Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Elo 30 October 2017 02:10:32AM 0 points [-]

Okay. You can't name any problem that would be solved by a reply.

a. no.
b. nope.

I said what the problem was.

The unsolved problem being the feeling.

Just cause you want to go staw vulcan on me in your map doesn't change my territory.

Also yes.

So the values underlying your emotions are irrational.

Emotions are information. What you do with that information is up to you.

you should

I should do nothing that you say when you offer bad advice. If invalidating my emotions is your advice I would discount a lot of whatever else you have to say.

Comment author: alanforr 30 October 2017 07:14:53PM 1 point [-]

Okay. You can't name any problem that would be solved by a reply.

a. no. b. nope.

I said what the problem was.

The unsolved problem being the feeling.

Just cause you want to go staw vulcan on me in your map doesn't change my territory.

Your emotions are not a problem relevant to the person you're writing to unless that person knows you extremely well and has some specific reason to be concerned about your emotions, e.g. - your mother or your spouse.

I should do nothing that you say when you offer bad advice. If invalidating my emotions is your advice I would discount a lot of whatever else you have to say.

My advice is that your emotions are not infallible oracles. Rather, they reflect your values, so if your values are bad then your emotions will mislead you.

In this particular case, you want somebody to take the time to write to you. They didn't. That means the person in question saw no value in writing to you. What value is this person going to see in a message about your emotions? I don't know the answer to that question, but if you write without considering it you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Also, if you don't explain what value you offer that is worth replying to, then you are not considering the values and emotions of your correspondent.

Comment author: alanforr 29 October 2017 03:17:37PM 0 points [-]

This article has substantive advice on how to be open minded:

http://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward

Comment author: Elo 24 October 2017 07:55:42PM 0 points [-]

The unsolved problem being the feeling. Solve the feeling by talking about it.

Comment author: alanforr 28 October 2017 10:51:08PM 1 point [-]

Okay. You can't name any problem that would be solved by a reply. So there is no reason for the recipient of your message to reply. So the values underlying your emotions are irrational and you should look into changing them. See

http://fallibleideas.com/emotions

Comment author: Elo 23 October 2017 07:09:55AM 0 points [-]

These are great questions to ask but also not great at dealing with the problem of feeling like a lack of respect.

Comment author: alanforr 24 October 2017 07:45:13PM *  1 point [-]

If you currently feel like you lack respect and that's important to you, then you have an unsolved problem. You have an unsolved problem and don't know how to solve it. So you don't know what questions are relevant. If you did know what questions are relevant you would have answered them already and you would no longer have the problem. So you should be willing to answer a question even if it seems irrelevant to your problem.

Comment author: alanforr 22 October 2017 08:43:14PM 0 points [-]

What difference would it make if this person replied? What problem would it solve for you? What problem would it solve for her?

Comment author: ChristianKl 17 October 2017 02:57:18PM *  1 point [-]

Newtons theory of relativity has flaws but it's still a good idea and can be used in plenty of cases.

The amount of goodness approach has no objective way to determine the sizes of the amounts, so it leads to subjective bias instead of objective knowledge, and it creates unresolvable disagreements between people.

There's nothing bad about two people with different priors coming to different conclusions. It creates an intellectual climate where a lot of different ideas get explored. Most breakthrough ideas have plenty of flaws at their birth and need to go through a lot of refinement to get valuable.

All solutions are equal because they all solve the problem.

If my problem is that I want to have a successful job interview, then I don't have a binary outcome. I want to get the job earning as much money as possible and modeling the salary with a scalar makes much more sense than having binary judgments.

Furthermore anytime I want to maximize the probability of an outcome I also care about a scalar. Why do you think that probabilities shouldn't be central in epistemology?

Comment author: alanforr 21 October 2017 09:49:33PM 1 point [-]

Newtons theory of relativity has flaws but it's still a good idea and can be used in plenty of cases.

No it can't. It can only be used in situations where it happens to agree with reality. That's not the same as the theory being correct.

The amount of goodness approach has no objective way to determine the sizes of the amounts, so it leads to subjective bias instead of objective knowledge, and it creates unresolvable disagreements between people.

There's nothing bad about two people with different priors coming to different conclusions. It creates an intellectual climate where a lot of different ideas get explored. Most breakthrough ideas have plenty of flaws at their birth and need to go through a lot of refinement to get valuable.

You have misunderstood the problem. The problem is not that people come to different conclusions. Rather, the problem is that people are completely arbitrarily assigning scores to ideas. Since there is no objective reality underlying their scoring, there no rational way for any two people to come to agreement on scores.

All solutions are equal because they all solve the problem.

If my problem is that I want to have a successful job interview, then I don't have a binary outcome. I want to get the job earning as much money as possible and modeling the salary with a scalar makes much more sense than having binary judgments.

Making a judgement about whether to take a job is a yes or no judgement. Making a decision about whether to say X during a job interview is a yes or no judgement. That doesn't prevent you from modelling salary with a scalar. If you judge that you should always take the job that earns you as much money as possible then if job A money > job B money, you will say yes to A and no to B.

Furthermore anytime I want to maximize the probability of an outcome I also care about a scalar. Why do you think that probabilities shouldn't be central in epistemology?

An idea either solves a problem or it doesn't.

There is no way to assign probabilities to ideas. Theories such as quantum mechanics assign probabilities to events, e.g. - radioactive decay of an atom. Assigning a probability to a theory makes no sense since there is no rule for assigning probabilities in the absence of an explanatory theory.

Comment author: alanforr 16 October 2017 06:35:23PM 0 points [-]

This link proposes a new improvement on epistemology:

http://fallibleideas.com/essays/yes-no-argument

Comment author: alanforr 15 October 2017 08:30:45PM 1 point [-]

Why would we need more research to work out that the simulation hypothesis is a bad idea? Computational universality implies that if we were being simulated on a computer, it would be impossible for us to know about the underlying hardware. Any hardware that implements a universal set of computational gates can support universal computation. There are lots of different kinds of universal gates, so you can't tell what gates are being used by looking at the results of a computation. So the simulation hypothesis does no work in explaining what we observe. The simulation hypothesis also implies we can't understand the real laws of physics, the physics of the simulator, since no experiment we conduct can tell us anything about the hardware. Another problem: the simulation might be programmed to change the laws of physics arbitrarily so it ruins all of our existing knowledge of the laws of physics and everything else.

There are no answers to these criticisms so the simulation hypothesis is false.