infotropism

Karma: 435

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 3:32 PM
7 points
in reply to: Nominull’s comment on: Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism
And the interesting question is : given decentralized censorship, or even no censorship at all, what sort of community can emerge from that ?

My impression is that 4chan is resilient from becoming a failed community, because they have no particular goal, except maybe every one doing what pleases themselves on a personal basis, given it doesn’t bother everyone else.

Any single individual will, pretty naturally and unwittingly, act as a moderator, out of personal interest. 4chan is like a chemical reaction that has displaced itself towards equilibrium. It won’t move easily one way or the other now, and so it’ll remain as it is, 4chan. But just what it is, and what sort of spontaneous equilibrium can happen to a community, remains to be seen.

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 3:15 PM
0 points
in reply to: MrHen’s comment on: Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism
The karma system isn’t enough for the purpose of learning; I fully agree to that. And to the point of this article, I usually don’t downvote people, rather I try to correct them if I see something wrong. That, if anything, seems more appropriate to me. If I see an issue somewhere, it isn’t enough to point it, I must be able to explain why it is an issue, and should propose a way to solve it.

But Eliezer has me swayed on that one. Now I’ll downvote, even though I am, indeed, very uncertain of my own ability to correctly judge whether a post deserves to be downvoted or not. For that matter, I am very uncertain about the quality of my own contributions as well, so there too I can relate to your experience. Sometimes, I feel like I’m just digging myself deeper and deeper, that I am not up to the necessary quality required to post in here.

Now, if I was told what, in my writings, correlates with high karma, and what does, with low karma, I think I might be tempted to optimize my posting to karma—gathering, rather than adapting them to the purpose of making high quality, useful contributions.

That’s a potential issue. Karma is correlated to quality and usefulness, but ultimately, other things than quality alone can come into play, and we don’t want to elicit people’s optimizing for those for their own sake alone (like, persuasiveness, rhetorics, seductive arguments, well written, soul sucking texts, etc.).

We really need to get beyond the karma system. But apparently none of the ways so far proposed would be workable, for lack of programming resources. We’ll need to be vigilant till then.

infotropism Apr 20, 2009, 10:02 AM
0 points
in reply to: Paul Crowley’s comment on: The ideas you’re not ready to post
Not the mathematical proof.

But the idea that if you don’t yet have data bound to observation, then you decide the probability of a prior by looking at its complexity.

Complexity, defined as looking up the smallest compressed bitstring program for each possible turing machines (and that is the reason why it’s intractable unless you have infinite computational ressources yes ?), that can be said to generate this prior as the output of being run on that machine.

The longest the bitstring, the less likely the prior (and this has to do with the idea you can make more permutations on larger bit strings, like, a one bit string can be in two states, a two bit one can be in 2 states, a 3 bit one in 2 exp 3 states, and so on.).

Then you somehow average the probabilities for all pairs of (turing machine + program) into one overall probability ?

(I’d love to understand that formally)

infotropism Apr 20, 2009, 2:23 AM
0 points
in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: The ideas you’re not ready to post
So maybe, to rephrase the idea then, we want to strive, to achieve something as close as we can to perfection; optimality ?

If we do, we may then start laying the bases, as well as collecting practical advices, general methods, on how to do that. Though not a step by step absolute guide to perfection, rather, the first draft of one idea that would be helpful in aiming towards optimality.

edit : also, that’s a st Exupery quote, that illustrates the idea, I wouldn’t mean it that literally, not as more than a general guideline.

infotropism Apr 19, 2009, 11:44 PM
0 points
on: The ideas you’re not ready to post
I have an idea I need to build up about simplicity, how to build your mind and beliefs up incrementally, layer by layer, how perfection is achieved not when there’s nothing left to add, but nothing left to remove, how simple minded people are sometimes being the ones to declare simple, true ideas others lost sight of, people who’re too clever and sophisticate, whose knowledge is like a card house, or a bag of knots, genius, learning, growing up, creativity correlated with age, zen. But I really need to do a lot more searching about that before I can put something together.

Edit : and if I post that here, that’s because if someone else wants to dig that idea, and work on it with me, that’d be with pleasure.

infotropism Apr 19, 2009, 12:23 AM
6 points
in reply to: Rune’s comment on: Rationality Quotes—April 2009
“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

God (presumably), Revelation 3:16

infotropism Apr 18, 2009, 9:43 PM
21 points
in reply to: dreeves’s comment on: Rationality Quotes—April 2009
“On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”

Charles Babbage
What links here?
- gwern's comment on Rationality Quotes: February 2011 by gwern (Feb 2, 2011, 10:49 PM; 7 points)

infotropism Apr 18, 2009, 8:15 PM
1 point
in reply to: infotropism’s comment on: Rationality Quotes—April 2009
And a few interesting reversed proverbs and quotes that ring truer than the original ones there (for those who can read French).

