Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Rationality Quotes - September 2009

2 Post author: thomblake 01 September 2009 03:06PM

A monthly thread for posting any interesting rationality-related quotes you've seen recently on the Internet, or had stored in your quotesfile for ages.

  • Please post all quotes separately (so that they can be voted up/down separately) unless they are strongly related/ordered.
  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB - there is a separate thread for it.
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire

Comments (101)

Comment author: SilasBarta 01 September 2009 03:42:39PM *  32 points [-]

During the discussion of Pranknet on Slashdot about a month ago, I saw this comment. It reminded me of our discussions about Newcomb's problem and superrationality.

I also disagree that our society is based on mutual trust. Volumes and volumes of laws backed up by lawyers, police, and jails show otherwise.

That's called selection/observation bias. You're looking at only one side of the coin.

I've lived in countries where there's a lot less trust than here. The notion of returning an opened product to a store and getting a full refund is based on trust (yes, there's a profit incentive, and some people do screw the retailers [and the retailers their customers -- SB], but the system works overall). In some countries I've been to, this would be unfeasible: Almost everyone will try to exploit such a retailer.

When a storm knocks out the electricity and the traffic lights stop working, I've always seen everyone obeying the rules. I doubt it's because they're worried about cops. It's about trust that the other drivers will do likewise. Simply unworkable in other places I've lived in.

I've had neighbors whom I don't know receive UPS/FedEx packages for me. Again, trust. I don't think they're afraid of me beating them up.

There are loads of examples. Society, at least in the US, is fairly nice and a lot of that has to do with a common trust.

Which is why someone exploiting that trust is a despised person.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 04 September 2009 04:48:10AM 2 points [-]

Perpetually angry dude makes the opposite case. Never get an argument with that guy, by the way.

Comment author: CronoDAS 04 September 2009 05:29:20AM 2 points [-]

Yeah, looking over his blog, he never has arguments, only shouting matches. Considering his rampaging contempt for everyone who is not himself, I wonder why he even bothers to publish anything at all.

Comment author: taw 04 September 2009 05:03:56AM 1 point [-]

US is higher than most of non-Northern Europe when it comes to trust.


The first theory is diversity, but trust here doesn't seem to correspond to diversity at all - Norway and Austria are homogenous and on opposite ends. Canada and Belgium are diverse and on opposite ends.

As for other theories, socialist countries are also on both top (Scandinavia) and bottom (Austria, France). Catholic countries seem to be lower than Protestant countries, but Ireland is pretty high, and it might just be Scandinavia making this impression.

So I'm not really sure what trust correlates much with.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 05 September 2009 06:31:32PM 2 points [-]

socialist countries...Scandinavia...Austria, France

Which countries on that list do you call not socialist? English-speaking ones? Switzerland?

Where can we get objective information about whether people are trusting or trust-worthy, rather than what they say? The Japanese claim to be less trusting than Americans, but they are trustworthy with wallets, if not with umbrellas and bicycles.

and the angry dude argues that Americans should not trust institutions which is completely different from whether they do trust people, which is the topic of the survey and the slashdot entry.

Comment author: taw 05 September 2009 07:22:03PM 0 points [-]

US, Japan, and Switzerland seem less socialist than Scandinavia, Austria, and France by standard measures, right?

Questionnaire is a proxy measure, but it's better proxy than some random blog rant.

Here are some obvious things that might reasonably correlate with trust, but don't seem to: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Comment author: Rain 01 September 2009 11:52:15PM 14 points [-]

I am only one, but I am still one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and just because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.

-Helen Keller

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 September 2009 05:59:39PM 13 points [-]

"You can safely say that you have made God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -- Reverend Robert Cromey

Comment author: thomblake 01 September 2009 07:55:37PM 13 points [-]

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

-Bertrand Russell

Comment author: arundelo 24 December 2014 04:08:42PM 1 point [-]

According to Wikiquote, the original (from the essay collection Mortals and Others) is:

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

Comment author: dclayh 01 September 2009 10:33:04PM 1 point [-]

A cursory Google search doesn't reveal the date of this quote. Do you know if it was before or after Yeats's version of 1919? (Wikipedia claims that Yeats was inspired by Shelley...)

