Rationality Quotes November 2012

6 [deleted] 06 November 2012 10:38PM

Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules:

  • Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately.  (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments.  If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
  • Do not quote yourself
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Comments (898)

Sort By: Controversial
Comment author: James_Miller 02 November 2012 04:54:53AM 0 points [-]

What I'd like is for everybody to be far more skeptical of those who use math to intimidate.

Sean Davis discussing political polling.

Comment author: David_Gerard 02 November 2012 12:05:45PM 4 points [-]

Specifically, as part of the recent conservative criticism of Nate Silver.

Comment author: Nominull 02 November 2012 03:35:17PM 19 points [-]

I'd like everyone to be far more skeptical of those who are instinctively skeptical of math.

Comment author: James_Miller 02 November 2012 05:48:20PM -1 points [-]

Yes, and one of the best ways to do this is to reduce the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.

Comment author: Nominull 03 November 2012 06:49:08AM 3 points [-]

It seems like calling into salience the notion of "those who use math to intimidate" would tend to increase the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.

Comment author: James_Miller 03 November 2012 08:26:32PM 1 point [-]

If we increase the social penalty on people who use math to intimidate we will decrease the number of people who use math to intimidate and so on net might reduce the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.

Comment author: Nominull 04 November 2012 07:09:41AM 9 points [-]

Changing the underlying reality seems like a rather roundabout and unreliable method of changing people's perceptions.

Comment author: James_Miller 04 November 2012 05:00:21PM 5 points [-]

In LessWrong terms, this is about the most horrible thing you can say about a society. It reads like an introductory quote to some hyper-Machiavellian book on advertising or political campaigning. Up-voted!

Comment author: Larks 09 November 2012 12:19:07PM 2 points [-]

If this wasn't on LW (and on the rationality quotes thread!) it would deserve to go on the rationality quotes thread.

Comment author: David_Gerard 02 November 2012 06:17:01PM *  6 points [-]

Davis' statement was not a generalised admonition concerning reasoning, but a statement made with the bottom line written (he was justifying ignoring Nate Silver). It's not entirely accurate to characterise it in general terms.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 November 2012 10:22:45PM 1 point [-]

I suggest we put this debate on hold, until say November, 6. ;)

Comment author: arundelo 03 November 2012 02:50:38PM 0 points [-]

And knock it off the with "buts", as in, "Thank you for clarifying, but it's not good enough..." You can say that without the "but": "Thank you for clarifying. That's very helpful. Now that I have basis to discuss your plans, I want to let you know how much I hate that..." It's not a "but" statement -- it doesn't sit in contradiction of the "thank you" -- it's an "and" statement: "Thank you for fixing problem #1 and problems #2 through #46 still exist."

The only place that "but" of contradiction makes rhetorical sense is in the latent, imaginary argument in one's head as to whether one is justified in being angry with or hating LJ [LiveJournal]. "Your clarification is a righteous behavior but insufficient to compensate, in my assessment of how much you suck, for all the other crap you've done." Or more concisely, "Yeah, but LJ still sucks for the following reason", as if the matter of debate isn't whether what LJ has done sucks, but whether LJ itself (or its staff) suck. The "but" betrays that you're really, in your heart, arguing the case of Why LJ Sucks, not What LJ Is Screwing Up This Time.

-- Siderea

(Hat-tip to Nancy Lebovitz.)

Comment author: Document 06 November 2012 10:13:37PM 2 points [-]

Train self to perceive the word "but" as an alarm bell. When tempted to use it in an argument, immediately abort sentence and reflect on whether to swap the clauses before and after it, or even save the latter for a more appropriate time. (I imagine a lot of people here already do that.)

Comment author: Aurora 07 November 2012 01:20:33AM 1 point [-]

I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it. -George Carlin

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 10 November 2012 02:27:44AM 1 point [-]

You could replace "Pope" with "President" in that quote, and it's still true.

Comment author: Oligopsony 10 November 2012 02:51:18AM 10 points [-]

"I have the same height as the Empire State Building, I just don't tower as many feet from the ground."

Comment author: simplicio 10 November 2012 09:02:26PM *  4 points [-]

Interpreting Carlin charitably, he is talking about moral or rational authority, not about authority in the sense of power over others.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 November 2012 04:26:24PM *  0 points [-]

There is no objective "world around us." There are only attempts to represent that world, whose attributes and flaws vary. I am a writer. I believe in being "on the ground." I believe in "seeing things." But part of "seeing things" is that if you actually are seeing as much as possible, you understand the limitations of your eyes.

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Comment author: lukeprog 04 November 2012 01:25:48AM -2 points [-]

We run the risk of going extinct, and the irony is, we did it to ourselves. The ‘smarty pants’ brain that created advanced weapons, complex global economics [and more] is routinely bossed around by the brain that shoots from the hip, makes often terrible decisions, and reacts more to fear and greed than to reason....

No one in their right mind would deliberately create the means of their own extinction, but that’s what we seem to be doing. The only conclusion is that we’re not in our right minds...

K.C. Cole

Comment author: Nominull 04 November 2012 07:13:03AM 5 points [-]

If you're consistently in your right mind you can safely create the means of your own extinction, with the knowledge that you are sufficiently sane not to use it to extinguish yourself. This can come in handy when the means of your own extinction has significant non-extinction related uses.

Comment author: chaosmosis 02 November 2012 02:11:38AM 1 point [-]

We do not belong to those who only get their thoughts from books, or at the prompting of books, it is our custom to think in the open air, walking, leaping, climbing, or dancing on lonesome mountains by preference, or close to the sea, where even the paths become thoughtful. Our first question concerning the value of a book, a man, or a piece of music is: Can it walk? or still better: Can it dance?

Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Comment author: aausch 14 November 2012 10:44:16PM 0 points [-]

Bokonon: One day the enhanced humans of the future will dig through their code, until they come to the core of their own minds. And there they will find a mass of what appears to be the most poorly written mess of spaghetti code ever devised, its flaws patched over by a massive series of hacks.

Koheleth: And then they will attempt to rewrite that code, destroying the last of their humanity in the process.

The Dialogues Between Bokonon and Koheleth

Comment author: TimS 15 November 2012 01:46:53AM *  2 points [-]

We shouldn't edit humanity to remove depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and other mental illness?

No thanks - instead, let's avoiding totally pointless wasting of human capability.

Comment author: mwengler 16 November 2012 04:27:13PM *  4 points [-]

I think the questions relevant to the quote would be should we avoid editing out crying at cute kitten videos, sitting with your grandmother while she tells you the same story for the 21st time, wearing a "kiss me I'm Polish" pin on st. patrick's day, laughing at three stooges movies, and swooning when a nice boy writes you doggerel or gives you an "Oh Henry" candy bar.

In rewriting the part of the code that evolution put in, all sorts of idiosyncratic behavior will be written out. The fact that the root idio means self, personal, private will not make it any easier to replace the evolved code with rationalized, readable, maintainable code without losing all sorts of behaviors whos purpose is nearly unknowable when looking at the existing code.

Since anxiety, depression, and especially schizophrenia are features of humanity which exist to a negative degree only in some of us, it will probably be possible to fix these by writing patches that operate on the relevant minds that have these features, and will not reqiure touching the evoluion-written code.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 15 November 2012 11:42:45AM 7 points [-]

You shouldn't carelessly think you are necessarily wise enough to edit humanity without destroying it in the process. Things like "depression" "anxiety" "schizophrenia" are probably not neatly packed away in tidy little boxes you can remove from your brain without any side-effects at all.

