Activity Feed
#5344·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 hour agoBrett claims/implies Veritula is no better than other online forums; remains “unconvinced it amounts [to] the “algorithm” for rationality.”
Worth noting that Ben had already linked to an explanation of Veritula in response, but Brett doesn’t seem to read any of the links we send him. I can tell because he keeps having more objections or questions the links already address/answer.
#4902·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months agoRational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
Or, simplified:
It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.
Brett claims/implies Veritula is no better than other online forums; remains “unconvinced it amounts [to] the “algorithm” for rationality.”
#5342·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 hour agoI think Brett is concerned that Veritula discounts the creation of new options. David is right to point in BoI chapter 13 that traditional accounts of rational decision-making focus too much on choosing from existing options according to a fixed formula while ignoring the fact that man is creative, ie can make new options.
Veritula doesn’t discount that. As I point out to Brett, it “lets us submit new options at any time, and it offers writing tools to make that as easy and enjoyable as possible. It actively encourages the creation of new options.”
#5341·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 hour agoIf we can have a purely deductive process to tell whether we’re being rational or not, that’s a very good thing. The opposite of something to be concerned about.
I think Brett is concerned that Veritula discounts the creation of new options. David is right to point in BoI chapter 13 that traditional accounts of rational decision-making focus too much on choosing from existing options according to a fixed formula while ignoring the fact that man is creative, ie can make new options.
#5340·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 hour agoBrett claims in response “the whole Popperian view is that rationality *is* creativity: the *creation* of corrections to errors once identified, etc.” He’s concerned that Veritula “seems to suggest ‘rationality’ is identical to something like ‘logic’ or a purely deductive process.”
If we can have a purely deductive process to tell whether we’re being rational or not, that’s a very good thing. The opposite of something to be concerned about.
#5333·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoAs I wrote to him in response, rationality and creativity are different things. They’re related, and there’s overlap, but you don’t need to code creativity to code rational preference formation. You can outsource creative input to the user, as programs usually do.
Brett claims in response “the whole Popperian view is that rationality *is* creativity: the *creation* of corrections to errors once identified, etc.” He’s concerned that Veritula “seems to suggest ‘rationality’ is identical to something like ‘logic’ or a purely deductive process.”
I’ve experimentally turned off pretty text wrapping in paragraphs. I’ll give it some time to see how ideas look around the site now. If they look worse on the whole (orphans etc), I can always undo fd699cd.
It’s because of text-wrap: pretty;
Chromium renders it properly. Desktop and mobile Safari doesn’t.
How to Be Rational: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2091272979791659054
#5334·Martin Thaulow, 1 day agoRelated: Lying reduces conflict - in the short term.
I prefer the term macro economists use: Borrowing from the future. It can work out in the long term, if the future cooperates, for instance it is possible to get away with a lie. But it’s always a very risky gamble, since the future is very uncertain, and therefore it is not a good strategy.
On tangent to this, I think consequentialism is not a theory of ethics at all, it’s just borrowing from the future as well. Anchoring moral action to predicted (prophecied) consequences is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep ethical deliberation completely.
In other words, it is evil.
#4977·Tyler Mills, 3 months agoAre pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?
Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.
Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.
Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.
Related: Lying reduces conflict - in the short term.
I prefer the term macro economists use: Borrowing from the future. It can work out in the long term, if the future cooperates, for instance it is possible to get away with a lie. But it’s always a very risky gamble, since the future is very uncertain, and therefore it is not a good strategy.
#5332·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoBrett says this can’t be a fully specified criterion of rationality because it’s not an AGI.
As I wrote to him in response, rationality and creativity are different things. They’re related, and there’s overlap, but you don’t need to code creativity to code rational preference formation. You can outsource creative input to the user, as programs usually do.
#4902·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months agoRational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
Or, simplified:
It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.
Brett says this can’t be a fully specified criterion of rationality because it’s not an AGI.
#5330·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoBrett Hall says Newtonian physics has pending criticisms but we can adopt it rationally in many situations so my criterion of rationality must be false.
#4902·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months agoRational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
Or, simplified:
It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.
Brett Hall says Newtonian physics has pending criticisms but we can adopt it rationally in many situations so my criterion of rationality must be false.
#5328·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoBrett Hall says this basically comes down to getting the “best explanation” but is “not quite right”.
Brett is confused about HTV. It says nothing about pending criticisms. As I replied to him, it says to prefer, “between rival theories at a given state of a discussion, those we find the most difficult to change without breaking their ability to explain what they purport to explain.”
#4902·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months agoRational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
Or, simplified:
It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.
Brett Hall says this basically comes down to getting the “best explanation” but is “not quite right”.
#5325·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoBrett Hall responds to the contradiction between HTV and ‘if you can’t program it, you haven’t understood it’: https://x.com/ToKTeacher/status/2090780593739243793
He agrees we can’t program HTV but says even if we don’t know how or why an explanation is HTV, we still know that it’s HTV.
The blog post already sidesteps that issue by granting the user the ability to input some HTV score without having to give any reasoning. That still leads to all sorts of trouble.
#5325·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoBrett Hall responds to the contradiction between HTV and ‘if you can’t program it, you haven’t understood it’: https://x.com/ToKTeacher/status/2090780593739243793
He agrees we can’t program HTV but says even if we don’t know how or why an explanation is HTV, we still know that it’s HTV.
Translation: ‘trust me bro’
It’s just vibes.
#3069·Dennis HackethalOP revised 9 months agoMy critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
Brett Hall responds to the contradiction between HTV and ‘if you can’t program it, you haven’t understood it’: https://x.com/ToKTeacher/status/2090780593739243793
He agrees we can’t program HTV but says even if we don’t know how or why an explanation is HTV, we still know that it’s HTV.
#5311·Tyler MillsOP, 3 days agoAh, I marked my agreement in #5292 a criticism to neutralize yours, since I corrected #5293. But I should have revised it to additionally have the existing criticism no longer apply. I'll make a new revision with that change.
Since you agree that a revision was necessary, I’ve submitted a counter-criticism of #5292 so that this branch of the discussion tree is consistent (#5323). Ideas are immutable; opening a new branch won’t automatically fix broken branches.
The branch now reflects that your action was rational.
Generally speaking, when a revision addresses a criticism, we don’t submit a counter-criticism.
Let me stress ahead of time that this kind of housekeeping may not seem the most fun, but is indispensable in keeping consistent discussion trees. We can learn to enjoy it. We benefit from this kind of housekeeping by being able to look up which ideas we can rationally adopt.