In summary: when I say that some concepts are wrong, or more wrong than others, I just mean that some concepts are worse than others at making probabilistic predictions.
That would be true if the only useful thing, or the only thing anyone does, is making probability calculations
The sense in which I deny that scientifically inaccurate maps can have compensatory kinds of usefulness, is that I think they have to fall into the second case: the apparent usefulness has to derive from deception (or wireheading). Why else would you want a model/map that makes worse predictions rather than better predictions?
Because you are doing something other than prediction.
What specific other thing are you doing besides prediction? If you can give me a specific example, I think I should be able to reply with either (a) “that’s a prediction”, (b) “that’s coordination”, (c) “here’s an explanation of why that’s deception/wireheading in the technical sense I’ve described”, (d) “that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy”, or (e) “whoops, looks like my philosophical thesis isn’t quite right and I need to do some more thinking; thanks TAG!!”.
(I should be able to reply eventually; no promises on turnaround time because I’m coping with the aftermath of a crisis that I’m no longer involved in, but for which I have both a moral responsibility and selfish interest to reflect and repent on my role in.)
Why are (b) and (d) not exceptions to your thesis, already?
FYI I am also pretty confused about this. Have you (Zack) previously noted something somewhere about “that’s coordination”… and… somehow wrapping that around to “but words are just for prediction anyway?”.
“That’s deception/wireheading” feels like a reasonable, key thing to be aware of. I think you’re maybe trying to build towards something like “and a lot of coordination is oriented around deception, and that’s bad, or suboptimal, or at least sad”, but not sure.
The newer “Unnatural Categories” post seemed to build towards that, but then completely ignored the question of nation-border category boundaries which seemed pretty key.
(Overall I feel pretty happy to watch you explore this entire line of reasoning deeply over the years and learn from it. I think intellectual progress depends a lot on people picking a bunch of assumptions and running with them deeply and then reporting their findings publicly. But I currently feel like there’s a pretty gaping hole in your arguments that have something-or-other-to-do-with “but, like, coordination tho”)
Have you (Zack) previously noted something somewhere about “that’s coordination”… and… somehow wrapping that around to “but words are just for prediction anyway?”.
Why are (b) and (d) not exceptions to your thesis, already?
You surely need to argue that exceptions to everything-is-prediction are i) non existent, or ii) minor or iii) undesirable, normatively wrong.
But co ordination is extremely valuable.
And “self fulfilling prophecy” is basically looking at creation and construction through the lens of prediction.
Making things is important. If you build something according to a blueprint, it will happen to be the case that once it is built, the blueprint describes it, but that is incidental.
You can make predictions about money, but that is not the central purpose of money.
That would be true if the only useful thing, or the only thing anyone does, is making probability calculations
Because you are doing something other than prediction.
What specific other thing are you doing besides prediction? If you can give me a specific example, I think I should be able to reply with either (a) “that’s a prediction”, (b) “that’s coordination”, (c) “here’s an explanation of why that’s deception/wireheading in the technical sense I’ve described”, (d) “that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy”, or (e) “whoops, looks like my philosophical thesis isn’t quite right and I need to do some more thinking; thanks TAG!!”.
(I should be able to reply eventually; no promises on turnaround time because I’m coping with the aftermath of a crisis that I’m no longer involved in, but for which I have both a moral responsibility and selfish interest to reflect and repent on my role in.)
Seconding TAG’s:
FYI I am also pretty confused about this. Have you (Zack) previously noted something somewhere about “that’s coordination”… and… somehow wrapping that around to “but words are just for prediction anyway?”.
“That’s deception/wireheading” feels like a reasonable, key thing to be aware of. I think you’re maybe trying to build towards something like “and a lot of coordination is oriented around deception, and that’s bad, or suboptimal, or at least sad”, but not sure.
The newer “Unnatural Categories” post seemed to build towards that, but then completely ignored the question of nation-border category boundaries which seemed pretty key.
(Overall I feel pretty happy to watch you explore this entire line of reasoning deeply over the years and learn from it. I think intellectual progress depends a lot on people picking a bunch of assumptions and running with them deeply and then reporting their findings publicly. But I currently feel like there’s a pretty gaping hole in your arguments that have something-or-other-to-do-with “but, like, coordination tho”)
Yes! You commented on it!
Have now re-read. Am actually a bit sad I didn’t notice that post to nominate it.
Whelp! Off to re-read. Thank you sir.
Why are (b) and (d) not exceptions to your thesis, already?
You surely need to argue that exceptions to everything-is-prediction are i) non existent, or ii) minor or iii) undesirable, normatively wrong.
But co ordination is extremely valuable.
And “self fulfilling prophecy” is basically looking at creation and construction through the lens of prediction. Making things is important. If you build something according to a blueprint, it will happen to be the case that once it is built, the blueprint describes it, but that is incidental.
You can make predictions about money, but that is not the central purpose of money.