= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Your proposed synthesis of Mises and Yudkowsky(?) is moderately interesting, although your claims for the power and importance of such a synthesis suggest naivete. You say that "what's going so wrong in society" can be understood given two ingredients, one of which can be obtained by distilling the essence of the Austrian school, the other of which can be found here on LW but you don't say what it is. As usual, the idea that the meaning of life or the solution to the world-problem or even just the explanation of the contemporary world can be found in a simple juxtaposition of ideas will sound naive and unbelievable to anyone with some breadth of life experience (or just a little historical awareness). I give friendly AI an exemption from such a judgement because by definition it's about superhuman AI and the decoding of the human utility function, apocalyptic developments that would be, not just a line drawn in history, but an evolutionary transition; and an evolutionary transition is a change big enough to genuinely transform or replace the "human condition". But just running together a few cool ideas is not a big enough development to do that. The human condition would continue to contain phenomena which are unbearable and yet inevitable, and that in turn guarantees that whatever intellectual and cultural permutations occur, there will always be enough dissatisfaction to cause social dysfunction. Nonetheless, I do urge you to go into more detail regarding what you're talking about and what the two magic insights are.
I have also found claims that one or a few simple ideas can solve huge swaths of the world's problems to be a sign of naivity, but another exception is when there is mass delusion or confusion due to systematic errors. Provided such pervasive and damaging errors do exist, merely clearing up those errors would be a major service to humanity. In this sense, Less Wrong and Misesian epistemology share a goal: to eliminate flawed reasoning. I am not sure why Mises chose to put forth this LW-style message as a positive theory (praxeology), but the content seems to me entirely negative in that it formalizes and systematizes many of the corrections economists (even mainstream ones) must have been tired of making. Perhaps he found that people were more receptive to hearing a "competing theory" than to having their own theories covered in red ink.
In fact, Mises explains exactly why probability is in the mind in his works almost a century ago, and he's not even a mathematician. It is a straightforward application of his Austrian epistemology. I hope that doesn't cause anyone's head to explode.
This intrigues me, could you elaborate?
Sure. He wrote about it a lot. Here is a concise quote:
The concepts of chance and contingency, if properly analyzed, do not refer ultimately to the course of events in the universe. They refer to human knowledge, prevision, and action. They have a praxeological [relating to human knowledge and action], not an ontological connotation.
Also:
Calling an event contingent is not to deny that it is the necessary outcome of the preceding state of affairs. It means that we mortal men do not know whether or not it will happen. The present epistemological situation in the field of quantum mechanics would be correctly described by the statement: We know the various patterns according to which atoms behave and we know the proportion in which each of these patterns becomes actual. This would describe the state of our knowledge as an instance of class probability: We know all about the behavior of the whole class; about the behavior of the individual members of the class we know only that they are members. A statement is probable if our knowledge concerning its content is deficient. We do not know everything which would be required for a definite decision between true and not true. But, on the other hand, we do know something about it; we are in a position to say more than simply non liquet or ignoramus. For this defective knowledge the calculus of probability provides a presentation in symbols of the mathematical terminology. It neither expands nor deepens nor complements our knowledge. It translates it into mathematical language. Its calculations repeat in algebraic formulas what we knew beforehand. They do not lead to results that would tell us anything about the actual singular events. And, of course, they do not add anything to our knowledge concerning the behavior of the whole class, as this knowledge was already perfect--or was considered perfect--at the very outset of our consideration of the matter.
An economics question:
Which economic school of thought most resembles "the standard picture" of cogsci rationality? In other words, which economists understand probability theory, heuristics & biases, reductionism, evolutionary psychology, etc. and properly incorporate it into their work? If these economists aren't of the neo-classical school, how closely does neo-classical economics resemble the standard picture, if at all?
Unnecessary Background Information:
Feel free to not read this. It's just an explanation of why I'm asking these questions.
I'm somewhat at a loss when it comes to economics. When I was younger (maybe 15 or so?) I began reading Austrian economics. The works of Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, etc., served as my first rigorous introduction to economics. I self-identified as an Austrian for several years, up until a few months ago.