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 02 September 2009 03:05:15AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: dclayh 02 September 2009 03:08:45AM 2 points [-]

Ah, thank you. So it is quite likely that he had read the Yeats, then.

Comment author: thomblake 01 September 2009 11:54:33PM 1 point [-]

For all I know, it could be misattributed. From a random quotable file.

Comment author: Rain 01 September 2009 10:49:34PM *  10 points [-]

Wisdom is not only to be acquired, but also to be utilized.

-Marcus Tullius Cicero

Comment author: gaffa 03 September 2009 09:06:47PM *  9 points [-]

It is better to have an approximate answer to the right question than an exact answer to the wrong question.

-- John Tukey

Comment author: conchis 03 September 2009 10:26:17PM *  5 points [-]

FWIW, the exact quote (from pp.13-14 of this article) is:

Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than the exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made precise. [Emphasis in original]

Your paraphrase is snappier though (as well as being less ambiguous; it's hard to tell in the original whether Tukey intends the adjectives "vague" and "precise" to apply to the questions or the answers).

Comment author: thomblake 01 September 2009 07:30:43PM *  8 points [-]

To learn which questions are unanswerable, and not to answer them; this skill is most needed in times of stress and darkness.

-Ursula LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness

Comment author: Yvain 03 September 2009 03:09:19PM *  6 points [-]

"What's that saying?" he said, smiling crookedly. "When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever it is that remains--- "

"--- however improbable, must be the truth. Yes, the problem is, the man who wrote that believed in faeries, and that he could photograph them."

  • S. M. Stirling, The Peshawar Lancers
Comment author: Douglas_Knight 05 September 2009 06:42:54PM 5 points [-]

believed in faeries, and that he could photograph them.

Better than fairies he couldn't photograph.

Comment author: sketerpot 06 September 2009 05:26:14PM 0 points [-]

Sadly, there are other ways to make the fairies unfalsifiable. ("They must be hiding today! Maybe tomorrow!")

Comment author: haig 03 September 2009 08:05:04AM 5 points [-]

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." (Jonathan Swift )

Comment author: Rain 01 September 2009 10:44:39PM *  5 points [-]

A person's greatest virtue is his ability to correct his mistakes and continually make a new person of himself.

-Wang Yang-Ming

Comment author: Rain 01 September 2009 10:38:08PM *  5 points [-]

We see things as we are, not as they are.

-Leo Rosten

Comment author: gwern 04 September 2009 11:21:30AM 0 points [-]

That may not be the right attribution; I see in Google Books attributions to Immanuel Kant, the Talmud, Adias Ninn, Halsey P. Taylor, and Preston James. I suspect one of the non-Rosten attributions is correct - the earliest Rosten hit from 1978 has the first use of the sentence in quotes.

Comment author: Christian_Szegedy 03 September 2009 08:47:41PM *  4 points [-]

I would roughly divide philosophies into two categories, "crazy" and "sensible". Of the two, I definitely prefer the former. Sensible philosophies are noted for their sobriety, propriety, rationality, analytic skill and other things. One definite advantage they have is that they are usually quite sensible. Crazy philosophies are characterized by their madness, spontaneity, sense of humor, total freedom from the most basic conventions of thought, amorality, beauty, divinity, naturalness, poesy, absolute honesty, freedom from inhibitions, contrariness, paradoxicalness, lack of discipline and general yum-yummyness. ... <SNIP> ... In general I would say that psychologist, psychiatrist, economists, sociologists and political scientists tend towards the "sensible", whereas artists, poets, musicians and (to my great delight!) chemists, theoretical physicists, mathematicians - especially mathematical logicians - tend towards what I call "crazy".

Raymond M. Smullyan, The Tao Is Silent

Comment author: anonym 01 September 2009 03:32:45PM 12 points [-]

Reality is not optional.

Thomas Sowell

Comment author: anonym 01 September 2009 03:35:32PM 10 points [-]

No artist tolerates reality.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 September 2009 06:00:34PM 3 points [-]

The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment while the unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself. All progress is therefore dependent upon the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw

Comment author: [deleted] 02 September 2009 05:29:38AM 2 points [-]

Truth is our home

Anne Lamott

Comment author: thomblake 01 September 2009 08:20:59PM 3 points [-]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency, a great soul has simply nothing to do.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Comment author: anonym 02 September 2009 03:52:38AM 1 point [-]

If I only had a dollar for every time somebody misquoted that wonderful quote to me as "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"...

