Erfeyah

Karma: 87

Erfeyah 16 Dec 2016 15:32 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Paul Crowley’s comment on: Circles of discussion
(This is my first post so please kindly point me to my misconceptions if there are any)

This is seeking a technological solution to a social problem.

It is still strange to me that people say this as if it were a criticism.

It is not that strange when dealing with technological solutions to problems that we haven’t yet understood. You define your goal as creating a “commons of knowledge”. Consider a few points:

[1] There seems to be a confusion between information and knowledge. I know that the LW community is attempting to provide a rational methodology towards knowledge but I have not seen this been done in any way that is substantially different. It is discussion as always with more commitment towards rationality (which is great!).

[2] We do not have an efficent way of representing arguments. Argument mapping is an attempt to that direction. I personally tend to use a numbering convention inspired by Wittgenstein (I am using it here as an example). The bottom line is that discussions tend to be quite unordered and opinions tend to be conflated with truths (see [1]).

[3] From [1] and [2] as an outsider I do not understand what the root group represents. Are these the people that are more rational? Who has decided that?

So maybe that is what Plethora meant. I am myself really interested in this problem and have been thinking about it for some time. My recommendation would be to focus first in smaller issues such as how to represent an argument in a way that can extract a truth rating. But even that is too ambitious at the moment. How about a technological solution for representing arguments with clarity so that both sides:
- can see what is being said in clearly labeled propositions.
- can identify errors in logic and mark them down.
- can weed out opinions from experimentally confirmed scientific facts.
- can link to sources and have a way to recursively examine their ‘truth rating’ down to the most primary source.
These are just a few indicative challenges. There are also issues with methods for source verification exemplified by the ongoing scandals with data forging in psychology and neuroscience and the list goes on..

Erfeyah 21 Dec 2016 10:13 UTC
1 point
on: On Truth, On God, and On Faith (religious (obviously)) (Atheist material for believers instead of other atheists/ attempted use of a spoonful of sugar)
There are more than a few misconceptions about the idea of god as it is a word that can mean wildly different things (as the article points). When people have discussions they tend to support or refute the more naive formulations of god and then generalise to all the rest. The hard thing for a rationalist is to suspend the decision of holding a view and feel comfortable in admiting ignorance. For example rationalists (in my experience) tend to be atheists instead of re-exploring the philosophical implications of the god concept in all its different formulations. In the case of people pulling away from irrational beliefs this might be essential as a cooling period but it can lead someone away from the search for truth into yet another belief system.

I will give you an example:

There are formulations that state that there is an approach towards life, connected to selflesness, that has a particular effect to the individual. It is not understood through the intelect but is experienced. Its result is direction of action. The trust of the indication of the direction they call faith. In more primitive cultures such formulations were connected to the idea of god for practical reasons but it is not neccessary.

So in this formulation (which we do not know if it is true), faith is not based on belief but on some kind of experiential knowledge. This is a rational proposition with the possibility of being true and it has abstracted the idea of God to “something outside of them that humans can by their nature interact with”.

Naive rationality can sometimes, philosophically speaking, throw out “the baby with the bathwater”.

Erfeyah 21 Dec 2016 10:36 UTC
3 points
on: Stupid Questions December 2016
Does the community do anything different when discussing?

I am going through the site and exploring some of the writings. I am also listening to the Bayesian conspiracy podcast. It is all very interesting but I can not see a change in the method of discussion. Techniques such as Bayes theorem etc. do not seem to be used when the subjects are of some complexity (which all interesting subjects are). It all seems to me that it is just a nice, civilised conversation with awareness of biases and the need to keep emotion on hold, as well as, examine assumptions.

Is there a discussion in video/audio/writing that you can point me to which demonstrates a different methodology of argumentation?

Erfeyah 21 Dec 2016 14:41 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Bound_up’s comment on: On Truth, On God, and On Faith (religious (obviously)) (Atheist material for believers instead of other atheists/ attempted use of a spoonful of sugar)
You are, to a large extend, right. Trying to use the word god in such an abstract manner can bring into question wether we need to use that word at all. I don’t think it is a very useful word anymore as it carries too much with it. What I am trying to say is that I see, repeatedly, people that would purport to be rationalists, to hold beliefs on these subjects instead of holding in mind all the possibilities. It seems to me that many atheists have already decided on the materialist view as if it has been scientifically resolved. The truth is that it hasn’t and attention has to be directed towards all the possibilities. It is these possibilities that I call the “baby” that is thrown out with the bathwater. And yes they do include the possibility of higher levels of consciousness.

Clarification: I do not mean anything supernatural as anything that exists is by definition natural. To me the word ‘supernatural’ does not mean anything. Maybe instead of ‘supernatural’ the word ‘unknown’ should be used.

Erfeyah 21 Dec 2016 15:54 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: On Truth, On God, and On Faith (religious (obviously)) (Atheist material for believers instead of other atheists/ attempted use of a spoonful of sugar)
Thank you for your answer,

Unfortunately I fail to see the relevance of the linked article. It was about someone banging his head on the wall (metaphorically speaking) trying to get through. I am just examining the wall. Carefully. Instead of dismissing it.

