That's very true. But, if there's a landscape, and there's salient things in a landscape, and they're somewhat spaced apart. One can point, and even if the pointing is vague, people often look in the direction of finger and get same referent.
-
-
Replying to @meditationstuff @JakeOrthwein and
Ah, yes, same metaphor I was using! So, my vague feeling is that the landscape is less distinct than it seems you take it to be. I am quite unsure about this, though.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @meditationstuff and
Somewhat tangentially, I’ve been working on-and-off on a post that says “I don’t understand the map-vs-territory distinction” for about five years now. I’ve failed to finish it because I don’t even understand what I don’t understand… It’s been “nearly done” that whole time tho
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
It seems like some people seemingly intuitively understand it (e.g. LessWrong, general semantics) and some people seemingly understand it but think it's contradictory
@aphercotropist.3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @JakeOrthwein and
Well fwiw the point of the essay is that the LW take is seriously misleading and close to the root of how they misunderstand everything.
2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
-
Replying to @utotranslucence @meditationstuff and
It’s closer to the front of the queue than most of the 475258 unfinished bits! Tx for feedback; helps me prioy
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @utotranslucence and
I'm some combination of another '+1 would read this post' and 'oh god I wasted so much time trying to understand what LW meant by that 3 years ago and never want to think about it again, but would still read this post' :)
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @utotranslucence and
Our intermittent emails about it have been very helpful or very unhelpful depending partly on whether I ever finish it
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
Current framing: the representation/reality relationship is the CENTRAL and unsolvable problem for rationalism. Maps are highly atypical representations: the relationship is much simpler than most.
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likes
LW uses “map” instead of “representation” in order make it seem like the relationship is straightforward *in general*. That hides the central problem on which the whole story founders.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
I think this is semi-deliberate: they found that thinking in terms of “maps” instead of “representations” clarified their thinking considerably, so they went with it. Indeed, it does make the story much more precise & tractable, at the cost of making it much more wrong.
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
The essay undermines this by pointing out the even literal maps don’t work anything like the way LW uses the word. There’s tons of nebulosity in there, not just uncertainty or imprecision. (But less nebulosity than with most representations)
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes - 5 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.