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 -
What are the obvious technical errors in Jaynes? I Ch 1-5 a few years ago, and I don't remember anything glaringly bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I pointed out the one I think was most important for LW-ism as the main topic of this post… plus several more serious errors in the footnotes. He didn’t understand mathematical logic AT ALL.https://meaningness.com/probability-and-logic …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
I enjoyed the snarkiness of this post. I'm always looking to cull books from my reading list and this seems like a good reason...
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.