Rationality Quotes November 2009

8 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 November 2009 11:36PM

A monthly thread for posting rationality-related quotes you've seen recently (or had stored in your quotesfile for ages).

  • Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately.  (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments.  If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Comments (275)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 December 2009 08:59:00AM 1 point [-]

“I was forced into a measure that no one ever adopts voluntarily: I was impelled to think. God, was it difficult! The moving about of great secret trunks. In the first exhausted halt, I wondered whether I had ever thought.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Crack-Up, found here.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 14 December 2009 09:28:31PM *  3 points [-]

I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to — I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more, I could experience so much more, but I’m trapped in this absurd body.

-- John Cavil (Battlestar Galactica character)

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 12 December 2009 11:56:47PM 3 points [-]

Logical positivism was the most valiant concerted effort ever mounted by modern philosophers. Its failure, or put more generously, its shortcoming, was caused by ignorance of how the brain works. That in my opinion is the whole story. No one, philosopher or scientist, could explain the physical acts of observation and reasoning in other than highly subjective terms. [...] The canonical definition of objective scientific knowledge avidly sought by the logical positivists is not a philosophical problem nor can it be attained, as they hopes, by logical and semantic analysis. It is an empirical question that can be answered only by a continuing probe of the physical basis of the thought process itself. The most fruitful procedures will almost certainly include the use of artificial intelligence, aided in time by the still embryonic field of artificial emotion, to simulate complex mental operations.

--- Edward O. Wilson, Consilience

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 12 December 2009 03:20:09PM 0 points [-]

You need someone who can convert philosophical verbiages into rigorous models. Physicists are best trained to model things. Mathematicians/Logicians best trained to deeply analyze such models. Computer scientists are best trained to finding efficient algorithms for (relatively) well-defined problems. It is likely that all make valuable and essential contributions to the grand goal of AI.

-- Marcus Hutter

Comment author: Proto 09 December 2009 02:03:35PM 1 point [-]

This is my last one for the month, it seems.

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - Rene Descartes

Comment author: CronoDAS 08 December 2009 09:48:40PM 8 points [-]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair

Comment author: Proto 07 December 2009 07:51:22PM 3 points [-]

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Comment author: DanielVarga 06 December 2009 11:14:49PM 3 points [-]

"Construing a rock as conscious via a joke interpretation is paradoxical only insofar as it seems to suggest that we should therefore respect and care about rocks. Resolving the paradox requires a theory of what we are obligated to respect or care about, and why." - Gary Drescher

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 06 December 2009 11:31:55PM 1 point [-]

Disagreed; it also affects anthropic reasoning.

Comment author: DanielVarga 07 December 2009 01:16:32AM 3 points [-]

How is anthropic reasoning affected by the existence of a conscious stone that nobody and nothing can ever communicate with, even in principle? If it is indeed affected, then this says bad things about anthropic reasoning.

But I don't think it is: Some smart LW poster once noted (I can't find the link now) that for anthropics all is needed is an agent that can do a Bayesian update conditioned on its own existence. An agent that can do this does not necessarily have consciousness under any reasonable definition of consciousness.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 12 December 2009 03:43:10PM 1 point [-]

I think the point Nick Tarleton was getting at was that you might BE one of those "joke interpretations" of a rock. So, combine that with any sort of decision theory that can handle Newcomblike problems...

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 05 December 2009 09:52:03PM 1 point [-]

"It is one thing to show a man that he is in error,| and another to put him in possession of the truth." (John Locke)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 05 December 2009 05:37:39PM *  4 points [-]

Isn't it interesting how many of us will spend a lot of money on clothes (or for that matter, other valued possessions) we rarely use-- that beautiful cocktail dress or sharp looking shirt. But in our every day, we much prefer to wear clothes that are years old, beat up, and probably cost little when we bought them. Yes, the comfort factor plays heavily into this, but recently when I came home wearing a very nice suit and tie and couldn't WAIT to tear them off and change into some old jeans and a ten year old sweatshirt, I suddenly thought something's odd about this. An expensive suit, or a fountain pen you only use to write your name occasionally, a new car you're often worried about driving because someone might scratch it, the crazy-expensive shoes you never wear in bad weather, the fabulously delicate silk lingerie you haven't worn since buying it six months ago... the list is surprisingly long. In other words for many, we continue to pay lots of money for things that make us uncomfortable, worried, wary or worse.

Jonathan Carroll

Comment author: Proto 05 December 2009 03:36:00PM 3 points [-]

"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence." - Robert Frost

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 04 December 2009 08:22:57PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: Proto 03 December 2009 03:19:42PM 4 points [-]

"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Comment author: zero_call 02 December 2009 07:41:07AM -1 points [-]

... If the machine seemed a functional object to the artist, an instrument whose significance was that it was there to be used - as a typewriter was used for typing a manuscript - so to the engineer it was the communication that was functional. The machine was the art. - N. Mailer, Of a fire on the moon, 1969

Comment author: luff 01 December 2009 08:38:37PM *  -2 points [-]

An enemy is a remedy to a malady in your melody, if you're strong not brittle.

The Cat Empire - Protons, Neutrons, Electrons

Comment author: Proto 01 December 2009 05:38:11PM 9 points [-]

"I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this." - Emo Phillips

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 01 December 2009 01:50:04PM *  16 points [-]

As a rule, people judged themselves according to their intentions and others according to results. In study after study, individuals ranked themselves as more charitable, more compassionate, more conscientious than others, not because they in fact were - but because they wanted to be these things and were almost entirely blind to the fact that others wanted the same. Intentions were all important when it came to self-judgement, and pretty much irrelevant when it came to judging others. The only exceptions, it turned out, were loved ones.

That was what it meant to be a 'significant' other: to be included in the circle of delusions that everyone used to exempt themselves.

-- Scott Bakker, Neuropath

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 01 December 2009 12:40:47PM *  3 points [-]

What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output.

-- Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 01 December 2009 09:39:23PM 0 points [-]

But beware, lest the input becomes master over you.

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 03 December 2009 09:25:35AM 2 points [-]

I think the implication is that, by default, the input is already your master, and this is an undesirable state of affairs.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 01:07:30PM 0 points [-]

How about I take control of my output and so master my input? Seems to work better for me.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 December 2009 02:18:32PM 0 points [-]

What distinction are both of you making between "take control of" and "master"?

Comment author: ABranco 01 December 2009 03:55:38AM 6 points [-]

Objectivity must be operationally defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of preference. —Stephen Jay Gould

Comment author: ABranco 01 December 2009 03:53:52AM 4 points [-]

Love consists of overestimating the differences between one woman and another. —George Bernard Shaw

(OK, it's sexist. I admit it.)

Comment author: Alicorn 01 December 2009 03:59:17AM 4 points [-]

Lampshading it doesn't make it go away. But the quote would work just exactly as well in the other direction, and so it's not so bad IMO.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 04:09:50AM *  1 point [-]

Lampshading it doesn't make it go away.

Seems to make it worse .

Comment author: Alicorn 01 December 2009 04:14:44AM 1 point [-]

It eliminates plausible deniability for ignorance. It doesn't actually make it more sexist, and it's arguable whether "saying something sexist on purpose for what one can presume is a halfway decent reason like sharing a neat quote" is worse than "saying something sexist accidentally through carelessness or ignorance or both".

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 04:26:11AM *  1 point [-]

I do not agree. Without the lampshading the sexist implication (that is, "women are more worthy recipients of love than men are") is negligible. Claiming that the quote is sexist while saying it increases the extent that this implication is present and so gives men more cause to feel slighted.

I don't take offence at the possible slight but do find the lamp-shading distasteful.

Comment author: zero_call 02 December 2009 01:18:40AM 0 points [-]

The implication you've mentioned isn't present, with or without the "lampshading".

Comment author: RobinZ 02 December 2009 02:33:03AM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure enough to state it categorically, as you have, but his choice of sexist implication to withdraw seemed strange to me as well. The obvious problem to my eyes is that it assumes that the entire possible audience is attracted solely to women.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 December 2009 02:37:50AM 1 point [-]

That one, and not the indication that women are all pretty much alike if you aren't deluded by an emotional illusion, is the one that jumps out at you?

Comment author: RobinZ 02 December 2009 02:44:39AM 3 points [-]

I read the remark as a cynical retort against the idea of the One True Love, which would make the implication you point out hyperbole, not misogyny.

Barring that interpretation, though, I'll grant that's the worse one.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 December 2009 02:52:28AM 3 points [-]

One can reject the "One True Love" idea without thinking that the members of the relevant sex(es) are pretty much all alike. cf. the excellent Tim Minchin.

Comment author: Alicorn 01 December 2009 04:34:21AM 4 points [-]

You say "the sexist implication" like that's the only one there.

Anyway, drawing attention to a sexist implication doesn't increase the extent to which it's present - only the extent to which it's consciously noticed. The quote would carry on being exactly as sexist as it is without the lampshade. With more conscious noticing, there is both more offense taken and less chance for the statement to have insidious subconscious influence (on which level most -isms operate). Without the lampshade, it could feasibly pass without notice, and join a host of similar statements in the back of the brain that combine to form dispositions that yield more sexist statement. With the lampshade, conscious effort can go into de-sexismifying the statement, or rejecting it whole-cloth, and reduce its long-term effect, even if it makes it more unpleasant to hear in the short term.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 07:39:43AM 0 points [-]

You say "the sexist implication" like that's the only one there.

I say it because it is not the first sexist implication that is consciously noticed, even by me. This is despite being the clearest literal meaning in this instance. I say it because although becoming more aware of the discordance between the politically correct application of 'sexist' and 'sexist' itself can be frustrating it leads in some small way to eliminating sexist assumptions.

Anyway, drawing attention to a sexist implication doesn't increase the extent to which it's present

Not so. I assert that that claiming something is sexist then saying it gives an actual different meaning to the words. Context is important.

For example if the lampshade was replaced with "yeah, this is sexist against da bitches. lolz." then I would say a different interpretation of sexist implication would be most appropriate.

Comment author: Alicorn 01 December 2009 01:06:43PM 1 point [-]

Obviously if you say "yeah, this is sexist against da bitches. lolz" then you have added sexism to your complete utterance. I don't think you've added sexism to whatever you said before "yeah".

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 01:21:08PM *  0 points [-]

I don't think you've added sexism to whatever you said before "yeah".

I disagree fundamentally. I also would not be able to reconcile ascribing sexist (or any other) implications that are not part of the literal meaning while also asserting that the surrounding context can not change meaning. Either the meaning communicated includes subconscious nuances and dispositions or it doesn't. Those nuances are affected by the context.

Comment author: Alicorn 01 December 2009 02:04:13PM 1 point [-]

Context can affect sexist content. Sure. I just don't think lampshades are a kind of context that tends to increase sexist content, for reasons described above. If one wants to make what one says more sexist, one can accompany it with action (particular or over time), or elaborate on any potentially sexism-free components of one's utterance in such a way that they can now be interpreted as sexist where before they were innocuous. Acknowledging that there already existed a particular sexist interpretation of a statement makes that sexism consciously accessible when it might not have been, but doesn't make it greater in magnitude.

Comment author: ABranco 01 December 2009 05:41:55AM 4 points [-]

I love this last analysis.

After all, this whole discussion on how the lampshading would be perceived turned out to be much more amusing and instructive than the quote itself, which makes me glad that I risked adding it.

Actually, it was more like an act of superego-driven risk-aversion, so I'm twice as glad. More precisely, the lampshading was fruit of spotlight effect of my part, as I quickly fantasized that a great deal of politically correct readers would be outraged by the sexism. But it was more like when you say "Hello, get in, make yourself at home; please don't notice the mess.".

Comment author: ABranco 01 December 2009 03:52:12AM 15 points [-]

I will repeat this point again until I get hoarse: a mistake is not something to be determined after the fact, but in the light of the information until that point. —Nicholas Nassim Taleb

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 04:39:34AM *  3 points [-]

This is something I actively remind myself whenever my intuition starts feeling vindication over lucky reprieves or mourning low probability misfortunes. "It's ok, a six wasn't rolled anyway. I made a mistake. It would have been better to trade the wood and build a settlement. I want to become stronger." (The hyperlink is included instead of the phrase. The inner dialog doesn't like wordiness!)

