Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Peterdjones comments on The Useful Idea of Truth - Less Wrong

73 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 October 2012 06:16PM

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

Comments (508)

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

Comment author: Peterdjones 03 October 2012 12:06:05PM *  3 points [-]

One of those models is "there is this thingy from which experiences come from, let's call it reality"

Or, to give it is full title, "there is this thingy from which experiences come from, let's call it reality, and it is in the territory and not part of the map"

it predicts our future sensory experiences so well. So much so, it is easy to forget that this is but a model.

Who's forgetting what? Our meta-model of model-making is that you can make as many models as you like of something, and the original doens't vanish. Making a model of the territory doens't turn it into a map.

If you forget it, then you start asking questions like "are all possible worlds real?" and other modal realism silliness. I

Well, you've thrown out the single world as well. All the babies went out with the bathwater.

This dissolves (for me)[..]other dangling notions like "objective truth".

I'll say. Once you have asumed that the territory is just another map, it becomes impossible to explain why anyone would care about getting into alignment with it.

t reality is a good model, it explains repeatable experiences

"I have a model which says my exeriences will repeat, therefore they will repeat". Hmmmm.

Comment author: DaFranker 03 October 2012 04:43:02PM *  2 points [-]

You're making some good points. Unfortunately, shminux is often just that easy to pattern-match with "naive postmodernist" stereotypes, which doesn't help for charitable interpretation.

In my experience, his points are usually more coherent than this (or, in most cases, more coherent than an average interpretation of his posts' contents would suggest).

The charitable interpretation is that shminux always implies in his points something similar to Eliezer's notions that you can't just step outside of your own perceptions to see the territory directly, but do have some mechanisms already in place that receive "new" information from somewhere which you have no control over, which is what (AFAICT) shminux calls "reality".

Basically, AFAICT, shminux draws the boundaries for the term/concept "reality" in a slightly different area/manner, one that allows him to remove the node "external territory" entirely without sacrificing practical points like "believing I can fly doesn't prevent me from going splat if I jump off a building". The utility of this difference is apparently obvious to him, and debated by others.

Comment author: thomblake 03 October 2012 05:27:22PM 2 points [-]

The charitable interpretation is that shminux always implies in his points something similar to Eliezer's notions that you can't just step outside of your own perceptions to see the territory directly, but do have some mechanisms already in place that receive "new" information from somewhere which you have no control over, which is what (AFAICT) shminux calls "reality".

That's a little too charitable though, since that's effectively the view shminux is arguing against.

Comment author: DaFranker 03 October 2012 05:37:45PM 0 points [-]

That's a good point, if your assessment of what shminux argues against is better than mine. It probably is, since I can't yet make useful predictions on this.