My argument was that within the concept of god and other concepts found in various mystical traditions there are many components that are not demonstrably false (to say the least). To bundle these concepts together with easily refuted ideas (miracles, virgin birth etc.) and then declare them all false and the issue decided is a mistake in reasoning.

Erfeyah 22 Dec 2016 12:34 UTC
5 points
in reply to: MrMind’s comment on: Stupid Questions December 2016
Good point. On reflection, I think my question is trying to project a criticism of mine regarding the community. Apologies for trying to sneak it in as a question. I seem to have the impression that the community is projecting an image of effective rationality when I can not see practical applications and sometimes I see mistakes of overconfidence towards conclusions. That is what made me think that the community thinks it has found some methodology that is more robust than the usual ones.

Actually getting involved and starting commenting is giving me a better view of what is actually going on. I think I will have to take some time to get a feel of the situation before I voice criticisms.

Thanks!

Erfeyah 22 Dec 2016 12:36 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Stupid Questions December 2016
This is very interesting and seems to have potential. Thanks for pointing me to the article! The important thing though would be to see the technique in action. Is there a thread were the community is experimenting with the application of the methodology?

Erfeyah 22 Dec 2016 13:46 UTC
0 points
in reply to: sone3d’s comment on: Stupid Questions December 2016
This is related to the (unsolved) question of what consciousness is. Briefly the currently conceived possibilities:
- [A] Consciousness is an algorithm.
- [B] Consciousness is a fundamental property of nature that emerges from certain structures of integrated information.
- [C] Consciousness is a fundamental property of nature.
- [D] Consciousness does not exist. We do not have an internal experience of anything.
About [A]:

Neuroscientists are trying to find the locus of consciousness in the brain but they haven’t managed yet. Even more important, there is a conceptual gap about the possibility of information encoding subjective experience. The very influential Chinese room thought experiment of John Searle is an extremely strong argument against the possibility of filling the information/meaning gap.

About [B]:

This is an interesting theory. It is not the same as [A]. I recommend Tononi’s book Phi if you want to learn more about it. It is not easy to digest but a really fascinating possibility. He proposes (and has a mathematical model for it), that certain configurations of matters with certain properties give rise to consciousness depending on their integration of information. It has not been experimentally proven or strongly indicated. It implies Panpsychism (see [C]).

About [C]:

In philosophy this is labelled as Panpsychism. It is a view that seems to be implied in the writings of all the major mystical traditions.

About [D]:

This is Daniel Dennett’s position. The proposition that our internal experience. The one we are having right now. Does not exist.

To my understanding, the simulation hypothesis is only valid if [A] or [D] is true.

Erfeyah 30 Dec 2016 10:52 UTC
4 points
on: Stupid Questions December 2016
I am seeing an ‘epistemic status’ descriptor used in some posts. If I want to use it does the community have a standard vocabulary described in a post somewhere or is it up to the author to use it as they like?

Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence

Erfeyah24 Jan 2017 12:37 UTC

2 points

64 comments1 min readLW link

Erfeyah 24 Jan 2017 15:21 UTC
0 points
in reply to: entirelyuseless’s comment on: Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence

A’s claim is immediate evidence, since A is more likely to make the claim if they actually have the experience than if they do not.

It is indeed anecdotal evidence. But since we live in a world where people constantly offer anecdotal evidence to support their claims of unexplained subjective experiences rational people tend to ignore them. But (if my reasoning is correct) the fact is that a real method can work before there is enough evidence to support it. My post attempts to bring to our attention that this will make it really hard to discover certain experiences assuming that they exist.

[That said, 4 is in fact false—in all of my dreams, I always know that I am dreaming, and I never invested any kind of effort whatsoever.]

Yes, that is why I included footnote 1. I think my statements are true for most people but it is not a perfect example. Nevertheless, I feel the example is accurate enough to communicate the underlying argument.

Erfeyah 25 Jan 2017 11:37 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Kindly’s comment on: Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence

So, uh, is the typical claim that has an equal lack of scientific evidence true, or false?

[5.1] As ProofOfLogic indicates with his example of shamanistic scammers the space of claims about subjective experiences is saturated with demonstrably false claims.

[5.2] This actually causes us to adjust and have a rule of ignoring all strange sounding claims that require subjective evidence (except if it is trivial to test).

You are right that if the claim is true an idealised rational assessment should be to believe the claim. But how do you make a rational assessment when you lack evidence?

(More precisely, we’d want to do a cost-benefit analysis of believing/disbelieving a true claim vs. a comparably difficult-to-test false claim.)

When lacking evidence, the testing process is difficult, weird and lengthy—and in light of the ‘saturation’ mentioned in [5.1] - I claim that, in most cases, the cost-benefit analysis will result in the decision to ignore the claim.