For the past year, I have learned a lot about cognsci rationality through LW sequences and related works. I think I have a decent grasp of what cognsci rationality is, why it is correct, and how to conflicts with the method of the Austrian school. (For those who aren't aware, Austrians use an apriori method and claim absolute/infinite certainty, among other things.) The final straw came when I read Bryan Caplan's "Why I am not an Austrian Economist" and his debate with Austrian economist Walter Block. Caplan ably defended BayesCraft. I - with emotional difficulty - consciously updated my belief in Austrianism to below 0.5. I knew I could no longer be an Austrian, nor did I want to be.
Caplan is an neo-classical economist, and neo-classical seems to be the dominant school of modern economic thought. So I'm reading my way through introductory neo-classical economics textbooks. (Specifically, Principles of Macreconomics and Principles of Microeconomics by Mankiw.) I am also looking to take some economics courses when I start university in the fall. My primary major will likely be mathematics, but I am considering double majoring in economics. Maybe get a graduate degree in economics? I don't know yet.
But I'm apprehensive about reading bad economics textbooks because I don't know enough good economics to sort out the bunk. And the reason I want to read economics textbooks in the first place is to learn more good economics. So I'm in a catch 22. I think I'm safe enough reading a standard intro to micro/marco book. But when it comes to finance? Banking? Monetary theory? I haven't a clue who to trust.
So I'm looking to take what I do know (cogsci rationality) and see where it is utilized in economics. If there is a school of economic thought that uses it as their methodology, I think that serves as very strong evidence I can likely trust what they say.
Block and Rothbard do not understand Austrian economics and are incapable of defending it against serious rationalist criticism. Ludwig von Mises is the only rigorous rationalist in the "school". His works make mincemeat of Caplan's arguments decades before Caplan even makes them. But don't take my word for it - go back and reread Mises directly.
You will see that the "rationalist" objections Caplan raises are not new. They are simply born out of a misunderstanding of a complex topic. Rothbard, Block, and most of the other "Austrian" economists that followed merely added another layer of confusion because they weren't careful enough thinkers to understand Mises.
ETA: Speaking of Bayesianism, it was also rejected for centuries as being unscientific, for many of the same reasons that Mises's observations have been. In fact, Mises explains exactly why probability is in the mind in his works almost a century ago, and he's not even a mathematician. It is a straightforward application of his Austrian epistemology. I hope that doesn't cause anyone's head to explode.
How many of you dream in concepts rather than images?
I've noticed this from time to time. It often seems that a dream will have a sense of urgency, or of being a child again, or of anything else, without any details from which this sense could be inferred. But it's not a flat 'all dreams' sort of thing; some dreams will be movie-like, others will be built out of pure feelings-that-something-is-happening.
I've had the same experience. To me this suggests that although not all conscious thoughts are visual, they may all be sensual. That is, of the five senses.
Actually, this is tautological if "conscious thought" means a thought we are completely aware of, unless we can be 'aware' of something other than five-sense experience.
I... Er... What. Where did the whole 'amplitude' thing come from? I mean, it looks a lot like they are vectors in the complex plane, but why are they two dimensional? Why not three? Or one? I just don't get the idea of what amplitude is supposed to describe.
For that matter, amplitude of a wave...but what is waving? Where's the realism?
The question of "dualism" isn't even a real question. Science tells us that a certain wavelength of light will appear to us as green. But what really is the point of knowing that? Well, it gives us a set of instructions for how to make us experience green. But the instructions for how to produce the subjective experience are not themselves the experience. The notion that if we could just figure out how to make people experience green through some manipulation we will have learned something amazing is silly. We can already do that by showing a green flag or telling someone not to think of a green rabbit.
Consider the package deal to include getting your brain rewired so that you would receive pleasure from the end of mankind. Now do you choose the package deal?
I wouldn't. Can you explain to me why I wouldn't, if you believe the only thing I can want is pleasure?
