= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on What false beliefs have you held and why were you wrong? - 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 (364)
Before coming to LW I intuitively believed in the map/territory distinction (physical realism, if you will). After going through the countless arguments of the type "Is <something> real?" (where <something> can be qualia, consciousness, wavefunction, God or what have you.) I gradually came to the conclusion that the term "real" is both misleading and counterproductive. If a sentence (excepting mathematical statements) cannot be rephrased by replacing "real" or "true" with "accurate", then it is meaningless.
Up next: stop believing in using parentheses so much.
Physical realism is not the same concept as the map/territory distinction. Korzybski who coined "The map isn't the territory" distinction wanted to get rid of discussing "Is X Y?"
Maybe scientific realism? Not sure. In any case, I prefer the original "the map is not the thing mapped" vs "the map is not the territory" as just as potent but free of ontological baggage.
It's a little less catchy. Being catchy is why it's survived in it's original form.