Comment author: CronoDAS 01 December 2009 05:12:13AM 4 points [-]

I've played some Settlers of Catan myself, and it took me a while to realize what you were talking about. (If I understand correctly, you chose not to build a settlement next to a tile that produces resources when a 6 is rolled, and by chance, the settlement wouldn't have produced any resources this turn because a 6 wasn't rolled. Therefore, waiting a turn to build the settlement didn't actually hurt you, but it could have.) I see similar situations all the time when playing Magic.

Similarly, even if you do win the lottery, buying a negative expected value ticket was still a mistake.

Comment author: Blueberry 04 December 2009 08:35:06PM 1 point [-]

This also happens all the time in poker, especially when you see the flop and instinctively feel good (or bad) that you folded.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 07:50:23AM *  0 points [-]

I've played some Settlers of Catan myself, and it took me a while to realize what you were talking about.

Well spotted!

If I understand correctly, you chose not to build a settlement next to a tile that produces resources when a 6 is rolled, and by chance, the settlement wouldn't have produced any resources this turn because a 6 wasn't rolled. Therefore, waiting a turn to build the settlement didn't actually hurt you, but it could have.

Yes, By forgetting I had a wood port I could have lost possible resources from a 6 or even more if a 7 came while the cards were still in my hand.

I see similar situations all the time when playing Magic.

I see them rather less. I've played sufficiently few games that I mostly notice the mistakes when the cards drop and my Feral Hydra gets fried. RIP.

Comment author: CronoDAS 01 December 2009 08:36:18AM *  4 points [-]

I was mostly thinking about mulligans. If you kept a one land hand and go on to win because you drew three lands in a row, that doesn't mean keeping it was the right decision. Conversely, if you do mulligan your 7 card hand and then end up with completely unplayable 6 card and 5 card hands, that doesn't mean that you should have kept your original hand.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 09:09:19AM 1 point [-]

Perfect example.

Comment author: CronoDAS 01 December 2009 10:05:15AM 2 points [-]

And now we've managed to completely confuse all the non-gamers here. ;)

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 04 December 2009 05:44:21PM *  0 points [-]

I think the same things in both mtg and catan. Up until recently, the online version of catan ("xplorers") ensured a balanced distribution, so you could make decisions based on what was "due." Good for developing sloppy habits.

Comment author: Blueberry 04 December 2009 08:38:59PM 1 point [-]

That's actually a variation. It's marketed as the "deck of dice" or something like that. Essentially, you're making random draws from the set of all 36 outcomes when rolling two dice without replacement, instead of with replacement. I'm not sure that leads to sloppy habits as much as it encourages card-counting, which isn't that strategically interesting. But since Settlers is a game of exponential growth, it does avoid the problem where 11 comes up five times in a row near the beginning of the game, giving one player a huge advantage.

Comment author: ABranco 01 December 2009 03:51:07AM *  7 points [-]

A pair of the same species:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. —Yeats

The trouble with this world is that the ignorant are certain, and the intelligent are full of doubt. —George Bernard Shaw

Comment author: ektimo 30 November 2009 09:46:25PM *  1 point [-]

Wondrous yes, but not miraculous

Star Trek, Richard Manning & Hans Beimler, Who Watches the Watchers? (reworded)

Comment author: djcb 30 November 2009 07:07:05PM 24 points [-]

Today, safe flight inside clouds is possible using gyroscopic instruments that report the airplane’s orientation without being misled by centrifugal effects. But the pilot’s spatial intuition is still active, and often contradicts the instruments. Pilots are explicitly, emphatically trained to trust the instruments and ignore intuition—precisely the opposite of the Star Wars advice—and those who fail to do so often perish.

-- Gary Drescher "Good and Real"

(I really like this quote as a counterweight to the ubiquitous cliche-advise to follow you intuition. Often, your intuition may be fooled. And, it cannot be repeated often enough, Good and Real is a must-read for LW-minded folks)

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 01 December 2009 02:09:59PM 5 points [-]

And, it cannot be repeated often enough, Good and Real is a must-read for LW-minded folks

By the way, what's so special about it? I got it off Amazon a while ago and read it up to around page 100, but none of the content up to that seemed too special. This might be because I'd already internalized many of those points off OB/LW, of course, but still.

Large chunks of the remaining book seem to mostly be about physics and ethics. I'm hesitant to spend time reading any popular physics, as I don't know the actual math behind it and am likely to just get a distorted image. Formal ethical systems are mainly just rationalizations for existing intuitions, so that doesn't seem too interesting, either. Where are the good bits?

Comment author: gwern 02 December 2009 12:05:02AM *  3 points [-]

I read it twice, and I'd summarize it as: for a longtime OB/LW reader, the only interesting parts are the treatment of Quantum Mechanics and the Newcomb's Dilemma chapters*. Those, incidentally, are past page 100.

* I assume that the person taking the advice is like me and has not understood very much of the 'timeless decision theory' stuff that's been flying around for months, which Drescher takes seriously (he's a user here after all), and which seem to be similar to or better to what he advocates.

Comment author: AngryParsley 01 December 2009 11:56:14PM *  6 points [-]

The book is similar to Eliezer's posts in content, but with different examples and a focus more towards refuting non-materialism. If there's something you don't understand from reading LW, it's probably explained differently in Good and Real. The different arguments and examples may or may not be more enlightening.

You should probably buy Good and Real if any of the following are true:

  • You dislike Eliezer's attitude or writing style.

  • You are often distracted by other things while reading on your computer.

  • You prefer the structured organization of a book to the Wiki-link effect of blog posts.

  • You like to show how smart you are by having shelves of books with important-sounding titles.

OK, that last one might have been a joke.

Comment author: djcb 01 December 2009 07:30:55PM 0 points [-]

Fair comment. The books is not perfect - I think it gets a bit tedious in the examples. Maybe my recommendation was a bit too strong.

Nevertheless, I do think it's special in the way it promotes the naturalistic worldview, and how it applies this all across the board - from consciousness to the sense of time to quantum physics to ethics. There's indeed quite some overlap with topics discussed here, but it's nice to read it in a book with all the themes connected. Those are the 'good bits' for me.

