3 ms·
Now do the same with models of reality, but extending into the realm where millions of variables are involved, many of them downstream from consciousness, and c
by mistermann 3y ago
Now do the same with models of reality, but extending into the realm where millions of variables are involved, many of them downstream from consciousness, and culture (cultural norms of "logic", etc). To handle this one will need a lot more than a few simple methods. Alternatively, faith in almost any ideology (religion & science are most powerful) can make things appear to line up perfectly. If you don't believe me, just listen to how people talk, there is a near infinite supply of evidence, and more every day.
- Phiwise_ 3y agoJesse, what the hell are you talking about? >cultural norms of "logic", etc Your brain on logical relativism, I guess.
- mistermann 3y agoWhen one is not able to understand what another says, assuming the other person is necessarily incorrect/silly may not be optimal gameplay (depending upon what variable(s)[1] one is optimizing for of course, or if one never even thought about that aspect of it in the first place). Less snarkily: the 1/2/3 watches example is a single, ~deterministic, ~knowable data point; it is roughly the simplest type of problem space you can deal with, and even here there is uncertainty. Now consider a much more complex problem space, reality (better known as "the reality"), and things get much worse. But paradoxically, with all the added complexity, "correct" answers often become simpler, not more difficult. (Here I am referring to the conversations you may find on social media (or anywhere) about complex matters such as war.) [1] Having fun, fitting in, just joking, etc.
- Phiwise_ 3y ago>Now consider a much more complex problem space Why? It's neither the subject at hand nor have you expressed it meaningfully. I dismissed you because I'm optimizing for productive concrete discussion in the face of your social gaming, and you argued against me on the same grounds only because you lack the self-awareness to see that. Assuming conclusively someone is necessarily incorrect only because they were snarky when they ignored you is not an optimum strategy.
- mistermann 3y ago> Why? Can be good practice to avoid making the classic errors you just made. Sorry if it sounded like an order, I meant it more as a suggestion.
- Phiwise_ 3y agoWhat classic errors?
- mistermann 3y agoThinking that how it seems is necessarily how it is. A more sophisticated term is Naive Realism.
- Phiwise_ 3y agoAnd where did I make that error?
- mistermann 3y agoIn the text of your comment. You treat your interpretation and perception of what is going on as being equal(!) to what is going on, despite I'm quite confident possessing knowledge of how unreliable perception is, according to both science and common experience. Why do You People do this? Why do you not behave more logically?
- Phiwise_ 3y ago>You said the thing I disagree with in the place where you say things This conversation is like pulling teeth. Fix this or I'm done wasting my time.
- mistermann 2y agoYou asked a question, I answered it. Are you engaging in rhetoric, or are you actually serious? Where is that quote from by the way?