Yes, when we talk about something having systematic effects, we mean it tends probabilistically to have those effects. But this is cheating on the taboo: you are merely substituting another term of art. “Tends probabilistically” is no clearer than “tends systematically.”
Probabilities pertain to degrees of belief, not to states of the world. To think otherwise is to commit a mind projection fallacy. On this we agree. So, how can a probability describe a systematic tendency in the universe?
Yes, when we talk about something having systematic effects, we mean it tends probabilistically to have those effects.
Typically, when I want to discuss probabilistic relations I’ll use a probabilistic word, like “probably” or “tends to” or “correlates with.” When I use the word “systematically,” I typically want to imply a causal relationship. Taking Eliezer’s old example, if I put a pebble in the bucket when a sheep leaves the fold and take a pebble out of the bucket when a sheep returns to the fold, I’ve created a causal system, which will have the systematic effect of letting me know how many sheep are outside the fold by checking the level of the bucket. Whether the system is deterministic or stochastic doesn’t make much difference for how I think about the graph connecting the nodes, though it will change the underlying mathematics.
Now, I’ll note my answer is very different from Eliezer’s, and I suspect that’s because “tends probabilistically to” is a simpler concept than a causal system; I might be trying to explain addition using multiplication.
How about “if you try this many times, it will usually work.” I’m not sure you can taboo ‘usually’ (or ‘systematically’). It seems to be one way to invoke a rather fundamental-seeming process of abstracting from specific cases to general categories about which you can then form summarizing beliefs. If you ask someone to taboo something too basic, the best they can do is to rephrase and hope you’ll get what basic thing they were referring to.
It’s a little tautological that, by whatever method of counting things together you’ve worked out, you count certain things together, and that number is the denominator in your probability number; and then you count a subset of those things together, and that’s the numerator in your probability number. It’s so tautological, given the definition of probability, that it might not count as “tabooing probability.” But it seems worth pointing out anyway.
You’re right that I didn’t clearly describe probability, though; I needed to make it clear that in the denominator you must count everything, however you group it.
Yes; to count everything that can occur when you flip an actual, physical coin, you must first invent the universe. It could also be swallowed by a passing bird, which then blunders into a metal foundry and is built into a new space probe, never landing at all. As a human, you just happen to count a huge number of outcomes together under “heads,” a huge number of outcomes together under “tails,” and a somewhat smaller number of outcomes together under “edge.”
Yes; to count everything that can occur when you flip an actual, physical coin, you must first invent the universe.
In fact, it may be more than merely our universe. The probability assignment actually incorporates doubt about what the precise details of the physics of our universe are. So you may need to invent Kolmogorov complexity and Tegmark’s Ultimate Ensemble before you get to the serious counting.
The problem is that “everything” contains infinitely many possibilities, so putting the number of possibilities in the denominator to calculate the probability doesn’t work.
Whenever I see semantic dissection in major posts, I always worry that language is just too messy, just a towering stack of cards, and wonder why there isn’t more discussion about why we use English when the language doesn’t seem optimal for science and seeking Truth. Obviously it’s rational for those who already speak English to continue using it for lack of an immediately available, preferable alternative, but I don’t see much discussing this fact, arguing whether we should start over, etc. Admittedly, I haven’t yet grokked the “ways words can be wrong” sequence.
Help me get over my linguistic-existential dread by refuting (or accepting) the statement “To develop optimal rationality skills, the first step should be to redesign our linguistic operating system.”
Back in the 17th century, several people had a go at redesigning the whole thing, motivated by the flood of new knowledge coming from scientific investigations and the great exploratory voyages, and a felt inadequacy of the language of the time for expressing it. The languages they designed never came into use, although a direct intellectual line can be traced from there down to the formalisation of mathematical logic and the development of the first computers.
But introducing a whole new language is much harder than introducing a new keyboard layout, and how far has Dvorak got? Nobody will bother except for a few geeks. Qapla’!
Instead, there have been useful suggestions in various sources for small, local tools that one can simply pick up and use. Here’s a list of the ones that occur to me. The first three are from Korzybski, and 4 is from General Semantics (on which there’s a thread here), but invented by David Bourland. 6 and 7 are my own observations, and 5 and 8 are easily googleable for more information.
Subscripting, to draw attention to the fact that Fred(2010) is not Fred(2012), Freda(@home) is not Freda(@work), and Genghis(drunk) is not Genghis(sober).
Liberal use of the word “etc.” to remind one that one never knows all about an object.
Avoidance of elementalistic divisions between things that are not divisible (“mind” vs “body”, “reason” vs “emotion”, “space” vs “time”, etc.), and their replacement by non-elementalistic language.
Try writing in E-Prime: English with all forms of the verb “to be” excluded. And one must do a proper job of tabooing the verb, not merely making a rote replacement by other words without re-examining the thought. One need not write exclusively in E-Prime, but the exercise will train one to look carefully at this troublesome word.
