5 ms·

Despite admitting verbally that a map is not the territory, rationalists hope that if they take one map, and keep updating it long enough, this map will asympto

Despite admitting verbally that a map is not the territory, rationalists hope that if they take one map, and keep updating it long enough, this map will asymptotically approach the territory. In other words, that in every moment, using one map is the right strategy. Meta-rationalists don’t believe in the ability to update one map sufficiently (or perhaps just sufficiently quickly), and intentionally use different maps for different contexts. (Which of course does not prevent them from updating the individual maps.) As a side effect of this strategy, the meta-rationalist is always aware that the currently used map is just a map; one of many possible maps. The rationalist, having invested too much time and energy into updating one map, may find it emotionally too difficult to admit that the map does not fit the territory, when they encounter a new part of territory where the existing map fits poorly. Which means that on the emotional level, rationalists treat their one map as the territory. Furthermore, meta-rationalists don’t really believe that if you take one map and keep updating it long enough, you will necessarily asymptotically approach the territory. First, the incoming information is already interpreted by the map in use; second, the instructions for updating are themselves contained in the map. So it is quite possible that different maps, even after updating on tons of data from the territory, would still converge towards different attractors. And even if, hypothetically, given infinite computing power, they would converge towards the same place, it is still possible that they will not come sufficiently close during one human life, or that a sufficiently advanced map would fit into a human brain. Therefore, using multiple maps may be the optimal approach for a human. (Even if you choose “the current scientific knowledge” as one of your starting maps.)

abss 5y ago
Yes.. metarationality is basicaly a sort of belief system about how and what we can undestand. If we dont undestand our limits and we do not use rationalities as tools we end in scientism or very wrong belief systems built on "fakery" and self delusions..
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  FYI, it is a synonym for the epistemology (philosophy of knowledge) called constructivism.
d0mine 5y ago
I’ve heard about this idea in a form: «All models are false. Some are useful.»
morsch 5y ago
The above comment should be attributed to https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hxxN75ZQ5GY4Tjwkv/inscrutable-ideas?commentId=DKCc9CDawqcG4aqcm https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hxxN75ZQ5GY4Tjwkv/inscrutabl...
Retric 5y ago
That line of thinking assumes you can’t share maps, as such it’s of minimal practical value. To abuse the analogy, a glovebox of old road atlas doesn’t beat Google maps. On the other hand mixing Google maps with your personal knowledge that a bridge is out is a useful meta map.
roenxi 5y ago
That comment is picking at a fair critique, but some details seem to be wrong. > rationalists hope that if they take one map, and keep updating it long enough, this map will asymptotically approach the territory That is, as far as can be detected, what the human brain does. It isn't just the rationalists who have a view and keep updating it, hoping it will asymptotically approach the territory. It is exceedingly difficult to have a strategy that doesn't do that and still be a semi-functional member of society. I'm struggling to see how someone could hold 'different' maps because they become one map in your head. Rationalists are perfectly comfortable with there being multiple possible scenarios leading to an outcome. My guess is that this observation is going to the fact that rationalists are very, very uncomfortable (to the point of falling apart, sometimes) in accepting "because I say so" as sufficient evidence to update a view, change behaviour stop arguing and be a good sport about the whole thing. Which is very much a social faux-pas when dealing with high status people and often a mistake when dealing with inarticulate people who are nevertheless correct in their view.
- bordercases 5y ago
  There is nothing stopping me from using multiple frameworks to understand a position and seeing if they agree or not. Such an ability is integral in disciplines like design, like intelligence analysis, like trading... You can act as if you believe many things without endorsing beliefs, and at the level of behavior the two outcomes are indistinguishable. Furthermore, cognitive dissonance exists, which shows that minds can maintain contradictory beliefs until their beliefs are made to be "live options" for a given situation; and there is no guarantee that the consistency of the mind's contents won't diverge again under new circumstances. Newton believed in alchemy. The one concession I will make is that in the end, people take one action at a time, which implies a single judgement made at one time on which to act. But the train of thought leading up to that point doesn't have to feature a linear incrementing of ideas or beliefs. You are also making some very strong assumptions about what is required to be a "semi-(!)functional member of society". What examples do you have in mind? Schizophrenics?
- webmaven 5y ago
  > I'm struggling to see how someone could hold 'different' maps because they become one map in your head. Rationalists are perfectly comfortable with there being multiple possible scenarios leading to an outcome. A street map and a subway map both describe the connectivity within a city, but even when a human internalizes them both, they don't get subsumed into a single map exactly, rather the human mode-switches between them at various points to stich together a route. If you doubt this, try visualizing exactly which streets and landmarks are going by overhead as you travel between stations. It is rather hard to do, and as a result people often treat stations more like portals into a parallel wormhole network. This of course uses literal maps as an exemplar, but similar ones are 'code switching' back and forth between dialects rather than blending them, and visual illusions that can be seen as one image or another, but not both at once.
beaconstudios 5y ago
There's existing terminology for this idea. Rationalists are positivists and meta-rationalists are constructivists. These are terms from the philosophy of science, and directly relate to how one treats the map-territory relationship. They also relate directly to the philosophies of materialism and emergentism.
- fouc 5y ago
  Those two terms don't seem to map like you suggest? Doing good science is basically the same as solving Bongard problems. Good positivist science relies on meta-rationality.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Yes, Bongard problems are synonymous with the process of creating mental models, which is the process of science. Logical positivism and constructivism are both scientific - constructivism is a superset of positivist tools and better accommodates systemic/emergent properties. Positivism is analytic/materialist, which is to say that it purports that you can understand a thing by understanding the behaviour of its smallest pieces. This denies emergent properties, which cannot be understood from the parts. Constructivism allows for multiple distinct (ie, irreconcilable) models to be used in reference to the same subject, depending on the properties that are of interest. It does not require all models to be reconciled into a hierarchy.
handoflixue 5y ago
Ahh, thanks, that's a very useful distinction to me

