I’m getting an error trying to load Lumifer’s comment in the highly nested discussion, but I can see it in my inbox, so I’ll try replying here without the nesting. For this comment, I will quote everything I reply to so it stands alone better.
Isn’t it convenient that I don’t have to care about these infinitely many theories?
why not?
Why not what?
Why don’t you have to care about the infinity of theories?
you can criticize categories, e.g. all ideas with feature X
How can you know that every single theory in that infinity has feature X? or belongs to the same category?
It depends which infinity we’re talking about. Suppose the problem is persuading LW ppl about Paths Forward and you say “Use a shovel”. That refers to infinitely many different potential solutions. However, they can be criticized as a group by pointing out that a shovel won’t help solve the problem. What does a shovel have to do with it? Irrelevant!
This criticism only applies to the infinite category of ideas about shovels, not everything. I’m able to criticize that whole infinite group as a unit because it was brought up as a unit, and defined according to having a particular feature for all the theories in the group (that they involve trying to solve the problem specifically with a shovel.)
The criticism is also contextual. It relates to using shovels for this particular problem. But shovels still help with some other problems. The context the criticism works in is broader than the single problem about paths forward persuasion of LW ppl – e.g. it also applies to anti-induction persuasion of Objectivists. This is typical – the point has some applicability to multiple contexts, but not universal applicability.
If you instead said “Do something” then you’d be bringing up a different infinity with more stuff in it, and I’d have a different reply: “Do what? That isn’t helpful because you’re pointing me to a large number of non-solutions without pointing out any solution. I agree there is a solution contained in there, somewhere, but I don’t know what it is, and you don’t seem to either, so I can’t use it currently. So I’m stuck with the regular options like doing a solution I do know of or spending more time looking for solutions.”
I will admit that there may be a solution with a shovel that actually would work (one way to get this is to take some great solution and then tack on a shovel, which is not optimal but may still be way better than anything we currently know of). So my criticism doesn’t 100% rule shovels out. However, it rules shovels out for the time being, as far as is known, pending a new idea about how to make a shovel work. We can only act on solutions we know of, and I have a criticism of the shovel category of ideas as we currently understand it. Our current understanding is that shovels help us dig, and can be used as weapons, and can be salvaged for resources like wood and metal, and can be sold, but that just vaguely saying “use a shovel somehow” does not help me solve a problem of intellectually persuading people.
you can’t observe entities
My nervous system makes perfectly good entities out of my sensory stream. Moreover, a rat’s nervous system also makes perfectly good entities out if its sensory stream regardless of the fact that the rat has never heard of epistemology and is not very philosophically literate.
I don’t think humans think like rats, and I propose we don’t debate animal “intelligence” at this time. I’ll try to speak to the issue in a different way.
I think humans have adequate control over their observing that they don’t get stuck and unable to make progress due to built-in biases and errors. For example, people can consciously think “that looked like a dog at first glance, but actually isn’t a painting of a dog”. So you can put thought into what the entities are. To the extent you have a default, you can partly change what that default is, and partly reinterpret it after doing the observation. And you’re capable of observing in a sufficiently non-lossy way to get whatever information you need (at least with tools like microscopes for some cases). You aren’t just inherently, permanently blind to some ways of dividing up the world into entities, or some observable things.
And whatever default your genes gave you about entities is not super reliable. It may be pretty good, but it’s very much capable of errors. So I’ll make a weaker claim: you can’t infallibly observe entities. You need to put some actual thought into what the entities are and aren’t, and the inductivist perspective doesn’t address this well. (As to rats, they actually start making gross errors in some situations, due to their inability to think like a human to deal with situations they weren’t evolved for.)
you have to interpret what entities there are (or not – as you advocated by saying only prediction matters)
or not
Or not? Prediction matters, but entities are an awfully convenient way to make predictions.
but when two ways of thinking about entities (or, a third option, not thinking about entities at all) give identical predictions, then you said it doesn’t matter which you do? one entity (or none) is as good as another as long as the predictions come out the same?
but i don’t think all ways of looking at the world in terms of entities are equally convenient for aiding us in making predictions (or for some other important things like coming up with new hypotheses!)
Huh, that shaft ended in loud screech and a clang… Let’s drop another shaft!
Why don’t you have to care about the infinity of theories?
I don’t have to care about the infinity of theories because if they all make exactly the same predictions, I don’t care that they are different.
This is highly convenient because I am, to quote an Agent, “only human” and humans are not well set up to deal with infinities.
they can be criticized as a group by pointing out that a shovel won’t help solve the problem
How do you know that without examining the specific theories?
We can only act on solutions we know of, and I have a criticism of the shovel category of ideas as we currently understand it.
Right, but the point is that you do not have solution at the moment and there is an infinity of theories which propose potential shovel-ready solutions. You have no basis for rejecting them because “I don’t know of a solution with a shovel”—they are new to you solutions, that’s the whole point.
To the extent you have a default, you can partly change what that default is, and partly reinterpret it after doing the observation.
Yes, of course, but you were claiming there are no such things as observations at all, merely some photons and such flying around. Being prone to errors is an entirely different question.
one entity (or none) is as good as another as long as the predictions come out the same?
Predictions do not come out of nowhere. They are made by models (= imperfect representations of reality) and “entity” is just a different word for a “model”. If you don’t have any entities, what exactly generates your predictions?
I don’t find these replies very responsive. Are you trying to understand what I’m getting at, or just writing local replies to a selection of my points? This is not the first time I’ve tried to write some substantial explanation and gotten not much engagement from you (IMO).
Oh, I understand what you are getting at. I just think that you’re wrong.
