English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

12:00 AM

@Vit: Well, I am not so 100% convinced that rationality works as well as we sometimes think it does. The human mind is by no means infallible: I think even we are often deluding ourselves with impeccable reasonings.

Consider the three-doors puzzle. After having discussed and thought about it for years, I was absolutely certain that it didn't matter which door one choses; and yet it does, as the Wikipedia article explains...

Monty Hall problem

The Monty Hall problem is a probability puzzle based on the American television game show Let's Make a Deal that was originally hosted by Monty Hall. The problem, also called the Monty Hall paradox, is a veridical paradox in that the result appears odd but is demonstrably true. The Monty Hall problem, in its usual interpretation, is mathematically equivalent to the earlier Three Prisoners problem, and both bear some similarity to the much older Bertrand's box paradox. The problem was originally posed in a letter by Steve Selvin to the American Statistician in 1975. A well-known state...

@Vit: But I agree that it is odd for a believer to post on that site; and I hope he will reply to the comments...

Vitaly

@Cerberus It's a basic requirement of LW-style rationality to correct for cognitive biases you know you have. There are known cognitive biases (described on Wikipedia) that affect your probability estimates (in re: Monty Hall).

MikeVaughan

The monty hall problem wins me money. :D

Cerberus

@Vit: There are also unknown cognitive biases.

@Mike: Really? That is actually not a bad idea...

MikeVaughan

Mmhm..

Vitaly

@Cerberus There is also a known known that cognitive biases exist and some of them are unknown. That affects a rationalist's compensation for cognitive biases just as well.

MikeVaughan

12:07 AM

I'm also a card trick enthusiast, so, 3 Card Monty's are fun. :D

Wow, That LessWrong.com site is awesome.

Thanks, whoever linked to it.

Cerberus

@Vit: I basically think that it is not all all possible for us to know how much we don't know, and to what extent the unknown is affecting our thinking. All we have is our poor brains to apply models to whatever our senses pass on to us...

Vitaly

You are welcome. @MikeVaughan

@MikeVaughan Here is another link for you: fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/… That fan-fic is being written by Eliezer Yudkowsky, the founder of LessWrong.

MikeVaughan

Cool. What's it about?

Vitaly

Umm. That's Eliezer's attempt to put some LW notions of rationality into the form of Harry Potter fan fiction (with a view to raising the sanity waterline among a large audience). It's kinda difficult to describe what it's about in two words.

MikeVaughan

I'm intrigued.

I'll read a few chapters and see if I like it.

Vitaly

12:21 AM

Yeah, that's what he says at the start actually (“If you still don't like it after Chapter 10, give up”).

As for LessWrong itself, the best place to start reading it is the Sequences.

MikeVaughan

I'm not gonna read it right now. I'm a little inebriated.

I was already looking at the Sequences. I skipped to Zombies. hah

Vitaly

Nice. :D

MikeVaughan

I found an iPhone at the mall today.

I'm gonna sell it.

Cerberus

12:41 AM

@Mike: Why don't you browse its phonebook and call "home", or the last dialled number?

I'm sure you'd like to have it back if it were your phone...

MikeVaughan

Well, when I found it, It was already Hardware reset.

Which means it had no contacts.

And it's brand new, like obviously just out of the box, new.

So, I think it's an unactivated one.

Which means that the only thing I could have done was give it to the Lost and Found people, but the mall didn't have one.

So.. I have decided that it was just meant to be mine. Haha

Cerberus

Oh, ok, that's different.

MikeVaughan

Also, does anyone know what MrHen's gravatar is?

Cerberus

And there was no SIM card in it?

I have no idea!

MikeVaughan

iPhones dont have SIM cards, do they?

Cerberus

12:48 AM

They do here, as far as I know?

MikeVaughan

Are they internal?

Cerberus

@Mike: If there is no card in it, or it doesn't lead you to a person, I say keep the phone!

MikeVaughan

I didn't even notice that slot existed.

Cerberus

I have never used anything Apple...

MikeVaughan

I don't like Apple

Vitaly

12:52 AM

Oh come on @Cerberus. There is a lot to try before giving up: checking it for fingerprints, performing a DNA analysis if there is anything left of the original owner, etc, etc.

Cerberus

@Vit: I am an atheist. I have no morals.

I hates apples and morals!

Vitaly

Hah!

Cerberus

To be quite honest, I think many self-proclaimed rationalists aren't sceptical enough of their own methods. Some exhibit a certain naïve, 18th-century belief in the virtues of empiricism and "facts" that I find unconvincing.

Vitaly

Apr 17 at 21:50, by Vitaly

Also, they are promoting undiscriminating skepticism. For that reason, I wouldn't be very sad if that particular SE fails.

Quoted for the link. ;)

On a completely unrelated but on-topic note, I really want to see how the OED's etymologists work.

Cerberus

They probably consult what etymological dictionaries they have, and do extensive textual research themselves as well.

Vitaly

12:59 AM

That textual research part is what I want to see.

MikeVaughan

So, an UPDATE.

After some prying, due to poor design.

No SIM card.

Vitaly

8 mins ago, by Vitaly

Oh come on @Cerberus. There is a lot to try before giving up: checking it for fingerprints, performing a DNA analysis if there is anything left of the original owner, etc, etc.

