Similarly, the primary thing when you take a word in your lips is your intention to reflect the territory, whatever the means
This sentence sounds to me like you want to use Korzybski’s metaphor while ignoring the point of his argument. After him language is supposed to be used to create semantic reactions in the audience and the is a of identity is to be avoided.
The essay feels like you struggle with is a but are neither willing to go Korzybski’s way nor are you willing to provide a good argument for why we should use the is a of identity.
Do not ask whether there’s a rule of rationality saying that you shouldn’t call dolphins fish. Ask whether dolphins are fish.
That feels to me very wrong. Beliefs are supposed to pay rent in anticipated experiences and discussing whether dolphins are fish in the abstract is detached from anticipated experiences.
Context matters a great deal for what words mean. Thomas Kuhn asked both physicists and chemists whether helium is a molecule:
Both answered without hesitation, but their answers were not the same. For the chemist the atom of helium was a molecule because it behaved like one with respect to the kinetic theory of gases. For the physicist, on the other hand, the helium atom was not a molecule because it displayed no molecular spectrum.
If you use either notion of a molecule in the wrong community you are going to run into problems. Asking is ‘Is helium a molecule?’ in the abstract is not helpful.
In standard English the statement “X is a Y” often means that within the relevant classification system X is a member of category Y. Which classification system is relevant often differs by context, but the OP deals with that explicitly:
in order for a proposed category boundary to not be wrong, it needs to capture some statistical structure in reality, even if reality is surprisingly detailed and there can be more than one such structure.
When quoting the map is not the territory which is a slogan that was created to criticize this usage of is a within a dense 750 page book where on of the main messages is that is a shouldn’t be used, I think that paragraph fails to adequately make a case that this common language usage is desirable and if so when it’s desirable.
Saying that the primary intention which which language is used isn’t to create some effect in the recipient of the language act is a big claim and Zack simply states it without any reflection.
My first reaction to the text was like WaiDai’s I don’t really understand what you’re suggesting here where I’m unsure about the implication that are supposed to be made for practical language use. The second is noting that the text gets basics* like the primary intention of why words are used wrong.
*: I mean basic in the sense of fundamental and not as in easy to understand
Saying that the primary intention which which language is used isn’t to create some effect in the recipient of the language act
It’s notable to me that both of the passages from this post that you quoted in the great-grandparent comment were from the final section. Would your assessment of the post change if you pretend it had ended just before the Musashi quote, with the words “resulting in fallacies of compression”?
I was trying to create an effect in the recipients of the language act by riffing off Yudkowsky’s riff off Musashi in “Twelve Virtues of Rationality”, which I expected many readers to be familiar with (and which is the target of the hyperlink with the text “is quoted”). My prereaders seemed to get it, but it might have been the wrong choice if too many readers’ reactions were like yours.
I don’t think it’s hard to “get” the text in a certain way for a person who doesn’t have strong opinions about terminology. It’s internally consistent and doesn’t conflict with other LW writing. I see how most people at my dojo would likely say “yeah, right”.
The problem is that if you want to make inferences based on the text, it doesn’t seem to be that the concepts pay rent. I don’t think your prereaders read it while asking themselves “Does this pay rent?” That’s also likely why WeiDei’s request to get practical examples went unanswered.
The objection I voiced isn’t to the Musashi quote. It’s a stylistic choice which is defensible. My objection the text afterwards that reads to me like a summary of the point you want to make.
The values that Yudkowsky writes in the linked article are about empiricism but your post is detached from any empiricsm but about the search of essenses of words.
The search for transcendend essenses should be generally done with caution and you should get clear about why you search transcence from context.
That’s also likely why WeiDei’s request to get practical examples went unanswered.
Alternative explanation: that comment was made on a Sunday afternoon in my timezone, I have a Monday-through-Friday dayjob that occupies a lot of my attention, and I wanted to set aside a larger block of time to read through the four comments (and surrounding context) Wei linked (1234) and think carefully about them before composing a careful reply. (I spent my Sunday afternoon writing budget on my reply to dadadarren, which took a while because I had to study the “Ugly duckling theorem” Wikipedia page he linked.) In contrast, a reply like this one, or my reply to Dagon don’t require additional studying time to compose, which is why I can manage to type something like this now without being too late to my dayjob.
your post is detached from any empiricsm but about the search of essenses of words.
I don’t think this is a fair characterization of the post.
I need to go get dressed and catch a train now. I’ll ping you when my reply to Wei is up.
If a concept is well worked out, people who read a post should be able to apply it to practical examples themselves.
I would generally think that people who write a long post on a new concept should spend time thinking about how it applies to practical examples before presenting the concept and your suggestion that this needs additional studying time in indicative of the thesis that how the concept pays rent is not well studied.
You’re being bizarrely demanding, and I don’t understand why. Have I done something to offend you somehow? (If I have accidentally offended and there’s some way I could make amends, feel free to PM me.)