abss 5y ago

Yes.. metarationality is basicaly a sort of belief system about how and what we can undestand. If we dont undestand our limits and we do not use rationalities as tools we end in scientism or very wrong belief systems built on "fakery" and self delusions..

beaconstudios 5y ago
FYI, it is a synonym for the epistemology (philosophy of knowledge) called constructivism.

d0mine 5y ago

I’ve heard about this idea in a form: «All models are false. Some are useful.»

morsch 5y ago

The above comment should be attributed to https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hxxN75ZQ5GY4Tjwkv/inscrutable-ideas?commentId=DKCc9CDawqcG4aqcm https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hxxN75ZQ5GY4Tjwkv/inscrutabl...

Retric 5y ago

That line of thinking assumes you can’t share maps, as such it’s of minimal practical value. To abuse the analogy, a glovebox of old road atlas doesn’t beat Google maps. On the other hand mixing Google maps with your personal knowledge that a bridge is out is a useful meta map.

roenxi 5y ago

That comment is picking at a fair critique, but some details seem to be wrong. > rationalists hope that if they take one map, and keep updating it long enough, this map will asymptotically approach the territory That is, as far as can be detected, what the human brain does. It isn't just the rationalists who have a view and keep updating it, hoping it will asymptotically approach the territory. It is exceedingly difficult to have a strategy that doesn't do that and still be a semi-functional member of society. I'm struggling to see how someone could hold 'different' maps because they become one map in your head. Rationalists are perfectly comfortable with there being multiple possible scenarios leading to an outcome. My guess is that this observation is going to the fact that rationalists are very, very uncomfortable (to the point of falling apart, sometimes) in accepting "because I say so" as sufficient evidence to update a view, change behaviour stop arguing and be a good sport about the whole thing. Which is very much a social faux-pas when dealing with high status people and often a mistake when dealing with inarticulate people who are nevertheless correct in their view.

bordercases 5y ago
There is nothing stopping me from using multiple frameworks to understand a position and seeing if they agree or not. Such an ability is integral in disciplines like design, like intelligence analysis, like trading... You can act as if you believe many things without endorsing beliefs, and at the level of behavior the two outcomes are indistinguishable. Furthermore, cognitive dissonance exists, which shows that minds can maintain contradictory beliefs until their beliefs are made to be "live options" for a given situation; and there is no guarantee that the consistency of the mind's contents won't diverge again under new circumstances. Newton believed in alchemy. The one concession I will make is that in the end, people take one action at a time, which implies a single judgement made at one time on which to act. But the train of thought leading up to that point doesn't have to feature a linear incrementing of ideas or beliefs. You are also making some very strong assumptions about what is required to be a "semi-(!)functional member of society". What examples do you have in mind? Schizophrenics?
webmaven 5y ago
> I'm struggling to see how someone could hold 'different' maps because they become one map in your head. Rationalists are perfectly comfortable with there being multiple possible scenarios leading to an outcome. A street map and a subway map both describe the connectivity within a city, but even when a human internalizes them both, they don't get subsumed into a single map exactly, rather the human mode-switches between them at various points to stich together a route. If you doubt this, try visualizing exactly which streets and landmarks are going by overhead as you travel between stations. It is rather hard to do, and as a result people often treat stations more like portals into a parallel wormhole network. This of course uses literal maps as an exemplar, but similar ones are 'code switching' back and forth between dialects rather than blending them, and visual illusions that can be seen as one image or another, but not both at once.

beaconstudios 5y ago

There's existing terminology for this idea. Rationalists are positivists and meta-rationalists are constructivists. These are terms from the philosophy of science, and directly relate to how one treats the map-territory relationship. They also relate directly to the philosophies of materialism and emergentism.

fouc 5y ago
Those two terms don't seem to map like you suggest? Doing good science is basically the same as solving Bongard problems. Good positivist science relies on meta-rationality.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Yes, Bongard problems are synonymous with the process of creating mental models, which is the process of science. Logical positivism and constructivism are both scientific - constructivism is a superset of positivist tools and better accommodates systemic/emergent properties. Positivism is analytic/materialist, which is to say that it purports that you can understand a thing by understanding the behaviour of its smallest pieces. This denies emergent properties, which cannot be understood from the parts. Constructivism allows for multiple distinct (ie, irreconcilable) models to be used in reference to the same subject, depending on the properties that are of interest. It does not require all models to be reconciled into a hierarchy.

handoflixue 5y ago

Ahh, thanks, that's a very useful distinction to me