SoullessAutomaton comments on With whom shall I diavlog? - Less Wrong

9 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 June 2009 03:20AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (148)

Comments (148)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 03 June 2009 10:40:30PM * 1 point [-]

The Chinese Room argument seems to me so deeply misguided and silly that I doubt an interesting dialog on it is possible, any more than a fruitful discussion of religion with a well-educated theist.

I know little of his work other than the aforementioned argument, but it doesn't really paint a flattering picture of his ability to engage in clear thinking.

Comment author: Annoyance 03 June 2009 10:56:04PM 0 points [-]

But he has lots of fans.

Admittedly, the fact that they're fans of his strongly suggests that they're lacking in the ability to engage in clear thinking. That probably has something to do with why they never seem to grasp the arguments demonstrating the problems with the 'Chinese Room'.

Searle has problems grasping that systems can be analyzed in terms of their constituent parts, and that various parts can be put together to create a system - thus, his criticism that the Chinese Room can't be said to understand because no part of the room understands it.

Aside from being an object lesson in cognitive failure, I don't see what any discussion with him could accomplish.

Comment author: Liron 04 June 2009 03:59:25AM 0 points [-]

IDWYC but agree that Searle's emergence seems like a pointer to confusion and reveals a really basic failure to understand reductionism.

Comment author: Annoyance comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: Alicorn 04 June 2009 04:40:32PM 1 point [-]

You do plan to elaborate on your bright/intelligent distinction eventually, right? Until then, this is just you being unclear.

Comment author: Annoyance 04 June 2009 04:45:42PM -1 points [-]

Yes, I do.

I don't think my point is really that unclear though. Consider: Rube Goldberg-like 'solutions' to problems require cleverness, but are so inefficient and overly complex that only a very foolish person would think that their design and construction would be a good idea. Seriously making such a design requires lots of raw brainpower and a lack of effective judgment.

Comment author: Alicorn 04 June 2009 04:51:06PM 0 points [-]

I think the idea behind Rube Goldberg devices is to have fun, not to use them regularly to actually solve problems. Only in movies does anyone have a residence or business rigged up Rube Goldberg Style.

Comment author: Annoyance comment score below threshold [+] (3 children)

Comment author: thomblake 05 June 2009 06:33:22PM 1 point [-]

Searle's actually pretty brilliant and he's mostly on the right side on this one. When you cast the debate as between Searle and Dennett, Dennett is obviously right. But in a broader context, Searle and Dennett are on the same side.

But I agree that there's no reason to talk about the Chinese Room. Either you're convinced by Dennett, or there's no use talking further about it.

Comment author: Annoyance comment score below threshold [+] (10 children)

Comment author: thomblake 05 June 2009 06:45:08PM * 2 points [-]

So you're arguing, then, that there's no point in trying to be "less wrong"? Either you're absolutely correct or you're "deeply misguided and silly" and can't "engage in clear thinking"?

Your attitude doesn't seem conducive to creating harmony amongst mostly like-minded people. Do you have many professional acquaintances?

ETA: that's harsh - I disagreed with your comment and upvoted it, and within moments of being posted it was at -1. What's with people around here?

Comment author: Annoyance 05 June 2009 07:10:43PM * -2 points [-]

So you're arguing, then, that there's no point in trying to be "less wrong"?

Not at all. If you have many arguments, it is useful to reduce the number of them that are invalid and increase the number that are valid.

An argument itself, though, can be only valid or invalid. If some section of it is incompatible with the rules of logic, it's in violation of those rules and cannot be valid.

Either you're absolutely correct or you're "deeply misguided and silly" and can't "engage in clear thinking"?

Again, not at all. A valid argument isn't necessarily true, for one thing. For another, merely not violating the rules doesn't imply correctness - if you never construct an argument it can't violate logic, but you'll never reach a true conclusion that way. People often refuse to investigate theses when they don't want to have to acknowledge an unpleasant truth that they suspect lurks at the end of a chain of reasoning. That is an error of integrity, not (directly) one of logic.

Your attitude doesn't seem conducive to creating harmony amongst mostly like-minded people.

Setting harmony as an goal is destructive and misleading. Seek the truth, and to ensure that everyone applies the appropriate standards of evaluation, and harmony will arise as a natural consequence. Try to create harmony directly and you become trapped in falsity and error.

There can be no 'harmony' between theists and anti-theists, for example. The two positions are incompatible. Logic and the available evidence support one and not the other. This community should not seek to create harmony of that sort; by insisting on rigorous standards of reason, the community requires that theists must either abandon their position or leave their association with the group.

(Or, of course, keep their beliefs secret and imply by silence that they're not theists. It is difficult to identify such a strategy. LW does not have inquisitors...)

Comment author: Cyan 05 June 2009 07:18:53PM 0 points [-]

Not at all. If you have many arguments, it is useful to reduce the number of them that are invalid and increase the number that are valid.

Why did you assume that "he's mostly on the right side on this one" meant that he has one "almost correct" argument, rather than meaning that most of his arguments are sound?

Comment author: Annoyance 05 June 2009 07:29:47PM 1 point [-]

Because I know that most of his arguments are not sound, and I tend to assume that the people I'm speaking with are familiar with basic realities of the topic. So that interpretation is ruled out.

Comment author: Cyan 05 June 2009 07:35:18PM * 1 point [-]

Why did you assume that thomblake would know (i) that Searle's arguments are mostly not sound, but not (ii) that an argument either meets the standards of correctness, or it doesn't? Certainly both (i) and (ii) count as basic realities for you.

Comment author: Annoyance 05 June 2009 07:46:29PM * 1 point [-]

Because 1) thomblake is usually pretty sharp, 2) I know he's very interested in philosophy generally, and 3) Searle is well-known and has been taken down more often than I care to remember.

That addresses (i).

As for (ii), people almost always ignore that point, and frequently try to gloss over or deny it in arguments. It's warm and fuzzy to "look for the good" in positions and it's a common strategy to wear down resistance in opponents by 'acknowledging their claims to be partly valid' even when they aren't.

His studies have taught thomblake well, but he is not a rationalist yet.

Comment author: Cyan 05 June 2009 07:56:01PM * 0 points [-]

And yet, thomblake's reply makes it clear that you would have been more correct to assume that thomblake would know (ii) but not (i). Interesting. ETA: Or not.

continue this thread »

Comment author: thomblake 05 June 2009 08:27:01PM 0 points [-]

Cyan,

I pretty much agree with Annoyance's response. I've argued about Searle with him before, which I think is evidence for (i), and I've disputed the relevance of (ii).

And it is true, I'm an irrationalist.

Comment author: Cyan 05 June 2009 08:35:52PM 0 points [-]

Huh. Once again I am schooled in the typical mind fallacy.

Comment author: Liron 04 June 2009 03:53:15AM 0 points [-]

It doesn't really paint a flattering picture of his ability to engage in clear thinking.

He can probably do better than a team of Adam Frank and Jaron Lanier.

Comment deleted 04 June 2009 03:09:44PM [-]

Comment author: Liron 05 June 2009 03:29:46AM 0 points [-]

It's saying he thinks clearly enough for an EY bloggingheads conversation partner.

SoullessAutomaton comments on With whom shall I diavlog? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (148)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (148)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login