11 ms·

For more practical persons I recommend skipping the historical parts of philosophy and go straight to Bayesianism. I recommend "Rationality" by E. Yudkowsky as

by sawwit 11y ago

For more practical persons I recommend skipping the historical parts of philosophy and go straight to Bayesianism. I recommend "Rationality" by E. Yudkowsky as an entry point, "Probabilistic Inference" by J. Pearl, "Artificial Intelligence" by Russel & Norvig for the theory and "Formal Theory of Creativity & Fun & Intrinsic Motivation" by J. Schmidhuber for inspiration. [1]: http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html

pron 11y ago
I wouldn't recommend anything by Yudkowsky as an introduction to anything (other than maybe an introduction to contemporary techno-cults, aimed at the graduate level). As a "philosopher" he is exceptionally inept at questioning his own assumptions and reasoning. His writing lack any philosophical rigor (they try to obscure their axiomatic assumptions rather than articulate them, let alone explore them). As a result, his "philosophy" -- and in particular his views of rationality -- feels very antiquated (some read as if they'd been written in the 1700s) or something Sheldon Cooper would write. It has all the philosophical rigor of a child; or Ayn Rand. In any event, it is very uninformed and limited (not to speak of his nomenclature, which deviates from that of philosophy, and so makes orienting his views in the grand scheme of things difficult). His writings are more of an interest to people who are interested in researching particular modes of thought in various sub-cultures. In this case, how antiquated views of "rationality" are gaining popularity in Silicon Valley pop-philosophy: http://harpers.org/archive/2015/01/come-with-us-if-you-want-to-live/?single=1 http://harpers.org/archive/2015/01/come-with-us-if-you-want-... He is a cult-leader, not a researcher, and like all cult leaders, his talents lie in charmingly convincing gullible victims that his thoughts are profound, when, in fact, they don't exceed those of a very intelligent 14-year-old know-it-all. If you approach his writings as actual philosophy (rather than intriguing historical documents of a techno-libertarian cult, which is what they are), after reading them you are certain to know less of philosophy than when you've started, even if your original knowledge was absolute zero. His writings are to philosophy what Fox News is to news: inspire and agitate unquestioning followers, while making sure they don't learn about the world by constructing an elaborate -- and enticing -- virtual world to isolate them from reality.
- Aljik 11y ago
  What cult does he run? Lesswrong? Lesswrong is dead, so if that is his cult, that must make him a pretty poor cult leader. Techno-libertarian? I'll grant you the techno part, but lesswrong/the internet rationality people are about 70% left-wing and 25% libertarian. So, what cult does he run, and what makes it a cult?
  - jmcmichael 11y ago
    Singularitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism EDIT: I agree with the parent reply that Elizer's writings do not rise to the level of good philosophy, but don't believe that 'singularitarianism' can currently be considered a cult. But it possesses some attributes similar to cults so I believe it's correct to call it a 'cult-like' or 'proto-cult' belief system.
    - Aljik 11y ago
      I don't think it's fair even call singularity stuff a cult. I would agree with calling it religious though. But cult-like at least to me implies more negative connotations. Isolating people from their friends & families. Abusive behavior towards its members. Stuff like that. Compounds where people live etc... Has this singularity "cult" even hurt anyone?
      - pron 11y ago
        > But cult-like at least to me implies more negative connotations. Isolating people from their friends & families. Abusive behavior towards its members. Stuff like that. I did not mean it like that, and if that is how people understood it then I apologize. I meant it in the sense defined by Wikipedia: "In the sociological classifications of religious movements in English, a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices". Or, in other words, a small fringe (possibly non-theistic) religion.
        11y ago
sawwit 11y ago
Bonus link: A panel on automating science which I greatly enjoyed watching. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VchrEoimSO8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VchrEoimSO8
tpetricek 11y ago
I'd say that even for more practical persons, skipping the historical parts would be partly missing the point. As a practical person myself, I enjoyed the less-obvious works much more because they show a different way of thinking and so you'll learn things that you wouldn't otherwise even think about. Some of the more practical/analytical writings are just like more computer science formalisms, except that they are less believable. I'm sure there is a lot of good things there too, but I personally prefer things that are a bit further from my daily job! (Aside, there is one chapter on "The Bayesian approach" in the 3rd edition of "What is this thing called science", so that one might be a good entry-point for this topic too.)