Learn Loglan or Lojban, not necessarily to use as a language, but to use as a linguistic exercise, for the different structure it has, based on mathematical logic. (Learn mathematical logic at the same time, if you don’t know it already.) I think Korzybski would approve, had he lived to see it. The originator, James Cooke Brown, saw Loglan as also a descendant of the old philosophical languages.
Avoid the word “really” and all its synonyms: “actually”, “fundamentally”, “essentially”, etc. Often, they’re an attempt to push reality away by saying “X is really Y” when the simple fact is that X is not Y. (“Fundamentally, there’s a dragon in my garage.”)
Take a hard look at the word “the” now and then. Make sure that you are not attempting a magic spell, trying to conjure something into existence by prefixing a noun phrase with “the”.
Write short stories in 100 words. (Google the word “drabble”.) I’ve been doing one of these a week for nearly a year now. It’s quite fascinating to find how a first draft twice as long can be shrunk without losing anything. Ordinary language begins to seem absurdly padded. You don’t necessarily want to perform liposuction on everything you write, but knowing it is possible prompts me to always be asking “are these words doing any work?” If you’re going to write at length, with a lot of repetition, circling around and around the subject, saying everything several times over in different ways, and with a lot of repetition, better to do it deliberately, for some definite reason.
Well, one place to start is to stop conflating “our linguistic operating system” with the languages we speak.
The former is a cognitive structure which all languages intelligible by humans have in common. Redesigning that might very well be a valuable step, but it’s way outside our current capabilities, and is unlikely to be a first step (or even a tenth or a hundredth step).
But, OK, fine then, should we redesign the languages we speak?
I’m inclined to doubt it. What I expect happens once a large number of people speak the language is that the actual spoken language gets creolized and that it’s just as easy to express fallacies in it as in any other human language.
That said, speaking a particular language might be valuable in a sort of ritual sense… as a way of reminding ourselves that we are “speaking as rationalists,” and should therefore strive for more precision and clarity and truth-preservation than we do in our ordinary lives.
That said, there’s a lot of site jargon that serves that purpose quite well already building on an English frame.
So on balance, I’m inclined to reject the statement.
Yes, when we talk about something having systematic effects, we mean it tends probabilistically to have those effects. But this is cheating on the taboo: you are merely substituting another term of art. “Tends probabilistically” is no clearer than “tends systematically.”
Probabilities pertain to degrees of belief, not to states of the world. To think otherwise is to commit a mind projection fallacy. On this we agree. So, how can a probability describe a systematic tendency in the universe?
Typically, when I want to discuss probabilistic relations I’ll use a probabilistic word, like “probably” or “tends to” or “correlates with.” When I use the word “systematically,” I typically want to imply a causal relationship. Taking Eliezer’s old example, if I put a pebble in the bucket when a sheep leaves the fold and take a pebble out of the bucket when a sheep returns to the fold, I’ve created a causal system, which will have the systematic effect of letting me know how many sheep are outside the fold by checking the level of the bucket. Whether the system is deterministic or stochastic doesn’t make much difference for how I think about the graph connecting the nodes, though it will change the underlying mathematics.
Now, I’ll note my answer is very different from Eliezer’s, and I suspect that’s because “tends probabilistically to” is a simpler concept than a causal system; I might be trying to explain addition using multiplication.
How about “if you try this many times, it will usually work.” I’m not sure you can taboo ‘usually’ (or ‘systematically’). It seems to be one way to invoke a rather fundamental-seeming process of abstracting from specific cases to general categories about which you can then form summarizing beliefs. If you ask someone to taboo something too basic, the best they can do is to rephrase and hope you’ll get what basic thing they were referring to.
What does it mean to try the same thing many times?
It’s a little tautological that, by whatever method of counting things together you’ve worked out, you count certain things together, and that number is the denominator in your probability number; and then you count a subset of those things together, and that’s the numerator in your probability number. It’s so tautological, given the definition of probability, that it might not count as “tabooing probability.” But it seems worth pointing out anyway.
First I assume you mean to reply to some other comment.
Furthermore, you description doesn’t really work as a definition of probability since it implicitly assumes all the things are equally probable.
I’m confused about your assumption.
You’re right that I didn’t clearly describe probability, though; I needed to make it clear that in the denominator you must count everything, however you group it.
When I flip a coin, it can land on heads, tails, or edge; however, the probability that it lands on edge is not 1⁄3.
Yes; to count everything that can occur when you flip an actual, physical coin, you must first invent the universe. It could also be swallowed by a passing bird, which then blunders into a metal foundry and is built into a new space probe, never landing at all. As a human, you just happen to count a huge number of outcomes together under “heads,” a huge number of outcomes together under “tails,” and a somewhat smaller number of outcomes together under “edge.”