Comment author: thomblake 02 September 2009 01:05:30PM -1 points [-]

Not a misquote, just slightly out of context. And I'm fairly sure Emerson would apply 'foolish' to most sorts of consistency.

Comment author: anonym 02 September 2009 03:37:35PM 2 points [-]

It omits a crucial part of the quote that results in a completely different meaning. Leaving out an adjective that it is integral to the meaning is different than omitting some minor context.

Comment author: thomblake 02 September 2009 03:46:20PM 0 points [-]

That's why I pointed out that leaving out 'foolish' probably doesn't change Emerson's intent at all. Worrying about consistency at all is what he found troublesome - he counseled against trying to be consistent in general, and I take 'foolish' to be more superlative than anything.

Comment author: anonym 03 September 2009 03:23:45AM 0 points [-]

You may be right that it doesn't change the meaning much, in which case it's still a misquote, but a minor one (such as using a synonym of a word instead of the actual word: correct sense, wrong words). What it definitely is not is "just slightly out of context", since that means the utterance is missing context and as a result appears to mean something other than what was intended, which is precisely what you're arguing has not happened.

Comment author: thomblake 03 September 2009 01:41:39PM 0 points [-]

I disagree on both points. It is not a misquote since it is entirely the words Emerson actually wrote, as he wrote them. It is out of context since there are words nearby ("context") that were not included.

Comment author: anonym 04 September 2009 03:09:36AM 1 point [-]

I guess we understand the phrase "out of context" differently then and have to disagree. I would never use it for leaving out a single adjective, and haven't heard it used that way. I have only heard it used when entire clauses or sentences are omitted.

I note that wikipedia seems to agree with my interpretation. From Fallacy of Quoting Out of Context (emphasis mine):

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.


Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words.

Comment author: Jens 02 September 2009 09:17:52PM *  6 points [-]

Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it.

-- Vaclav Havel

Comment author: MichaelGR 02 September 2009 07:57:56PM 6 points [-]

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.

-Benjamin Franklin

Comment author: sketerpot 06 September 2009 05:29:36PM *  0 points [-]

The real confusion begins when you make lighthouse-churches, and people start defending the religious doctrines by saying that faith-based buildings are the only possible source of warning-lights to sailors, and hey, just look at all that beautifully cylindrical architecture, so it must be a great and necessary thing to believe in [insert wacky stuff here]. Rationalizations for silly things one came to believe as a child are always ugly, because everything gets all jumbled up in people's heads, and they don't want to straighten it out, because that would be a thought crime.

[Sorry, was that venting a little? I get so sick of this argument, but I can't bring myself to humor people who say it.]

Comment author: Rain 01 September 2009 10:57:48PM 7 points [-]

You won't gain knowledge by drinking ink.

-Arab proverb

Comment author: Rain 01 September 2009 11:24:04PM *  2 points [-]

Maybe it needs further explanation? Ink being the object with which books are created, and knowledge put down for others to use, you must be careful to avoid using that object directly and believing you have gained knowledge from it.

The blog post itself isn't the great insight, nor is the Reddit software it's running on, or the comment system, or the upvoting and downvoting. Insight can only come from the mind, and understanding the words and how they all link together into the idea being presented. The idea isn't in the text; it's an abstraction of the human mind.

Perhaps better summarized as, "Don't just read: think."

Comment author: Rain 02 September 2009 12:04:24AM 4 points [-]

Alternatively, "Put down the RSS feed and go learn something."

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 04 September 2009 04:41:04AM -1 points [-]

I don't see the connection. The point of the original quote is that the medium is independent of the info it carries. You're quote says the opposite: one particular medium (RSS) is incapable of carrying info.

