“Objectively best” assuming a set of axioms is satisfied. There can sometimes be a bait-and-switch or motte-and-bailey here when you try to apply this to a concrete real-world situation.
-
-
Do you have a specific example in mind?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well, to get decision theory to apply, you have to characterize the situation in terms of a set of well-defined actions, well-defined outcomes, well-defined goodnesses, and you need some meaningful way of estimating probabilities. None of those are objectively given.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This example isn't analogous but I'm curious how you'd reply to a student saying, "The notion of 'objectively true sentences' is wrong and can't be rescued, because words don't have culturally independent meanings and there's no Objective Teacher to grade answers as correct."
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This has several moving parts, so it’s a bit complicated. First, there is no clear definition of “objective” or “objectively true,” as far as I have been able to discover. There are several pretty different uses that are all quite vague.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
Under some reasonable interpretations of “objectively true,” there aren’t any outside math and possibly QFT. Under some other reasonable interpretations, lots of things are objectively true. Lots of arguments founder on this contrast.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Suppose I suggested you can have a distinguishable solid subsystem of a fuzzy system. Distinguishing objects in the environment is fuzzy, assigning meaning to "three" is fuzzy, but once counting and naming is done, the arithmetic subsystem is locally quite solid.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes! Rationality works, when it does, because somehow inferences within the mathematical system turn out to be true-enough in the real world.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
To me it looks as if you literally fell into a different universe when AI did not work for you, one that exists only in approximate and nebulous and ultimately mysterious ways. Eliezer never had that trauma, he never had his universe break on him.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @ESYudkowsky and
Aha! So we can tunnel between universes through intellectual disappointment?! Cool!! This has massive practical implications.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
Yes, we do. One of our deep needs (meaning dimensions) is our longing for reality. This need is filled by the hallucinations we produce to predict sensory data. I you change the hallucination generators near the root level, your experienced reality and degree of realness changes
-
-
Replying to @MimeticValue @Meaningness and
Yes! Don't you feel it in the morning, how your mind pushes its tentacles not towards light, but towards a sense of comprehensive reality? And how you'd suffer it you could not reach it, struggling and gasping as you would for air?
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes - 4 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.