= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GabrielDuquette comments on Rationality Quotes November 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (898)
What percentage of your philosophy? If your philosophy is completely unsettled daily, you're probably insane.
Each morning I go through all my beliefs and randomly flip their truth values, guaranteeing maximal surprise
joking aside, this is a fun and somewhat useful exercise in deduction.
That's certainly true. I think the point isn't that you should be constantly changing everything you believe, but that you should actively seek out new knowledge—especially knowledge that has a high probability of shifting the way you think (in a positive direction, of course).
Sure. I'm saying I'd prefer a wording that points out the diminishing returns of philosophical unsettlement, and the unavoidability thereof.
You're right, but the quote still makes sense. Humans are built so that they either live in ignorance or in perpetual wonder as they discover and rediscover that their intuitions don't accurately model reality. You might consider this as proof that humans are insane, and I'm inclined to agree, but the quote is still true and has a useful message.
An unspoken criterion for LW rationality quotes -- AFAICT -- is most truth in least space. This quote could have more truth in the same space. Even with just a "somewhat" before the "unsettled."
I'm trying to figure out what "somewhat" adds. Seems to me it takes something away. It makes a powerful statement into a wimpy one. Sure, if you take "unsettled" to mean something like "check yourself into a psychiatric unit," and take "daily" literally, obviously there would be a problem.
But "unsettled" means just that. Unsettled. Not fixed. In question.
How much in question? What's the ideal level of "unsettled"? And, "Who is asking?" is the question I've been taught to ask. If I ask the question, I'm uncomfortable with "unsettled" and want to be assured that it will only be a little, so that I can continue with "my" philosophy without any significant transformation.
Pretty standard survival thinking.
The rest of the statement makes it clear. It implies a value to "all the universe has to offer." When? Every day.
What philosophy? Part of it? No, the whole thing. Look, I should be so lucky that the whole complex constructed mess disappears. Doesn't happen that way. If it did, the chance of a day with no established philosophy at all would be amazing. Where do I sign up?
(No, if this was an amnesia drug that simply wiped it, I'd refuse. Rather, "unsettled" is just right, up to the point where it isn't attached at all, it's just sitting there, floating, not controlling, visible, available and useful if needed, seen for what it is, a pile of memories and patterns.)
For a philosophy to be worth paying attention to, it has to constrain expectations. It has to make accurate observations about the universe works. Therefore a philosophy that is the least unsettled by a daily examination of experience is preferable.
EDIT: More succinctly...
Indeed. One should have an open mind but a very judicious customs agent at the gate.
See here and here for why you should prefer the stronger version of the injunction, even if it seems paradoxical.
Shush, I'm obligated to defend Neil deGrasse Tyson. This is the internet.
The quote's lack of precision doesn't bother me because most powerful quotes lack precision. Also, adding somewhat means that the quote will be longer.
Yes, but the additional accuracy afforded by the extra word more than excuses its intrusion.
What degree of imprecision would bother you?
I'm not sure. I would need to see a bunch of examples on a sliding scale of precision. This isn't feasible because I'm willing to accept less precision in exchange for more impact, which means that different quotes would receive distorted results.
I want this to exist in real life for all communication.
With extra points for communication which is precisely more than one different thing?
I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?
I periodically issue verbal messages that intentionally can reasonably be interpreted as having multiple different meanings. In those cases, I intentionally intend to communicate the multiple different meanings in one communication.
Different from a vague message which is intentionally vague, in that there are two or more different concepts encoded in the same message, not an concept which is intentionally vague.