Ian

The segment on epistemic hyenine is full of a lot of what I would consider "air quotes" for the steps. The increasing knowledge and skepticism could lead to the wrong conclusions especially when you're using a drug, even a lot of what you say for attention and DMT seems more subjective than anything about the drug. 

Also dangerous ideas seems more subjective then anything you could really watch out for. I mean everyone throughout history seems to have a different take on what is dangerous or the deep end. 

I think like any drug DMT only gives you w... (read more)

This sounds like a lot of speculation about the effects of drugs and the like, from what little I know of such things everyone reacts differently so this mostly just tells me about what it feels like for you, not about the effects of estrogen as a whole. I've heard wildly different accounts from different trans people.

That said, I often used to wonder if I am trans myself, I don't really know how to figure that one out though. I've had some strong experiences, but every time I'm terrified of exploring them further for fear of what they might mean. Other da... (read more)

"Explain why scientists conduct experiments. How can that be relevant to internal consistency?

Explain why it is impossible for human knowledge to correlate to reality, even by accident. Is it because there is no external reality , as you sometimes say?"

It's how science is. Science itself admits that it doesn't prove anything and that our knowledge might be more instrumental than about reality itself. It's the first thing you learn and something each of them keeps in mind, that it could all be wrong, but it works.

As for external reality, I cannot say for su... (read more)

"Again that's ambiguous between "reality doesn't exist" and "we don't know reality".

It happens to be the case that in English the word "reality" can be used both ways. You can use it in a territory sense, to mean an object of knowledge -- this book is non-fiction, so it is about reality; and you can use it in a map sense, to label a successful representation -- this portrait is highly realiastic.

But that's only a quirk of English, not a deep insight!"

It's only ambiguous if you don't understand it. It's pretty clear to me. It's saying that knowledge doesn't... (read more)

"No , that's not anti realism. Anti realism is the definitive , certain claim that there is no reality. As such, as an ontological claim, it cannot be based on a fallibilist epistemology."

That isn't anti-realism, anti-realism is against the claim that there is a definitive reality that our knowledge maps to and that knowledge is more instrumental rather than "About" anything. It's quite compatible with fallibilism,  not to mention recent findings in QM (allegedly).

"What you are saying isn't necessarily true either. So we ether give up entirely, or pro... (read more)

"The claim that it's all maps, ontologically, doesn't follow from the claim that we have no knowledge or reality at all, epistemically..and that doesn't follow from "might not describe reality at all".

You have a sort of motte-and-bailey or slippery slope going on. It's defensible to claim that our knowledge is uncertain, but it's not the same as claiming there is no reality .. as an ontological entity."

It is the same, in a sense. You could just say we have an expeirence at the most bare level, and that to posit a reality that exists beyond that is not just... (read more)

"Any map that isn't explicitly fictional attempts to describe some sort of reality. The fact that they intend or purport to represent a reality outside of themselves is a feature they all have in common. They are all , at least, about reality , in general, aside from how exact they are

If we believe the map, we take it's details to be a detailed description of reality. Otherwise not. The theories we disbelieve in, we regard as failed attempts to describe reality ...but still attempts, unlike fiction.

You may be hung up on a "nothing avails except perfection"... (read more)

Those maps "Refer" to what we "assume" is reality, but like I said all we have is maps not reality. You say our "empirical data comes from reality" but it doesn't, it comes from our senses, which don't accurately reflect reality. 

The "evidence" is still just a map, because we cannot be certain such a thing is reality itself. Science isn't technically the study of reality, it's more like just about making models that work. Even science itself cannot prove reality is real and is more concerned with explanations or what's good enough rather than truth.&n... (read more)

No. Those are maps too. We don't have direct access or knowledge of reality, just maps. There is no "territory" as far as we know, that's how science works. 

To think you know what the territory is is hubris. But yeah, it's all maps. It started with Plato's allegory of the Cave and so far there is no way to get past that. Kant said the same. 

It's all maps, all we can do is just adjust them better.

Also EY says people don't exist because they're just "models" so by him no "one" "lives" anywhere.

Yeah but we don't know that, and the evidence today is that QM is fundamentally indeterministic, and getting moreso each day.

 EY thinks there is some territory to compare to but the fact is it's all maps and we use different ones for different things. His "multi-level reality" that  he uses to dismiss anything above the elementary particles as not real isn't true, because what something "really is" is philosophy and not science. 

He doesn't seem to acknowledge that all of it is maps and we don't have the territory and never will. 

Not exactly. Even someone with perfect knowledge would still need probability, they'd just know the odds. 

What Einstein meant by that was not literal god but the universe. He refused to accept some things could be random like QM. 

The problem with QM is that it's fundamentally indeterministic, perfect knowledge won't change that (and that's what he refused to accept). This is just Eliezer again speaking on things he has no knowledge about. 

MWI is just one of many interpretations, I might not say it of actual physicists who believe it but if EY says it then one can ignore it. 

The same way one can ignore him on AI and most things. 

But in regards to what is correct on interpretation, no one knows for sure and we may never know.

It's actually not, his commitment to MWI is more rooted in his ignorance of QM, not due to any metaphysical commitments. Plenty of people with actual degrees in the field all disagree on what the right interpretation is, even today we still don't. Metaphysics doesn't play into it, MWI is just one way to explain the math but it has it's short comings. 

Aumann's agreement theorem doesn't factor in here. The simpler explanation is that EY doesn't understand QM, which is why he assumes Many Worlds it the only one. In fact he's often extremely confident (and stubborn) about things he not only doesn't understand but is provably wrong in.

The truth about QM is that no one really understands what's going on there. 

I feel like Elizer needs to realize that the ground level he's talking about is in fact still just another model of reality. He's talking about how physics "really works" when what he's talking about isn't maps and territories. 

The fact is we don't know the ground level of reality, we just have a model based on evidence so far. Also contrary to what he wants to be true physics does recognize "levels" to reality, because what applies at the quantum level doesn't necessarily always translate to the macroscopic level. 

You cannot understand psycholog... (read more)

This doesn't sound like a fallacy. I think the word Elizer going for with the monster was anthropomorphism (we already have a word for it), "mind projection fallacy" isn't a real fallacy. We humans do have a tendency to assign human characteristics to non-human things. 

If you want to make this a fallacy you'd have to throw out rationality because that's our minds attempting to make sense of reality using everything we've developed. 

As for wanting them to be a person...they are. If they weren't I'd doubt you'd be talking to them.

There are "levels"... (read more)

Not really. The quantum weirdness isn't due to measuring it with classical terms, it's more like that's just how it is at that level. Spooky action, non locality, and uncertainty. 

In fact it's fundamentally random at that level and by definition uncertain. Even mathematically that's the case. 

Eliezer is still wrong, though that wouldn't surprise me because he doesn't have a degree in this stuff. It's also odd to argue something is in the mind when your other writings suggest you don't believe in such things. I mean if you want to get technical...all of this is in the mind, even caring about being "rational" so such a statement sounds moot to me.