Talking about books, it'd be great if there were some LW Books Top-10 for 2009.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 30 November 2009 05:38:54PM *  2 points [-]

Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity.

-- unknown

Comment author: loqi 30 November 2009 07:55:21PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 04:51:13PM 5 points [-]

I believe that scientists can change fields easily and sometimes make bigger impact in the new fields they enter. I think it’s because people who move do not look at the same problem from the traditional point-of-view. This enables us to come up with unique solutions. We are not trapped by dogma and if we are bold we can rise quickly.

-- Aubrey de Grey

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 04:43:08PM *  2 points [-]

The second advantage claimed for naturalism is that it is equivalent to rationality, because it assumes a model of reality in which all events are in principle accessible to scientific investigation.

-- Phillip E. Johnson

Comment author: Torben 01 December 2009 10:05:07AM 1 point [-]

I feel dirty now.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 10:10:37AM 2 points [-]

I just feel confused.

Comment author: arundelo 30 November 2009 03:50:07PM 3 points [-]

Perhaps he thinks that philosophy is the creation of a man, a book like the Iliad or Orlando Furioso, in which the least important thing is whether what is written in them is true.

-- Galileo Galilei, The Assayer

Comment author: Kutta 30 November 2009 02:13:16PM 2 points [-]

„Most people become uninsurable at some point in their lives. It therefore makes sense to find out how affordable it can be to fund your (cryonic) suspension with the incredible financial leverage that only life insurance provides. It the case of cryonicists, the policy can truly become LIFE insurance-- not DEATH insurance.”

– Rudi Hoffman

Comment author: Kutta 30 November 2009 02:12:22PM *  3 points [-]

„Someone willing to embrace unreasonable arguments for his group shows a willingness to continue supporting them no matter which way the argument winds blow."

– Robin Hanson

Comment author: Kutta 30 November 2009 02:08:30PM *  10 points [-]

„The hard part is actually being rational, which requires that you postpone the fun but currently irrelevant arguments until the pressing problem is solved, even perhaps with the full knowledge that you are actually probably giving them up entirely. Delaying gratification in this manner is not a unique difficulty faced by transhumanists. Anyone pursuing a long-term goal, such as a medical student or PhD candidate, does the same. The special difficulty that you will have to overcome is the difficulty of staying on track in the absence of social support or of appreciation of the problem, and the difficulty of overcoming your mind’s anti-religion defenses, which will be screaming at you to cut out the fantasy and go live a normal life, with the normal empty set of beliefs about the future and its potential.”

– Michael Vassar

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 01 December 2009 03:10:28PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: CronoDAS 30 November 2009 01:39:24PM *  8 points [-]

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms." - Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Comment author: taa21 30 November 2009 08:07:32PM 5 points [-]

Substituting "has perpetuated" for "has settled" in that quote results in a statement of essentially the same veracity.

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 11:46:54AM *  3 points [-]

So few of us really think. What we do is rearrange our prejudices.

-- George Vincent

Comment author: gwern 30 November 2009 06:16:23PM 5 points [-]

"Those who are free from common prejudices acquire others."

--Napoleon Bonaparte; quoted by his secretary in Memoirs of Napoleon (1829-1831)

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 11:45:15AM 1 point [-]

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

-- Albert Einstein

Comment author: ciphergoth 04 December 2009 06:13:23PM 5 points [-]

Many quotes are widely attributed to Einstein. Please provide chapter and verse on when and where he said this.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 30 November 2009 05:41:15PM *  6 points [-]

"It is always disconcerting to disagree with Einstein." Nevertheless, I think I disagree with this; or at least believe it is vague enough to be abused.

Comment author: Blueberry 04 December 2009 08:33:25PM 0 points [-]

Do you disagree with the first sentence or the second? I actually agree with the first sentence, at least if you interpret it to mean that consciousness is a software tool which serves the parallel-processing unconscious brain hardware.

Comment author: luff 30 November 2009 10:43:31AM *  0 points [-]

Disillusionment is what little heroes are made of.

E.K. Hornbeck in Inherit the wind

Comment author: PhilGoetz 30 November 2009 05:42:41PM 0 points [-]

Are little heroes supposed to be good, or bad?

Comment author: luff 30 November 2009 07:38:51PM *  2 points [-]

Good. I thought about just writing "Disillusionment is what heroes are made of", to avoid the possibility of confusion, but decided to go with the original quote. It is said by a cynic as an encouragement to a person disillusioned by the behavior of people in groups. It's a call to embrace it. For even if it might be better that the world lives up to your expectations, it would be worse if you didn't have the judgment to realize something is wrong. And it is only the ones who realize something is wrong who will do something about a problem.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 November 2009 08:37:35AM 7 points [-]

No man knows the state of another; it is always to some more or less imaginary man that the wisest and most honest adviser is speaking.

-- Thomas Carlyle, Advice to Young Men

Comment author: Morendil 30 November 2009 08:03:11AM 5 points [-]

Our actions generally satisfy us: we recognize that they are in the main coherent, and that they make appropriate, well-timed contributions to our projects as we understand them. So we safely assume them to be the product of processes that are reliably sensitive to ends and means. That is, they are rational, in one sense of that word. But that does not mean they are rational in a narrower sense: the product of serial reasoning.

-- Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained

Comment author: DanArmak 30 November 2009 05:26:59PM 0 points [-]

Our actions generally satisfy us

Incidentally, it seems to me that this invokes the anthropic principle. To wit, if our actions generally seemed irrational and unsatisfactory to ourselves, we would probably go insane.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 November 2009 05:52:22PM 0 points [-]

That seems to stretch the anthropic principle rather further than I would be included to do.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 30 November 2009 06:38:37AM 3 points [-]

Infinite is an undirect way to speak of the finite; more precisely infinity is about finite dynamical processes.

-- Jean-Yves Girard

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 November 2009 04:23:21PM *  2 points [-]

I second RobinZ's request for an elaboration. I know a little (a very little) about the technical topics of that paper, but I find Girard's philosophising here and elsewhere (for example) impenetrable.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 30 November 2009 07:15:40PM *  4 points [-]

This particular idea seems straightforward, at least in non-technical sense: "infinity" should only appear from "traces" of finite dynamical processes, as a way of talking about their dynamics. Infinite objects are artifacts of objectifying time, and any infinite object can as well be regarded as a statement about a finite dynamical system. I liked this remark as a self-contained way of thinking about infinity (on informal level, apart from the specific axiomatizations).