Cerberus

@Vit: I think your undiscriminating skepticism is an important thing to keep in mind; but I was thinking of more advanced rationalists, who would at least not make mistakes as stupid as that. But they are still often not rigorous anough in their own methods, I think.

@Mike: Congratulations! You've just received several hundreds of dollars for free!

MikeVaughan

@Vitaly No. I'm keeping it.

Vitaly

Could you give some specific examples? @Cerberus

yesterday, by Vitaly

Joke

A joke is a story with a humourous twist. It can be in many different forms, such as a question or short story. To achieve this end, jokes may employ irony, sarcasm, word play and other devices. Jokes may have a punchline that will end the sentence to make it humorous. A practical joke or prank differs from a spoken one in that the major component of the humour is physical rather than verbal (for example placing salt in the sugar bowl). Purpose Jokes are typically for the entertainment of friends and onlookers. The desired response is generally laughter; when this does not happen ...

Cerberus

1:02 AM

Okay, allow me to engage you in a slightly annoying Platonic dialogue:

MikeVaughan

I know it was joke. lol

Cerberus

If I say "a=a and a!=a", do you think I am wrong?

:P

Yes.

Why?

1:03 AM

because x cant be x and !x

Cerberus

Why can't it? (That is the Law of Non-Contradiction you're using: but why is it even valid?)

MikeVaughan

Well, if that's your point, then why is anything, anything.

?

Cerberus

Indeed.

MikeVaughan

Fuck it, I'm a solipsist now.

Cerberus

My point is that you are assuming that things cannot contradict each other because it doesn't feel right in your brain. That is all you have: a feeling. All of logic and everything else is based on that feeling.

That feeling isn't bad or useless; but it would be naïve to deny its role.

MikeVaughan

1:07 AM

I understand what you're saying.

Vitaly

Quick question, Cerberus: are you talking about rationality (LW) or rationalism (Wikipedia)?

MikeVaughan

But I disagree.

Cerberus

@Vit: I have no idea!

@Mike: Oh?

MikeVaughan

I don't think its based on a feeling.

I think it's based on an inherit understanding.

Vitaly

Rationalism (Wiki) is “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge,” rationality (LW) is… well… wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Rationality

Cerberus

1:09 AM

@Mike: Well, where does that understanding come from, then? What is it, and why is it a valid basis?

Vitaly

Your point is only valid if you are talking about rationalism, I think.

Cerberus

@Vit: I don't think so. This rationality depends on prediction, and prediction depends on interpretation. How do I decide whether a certain observation matches my prediction?

I know I am sort of addressing random stuff here. The only thing I'm after is a bit more scepticism and modesty for rationalists...

Vitaly

“This rationality depends on prediction, and prediction depends on interpretation.” — What experiences would you anticipate if prediction depended on interpretation? What experiences would you anticipate if the opposite were true?

(I am not making any point yet, just trying to understand what is it you are talking about. The first part—“Attaining a map that reflects the territory depends on prediction”—doesn't sound wrong so far.)

(If I still can't understand your point, I shall ask you to taboo the word interpretation)

Cerberus

If it were true, I'd expect us to never be sure whether we actually observed something that confirmed or falsified our prediction, and possibly believe that we were sure while in fact we couldn't be sure. If it were not true, I'd expect observations to be clear-cut facts that would fit right into the fitting or unfitting slots of our prediction, in a quasi-mechanical process.

MikeVaughan

Well, normally I appreciate the philosophical talk a lot more.

But, right now, I'm inebriated.

So, with that, I leave you.

Vitaly

1:21 AM

Later @Mike

Cerberus

@Mike: By all means understandable!

MikeVaughan

Good day, folks. I'll see you tomorrow, perhaps.

Vitaly

OK, your point is valid when applied to LW rationality @Cerberus.

However, EY recognized that as well.

Cerberus

@Vit: Yay!

I'm sure he recognised it; my problem lies in the observation that many rationalists do not always apply the fundamental doubts of scepticism as rigorously as perhaps they should. That said, I still think rationalists do great and useful work.

Vitaly

That is pretty much subject to the law of diminishing returns.

In reality, applying the first level of rationality can be with confidence thought to give a correct enough (in terms of LW probability/confidence estimates) map of the territory.

Further applying rationality to the first level of applying it (let's call it the second level) would in most cases give marginal utility, not comparable with the energy expenditure required of the brain to perform that task.

So it would only be rational to stay on the first level of rationality.

No?

Cerberus

1:34 AM

I see what you mean.

In many situations, this is true. But I think I saw some situations in which the utility of higher levels was more than marginal—at least that's what it appeared like to my defective brain...

Vitaly

Haha.

I wish I could edit my posts past the 2-minute window… at the first level*

The question is: are those some situations really worth the effort of applying the higher level rationalities to every situation?

Cerberus

My answer is: sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't; but we do not know that beforehand.

Perhaps this discussion would be more constructive if I could find a good example... but it is late and I should be going to bed. I will give you one next time! Or perhaps I will fail to find one!

Vitaly

Good night @Cerberus

I should be going to. Ttyl.

Cerberus

@Vit: Night!

Boob

9:43 AM

Hi friends , I posted an answer for a question and now it disappeared there, anyone knows the reason?

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…