I agree that authors advocating an idea should provide examples. That’s why the OP does, in fact, provide some examples (about dolphins, abstract points in ℝ³, and job titles). I also have a couple other cached “in the wild” examples in mind that I intend to include in my reply to Wei (e.g., search for the word eargreyish in Scott Alexander’s “Anti-Reactionary FAQ”). But, as the grandparent mentions, Wei specifically asked if I had any thoughts on four of his comments (which I still haven’t read, incidentally). I can’t possibly have cached such thoughts in advance!
Writing good comments takes nontrivial time and mental energy and given that at least some Less Wrong readers probably have things like jobs (!) or possibly even families (?!), I really don’t think it’s reasonable to infer that someone is incapable of offering a satisfactory reply just because they haven’t replied within a couple days.
I had a really stressful day yesterday. I just got home today. After posting this comment, I want to make dinner and relax and read the new Greg Egan novel for a while. After that, I intend to spend some time writing blog comment replies—to Wei, to Dagon again, to someone on Reddit—and then maybe to some ofyourcomments, if I still have time. (I also need to look up what I need to bring to my DMV appointment tomorrow.) Please be patient with me—although if you’re so dissatisfied by both the post, and my comments so far, then I fear my future comments are unlikely to be that much more to your liking, so it’s not clear why you should be so eager to see them be posted faster.
In conclusion, I’m sorry you didn’t like my blog post about the information theory of dolphins. Please feel free to downvote it if you haven’t already.
Unfortunately, I don’t think your participation here has been a net-positive for the value of the comments section, and (with some sadness) I have decided to add you to the “Banned Users” list in the moderation section of my account settings.
Huh, I happened to glance at the moderation page, and the ban was still there; I guess I must have forgotten to click “Submit” when I tried to remove it the other month? It should be fixed now, ChristianKI.
This sentence sounds to me like you want to use Korzybski’s metaphor while ignoring the point of his argument. After him language is supposed to be used to create semantic reactions in the audience and the is a of identity is to be avoided.
The essay feels like you struggle with is a but are neither willing to go Korzybski’s way nor are you willing to provide a good argument for why we should use the is a of identity.
I would think this unsurprising, as most of lesswrong is very happy to take Korzybski’s metaphor while ignoring the point of his argument. I have never heard what I take to be a real argument for actually eliminating “is a” as a possible thing to mean, only arguments that in English, “is” and related words cause some problems due to ambiguities, missing information, and unwanted implications. I have rarely seen LW-cluster aspiring rationalists avoid forms of “is”, and never heard a serious endorsement of such avoidance on LW.
I’m curious if you think “is a” should be eliminated as a possible thing to mean. I would be interested in hearing your argument!
This sentence sounds to me like you want to use Korzybski’s metaphor while ignoring the point of his argument. After him language is supposed to be used to create semantic reactions in the audience and the is a of identity is to be avoided.
The essay feels like you struggle with is a but are neither willing to go Korzybski’s way nor are you willing to provide a good argument for why we should use the is a of identity.
That feels to me very wrong. Beliefs are supposed to pay rent in anticipated experiences and discussing whether dolphins are fish in the abstract is detached from anticipated experiences.
Context matters a great deal for what words mean. Thomas Kuhn asked both physicists and chemists whether helium is a molecule:
If you use either notion of a molecule in the wrong community you are going to run into problems. Asking is ‘Is helium a molecule?’ in the abstract is not helpful.
In standard English the statement “X is a Y” often means that within the relevant classification system X is a member of category Y. Which classification system is relevant often differs by context, but the OP deals with that explicitly:
When quoting the map is not the territory which is a slogan that was created to criticize this usage of is a within a dense 750 page book where on of the main messages is that is a shouldn’t be used, I think that paragraph fails to adequately make a case that this common language usage is desirable and if so when it’s desirable.
Saying that the primary intention which which language is used isn’t to create some effect in the recipient of the language act is a big claim and Zack simply states it without any reflection.
My first reaction to the text was like WaiDai’s I don’t really understand what you’re suggesting here where I’m unsure about the implication that are supposed to be made for practical language use. The second is noting that the text gets basics* like the primary intention of why words are used wrong.
*: I mean basic in the sense of fundamental and not as in easy to understand
It’s notable to me that both of the passages from this post that you quoted in the great-grandparent comment were from the final section. Would your assessment of the post change if you pretend it had ended just before the Musashi quote, with the words “resulting in fallacies of compression”?
I was trying to create an effect in the recipients of the language act by riffing off Yudkowsky’s riff off Musashi in “Twelve Virtues of Rationality”, which I expected many readers to be familiar with (and which is the target of the hyperlink with the text “is quoted”). My prereaders seemed to get it, but it might have been the wrong choice if too many readers’ reactions were like yours.
