Search Ideas

Recursive Epistemology

Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be pending, it can’t have any pending criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

def should_adopt? idea
  pending_criticisms(idea).none?
end

def pending_criticisms idea
  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| should_adopt?(c) }
end

def criticisms idea
  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)
end

This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.

Assuming Sam did mean to criticize my opposition to assigning strengths to criticisms:

The issue isn’t that we don’t have a way to fix the hole. (We often do.)
The issue is that we have no rigorous way to tell how big the hole is. So, rather than evade criticisms by saying ‘but it’s only a small hole’, I’m saying we should always either fix holes in the boat, no matter their size, or choose a different boat.

Unclear what the boat stands for.

Sam criticized my idea, so presumably he means for the boat to represent #4711. But the way his criticism is phrased, it sounds more like the boat represents the methodology of assigning strengths to criticisms.

To be clear, the boat represents the idea that we should judge criticisms by their strength?

Logically, yes. But in practice, it won’t be the same.

For example:

Idea A: ‘Newtonian gravity is true.’ → Has pending criticisms (some predictions don’t match observation).
Idea B: ‘Newtonian gravity is not true.’ → Also has pending criticisms: ‘Not helpful’; ‘Doesn’t tell us how gravity works’; etc.

Related: https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/2014/08/simple-refutation-of-the-bayesian-philosophy-of-science/

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but if somebody suggests some system they can’t put into practice, then the system is no good.

This sounds like a version of #2195, see criticism #2198.

Then the idea ‘I could either address that pending criticism or, if I fail to do that, look into all the other pending criticisms’ would have no pending criticisms.

Now also available on PhilPapers: https://philpapers.org/archive/HACTSO-6.pdf

I’ve formalized some of these ideas in my first paper, ‘The Structure of Rational Thought’.

https://www.academia.edu/170297518/The_Structure_of_Rational_Thought

I usually get conspiracy vibes from anti-fluoride sources, but I haven’t looked into it much.

Possibly related: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/what-is-the-difference-between-a-person-and-a-re

Indeed. And this is one of the reasons the cynics are wrong. They think true ideas couldn’t be improved further. This worries them because they want unbounded progress. So they conclude our ideas can never be 100% true. Not only is that motivated reasoning but, as you’ve just said, true ideas can still be improved anyway.

Like, the criticism flag isn’t just for factual errors, if that’s what you mean.

If you think his comment won’t work as a solution for AGI, then his comment is erroneous from that POV.

May have found a solution to my salt problem: https://www.instagram.com/p/DZ5cCwQFOtp/

The Kirin Electric Salt Spoon. CNET wrote an article about it: https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/we-tested-an-electric-salt-spoon-that-might-help-you-stick-to-your-low-sodium-diet/

It basically works by using electric signals to trick your brain into thinking it’s tasting salt.

If this is intended to answer my criticism, shouldn’t it be marked as a counter-criticism?

“definitively defined” sounds tautological.

You’ve submitted several criticisms in one idea. It’s in your interest to avoid doing that because you make yourself vulnerable to what we call ‘bulk criticism’. See #4471.

I may have more criticisms but I can’t really submit them productively until you split up your idea.

Please work on your tone. You’re mixing in personal accusations rather than just sticking with impersonal arguments. For example: “apparently insisting”, “pedantic”, and also a hidden accusation that I have an ulterior motive to punish women rather than save lives (“Regardless of whether your real concern here…”).

This kind of tone can derail and sabotage debate. Veritula has a policy against any behavior that sabotages debate. Please review our forum rules (#4460).

New accounts, especially anonymous ones, need to tread lightly and prove they’re worth engaging with.

This is not a valid or interesting criticism of my argument that the apparent dilemma can be resolved through the growth of knowledge.

It wasn’t intended as a criticism. It was a related observation. That’s why I didn’t mark my idea as a criticism. It sounds like you’ve misunderstood me.

Please remember to mark your ideas as criticisms whenever appropriate. Although this idea is phrased as a question, it’s still a pending criticism as long as it doesn’t get answered.

It seems odd to me when people argue pregnancy is a loss of authority over one’s body.

A woman had sex. Assuming it was voluntary, what did she think was going to happen?

Imagine someone saying: ‘I ate too much. Now I’m fat. I’ve lost authority over my own body.’ But they didn’t. They got exactly what they should have expected.

I think what those people are really saying is: they don’t like that their actions have consequences. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

That sounds right but how is it a criticism of my idea? It’s the ideas the mind evolves that change the landscape, no?

Another way to approach AGI? (Very early, preliminary thoughts.)

Say you write an evolutionary algorithm, like the ones that have been written before. Then DD would argue it’ll get stuck because all it can do is explore a given landscape for its best features. Whereas real evolution creates new landscapes.

To address this issue, you subject your algorithm itself to variation and selection, by wrapping it in another evolutionary algorithm. But this approach just kicks the can down the road because now it’s the space of programs that’s limited.

How do you break out of this limitation?

You can’t just keep wrapping your programs in evolutionary algorithms like that because that only keeps kicking the can down the road. It’s like adding more and more entries to a multiplication table. It’s not the same as a multiplication algorithm. But for evolution, the problem is harder, in a way, because not even recursion solves the issue, and the starting point wasn’t as ‘flat’ as a multiplication table. The starting point is already an algorithm, not just a list.

What’s needed, in DD’s lingo, is a jump to universality. But a jump to what kind of universality, exactly?

cc @tyler-mills