Activity Feed

  Dennis Hackethal restored idea #3301 from the archive, along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal restored idea #3303 from the archive, along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal restored idea #3305 from the archive, along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal restored idea #3317 from the archive, along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal restored idea #3323 from the archive, along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal restored idea #3325 from the archive, along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal restored idea #3330 from the archive, along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal restored idea #3333 from the archive, along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal commented on idea #3542.

Elaboration:

The conflict in addiction is between short-term and long-term solutions.

The preference for short-term in addiction is caused by uncertainty/an inability to make predictions based on explanations.

This uncertainty can be real (e.g. increased heroin addiction during the Vietnam War) or learned from insecurity during one's early years.

#3542·Erik Orrje, 15 days ago

Interesting. Do you think the conflict is always between short vs long-term preferences, or could there be addictive conflicts between two short-term preferences or even two long-term preferences?

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #3555.

Yes. When you have program you can test a concept (incl. whether it is sufficiently defined to allow a program in the first place). But the other way around does not work: "If one does not have a program, then the concept is underspecified".

One way to program HTV could be to feed 2 explanations of the same phenomenon (in the form of text strings) to an LLM that is trained on seeking ETV patterns in text (things of the form "and then -all of a sudden- X happened ..." or "and Y (e.g. tears of a God) is kind of like Z (e.g. rain)" ) and seeking HTV patterns in text (e.g. Y happened because of X, with the LLM evaluating whether it is actual causation, whether if X did not happen, Y could not happen).And then the LLM could rank score the HTV-ness of each string (as a first approximation)

#3555·Bart Vanderhaegen, 15 days ago

When you have program [sic] you can test a concept (incl. whether it is sufficiently defined to allow a program in the first place). But the other way around does not work: "If one does not have a program, then the concept is underspecified".

That isn’t what I said anyway. No disrespect but frankly I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

I didn’t read the rest of your comment because you keep talking instead of coding. I’ll delete any further comments of yours that don’t contain code that at least tries to meet the bounty terms.

  Bart Vanderhaegen commented on criticism #3553.

Isn't every theory infinitely underspecified ?

No. For example, the theory of addition is sufficiently specified: we have enough info to implement an algorithm of addition on a computer, then run it, test it, correct errors with it, and so on.

#3553·Dennis HackethalOP revised 15 days ago

Yes. When you have program you can test a concept (incl. whether it is sufficiently defined to allow a program in the first place). But the other way around does not work: "If one does not have a program, then the concept is underspecified".

One way to program HTV could be to feed 2 explanations of the same phenomenon (in the form of text strings) to an LLM that is trained on seeking ETV patterns in text (things of the form "and then -all of a sudden- X happened ..." or "and Y (e.g. tears of a God) is kind of like Z (e.g. rain)" ) and seeking HTV patterns in text (e.g. Y happened because of X, with the LLM evaluating whether it is actual causation, whether if X did not happen, Y could not happen).And then the LLM could rank score the HTV-ness of each string (as a first approximation)

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #3550.

Isn't every theory infinitely underspecified ?

No.

Isn't every theory infinitely underspecified ?

No. For example, the theory of addition is sufficiently specified: we have enough info to implement an algorithm of addition on a computer, then run it, test it, correct errors with it, and so on.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3549.

Isn't every theory infinitely underspecified ? Also, I would think that criteria for sufficiency must always be subjective ones (e.g. a working computerprogram cannot be itself a proof of meeting an some objective sufficiency criterium)? So I don't see how insufficiency points to a conflict of ideas/ contradiction

#3549·Bart Vanderhaegen, 15 days ago

We’re getting off topic. I’m currently running a bounty requesting a working implementation of HTV.

If you think you can beat the bounty, do it. I’m not interested in anything else for now.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3549.

Isn't every theory infinitely underspecified ? Also, I would think that criteria for sufficiency must always be subjective ones (e.g. a working computerprogram cannot be itself a proof of meeting an some objective sufficiency criterium)? So I don't see how insufficiency points to a conflict of ideas/ contradiction

#3549·Bart Vanderhaegen, 15 days ago

Also, I would think that criteria for sufficiency must always be subjective ones (e.g. a working computerprogram [sic] cannot be itself a proof of meeting an some objective sufficiency criterium)?

No, there are objective criteria.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3549.

Isn't every theory infinitely underspecified ? Also, I would think that criteria for sufficiency must always be subjective ones (e.g. a working computerprogram cannot be itself a proof of meeting an some objective sufficiency criterium)? So I don't see how insufficiency points to a conflict of ideas/ contradiction

#3549·Bart Vanderhaegen, 15 days ago

Isn't every theory infinitely underspecified ?