I’m writing local replies because fisking walls of text gets tedious very very quickly. There is no point in debating secondary effects when it’s pretty clear that the source disagreement is deeper.
I’m going to end the discussion now, unless you object. I’m willing to consider objections.
I’m stopping for a variety of reasons, some of which I talked about previously like your discussion limitations like about references. I think you don’t understand and aren’t willing to do what it takes to understand.
I’m getting an error trying to load Lumifer’s comment in the highly nested discussion, but I can see it in my inbox, so I’ll try replying here without the nesting. For this comment, I will quote everything I reply to so it stands alone better.
Why don’t you have to care about the infinity of theories?
It depends which infinity we’re talking about. Suppose the problem is persuading LW ppl about Paths Forward and you say “Use a shovel”. That refers to infinitely many different potential solutions. However, they can be criticized as a group by pointing out that a shovel won’t help solve the problem. What does a shovel have to do with it? Irrelevant!
This criticism only applies to the infinite category of ideas about shovels, not everything. I’m able to criticize that whole infinite group as a unit because it was brought up as a unit, and defined according to having a particular feature for all the theories in the group (that they involve trying to solve the problem specifically with a shovel.)
The criticism is also contextual. It relates to using shovels for this particular problem. But shovels still help with some other problems. The context the criticism works in is broader than the single problem about paths forward persuasion of LW ppl – e.g. it also applies to anti-induction persuasion of Objectivists. This is typical – the point has some applicability to multiple contexts, but not universal applicability.
If you instead said “Do something” then you’d be bringing up a different infinity with more stuff in it, and I’d have a different reply: “Do what? That isn’t helpful because you’re pointing me to a large number of non-solutions without pointing out any solution. I agree there is a solution contained in there, somewhere, but I don’t know what it is, and you don’t seem to either, so I can’t use it currently. So I’m stuck with the regular options like doing a solution I do know of or spending more time looking for solutions.”
I will admit that there may be a solution with a shovel that actually would work (one way to get this is to take some great solution and then tack on a shovel, which is not optimal but may still be way better than anything we currently know of). So my criticism doesn’t 100% rule shovels out. However, it rules shovels out for the time being, as far as is known, pending a new idea about how to make a shovel work. We can only act on solutions we know of, and I have a criticism of the shovel category of ideas as we currently understand it. Our current understanding is that shovels help us dig, and can be used as weapons, and can be salvaged for resources like wood and metal, and can be sold, but that just vaguely saying “use a shovel somehow” does not help me solve a problem of intellectually persuading people.
I don’t think humans think like rats, and I propose we don’t debate animal “intelligence” at this time. I’ll try to speak to the issue in a different way.
I think humans have adequate control over their observing that they don’t get stuck and unable to make progress due to built-in biases and errors. For example, people can consciously think “that looked like a dog at first glance, but actually isn’t a painting of a dog”. So you can put thought into what the entities are. To the extent you have a default, you can partly change what that default is, and partly reinterpret it after doing the observation. And you’re capable of observing in a sufficiently non-lossy way to get whatever information you need (at least with tools like microscopes for some cases). You aren’t just inherently, permanently blind to some ways of dividing up the world into entities, or some observable things.
And whatever default your genes gave you about entities is not super reliable. It may be pretty good, but it’s very much capable of errors. So I’ll make a weaker claim: you can’t infallibly observe entities. You need to put some actual thought into what the entities are and aren’t, and the inductivist perspective doesn’t address this well. (As to rats, they actually start making gross errors in some situations, due to their inability to think like a human to deal with situations they weren’t evolved for.)
but when two ways of thinking about entities (or, a third option, not thinking about entities at all) give identical predictions, then you said it doesn’t matter which you do? one entity (or none) is as good as another as long as the predictions come out the same?
but i don’t think all ways of looking at the world in terms of entities are equally convenient for aiding us in making predictions (or for some other important things like coming up with new hypotheses!)
Huh, that shaft ended in loud screech and a clang… Let’s drop another shaft!
I don’t have to care about the infinity of theories because if they all make exactly the same predictions, I don’t care that they are different.
This is highly convenient because I am, to quote an Agent, “only human” and humans are not well set up to deal with infinities.
How do you know that without examining the specific theories?
Right, but the point is that you do not have solution at the moment and there is an infinity of theories which propose potential shovel-ready solutions. You have no basis for rejecting them because “I don’t know of a solution with a shovel”—they are new to you solutions, that’s the whole point.
Yes, of course, but you were claiming there are no such things as observations at all, merely some photons and such flying around. Being prone to errors is an entirely different question.
Predictions do not come out of nowhere. They are made by models (= imperfect representations of reality) and “entity” is just a different word for a “model”. If you don’t have any entities, what exactly generates your predictions?
I don’t find these replies very responsive. Are you trying to understand what I’m getting at, or just writing local replies to a selection of my points? This is not the first time I’ve tried to write some substantial explanation and gotten not much engagement from you (IMO).
Oh, I understand what you are getting at. I just think that you’re wrong.
I’m writing local replies because fisking walls of text gets tedious very very quickly. There is no point in debating secondary effects when it’s pretty clear that the source disagreement is deeper.
I’m going to end the discussion now, unless you object. I’m willing to consider objections.
I’m stopping for a variety of reasons, some of which I talked about previously like your discussion limitations like about references. I think you don’t understand and aren’t willing to do what it takes to understand.
If we stop and you later want to get these issues addressed, you would be welcome to post to the FI forum: http://fallibleideas.com/discussion-info
s/understand/be convinced/g and I’ll agree :-)
Was a fun ride!