and with concrete activity in ways that formal rationality isn’t and can’t be—so they have different functions. They’re not just different ways of doing the same thing. cc
@_Srijit5 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky
Here's another one I toyed with: it's about relegating all systems of thought based on definitions and definability to an ultimately instrumental status. Sort of like the LW "winning is the ultimate rationality", but extended more seriously to the epistemology and metaphysics.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Srijit @ESYudkowsky
Maybe this sounds similar to
@ESYudkowsky’s toolbox vs Law distinction? Which I’m still not sure I understand.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Something I’ve realized only in the last ~year is that @ESYudkowsky is not a typical rationalist, and has a distinctive viewpoint (which I don’t quite get).
I understand typical rationalists, including most LWers, fully. They don’t seem to realize he’s got a different take!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.