work on overcoming biases, LW’s peculiar solution to free will
None of that is novel, or even peculiar. The point of Lesswrong is to make it fresh, accessable, and well written. The bias writings are derived from academic work on biases, published by people doing experiments. The “solution to free will” is just basic clear thinking—if you were confused about free will upon entering, you’re encouraged to not read the solution and solve it yourself as an exercise, and then check to see if that solution matches your own—it’s not claiming to be novel philosophy or anything. This is primarily a hub for the dispersal of existing good ideas in a better format.
Novel ideas tend to be more narrow, more specific formulations. Timeless decision theory, for example, is specific and fairly novel, and MIRI published it.
I agree, most writings are derived from academic works.
That may seem weird, but I don’t think “basic clear thinking” should be excluded from academia. Philosophy problems should in my opinion not simply be something we “solve it ourselves”, and should enter as formal as it can in academia. I may also simply be unaware of the possibly similar works on this problem too.
That said, I haven’t been confused by this problem either, simply got more confused after reading LW and asking what people thought around me—that it was really something that bothered people.
And TDT has been self published … Why not in mainstream academia ?
I may also simply be unaware of the possibly similar works on this problem too.
Recorded compatibalist conceptions of free will are several centuries older than academia, so I don’t think it was ever really a publishable insight. (You got it on your own, I got it on my own, and so have a lot of people throughout history—it’s just that not everyone agrees.)
I don’t know about the second question...assuming the premise is true, I suppose either they did not try or it wasn’t accepted, I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable about academic philosophy to speculate!
None of that is novel, or even peculiar. The point of Lesswrong is to make it fresh, accessable, and well written. The bias writings are derived from academic work on biases, published by people doing experiments. The “solution to free will” is just basic clear thinking—if you were confused about free will upon entering, you’re encouraged to not read the solution and solve it yourself as an exercise, and then check to see if that solution matches your own—it’s not claiming to be novel philosophy or anything. This is primarily a hub for the dispersal of existing good ideas in a better format.
Novel ideas tend to be more narrow, more specific formulations. Timeless decision theory, for example, is specific and fairly novel, and MIRI published it.
I agree, most writings are derived from academic works.
That may seem weird, but I don’t think “basic clear thinking” should be excluded from academia. Philosophy problems should in my opinion not simply be something we “solve it ourselves”, and should enter as formal as it can in academia. I may also simply be unaware of the possibly similar works on this problem too.
That said, I haven’t been confused by this problem either, simply got more confused after reading LW and asking what people thought around me—that it was really something that bothered people.
And TDT has been self published … Why not in mainstream academia ?
Recorded compatibalist conceptions of free will are several centuries older than academia, so I don’t think it was ever really a publishable insight. (You got it on your own, I got it on my own, and so have a lot of people throughout history—it’s just that not everyone agrees.)
I don’t know about the second question...assuming the premise is true, I suppose either they did not try or it wasn’t accepted, I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable about academic philosophy to speculate!