11–20 of 20 posts
Thinking about thinking is unnecessary. Thinking is same as worrying about something. When you do thinking, you are neither eating, nor sleeping or doing any physical work. Your body is at rest but your mind is not. No animal does too much thinking than what is necessary to interpret the inputs given by it's senses and correlate them to any self-driven actions needed. When people see you as lost in some thought, the…
For example, some section of this essay introduces the following:
> Did evolution want to build this kind of truth engine? Well, maybe it’s complicated.
It later begins to conclude with:
> But regardless of the actual evolutionary and psychological story, here, I think my point about the abstract form of a truth engine still stands.
Why bother introducing the evopsych hypothesis if we're not actually going to stand behind it or use it in a meaningful way?
I don't even mean this particularly as a takedown, the dimensions listed are kind of interesting at least. But I find a particular sort of irony in having written so many words and having engaged in so much thought just to return to not thinking about something at all.
I see no reason to accept the premise that “fake thinking” can exist. Occam’s razor suggests a simpler interpretation: telling lies. It would be like saying Tic Tac Toe is not a real game, but chess IS real. Charades is fake, but Darts is real. They are merely different games, requiring different models and operations. “Rote thinking” is real thinking, applied to simple pattern matching situation. The concern of the…
Thinking about thinking is unnecessary. Thinking is same as worrying about something. When you do thinking, you are neither eating, nor sleeping or doing any physical work. Your body is at rest but your mind is not. No animal does too much thinking than what is necessary to interpret the inputs given by it's senses and correlate them to any self-driven actions needed. When people see you as lost in some thought, the…
Sometimes I would reach this strange state where I could be asked something by the professor, and I would say something based on what I had read, and the prof would say "yes that's right".
But I knew that I didn't understand it. Somehow I was producing the right answer, but there was a dissatisfaction that was hard to explain. Whether it was math or economics, it sort of felt like I was regurgitating or just mechanically solving equations, without any feel for what was actually being done.
The opposite also happened, especially in math. Thinking that I understand something, but then getting stumped when an obviously related question proved impossible.
However the first case is the weirder case, because the latter is simply exposing that you actually don't know something via external input, whereas the former gives you external validation that you really shouldn't have.
Thinking about thinking is unnecessary. Thinking is same as worrying about something. When you do thinking, you are neither eating, nor sleeping or doing any physical work. Your body is at rest but your mind is not. No animal does too much thinking than what is necessary to interpret the inputs given by it's senses and correlate them to any self-driven actions needed. When people see you as lost in some thought, the…
Sounds very fascist. I suppose it fits with the times.... very bad times ahead not unlikely.... Hopefully the price will be fewer than a billion dead bodies....
I find essays written in this style to be overwrought in a way that makes them impossible to challenge (setting aside AI summarization). Is this not, in and of itself, a form of fake thinking? For example, some section of this essay introduces the following: > Did evolution want to build this kind of truth engine? Well, maybe it’s complicated. It later begins to conclude with: > But regardless of the actual evolution…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds very fascist. I suppose it fits with the times.... very bad times ahead not unlikely.... Hopefully the price will be fewer than a billion dead bodies....
Don’t worry, it will be bodies of people everyone hated all along - thinkers, “woke”, and so on.
I see no reason to accept the premise that “fake thinking” can exist. Occam’s razor suggests a simpler interpretation: telling lies. It would be like saying Tic Tac Toe is not a real game, but chess IS real. Charades is fake, but Darts is real. They are merely different games, requiring different models and operations. “Rote thinking” is real thinking, applied to simple pattern matching situation. The concern of the…
They really mean crap not fake. If you use a nail where a screw is needed, that is crap.