This has been somewhat discussed at Devil's offers

Comment author: TimS 15 November 2012 02:48:42PM 1 point [-]

I'm not saying that disentangling what we want to preserve will be easy. But the quote speaks in absolutes - fixing the code that causes schizophrenia or Capgras syndrone is prohibited because that would destroy our humanity.

It's conflating the problem of Hidden Complexity of Wishes with Justification-for-being-hit-on-the-head-every-day.

Comment author: mwengler 17 November 2012 01:41:59PM 0 points [-]

The quote neither speaks in absolutes nor does it prohibit anything.

Quotes must be compact and pithy to be quotable. If a quote refers to "advanced humans of the future," it is quite reasonable to expect they are talking about healthy, typical humans, and not referring to the repair of defects that only occur in some humans.

The quote expresses a wistful sense of loss at a choice to clean out the evelved code that makes up our kernel. It doesn't prohibit anything.

Comment author: Nornagest 15 November 2012 01:57:51AM *  3 points [-]

If we're using "humanity" to mean human values, this quote seems simply false (presuming that value stability is a solved problem by then).

If we're using the word to mean the architecture of baseline humans, it seems somewhere between false and irrelevant depending on what features of that architecture we care about.

If we're using it to mean some kind of metaphysical quality of human nature, it seems entirely unverifiable.

Comment author: mwengler 16 November 2012 04:31:47PM 0 points [-]

Even if you think the essence of the quote is wrong, that "we" would be better off if all the poets and street performers were making good livings in the white economy, don't you think the quote is valuable for pointing up an important question that many of us working on coding intelligence may need to answer some day?

Comment author: Nornagest 16 November 2012 07:54:03PM 2 points [-]

that "we" would be better off if all the poets and street performers were making good livings in the white economy,

Wait, what? I was talking about self-modification, not social normativity. It might be a point about the latter in context, but it isn't out of context; I was responding to the words you presented, not the ones in the source.

And my objection isn't that it raises the wrong question, but that it closes that question with a wrong answer.

Comment author: alex_zag_al 16 November 2012 05:24:48PM 0 points [-]

What's the quote have to do with whether we want to be street performers? Do you think that self-modifying humans would try to make themselves want to work in offices instead of street performance, or something?

Comment author: aausch 03 December 2012 07:45:34AM 1 point [-]

I found the quote amusing specifically because of this ambiguity (modulus your first point - the question of values seems tangential to me).

I found the mix of optimism (ie. the assumptions that no extinction type events will occur, and that there will be a continuous descendant type relationship between generations far into our future, etc...) and pessimism (ie, the assumption that, on a large enough time scale, most architectural components traceable to now-humans will become obsolete) poignant.

Comment author: MugaSofer 16 November 2012 11:33:53PM 0 points [-]

Why would you judge your morality by the quality of it's coding?

Comment author: The_Duck 12 November 2012 04:43:23AM *  0 points [-]

"Tell me," the great twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once asked a friend, "why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the sun went around the Earth rather than that the Earth was rotating?"

His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going around the Earth."

Wittgenstein responded, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"

-related by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion

Comment author: gwern 12 November 2012 04:50:07AM 3 points [-]

Versions of this quote have been posted twice before; the best version of the quote includes the friend's reply to Wittgenstein: http://lesswrong.com/lw/94r/rationality_quotes_january_2012/5kib

Comment author: Username 07 November 2012 02:12:18AM *  0 points [-]

"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"

"The real value of an education has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:

"This is water."

--- David Foster Wallace in his commencement speech to Kenyon College, This is Water. I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

Comment author: chaosmosis 09 November 2012 06:50:30PM 1 point [-]

I read this quote as saying that we don't get educations in order to do things, but rather to have an awareness of things. I personally don't do that, with most things. I think this quote smacks of ivory-towerism.

Comment author: Vaniver 07 November 2012 03:38:11AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: Username 07 November 2012 03:39:37AM 0 points [-]

My mistake, I searched but didn't see it.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 November 2012 06:18:34PM *  3 points [-]

Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Rationality challenge: Understand why I posted it here.

Bonsu Rationality Challenge: Reinvent the meaning of "God" I used to ironman the position. Start by ironmaning it yourself.

Comment author: Grif 14 November 2012 06:23:18PM 4 points [-]

It's an example of how even absurd amounts of research can fail to move a religious thought. I think too many people will fail to get the joke and the potential for abuse is too high.

Comment author: yli 18 November 2012 05:28:51PM 4 points [-]

For decision-theoric reasons, the dark lords of the matrix give superhumanly good advice about social organization to religious people in ways that look from inside the simulation like supernatural revelations; non-religious people don't have access to these revelations so when they try to do social organization it ends in disaster.

Obviously.

Comment author: MugaSofer 18 November 2012 08:50:28PM 2 points [-]

Seems legit.

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 November 2012 07:51:32PM *  -2 points [-]

A key of Marxist thought is the rejection of the idea of God. The Marxist morality that drove the Russian revolutionaries was different than Christian morality.

I don't the an inherent problem with blaming the Russian revolution on that change in morality. It's a bit like putting the blame that the crusades happened on Christianity.

Comment author: Peterdjones 14 November 2012 07:55:08PM *  -2 points [-]

Did the (nominal) Christians who did violent and terrible things forget God too?

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 November 2012 07:58:12PM 1 point [-]

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn doesn't speak about "why people do violent things?" in the quote but about why the Russian revolution happened.

Comment author: TimS 15 November 2012 05:17:04PM 3 points [-]

Meta-level point: It is possible to steel-man someone's position into an argument that they would not actually endorse. I think that might be what you are doing here.

Rationality challenge: Understand why I posted it here.

I'm trying to be more whimsical in my posting on LW, but I'm not sure that "rationality," "optimization," or any other special virtue in this community is advanced by this provocative post or its religious-language framing.

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 04:03:26AM *  3 points [-]

On the bottom line(http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/thebottomline/)/[politics as a mindkiller:

This is a practical country. We have ideals; we have philosophies. But the problem with any ideology is, it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. [Stewart: Right.] So you have to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have. It doesn't work that way.

Source: Bill Clinton, in an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (episode date: September 20, 2012). The quoted material appears at about the 6:50 mark.

Comment author: Kyre 07 November 2012 04:42:29AM 2 points [-]

Men go crazy in congregations; they only get better one by one

Sting

Comment author: lukeprog 05 November 2012 06:59:00AM 3 points [-]

There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken

Comment author: Epiphany 05 November 2012 07:14:09AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: [deleted] 18 November 2012 03:35:07PM *  2 points [-]

I think analogies are really only useful for explaining the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar. This kind of bizzare analogy, explaining the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar, is only useful for amusement purposes.

-- George Weinberg commenting on Mencius Moldbug, “The magic of symmetric sovereignty”

(Not that I think that's a valid general principle, but I do feel that way about many of the thought experiments I see proposed on LW.)

Comment author: Plubbingworth 14 November 2012 10:40:05PM *  1 point [-]

King Kai: It’s…. It’s over.
Yamcha: What?
King Kai: Goku could not escape the explosion. Namek is gone, and so is he.
Yamcha: No. Goku no. NOOOOOOOOO! [Cries]
Tien: Why do you care?
Yamcha: Ah, wha?
Tien: Why do any of you care? Are you forgetting the whole reason they went to Namek in the first place? Now we have two sets of Dragon Balls.
Yamcha: Well…. yeah but you make it sound like death has no consequence.
Tien: It really doesn’t. We’re literally waiting to go back. Hell, this is Chiaotzu’s second time.
Chiaotzu: Next time I get a free sundae!
Yamcha: Huh.
King Kai: Huh.
Tien: Yeah.

DBZ Abridged on the lack of consequence concerning death in the series. Tien's supposed to be the only serious character in the series. That's the joke.

Edit: Perhaps I should explain this quote... I simply thought that Yamcha served as a good representation of most people's reactions... and Tien as a representation of "Um. It's no biggie." The rest of this series finale went off without a hitch as all characters realized "Wait. There are almost no consequences here. There may never be? What's the use in grieving!"

Comment author: Kyre 07 November 2012 04:51:30AM 3 points [-]

As soon as an Analytical Engine exists, it will necessarily guide the future course of the science.

Charles Babbage

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 07 November 2012 05:30:24AM *  -2 points [-]

As soon as an Analytical Engine exists, it will necessarily guide the future course of the science.

I suppose we don't know if this is true, since it doesn't yet exist. BTW, what has this to do with rationality?

Comment author: JoachimSchipper 07 November 2012 07:23:34AM 4 points [-]

Computers have revolutionized most fields of science. I take it as a general "yay science/engineer/computers" quote.

Comment author: RobertPearson 07 November 2012 01:36:52AM *  2 points [-]

“Must a name mean something?" Alice asked doubtfully.

Of course it must," Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh; "my name means the shape I am - and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.”

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Comment author: MTGandP 02 November 2012 02:10:00AM 2 points [-]

My view is that if your philosophy is not unsettled daily then you are blind to all the universe has to offer.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 04:02:33AM 11 points [-]

I used to agree, but that part of my philosophy recently became unsettled.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 November 2012 09:48:31PM 4 points [-]

The Last Psychiatrist bats another one out of the park:

So start with an interesting hypothetical: does everybody need to work anymore? I understand work from an ethical/character perspective, this is not here my point. Since we no longer need e.g. manufacturing jobs-- cheaper elsewhere or with robots-- since those labor costs have evaporated, could that surplus go towards paying people simply to stay out of trouble? [...] Let me be explicit: my question is not should we do this, my question is that since this is precisely what's happening already, is it sustainable? What is the cost? I don't have to run the numbers, someone already has: it's $150/mo for a college grads, i.e. the price of food stamps. Other correct responses would be $700/mo for "some high school" (SSI) or $1500/mo for "previous work experience" (unemployment). I would have accepted $2000/mo for "minorities" (jail) for partial credit.

Comment author: arborealhominid 19 November 2012 01:57:30AM *  3 points [-]

In fact, we come to associate having to expend effort and do things with our work, and associate relaxing and not doing anything with leisure time. So, because many of us don't like our jobs, we tend to associate having to do things with being unhappy, while happiness, as far as we ever know it, means... not doing anything. We never act for ourselves, because we spend our whole days acting for other people, and we think that acting and working hard always leads to unhappiness; our idea of happiness is not having to act, being on permanent vacation.

And this is ultimately why so many of us are so unhappy: because happiness is not doing nothing, happiness is acting creatively, doing things, working hard on things you care about. Happiness is becoming an excellent long-distance runner, falling in love, cooking an original recipe for people you care about, building a bookshelf, writing a song. There is no happiness to be found in merely lying on a couch—happiness is something that we must pursue. We are not unhappy because we have to do things, we are unhappy because all the things we do are things we don't care about. And because our jobs exhaust us and mislead us about what we want, they are the source of much of our unhappiness.

CrimethInc (Not exactly a bastion of rationality, but they do have some good stuff now and again.)

Comment author: [deleted] 14 November 2012 06:17:59PM 3 points [-]

Two, you can use this corpus to conduct a very interesting exercise: you can triangulate. This is an essential skill in defensive historiography. If you like UR, you like defensive historiography.

Historiographic triangulation is the art of taking two or more opposing positions from the past, and using hindsight to decide who was right and who was wrong. The simplest way to play the game is to imagine that the opponents in the debate were reanimated in 2008, informed of present conditions, and reunited for a friendly panel discussion. I'm afraid often the only conceivable result is that one side simply surrenders to the other.

--Mencius Moldbug on an experiment that has interesting results

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 November 2012 10:33:01PM *  7 points [-]

He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars: General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.

William Blake

Comment author: [deleted] 18 November 2012 03:29:58PM 2 points [-]

What do I mean by “generally correct but overly simple”? Imagine a physicist who says, if he drops a sheet of paper and a bag of bricks from the top of a high tower, they'll both hit the ground at the same time. When the local villagers tell him he must be mad, he scoffs, and declares they must not understand gravity, for which (as Galileo proved) the rate of an object's downward acceleration is independent of its mass. When the villagers continue to doubt him, he writes angry pamphlets expressing his disappointment that everyone is too foolish to accept perfectly simple principles of physics.

However, in this case the physicist is wrong and the populace is correct. Sheets of paper really do fall more slowly than bags of brick, and an experiment would have confirmed that fact. Although the physicist was correct in saying that Galileo proved gravity operated independent of mass, he didn't realize that this general principle wasn't enough to determine at what times the paper and bricks would hit the ground. The villagers, who knew less about gravity but were willing to trust their experience, ended up doing better, even though they might not have been able to explain the principles at work. If the physicist had understood air resistance as well as gravity, he would have been able to match the villagers' success and even exceed them, but until he admitted that the problem wasn't as simple as taking his favorite physics equation and applying it to the exclusion of all else, he would never have an incentive to study it.

-- Yvain, “Why I Hate Your Freedom

Comment author: katydee 03 November 2012 06:14:04AM *  6 points [-]

The question I pose to you is simple. Who is to be the master, you or the bits of talented meat that secrete hormones for you? Your glands are the product of aeons of evolution, and they are not to be scorned, but neither are they to be obeyed blindly.

--Prime Function Aki Zeta-Five, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Comment author: Kawoomba 03 November 2012 06:35:40AM 2 points [-]

Removing all those glands and hormones (assuming they are pars pro toto for our evolved urges), what would be left? A frontal lobe staring at the wall?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 November 2012 10:32:07PM *  4 points [-]

The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.

William Blake

Comment author: [deleted] 04 November 2012 08:39:46AM 7 points [-]

A heckler in the crowd shouted out, "My mind is not made like that, I can't be bothered with philosophy."

"Why do you bother to live," Diogenes retorted, "if you can't be bothered to live properly?"

Teachings of Diogenes

Comment author: Kyre 07 November 2012 04:41:54AM 8 points [-]

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

Charles Mackay from "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

Comment author: roland 13 November 2012 05:53:35PM *  3 points [-]

From moment to moment, different modules or systems compete for attention and the winner serves as the neural system underlying that moment of conscious experience.

--Michael Gazzaniga

Regarding brain architecture.

Comment author: Scottbert 07 November 2012 07:37:19PM *  9 points [-]

Girl 1: Because distance is infinitely divisible, if you assign number pairs to each letter of the alphabet, you can specify any string of letters just by pointing to a very specific place on this centimeter and getting its decimal output. In fact, that sentence I just said is at a particular point on the centimeter, as was this one, and whatever you or I say in the future. The centimeter has read every book there will ever be and knows every scientific fact that can be. It knows the future of our friendship. It knows how we'll die. It knows how the universe ends and how it began.

Girl 2: What's the point of doing anything then?