by sawwit 11y ago

pron 11y ago

I wouldn't recommend anything by Yudkowsky as an introduction to anything (other than maybe an introduction to contemporary techno-cults, aimed at the graduate level). As a "philosopher" he is exceptionally inept at questioning his own assumptions and reasoning. His writing lack any philosophical rigor (they try to obscure their axiomatic assumptions rather than articulate them, let alone explore them). As a result, his "philosophy" -- and in particular his views of rationality -- feels very antiquated (some read as if they'd been written in the 1700s) or something Sheldon Cooper would write. It has all the philosophical rigor of a child; or Ayn Rand. In any event, it is very uninformed and limited (not to speak of his nomenclature, which deviates from that of philosophy, and so makes orienting his views in the grand scheme of things difficult). His writings are more of an interest to people who are interested in researching particular modes of thought in various sub-cultures. In this case, how antiquated views of "rationality" are gaining popularity in Silicon Valley pop-philosophy: http://harpers.org/archive/2015/01/come-with-us-if-you-want-to-live/?single=1 http://harpers.org/archive/2015/01/come-with-us-if-you-want-... He is a cult-leader, not a researcher, and like all cult leaders, his talents lie in charmingly convincing gullible victims that his thoughts are profound, when, in fact, they don't exceed those of a very intelligent 14-year-old know-it-all. If you approach his writings as actual philosophy (rather than intriguing historical documents of a techno-libertarian cult, which is what they are), after reading them you are certain to know less of philosophy than when you've started, even if your original knowledge was absolute zero. His writings are to philosophy what Fox News is to news: inspire and agitate unquestioning followers, while making sure they don't learn about the world by constructing an elaborate -- and enticing -- virtual world to isolate them from reality.

Aljik 11y ago
What cult does he run? Lesswrong? Lesswrong is dead, so if that is his cult, that must make him a pretty poor cult leader. Techno-libertarian? I'll grant you the techno part, but lesswrong/the internet rationality people are about 70% left-wing and 25% libertarian. So, what cult does he run, and what makes it a cult?
- jmcmichael 11y ago
  Singularitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism EDIT: I agree with the parent reply that Elizer's writings do not rise to the level of good philosophy, but don't believe that 'singularitarianism' can currently be considered a cult. But it possesses some attributes similar to cults so I believe it's correct to call it a 'cult-like' or 'proto-cult' belief system.
  - Aljik 11y ago
    I don't think it's fair even call singularity stuff a cult. I would agree with calling it religious though. But cult-like at least to me implies more negative connotations. Isolating people from their friends & families. Abusive behavior towards its members. Stuff like that. Compounds where people live etc... Has this singularity "cult" even hurt anyone?
    - pron 11y ago
      > But cult-like at least to me implies more negative connotations. Isolating people from their friends & families. Abusive behavior towards its members. Stuff like that. I did not mean it like that, and if that is how people understood it then I apologize. I meant it in the sense defined by Wikipedia: "In the sociological classifications of religious movements in English, a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices". Or, in other words, a small fringe (possibly non-theistic) religion.
      - 11y ago

sawwit 11y ago

Bonus link: A panel on automating science which I greatly enjoyed watching. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VchrEoimSO8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VchrEoimSO8

tpetricek 11y ago

I'd say that even for more practical persons, skipping the historical parts would be partly missing the point. As a practical person myself, I enjoyed the less-obvious works much more because they show a different way of thinking and so you'll learn things that you wouldn't otherwise even think about. Some of the more practical/analytical writings are just like more computer science formalisms, except that they are less believable. I'm sure there is a lot of good things there too, but I personally prefer things that are a bit further from my daily job! (Aside, there is one chapter on "The Bayesian approach" in the 3rd edition of "What is this thing called science", so that one might be a good entry-point for this topic too.)