Erfeyah 25 Jan 2017 12:01 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ProofOfLogic’s comment on: Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence
Lucid dreaming is actually an interesting one where I always have to start an introduction to it with “It has been scientifically proven, I am not crazy or part of a cult.”. Even then I sometimes get sceptical responses. In most cases, I don’t think I would be able to communicate it at all if it had not been scientifically proven. Meditation is another one that is highly stigmatised because of its associations with (in many cases demonstrably) crazy claims and.. “thrown out with the bath water” though this seems to be slowly changing as more and more studies are showing its benefits.

These are two instances where scientific evidence has surfaced so it is easy to talk about. They are good as indicative examples. The post is about experiences that (assuming they exist) have not yet enter the area discoverable by our current scientific tools.

Erfeyah 25 Jan 2017 12:14 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ProofOfLogic’s comment on: Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence
I think I see what you are saying.

I am phrasing the problem as an issue with rationality when I should have been phrasing it as a type of bias that tends to affect people with a rationality focus. Identifying the bias should allow us to choose a strategy which will in effect be the more rational approach.

Did I understand you correctly?

P.S: I edited the opening paragraph and conclusion to address yours and entirelyuseless’ valid criticism.

Erfeyah 25 Jan 2017 14:41 UTC
0 points
in reply to: entirelyuseless’s comment on: Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence
You are right!

I have edited the opening paragraph and conclusion, to present the idea as a bias. Let me know if you notice issues with this formulation.

Erfeyah 25 Jan 2017 18:34 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Kindly’s comment on: Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence

And I think that this inarguably the correct thing to do, unless you have some way of filtering out the false claims.

From the point of view of someone who has a true claim but doesn’t have evidence for it and can’t easily convince someone else, you’re right that this approach is frustrating. But if I were to relax my standards, the odds are that I wouldn’t start with your true claim, but start working my way through a bunch of other false claims instead.

Exactly, that is why I am pointing towards the problem. Based on our rational approach we are at a disadvantage for discovering these truths. I want to use this post as a reference to the issue as it can become important in other subjects.

I can choose to try out lucid dreaming, not because I’ve found scientific evidence that it works, but because it’s presented to me by someone from a community with a good track record of finding weird things that work. Or maybe the person explaining lucid dreaming to me is scrupulously honest and knows me very well, so that when they tell me “this is a real effect and has effects you’ll find worth the cost of trying it out”, I believe them.

Yes, that is the other way in. Trust and respect. Unfortunately, I feel we tend to surround ourselves with people that are similar to us and thus selecting our acquaintances in the same way we select ideas to focus on. In my experience (which is not necessarily indicative), people tend to just blank out unfamiliar information or consider it a bit of an eccentricity. In addition, as stated, if a subject requires substantial effort before you can confirm its validity it becomes exponentially harder to communicate even in these circumstances.

Erfeyah 25 Jan 2017 22:15 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ProofOfLogic’s comment on: Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence

The Bayesian system of rationality rejects “rationality-as-heightened-standard-of-evidence”, instead accepting everything as some degree of evidence but requiring us to quantify those degrees. Another important distinction which bears on this point is “assuming is not believing”

I do like the flexibility of the Bayesian system of rationality and the “assuming is not believing” example you gave. But I do not (at the moment) see how it is any more efficient in the occasion where the evidence is not clearly quantified or is simply really weak.

There seems to me to be a dependence of any system of rational analysis to the current stage of quantifiable evidence. In other words, rational analysis can go up to where science currently is. But there is an experimental space that is open for exploration without convincing intellectual evidence. Navigating this space is a bit of a puzzle..

But this is a half baked thought. I will post when I can express it clearly.

Erfeyah 25 Jan 2017 22:47 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Kindly’s comment on: Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence
I propose that it is a bad thing.

Your assessment makes the assumption that the knowledge that we are missing is “not that important”. Since we do not know what the knowledge we are missing is, its significance could range from insignificant to essential. We are not at a the point where we can make that distinction so we better start realising and working on the problem. That is my position.

To my eyes your further analysis makes the assumption that the only strategy we can follow would be to randomly try out beliefs. Although I have not formulated a solution (I am currently just describing the problem), I can already see much more efficient ways of navigating the space. I will post when I have something more developed to say about this.

Erfeyah 26 Jan 2017 0:12 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence
I am not proposing wasting time with bad evidence. I am just pointing towards a problem that creates a space of difficult to discover truths. The strategy about dealing with this is for another post. This post is concerned with the identification of the issue.

Erfeyah 26 Jan 2017 0:26 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence
Sorry to repeat myself but I am just pointing to a space of truth. Your example is your reason that you are biased towards the exploration of the space. I understand that and think it is logical of you to do so. I am just juxtaposing this with the example of lucid dreaming or meditation where there was something to find out and wonder what amount of that space we are missing because of our bias. That is all.

Erfeyah

Too Much Effort | Too Lit­tle Evidence

Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence