I want to talk to you, but I think there is a significant hurdle that we must overcome for this to be productive. Perhaps you do not want to talk to me, and if that is the case fine, but I would like to talk to you. The problem we are having is in the debating of definitions. There are multiple paradigms of what a paradox is. Instead of debating which is right, it is more fruitful to: 1.) accept that I am talking about something that is different from what you are talking about, 2.) try to understand it. And I will try to do the same.
I understand the Fallacy of Grey, and it does not apply at all to what I was trying to convey. Your understanding of the terms I use lead you to that conclusion, but it is false. You can fight for the definitions you have been indoctrinated in, and in doing so fight to label me as wrong, or we can have a real dialogue.
My definition of paradox stems largely from the work of Max Weber, who if I understand historically, develops the ideas of Kant, that are reconstructed from ideas of Aristotle. I am not 100% sure what paradigm of paradox you ascribe to, but if it is the same as what has been argued elsewhere in this series of posts, it seems to be dialetheism, Honestly, I really do not know where this train of thought stems from, or the cognitive implications of it. My understanding of Weber’s work places the word “paradox” within the paradigm of antinomy. The primary purpose of this paradigm of paradoxes is to highlight the fallacy of linguistic construction in its fragmentation of reality through categorization.
I assumed that when you said “rationality is a matter of degree” the degrees you were talking about were linear rationality and non-linear rationality, ideas tied to the philosophical traditional of richard rorty, dewy, and james. I see now that is not what you meant.
Something I hate about this blog is that people will down vote something without really understanding it, instead of assuming ignorance and trying to understand it. I come from a very different academic background than you, and I am guessing the majority of members of this community. I do not know much mathematics, I cannot program, and I am not versed in the word of Eliezer.
Ironically my notion of rationality as “winning” was an attempt to meet your community lexicon, and adapt it to the ideas of my own intellectual communities. This attempt failed. I am not sure if the failure is inherent in the method, or this community’s methodology of communication.
So, I guess if you want to hear about what paradox means within my field of study, instead of just labeling me as ignorant then I would love to talk about it.
You are doing a Humpty Dumpty (“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”)
You need to recognize that you are using ‘paradox’ in a most unconventional manner — dare I say in a ‘wrong’ manner. If you are going to be using language in unconventional ways, the burden is on you to make yourself clear.
You are also arguing about definitions — an unproductive pastime. Why don’t we taboo ‘paradox’ for the time being.
You don’t think half the terminology you use on this site is a “most unconventional manner” to the majority of people. The fact that you had to link me to an essay to explain your use of the word taboo is a gaping contradiction to what you are arguing.
The production of ideas beyond a certain level is pretty much the redefining of words. My use of the word paradox is unconventional, but no more than your own unconventional use of words. It represents a different sphere of ideas, but it is not wrong. If you re-read what I wrote above you will see I said that debating definitions is a waste of time, and that it is more fruitful to accept the plurality of words and try to acquire a new understanding of paradox, instead of fighting to hold onto one static interpretation of it.
The production of ideas beyond a certain level is pretty much the redefining of words. My use of the word paradox is unconventional, but no more than your own unconventional use of words.
In this instance it doesn’t matter whether you call it ‘paradox’. It’s either wrong or meaningless to present the following as a deep insight:
Of course I want to talk to you, debates are always interesting.
If you assert this:
saying rationality is a matter of degrees is basically what a paradox does.
and then this:
A paradox is the assertion that there can be multiple equally valid truth’s to a situation.
That sounds a lot like the Fallacy of Grey, even if you meant to say something different. Using the word paradox implies that the “multiple equally valid truths” are contradictory in nature, if so you’d end up with the Fallacy of Grey through the Principle of Explosion.
But regardless, you can’t just say “It’s a paradox.” and leave it at that. Feeling that it’s a paradox, no matter what paradigm that you’re using, shows that you don’t have the actual answer. Take antinomy for example, specifically Kant’s second antinomy concerning Atomism. It’s not actually a paradox, it was just that at the time we had a incomplete theory of how the universe works. Now we know that the universe isn’t constructed of individual particles.
You might find this and this useful further reading.
I’m interested in what you see to be the distinction between linear and non-linear rationality, I’m unfamiliar with applying the concept of linearity to rationality.
Something to keep in mind is the “rationality” you see here is very different to traditional rationality, although we use the same name. In fact a lot of what you’ll come across here won’t be found anywhere else which is why reading a good deal of the sequences is so important. Reading HPMoR is fairly equivalent too though.
I haven’t down-voted you simply because I can see where you’re coming from, you might be wrong or miscommunicating in certain respects, but you’re not being stupid.
Part of the problem is that there’s a huge inferential gap between you and most of the people here, as you say, you don’t know much mathematics and you’re not versed in the word of Eliezer. Similarly the folks here have not (necessarily) studied the social sciences intently, nor are they (necessarily) versed in the words of Weber, Rorty, Dewy or Kant.
Winning in the way we use it, is the best possible course of action to take. It’s distinctly different from the notion of winning a game. If losing a game is the best thing you can do then that is winning. The reason the attempt failed is because you didn’t understand what it was we meant by winning, and proceeded to say something that was untrue under the definition used on LW.
So yes, I’d like to hear about what a paradox means in your field of study. However you must realise that if you haven’t read the sequences, and you don’t know the math, there is a lot this community knows that you are ignorant of. By the same token, there is a lot that you know that the community is ignorant of. Neither thing is a bad thing, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to remedy it.
Importantly, don’t try and mix your knowledge and LW-rationality until you fully understand LW-rationality. No offence meant.
Hey if it is ok I am going to respond to your comment in pieces. I will start with this one. I say
A paradox is the assertion that there can be multiple equally valid truths to a situation.
To which you respond
That sounds a lot like the Fallacy of Grey, even if you meant to say something different. Using the word paradox implies that the “multiple equally valid truths” are contradictory in nature, if so you’d end up with the Fallacy of Grey through the Principle of Explosion.
The reason you see the principle of explosion in my statement is that you are assuming the paradox is dialetheistic, meaning that the multiple equally valid truths I am talking about exist within a single binary. I am not saying Π and –Π are both true. Rather, I am suggesting that to break matrix [Π, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Υ] into binaries (Π, -Π), (Ρ, -Ρ), (Σ, - Σ), (T,-T), and (Υ,-Y) leads to an incompatibility of measurement, and thus multiple equally valid truths.
You say that Antinomy is an outdated Kantian concept. You are correct. It is The reason precisely because of the fact that “we now know the universe isn’t constructed of individual particles” that created antinomy as a type of paradox. Antinomy is a linguistic rather than mathematical paradox. The function of language is to break reality down into schemas of categorization, this process irrevocably takes [Π, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Υ] and transforms it into (Π, -Π), (Ρ, -Ρ), (Σ, - Σ), (T,-T), and (Υ,-Y). As you have said, reality is not constructed of individual particles, but human interaction with reality cannot avoid superimposing individual particles upon it. Because of this, there are instances in the use of language where discourse creates a distinction between elements that does not exist in reality. If we do not acknowledge the potential for such linguistic fallacies, contradiction and competition between these elements cannot be avoided. This is the paradox of antinomy. A talented individual could rephrase this into the dialetheistism “language is both true and not true, but such a statement falls into the very fallacy of language that antinomy as paradox is attempt to warn against, ultimately defeating the purpose of even making the statement.
Not everything can be broken into a tidy maxim or brief summary. Being primarily Bayesians, I am sure you can appreciate that the implementation/ digestion of some ideas have no shortcuts. They do not exist as an individual idea, but rather a monstrous matrix in themselves. Contradicting my own assertion, I will attempt to create my own short maxim to aid in the process of digestion: Language is an inadequate tool for creating reality, but it is the primary tool for creating humans.
I am not 100% sure what paradigm of paradox you ascribe to, but if it is the same as what has been argued elsewhere in this series of posts, it seems to be dialetheism, Honestly, I really do not know where this train of thought stems from, or the cognitive implications of it. My understanding of Weber’s work places the word “paradox” within the paradigm of antinomy. The primary purpose of this paradigm of paradoxes is to highlight the fallacy of linguistic construction in its fragmentation of reality through categorization.
Wow. I don’t think I understood any of that. Out of curiosity, what is your field of study? I think there is a part of me that has an innate allergy to any text laden with words like “dialetheism” and “antinomy”, especially if they’re not defined within the text. Then again, that attitude is exactly what you’re criticizing in this comment, so maybe I’ll Wikipedia those terms and see if I can hammer out a bit of an understanding.
I do have to admit that I’m in a field that uses long, complex terms of its own. These terms convey very specific information to someone else with the same education as me, and hardly any useful information to someone without that education. But I wouldn’t get into a conversation with a stranger and use terms like ‘hyperbilirubinemia’ or ‘myelomeningocele’ without explaining them first.
