Search Ideas
4037 ideas match your query.:
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Ben found a UI bug:
The text shouldn’t wrap after “trust”.
How to Be Rational: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2091272979791659054
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.
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.
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.
Brett says this can’t be a fully specified criterion of rationality because it’s not an AGI.
Brett doesn’t know this is a common objection I’ve addressed before. For example, I wrote a variant in #1976. My paper also addresses it (last objection in section 5).
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.
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.”
Brett Hall says this basically comes down to getting the “best explanation” but is “not quite right”.
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.
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.
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.
Naval, who’s inspired by Deutsch, says good products are hard to vary, too: https://nav.al/good-products
Gives iPhone as example.
Interest 1: It's my yardstick. I want to accomplish more, and I know I can (and we do, often, by staying up "too" late). And staying up is working as much as we can each day without coercion. It's stopping and getting ready for bed that requires coercion!
Interest 2: This measure of productivity is suspect. By whose yardstick is a day not productive enough? This is itself the source of the anxiety. Just work as much as we can each day without coercion. Asking for any more is foolish.
Interest 2: Go to bed around hour 16, to get the full 8 ours we require for good health and functioning! We regret when we sleep too much less than 8 hours, and the cumulative health impact causes us some background anxiety (which is itself unhealthy).