chaosmosis comments on Philosophy: A Diseased Discipline - Less Wrong

88 Post author: lukeprog 28 March 2011 07:31PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (425)

Tags: philosophy

Comments (425)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: chaosmosis 28 October 2012 11:26:50PM * 1 point [-]

I think you're using a different definition of rationality than is common on this site.

I don't believe it because I am persuaded by arguments against treating consciousness and some features of consciousness as rational (that "useless" Continental philosophy as well as related arguments by John Searle, if you'd like a look).

I need more detail to be able to evaluate what you are saying here.

It clearly isn't inevitable if I am a thinking subject and do not accept that everything in reality boils down to formal rationality, which I do not.

I think you might accept it but have hidden flaws within your reasoning process that lead you to misunderstand your own beliefs. I think that if you truly rejected this position then you would be unable to make decisions or understand arguments in aesthetic or ethical or consciousness related domains. I think getting to such a rejection would be impossible for a human being but that some human beings might mislead themselves to believe in arguments for that conclusion and to selectively believe in that conclusion, and to believe that they believe in that conclusion fully. This is why I said such a rejection would be a form of abstract nihilism.

I have no issue with this reasoning (although I obviously disagree with it). The issue arises from bold claims to capital-T Truth status, which are built on flimsy grounds.

I think that rationality is capital-T insofar as it is the best paradigm. It has no ultimate foundation, but the foundation that it does have is intrinsic to the very mode of our existence and our values, and that makes it the best.

Also, I don't understand why you disagree with this reasoning. It seems very similar to what you claim.

Because aesthetic enjoyment is non-rational.

I don't understand what you mean by "non-rational" or why you believe that aesthetics is that. Also, rationality doesn't believe that values are logical truths, but that doesn't mean that rationality thinks that values are valueless. Anyone who isn't using rationality extremely badly will recognize that values are valuable and not valueless. Your thinking is confused.

Comment author: myron_tho comment score below threshold [+] (15 children)

Comment author: chaosmosis 28 October 2012 11:49:53PM * 1 point [-]

Prove it.

Well, I can't do so all by myself. You'll need to do some introspection to help me out. I don't feel like you're considering my arguments fairly, you've been combative and demanding and hostile throughout this conversation. This means I might stop wasting my time on you soon.

This speaks more to the limitations of your ability to think outside your box than it does to problems with my, or anyone else's, thinking. You're so married to the Computer Metaphor that the possibility of thought and experience outside of it is simply inconceivable; of course this leaves you wide-open to charges of pseudo-science.

What do you think we could use to make arguments, if not logic?

A big part of my argument is that we are limited. I don't have the ability to use things other than logic to make decisions, my decisions never seem to work out when I don't. If you do, then you are a superhero and you should definitely use your powers to the fullest extent.

If it is intrinsic to our mode of existence then it does have a foundation, so which is it?

It has a foundation. It doesn't justify itself in terms of an undeniable logical proof but in terms of a process that cannot be escaped and which is intrinsic to every aspect of human behavior.

I still find it hilarious (and not in a good way) that you're so insistent on treating your particular notion of values as justification for what is "best"; as if there is no such thing as a historical contingency or accident that might just call that into question on a deep level.

"Best" is a brute fact about what my values say. If your values are different, I can't argue with you.

On a side note, I'm pretty convinced that you're an arrogant asshole. You don't seem to be on a quest for truth, you seem to be on a quest to show that you are smarter than me. You came into this conversation claiming that you wanted to teach LessWrongers about the value of epistemic tolerance, but you've mocked me and my arguments throughout this entire discussion. I think you're more about proving to yourself how smart you are than actually figuring out the way the world works and how you should live your life. Fuck off.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 October 2012 12:50:51AM 1 point [-]

On a side note, I'm pretty convinced that you're an arrogant asshole. You don't seem to be on a quest for truth, you seem to be on a quest to show that you are smarter than me. You came into this conversation claiming that you wanted to teach LessWrongers about the value of epistemic tolerance, but you've mocked me and my arguments throughout this entire discussion. I think you're more about proving to yourself how smart you are than actually figuring out the way the world works and how you should live your life. Fuck off.

You said this on lesswrong and got away with it without sanction (as of the time of the post). That says a lot. Specifically it says you are probably right and blatantly so! I haven't read the preceding discussion but if I do so and find that I don't agree with your assessment then I will be shocked and confused.

Comment author: chaosmosis 29 October 2012 01:28:05AM * 1 point [-]

I was:

Testing the limits of LessWrong's tolerance. I was curious under what circumstances I could get away with language.
Trying to alter the motivational state of the commenter by pointing out that they were being rude and hypocritical. I think the root of the problem is that there's no real incentive for the commenter to change their beliefs, because they didn't seem to be thinking through what I was saying. I also wanted it to be memorable, so that they might think back to this at a later point in time when they're more amenable to the kind of arguments I've been making.

Comment author: chaosmosis 29 October 2012 01:40:40AM * 0 points [-]

Also: I think there are times when LessWrong does need greater epistemic tolerance and that the commenter was making it harder for those times to happen. I was trying to signal that I support pragmatism now, so that I would be more likely to be trusted while arguing for epistemic tolerance in other situations.

Comment author: TimS 29 October 2012 01:59:07AM 0 points [-]

I think I don't understand your point here.

Why should this language deserve sanction? It asserts that the counter-party to the debate isn't interested in discussion leading to improved thinking - a grave insult in this community. But simply making the accusation doesn't deserve punishment. Falsely making the accusation deserves substantial rebuke, but given the systematic high variance in the value of true and false accusations, why should we care about the average value of these types of accusations.