Girl 1: Well, the centimeter also "knows" a bunch of crazy stuff.

Centimeter callouts: "2+2=3" "Up is down, rotated 90 degrees" "Ponies aren't awesome"

Girl 2: So I know infinity less than the centimeter, but have infinity better discretion.

Girl 1: Yeah, that's basically your life. You know relatively no information, but you're relatively great at using it.

Girl 2: I bet if I tell Bobby about this, he'll like me.

Girl 1: Well, you're okay at using it.

--Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

Comment author: aausch 09 November 2012 07:18:14PM 0 points [-]

For some reason, I interpreted Girl 1 to be a Boy.

Comment author: gwern 04 November 2012 03:26:33AM 20 points [-]

"The boundary between these 2 classes [the Eloi & Morlocks] is more porous than I've made it sound. I'm always running into regular dudes - construction workers, auto mechanics, taxi drivers, galoots in general - who were largely aliterate until something made it necessary for them to become readers and start actually thinking about things. Perhaps they had to come to grips with alcoholism, perhaps they got sent to jail, or came down with a disease, or suffered a crisis in religious faith, or simply got bored. Such people can get up to speed on particular subjects quite rapidly. Sometimes their lack of a broad education makes them over-apt to go off on intellectual wild goose chases, but, hey, at least a wild goose chase gives you some exercise."

--Neal Stephenson, In the Beginning Was... the Commandline

The last project that I worked on with [Richard Feynman] was in simulated evolution. I had written a program that simulated the evolution of populations of sexually reproducing creatures over hundreds of thousands of generations. The results were surprising in that the fitness of the population made progress in sudden leaps rather than by the expected steady improvement. The fossil record shows some evidence that real biological evolution might also exhibit such "punctuated equilibrium," so Richard and I decided to look more closely at why it happened. He was feeling ill by that time, so I went out and spent the week with him in Pasadena, and we worked out a model of evolution of finite populations based on the Fokker Planck equations. When I got back to Boston I went to the library and discovered a book by Kimura on the subject, and much to my disappointment, all of our "discoveries" were covered in the first few pages. When I called back and told Richard what I had found, he was elated. "Hey, we got it right!" he said. "Not bad for amateurs."

From "Richard Feynman and The Connection Machine"

Comment author: RobinZ 04 November 2012 04:08:11AM 18 points [-]

I would like to upvote the Feynman quote. I am not interested in upvoting the Stephenson quote. I think it would be better if these quotes were in separate comments, as recommended in the post.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 November 2012 06:29:31PM 2 points [-]

I would like to upvote the Stephenson quote, and not the Feynman quote.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 07 November 2012 12:20:40AM 30 points [-]

I would like to abstain from voting on them, but to do so in separate posts.

Comment author: Nominull 02 November 2012 04:08:43PM 24 points [-]

A sound banker, alas, is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him.

-John Maynard Keynes

Comment author: Wrongnesslessness 05 November 2012 09:53:16AM 21 points [-]

The inhabitants of Florence in 1494 or Athens in 404 BCE could be forgiven for concluding that optimism just isn't factually true. For they knew nothing of such things as the reach of explanations or the power of science or even laws of nature as we understand them, let alone the moral and technological progress that was to follow when the Enlightenment got under way. At the moment of defeat, it must have seemed at least plausible to the formerly optimistic Athenians that the Spartans might be right, and to the formerly optimistic Florentines that Savonarola might be. Like every other destruction of optimism, whether in a whole civilization or in a single individual, these must have been unspeakable catastrophes for those who had dared to expect progress. But we should feel more than sympathy for those people. We should take it personally. For if any of those earlier experiments in optimism had succeeded, our species would be exploring the stars by now, and you and I would be immortal.

David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity

Comment author: [deleted] 10 November 2012 05:48:46PM *  -2 points [-]

alone the moral and technological progress that was to follow when the Enlightenment got under way.

What is this "moral progress" you speak of Earth monkey?

Comment author: [deleted] 10 November 2012 06:20:07PM *  0 points [-]

So why is this down voted? If anyone is confused by this challenge to moral progress which they consider perfectly obvious they should read Against Moral Progress and a related text dump, then argue their case there.

If this is about the tone, well we disagree on taste. I think applause lights need to be challenged on their emotional affect as well as their implied argument.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 November 2012 07:52:02PM 1 point [-]

I downvoted because it implies moral progress is meaningless, rather than nonexistant.

Of course, I would probably downvote a bald claim that moral progress doesn't hapen anyway.

Comment author: simplicio 10 November 2012 09:13:09PM *  1 point [-]

One form of moral progress that doesn't look the same as "random walk plus retrospective teleology", is the case where some inconsistency of moral views is resolved.

For example, some dudes say that it's self-evident that all men are created equal. Then somebody notices that this doesn't really jive with the whole slavery thing. So at least some of what gets called moral progress is just people learning to live up to their own stated principles.

Another way of looking at it is that there is little difference between the terminal values of me vs a mediaeval lord, but the lord is very confused about what instrumental values best achieve his terminal values (he wants the best for the peasants, but thinks that that is achieved by the application of strong discipline to prevent idleness, so values severe discipline).

Comment author: sam0345 11 November 2012 11:04:20PM *  3 points [-]

For example, some dudes say that it's self-evident that all men are created equal. Then somebody notices that this doesn't really jive with the whole slavery thing. So at least some of what gets called moral progress is just people learning to live up to their own stated principles.

By this reasoning, abolishing slavery was moral progress, but declaring that all men are equal was moral regress.

If the fallacy is slavery, then moral progress. What if the fallacy is that all men are created equal?

By your measure, hypocritical values dissonance, we morally regressed when some dudes said it was self-evident that all men are created equal, and have indeed been morally regressing ever since, since affirmative action and so forth are accompanied by ever greater levels of hypocrisy and pretense. While the abolition of slavery reduced one form of hypocritical values dissonance, other forms of hypocritical values dissonance have been increasing.

Example: Female emancipation, high accreditation rates for females. Most successful long lived marriages are quietly eighteenth century in private, and most people, whether out of sexism or realism, quietly act as if female credentials are less meaningful than equivalent male credentials. Your criterion is neutral as to whether we do this out of sexism or realism. Either way, by your criterion, it is an equally bad thing, and there is a mighty lot of it going on.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 November 2012 09:25:56AM *  4 points [-]

I would call “moral progress” the process whereby a society's behaviours and their CEV get closer to each other than they used to be. And this looks pretty much like it, to me.

Comment author: sam0345 11 November 2012 10:48:55PM *  1 point [-]

I don't think violence has declined. State violence has increased. Further, since we are imprisoning a lot more people, looks like private violence has increased, supposing, as seems likely, most of them are being reasonably imprisoned.

Genghis Khan and the African slave trade cannot remotely match the crimes of communism.

And if it has declined, Xenophon would interpret this as us becoming pussies and cowards. Was Xenophon more violent and cruel than any similarly respectable modern man? Obviously. But he was nonetheless deservedly respectable. We rightly call the ten thousand brave, not criminal.

Social acceptance of brave, honorable, and manly violence has greatly diminished, and so brave, honorable and manly violence has greatly diminished. But vicious, horrifying, evil and depraved violence, for example petty crime and the various communist mass murders, has enormously increased.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 November 2012 01:51:20PM *  1 point [-]

I have read Pinker's arguments in detail in his book. I don't think Homer would have agreed. I bet this is not approaching Homer's CEV, this is self-domestication of humans. In any case mind sharing how you implemented CEV checking on a mere human brain?

