I didn't know about that test! Pretty neat, and it seems better than the "color of the apple" one
To be clear I am not pushing back on the notion of aphantasia, although I'm not necessarily a fan
And I don't think I have aphantasia
My point was more about metaphors, and about the fact that much more of our communication relies on them than we realize
Sorry, I'm being very pedantic, but how are "picturing" and "mind's eye" not metaphorical? It's not like there's an actual picture or an actual eye anywhere, in fact that's the whole point
There is (for me) an actual experience of a picture. It seems only slightly metaphorical to call the faculty of experiencing such pictures “seeing” by an “eye”.
One test for the possession of such a faculty might be to count the vertexes of some regular (not necessarily Platonic) polyhedron, given only a verbal description.
Thanks, this is interesting
I was wondering, do retinoids work as an acute treatment as well? I sometimes have annoying acne spots in various places, but I don't feel like preventatively slathering my whole body in the stuff
Of course! Thank you
As a fellow member of the regrettably small overlap between rationalists and adepts of ecological psychology, (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Y4hN7SkTwnKPNCPx5/why-don-t-more-people-talk-about-ecological-psychology), I'm looking forward to seeing your next posts!
Those statist AI doomers never miss a chance to bring I, R, and S into everything...
More seriously, thanks for the history lesson!
Thanks for your answer! Very interesting
I didn't know about the continuous nature of LNN; I would have thought that you needed different hardware (maybe an analog computer?) to treat continuous values.
Maybe it could work for generative networks for images or music, that seems less discrete than written language.
Je suis de Grenoble donc ça fait loin mais sympa de voir des rationalistes en France!
As I understand it, ecological psychology is more of a framework for the interpretation of existing results than a theory, but it does make predictions about coaching interventions, and yeah it seems like the results are pretty robust
Here is a compilation of studies comparing approaches favored by ecologically-minded coaches to more traditional training interventions: https://perceptionaction.com/comparative/
Could be biased of course, but it may be a good starting point
Indeed, the language analogy is a good metaphor for what I was getting at
To be clear though, I was making the opposite point: that ecological dynamics is a lower-level language and bayesianism is at a higher level Like, everyone talks about "opinions" and "mental models" but those concepts are more abstract and leakier, and the underlying reality is closer to information-control laws
But it might be the reverse, what do I know
Sure, in any case we're talking about unconscious "automatic" processes The question is what kind of processes they are
Thanks! Yeah, you're probably right about the style, I wanted to have some fun but I'm new at this
Not sure is they would qualify as "rationalist" but I’m really fond of the Stronger by Science website/podcast
They’re quite knowledgeable and cautious in their advice, and I find their explanations very clear
If you want to go deeper they have a subscription for a very serious monthly research review, and a diet app that seems very carefully designed
Thanks, I watched a few videos and really liked them
Makes you appreciate the importance of common things
I'm just here to say that we should call it "Solomonoff's EDM" or "Solomonoff's EUV process"
Your first point is a good one And your second point successfully annoyed me