Well, I responded to That Post, and you can tell it was good , because it was downvoted.
Do you read the comments?
Do you read non-rationalsphere material? It’s not like the topic hasn’t been extensively written about
Its likely that mainstream won’t tell you The Answer, but if there isn’t an answer, you should wish to believe there is not an answer. You should not force yourself to “internalise” an answer you can’t personally understand, and that has objections to it.
Wups...that might be a bug to fix. My excuse might be that I read the post before you made the comment, but I am not sure if that is true.
Its likely that it won’t tell you The Answer, but if there isn’t an answer, you should wish to believe there is not an answer. You should not force yourself to “internalise” an answer you can’t perosnally understand, and that has objections to it.
I think you are definitely pointing out a failure mode I’ve fallen into recently, a few times. But mostly I am not sure if I understood what you mean. I also think my original comment failed to communicate how my views have actually shifted, which is mostly that after fidling with binary strings a bit and trying to figure out how I would model any causal chains in that, I noticed that the simple way I wanted to do that didn’t work and my naive notion for how causes work broke down. I now think, when you have a system that is fully deterministic and that in such worlds “probabilistic causality” is a property of maps of such agents, but mostly I am still very confused. I don’t actually have anything that I would call solution actually.
I made the comment over a year ago … and the question was whether you read the comments in general.
It should be obvious that if the territory is deterministic, the only remaining place for possibilities/probabilities to reside is in the map/mind. But it isn’t at all obvious that the territory is deterministic.
I often do read the comments, though I don’t really read that intentionally, so I don’t have a good estimate of how often I read comments or how many I read (probably read most comments if I find the topic interesting, and I feel like the points in the post wasn’t obvious before I read it). I scroll through the “Recent discussion” stuff almost never. So I miss a lot of comments if I read a post early on and then people make comments later that I never see.
The point is that there is often a good counterargument to whatever is being asserted in a post. Sometimes it’s in a comment to the post itself—which is easy and convenient—and sometimes it’s on another website,.or in a book. Either way,.rationality does not consist of forcing yourself to adopt a list of “correct” beliefs.
Well, I responded to That Post, and you can tell it was good , because it was downvoted.
Do you read the comments?
Do you read non-rationalsphere material? It’s not like the topic hasn’t been extensively written about
Its likely that mainstream won’t tell you The Answer, but if there isn’t an answer, you should wish to believe there is not an answer. You should not force yourself to “internalise” an answer you can’t personally understand, and that has objections to it.
Wups...that might be a bug to fix. My excuse might be that I read the post before you made the comment, but I am not sure if that is true.
I think you are definitely pointing out a failure mode I’ve fallen into recently, a few times. But mostly I am not sure if I understood what you mean. I also think my original comment failed to communicate how my views have actually shifted, which is mostly that after fidling with binary strings a bit and trying to figure out how I would model any causal chains in that, I noticed that the simple way I wanted to do that didn’t work and my naive notion for how causes work broke down. I now think, when you have a system that is fully deterministic and that in such worlds “probabilistic causality” is a property of maps of such agents, but mostly I am still very confused. I don’t actually have anything that I would call solution actually.
I made the comment over a year ago … and the question was whether you read the comments in general.
It should be obvious that if the territory is deterministic, the only remaining place for possibilities/probabilities to reside is in the map/mind. But it isn’t at all obvious that the territory is deterministic.
I often do read the comments, though I don’t really read that intentionally, so I don’t have a good estimate of how often I read comments or how many I read (probably read most comments if I find the topic interesting, and I feel like the points in the post wasn’t obvious before I read it). I scroll through the “Recent discussion” stuff almost never. So I miss a lot of comments if I read a post early on and then people make comments later that I never see.
The point is that there is often a good counterargument to whatever is being asserted in a post. Sometimes it’s in a comment to the post itself—which is easy and convenient—and sometimes it’s on another website,.or in a book. Either way,.rationality does not consist of forcing yourself to adopt a list of “correct” beliefs.