Like :

In doubt, abstain !

In doubt, search further !

infotropism Apr 18, 2009, 8:02 PM
8 points
on: Rationality Quotes—April 2009
There will always be a large difference between those who’d ask themselves “why won’t things work as they are meant to” and those asking themselves “how could I get them to work”. For the moment being, the human world belongs to those who would ask “why”. But the future belongs, necessarily, to those who’d ask themselves “how”.

Bernard Werber

infotropism Apr 18, 2009, 3:50 PM
9 points
on: Rationality Quotes—April 2009
Philosophy easily triumphs over past and future evils. But present ones, prevail over it.

Maxim 22 François de La Rochefoucauld

infotropism Apr 17, 2009, 9:27 AM
2 points
in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: My Way
Among the only differences I could think of, is that noticing the difference between black and white has almost only negative connotation today, while noticing it between males and females is a more mixed bag. What if it was possible to attach positive affect reactions in excess to negatives ones, to that color difference ? Would it still be good to abolish people’s noticing ? Though, color of skin isn’t a category in the same sense sex is; it doesn’t correlate with so much potential difference.

This also leads to the other reason why you’d think it’s important to care about difference between sexes but not between skin color, is because the first has practical consequences, for instance, on your relationships, while the other would not.

But while this is true, I can’t shake the feeling there is a bias there, which ticks me off. Some people may not feel like gender makes such a difference in how they relate to others. This doesn’t back the idea that erasing differences is a desirable thing, but it probably lessens the extent to which the fact that humanity has two sexes adds to life’s interest—at least Eliezer should stick to saying he finds it desirable on a personal level, and be more careful about making it an universal.

infotropism Apr 14, 2009, 9:56 AM
1 point
in reply to: Nick_Tarleton’s comment on: Declare your signaling and hidden agendas
After commenting, I realized that this might be seen as morally devaluing for anyone who wouldn’t follow that example. I didn’t mean it that way.

Please consider the other side of the issue. If someone signals here that he doesn’t want to declare his agendas, for all those good reasons, it ruins the purpose of the thread.

If you don’t want to declare, then don’t. But don’t either give additional possible reasons that could turn into rationalizations, for others not to do it. It may be all that is needed as they might be scared enough already not to do it.

The last part, “One either believes in men, or do not.”, relates to bystander apathy. If everyone is willing to believe in his fellow man, then it is possible (though not assured, acknowledgedly) to work together. If you don’t, then everyone will simply eye the others, and wait for someone else to jump in the fray.

You can show people, by your own example, that it’s ok and human to be irrational, and that we can help it in here. You can also more explicitly tell them that it’s ok, here, to trust other people to be tolerant, that we can believe in each other.

You want to become someone who doesn’t have any agendas that could subject you to distrust, ostracism, etc. anywhere, by anyone?

That’s impossible. What I want, is to be brave enough to show my self regardless. And it may help to have more benign and friendly agendas for that purpose.

infotropism Apr 14, 2009, 3:14 AM
2 points
in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Declare your signaling and hidden agendas
I wish to become someone who could lay his soul bare anywhere. What can be destroyed by truth, deserves to be. What is there in that soul of mine that I don’t yet want to show, that couldn’t then be fixed ?

Would that be too idealistic ? After all, if I can’t lay bare my soul in here, then it means that there’s either a problem with the soul, either a problem with the place, or both.

Both can be solved given time, the purpose of this community is to solve the latter (in part), it is up to me to solve the former. But I can help for the latter, and I’d hope that the community can help with the former.

One either believes in men, or do not.

infotropism Apr 13, 2009, 11:13 PM
1 point
in reply to: timtyler’s comment on: GroupThink, Theism … and the Wiki
Well solomonoff induction and systems like AIXI are bigger than Bayes as they use it as a part of themselves. They are intractable.

And I’d guess there’s a link between those and rationality. Epistemical and instrumental rationality respectively, pushed to their theoretical limits of optimality.

infotropism Apr 13, 2009, 4:14 PM
0 points
in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: Persuasiveness vs Soundness
Okay, in this case, how about this :

We have persuasive arguments in general, that which may be used to efficiently change someone else’s opinion in a predictable way (for instance to bring their opinion or beliefs closer to yours).

Those persuasive arguments may or may not be, intellectually honest or epistemically correct ones. The subset of persuasive arguments which are thusly wrong, overlaps with the set of arguments and techniques that are used in “anti-epistemology”, which is more general and contains methods and arguments that are not only wrong and deceptive, but also of no use to us.

As to the subset of arguments and methods which are epistemically wrong or dishonest, their specificity is that they are instrumentally right, and therefore whether the end result of their use is instrumentally rational, hinges on the epistemic rationality, and honesty, of the one who uses them.

infotropism Apr 13, 2009, 12:47 PM
2 points
on: Declare your signaling and hidden agendas
(First of all, excellent idea)

I have hidden agendas, but not just that. I also have hidden compulsions.

Here my main compulsion was like “Hey people look at me, I’m abasing myself, please be in awe at how honest I am; besides you can’t point a flaw I haven’t pointed myself now, so I feel safer from criticism”.

My agenda is however, also to help people feel like they can’t do worse than me, so they should feel alright telling us about their agenda, and compulsions. Another step forward for the community.

In general :

Agendas :

I try to attract attention because I think I have helpful ideas to contribute in this community > I want to contribute, because I want to see it grow and realize its potential, so that I may be able to see, and learn, that mature art of rationality we’ve only yet started to outline > I want to use it, because I think it’ll be useful to realize all my other objectives in real life.

I also want to see the community succeed for if I’m not wrong, that will help important projects such as the one that must not yet be named. I think a mature community of mature rationalists, could indeed achieve much more than what other groups (normal science included) could do. I have selfish reasons to want the unnamed project to succeed, and just as well, the future community will probably turn its attention to issues which will benefit me. In particular fields like antiagathics.

Finally, I am as honest as I think I should. I lie when I think I can get away with it, and I’m very cautious to keep a safety margin there. In a place such as LW, I don’t feel safe lying about anything because I’m sure there are people reliably more intelligent, rational, and experimented than I am. Hence trying to be as honest as possible, and also, trying to point my flaws and hidden agendas to insure my reputation, if I am ever to slip a lie here and there without my noticing it.

Compulsions:

I have always liked to be praised for my intellectual achievements. I’ll always strive to sound honest, fair, brilliant, persevering. I notice the karma / voting system has worsened that trait. I check regularly to see how my posts fare. I feel very disappointed (aka butthurt) when I’m not upvoted, and let’s not even talk about downvotes.

I like to point flaws and mistakes; in others as well as in myself, though pointing them in myself is also a way to signal how honest I am. And this also verges on masochism.

I like to shock and confuse. For instance, I’ll defend one side of an argument, then switch my point of view and defend the other side. I don’t want people to know which “side” I’m on. Like, defending religion against bashing, then trying to bury it. This also signals fairness.

There’s more, but that should be enough already to get the picture.

One question : do we want to include in all our posts henceforth a short explanation of our hidden agenda, case by case ? Some will argue that this would burden them. But I’m for it, just as I was in favor of the idea that downvoting should usually go in hand with an explanation, so that we can understand our nonobvious mistakes.

infotropism Apr 13, 2009, 11:24 AM
0 points
in reply to: Paul Crowley’s comment on: Maybe theism is wrong
I feel my issue, beyond the poor writing style, is that I am making not one but two cases.

The case about theism in particular, and then a more general case about tolerance, which is linked to the theism problem, and contains it.

A good deal of what I wanted to say for the second case, as well as stuff I hadn’t thought of, has been better said in the recent It’s okay to be (at least a little) irrational post too.

infotropism Apr 13, 2009, 11:16 AM
1 point
on: Persuasiveness vs Soundness
I’d also link this to the recent marketing rationalism post. Using “dark art” means, an argument can be made as, or more compelling, than the argument would otherwise, all things being equal.

The question there seems to be, is it possible to use those means without negative side effects on the reader, and writer, when we know how easily the human mind can be displaced out of the (fairly artificial) state of rationality ?

Maybe we should cautiously train ourselves into both the defense against, and the use of “dark arts”, at the very least to be able to spot them when they’re used, and maybe, to know when it can be right to use them. This should follow the lesson in It’s okay to be (at least a little) irrational. We are running on a human brain. If we use, or even encounter, the dark arts, we run the risk of warping our own judgement, but if we shy away from them, pretending not to notice, we run the risk of using them without even our realizing it.

We need a safe, error recoverable, way to delve into these. How could we go about doing that ?

infotropism Apr 13, 2009, 10:40 AM
0 points
in reply to: Paul Crowley’s comment on: Maybe theism is wrong
Do you mean on the first, or on the second, edited text ? If on the second then it is probably not a good idea for me try to repost this for the moment. I should first attempt to learn how to write more compellingly.

infotropism Apr 13, 2009, 12:55 AM
0 points
in reply to: JulianMorrison’s comment on: Marketing rationalism
In fact I’ve never yet seen the relationship between epistemic, instrumental rationalities, and real world objectives, so clearly stated. Would it be ok to collect such material in the wiki ? Like, all those short, concise, illuminating quotes we stumble upon in here ?