= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Open Thread, May 11 - May 17, 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 (247)
[Edited formatting] Strongly agree. http://lesswrong.com/lw/huk/emotional_basilisks/ is an experiment I ran which demonstrates the issue. Eliezer was unable to -consider- the hypothetical; it "had" to be fought.
The reason being, the hypothetical implies a contradiction in rationality as Eliezer defines it; if rationalism requires atheism, and atheism doesn't "win" as well as religion, then the "rationality is winning" definition Eliezer uses breaks; suddenly rationality, via winning, can require irrational behavior. Less Wrong has a -massive- blind spot where rationality is concerned; for a web site which spends a significant amount of time discussing how to update "correctness" algorithms, actually posing challenges to "correctness" algorithms is one of the quickest ways to shut somebody's brain down and put them in a reactionary mode.
I 've notice that problem, but I think it is a bit dramatic to call it rationality breaking. I think it's more of a problem of calling two things, the winning thing amd the truth seeking thing, by one name.
Do you really think there's a strong firewall in the minds of most of this community between the two concepts?
More, do you think the word "rationality", in view of the fact that the word that happens to refer to two concepts which are in occasional opposition, makes for a mentally healthy part of one's identity?
Eliezer's sequences certainly don't treat the two ideas as distinct. Indeed, if they did, we'd be calling "the winning thing" by its proper name, pragmatism.
Which values am I supposed to answere that by? Obviously it would be bad by e rationality, but it keeps going because i rationality brings benefits to people who can create a united front against the Enemy,
That presumes an enemy. If deliberate, the most likely candidate for the enemy in this case, to my eyes, would be the epistemological rationalists themselves.
I was thinking of the fundies