I don’t think it’s hard to “get” the text in a certain way for a person who doesn’t have strong opinions about terminology. It’s internally consistent and doesn’t conflict with other LW writing. I see how most people at my dojo would likely say “yeah, right”.
The problem is that if you want to make inferences based on the text, it doesn’t seem to be that the concepts pay rent. I don’t think your prereaders read it while asking themselves “Does this pay rent?” That’s also likely why WeiDei’s request to get practical examples went unanswered.
The objection I voiced isn’t to the Musashi quote. It’s a stylistic choice which is defensible. My objection the text afterwards that reads to me like a summary of the point you want to make.
The values that Yudkowsky writes in the linked article are about empiricism but your post is detached from any empiricsm but about the search of essenses of words.
The search for transcendend essenses should be generally done with caution and you should get clear about why you search transcence from context.
Alternative explanation: that comment was made on a Sunday afternoon in my timezone, I have a Monday-through-Friday dayjob that occupies a lot of my attention, and I wanted to set aside a larger block of time to read through the four comments (and surrounding context) Wei linked (1 2 3 4) and think carefully about them before composing a careful reply. (I spent my Sunday afternoon writing budget on my reply to dadadarren, which took a while because I had to study the “Ugly duckling theorem” Wikipedia page he linked.) In contrast, a reply like this one, or my reply to Dagon don’t require additional studying time to compose, which is why I can manage to type something like this now without being too late to my dayjob.
I don’t think this is a fair characterization of the post.
I need to go get dressed and catch a train now. I’ll ping you when my reply to Wei is up.
If a concept is well worked out, people who read a post should be able to apply it to practical examples themselves.
I would generally think that people who write a long post on a new concept should spend time thinking about how it applies to practical examples before presenting the concept and your suggestion that this needs additional studying time in indicative of the thesis that how the concept pays rent is not well studied.
You’re being bizarrely demanding, and I don’t understand why. Have I done something to offend you somehow? (If I have accidentally offended and there’s some way I could make amends, feel free to PM me.)
I agree that authors advocating an idea should provide examples. That’s why the OP does, in fact, provide some examples (about dolphins, abstract points in ℝ³, and job titles). I also have a couple other cached “in the wild” examples in mind that I intend to include in my reply to Wei (e.g., search for the word eargreyish in Scott Alexander’s “Anti-Reactionary FAQ”). But, as the grandparent mentions, Wei specifically asked if I had any thoughts on four of his comments (which I still haven’t read, incidentally). I can’t possibly have cached such thoughts in advance!
Writing good comments takes nontrivial time and mental energy and given that at least some Less Wrong readers probably have things like jobs (!) or possibly even families (?!), I really don’t think it’s reasonable to infer that someone is incapable of offering a satisfactory reply just because they haven’t replied within a couple days.
I had a really stressful day yesterday. I just got home today. After posting this comment, I want to make dinner and relax and read the new Greg Egan novel for a while. After that, I intend to spend some time writing blog comment replies—to Wei, to Dagon again, to someone on Reddit—and then maybe to some of your comments, if I still have time. (I also need to look up what I need to bring to my DMV appointment tomorrow.) Please be patient with me—although if you’re so dissatisfied by both the post, and my comments so far, then I fear my future comments are unlikely to be that much more to your liking, so it’s not clear why you should be so eager to see them be posted faster.
In conclusion, I’m sorry you didn’t like my blog post about the information theory of dolphins. Please feel free to downvote it if you haven’t already.
(continued from sister comment)
My reply to Wei is now up. (I finally looked at his four links and didn’t end up engaging with them, but I endorse Benquo’s comment on #4.)
I also left a brief reply to your comment about chronic fatigue syndrome, and a reply to your comment critiquing the paragraph about “poison.” I hope this helps clarify what I’m trying to communicate.
Unfortunately, I don’t think your participation here has been a net-positive for the value of the comments section, and (with some sadness) I have decided to add you to the “Banned Users” list in the moderation section of my account settings.
I’ve now un-banned you from commenting on my posts, because I’ve been persuaded by Said Achmiz’s case that we shouldn’t actually have that feature.
Huh, I happened to glance at the moderation page, and the ban was still there; I guess I must have forgotten to click “Submit” when I tried to remove it the other month? It should be fixed now, ChristianKI.
I would think this unsurprising, as most of lesswrong is very happy to take Korzybski’s metaphor while ignoring the point of his argument. I have never heard what I take to be a real argument for actually eliminating “is a” as a possible thing to mean, only arguments that in English, “is” and related words cause some problems due to ambiguities, missing information, and unwanted implications. I have rarely seen LW-cluster aspiring rationalists avoid forms of “is”, and never heard a serious endorsement of such avoidance on LW.
I’m curious if you think “is a” should be eliminated as a possible thing to mean. I would be interested in hearing your argument!