No.

  Bart Vanderhaegen addressed criticism #3548.

The mistake is insufficiency. If someone gives you a recipe for baking a cake but doesn’t specify ingredients or bake time, that’s a problem.

#3548·Dennis HackethalOP, 15 days ago

Isn't every theory infinitely underspecified ? Also, I would think that criteria for sufficiency must always be subjective ones (e.g. a working computerprogram cannot be itself a proof of meeting an some objective sufficiency criterium)? So I don't see how insufficiency points to a conflict of ideas/ contradiction

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3547.

How is that a criticism ? What mistake does it point out/ argue for ?

#3547·Bart Vanderhaegen, 15 days ago

The mistake is insufficiency. If someone gives you a recipe for baking a cake but doesn’t specify ingredients or bake time, that’s a problem.

  Bart Vanderhaegen addressed criticism #3545.

It’s a criticism. Deutsch says to use HTV but never explains in sufficient detail how to do that.

#3545·Dennis HackethalOP, 15 days ago

How is that a criticism ? What mistake does it point out/ argue for ?

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3543.

Do you mean "HTV is underspecified by Deutsch" ? But that is not a criticism ? It does not point to a mistake/ contradiction with HTV ?

#3543·Bart Vanderhaegen, 15 days ago

"HTV is underspecified by Deutsch"

That isn’t a quote. Don’t put things in quotation marks unless they are literal quotations or obviously scare quotes.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3543.

Do you mean "HTV is underspecified by Deutsch" ? But that is not a criticism ? It does not point to a mistake/ contradiction with HTV ?

#3543·Bart Vanderhaegen, 15 days ago

It’s a criticism. Deutsch says to use HTV but never explains in sufficient detail how to do that.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3543.

Do you mean "HTV is underspecified by Deutsch" ? But that is not a criticism ? It does not point to a mistake/ contradiction with HTV ?

#3543·Bart Vanderhaegen, 15 days ago

That’s only one of several criticisms.

  Bart Vanderhaegen addressed criticism #3536.

Criticising HTV would anyway be the more important first step.

The linked blog post has several criticisms of HTV.

#3536·Dennis HackethalOP, 16 days ago

Do you mean "HTV is underspecified by Deutsch" ? But that is not a criticism ? It does not point to a mistake/ contradiction with HTV ?

  Erik Orrje commented on idea #3040.

My Conjecture

Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.

Picture a smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.

If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. He will become a chain smoker.

Solutions for the conflict may need to be found creatively, case by case. It depends on the nature of the particular entrenchment and the preferences involved. A more overarching answer for how to cure addiction might involve Randian ideas around introspection and getting one’s reason and emotions in the proper order.

#3040·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months ago

Elaboration:

The conflict in addiction is between short-term and long-term solutions.

The preference for short-term in addiction is caused by uncertainty/an inability to make predictions based on explanations.

This uncertainty can be real (e.g. increased heroin addiction during the Vietnam War) or learned from insecurity during one's early years.

  Ragnar Danneskjöld revised idea #3539.

This didn't sound like a criticism of your own stance.


I think Lucas is right to reject that fragmentation but I don’t think it happens in the first place.

CR universally describes the growth of knowledge as error correction. When such error correction leads to correspondence with the facts (about the physical world), we call that science. When it doesn’t, we call it something else, like art or engineering or skill-building.

It’s all still error correction. There is no fragmentation due to correspondence.

I think Lucas is right to reject that fragmentation but I don’t think it happens in the first place.

CR universally describes the growth of knowledge as error correction. When such error correction leads to correspondence with the facts (about the physical world), we call that science. When it doesn’t, we call it something else, like art or engineering or skill-building.

It’s all still error correction. There is no fragmentation due to correspondence.

  Ragnar Danneskjöld revised criticism #2340 and unmarked it as a criticism.

I think Lucas is right to reject that fragmentation but I don’t think it happens in the first place.

CR universally describes the growth of knowledge as error correction. When such error correction leads to correspondence with the facts (about the physical world), we call that science. When it doesn’t, we call it something else, like art or engineering or skill-building.

It’s all still error correction. There is no fragmentation due to correspondence.

I think Lucas is right to reject that fragmentation but I don’t think it happens in the first place.

CR universally describes the growth of knowledge as error correction. When such error correction leads to correspondence with the facts (about the physical world), we call that science. When it doesn’t, we call it something else, like art or engineering or skill-building.

It’s all still error correction. There is no fragmentation due to correspondence.