In fact, it may be more than merely our universe. The probability assignment actually incorporates doubt about what the precise details of the physics of our universe are. So you may need to invent Kolmogorov complexity and Tegmark’s Ultimate Ensemble before you get to the serious counting.
Even that isn’t enough since it doesn’t incorporate our uncertainty about mathematics.
When I flip a coin, I count some outcomes under “heads”, some outcomes under “tails”, and everything else I ignore and demand we flip the coin again.
The problem is that “everything” contains infinitely many possibilities, so putting the number of possibilities in the denominator to calculate the probability doesn’t work.
Whenever I see semantic dissection in major posts, I always worry that language is just too messy, just a towering stack of cards, and wonder why there isn’t more discussion about why we use English when the language doesn’t seem optimal for science and seeking Truth. Obviously it’s rational for those who already speak English to continue using it for lack of an immediately available, preferable alternative, but I don’t see much discussing this fact, arguing whether we should start over, etc. Admittedly, I haven’t yet grokked the “ways words can be wrong” sequence.
My previous post on the topic.
Help me get over my linguistic-existential dread by refuting (or accepting) the statement “To develop optimal rationality skills, the first step should be to redesign our linguistic operating system.”
Back in the 17th century, several people had a go at redesigning the whole thing, motivated by the flood of new knowledge coming from scientific investigations and the great exploratory voyages, and a felt inadequacy of the language of the time for expressing it. The languages they designed never came into use, although a direct intellectual line can be traced from there down to the formalisation of mathematical logic and the development of the first computers.
But introducing a whole new language is much harder than introducing a new keyboard layout, and how far has Dvorak got? Nobody will bother except for a few geeks. Qapla’!
Instead, there have been useful suggestions in various sources for small, local tools that one can simply pick up and use. Here’s a list of the ones that occur to me. The first three are from Korzybski, and 4 is from General Semantics (on which there’s a thread here), but invented by David Bourland. 6 and 7 are my own observations, and 5 and 8 are easily googleable for more information.
Subscripting, to draw attention to the fact that Fred(2010) is not Fred(2012), Freda(@home) is not Freda(@work), and Genghis(drunk) is not Genghis(sober).
Liberal use of the word “etc.” to remind one that one never knows all about an object.
Avoidance of elementalistic divisions between things that are not divisible (“mind” vs “body”, “reason” vs “emotion”, “space” vs “time”, etc.), and their replacement by non-elementalistic language.
Try writing in E-Prime: English with all forms of the verb “to be” excluded. And one must do a proper job of tabooing the verb, not merely making a rote replacement by other words without re-examining the thought. One need not write exclusively in E-Prime, but the exercise will train one to look carefully at this troublesome word.
Learn Loglan or Lojban, not necessarily to use as a language, but to use as a linguistic exercise, for the different structure it has, based on mathematical logic. (Learn mathematical logic at the same time, if you don’t know it already.) I think Korzybski would approve, had he lived to see it. The originator, James Cooke Brown, saw Loglan as also a descendant of the old philosophical languages.
Avoid the word “really” and all its synonyms: “actually”, “fundamentally”, “essentially”, etc. Often, they’re an attempt to push reality away by saying “X is really Y” when the simple fact is that X is not Y. (“Fundamentally, there’s a dragon in my garage.”)
Take a hard look at the word “the” now and then. Make sure that you are not attempting a magic spell, trying to conjure something into existence by prefixing a noun phrase with “the”.
Write short stories in 100 words. (Google the word “drabble”.) I’ve been doing one of these a week for nearly a year now. It’s quite fascinating to find how a first draft twice as long can be shrunk without losing anything. Ordinary language begins to seem absurdly padded. You don’t necessarily want to perform liposuction on everything you write, but knowing it is possible prompts me to always be asking “are these words doing any work?” If you’re going to write at length, with a lot of repetition, circling around and around the subject, saying everything several times over in different ways, and with a lot of repetition, better to do it deliberately, for some definite reason.
As RichardKennaway says, it has been tried before, and never worked. You might be interested in Umberto Eco’s book “Search for the Perfect Language”.
Well, one place to start is to stop conflating “our linguistic operating system” with the languages we speak.
The former is a cognitive structure which all languages intelligible by humans have in common. Redesigning that might very well be a valuable step, but it’s way outside our current capabilities, and is unlikely to be a first step (or even a tenth or a hundredth step).
But, OK, fine then, should we redesign the languages we speak?
I’m inclined to doubt it. What I expect happens once a large number of people speak the language is that the actual spoken language gets creolized and that it’s just as easy to express fallacies in it as in any other human language.
That said, speaking a particular language might be valuable in a sort of ritual sense… as a way of reminding ourselves that we are “speaking as rationalists,” and should therefore strive for more precision and clarity and truth-preservation than we do in our ordinary lives.
That said, there’s a lot of site jargon that serves that purpose quite well already building on an English frame.
So on balance, I’m inclined to reject the statement.