shminux 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.

Comments (159)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Abd 02 November 2012 10:23:32PM *  -2 points [-]

You may be interested in difference, I'm more interested in agreement. I gave a link to the Wikipedia article on the Mu'tazila, not because I'm an "adherent" of the school, but simply to connect myself with Muslim tradition. I would expect, however, that a rationalist will find ample agreement with any other rationalist, as long as they have some substantial shared experience.

Thanks for the link on Aumann agreement. From the article, I find this hilarious.

Aumann's agreement theorem says that two people acting rationally (in a certain precise sense) and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree. More specifically, if two people are genuine Bayesian rationalists with common priors, and if they each have common knowledge of their individual posteriors, then their posteriors must be equal.

I know that's not what is meant, but the obvious pun is beautiful. If I know my own ass (presumably from a hole in the ground), I will know the ass of others who likewise know their own ass.

However, I do think that we can agree to disagree. Not necessarily rationally, that's all, as to rational completeness. Sometimes we make choices that the work involved in tracking down the necessary conflicting assumptions or reasoning is not worth the expected gain.

The assumption of Aumann's theorem is an empowering one, because it leads to expectation of agreement, making it far easier to find -- and build or create -- than with a contrary expectation.

Comment author: shminux 02 November 2012 10:29:14PM *  3 points [-]

You may be interested in difference

No, I am interested in the definition, and you haven't given one. My guess is that a qualifier for rationalism indicates a certain degree of compartmentalization, a refusal to give up some cherished beliefs. So I expect these beliefs to show up in your definition of a Muslim rationalist.

And yeah, the unintentional pun is hilarious, but also instructive: "I know my own ass" tends to be a false statement, as people are notoriously bad at noticing "the log in one's own eye", sorry for the biblical reference.

Comment author: Abd 03 November 2012 03:06:09AM *  0 points [-]

You asked about the difference. "Muslim" was not a "qualifier" of "rationalist." I'm a rationalist who is a Muslim. I could just have easily have written "rationalist Muslim." Your expectation was not unreasonable, but a poor guess.

I was using "ass" to refer to knowledge of self, including one's one "assholery." It's true that most people don't know it -- or won't admit it.

Comment author: shminux 03 November 2012 07:17:50AM 4 points [-]

I'm a rationalist who is a Muslim.

I'm just having trouble reconciling faith with rationality, so I hoped you'd explain how you do it.