Alternatively, I am entirely missing your intended point.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 October 2012 05:17:28AM 2 points [-]

Alternatively, I am entirely missing your intended point.

The intended point was the literal one.

If someone can be told they are and asshole and to fuck off and that is accepted then they probably really are behaving like asshole.

Comment author: chaosmosis 29 October 2012 05:49:34AM 0 points [-]

Or they are not a member of the in-group. Both are probably relevant, in this instance.

Imagine if I did that to Yudkowsky.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 October 2012 06:48:11AM * 1 point [-]

Or they are not a member of the in-group. Both are probably relevant, in this instance.

Imagine if I did that to Yudkowsky.

When Eliezer behaves poorly criticizm of said behavior tends to be well received. People pay a lot of attention to Eliezer when he makes his rationality posts but also care a lot more when he does things they don't like. Because what it says and does (in this context) matters a lot more.

If in doubt either that direct criticism of Yudkowsky can be well received or that said comments can be upvoted dramatically grab Wei_Dai's user comments script, grab mine, and sort by vote. Last time I checked a couple of the top ten are actually examples of just that.

Sure, I have never called Yudkowsky an asshole (because he isn't one) and even when I have criticized him I criticized a specific behavior rather than alleging an innate trait. I also have never told him to "fuck off", although I have given him (sincere) advice to delegate his moderation authority to a SingInst minion who has better social skills and is more equipped to translate his goals into achieved outcomes.

I reject the claim that Eliezer gets anti-criticism privileges.

Comment author: chaosmosis 29 October 2012 05:22:33PM * 0 points [-]

My comment was tongue in cheek, just a joke. I'm not planning to curse out Eliezer anytime soon. It was enjoyable from my perspective to imagine a stream of hundreds of downvotes flooding my comment and making this profile unusable.

I don't think that Eliezer is immune to criticism. I do think he gets extra respect and politeness. The reasons for this are tied very closely to his past history of good content, but I bet that being a de facto leader of this site is also somewhat helpful. In quantitative terms I'm not sure whether or not he receives more or less criticism-per-content than other people, but suspect that he's receiving more, because of his status as leader. In qualitative terms though, leaders generally are treated with more respect, and I don't think that he's an anomaly in that respect. I think the kind of criticism that he receives is probably generally nicer and better thought out, although he probably also receives more criticisms per content.

Despite that, he also seems more likely to draw the ire of ignorant and especially rude people. He might be receiving more respectful criticism but also more disrespectful criticism, and receiving less criticism with only moderate levels of respect. This is my current belief, now that I've thought about it a bit.

I also believe that he's probably criticized less often by in-group members than other in-group members are. I think that the amount of content he produces makes this tricky to evaluate, though, and this is the conclusion that I'm least certain about.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 October 2012 06:32:25PM * 2 points [-]

My comment was tongue in cheek, just a joke. I'm not planning to curse out Eliezer anytime soon. It was enjoyable from my perspective to imagine a stream of hundreds of downvotes flooding my comment and making this profile unusable.

Of course, you said "imagine that ". And so my reply is that your imagination produced flawed counterfactual predictions of the response and so conveys an incorrect picture of the actual world prior to the counterfactual modification.

I also believe that he's probably criticized less often by in-group members than other in-group members are.

That would be something I might predict based on general understanding of how social groups work prior to exposure to the actual data stream of less wrong comments. However my actual observations tell me otherwise and so I would happily bet against you were such a thing to be measured. Eliezer is criticized more often than the median in-group member (for most reasonable interpretations of 'criticism' and 'in group member').

I intend no particular presumption by this so more by way of information: I am one of the most active participants here and suspect I pay a more than typical amount of attention to what is being criticizer by who, how such criticism is received and how the interplay of social dynamics and status (seems to) influence which criticisms can be (or are) given when and to whom. Mere criticism volume is a comparatively simple thing to keep an account of. This gives me enough confidence in how often Eliezer is criticized that I would consider the opportunity to bet at even odds that he is criticized more often than the median in-group member. In fact I would even be willing to strengthen my claim to refer to "criticism relative to contribution volume".

Comment author: Vaniver 29 October 2012 03:03:36AM * 1 point [-]

Falsely making the accusation deserves substantial rebuke

Exactly. wedrifid's claim appears to be that chaosmosis saying that without being downvoted heavily means that other members of the community have not yet rebuked him, which is evidence that he does not deserve rebuke.

(I don't think the evidence is that strong because the comments are recent and it's a Sunday night, but the evidence will strengthen with the passing of time.)

Another function of wedrifid noting that explicitly is to remind people to downvote if they see something that should be rebuked- if the community is failing to downvote bad material, that is cause for shock and confusion.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 October 2012 06:04:23AM 1 point [-]

Exactly. wedrifid's claim appears to be that chaosmosis saying that without being downvoted heavily means that other members of the community have not yet rebuked him, which is evidence that he does not deserve rebuke.

Certainly.

Another function of wedrifid noting that explicitly is to remind people to downvote if they see something that should be rebuked- if the community is failing to downvote bad material, that is cause for shock and confusion.

I suppose that connotation does come across but I wouldn't necessarily want to say that in this context. I would estimate that I am more inclined than average to support the use of such a response. I wouldn't outright encourage the specific language but it certainly wouldn't bother me and I would either leave it neutral or possible upvote.

Comment author: myron_tho comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

chaosmosis comments on Philosophy: A Diseased Discipline - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (425)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (425)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login