Hi! I’m a student in mathematics. I’m joining the LessWrong community because I’m convinced that it would be a better online community for argumentation where both parties try to arrive at a better solution (in contrast to some other communities that pushes ad hominem and similar attacks whenever one has a different opinion).
I’m usually interested in number theory, computational complexity, algebra, and algorithms.
you seem to suggest that being rational means ignoring the costs.
I don’t think so. I think I’m suggesting that the benefits outweigh the costs, and that I should bear whatever costs I need to bear, while still staying true to myself.[1] And if you disagree, I would be interested in hearing some counter-opinions on why not.
Is there no way to make the same point in a less annoying way? If there is, what made you choose this one?
Maybe. But one of the points is the annoyance itself as an end. More precisely, do you (and others) perceive annoyance as something to be avoided or necessary cost to be paid in order to achieve truth with rationality? Maybe my post was not a good one in this sense if you think there are ways to make the same point in a less annoying way, but I couldn’t come up with a better post.
Hmm… I understand the dynamics of the community a bit better. I still disagree, but I think we can agree to disagree. If eventually the mods ban me, I will accept that (and maybe complain elsewhere). I think this is a value question, say, do you prefer a community that survives and thrives, or a (perhaps dysfunctional) community that values argumentation, reasoning, and truth (while “corrupting the youth”)? My answer is obviously, and strongly, the latter.
I still see my intention (on bringing annoyance) as a good intent within good faith, but I can also see why many people don’t like that. To this end, since it’s a normative question, not a descriptive one, I don’t think anyone can purely say what is universally right and what is universally wrong. My decision forward is to simply hear everyone out and see which kind of normative values do they have. If my values contradict with the community, then we’re simply incompatible. Neither of us are wrong.
Or if you interpreted the suggestion at the whole community: I do suggest that a rational community should tolerate annoyance (not ignoring the costs, but rather accepting them). My opinion is that any fruitful discussion that can change someone’s mind using reasoning should at least acknowledge that at least one party will be annoyed that their original beliefs are worse than the newer ones. Such annoyance is necessary, should be expected, and should be tolerated.
Is an irrational world worth living in? I don’t think so, so I’m stress testing it here.
There is a behavior of mine that makes many people extremely angry. Here is a new audience. Let’s do the annoying thing again. I wonder what will happen now.
How would I rate this strategy as a way to introduce myself at a new community? 8⁄10 maybe. It tests whether the community is going to endure annoying but rational thinking or kick me out, and I see that test as worthy. If, in the end, the community doesn’t tolerate annoying ideas while wearing the rational mask, then I could openly say out loud that this community doesn’t really believe in annoying but justifiable ideas (and that’s fine).
Is there another topic you would like to discuss, or was this the sole reason why you created an account on this website, and if your attempt fails, will you just move to another online community?
Yeah, there are a lot of interesting topics I’m interested in, and I’d be happy discussing them (if I ever have a chance and not getting kicked out before that)! Is this topic the sole reason I created my account? It’s not the only reason, but one among others.
Do you think Socrates deserved the death penalty? I think most people would say yes, since they’re annoyed by such behavior. I’m looking for a place where people openly say no despite the fact that Socrates was very annoying to the citizens.
In particular, if this place says he deserved the death penalty, then maybe it’s also a good time that I leave this place as well.
By the way, the world is what it is, and I’m not going to deny anything about that. Does the world have to be like that, can we do anything about it, or can we change it into a better place? I think we can, and in my perspective, I’m a part of the movement. If you believe otherwise (i.e. believing I’m making the world a worse place), I’m open to hearing your opinions as well.
Nowadays AI can solve problems even better than mathematicians, so is there a reason for me to still pursue a PhD? The academic skill gained from a PhD would become obsolete by the next few years.
Eventually there won’t be such job as a mathematician, as AI can effectively (i.e. not always, but usually) act as the Hilbert’s dream oracle: send a statement, and the AI decides whether it’s true or false, and gives the proof (or disproof). The only job of human is to retrieve the proof and try to understand it.
In the artistic sense, this is sad, and human endeavor in mathematics is getting to its extinction. In the scientific sense, this is hopeful, since we have better tools at finding truth!
So, it is what it is, and that’s life, I guess...
Thank you for this reply. I can see your point clearer. Your premise is the absurdity of the extremity, right? I accept this opinion and I’ll keep it in the back of my head (and update my beliefs accordingly). I think my previous heuristic is that “if something is true then it must be true even in corner cases”. For example, even number plus even number makes even. When regular situation teaches 2+4=6 and 0+2=2, my “taking to the extreme” means testing the boundary of this claim: how about 0+1000000? How about −2+2? How about −99998+46464? They are all still even numbers.
A supererogatory act is one that it is praiseworthy to do, but which is not required. It is action over and above the call of duty. Is there any such thing?