Comment author: [deleted] 11 November 2012 08:53:36PM 1 point [-]

I meant, our behaviour being closer to our CEV than Homer's behaviour was to his CEV, if that makes sense. (Are you thinking of anything in particular about Homer or was it an arbitrary example?)

In any case mind sharing how you implemente CEV checking on a mere human brain?

I wouldn't, but I can roughly guess what the result would be. (Likewise, I couldn't implement Solomonoff induction on any brain, but I still guess general relativity has less complexity than MOND.) If I had no way of guessing whether a given action is more likely to be good or to be bad, how should I ever decide what to do?

Comment author: sam0345 12 November 2012 12:18:44AM *  5 points [-]

I meant, our behaviour being closer to our CEV than Homer's behaviour was to his CEV, if that makes sense.

I don't think that makes sense. Also, I am pretty sure that Xenophon's behavior (massacre and pillage the bad guys and abduct their women) was a lot closer to his moral ideal than our behavior is to Xenophon's moral ideal.

Further, the behavior Xenophon describes others of the ten thousand performing is astonishingly close to his moral ideal, in that astonishing acts of heroism were routine, while the behavior I observe around me exhibits major disconnect from our purported moral ideals, for example the John Derbyshire incident, though, of course, Xenophon was doubtless selective in what incidents he though worthy to record.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 November 2012 10:30:35AM *  3 points [-]

I would call “moral progress” the process whereby a society's behaviours and their CEV get closer to each other than they used to by.

That's actually the best definition of "moral progress" that I've seen. A big step up from "more like the values that I currently wish to signal having", the default definition.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 November 2012 01:57:00PM *  4 points [-]

People on Lesswrong saying their CEV includes X or leads to Y, are not using the term technically but as a poetic way of saying X and Y look about right to me and I'm confident I'm not wrong. Substituting that into the definition makes it much less impressive for human use. And if you check writing on CEV you see the definition is nearly circular for technical use in FAI design.

Comment author: wedrifid 12 November 2012 01:12:52AM 2 points [-]

And if you check writing on CEV you see it is nearly circular for technical use in FAI design.

Just not true. The writing on CEV does a lot to constrain technical thinking about FAI design. It isn't a complete solution, nor is it presented as one but it certainly does rule out a lot (most) proposals for how an FAI should be designed and created. It simply doesn't fit the definition "circular".

(I had previously ignored this comment but upvotes as of now suggest that it may be successful in being actively misleading! As such, rejecting it seems more important.)

Comment author: [deleted] 11 November 2012 11:08:13PM 0 points [-]

I would call “moral progress” the process whereby a society's behaviours and their CEV get closer to each other than they used to be.

Is this a possible use of 'CEV?' So far as I understand CEV, it's not possible that it could change: our CEV is what we would want given all the correct moral arguments and all the information. Assuming that 'all the information' and 'all the correct moral arguments' are constants, how could the CEV of one society differ from that of another?

The only way I can think of is if the two societies are composed of fundamentally different kinds of beings. But the idea of moral progress you describe assumes that this is not the case.

Comment author: DanArmak 18 November 2012 05:37:53PM 0 points [-]

So why is this down voted?

Because he's not a monkey, he's an ape.

Comment author: Abd 12 November 2012 03:33:23PM *  6 points [-]

I suggest the downvoting was due to quibbling about the word "moral" when:

The usage was peripheral, the more active phrase there was "technological progress." But "moral progress" does have a referent, morality is merely as perceived, it's subjective, that's all. Konkvistador, "moral progress" is something made up by Earth monkeys, and only applies to Earth monkeys dealing with Earth monkeys.

It may have no meaning for one who is not an Earth monkey.

The conclusion, the point of the quote, was ignored. That conclusion is, at least, interesting (to this Earth monkey!).

Yes. Even the point of the quote is subjective. "Should" could imply morality, i.e., we "should" take it personally, maybe we are "bad" if we don't.

However, it can be interpreted to mean something objective. I.e., we "should take it personally" means that we have been affected personally.

We have a choice, reading, to derive value and meaning, or to criticize and find fault. We may also see both, i.e., value and error, and both of these depend on the interpretive choices we make. The statement is just a pile of letters, without the meanings Earth monkeys supply to their arrangement.

It is highly likely that every down-voter was an Earth monkey.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 November 2012 06:49:06PM *  4 points [-]

It usually means we now have a greater understanding of what we value.

[edited for clarity.]

Comment author: [deleted] 10 November 2012 06:54:11PM *  0 points [-]

Eh, no we don't.

See how easy it is to simply assert something? Let's now try actual arguments. First read the comments I linked to in the daughter comment, also feel free to provide links and references to material you think I should read. Then once we've closed the inferential gap and after we restate the other's case without straw manning it we can really start talking.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 November 2012 07:03:27PM 4 points [-]

You asked. I answered. Whether it is correct is one thing, but you asked what it meant.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 November 2012 07:08:14PM *  3 points [-]

Ok. In the context of the question I assumed you believed in moral progress. Do you?

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 November 2012 07:22:23PM 2 points [-]

I believe we better understand our utility function and how to implement it than most civilizations have historically.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 13 November 2012 11:57:44AM -1 points [-]

For if any of those earlier experiments in optimism had succeeded, our species would be exploring the stars by now, and you and I would be immortal.

Or, more accurately, you and I would be non-existent and some other group of beings would be quasi-immortal.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 06 November 2012 01:55:51AM *  3 points [-]

For if any of those earlier experiments in optimism had succeeded, our species would be exploring the stars by now, and you and I would be immortal.

And yet they couldn't even defeat the Spartans or keep Savonarola from taking power.

Comment author: gwern 07 November 2012 02:54:08AM 3 points [-]

To be fair, with a general like Napoleon, how could the Spartans lose?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 November 2012 05:23:37AM -1 points [-]

Fixed typo.

Comment author: lukeprog 21 November 2012 11:22:50AM 13 points [-]

Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat. Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there. Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there and shouting "I found it!" Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat using a flashlight.

Anonymous

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 07 November 2012 07:56:04AM *  18 points [-]

"Because they were hypocrites," Finkle-McGraw said, after igniting his calabash and shooting a few tremendous fountains of smoke into the air, "the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves-they took no moral stances and lived by none."

"So they were morally superior to the Victorians-" Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under. "-even though-in fact, because-they had no morals at all." There was a moment of silent, bewildered head-shaking around the copper table.

"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception-he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."

"That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."

"Of course not," Finkle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved-the missteps we make along the way are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power."

— Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 07 November 2012 02:54:14PM *  0 points [-]

Of course it's easy to say one has no morals at all when the morals in question are so much more complicated - they'll seem permissive by your ability to manipulate them in contrived edge cases. This complication, though, is for adaptation to the real world - they have something useful to say about very real cases that Victorian morality completely chokes and dies on.

But that's not really in conflict with the point of the quote, is it?

Comment author: Raemon 04 November 2012 07:21:06PM 18 points [-]

"Oh, sorry, I have this condition where I don't see or hear anything I disagree with."

"I had no idea that being human was a disease."

"A bad one! Everyone who contracts it eventually dies!"

Something Positive

Comment author: arborealhominid 13 November 2012 10:34:25PM *  5 points [-]

Be more than good; be good for something

Henry David Thoreau

Comment author: hairyfigment 03 November 2012 03:06:18AM 5 points [-]

Three years ago...I learned that people to whom I defer, and whose authority over my actions is hardly less than that of my own reason over my thoughts, had disapproved of a hypothesis in the field of physics that had been proposed somewhat earlier by another person. I do not want to say that I had accepted that hypothesis...This occurrence was enough to make me change my resolution to publish the treatise...

