Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on If epistemic and instrumental rationality strongly conflict - Less Wrong

5 [deleted] 10 May 2012 01:46PM

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

Comments (53)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 May 2012 12:05:27AM 3 points [-]

If you're not talking about shooting yourself in the head, I don't know of any method I, myself, could use to stop believing in pandas.

Comment author: thomblake 11 May 2012 06:43:56PM 1 point [-]

Interesting given that you believe there is evidence that could convince you 2+2=3.

Given that you don't know of such a method, I would guess that you haven't tried very hard to find one.

Comment author: Alicorn 11 May 2012 06:50:38PM 3 points [-]

I don't think this is a fair analogy. We're talking about ceasing to believe in red pandas without the universe helping; the 2+2=3 case had the evidence appearing all by itself.

I think I might be able to stop believing in red pandas in particular if I had to (5% chance?) but probably couldn't generalize it to most other species with which I have comparable familiarity. This is most likely because I have some experience with self-hacking. ("They're too cute to be real. That video looks kind of animatronic, doesn't it, the way they're gamboling around in the snow? I don't think I've ever seen one in real life. I bet some people who believe in jackalopes have just never been exposed to the possibility that there's no such thing. Man, everybody probably thinks it's just super cute that I believe in red pandas, now I'm embarrassed. Also, it just doesn't happen that a lot rides on me believing things unless those things are true. Somebody's going to an awful lot of effort to correct me about red pandas. Isn't that a dumb name? Wouldn't a real animal that's not even much like a panda be called something else?")

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 May 2012 04:09:43AM 4 points [-]

Alicorn is correct; and similarly, there is of course a way I could stop believing in pandas, in worlds where pandas never had existed and I discovered the fact. I don't know of anything I can actually do, in real life, over the next few weeks, to stop believing in pandas in this world where pandas actually do exist. I would know that was what I was trying to do, for one thing.

Comment author: shminux 12 May 2012 04:12:57AM 1 point [-]

I can actually do, in real life, over the next few weeks, to stop believing in pandas in this world where pandas actually do exist.

Not that hard. Jimmy will gladly help you.

Comment author: APMason 12 May 2012 12:26:40PM 3 points [-]

Okay, so there's no such thing as jackalopes. Now I know.

Comment author: Alicorn 12 May 2012 06:05:43PM 1 point [-]

Hee hee.

Comment author: thomblake 11 May 2012 06:54:36PM *  0 points [-]

I don't think this is a fair analogy.

I wasn't making an analogy exactly. Rather, that example was used to point out that there appears to be some route to believing any proposition that isn't blatant gibberish. And I think Eliezer is the sort of person who could find a way to self-hack in that way if he wanted to; that more or less used to be his 'thing'.

Wouldn't a real animal that's not even much like a panda be called something else?

Exactly - "red pandas" were clearly made up for Avatar: the Last Airbender.

Comment author: Alicorn 11 May 2012 06:57:48PM 2 points [-]

No, in AtLA they're called "fire ferrets".