So thermodynamics, at its core, has a certain twist of subjectivity; it is relative to things an observer knows. But the fuzzy parts of the subjectivity factor out cleanly in almost all practice, and the tiniest injection of perspective suffices to animate the mathematical core.
-
-
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
DT requires a larger injection of perspective; preference as well as probability. Like thermodynamics, you can inject this subjectivity in the wrong place and imagine that nobody comprehends the motions in a spinning cylinder and that the rotation is all waste heat.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
But once you go so far as to map certain parts of the system onto preference and belief, the coherence theorems hold like the theorems they are. In that sense they're more universal, and less physically informative, than thermodynamics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
Most mappings on the system will be useless. If you regard a particular molecule as having compact preferences and beliefs, it will probably do very poorly. Human beings do have relatively compact preferences and beliefs, on the other hand, and applying it to humans make sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
This is not because humans obey the prescriptions of decision theory. It is because humans are making things that can be viewed as decisions. This is not because human beliefs are coherent. It's because humans can be well-viewed as believing things even if incoherently.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
It seems to me that you don't understand the very abstract use that is being made of decision theory. It's not a recipe or an algorithm. It's a generalization relating coherent or incoherent behavior to performance, making far more minimal assumptions than you seem to think.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well… I *think* I understand this; but I may be wrong! We clearly have very different cognitive styles, which makes it difficult for us to understand each other.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
Returning to your Facebook post, I take it that it is an attempt to characterize the difference (Law vs Toolbox). I don’t think that is accurate; I think I understand and use both of those ways of thinking. But, I can’t be sure. And I don’t have a good alternative model!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
Btw that you think you use both styles possibly suggests that you are a toolbox thinker, according to the original argument. (The argument might be wrong, but that is a separate point.)
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
This discussion has left the level of submitting to outside authority of thought about 400 years ago (and corresponds to going to Kegan 4). They are not talking about human authority, but whether there is a mathematical law of correct thinking one must submit to once one finds it
-
-
Replying to @MimeticValue @Meaningness and
No no, it is useless at your current level. You are still not understanding that nothing is prescriptive in the domain of epistemology and look for the right prescriptions. This discussion is elsewhere.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.