Comment author: Neil 02 September 2009 02:49:04PM 1 point [-]

Puts me in mind of this passage

...philology is that venerable art which demands of its votaries one thing above all: to go aside, to take time, to become still, to become slow—it is a goldsmith’s art and connoisseurship of the word which has nothing but delicate, cautious work to do and achieves nothing if it does not achieve it lento. But for precisely this reason it is more necessary than ever today, by precisely this means does it entice and enchant us the most, in the midst of an age of “work,” that is to say, of hurry, of indecent and perspiring haste, which wants to “get everything done” at once, including every old or new book:—this art does not so easily get anything done, it teaches to read well, that is to say, to read slowly, deeply, looking cautiously before and aft, with reservations, with doors left open, with delicate eyes and fingers.

~ Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 September 2009 07:27:32PM 0 points [-]

Better still when this kind of deep reflection doesn't turn out to be mindless trance or faithful chanting.

Comment author: anonym 01 September 2009 03:40:38PM 4 points [-]

The right answer is seldom as important as the right question.

Kip Thorne

Comment author: steven0461 06 September 2009 11:54:19AM 2 points [-]

The word “philosopher” has its origins in the Greek, where its root is a “lover of wisdom.” There is no assurance that a lover of wisdom has any, just as an anglophile is not assured to have an Englishman locked in the basement.

John D. Norton

Comment author: brian_jaress 03 September 2009 08:07:54AM 2 points [-]

Great thinkers build their edifices with subtle consistency. We do our intellectual forebears an enormous disservice when we dismember their visions and scan their systems in order to extract a few disembodied “gems”—thoughts or claims still accepted as true. These disarticulated pieces then become the entire legacy of our ancestors, and we lose the beauty and coherence of older systems that might enlighten us by their unfamiliarity—and their consequent challenge—in our fallible (and complacent) modern world.

-- Stephen Jay Gould

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 September 2009 06:23:52PM 0 points [-]

Do you have the context for that one? My immediate reaction is to suspect that Gould wants to rehabilitate some discarded old idea, and talks about consistency, beauty and coherence as a way of not talking about evidence and truth. But perhaps I am too suspicious.

Comment author: brian_jaress 07 September 2009 02:24:28AM 0 points [-]

I don't have the context for that particular wording, but it's a recurring theme of his essays. He felt that wrong ideas could still be instructive, and he would often write essays explaining ideas that he clearly referred to as incorrect.

His point here seems to be that the theory is already wrong, so don't destroy the remaining value by cutting it up to extract the bits you could get from current theory. I don't think you need to worry that he's calling for a return to something you dislike.

Comment author: brian_jaress 02 September 2009 05:05:50PM 2 points [-]

Elpinice was skeptical. She likes evidence. That means a well-made argument. For Greeks, the only evidence that matters is words. They are masters of making the fantastic sound plausible.

-- Gore Vidal, "Creation" (narrator Cyrus Spitama)

Comment author: Ruffnekk 02 September 2009 10:09:20AM 2 points [-]

You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.

— Malcolm X (By Any Means Necessary)

Comment author: HughRistik 01 September 2009 10:04:02PM *  5 points [-]

We at the Church of Google believe the search engine Google is the closest humankind has ever come to directly experiencing an actual God (as typically defined). We believe there is much more evidence in favour of Google's divinity than there is for the divinity of other more traditional gods.

We reject supernatural gods on the notion they are not scientifically provable. Thus, Googlists believe Google should rightfully be given the title of "God", as She exhibits a great many of the characteristics traditionally associated with such Deities in a scientifically provable manner.

-- The Church of Google

(Moved from the LW/OB Rationality Quotes thread, where is was previously posted by accident)

Comment author: SilasBarta 01 September 2009 10:17:35PM 3 points [-]

Heh, it's funny that you first put it in the LW/OB quotes section, because that's actually kind of similar to an out-of-context quote I excerpted from Eliezer Yudkowsky here.

the dream couldn't be evidence because ... only actual sensory impressions of Google results could form the base of a legitimate chain of inferences.

Yeah, I can see why you're worried people might quote you without permission! I mean, I thought I'd seen the worst Google fanboys, but never before did I see anyone claim that Google was the genesis of all valid inferences!

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 September 2009 06:33:17AM 11 points [-]

I don't believe in the supernetural. There can be knowledge for which we do not possess the Google keywords, but to speak of knowledge that cannot be Googled even in principle is nonsense.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 02 September 2009 06:21:03PM 7 points [-]

What of Göögle's theorem?

