chaosmosis comments on Stuff That Makes Stuff Happen - Less Wrong

51 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 October 2012 10:49AM

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

Comments (127)

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

Comment author: chaosmosis 17 October 2012 03:11:14PM 6 points [-]

The origins of the word aren't very relevant to its current meaning; almost no one on this site would have known those origins before now and so those origins don't have much influence on the way we think about the word now. The standard understanding of koans that dominates pretty much everywhere is in line with what Doriana quotes.

Using the word koan is inaccurate. I think Yudkowsky is either trying to do it to associate feelings of mystic power with rationality, or to attack feelings of mystic power by setting up expectations and then destroying those; I don't have any idea which. But it somewhat annoys me. It's not a huge deal, but it's annoying.

I'm all for repurposing words, but only if there's a decent justification to do so and I don't see one here.

Comment author: wedrifid 17 October 2012 03:28:45PM 7 points [-]

Using the word koan is inaccurate. I think Yudkowsky is either trying to do it to associate feelings of mystic power with rationality, or to attack feelings of mystic power by setting up expectations and then destroying those; I don't have any idea which. But it somewhat annoys me. It's not a huge deal, but it's annoying.

The first of those two hypotheses but yes, it's annoying and jarring. I had kind of hoped Eliezer got the mystic zen martial arts nonsense out of his system years ago and could start talking plain sense now.

Comment author: chaosmosis 17 October 2012 05:56:39PM 2 points [-]

I don't always dislike it. "I must become stronger" benefited from the approach. I dislike this specific instance because it's jarring and doesn't fit with the context and it's a misuse of the word "koan".

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 18 October 2012 09:38:17AM 2 points [-]

I like the mystic Zen martial arts nonsense. Looks like it's the time for a poll.

Eliezer's mystic Zen martial arts nonsense is...

Submitting...

Comment author: Emile 18 October 2012 05:16:04PM 5 points [-]

I voted "Don't care", whereas in reality it's more that I like the things like the cult koans and Tsuyoku Naritai, but find the current use of "Koan" so-so (I like the questions, the term "koan" is a bit jarring, but I can get used to it)

Comment author: drethelin 18 October 2012 12:29:17PM 4 points [-]

I find it super obnoxious, in exactly the same way I felt when my martial arts teachers talked about using my dantian to focus my chi instead of breathing with my diaphragm or whatever is actually useful.

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 18 October 2012 10:43:30AM 3 points [-]

The problem with regular theory exposition is that we don't have a good theoretical framework for discussing how to put theory to practice, so the difficult to express parts about applying the theory just get omitted. I like the martial arts nonsense so far as it connotes an intention that you are supposed to actually put the subject matter to use and win with it, in addition to just appreciating the theory. Since we don't know how to express general instructions for putting theory to practice very well in plain speech, some evocative mysticism may be the best we can do.

Comment author: roystgnr 19 October 2012 12:11:03AM 2 points [-]

In general the "mystic Zen martial arts nonsense" is a nice antidote to the Straw Vulcan stereotype.

That's no excuse for misusing a word in this specific instance, though.

Comment author: Manfred 17 October 2012 08:01:04PM 3 points [-]

The origins of the word aren't very relevant to its current meaning

If you'll allow me to take this a bit out of context, please think of typical Zen usage as "origins of the word" and usage in this sequence of posts as "its current meaning."

The difference is obvious, of course - you know what the word means, and anything else is wrong. Which is totally fine. I just wanted to point out that if you try to make your conclusions universal or absolute here, you will in fact create more relativism - the solution is to claim the non-universal knowledge of how words should be used if you're the audience.

Comment author: thomblake 17 October 2012 03:25:48PM 2 points [-]

The standard understanding of koans that dominates pretty much everywhere is in line with what Doriana quotes.

I disagree. I would predict that most people have no idea what "koan" means, those that have seriously studied Buddhism are aware of the controversy, and a significant mass of people (especially represented in this demographic) are more familiar with the use of "koan" in programming, as with Ruby koans.

The concern seems to be that those who haven't actually studied varieties of Buddhism but are somehow aware of the word "koan" might be confused - but the word is clearly defined before its first use in this sequence:

(A 'koan' is a puzzle that the reader is meant to attempt to solve before continuing. It's my somewhat awkward attempt to reflect the research which shows that you're much more likely to remember a fact or solution if you try to solve the problem yourself before reading the solution; succeed or fail, the important thing is to have tried first . This also reflects a problem Michael Vassar thinks is occurring, which is that since LW posts often sound obvious in retrospect, it's hard for people to visualize the diff between 'before' and 'after'; and this diff is also useful to have for learning purposes. So please try to say your own answer to the koan - ideally whispering it to yourself, or moving your lips as you pretend to say it, so as to make sure it's fully explicit and available for memory - before continuing; and try to consciously note the difference between your reply and the post's reply, including any extra details present or missing, without trying to minimize or maximize the difference.)

Comment author: chaosmosis 17 October 2012 06:05:55PM *  8 points [-]

When I google "koan", the first result is Wikipedia which says a koan is "a story, dialogue, question, or statement, which is used in Zen practice to provoke the "great-doubt", and test the students progress in Zen practice". Very Zen, that supports my side. The second result is Merriam-Webster's dictionary, which says a koan is "a paradox to be meditated upon that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to abandon ultimate dependence on reason". My side. The third result is for a page titled "101 Zen Koans", which again supports my belief.

Eliezer has a history of associating mysticism with rationality, as well.

My personal concern is that using words wrong is annoying because I don't like people mucking up my conceptual spaces. I can't disassociate koans from mysticism and riddles, which makes it awkward and aesthetically unpleasing for me to approach problems of rationality from a "koan".

That said, it's probably too late to change the format of the problems in this current sequence. But I'd like it to never happen again after this gets done.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 17 October 2012 08:14:11PM 0 points [-]

I suspect it will continue to happen. Invoking the cultural trappings of a certain kind of mysticism while discussing traditionally "rational" topics is, as you note, a popular practice... and not only of Eliezer's.

I recommend treating the word "koan" as used here as a fancy way of saying "exercise".