relatedly, the traditional "laws of thought" are "laws of LHemisphere" law of identity law of non-contradiction law of excluded middle they only make sense in contextless spaces of zero nebulosity AI folks may not think literally these, but... similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_three_traditional_laws …
-
-
Replying to @Malcolm_Ocean @11kilobytes
I’m interested in McGilcrist because so many people are fans. However, everything I’ve read about the book suggests it’s a pretty standard dual-process theory. That does give some insight but is limited and well-trod. Maybe I’m missing what’s distinctive? https://meaningness.com/eggplant/cognitive-science#dual-process …pic.twitter.com/yENH8BBxm6
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I am trying to check my understanding here--but would it be correct to say that the problem with dual process theories is that they: 1) assume reasonableness and rationality are "modules" in the mind 2) mix up reasonableness and relevance realization system. RR maps on to...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tr4nsmute @Meaningness and
...what Heidegger meant by "the world presented to us is already meaningful", and reasonableness and rationality are things we do--and do not necessarily correspond to specific cognitive modules.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes, all those! And additionally a dual process theory has to lump together a lot of disparate things to get down to just two categories. Important distinctions are deliberately obscured to make the classification seem to work.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @tr4nsmute and
Example. When the LW rationalists first encountered my ranting against rationalism, they assumed I meant “emotions are important too” or “intuition is superior” or “sometimes it’s useful to believe false things” etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @tr4nsmute and
Which was natural because those ARE standard critiques of rationalism; but they aren’t at all what I was saying. If the 10,000 things we do that aren’t rationality are lumped together, then you can gesture at the whole lot and say “important too” which is true but vague.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @tr4nsmute and
Kahneman’s Thinking Fast And Slow, a particularly simplistic dual-process story, was perhaps the most important founding text for LW. (Along with Jaynes’ Logic Of Science, which is also terrible in a different way.)
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @tr4nsmute and
Or maybe the same way? They’re both really sloppy and full of outright obvious technical errors, but are carried along by the author’s enthusiastic confidence that he has The Answer for why irrational people are so wrong and how to fix everything.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @tr4nsmute and
David Chapman Retweeted 乇乂ㄒ尺卂 ㄒ卄丨匚匚 (VIII)
David Chapman added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
(the joke here, in case unclear, is that all these things turned out to be completely false, which should have been as obvious to Kahneman as it was to “naive observers”.)
-
-
Yes, I can certainly see how LWers could have interpreted it as a "rational thought" v/s "intuition" argument. The way you use these terms is not obvious at all--I think. First, you need to understand Heidegger's main point about intentionality or 'originary' transcendence...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tr4nsmute @Meaningness and
(which is confusing because I thought for a long time his main point was the ready at hand/present at hand distinction...); and then you have to grok the whole ethnomethodological flip and then relate these two. Maybe I'm slow but I encountered your text two years ago...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.