(Knowledge of "bodies" in the sense of matter) would not only be desirable in bringing about the invention of an infinity of devices to enable us to enjoy the fruits of agriculture and all the wealth of the earth without labor, but even more so in conserving health, the principal good and the basis of all other goods in this life. For the mind is so dependent upon the humors and the condition of the organs of the body that if it is possible to find some way to make men in general wiser and more clever than they have been so far, I believe that it is in medicine that it should be sought. It is true that medicine at present contains little of such great value; but without intending to belittle it, I am sure that everyone, even among those who follow the profession, will admit that everything we know is almost nothing compared with what remains to be discovered, and that we might rid ourselves of an infinity of maladies of body as well as of mind, and perhaps also of the enfeeblement of old age, if we had sufficient understanding of the causes and of all the remedies which nature has provided.

-Descartes, Discourse on method part 6.

Comment author: Nisan 03 November 2012 06:34:57AM 16 points [-]

And then she said, "Ha ha ha, I figured out how to remove the closing quotation mark! From now on, the whole future is my story!

-Aristosophy. I like to think this is about the Robot's Rebellion.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 07 November 2012 02:46:50PM 15 points [-]

"

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 07:11:52AM 12 points [-]

On confirmation bias

If a man objects to truths that are all too evident, it is no easy task finding arguments that will change his mind. This is proof neither of his own strength nor of his teacher's weakness. When someone caught in an argument hardens to stone, there is just no more reasoning with them.

Epictetus, Discourses I.5.1-2 (page 15 of this edition) (original Greek, with alternate translations at the link)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 15 November 2012 12:42:33PM 7 points [-]

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

John Maynard Keynes

Previously quoted on LW, but not in a quotes thread. I was reminded of it by this exchange.

Comment author: lukeprog 05 November 2012 08:08:07PM 14 points [-]

I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything... but I don't see my way to your conclusion.

Thomas Huxley

Comment author: DSimon 02 November 2012 05:55:00AM *  14 points [-]

Remember, kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.

-- Adam Savage

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 November 2012 12:29:52PM 11 points [-]

If this were true, the ancient Greeks would've had science.

Comment author: MTGandP 02 November 2012 02:11:36AM *  24 points [-]

You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational and believing things that are true. If you want to set yourself apart from other people you have to do things that are arbitrary and believe things that are false.

Paul Graham

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 02:44:03AM 24 points [-]

There is only so much genuine originality in anyone. After that, being uncommon means indulging in pointless eccentricities or clever attempts to mock or shock.

Thomas Sowell

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 November 2012 12:29:25PM 26 points [-]

False.

I mean, grain of truth, yes, literally true, no. You can shock the hell out of people and distinguish yourselves quite well by doing rational things.

Comment author: AlanCrowe 02 November 2012 01:14:14PM 20 points [-]

Paul Krugman says something similar

(ii) Adopt the stance of rebel: There is nothing that plays worse in our culture than seeming to be the stodgy defender of old ideas, no matter how true those ideas may be. Luckily, at this point the orthodoxy of the academic economists is very much a minority position among intellectuals in general; one can seem to be a courageous maverick, boldly challenging the powers that be, by reciting the contents of a standard textbook. It has worked for me!

(Very close to the end of Ricardo's Difficult Idea] )

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 November 2012 01:43:53PM 6 points [-]

Well, it is similar insofar as "reciting the contents of a standard textbook" and "doing rational things" are similar.
Mileage varies.

Comment author: arborealhominid 19 November 2012 01:49:02AM 18 points [-]

If I have a Grand Unified Theory Of Everything, it's this: I believe that people always do things that make sense to them. Hard as it is to believe with all the hurting out there, almost nobody hurts others just to be a jerk. So if you want to change human behavior on a grand scale, you can't tell people "stop being a jerk." You have to dissect and then recreate their models of the world until being a jerk doesn't make sense.

Cliff Pervocracy

Comment author: tgb 19 November 2012 03:10:31AM 7 points [-]

While I think there's some truth to this, it's easy for me to come up with examples of things I've done that never made sense to myself.

Comment author: arborealhominid 19 November 2012 03:42:29AM 0 points [-]

Fair point. I can't really think of anything I've done that didn't make at least some sort of sense at the time, but I can think of at least one thing I've done where I seriously have to strain to see how it ever could have made sense to me (though I remember feeling like it did). Looking back on it, I feel like I was carrying the idiot ball.

Comment author: Alejandro1 07 November 2012 06:20:08AM 27 points [-]

Breaking: To surprise of pundits, numbers continue to be best system for determining which of two things is larger.

--xkcd.

Comment author: NexH 02 November 2012 08:35:11AM 9 points [-]

Quote from Peter Watts' Blindsight.

About the prospects of a fight against a superintelligence:

Still, I could tell that Bates' presence was a comfort, to the Human members of the crew at least. If you have to go up unarmed against an angry T-rex with a four-digit IQ, it can't hurt to have a trained combat specialist at your side.

At the very least, she might be able to fashion a pointy stick from the branch of some convenient tree.

Comment author: katydee 03 November 2012 07:58:57AM *  0 points [-]

I thought this book was really good up until the ending, which was beyond predictable-- yet I had the impression it was meant to be quite the surprise.

Comment author: Unnamed 03 November 2012 09:03:43AM 10 points [-]

Chris Cillizza says that [...] the surge in the quantity of public polling available creates a confusing fog of numbers in which "partisans, who already live in a choose-your-own-political-reality world, can select the numbers that comply with their view of the race and pooh-pooh the data that suggest anything different."

That's true. But if you actually want to know what's happening in the race the increased poll volume makes it clearer not less clear. The sense that the polls are "all over the map" is the mistake. You need to think of each datapoint as having an associated probability distribution and then look at where they overlap. [...] The fact that we now have tons of polling that averages out to [a] conclusion means the scope for "sampling error" to throw us off is, at this point, tiny. One poll showing a lead of the current magnitude would leave us with a ton of uncertainty, but a bunch of polls makes the picture pretty clear.

Comment author: chaosmosis 12 November 2012 03:17:08AM *  11 points [-]

'At my funeral, I don't want people to wear bright colors and smile and laugh fondly at the wonderful memories of the precious time we spent together on Earth. Tell them to wear black and cover their faces with ash. Tell them to weep bitter tears and rail angrily against the cruel God who took me at so young an age. Do this for me, my beloved.'

http://www.theonion.com/articles/loved-ones-recall-local-mans-cowardly-battle-with,772/

I find both the ironic and straightforward meaning of this quote to be meaningful.

Comment author: gwern 10 November 2012 06:53:11PM 11 points [-]

If any man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him … immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it .. For to say that God … hath spoken to him in a dream is no more than to say he dreamed that God spoke to him.

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 13

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 12 November 2012 05:53:54PM 9 points [-]

But if my (not a mathematician) friend says that god spoke to him in a dream, and gave him a proof of the Goldbach conjecture, and he has the proof and it's valid, then I would think something more interesting than a typical dream was going on.

Comment author: Abd 12 November 2012 06:25:11PM 0 points [-]

What I've observed in myself about reports of "God" doing something I'll describe as "insufficient curiosity." I have frequently not asked how the person identified the source as "God."