(For example: think of the process of normalization as the dynamic on a term not in a normal form; whether it'll terminate is undecidable, and a priori the normal form can't be considered as another term (finitely encoded), yet we may reason about this output as another term, considering how it'll reduce in interactions with other terms, etc.)

Comment author: RobinZ 01 December 2009 03:48:32PM 0 points [-]

Is there a way of describing it that doesn't require a computer science background? What are "traces" in this context? And what is a "finite dynamical process" that introduces infinities, and what is the "objectifying"? I can tell this is grammatical English, but the terminology is opaque.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 01 December 2009 05:43:02PM *  1 point [-]

Trace is something like a list of execution steps of a program, a list of what happens at each step, for all steps. When a program runs indefinitely, it'll be a potentially infinite list (or actually infinite if we know the program won't terminate). Finite dynamical system is something like a program (together with its current state) that is itself finite, and allows to compute data of the same kind (e.g. program + state) for the next step: this transition from the current step to the next step is the dynamic. Infinity appears in this process when we consider all the (future) steps, not just one, even though one step is enough to determine them all. Objectification as I used it is a concept from mathematics, when you are trying to capture some phenomenon as a certain kind of single mathematical object (as opposed to a thing with whistles, processes and hand-waving).

Comment author: RobinZ 01 December 2009 05:48:37PM 0 points [-]

Thanks - that's much clearer.

Comment author: RobinZ 30 November 2009 01:16:33PM 1 point [-]

Elaboration, please?

Comment author: Will_Euler 30 November 2009 06:22:48AM 4 points [-]

We read frequently if unknowingly, in quest of a mind more original than our own.

--Harold Bloom

Comment author: Will_Euler 30 November 2009 06:37:29AM 2 points [-]

I recommend the "Prologue: Why Read?" from Bloom's book How to Read and Why. http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Why-Harold-Bloom/dp/product-description/0684859076

Comment author: Nic_Smith 30 November 2009 06:07:25AM 4 points [-]

"Admiration is the state furthest from understanding." - Sosuke Aizen, Bleach

Comment author: i77 30 November 2009 03:55:41PM *  1 point [-]

... perfect existence, huh?

Perfection does not exist in this world. It may seem like a cliche, but it's true. Obviously, mediocre fools will forever lust for perfection and seek it out.

However, what meaning is there in "perfection"? None. Not a bit. "Perfection" disgusts me. After "perfection" there exists nothing higher. Not even room for "creation", which means there is no room for wisdom or talent either.

Understand? To scientists like ourselves, "perfection" is "despair".

Even if something is created that is more magnificient than anything before it, it still however, will be far from perfect.

Scientists are constantly struggling with that antinomy. And furthermore, must become beings capable of drawing pleasure from such.

In short, the instant that absurd word, "perfection", came from your lips, you had already been defeated by me.

-- Kurotsuchi Mayuri

Comment author: [deleted] 01 December 2009 02:17:34AM 8 points [-]

It's possible, and not undesirable, to achieve perfection. For example, the majority of words I type are spelled perfectly, and the perfect answer to "what is two plus two?" is "four". It's just not possible or desirable to achieve it everywhere.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 November 2009 06:16:37AM *  4 points [-]

It really isn't. Hatred and infatuation are both further away from understanding than admiration is. So, I expect, is indifference. Then there's the state of 'incomprehension'...

Apart from being technically absurd the quote also gives a message that I don't particularly like. I'll cynical it up with the best of them but I reserve the right to admire things that I understand. In fact, I've discovered that my taste in music largely consists of admiring songs that convey insight that I understand and empathise with. This holds even when confessing to liking Hillary Duff and Pink sends all the wrong signals of affiliation.

Comment author: DanArmak 30 November 2009 05:24:58PM 0 points [-]

To put it In context, the quote should read: "admiration for another person is the state furthest from understanding."

Comment author: CronoDAS 30 November 2009 09:59:27AM 2 points [-]

I like Pink...

Comment author: wedrifid 30 November 2009 05:46:37PM *  0 points [-]

Leave me the fuck alone.

(eg.)

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 30 November 2009 07:29:44PM 1 point [-]

?

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 01:06:59AM *  1 point [-]

Sharing CronDAS's appreciation of Pink without, well, inviting him to come home. Good song that. Perhaps her best.

Comment author: CronoDAS 01 December 2009 02:19:26AM 0 points [-]

Haven't actually heard that one.

The ones I can remember having heard on the radio are "Who Knew?", "U + Ur Hand", "So What", "Sober", and "Please Don't Leave Me". I liked them all.

Comment author: Alicorn 01 December 2009 01:10:59AM 1 point [-]

"Who Knew?" would have been less of an apparent vulgar non-sequitur.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 01:31:01AM *  0 points [-]

You're right and I love that song too!

Comment author: Nic_Smith 30 November 2009 06:46:29AM 0 points [-]

Infatuation would probably be a better word to describe the attitude of the character Aizen's referring to in that quote, although the subtitle says "admiration."

Comment author: epistememe 30 November 2009 05:58:22AM 8 points [-]

There are two different types of people in the world,those who want to know,and those who want to believe.--Attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche

Comment author: epistememe 30 November 2009 05:53:32AM 7 points [-]

"You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown

Comment author: Larks 06 December 2009 10:22:57PM 1 point [-]

"If you speak the truth, have a foot in the stirrup" Turkish Proverb

Comment author: James_Miller 30 November 2009 03:39:50AM 8 points [-]

A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.

From the Yes, Minister TV show.

Comment author: gwern 30 November 2009 02:48:58PM 4 points [-]

"Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth."

--Lillian Hellman, The Little Foxes (1939)

Comment author: Psychohistorian 01 December 2009 06:02:30AM *  3 points [-]

Cynic. n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees the world the way it is, instead of the way it is supposed to be.

-Ambrose Bierce

Comment author: wedrifid 30 November 2009 03:57:04AM 2 points [-]

It's a good quote. But I say combining the latter two gives the first.