Comment author: thomblake 02 September 2009 07:34:45PM 1 point [-]

And here I was trying to fit in a joke about the Fitch-Church knowability paradox.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 02 September 2009 08:57:58PM 0 points [-]

Not familiar with that. *Goes to look that up, worshiping at the Fitch Church of Google*

And there you have your joke. :)

Comment author: UnholySmoke 02 September 2009 01:57:41PM 2 points [-]

...said Achilles to his friend Mr Tortoise.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 02 September 2009 03:10:53PM 1 point [-]

to speak of knowledge that cannot be Googled even in principle is nonsense.

Roger Federer knows a hell of a lot about how to play tennis; I can't imagine any meaningful way of indexing and searching that knowledge.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 September 2009 12:34:35PM 0 points [-]

And as long as you acknowledge that this is a limitation of your own imagination (and abilities) and not that of the universe it is not nonsensical.

Comment author: anonym 01 September 2009 03:39:22PM 3 points [-]

It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.

Niels Bohr

Comment author: anonym 01 September 2009 03:39:43PM 2 points [-]

Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.

Albert Einstein

Comment author: djcb 05 September 2009 12:49:40PM 2 points [-]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- Carl Sagan

(I know this quote is very much a cliche -- but, as a realized a long time after seeing it, it is not only a nice heuristic, but it also emphasizes the bayesian, probabilistic view of knowledge over the popperian one.)

Comment author: PeterS 01 September 2009 06:03:47PM 1 point [-]

A single conversation with a wise man is better than ten years of study.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 September 2009 10:02:33PM 16 points [-]

That had better be a long conversation, a very wise person, and one damned lost field you were studying for ten years.

Comment author: brian_jaress 03 September 2009 08:25:27AM 1 point [-]

This is a lesswrong quote, but I think it belongs in this discussion because it's remarkably apropos:

I remember when I finally picked up and started reading through my copy of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, even though I couldn't think of any realistic excuse for how this was going to help my AI work, because I just got fed up with not knowing physics.  And - you can guess how this story ends - it gave me a new way of looking at the world, which all my earlier reading in popular physics (including Feynman's QED) hadn't done.  Did that help inspire my AI research?  Hell yes.  (Though it's a good thing I studied neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, Bayes, and physics in that order - physics alone would have been terrible inspiration for AI research.)

-- Eliezer Yudkowsky

Comment author: PeterS 01 September 2009 11:30:56PM *  -1 points [-]

Wise in comparison. The other quantifiers are hyperbole.

The quote applies insofar as the field being studied is already somewhat mapped and investigated. Programming forums are ultimately more useful than tutorials and textbooks, talking to an author more insightful than reading the 200 page thesis, and having access to a community of intelligent synthetics is much more valuable than having access to a library.

Comment author: sketerpot 02 September 2009 10:28:25PM *  5 points [-]

talking to an author more insightful than reading the 200 page thesis,

Find the right books, and it'll probably be far more rewarding than talking to an author, simply because of the information density and better organization that you can get in written form.

An hour of reading Hennessy and Patterson's excellent book on CPU design will teach you a hell of a lot more than six hours of classes. I speak from recent quantitative experience here, which is where I got those specific numbers. The exceptions to this rule are local: particularly hard-to-understand concepts like the Tomasulo algorithm are a lot easier to wrap your head around if you have someone to walk you through them. But for the most part, a well-written textbook can teach you better than a person talking with you.

One problem is that most textbooks just aren't written that well. Often they're too concerned with signaling academic status, and they forget to make the book something that people will want to read. Just because an author can go off on a tangent about graph isomorphisms doesn't mean they should. Other times they get bogged down in obscure details up front, killing off people's interest. There are other failure modes, too depressing to list here.

By the way, I think that one reason why wikis are so easy to learn from is because you can skip past the boring stuff until you need it. This makes reading a wiki more fun, and also leads to tab explosions, keeping you hooked. I figure that this could significantly improve on the traditional textbook model, despite all those nice things I said about it earlier in the post.

(In honor of the tab explosion, I've stuck in a bunch of links to pages that might be interesting.)