White beard, what? No, I've assumed, way too easily, that their actual experience doesn't matter.

And this could also be quite interesting if the person is a mathematician. Depends on what is more important to us, solving the unsolved math problem, and perhaps understanding heuristics, or coming up with evidence that something unexpected is going on. Can't explain it? Goddidit. Q.E.D.

Comment author: gwern 12 November 2012 06:05:18PM 3 points [-]

But then the dream is doing zero work: your friend could simply say God told him the proof of the conjecture, and your situation is the same - if the proof checks out then you need to compare base rate for gods delivering math proofs and your friend secretly having a hobby of being a mathematician and succeeding etc to see whether it changes your beliefs.

And delivering a mathematical proof is surely not what >99% of God's previous statements were doing.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 12:57:41AM 11 points [-]

One swallow does not make a summer, but one swallow does prove the existence of swallows.

Anzai & Simon

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 11:38:01AM 18 points [-]

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician are on a train in Scotland. The astronomer looks out of the window, sees a black sheep standing in a field, and remarks, "How odd. Scottish sheep are black." "No, no, no!" says the physicist. "Only some Scottish sheep are black." The mathematician rolls his eyes at his companions' muddled thinking and says, "In Scotland, there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which appears to be black from here."

(This version is from Wikipedia.)

Comment author: RomeoStevens 06 November 2012 11:27:06PM *  60 points [-]

If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion corporation recommends killing them.

--Borderlands 2

Comment author: Multiheaded 13 November 2012 03:06:58PM 1 point [-]

Excellent game BTW. It's better than Diablo 3 at what Diablo 3 is supposed to be (kill-loot-repeat), and it has good and actually funny writing, and passable shooter mechanics.

Comment author: simplicio 10 November 2012 09:04:46PM *  22 points [-]

If you don't think your life is more important than someone else's, sign your organ donor card and kill yourself.

(House, MD deals with moral grandstanding)

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 05 November 2012 11:56:48AM 24 points [-]

After all, the essential point in running a risk is that the returns justify it.

-Sennett Forell, Foundation and Empire

Comment author: NihilCredo 04 November 2012 07:37:34PM 13 points [-]

The great thing about reality is that eventually you hit it.

Source: Andrew Sullivan in an otherwise fairly bland political post

Comment author: shminux 06 November 2012 11:52:40PM 23 points [-]

More often than not it hits you first.

Comment author: BerryPick6 06 November 2012 03:08:10PM *  15 points [-]

Recognizing the startling resurgence in realism, Don Philahue (of The Don Philahue Show) invited a member of Realists Anonymous to bare his soul on television. After a brief introduction documenting the spread of realism, Philahue turned to his guest:

DP: What kinds of realism were you into, Hilary?

H: The whole bag, Don. I was a realist about logical terms, abstract entities, theoretical postulates - you name it.

DP: And causality, what about causality?

H: That too, Don. (Audience gasps.)

DP: I'm going to press you here, Hilary. Did you at any time accept moral realism?

H: (staring at feet): Yes.

DP: What effect did all this realism have on your life?

H: I would spend hours aimlessly wandering the streets, kicking large stones and shouting, "I refute you thus!" It's embarrassing to recall.

DP: There was worse, wasn't there Hilary?

H: I can't deny it, don. (Audience gasps.) Instead of going to work I would sit at home fondling ashtrays and reading voraciously about converging scientific theories. I kept a copy of "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" hidden in the icebox, and when no one was around I would take it our and chant "The Nazis were bad. The Nazis were really bad."

-- A dialogue by Philip Gasper

Comment author: Stabilizer 04 November 2012 07:09:05AM *  17 points [-]

"Look,” [Deutsch] went on, “I can’t stop you from writing an article about a weird English guy who thinks there are parallel universes. But I think that style of thinking is kind of a put-down to the reader. It’s almost like saying, If you’re not weird in these ways, you’ve got no hope as a creative thinker. That’s not true. The weirdness is only superficial."

New Yorker article on David Deutsch

(I saw this on Scott Aaronson's blog)

Comment author: roland 16 November 2012 06:08:58PM 18 points [-]

In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many ways consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.

--Carl Sagan

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 November 2012 02:14:07AM 20 points [-]

As the philosopher David Schmidtz says, if your main goal is to show that your heart is in the right place, then your heart is not in the right place.

Jason Brennan, Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 12:57:17AM 40 points [-]

People say "think outside the box," as if the box wasn't a fucking great idea.

Sean Thomason

Comment author: [deleted] 04 November 2012 08:37:22AM *  41 points [-]

Diogenes was knee deep in a stream washing vegetables. Coming up to him, Plato said, "My good Diogenes, if you knew how to pay court to kings, you wouldn't have to wash vegetables."

"And," replied Diogenes, "If you knew how to wash vegetables, you wouldn't have to pay court to kings."

Teachings of Diogenes

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 November 2012 05:22:04AM 7 points [-]

This works until the king sends armed men to confiscate your vegetables.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 November 2012 09:03:33AM 0 points [-]

What king ever sent armed men to confiscate the vegetables of one poor dude?

Comment author: Tuna-Fish 07 November 2012 09:18:41AM 19 points [-]

Damn near every one of them through the systemical implementation of taxation?

Comment author: [deleted] 07 November 2012 09:23:13AM *  6 points [-]

You can't get blood from a stone. So sometimes it pays to be a stone.

EDIT: Anyway, this is missing the point. Diogenes is preaching self-sufficiency and a variant of keeping your identity small. Sycophancy isn't a reliable way to hold onto one's vegetables and one's dignity.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 08 November 2012 01:03:35AM 1 point [-]

You can't get blood from a stone. So sometimes it pays to be a stone.

But you can destroy the stone, and put something you can get blood from in its place.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 November 2012 05:28:43AM 5 points [-]

"Once, Chuang Tzu was fishing the P’u River when the King of Ch’u sent two of his ministers to announce that he wished to entrust to Chuang Tzu the care of his entire domain.

Chuang Tzu held his fishing pole and, without turning his head, said: 'I have heard that Ch’u possesses a sacred tortoise which has been dead for three thousand years and which the king keeps wrapped up in a box and stored in his ancestral temple. Is this tortoise better off dead and with its bones venerated, or would it be better off alive with its tail dragging in the mud?'

'It would be better off alive and dragging its tail in the mud,' the two ministers replied.

'Then go away!' said Chuang Tzu, 'and I will drag my tail in the mud!'"

Comment author: Alejandro1 03 November 2012 02:54:30AM 22 points [-]

In a man whose reasoning powers are good, fallacious arguments are evidence of bias.

--Bertrand Russell, "Philosophy's Ulterior Motives". (The context is Descartes' philosophy and the obviously fallacious proofs he offers of the existence of God and the external world.)

Comment author: Nominull 03 November 2012 06:50:23AM 2 points [-]

I think men whose reasoning powers are that good are few and far between. (Women too, I'm not trying to be some sort of sexist here.)

Comment author: FiftyTwo 07 November 2012 11:04:03PM 6 points [-]

fallacious arguments are evidence of bias

Or laziness, or lack of time, or honest error. Multiple causes can have the same effect, and hanlons razor comes into play/

Comment author: BlazeOrangeDeer 10 November 2012 10:23:35AM 0 points [-]

"Bias" can include those flaws, especially how the word is used on this site

Comment author: cata 02 November 2012 06:56:18PM *  38 points [-]

In which Winnie-the-Pooh tests a hypothesis about the animal tracks that he is following through the woods:

“Wait a moment,” said Winnie-the-Pooh, holding up his paw.