Maybe you're hyperbolically discounting that future pleasure and it's outweighed by the temporary displeasure caused by agreeing to something abhorrent? ;)
Plus we have a hard time conceiving of what it would be like to always be in a state of maximal, beyond-orgasmic pleasure.
When I imagine it I cannot help but let a little bit of revulsion, fear, and emptiness creep into the feeling - which of course would not be actually be there. This invalidates the whole thought experiment to me, because it's clear I'm unable to perform it correctly, and I doubt I'm uncommon in that regard.
There's a difference between disagreeing with something and not knowing what it means, and I do seriously not know what you mean. I'm not sure why you would think it is veiled disagreement, seeing as lukeprog's whole post was making this very same point about incoherence. (But incoherence also only has meaning in the sense of "incoherent to me" or someone else,
"incoherence" means several things. Some of them, such a self-contradiction are as objective as anything. You seem to find morality meaningless in some personal sense. Looking at dictionaries doesn't seem to work for you. Dictionaries tend to define the moral as the good.It is hard to believe that anyone can grow up not hearing the word "good" used a lot, unless they were raised by wolves. So that's why I see complaints of incoherence as being disguised disagreement.
At bottom, I act to get enjoyment and/or avoid pain, that is, to win.
If you say so. That doesn't make morality false, meaningless or subjective. It makes you an amoral hedonist.
But it seems to me that just because what I want can be influenced by what could be called objective or factual beliefs doesn't make my want for deliciousness "uninfluenced by personal feelings."
Perhaps not completley, but that sill leaves some things as relatively more objective than others.
In summary, value/preferences can either be defined to include (1) only personal feelings (though they may be universal or semi-universal), or to also include (2) beliefs about what would or wouldn't lead to such personal feelings. I can see how you mean that 2 could be objective, and then would want to call them thus "objective values." But not for 1, because personal feelings are, well, personal.
Then your categories aren't exhaustive, because preferences can also be defined to include universalisable values alongside personal whims. You may be making the classic of error of taking "subjective" to mean "believed by a subject"
Dictionaries tend to define the moral as the good.It is hard to believe that anyone can grow up not hearing the word "good" used a lot, unless they were raised by wolves
The problem isn't that I don't know what it means. The problem is that it means many different things and I don't know which of those you mean by it.
an amoral hedonist
I have moral sentiments (empathy, sense of justice, indignation, etc.), so I'm not amoral. And I am not particularly high time-preference, so I'm not a hedonist.
preferences can also be defined to include universalisable values alongside personal whims
If you mean preferences that everyone else shares, sure, but there's no stipulation in my definitions that other people can't share the preferences. In fact, I said, "(though they may be universal or semi-universal)."
You may be making the classic of error of taking "subjective" to mean "believed by a subject"
It'd be a "classic error" to assume you meant one definition of subjective rather than another, when you haven't supplied one yourself? This is about the eight time in this discussion that I've thought that I can't imagine what you think language even is.
I doubt we have any disagreement, to be honest. I think we only view language very, radically differently. (You could say we have a disagreement about language.)
Torture Simulated with Flipbooks
What if the brain of the person you most care about were scanned and the entirety of that person's mind and utility function at this moment were printed out on paper, and then several more "clock ticks" of their mind as its states changed exactly as they would if the person were being horribly tortured were printed out as well, into a gigantic book? And then the book were flipped through, over and over again. Fl-l-l-l-liiiiip! Fl-l-l-l-liiiiip!
Would this count as simulated torture? If so, would you care about stopping it, or is it different from computer-simulated torture?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Short: I, Pencil by Leonard E. Reed
Long: Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
Very long: Socialism by Ludwig von Mises, or any of F.A. Hayek's work on spontaneous order
(All available in pdf form by googling, though some may be copyrighted)
For specific questions, the Mises forums will happily supply you with arguments and tailored links for any economic questions. Just be sure to ask for arguments on consequentialist grounds since the forum is idealogically extremely libertarian (but friendly).
If you're looking for something more mild of the John Stossel or Milton Friedman variety, try anything by Friedman himself, or Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy - though these may not align with libertarian arguments on monetary policy.