Comment author: James_Miller 30 November 2009 03:37:58AM 5 points [-]

The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless.

From the Yes, Minister TV show.

Comment author: Rain 30 November 2009 03:14:23AM *  7 points [-]

Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action has come, stop thinking and go in.

-- Napoleon Bonaparte

Comment author: gwern 30 November 2009 02:49:37PM 8 points [-]

"One mark of a good officer... the ability to make quick decisions. If they happen to be right, so much the better."

--Ringworld, Larry Niven

Comment author: Rain 30 November 2009 03:12:33AM *  6 points [-]

Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything.

-- Homer Simpson

Comment author: Rain 30 November 2009 03:08:37AM *  8 points [-]

Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.

-- G. K. Chesterton

Comment author: PhilGoetz 30 November 2009 05:48:29PM 2 points [-]

The quote is good; but I have a knee-jerk reaction against all rationality quotes by Chesterton, who cleverly confused social conservatism with rationality in the minds of so many people.

Comment author: Rain 30 November 2009 03:08:20AM *  9 points [-]

A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.

-- Dorothy L. Sayers

Comment author: gwern 30 November 2009 02:50:10PM 3 points [-]

"She had a pretty gift for quotation, which is a serviceable substitute for wit."

--W. Somerset Maughan, "The Creative Impulse" (1926)

Comment author: Rain 30 November 2009 03:07:38AM *  6 points [-]

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.

-- Alan Kay

Comment author: sketerpot 01 December 2009 08:35:02PM *  0 points [-]

That's great when you can pull it off, but one can only invent a small part of the future.

Comment author: cousin_it 30 November 2009 02:17:13AM *  4 points [-]

Who stops you from inventing waterproof gunpowder?

-- Kozma Prutkov

Comment author: gwern 30 November 2009 02:05:28AM *  22 points [-]

CAESAR [recovering his self-possession]: "Pardon him. Theodotus, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."

--George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1898)

Comment author: gwern 30 November 2009 02:04:43AM 41 points [-]

"When will we realize that the fact that we can become accustomed to anything, however disgusting at first, makes it necessary to examine carefully everything we have become accustomed to?"

--George Bernard Shaw, A Treatise on Parents and Children (1910)

Comment author: anonym 30 November 2009 02:03:46AM 11 points [-]

... by natural selection our mind has adapted itself to the conditions of the external world. It has adopted the geometry most advantageous to the species or, in other words, the most convenient. Geometry is not true, it is advantageous.

— Henri Poincaré

Comment author: RobinZ 21 September 2011 08:57:49PM 0 points [-]

(necroreply:) In many ways this is true of mathematics in general, except where those mathematics are adopted for their beauty or elegance.

Comment author: anonym 30 November 2009 02:03:25AM 9 points [-]

The whole of science consists of data that, at one time or another, were inexplicable.

— Brendan O’Regan

Comment author: righteousreason 30 November 2009 01:58:26AM 10 points [-]

"But goodness alone is never enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil." - Robert Heinlein (SISL)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 November 2009 08:59:49PM *  4 points [-]

Never? Always? Hogwash.

Aside from that, yes.

Comment author: anonym 30 November 2009 01:52:25AM 7 points [-]

Although nature commences with reason and ends in experience, it is necessary for us to do the opposite, that is to commence with experience and from this to proceed to investigate the reason.

— Leonardo da Vinci

Comment author: anonym 30 November 2009 01:40:53AM 8 points [-]

Memory belongs to the imagination. Human memory is not like a computer which records things; it is part of the imaginative process, on the same terms as invention.

— Alain Robbe-Grillet

Comment author: anonym 30 November 2009 01:40:26AM *  19 points [-]

In general, we are least aware of what our minds do best.

— Marvin Minsky

Comment author: saliency 30 November 2009 01:26:44AM 22 points [-]

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." --Woody Allen

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 01 December 2009 02:02:19PM 3 points [-]

This quote always reminds me of another choice one: "I want to live forever, or die trying".

Comment author: Yorick_Newsome 01 December 2009 02:10:16PM 1 point [-]

^ Yossarian, a character in the novel Catch 22, by Joseph Heller.

Comment author: MichaelGR 30 November 2009 12:23:59AM 46 points [-]

It has always appalled me that really bright scientists almost all work in the most competitive fields, the ones in which they are making the least difference. In other words, if they were hit by a truck, the same discovery would be made by somebody else about 10 minutes later.

--Aubrey de Grey

Comment author: gwern 22 October 2011 01:16:10AM 0 points [-]

Where is this from, http://vimeo.com/7396024 ?

Comment author: MichaelGR 22 October 2011 05:46:31AM 0 points [-]

I don't remember exactly, but I think it was from a conference where he was speaking with Eliezer on a panel or Q&A, so that might be it.

Comment author: aausch 01 December 2009 04:07:32AM 3 points [-]

I don't think his measure of difference is comprehensive:

  • The higher chance of finding smart collaborators increases chances of increased productivity
  • A larger chance of making very significant improvement (a highly competitive field is probably much closer to a field-wide, world changing epiphany - while in a less competitive field, much time must be wasted laying down the groundwork)
  • A longer productive life-span (much likelier to find smart assistants/students to teach at maximum ability all life long)
  • A higher utility to society - the field is likely competitive because of large public attention, which in turns signals large groups of people funding research, in turn showing that smaller improvements are considered much more valuable than in other fields
  • A wider selection of interesting work. It's much more likely that relatively minor or mundante results/problems in the competitive field are going to be immediately useful/used
Comment author: dclayh 30 November 2009 12:44:23AM *  23 points [-]

It's not really surprising, though, is it? Brilliant people want to have other brilliant people as their colleagues.

(In fact, one mathematician of my acquaintance said that he once dabbled in circuit design, but when his first paper in the field was received as a major achievement, he left it immediately, concluding that if he could make such a large contribution so easily, the field must be unworthy of him.)

Comment author: SilasBarta 12 June 2010 07:36:17PM 4 points [-]

This is interesting. Which mathematician? Which paper? Could you at least say what field or what advance?

Comment author: phaedrus 26 May 2010 12:45:58AM 4 points [-]

"I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER."

