Viliam_Bur comments on Open Thread, May 16-31, 2012 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 16 May 2012 07:36AM

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

Comments (121)

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

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 18 May 2012 03:36:21PM *  0 points [-]

For me the message of "Simple Truth" was that the intelligence should not be used to defeat itself. To be right, even if you can't define it to philosopher's satisfaction, is better than to be wrong, even if you can find some smart words to support that. The truth business is not about words (that's signalling business), but when you are right, nature rewards you, and when you are wrong, nature punishes you. (Although among humans, speaking truth can cause you a lot of trouble.) At the same time it explains the origins of our ability to understand truth -- we have this ability because having it was an evolutionary advantage.

Or maybe I just like that the annoying wise-ass guy dies in the end.

This is not about religious people, who disagree about what is actually true, as you said. This is about people who try to do "philosophy" by inventing more complex ways to sound stupid... errr... profound, and perhaps they even sometimes succeed to convince themselves. People who say things like "there is no truth", because for anything you say they can generate a long sequence of words that you just don't have time to analyze and debunk (and even if you did, they would just use a fraction of that time to generate a new sequence of words). If you didn't meet such people, consider yourself lucky, but I know people who can role-play Mark and thus ruin any chance of a rational discussion, and for a non-x-rational listener it often seems like their arguments are rather important and deep, and should be addressed seriously.

Anyway, the "Simple Truth" is kinda long, which I enjoyed, but other people may hate; so it is probably no harm in removing it, as long as "Making Beliefs Pay Rent" and "Something to Protect" stays in the list.

Comment author: TimS 18 May 2012 03:54:17PM 2 points [-]

the intelligence should not be used to defeat itself

I agree with this feeling, but "Do the impossible" or one of the nearby posts raises this point more explicitly and more effectively.

The problem with "Simple Truth" is that - beyond the message I highlighted - the text is too open ended. Mirror-like, the story contains whatever philosophical positions the reader wishes to see in it.

I know people who can role-play Mark

There are two possible kinds of people who can do this. (1) People with useful but complicated theories that you happen not to understand, and (2) stupid people - who might be poorly parroting a useful theory. Please don't let the (negative) halo effect of the second type infect your view of the first type of people.

Generally, your objection pattern matches with the argument that law is too complicated. Respectfully, I disagree.