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 September 2009 06:11:26PM 5 points [-]

talking to an author more insightful than reading the 200 page thesis

Only if he were an exceptionally bad writer. 200 pages contains a lot more information than you can fit into most conversations. Not to mention being more logically structured.

Of course, a conversation is more interactive and lets you ask about the things that were left unclear, as well as clear up misunderstandings... but I don't think that anywhere near compensates.

What you could argue is that talking to the author is time more efficiently spent, as it gives you a better idea of whether her thesis is worth reading.

Comment author: Nominull 02 September 2009 07:30:34PM -2 points [-]

most people are exceptionally bad writers

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 02 September 2009 07:44:51PM 4 points [-]

How can that be the case? You apparently have 'exceptions' forming most of the population!

More generally, being able to talk to the author after reading the thesis is hugely valuable, because whatever was unclear in the thesis can be cleared up. But talking to the author without reading his work is fairly worthless; you won't know what questions to ask, unless of course you're already knowledgeable in the field.

Comment author: rwallace 02 September 2009 12:43:11PM 0 points [-]

But actually it also applies only insofar as you have already studied the field. Programming forums are great, but we've all seen the guy who shows up to post a tutorial question verbatim and appends "send me the code plz", and we all understand he's just wasting everybody's time. You have to read the textbooks and at least seriously attempt the tutorials yourself before you can ask the right questions on the forum.

Comment author: SilasBarta 01 September 2009 09:40:31PM *  0 points [-]

Meh. Maybe if that wise man is Eliezer Yudkowsky. But then, calling Eliezer Yudkowsky a "wise man" is like calling the Sahara Desert a "litterbox".

Or Chuck Norris a "tough guy".

ETA: Grr! I can't put underscores in people's names anymore without adding italics!

Comment author: dclayh 01 September 2009 10:35:51PM 2 points [-]

Is it perhaps time for another round of Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts?

Comment author: thomblake 02 September 2009 12:05:14AM *  0 points [-]

Just backslash escape them - type it like this: Eliezer\_Yudkowsky

ETA: this is an amusing example of "do as I say, not as I do". What I actually typed looked like this: Eliezer\\\_Yudkowsky

Comment author: SilasBarta 02 September 2009 03:30:28AM 0 points [-]

I think you misunderstand the problem. I know I can override the formatting. It's just that if I did so, it would invalidate my claim that I have software that lets me call up forum screen names with hotkeys, and replaces the spaces with underscores in forums that allow spaces in names.

In other words, people would know I was needlessly typing out their whole screen name and adding underscores, and it wasn't just some glitchy software.

Comment author: darius 02 September 2009 08:32:49PM 1 point [-]

You could see that as anthropomorphizing the power of interaction.

Comment author: kpreid 01 September 2009 07:32:03PM 0 points [-]

Of who is this a quote?

Comment author: PeterS 01 September 2009 07:58:24PM 1 point [-]

I believe it's actually a Chinese proverb.

Comment author: billswift 01 September 2009 08:47:57PM 6 points [-]

You need to be careful of supposed Chinese proverbs; I recently found that the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" was actually created in the fifties by Eric Frank Russell.

Comment author: SilasBarta 04 September 2009 03:41:19AM 1 point [-]

Maybe the problem is that you're focusing too much on whether the proverb is authentic Chinese rather than on whether it accurately captures reality?

Comment author: ChrisHibbert 04 September 2009 03:28:18AM 1 point [-]

It has to be "may your grandchildren live in interesting times", or the caster of the curse is as cursed as the recipient. sheesh!

Comment author: thomblake 01 September 2009 07:42:43PM 1 point [-]

Believing presupposes understanding.

-al-Ghazali (theologian)

Comment author: thomblake 01 September 2009 07:32:28PM 0 points [-]

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.

-H.P. Lovecraft

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 September 2009 10:03:11PM 1 point [-]

It could be true, but how would anyone know?

Comment author: thomblake 01 September 2009 11:56:59PM 3 points [-]

Well it may be technically false that the human mind has this inability, but on the other hand the human mind has a remarkable ability to avoid correlating many of its contents. "Belief is not closed under implication!"

