Wei_Dai comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong

157 Post author: Yvain 27 August 2012 03:36AM

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

Comments (1742)

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

Comment author: Wei_Dai 23 September 2012 09:35:20AM *  4 points [-]

There are lots of words that I don't know how to taboo, because I only have a partial and largely intuitive understanding of the concepts I'm referring to by them, and can't fully explain those concepts. Examples: "exist", "truth", "correct", "right", "moral", "rational", "should", "mathematical". I don't think anyone has asked me directly to taboo any of these words, but if someone did, I might ignore the request because I think my time could be better spent trying to communicate with others who seem to already share my understandings of these words.

In the case of "exist", I think that something exists implies that I can care about it and not be irrational. ("care about": for example, have a term for it in my utility function) This seems to at least capture a large part of what I mean when I say something exists, but I'm not sure if "exists" just means (something like) the correct decision theory allows a utility function to have a term for something, or if existence is somehow more fundamental than that and our ability to rationally care about something derives from its existence in that more fundamental sense. Does this make sense?

ETA: See also this relevant post.

Comment author: shminux 23 September 2012 06:03:12PM *  0 points [-]

There are lots of words that I don't know how to taboo, because I only have a partial and largely intuitive understanding of the concepts I'm referring to by them, and can't fully explain those concepts. Examples: "exist", "truth", "correct"

Well, apparently TheOtherDave is bold enough to give a meaningful definition of "exist". Would you agree with it? If not, what would be a counterexample?

Comment author: Wei_Dai 23 September 2012 07:35:29PM 2 points [-]

I disagree with it because an agent (such as one using UDT) does not necessarily have memory and the associated concepts of "future experiences" and "past experiences", but "exist" still seems meaningful even for such an agent.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 24 September 2012 12:18:18AM 0 points [-]

Would you say that when I say "X exists," and an agent A without memory says "X exists," that I and A are likely expressing the same belief about X?

Comment author: shminux 23 September 2012 07:50:38PM *  0 points [-]

I confess that I cannot make sense of this without learning more about UDT and your definition of agency. I thought this definition is more basic and independent of the decision theory models one adopts.