I think this is semi-deliberate: they found that thinking in terms of “maps” instead of “representations” clarified their thinking considerably, so they went with it. Indeed, it does make the story much more precise & tractable, at the cost of making it much more wrong.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
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)
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation#%22A_map_is_not_the_territory%22 … says the phrase "the map is not the territory" is due to Korzybski, paraphrasing E.T. Bell.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @drossbucket and
I’ve read the Korzybski thing as part of the background work for this. Worth going back to the source to see [which is not always true]. It’s super lame. It’s not only simplistic, it’s also cringily crankish. [How do you spell “cringeyly”??]
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
oh! i've been wondering if Korzybski had a secret method for how to think real good. might still read him but good to know you've checked it out.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @drossbucket and
Well lots of smart people found his stuff revelatory, so you might too! I don’t get it; most of it is obvious (whether right or wrong), much is very dated, and overall it’s crankish (lots of “look at how smart and out-of-consensus and futuristic and revolutionary I am!”).
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
I do often value a very straightforward presentation of stuff I already know, if it's inspiring/motivating and I can read it over and over again as a pep talk. It's less good if lots of it is false. I'll check it out.
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.