Abd comments on Uncritical Supercriticality - Less Wrong

47 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 December 2007 04:40PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (159)
Tags: psychology religion

Comments (159)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: chaosmosis 02 November 2012 03:35:29AM -1 points [-]

Rixie's point was operating within the hypothetical of "If God is real, and he actually said the thing about killing people". Rixie defended that point with an appeal to authority. I pointed out that appealing to God's authority only works if we believe what God said. That somewhat invalidated Rixie's initial point. If Rixie now wants to argue that God would never order us to do something wrong, or something else like that, then Rixie needs to not only point out that the claim isn't necessarily founded on an appeal to authority but also needs to add an additional argument which the claim could be legitimately founded on. I initially didn't catch on that Rixie was abandoning the hypothetical because Rixie never took that second step.

I don't understand your middle paragraph. What context is this in, where is the "other gods" quote from?

I can't understand your last paragraph very well until I understand the relevancy of the middle one. I objected to capitalizing words like Reality because that sort of capitalization only occurs when you think of something like a proper noun, and thinking of things like proper nouns when the things aren't proper nouns often adds a level of mysticism to the concept of those things which is detrimental to rationality.

Comment author: Abd 02 November 2012 04:09:52AM *  -2 points [-]

Okay. First, I don't really care who said what when, my goal is something like consensus or shared vision, and how we get there, and who stumbled and how, isn't so important to me.

"other gods" was from Rixie:

And anyway, if he created humans, he planted our sense of morality too. I think the lesson here is: Don't go chasing after other gods or you will get killed.

This is proposed as a message to you. (You could choose to take it impersonally, as having nothing to do with you, but Rixie did use "you." That might be accidental, but I like to start with what people actually wrote or said. Kind of the point I've been making here, in fact.)

So someone says to you, chaosmosis, "don't go chasing after other gods, or you will get killed." The principle of exegesis that I was taught was to assume that statements are correct. In fact, every statement can be true or false, but assuming that statements from others are true is the most powerful place to start. Assuming that the truth is literal and fixed would be irrational; this is just about communication process. When people start with skepticism and rejection, they can only come to understand statements when they are lucky enough to find serious proof. That's actually rare, the approach is highly inefficient.

So what would "other gods" mean for you? I proposed a meaning. What do you think of it?

"Other god" implies "God." What would your God be if the words meant something? Rather than anticipate an answer, I'll stop.

As to capitalization, I use it with proper nouns. You assume that words are proper nouns or not. That depends on context. What you think of as "mysticism" could be a level of meaning that perhaps you don't recognize, and you assume it is detrimental to rationality. Is that a fact? How would you know? What, indeed, is "mysticism"?

Comment author: chaosmosis 02 November 2012 05:53:11PM *  -1 points [-]

The principle of exegesis that I was taught was to assume that statements are correct. In fact, every statement can be true or false, but assuming that statements from others are true is the most powerful place to start. Assuming that the truth is literal and fixed would be irrational; this is just about communication process. When people start with skepticism and rejection, they can only come to understand statements when they are lucky enough to find serious proof. That's actually rare, the approach is highly inefficient.

You contend that starting by believing what others say to be true is true is the fastest way to truth. I disagree. I think we should take others opinions as evidence, but that we should evaluate truth on a probabilistic level. There are no defaults, and we shouldn't unfairly privilege any hypotheses. I think the truths you arrive at through that method aren't true if they can't be arrived at through the other method. People say many false and nonfalsifiable things. People assert things that they have no way of knowing or that make no sense at all. There is no reason I should believe people in these cases.

You conflate different instances of claims by people, essentially, viewing them all as equal. I make distinctions, and say that people's opinions are good approximators of the truth in some cases but bad in other cases. This seems faster because it ensures that I don't get stuck whenever I hear someone make a nonfalsifiable claim. There is an invisible and untouchable dragon behind you who will eat you and send you to hell if you believe nonfalsifiable claims. If you truly followed the system where you believe everything anyone tells you until you get contrary evidence, you would now have a terrible paradox on your hands.

How do you make the jump from this communications based model of evidence to a model which incorporates evidence? It seems like there's a huge disconnect there, if the default mode is acceptance of others ideas then there would never be any reason to make the jump towards evidence.

So what would "other gods" mean for you? I proposed a meaning. What do you think of it?

"Other god" implies "God." What would your God be if the words meant something? Rather than anticipate an answer, I'll stop.

I don't think I have any god, so I don't know what "other gods" might mean for me. I'll speak metaphorically then. I would say that to the extent that I have a god, it's a nonomniscient and nonomnipotent god that I find sort of pathetic most of the time, and his name is chaosmosis. Chasing other gods would be impossible for me because everywhere I go there I am. However, I can change as an individual, and I can pursue "other gods" by changing myself.

Thinking like this is relaxing and entertaining but not useful. I don't mistake this for truth. It might be true, but the process that brought me there was a lazy and invalid one, and in other cases it would fail. It would be right for the wrong reasons.

As to capitalization, I use it with proper nouns. You assume that words are proper nouns or not. That depends on context. What you think of as "mysticism" could be a level of meaning that perhaps you don't recognize, and you assume it is detrimental to rationality. Is that a fact? How would you know? What, indeed, is "mysticism"?

I think that proper nouns should only be used where they are used traditionally.

Mysticism is an emotion of awe and humility and grandeur. Emotions are not evidence. I'm human, so the temptation is for me to treat emotions as evidence. This is detrimental to rationality. Therefore, I try to avoid my encounters with seductive emotions like mysticism, or to accept those encounters but also to make sure that I'm justifying my decisions on a logical basis and not an emotional one.

Mysticism is meaningful, but in a subjective and emotional sense. In a logical sense, it fights against meaning and truth.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit