This sort of “everyone who understands my ideas agrees with me, and everyone who doesn’t agree just doesn’t understand” is never not annoying, even if you tack on a “most” or “almost”. Even if the ideas you describe were perfectly sensible, it would still be highly irritating to be faced with such a smug presentation of them.
However, in this case, what you say also seems incoherent.
In particular:
LDT is the realisation that we should act as if our decisions will be reflected by every similarly rational agent that exists
In this description of LDT, the phrase “similarly rational” is being forced to do almost all the work; and it is much too vague to be up to the task. The specific claim of LDT is:
Logical decision theory asserts that the principle of rational choice is “Decide as though you are choosing the logical output of your decision algorithm.”
That is very far from any notion of karma, any notion of “all is one”, etc. So even if we find logical decision theories to be attractive, and their claims convincing, that does not get us to any of the “spiritual” claims you seem to want to make on those theories’ basis.
I don’t know how many of us have noticed this, I’ve met a few, but we’re starting to realise that anthropic measure, the substance of experience or subjectivity, there isn’t some special relationship between observer-moments that’re close in time and space, there’s just a magnitude, and the magnitude can change over time.
This does not actually seem to be a coherent sentence, much less a coherent thought, so I assume that you’ve accidentally omitted some words; I’ll comment on this once you’ve had a chance to rewrite it.
If we care about one being’s experience, we should generally care about every being’s experience.
This in absolutely no way follows from logical decision theory or anything related to it.
There are a lot of assumptions you’re making about the purpose/subtext of that comment. The comment is like, three exchanges into a conversation. It was not written for you. Its purpose was to name some ideas for snarles that they’re probably already largely familiar with. It isn’t supposed to teach or to expound enough detail that someone who didn’t know a lot of what I was talking about would be able to refute any of it. That is not what we’re doing in this thread. There is a time and place for that. Seriously, I’m probably going to have to write about this stuff properly at some point, and I hope you’ll find it precise and coherent enough to engage with without frustration, when the time comes.
We are still a long way from arriving at the “interesting” thing that I alluded to, if we’re ever going to (I’m not even totally sure I’ll be able to recover that thought).
In this description of LDT
I wasn’t really trying to give an accurate description/definition of LDT, it’s an entailment.
That is very far from any notion of karma
The easier we can make it for people to step from a superstition or a metaphor to a real formalised understanding, the better. If you say it’s a long walk, a lot of them wont set out.
This in absolutely no way follows from logical decision theory or anything related to it.
That paragraph was about anthropic measure continuity, not LDT
There are a lot of assumptions you’re making about the purpose/subtext of that comment. The comment is like, three exchanges into a conversation. It was not written for you.
I read the ancestor comments as well (and every other comment on this post, too). Whatever purpose or subtext was contained therein is available to me also, and to anyone else reading this public forum thread. If you prefer that something you write be read and responded to only by a single recipient, Less Wrong does have a private messaging system.
I wasn’t really trying to give an accurate description/definition of LDT, it’s an entailment.
What do you mean by “it’s an entailment”? What entails what?
The easier we can make it for people to step from a superstition or a metaphor to a real formalised understanding, the better. If you say it’s a long walk, a lot of them wont set out.
Are you suggesting a strategy of publicly professing positions we do not actually hold, and making claims we do not actually believe, in order to better persuade people (whom we believe to be in the grip of a supersition) to accept our ideas?
I hope I do not have to enumerate the profound problems with such a plan. I will name only one: it’s fundamentally dishonest and deceptive, and intellectually disrespectful of one’s interlocutors. I strongly urge against attempting to employ any such tactics.
This sort of “everyone who understands my ideas agrees with me, and everyone who doesn’t agree just doesn’t understand” is never not annoying, even if you tack on a “most” or “almost”. Even if the ideas you describe were perfectly sensible, it would still be highly irritating to be faced with such a smug presentation of them.
However, in this case, what you say also seems incoherent.
In particular:
In this description of LDT, the phrase “similarly rational” is being forced to do almost all the work; and it is much too vague to be up to the task. The specific claim of LDT is:
(From “Introduction to Logical Decision Theory for Analytic Philosophers” on Arbital. Italics in original.)
That is very far from any notion of karma, any notion of “all is one”, etc. So even if we find logical decision theories to be attractive, and their claims convincing, that does not get us to any of the “spiritual” claims you seem to want to make on those theories’ basis.
This does not actually seem to be a coherent sentence, much less a coherent thought, so I assume that you’ve accidentally omitted some words; I’ll comment on this once you’ve had a chance to rewrite it.
This in absolutely no way follows from logical decision theory or anything related to it.
There are a lot of assumptions you’re making about the purpose/subtext of that comment. The comment is like, three exchanges into a conversation. It was not written for you. Its purpose was to name some ideas for snarles that they’re probably already largely familiar with. It isn’t supposed to teach or to expound enough detail that someone who didn’t know a lot of what I was talking about would be able to refute any of it. That is not what we’re doing in this thread. There is a time and place for that. Seriously, I’m probably going to have to write about this stuff properly at some point, and I hope you’ll find it precise and coherent enough to engage with without frustration, when the time comes.
We are still a long way from arriving at the “interesting” thing that I alluded to, if we’re ever going to (I’m not even totally sure I’ll be able to recover that thought).
I wasn’t really trying to give an accurate description/definition of LDT, it’s an entailment.
The easier we can make it for people to step from a superstition or a metaphor to a real formalised understanding, the better. If you say it’s a long walk, a lot of them wont set out.
That paragraph was about anthropic measure continuity, not LDT
I read the ancestor comments as well (and every other comment on this post, too). Whatever purpose or subtext was contained therein is available to me also, and to anyone else reading this public forum thread. If you prefer that something you write be read and responded to only by a single recipient, Less Wrong does have a private messaging system.
What do you mean by “it’s an entailment”? What entails what?
Are you suggesting a strategy of publicly professing positions we do not actually hold, and making claims we do not actually believe, in order to better persuade people (whom we believe to be in the grip of a supersition) to accept our ideas?
I hope I do not have to enumerate the profound problems with such a plan. I will name only one: it’s fundamentally dishonest and deceptive, and intellectually disrespectful of one’s interlocutors. I strongly urge against attempting to employ any such tactics.