All of djc's Comments + Replies

djc460

That's the one. I sent it to five of the world's leading decision theorists. Those who I heard back from clearly hadn't grasped the main idea. Given the people involved, I think this indicates that the paper isn't a sufficiently clear statement.

djc390

As a professional philosopher who's interested in some of the issues discussed in this forum, I think it's perfectly healthy for people here to mostly ignore professional philosophy, for reasons given here. But I'm interested in the reverse direction: if good ideas are being had here, I'd like professional philosophy to benefit from them. So I'd be grateful if someone could compile a list of significant contributions made here that would be useful to professional philosophers, with links to sources.

(The two main contributions that I'm aware of are ideas ... (read more)

[anonymous]130

As a professional philosopher who's interested in some of the issues discussed in this forum. . .

Oh wow. The initials 'djc' match up with David (John) Chalmers. Carnap and PhilPapers are mentioned in this user's comments. Far from conclusive evidence, but my bet is that we've witnessed a major analytic philosopher contribute to LW's discussion. Awesome.

8XiXiDu
Actually in one case this "forum" could benefit from the help of professional philosophers, as the founder Eliezer Yudkowsky especially asks for help on this problem: I think that if you show that professional philosophy can dissolve that problem then people here would be impressed.
5Vladimir_Nesov
Do you know about the TDT paper?
1radical_negative_one
Just in case you haven't seen it, here is Eliezer's Timeless Decision Theory paper. It's over a hundred pages so i'd hope that it represents a "clear statement". (Although i can't personally comment on anything in it because i don't currently have time to read it.)
lukeprog200

Yes, this is one reason I'm campaigning to have LW / SIAI / Yudkowsky ideas written in standard form!

djc200

It's not Quinean naturalism. It's logical empiricism with a computational twist. I don't suggest that everyone go out and read Carnap, though. One way that philosophy makes progress is when people work in relative isolation, figuring out the consequences of assumptions rather than arguing about them. The isolation usually leads to mistakes and reinventions, but it also leads to new ideas. Premature engagement can minimize all three.

-5Peterdjones
1lukeprog
To some degree. It might be more precise to say that many AI programs in general are a computational update to Carnap's The Logical Structure of the World (1937). But logical empiricism as a movement is basically dead, while what I've called Quinean naturalism is still a major force.
0PhilGoetz
Thanks! I have great difficulty finding any philosophy published after 1960 other than post-modern philosophy, probably because my starting point is literary theory, which is completely confined to--the words "dominated" and even "controlled" are too weak--Marxian post-modern identity politics, which views literature only as a political barometer and tool.