He sat down and thought, in the most thoughtful way he could think. Then he fitted his paw into one of the Tracks…and then he scratched his nose twice, and stood up.

“Yes,” said Winnie-the Pooh.

“I see now,” said Winnie-the-Pooh.

“I have been Foolish and Deluded,” said he, “and I am a Bear of No Brain at All.”

Comment author: James_Miller 02 November 2012 05:43:50PM 60 points [-]

A Bet is a Tax on Bullshit

Alex Tabarrok

Comment author: cmessinger 27 November 2012 10:31:45PM 6 points [-]

"His mother had often said, When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. She had emphasized the corollary of this axiom even more vehemently: when you desired a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it." - Lois McMaster Bujold, writer (b. 1949)

Comment author: lukeprog 27 November 2012 06:00:09AM 4 points [-]

When I am speaking to people about rationality or AI, and they ask something incomprehensibly bizarre and incoherent, I am often tempted to give the reply that Charles Babbage gave to those who asked him whether a machine that was given bad data would produce the right answers anyway:

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

But instead I say, "Yes, that's an important question..." and then I steel-man their question, or I replace it with a question on an entirely different subject that happens to share some of the words from their original question, and I answer that question instead.

Comment author: RobinZ 27 November 2012 03:33:28PM 1 point [-]

and then I steel-man their question

What does this mean?

Comment author: DaFranker 27 November 2012 03:43:21PM *  5 points [-]
Comment author: SaidAchmiz 24 November 2012 07:55:40AM *  7 points [-]

What does Magritte mean when he says "This is not a pipe"? It sure looks like a pipe. But step back for a moment: what is the definition of the thing you are looking at? The thing you are looking at is not a pipe. The thing you are looking at is a picture. ... You see, if it were actually a pipe, you could stuff tobacco in it, smoke it, etc. But you cannot do anything like that with it. This is not a pipe. It's a picture.

We generally figure this out when we're growing up. You have a Teddy Bear. When you're a child, perhaps you very adorably treat Rupert as if he were "Bear: Subtype Stuffed". But that isn't really true! Rupert is not any kind of a bear at all, and has no actual connection to Ursus. In reality, the amusing childhood mistake is an inversion of the true state of affairs... Rupert is really a "Stuffed Toy: Subtype Bear".

Likewise, Magritte's treacherous pipe is not a "Pipe: Subtype Picture". Rather, it is a "Picture: Subtype Pipe".

Here's another fine example: consider trips to Rome. You can have an expensive trip to Rome, a long trip to Rome, a pious trip to Rome, etc. Some trips to Rome can be several of these at once. There are all sorts of trips to Rome: religious trips, business trips, sightseeing trips, etc. But what about "imaginary" trips to Rome. You don't need a passport for those, do you? That's because an imaginary trip to Rome is not a kind of a trip to Rome! It's a kind of flight of fancy, one about Rome as opposed to being about something else.

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?s=911f001b47b040ac5997321714c0244b&p=7081969&postcount=8

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2012 11:20:51AM 2 points [-]

has no actual connection to Ursus

“It was designed to look like one” does sound like a connection to me.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2012 03:18:50AM 6 points [-]

Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.

-Epicurus

I need help on this: I'm torn between finding this argument to be preposterous, and being unable to deny the premises or call the argument invalid.

Comment author: Jay_Schweikert 30 November 2012 06:15:57PM 2 points [-]

At the very least, even assuming there's no reason to worry about your own death, you would probably still care about the deaths of others -- at least your friends and family. Given a group of people who mutually value having each other in their lives, death should still be a subject of enormous concern. I don't grant the premise that we shouldn't be concerned about death even for ourselves, but I don't think that premise is enough to justify Epicurus's attitude here.

Of course, for most of human history, there genuinely wasn't much of anything that could be done about death, and there's value in recognizing that death doesn't render life meaningless, even if it's a tragedy. But today, when there actually are solutions on the table, this quote sounds more in complacency than acceptance. Upvoted though, because it points to an important cluster of questions that's worth untangling.

Comment author: Alicorn 24 November 2012 03:42:03AM 9 points [-]

You are allowed to have preferences about things that don't coexist with you.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2012 05:27:15AM 1 point [-]

Fair enough, but I think Epicurus' point might be rephrased thus:

I grant that we seem to have very good empirical evidence of the possibility of death. Overwhelming evidence, by most standards. The trouble is, the very idea of death is incoherent. So whatever we call death must be a feature of a faulty map. It's simply impossible for it to be in the territory: in order for someone to be dead, they both have to exist (insofar as they have a property, namely 'being dead') and not exist (because they're dead!). No amount of empirical evidence can support a theory which entails a contradiction.

-not really Epicurus

If that's right, it's not so much a question of being concerned about things you don't coexist with. He's saying that it's irrational to be concerned about things which are impossible and inconceivable.

That's stupid, of course. Of course, people die. But I have a hard time seeing where the argument actually goes wrong. I am regrettably susceptible to philosophical nonsense of every kind.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 24 November 2012 06:57:54PM 1 point [-]

This argument implicitly assumes that we can't meaningfully talk about things not in the present.

Comment author: Nominull 24 November 2012 06:39:43AM 7 points [-]

It's linguistic trickery, like saying prisoners can't escape because if they escape they're not really prisoners now are they?

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2012 03:48:28PM 1 point [-]

That's a good point, but it's not a solution (so much as a repitition) of the problem. How is it possible that prisoners can escape? Or that ships can sink?

I'm not saying I actually doubt that ships can sink, prisoners can escape, and people can die. That would be insane. My problem is that I have a hard time denying the force of the argument.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 24 November 2012 07:34:06AM 2 points [-]

I don't think that's the kind of linguistic trickery it is. It's more like:

The dead person's body exists, but the dead person's mind/consciousness no longer does. If you equivocate by calling both of those things "the person", then they seem to simultaneously be dead and not dead. If you stop equivocating, the problem goes away.

Comment author: Nisan 24 November 2012 05:45:04AM *  3 points [-]

I am regrettably susceptible to philosophical nonsense of every kind.

Try this one:

  1. Premise: Imaginary cheese is cheese that is imaginary.
  2. In particular, imaginary cheese is cheese.
  3. Therefore, some cheese is imaginary.
  4. Premise: Invisible cheese is imaginary.
  5. Therefore, some imaginary cheese is invisible.
  6. By (3) and (5), some cheese is invisible.
  7. Where can I get some of that.

EDIT: Changed some details because they were distracting.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2012 06:38:26AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: SaidAchmiz 24 November 2012 07:36:31AM 0 points [-]

As I said here, imaginary cheese doesn't belong in the Cheese circle. Imaginary cheese is not a kind of cheese.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2012 03:50:25PM 2 points [-]

Yes, I think I also just deny premise 2. Some words work like that: former presidents, for example, are not presidents.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 24 November 2012 07:34:59AM *  3 points [-]

The problem is in #2. Imaginary cheese is not a kind of cheese.

Edit: I'm not entirely sure this is where I saw it first, but this forum post (ironically, on a Catholic forum of some sort, apparently discussing whether certain games such as Magic are evil...) makes the argument excellently.

Edit2: In fact, I daresay an excerpt from said post is good enough to post as a rationality quote on its own, which I will now do.

Comment author: thomblake 30 November 2012 06:52:07PM 1 point [-]

Wonder what the author of that post was banned for.