This is always the problem with explaining things to rationalists: they are super-resistant to admitting their ideas are incoherent.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
First you have to do their work for them by developing a rational reconstruction of their sacred verbiage, and THEN point out why it’s wrong
3 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Here's my attempt at EY's map/territory: (1/n) In your brain, there is a representation of reality/you environment
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FateOfTwist_ @Meaningness
This representation is different from the environment itself. Since you don't actually in some sense have reality in your head,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FateOfTwist_ @Meaningness
the map is the only thing you have conscious access too. What you feel as "the algorithm feels on the inside" is the map
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FateOfTwist_
Yes… this is roughly what I also think he was trying to say. (Because it’s the standard view of rationalists.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
What I want is to find a clear, concise explanation, so I can explain why it’s wrong, and the nearby view that is right.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
yeah, I just realized that what I said was a bit muddy, but I think that I have a relatively clear one? Give me a moment
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FateOfTwist_
I do actually understand that view, thanks! It’s just that I can’t find a standard text that’s recent and clear.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
oh, to respond to so that others don't just dismiss you as strawmanning or something?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, exactly! A “strong text.”
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.