Comment author: CronoDAS 04 September 2009 04:09:28AM -1 points [-]

Consistency checking is NP-complete... "Compartmentalization" may be a rationalist sin, but you can't learn anything efficiently if you have to keep checking every fact against every other fact.

Comment author: thomblake 04 September 2009 12:34:47PM 0 points [-]

Consistency checking is NP-complete

That's a pretty strong claim. Is there a proof? Or did you just mean that consistency checking is in NP?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 September 2009 01:02:04PM 2 points [-]

That's a pretty strong claim. Is there a proof? Or did you just mean that consistency checking is in NP?

It's worse than that, consistency checking is undecidable. This is implied by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem.

Comment author: CronoDAS 04 September 2009 06:47:43PM *  1 point [-]

Well, 3-SAT is NP-complete, anyway. If consistency checking in mere propositional logic is already NP-complete, then it can't be any easier to do consistency checking to real-world arguments that require predicate logic or other, even more complicated systems to express.

Godel Escher Bach has a section that talks about this.

Comment author: Jack 02 September 2009 04:20:52AM 0 points [-]

One of my favorite quotes but it is definitely anti-rationalist in its orientation.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 September 2009 05:02:50PM *  1 point [-]

When the time comes, there is no moment for reasoning. And if you have not done your inquiring beforehand, there is most often shame. Reading books and listening to people's talk are for the purpose of prior resolution.

Yamamoto Tsunetomo, Hagakure: The Book of the Samurai

Comment author: Steve_Rayhawk 03 September 2009 11:25:32PM *  1 point [-]

Economic growth occurs whenever people take resources and rearrange them in ways that are more valuable. A useful metaphor for production in an economy comes from the kitchen. To create valuable final products, we mix inexpensive ingredients together according to a recipe. The cooking one can do is limited by the supply of ingredients, and most cooking in the economy produces undesirable side effects. If economic growth could be achieved only by doing more and more of the same kind of cooking, we would eventually run out of raw materials and suffer from unacceptable levels of pollution and nuisance. Human history teaches us, however, that economic growth springs from better recipes, not just from more cooking. New recipes generally produce fewer unpleasant side effects and generate more economic value per unit of raw material.

. . .

Every generation has perceived the limits to growth that finite resources and undesirable side effects would pose if no new recipes or ideas were discovered. And every generation has underestimated the potential for finding new recipes and ideas. We consistently fail to grasp how many ideas remain to be discovered. The difficulty is the same one we have with compounding: possibilities do not merely add up; they multiply.

- Paul M. Romer, "Economic Growth", The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2007

(Related to a theme in We Change Our Minds Less Often Than We Think, which is about failure to grasp the other arguments one could have considered, and to a theme in arguments about the consequences of intelligence (Expected Creative Surprises, Belief in Intelligence, Efficient Cross-Domain Optimization, Recursive Self-Improvement, Dreams of Friendliness, That Alien Message, or The AI-Box Experiment), which are about failure to grasp the strategies that something more intelligent than oneself could find.

People usually can't feel loss of opportunities unless they are already able to imagine the details of the opportunity. To be rational, one should have a habit of making well-calibrated estimates of how much opportunity would be felt by the sort of person who would have investigated the details.)

Comment author: spriteless 02 September 2009 11:17:49PM 1 point [-]

First the sign describes reality. Then the sign replaces reality. - Last Psychiatrist, on the role of media.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 September 2009 08:41:25PM *  1 point [-]

Don’t just do something, stand there.

-- George Shultz.

HT: Gödel’s Lost Letter and P=NP.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 September 2009 12:36:26PM 0 points [-]

[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless — a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors. – Daniel Dennett, The Message is: There is no Medium

Comment author: brian_jaress 02 September 2009 09:38:37PM 0 points [-]

Our pride is often increased by what we retrench from our other faults.

-- La Rochefoucauld

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 September 2009 05:03:51PM *  -1 points [-]

In the words of the ancients, one should make his decisions within the space of seven breaths. Lord Takanobu said, "If discrimination is long, it will spoil." Lord Naoshige said, "When matters are done leisurely, seven out of ten will turn out badly. A warrior is a person who does things quickly."

Yamamoto Tsunetomo, Hagakure: The Book of the Samurai