gjm comments on Why CFAR's Mission? - Less Wrong

38 Post author: AnnaSalamon 02 January 2016 11:23PM

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

Comments (55)

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

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 January 2016 11:13:05AM 0 points [-]

but this does not change the fundamental fact that being rational involves evaluating claims like "is 1+1=2?" or empirical facts about the world such as "is there evidence for the existence of ghosts?" based on reason alone.

On of the claims is analytic. 1+1=2 is true by definition of what 2 means. There's little emotion involved.

When it comes to an issue such as is there evidence for the existence of ghosts? neither rationality after Eliezer's sequences nor CFAR argues that emotions play no role. Noticing when you feel the emotion of confusion because your map doesn't really fit is important.

Beauty of mathematical theories is a guiding stone for mathematicians.

Basically any task that doesn't need emotions or intuitions is better done by computers than by humans. To the extend that human's outcompete computers there's intuition involved.

Comment author: ZoltanBerrigomo 11 January 2016 03:34:17AM 1 point [-]

1+1=2 is true by definition of what 2 means

Russell and Whitehead would beg to differ.

Comment author: gjm 11 January 2016 09:24:16AM 1 point [-]

"True by definition" is not at all the same as "trivial" or "easy". In PM the fact that 1+1=2 does in fact follow from R&W's definition of the terms involved.