The GP’s comment doesn’t sit right with me for this reason.
The entity that has the arbitrary axioms in the case of humanity is the genotype, not the phenotype. It has discovered non-arbitrary heuristics that we use day to day. Those heuristics have helped us survive in this harsh world over the millennia, so have been put to the test and found adequate.
At first, I thought this was a reasonable comment, but then it occurred to me that the non-arbitrary heuristics were optimized for self-perpetuation, not true beliefs.
Self-perpetuation is a flavour of winning, no? So while I wouldn’t argue that our non-arbitrary heuristics our optimized for true beliefs, they should have some relation to instrumental rationality for self-perpetuation.
I’d argue that the sets of agents optimised for instrumental rationality and epistemic rationality are not disjoint sets. So optimising for self-perpetuation might optimise for true beliefs, dependent upon what part of the system space you are exploring. We may or may not be in that space, but our starting heuristics are more likely to be better than those picked from an arbitrary space for truth seeking.
I do not disagree with the parent. I think a defense of the use of the term “arbitrary” in the root comment could be mounted on semantic grounds, but I prefer to give only the short short version: arbitrary can mean things other than “chosen at random”.
You have no proofs for the core beliefs. They are always assumed only.
Had you have a proof for one of your core belief, it would relay on some deeper beliefs—and those were your core beliefs.
It’s alway an arbitrary set of axioms you starts with. Always. An old axiom of yours can be deleted only if it confronts some others.
Not “arbitrary”, and very much specific and immutable.
If there is a possible set of the fundamental axioms, there is a person who adopts this set. Almost so.
Do you know two people with the same 20 or so identical sets of fundamentals?
A beliefs system of a human is quite an arbitrary one.
I hope you merely mean, “there is a point in mind-space that adopts this set”, and not that there exists or has existed a person who does. Just based on the number of possible axioms, that claim is trivially false; and the vast majority of axioms would be particularly unlikely to be chosen by human beings in particular.
Of course. I thought that was obvious.
The majority of those sets of axioms are not occupied by any human mind. Of course.
I should say “human possible” instead of “possible”.
I’m surprised that a post that basically does nothing but acknowledge inductive bias is presently at −2.
I had not read that part. Thanks.
I do not see any difference in inductive bias as it is written there and dictionary and wikipedia definitions of faith:
The GP’s comment doesn’t sit right with me for this reason.
The entity that has the arbitrary axioms in the case of humanity is the genotype, not the phenotype. It has discovered non-arbitrary heuristics that we use day to day. Those heuristics have helped us survive in this harsh world over the millennia, so have been put to the test and found adequate.
At first, I thought this was a reasonable comment, but then it occurred to me that the non-arbitrary heuristics were optimized for self-perpetuation, not true beliefs.
Self-perpetuation is a flavour of winning, no? So while I wouldn’t argue that our non-arbitrary heuristics our optimized for true beliefs, they should have some relation to instrumental rationality for self-perpetuation.
I’d argue that the sets of agents optimised for instrumental rationality and epistemic rationality are not disjoint sets. So optimising for self-perpetuation might optimise for true beliefs, dependent upon what part of the system space you are exploring. We may or may not be in that space, but our starting heuristics are more likely to be better than those picked from an arbitrary space for truth seeking.
I do not disagree with the parent. I think a defense of the use of the term “arbitrary” in the root comment could be mounted on semantic grounds, but I prefer to give only the short short version: arbitrary can mean things other than “chosen at random”.