Perplexed comments on Rationality quotes: September 2010 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Morendil 01 September 2010 06:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (152)
Tags: quotes

Comments (152)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Perplexed 05 September 2010 03:49:21PM 3 points [-]

Closely related:

The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.

--G. Khan

Comment author: James_K 06 September 2010 07:29:08AM 2 points [-]

G. Khan? That's the first time I've seen a title abbreviated that way.

It is a good quote in a "rationality is about winning" sort of way. Such a shame is definition of winning was so negative sum.

Comment author: Perplexed 06 September 2010 04:22:56PM 3 points [-]

Is it permissible to assert that rationality is about winning? Hume might argue that "winning" is about ends, whereas "rationality" is about means.

Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

-- D. Hume

However, it is sometimes argued that the word "rational" can be applied to ends, as well as means.

[M]ost preference logicians hold that any logic suitable to this purpose must assume that all rational preference orderings are transitive.

--M. Phipps in "Must Rational Preferences Be Transitive?"

It appears that Mr. Khan's expressed preferences are very likely transitive, but it is difficult to see how this could be argued regarding Mr. Bagehot's preferences. Unlike Mr Khan, Mr Bagehot makes his own desires dependent upon the expressed opinions of those around him.

Comment author: timtyler 06 September 2010 07:07:59PM 3 points [-]

That's a Yudkowsky theme:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/7i/rationality_is_systematized_winning/

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Rationalists_should_win

Comment author: James_K 07 September 2010 05:40:50AM 2 points [-]

Eliezer advocates the "rationality is about winning" position, as timtyler note sin his reply to you.

And this is actually a Humean point. The idea is that passion is about what you want i.e. want qualifies as winning and rationality is about getting what you want i.e. how to go about winning.

As for Mr Bagehot's preference set, it's true that transitivity is a necessary condition for rationality because an agent with intransitive preferences has no coherent utility function.

However, I don't think that's an issue here. Bagehot's preferences are dependant on others, but that doesn't make them intransitive. I fact there's no way to test for intransitivity with fewer than three alternatives to choose from.

Comment author: wedrifid 17 September 2010 08:30:47AM *  1 point [-]

Is it permissible to assert that rationality is about winning? Hume might argue that "winning" is about ends, whereas "rationality" is about means.

You're right. And the "rationalist win" slogan gets annoying for that reason - a good point but not technically correct. There's something along the lines of 'most likely' or 'maximise' that is missing.

Comment author: wedrifid 17 September 2010 08:29:34AM 1 point [-]

Unlike Mr Khan, Mr Bagehot makes his own desires dependent upon the expressed opinions of those around him.

Wow. I've never comparison to Gengis Khan used as a way to make someone sound fickle. :)

Comment author: Will_Sawin 06 September 2010 07:16:36PM 0 points [-]

Untrue. Bagehot desires pleasure, and pleasure is dependent on the opinions of those around him. This is consistent.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 September 2010 04:08:50PM *  1 point [-]

del

Comment author: Perplexed 05 September 2010 04:24:34PM *  1 point [-]

Well, I don't think it is that closely related. Bagehot seems like a more constructive type, as his time and place predicts.

Constructive?

It is good to be without vices, but it is not good to be without temptations.

--W. Bagehot

Well, maybe. He advocates doing the supposed impossible, while merely daydreaming about the forbidden.

Comment author: timtyler 05 September 2010 04:00:05PM *  1 point [-]

That is where Conan got his idea about "what is best in life" from.

Comment author: simplicio 06 September 2010 06:10:09AM 4 points [-]

Clearly wrong, according to Cohen the Barbarian.

Comment author: Perplexed 05 September 2010 04:11:54PM 4 points [-]

No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! ... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!

--C. T. Barbarian

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit