= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Open thread, Feb. 9 - Feb. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (321)
I do not propose my comment as a definition, I propose it as a finger pointing in the general direction of where you want to look.
Note that the original question ("What is a population measure of sanity?") critically depends on the definition of "sanity" which is not at all obvious to start with.
I know; that's why I said "I worry that this will end up being a circular definition [...]" rather than "I worry that this is".
I took the original question to be partly asking for a definition of "sanity".
Specifically, the sanity of a social group which is a bit different from the sanity of an individual.
One obvious approach is to measure it by the matching of the map and the territory, but that will make "sanity" very highly correlated with scientific and technological progress which probably not what we want.