Groucho Marx

Comment author: CronoDAS 30 November 2009 10:00:54AM 5 points [-]

Maybe was just a one-hit wonder who ran out of ideas. :P

Comment author: wedrifid 30 November 2009 02:50:02AM 8 points [-]

It's not really surprising, though, is it?

No, just appalling.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 November 2009 01:39:55AM 26 points [-]

How utterly selfish of him.

Comment author: aausch 01 December 2009 03:55:06AM 2 points [-]

My intuition marked this comment's intent as more humorous than serious- is my calibration off?

Comment author: wedrifid 01 December 2009 04:15:02AM 4 points [-]

I read ironic sincerity.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 December 2009 04:31:39AM 2 points [-]

Yup.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 December 2009 10:48:59AM *  0 points [-]

"Ironic sincerity"?

Edited to amplify: I have never seen the term previous to this thread. Google doesn't turn up much beyond the quoted quip. Is ironic sincerity when you pretend to pretend not to believe what you're saying and then everyone pretends to pretend you didn't believe it so that no-one need be put to the trouble of thinking about it and deciding whether it actually made sense or not? Or not?

Comment author: someonewrongonthenet 30 May 2013 02:31:14PM *  2 points [-]

It means that it was a true statement, but that reading the statement still tickles the "irony" feeling in your brain.

I think part of the reason that this is so is that some people sympathize with this mathematician's motives. An analogy:

"He donated $1,000 to charity, instead of donating his entire discretionary income."

"How utterly selfish of him."

It's true that it's selfish, but it's a lot less selfish than what most people do, so it feels ironic and sarcastic that we are calling him selfish.

Comment author: gwern 22 October 2011 01:15:53AM 6 points [-]
Comment author: wedrifid 06 December 2009 07:58:44AM *  3 points [-]

I have never seen the term previous to this thread.

It is two terms. Just 'sincerity' that happens to also be ironic. Or perhaps irony that just so happens to be expressed through sincere. It's like saying something 'tongue in cheek' but when the point you are making is something you clearly really mean it even though you know it may be surprising to the audience at first glance.

Comment author: righteousreason 30 November 2009 02:11:34AM 2 points [-]

I don't see how this reveals his motive at all. He could easily be a person motivated to make the best contributions to science as he can, for entirely altruistic reasons. His reasoning was that he could make better contributions elsewhere, and it's entirely plausible for him to have left the field for ultimately altruistic, purely non-selfish reasons.

And what is it about selfishness exactly that is so bad?

Comment author: Tiiba 01 December 2009 09:42:04AM *  9 points [-]

"And what is it about selfishness exactly that is so bad?"

It's fine and dandy in me, but I tend to discourage it in other people. I find that I get what I want faster that way.

Now give me some cash.

Comment author: righteousreason 01 December 2009 05:55:47PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 04:48:00PM 1 point [-]

He may have, for his own reasons, not been happy with the ease with which he achieved something great. His selfishness at this point is not for the fact that he may still be able to contribute to the field and yet he chooses not to but for the fact that he will be happier if he had to work harder on something before achieving greatness. That is his value system. I think his choice is justifiable.

Comment author: righteousreason 30 November 2009 10:20:04PM 4 points [-]

Sure, but it's also reasonable for him to think that contributing something that was much harder would be that much more of a contribution to his goal (whatever those selfish or non-selfish goals are), after all, something hard for him would be much harder or impossible for someone less capable.

Comment author: Technologos 30 November 2009 08:31:54AM 10 points [-]

If making a major contribution seemed so easy, and would be harder in some other field, it sure would suggest that his comparative advantage in the easy field is much greater; would not that suggest that he ought to devote his efforts there, since other people have proven relatively capable in the harder fields?

Comment author: Yorick_Newsome 30 November 2009 02:40:14AM 3 points [-]

"the quality of being selfish, the condition of habitually putting one's own interests before those of others" - wiktionary

I can imagine a super giant mega list of situations where that would be bad, even if selfishness is often a good thing. There's a reason 'selfishness' has negative connotations.

Comment author: DanArmak 30 November 2009 05:21:19PM 4 points [-]

I can imagine a super giant mega list of situations where love is a bad thing, too. Like when people kill themselves or others. That doesn't mean its default connotations should be negative.

The reason "selfishness" has negative connotations are at least partly due to Western culture (with Christian antecedents in "man is fundamentally evil" and "seek not pleasure in this life"). They're not objectively valid.

Comment author: Yorick_Newsome 01 December 2009 01:27:56AM 3 points [-]

Point taken, I just think that it's normally not good. I also think that maybe, for instance, libertarians and liberals have different conceptions of selfishness that lead the former to go 'yay, selfishness!' and the latter to go 'boo, selfishness!'. Are they talking about the same thing? Are we talking about the same thing? In my personal experience, selfishness has always been demanding half of the pie when fairness is one-third, leading to conflict and bad experiences that could have been avoided. We might just have different conceptions of selfishness.

Comment author: MichaelGR 30 November 2009 12:23:26AM 4 points [-]

There's no difference between a pessimist who says, "Oh it's hopeless, so don’t bother doing anything." and an optimist who says, "Don't bother doing anything, it's going to turn out fine anyways. Either way, nothing happens.

--Yvon Chouinard

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 November 2009 12:27:33AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: MichaelGR 30 November 2009 02:35:30PM 1 point [-]

I'm sorry.

In fact, it might actually be where I got it from. Yet one more reason why we need to upgrade our brains (or at least, why I need to write down where I find interesting quotes)..

Comment author: Jack 30 November 2009 02:42:40PM 2 points [-]

The occasional duplication is probably not worth everyone writing down where they find interesting quotes. Though maybe you have other reasons. If it becomes more common we can request that everyone search for their quote on less wrong before they post it.

Comment author: MichaelGR 30 November 2009 12:22:38AM 12 points [-]

"Stressing output is the key to improving productivity, while looking to increase activity can result in just the opposite."

--Andrew S. Grove

Comment author: MichaelGR 30 November 2009 12:21:53AM 16 points [-]

Politicians compete to bribe voters with their own money.

--Adapted from something in The Economist (sorry, they don't have bylines)

Comment author: SilasBarta 30 November 2009 03:26:34AM *  5 points [-]

Can't find the link to this Dilbert strip, but I saved it a while ago to my computer.

Dogbert is running for office:

Dogbert: Vote for me or the terrorists will use your skulls for salad bowls.
Dogbert: I promise to take money from the people who don't vote for me and give it to the people that do.
Dogbert: Pollution has vitamins!
Person in audience: I like how he makes me feel.

ETA: Uploaded it here. Now accepting pledges for my copyright infringement legal defense fund.

Comment author: wnoise 01 December 2009 01:12:55PM 1 point [-]

All of the strips can be found online at http://www.dilbert.com/strips/

Comment author: RobinZ 01 December 2009 03:36:40PM 2 points [-]

And, tracing back from the filename, the strip in question.

Comment author: Nominull 30 November 2009 03:21:21AM 4 points [-]

What's interesting from a rationalist point of view is the surprising extent to which this is not actually the case.

Comment author: Technologos 30 November 2009 03:27:11AM 0 points [-]

Anymore, at least, relative to the power of the state.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 30 November 2009 01:43:26AM 14 points [-]

Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.

-H. L. Mencken

Comment author: ChristianKl 30 November 2009 12:10:16AM *  3 points [-]

Science involves confronting our ‘absolute stupidity’. That kind of stupidity is an existential fact, inherent in our efforts to push our way into the unknown.

Martin A. Schwartz

Comment author: RobinZ 30 November 2009 12:05:58AM 24 points [-]

It helps to stop worrying about what you are and concentrate on what you do. If you think of a poet as a person with some special qualifications that come by nature (or divine favor), you are likely to make one of two mistakes about yourself. If you think you've got what it takes, you may fail to learn what you need to know in order to use whatever qualities you may have. On the other hand, if you think you do not have what it takes, you may give up too easily, thinking it is useless to try. A poet is someone - you, me, anyone - who writes poems. That question out of the way, now we can learn to write poems better.

Judson Jerome, The Poet's Handbook, Chap. 1 ("From Sighs and Groans to Art")

Comment author: sark 20 December 2010 03:16:31PM 0 points [-]

The lesson I draw from this is that doing stuff is a better means of figuring out if I've got what it takes. Because surely, ultimately you want to focus your efforts on what you in fact can do?

Comment author: RobinZ 30 November 2009 12:01:58AM *  5 points [-]

Never give in - never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 29 October 1941

Comment author: Sebastian_Hagen 03 December 2009 06:33:25PM *  1 point [-]

never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

I'd like to add to that:

Never forget who the true enemy is.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 November 2009 02:53:01AM *  1 point [-]

never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

I don't tend to yield to force or overwhelming might of what counts as my enemy. I do not consider this trait to be 'good sense'. Damn propaganda.

Comment author: RobinZ 30 November 2009 03:42:45AM 3 points [-]

...yeah, it's not a brilliant rationality quote, but there's a bit of a good point in it nonetheless: this is a case in which precommitment is necessary, because despite the fact that you would prefer not to be subject to the assault of an enemy, you don't want to establish that every threat will be profitable, however imaginary. Naive calculations neglect the effect of your decision method on the actions of others. (It's like in cryptography - your strategy has to work even if other people know the function.)

Comment author: wedrifid 30 November 2009 03:50:46AM *  0 points [-]

Another quote that means something far different (better) coming from you than from a politician.

Comment author: RobinZ 30 November 2009 04:05:31AM 1 point [-]

...I do believe this is why I have a section in my quotefile marked "uncontexted". I really couldn't say whether you're right or wrong - all I know is what I've read.

Comment author: RobinZ 30 November 2009 12:01:15AM *  10 points [-]

Quotation - yes, but how differently persons quote! I am as much informed of your genius by what you select, as by what you originate. I read the quotation with your eyes, & find a new & fervent sense... For good quoting, then, there must be originality in the quoter - bent, bias, delight in the truth, & only valuing the author in the measure of his agreement with the truth which we see, & which he had the luck to see first. And originality, what is that? It is being; being somebody, being yourself, & reporting accurately what you see & are. If another's words describe your fact, use them as freely as you use the language & the alphabet, whose use does not impair your originality. Neither will another's sentiment or distinction impugn your sufficiency. Yet in proportion to your reality of life & perception, will be your difficulty of finding yourself expressed in others' words or deeds.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journals, Oct.-Nov. 1867

Comment author: RobinZ 29 November 2009 11:57:11PM *  16 points [-]

"My style" sure makes a great crutch for putting off learning how to draw better, doesn't it?

Egypt "peganthyrus" Urnash, comment thread, "a quick drawing lesson", July 17, 2008

Comment author: CannibalSmith 30 November 2009 09:51:19AM 0 points [-]

I can't wait for her to finish her tarot deck.

Comment author: RobinZ 30 November 2009 12:44:38PM 0 points [-]

I thought it was complete already - I haven't been paying attention, I suppose.

Comment author: CannibalSmith 30 November 2009 02:02:20PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: RobinZ 21 September 2011 10:12:21PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: akshatrathi 29 November 2009 11:49:44PM 2 points [-]

I must stress here the point that I appreciate clarity, order, meaning, structure, rationality: they are necessary to whatever provisional stability we have, and they can be the agents of gradual and successful change.

-- A. R. Ammons

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 November 2009 11:44:45PM 21 points [-]

Your calendar never lies. All we have is our time. The way we spend our time is our priorities, is our "strategy." Your calendar knows what you really care about. Do you?

-- Tom Peters, HT Ben Casnocha

Comment author: Drawbacks 03 December 2009 05:39:24PM 5 points [-]

"We are what we repeatedly do."

-- Russ Roberts, quoting some sports guy on the radio

Comment author: roland 30 November 2009 05:03:19PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: gwern 30 November 2009 02:08:34AM 4 points [-]

"The ways we miss our lives are life."

--Randall Jarrell, "A Girl in a Library," line 92; The Seven-League Crutches (1951)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 November 2009 11:43:30PM 6 points [-]

"Isn't it pretty to think so."

-- Ernest Hemingway, The Sun also Rises

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 November 2009 11:42:44PM 12 points [-]

"Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened."

-- Nietzsche, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense