komponisto comments on Intelligence Amplification Open Thread - Less Wrong

46 Post author: Will_Newsome 15 September 2010 08:39AM

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

Comments (339)

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

Comment author: Will_Newsome 20 September 2010 05:05:12AM 3 points [-]

I sort of wish it were, but I think only one or two people use it. The problem is that it's not really anything like old-style rationalism and so calling it neorationalism is misleading. 'Bayesianism' is normally taken to be the philosophy, 'rationalist' the adherent. Unfortunately, rationality is more than just Bayesianism, so that too is inaccurate. The whole lack of an -ism thing is kind of a downer. 'Evidentialism' or something might work as a description of our epistemology but it fails to connect to the 'winning' part of rationality. Bayesian decision theory-ism is what we're trying to achieve, I think, but we need something more aesthetic. Suggestions?

Comment author: komponisto 20 September 2010 05:46:31AM *  0 points [-]

I once suggested "optimizer".

But really, I think "rationalist" works just fine. The connection with "rationality" is immediate; as for (Cartesian) "rationalism", that's a historical term applied by academics in the specific context of an obsolete debate between (mostly) dead people that has been utterly superseded by modern concepts such as those discussed here. Does anyone visit LW and seriously come away with the impression that we're "anti-empiricist"? I didn't think so.

Comment author: Relsqui 20 September 2010 06:56:39AM 4 points [-]

Does anyone visit LW and seriously come away with the impression that we're "anti-empiricist"?

Does this count?

Comment author: Will_Newsome 20 September 2010 06:36:11AM 0 points [-]

Rationalist works fine, but I'm still kinda meh on "rationalism". I guess it's okay...