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)
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
Maybe this idea about “entanglement” and “mutual information” could focus the criticism a bit? This seems to underpin Yudkowsky’s general conception of representation.pic.twitter.com/i0uqS3McCh
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @Meaningness and
I only vaguely know this particular post, but 3 years ago I got the idea that EY had a coherent story on representation and I just had to work out what it was. so god help me I ended up reading a pile of sequences posts, Arbital pages and ancient pdfs...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @JakeOrthwein and
... I was motivated by the fact that sometimes (as in your screenshot) he shows an understanding that representation should ground out in interaction somewhere. But exactly how he wants that to work is hugely contradictory across his writing, and sometime flat out absent...
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @JakeOrthwein and
this is interesting, but does one need to have an account of how exactly representation works in order to say "the map is not the territory" (i.e. particular representations can fail to be useful or accurate)?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @drossbucket and
The problem is that the map metaphor is (deliberately?) misleading when taken as a prototype for representation in general. The ways that maps fail are dissimilar to, and much simpler than, the ways most other representations fail (when they do).
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
oh? how does that work? a LITERAL map fails if it's missing a feature you care about, or if you can't figure out how to read it in time to get where you're going, or...i'm blanking on other reasons
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @Meaningness and
Jake Orthwein Retweeted David Chapman
From elsewhere in this enormous thread: https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/997973314415968257?s=20 …https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/997973884606410752?s=20 …
Jake Orthwein added,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @s_r_constantin and
Thanks for retrieving that! Here’s some others. I keep finding more, as I mentioned upthread, which is part of why this thing seems to be unfinishable.pic.twitter.com/CKymambrru
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
I’m not sure any of these criticisms about maps land. How about “spaces” instead of “maps”? Plus no assumption of metrics, dimensions... It’s not like he meant 2D (paper) maps...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
“Map” is being used as a metaphor. Metaphors inevitably carry with them the implicit, lived experience of the thing, which form how you think with them. If you mean theory “theory” you should use that word; it has a different set of associations and thought-patterns.
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.