I am part of an interdisciplinary field that combines sociology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, various bits of psychology, ecology, and philosophy.
But I wouldn’t get into a conversation with a stranger and use terms like ‘hyperbilirubinemia’ or ‘myelomeningocele’ without explaining them first.
I wouldn’t either, but when someone tells you that you don’t know what the word you are using means you expect them to be pretty well informed on the subject.
To Mr. Arrran and all others,
I want to talk to you, but I think there is a significant hurdle that we must overcome for this to be productive. Perhaps you do not want to talk to me, and if that is the case fine, but I would like to talk to you. The problem we are having is in the debating of definitions. There are multiple paradigms of what a paradox is. Instead of debating which is right, it is more fruitful to: 1.) accept that I am talking about something that is different from what you are talking about, 2.) try to understand it. And I will try to do the same.
I understand the Fallacy of Grey, and it does not apply at all to what I was trying to convey. Your understanding of the terms I use lead you to that conclusion, but it is false. You can fight for the definitions you have been indoctrinated in, and in doing so fight to label me as wrong, or we can have a real dialogue.
My definition of paradox stems largely from the work of Max Weber, who if I understand historically, develops the ideas of Kant, that are reconstructed from ideas of Aristotle. I am not 100% sure what paradigm of paradox you ascribe to, but if it is the same as what has been argued elsewhere in this series of posts, it seems to be dialetheism, Honestly, I really do not know where this train of thought stems from, or the cognitive implications of it. My understanding of Weber’s work places the word “paradox” within the paradigm of antinomy. The primary purpose of this paradigm of paradoxes is to highlight the fallacy of linguistic construction in its fragmentation of reality through categorization.
I assumed that when you said “rationality is a matter of degree” the degrees you were talking about were linear rationality and non-linear rationality, ideas tied to the philosophical traditional of richard rorty, dewy, and james. I see now that is not what you meant.
Something I hate about this blog is that people will down vote something without really understanding it, instead of assuming ignorance and trying to understand it. I come from a very different academic background than you, and I am guessing the majority of members of this community. I do not know much mathematics, I cannot program, and I am not versed in the word of Eliezer.
Ironically my notion of rationality as “winning” was an attempt to meet your community lexicon, and adapt it to the ideas of my own intellectual communities. This attempt failed. I am not sure if the failure is inherent in the method, or this community’s methodology of communication.
So, I guess if you want to hear about what paradox means within my field of study, instead of just labeling me as ignorant then I would love to talk about it.
I wonder what this post would look like without so many nouns, author names and so on.
Probably as lacking of any real contribution as your own.
You are doing a Humpty Dumpty (“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”)
You need to recognize that you are using ‘paradox’ in a most unconventional manner — dare I say in a ‘wrong’ manner. If you are going to be using language in unconventional ways, the burden is on you to make yourself clear.
You are also arguing about definitions — an unproductive pastime. Why don’t we taboo ‘paradox’ for the time being.
You don’t think half the terminology you use on this site is a “most unconventional manner” to the majority of people. The fact that you had to link me to an essay to explain your use of the word taboo is a gaping contradiction to what you are arguing.
The production of ideas beyond a certain level is pretty much the redefining of words. My use of the word paradox is unconventional, but no more than your own unconventional use of words. It represents a different sphere of ideas, but it is not wrong. If you re-read what I wrote above you will see I said that debating definitions is a waste of time, and that it is more fruitful to accept the plurality of words and try to acquire a new understanding of paradox, instead of fighting to hold onto one static interpretation of it.
In this instance it doesn’t matter whether you call it ‘paradox’. It’s either wrong or meaningless to present the following as a deep insight:
Of course I want to talk to you, debates are always interesting.
If you assert this:
and then this:
That sounds a lot like the Fallacy of Grey, even if you meant to say something different. Using the word paradox implies that the “multiple equally valid truths” are contradictory in nature, if so you’d end up with the Fallacy of Grey through the Principle of Explosion.
But regardless, you can’t just say “It’s a paradox.” and leave it at that. Feeling that it’s a paradox, no matter what paradigm that you’re using, shows that you don’t have the actual answer. Take antinomy for example, specifically Kant’s second antinomy concerning Atomism. It’s not actually a paradox, it was just that at the time we had a incomplete theory of how the universe works. Now we know that the universe isn’t constructed of individual particles.
You might find this and this useful further reading.
I’m interested in what you see to be the distinction between linear and non-linear rationality, I’m unfamiliar with applying the concept of linearity to rationality.
Something to keep in mind is the “rationality” you see here is very different to traditional rationality, although we use the same name. In fact a lot of what you’ll come across here won’t be found anywhere else which is why reading a good deal of the sequences is so important. Reading HPMoR is fairly equivalent too though.
I haven’t down-voted you simply because I can see where you’re coming from, you might be wrong or miscommunicating in certain respects, but you’re not being stupid.
Part of the problem is that there’s a huge inferential gap between you and most of the people here, as you say, you don’t know much mathematics and you’re not versed in the word of Eliezer. Similarly the folks here have not (necessarily) studied the social sciences intently, nor are they (necessarily) versed in the words of Weber, Rorty, Dewy or Kant.
Winning in the way we use it, is the best possible course of action to take. It’s distinctly different from the notion of winning a game. If losing a game is the best thing you can do then that is winning. The reason the attempt failed is because you didn’t understand what it was we meant by winning, and proceeded to say something that was untrue under the definition used on LW.
So yes, I’d like to hear about what a paradox means in your field of study. However you must realise that if you haven’t read the sequences, and you don’t know the math, there is a lot this community knows that you are ignorant of. By the same token, there is a lot that you know that the community is ignorant of. Neither thing is a bad thing, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to remedy it.
Importantly, don’t try and mix your knowledge and LW-rationality until you fully understand LW-rationality. No offence meant.
Hey if it is ok I am going to respond to your comment in pieces. I will start with this one. I say
To which you respond
The reason you see the principle of explosion in my statement is that you are assuming the paradox is dialetheistic, meaning that the multiple equally valid truths I am talking about exist within a single binary. I am not saying Π and –Π are both true. Rather, I am suggesting that to break matrix [Π, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Υ] into binaries (Π, -Π), (Ρ, -Ρ), (Σ, - Σ), (T,-T), and (Υ,-Y) leads to an incompatibility of measurement, and thus multiple equally valid truths.
You say that Antinomy is an outdated Kantian concept. You are correct. It is The reason precisely because of the fact that “we now know the universe isn’t constructed of individual particles” that created antinomy as a type of paradox. Antinomy is a linguistic rather than mathematical paradox. The function of language is to break reality down into schemas of categorization, this process irrevocably takes [Π, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Υ] and transforms it into (Π, -Π), (Ρ, -Ρ), (Σ, - Σ), (T,-T), and (Υ,-Y). As you have said, reality is not constructed of individual particles, but human interaction with reality cannot avoid superimposing individual particles upon it. Because of this, there are instances in the use of language where discourse creates a distinction between elements that does not exist in reality. If we do not acknowledge the potential for such linguistic fallacies, contradiction and competition between these elements cannot be avoided. This is the paradox of antinomy. A talented individual could rephrase this into the dialetheistism “language is both true and not true, but such a statement falls into the very fallacy of language that antinomy as paradox is attempt to warn against, ultimately defeating the purpose of even making the statement.
Not everything can be broken into a tidy maxim or brief summary. Being primarily Bayesians, I am sure you can appreciate that the implementation/ digestion of some ideas have no shortcuts. They do not exist as an individual idea, but rather a monstrous matrix in themselves. Contradicting my own assertion, I will attempt to create my own short maxim to aid in the process of digestion: Language is an inadequate tool for creating reality, but it is the primary tool for creating humans.
Wow. I don’t think I understood any of that. Out of curiosity, what is your field of study? I think there is a part of me that has an innate allergy to any text laden with words like “dialetheism” and “antinomy”, especially if they’re not defined within the text. Then again, that attitude is exactly what you’re criticizing in this comment, so maybe I’ll Wikipedia those terms and see if I can hammer out a bit of an understanding.
I do have to admit that I’m in a field that uses long, complex terms of its own. These terms convey very specific information to someone else with the same education as me, and hardly any useful information to someone without that education. But I wouldn’t get into a conversation with a stranger and use terms like ‘hyperbilirubinemia’ or ‘myelomeningocele’ without explaining them first.
I am part of an interdisciplinary field that combines sociology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, various bits of psychology, ecology, and philosophy.
I wouldn’t either, but when someone tells you that you don’t know what the word you are using means you expect them to be pretty well informed on the subject.
Coming soon!