Sound logic doesn’t help when you start of with bad assumptions.
Which I didn’t.
No, it isn’t. The fact that the word acausal exists on LW, doesn’t mean that those people who use it don’t believe in causality. It’s used when speaking about agents that use a specific decision theory.
Yes, and my idea(s) work the same way! I don’t know what acausality is formally but I’ve seen how it is used in other LW ideas and I’m pretty sure that it applies.
You furthermore simply pointed at arguments without being explicit about your chain of reasoning. Without you being explicit it’s impossible to show you where you are wrong.
“You have to prove causality wrong” seems to be a similar line of thinking. And when was I not completely explicit about my reasoning? Point that out for me please.
If you want specific help you are more likely find it through in person discussion at LW meetups then through emailing random persons.
I’m open to that, but I find it almost impossible to clarify thoughts outside of writing.
Yes, and my idea(s) work the same way! I don’t know what acausality is formally but I’ve seen how it is used in other LW ideas and I’m pretty sure that it applies.
“I’m pretty sure that it applies” is no argument. You didn’t make the argument for which you believe that’s true. You just asserted it to be true.
If you would have actually made the argument your post would have been longer than a paragraph and not simple referred to cached thoughts about acausal reasoning.
“You have to prove causality wrong” seems to be a similar line of thinking.
It’s similar to the extend that it’s no detailed argument. It a statement that asserts that you have the burden of proof for the thesis you make instead of other people having to prove you wrong.
If you care about your mental health than it’s useful to demand from people who think they have found away around causality to provide extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims but not treat the idea that the world runs in a causal fashion as an extraordinary claim.
I’m open to that, but I find it almost impossible to clarify thoughts outside of writing.
I didn’t clarify thoughts in writing either. http://lesswrong.com/lw/m8j/a_resolution_to_the_doomsday_argument/ is not clear writing. In person another person can actually show you easily where you are unclear. The can actually interact with the emotion which you ignore when you are writing. Depending on their skill level they can then debug your emotional issues.
There are emotionally ugh-fields that prevent you from seeing issues that prove you wrong when you sit alone in front of your computer. You need real world feedback with humans to show you where you are confused. If you would actually think clearly about the issue you wouldn’t have any trouble with in person discussions of it.
It’s the only way to stay sane when thinking about an issue like that and your mind blinds you from going down certain paths.
If you would have actually made the argument your post would have been longer than a paragraph and not simple referred to cached thoughts about acausal reasoning.
Which post was this? The solution to the DA?
If you care about your mental health than it’s useful to demand from people who think they have found away around causality to provide extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims but not treat the idea that the world runs in a causal fashion as an extraordinary claim.
I don’t understand causality scientifically. It’s like asking an evolutionary biologist to demonstrate exactly how his theory overcomes the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It certainly applies to the post about the solution to DA.
I don’t understand causality scientifically. It’s like asking an evolutionary biologist to demonstrate exactly how his theory overcomes the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A smart evolutionary biologist won’t draw a blank when you ask him the question. He will tell you that the sun provides earth with entropy that allows life to blossom.
If you think that you yourself don’t understand causality scientifically you shouldn’t make complex nonintuitive claims about the nature of causality.
It certainly applies to the post about the solution to DA.
I don’t recall saying a single word about acausality. I put forward my logic.
A smart evolutionary biologist won’t draw a blank when you ask him the question. He will tell you that the sun provides earth with entropy that allows life to blossom.
Sure, but I don’t claim to be an expert in anything. I just had an idea that seemed sound.
Which I didn’t.
Yes, and my idea(s) work the same way! I don’t know what acausality is formally but I’ve seen how it is used in other LW ideas and I’m pretty sure that it applies.
“You have to prove causality wrong” seems to be a similar line of thinking. And when was I not completely explicit about my reasoning? Point that out for me please.
I’m open to that, but I find it almost impossible to clarify thoughts outside of writing.
“I’m pretty sure that it applies” is no argument. You didn’t make the argument for which you believe that’s true. You just asserted it to be true. If you would have actually made the argument your post would have been longer than a paragraph and not simple referred to cached thoughts about acausal reasoning.
It’s similar to the extend that it’s no detailed argument. It a statement that asserts that you have the burden of proof for the thesis you make instead of other people having to prove you wrong.
If you care about your mental health than it’s useful to demand from people who think they have found away around causality to provide extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims but not treat the idea that the world runs in a causal fashion as an extraordinary claim.
I didn’t clarify thoughts in writing either. http://lesswrong.com/lw/m8j/a_resolution_to_the_doomsday_argument/ is not clear writing. In person another person can actually show you easily where you are unclear. The can actually interact with the emotion which you ignore when you are writing. Depending on their skill level they can then debug your emotional issues.
There are emotionally ugh-fields that prevent you from seeing issues that prove you wrong when you sit alone in front of your computer. You need real world feedback with humans to show you where you are confused. If you would actually think clearly about the issue you wouldn’t have any trouble with in person discussions of it.
It’s the only way to stay sane when thinking about an issue like that and your mind blinds you from going down certain paths.
Which post was this? The solution to the DA?
I don’t understand causality scientifically. It’s like asking an evolutionary biologist to demonstrate exactly how his theory overcomes the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I’ve always been bad at initial presentations. It gets better after observing where people go wrong.
It certainly applies to the post about the solution to DA.
A smart evolutionary biologist won’t draw a blank when you ask him the question. He will tell you that the sun provides earth with entropy that allows life to blossom.
If you think that you yourself don’t understand causality scientifically you shouldn’t make complex nonintuitive claims about the nature of causality.
I don’t recall saying a single word about acausality. I put forward my logic.
Sure, but I don’t claim to be an expert in anything. I just had an idea that seemed sound.
You didn’t list all the assumption you make. You didn’t explain a causal chain of how what you are proposing will lead to the effects that you desire.
If you would have the post would be longer than a paragraph as any LW post introducing a substantial new concept is.
You expressed an idea and the idea felt sound for you but you didn’t go into a deep argument for it.