y/n? 1. The LessWrong/etc. account of symbols/concepts/reality doesn’t say where the concepts/ontology come from. 2. Where the concepts/ontology come from is the only hard or interesting part. [...] N. Therefore, the LW account is not just wrong but completely wrong and also bad.
-
-
Replying to @meditationstuff @JakeOrthwein and
Yep basically agree with 1 and 2 - figuring out axes for your clusterspace is the hard part. Dunno about completely wrong but certainly very limited if it has little to say about the hard part!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @JakeOrthwein and
Ok. And/but it seems that people are having at least the experience of getting tremendous *epistemological*-feeling *usefulness* out of being exposed to the map/territory distinction, and I think we need an explanation for that? Seems more than any-port-in-storm or sociological.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @meditationstuff @drossbucket and
My theory (explained upthread) is that this does genuinely dramatically simplify, and thereby clarify, your thinking.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @meditationstuff and
Unfortunately, it does that only by making most of the complexity of real-world representation invisible. Which means you are frequently wrong, and don’t have the necessary tools to debug when your wrongness collides with reality.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
If not too socially awkward, do you have a sense of where LW’ers get stuck on real-world problems? Speaking extremely generally, where “they” are not “rigid” (to my mind) their Qs & As for many real-world topics seem very good. “Explicit abstract contradictions” seems wrong crit.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @meditationstuff @drossbucket and
Yeah, sorry, I’m not going to go there for that, socially awkward
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
Ok. I think the conversation might be conflating conceptually confused, locally effective, and globally effective. Thank you for engaging above.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @Meaningness and
I think there may be something missing about actual LW’er cognition-in-the-wild versus what they write or say. (Assuming an imagined straw LW’er...)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @drossbucket and
I’m sure that’s true! Let me emphasize again that I am NOT interested in criticizing LW or EY specifically. I like both of them. Which is why I won’t publicly comment on their dysfunction as you asked me to (I think?).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Somehow they sorta think they invented rationalism, which has been around for 2600 years. That’s the target of my critique. The LW community has not added anything novel to it afaik, so I don’t find it intellectually significant. Lots of smart interesting well-meaning people tho!
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
Ok, immediately above is helpful.
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.