Peter Singer and some EAs say no. Supererogation is a contradiction in terms. The good that you can do is the good that you must do. At every moment you must be doing the best thing you possibly can. All the obvious objections are folded into the basic injunction. You don’t know the best thing? Then the best thing is to find out. You’ll burn out? Then take some R&R, but only as much as needed to carry on the Work. It’s an impossible standard? Yes, but it’s the right standard, you just don’t want to because it’s hard. But—? Denied. You must make of yourself a slave to the good. “O feet happily fettered on the road to salvation!” While you are sleeping, the world is burning! You cannot ascend the torrent of your sins! Nothing for yourself, everything for the cause! Jam tomorrow? Jam never! Your life must be a desert! You are nothing, the cause is everything! Smile! The torture will continue until you comply. You can’t reason with it, you can’t bargain with it, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
My opinion: I disagree with [Peter Singer and some EAs]. I think supererogation exists. The
WHEN PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING, SLEEPING IS A SIN
quote signals that my decision to sleep is a sin, and I accept that. I, however, do not accept that I’m obliged to do no sin. In this sense, almost all decisions in my life is sinful. Some are more sinful than others, and I try to go to the least sinful ones, as much as I have the capacity to think and reason about it. In this sense, I think I’m hopping on the crazy train going straight to hell, but also no, I don’t think I can’t bargain with it. The torture will not stop ever until I am dead, but I think I can refuse to let myself be controlled by such torture.
And therefore, Glaucon, is it not clear that the proper choice must always be the best possible choice that you can make? Is not that what we mean by “best”?
I cannot disagree with that, Socrates.
And therefore, Glaucon, you must agree that you are obliged to follow the Gospel According To Insanity Wolf to its very end?
No, I agree that the proper choice is always the better choice, but I disagree that the proper choice is always the best choice, and so I don’t think I’m obliged to follow the Gospel According To Insanity Wolf to its very end.
More formally, let
In conclusion, I accept your caution to “not follow the Insanity Wolf indefinitely”, while still retaining my decision to “hear the wolf out, and choose whatever I believe is best subject to the local constraints”.
I believe that 2+2=4, but two earplugs with two earplugs make three will not convince me 2+2=3. It will convince me that something is wrong between my abstraction of 3 earplugs and the number 4.
Of course, I agree that an unfalsifiable belief doesn’t deserve to be a belief, and yes, I can imagine a situation where I would believe that 2+2=4 is false: the collapse of Peano arithmetic.
Yes, if you ask me what kind of proposition
Yes, the truth/falsehood in the formal realm has nothing to do with the physical realm, but no, believing that a true proposition is true would require interacting with the physical realm. The sentence
Thanks for the background! As for me, sorry for being unclear, and I’ll look at the referenced posts. I will try to explain my view a bit more. The Insanity Wolf Test writes:
If you encounter an idea for which,
however watertight the argument leading to it,
you hear it in the voice of Insanity Wolf,
screaming at you,
a voice that absolutely will not stop, ever,
until you are dead,
then maybe you should reject that idea,
even if you do not have a refutation of it.
Anyone speaking in that voice,
even if outwardly quiet and reasonable,
wants something
that you should not give.
You also wrote that:
Perhaps an Insanity Wolf quote of the day for people who need to regularly wallow in shit to remind themselves why it’s a bad idea to wallow in shit.
Basically, my point is that I’m not convinced why it’s a bad idea to wallow in shit. For the original Insanity Wolf Test, the last two lines says wants something that you should not give. My main question before was “why should we not give?”
As for my last sentence in the above comment, I was arguing that “maybe we should wallow in shit, if such shit is a compression of ‘sane’ enough logic”. For example, an anti-advice on your Insanity Wolf page is “WHEN PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING, SLEEPING IS A SIN”. Your anti-advice tries to convince me that I should reject this idea. I’m currently not convinced, and that my current stance is that it is morally good to keep this idea at the back of my mind.
Indeed, [my] suggestion of Yell culture is an invitation for people to be Insanity Wolf, and I agree with that. That’s why I want to know more about your reasoning why this is a dysfunctional thought pattern (as stated in your comment).
This is an interesting new view to me, since I‘ve never known about the insanity wolf. But then my next question is that “Why should we avoid insanity wolves?” Won’t a sufficiently morally good wolf compress sophisticated moral (normative) arguments into a simple rule of thumb so that we can follow as a compass or a heuristic?
YEAH EXACTLY I CAN SEE WHY AND I LOVE IT!
Yell culture.
We’ve seen ask/guess/tell. I propose the yell culture: Yell whenever you dislike anything. I yell at you when I don’t like what you did. If you’re dissatisfied with that, yell back to me. It’s the same as Tell culture, but my variant tries to deliver the frustration forward. If I’m frustrated, I expect the listener to share my frustration, and bear the same happiness and unhappiness. I argue that this reinforces the team into a functional unit where one could die for one another.
Some colleagues discouraged me from doing this, and I want to examine more about it.
Under your argument, I have not yet grown up.[1] I fail to appreciate arbitrary rules.[2]
I don’t want a clean kitchen. Why are there other people deciding that I would want a clean kitchen? The asymmetry between the collective perception and my perceived benefit is real.
If my parents can wipe my nose for me my entire life, then yes. It turns out there is a high probability that my parents will be unable to wipe my nose for the rest of my life, and therefore I (minimally) learn to wipe mine.[3]
FYI: I’m 24 years old at the time of writing this, although growing up has little to do with age, as one (including me) could argue that I have not yet grown up.
To me, a legitimate rule must have a justifiable reason. Whether the collective reason is justifiable under my own views or not depends a lot on my beliefs and values. If I perceive a rule as unjustifiable under my beliefs and values, then I push back, i.e., I voice an opinion to discontinue the rule. This whole post is also one instance of such opinion.
FYI: My only reason to “try to be independent from parents” is to pursue the freedom. There are a lot of things my parents wouldn’t allow me if they I were still in their control. In fact, nowadays my parents allow me to do a lot of things, and therefore I need not try to be independent anymore. So if they’re willing to wipe my nose for the rest of my life while allowing me to study whatever I want and work in whatever I’m interested in, then sure, so be it.