31–36 of 36 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What has replaced it?
Indirect realism or correlationism. The first would mean being aware of mental representations instead of physical objects, and the second is Kantian where the mind structures the noisy flux of sensations according to categories of thought like space and time. The second also means that the way we experience the world depends on the kind of creatures we are, and not the way the world is.
Two great illustrations of this concept from literature come to mind: * Borges's 'On Exactitude in Science' [0] about a map that is as large and as precise as the territory, which renders it useless; * the wonderful Eschaton scene in Infinite Jest [1], with Pemulis screaming: "It’s snowing on the goddamn map , not the territory, you dick ! This point gets made enough over time that one suspects it's an enduring trait…
Yeah but with the advent of computers you can have a map as large and precise as the territory... just keep zooming in until the scale is 1:1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What has replaced it?
Indirect realism or correlationism. The first would mean being aware of mental representations instead of physical objects, and the second is Kantian where the mind structures the noisy flux of sensations according to categories of thought like space and time. The second also means that the way we experience the world depends on the kind of creatures we are, and not the way the world is.
> The second also means that the way we experience the world depends on the kind of creatures we are, and not the way the world is.
Would it be fair to say we all look at both the map and territory wearing different sunglasses?
That seems to capture both sentiments, I feel there's something I'm not getting here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indirect realism or correlationism. The first would mean being aware of mental representations instead of physical objects, and the second is Kantian where the mind structures the noisy flux of sensations according to categories of thought like space and time. The second also means that the way we experience the world depends on the kind of creatures we are, and not the way the world is.
Why would that be incompatible with the map and territory model? > The second also means that the way we experience the world depends on the kind of creatures we are, and not the way the world is. Would it be fair to say we all look at both the map and territory wearing different sunglasses? That seems to capture both sentiments, I feel there's something I'm not getting here.
The author argues instead not to be confused with the map because of potential deviation from the reality of the territory. But the map is about the categorical truths of reality which the territory is conforming to.
It’s what guarantees mathematics’ “unreasonable effectiveness”. Mathematical or scientific maps are discussing necessary properties of all human experience—-a type of knowledge called the a priori synthetic.
I wonder if it's even useful anymore to consider mental models in the context of financial markets, even if it's just used as a metaphorical warning sign. I read an assertion recently that of all the "markets" in human civilization/culture, the financial one is the only one where we have truly have brought maximum resource and human capital to bear. With that in mind, no one is ever surprised when the next fat tail u…
> I read an assertion recently that of all the "markets" in human civilization/culture, the financial one is the only one where we have truly have brought maximum resource and human capital to bear. Are you thinking of this book? If I had to name the single epistemic feat at which modern human civilization is most adequate, the peak of all human power of estimation, I would unhesitatingly reply, “Short-term relative…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I read an assertion recently that of all the "markets" in human civilization/culture, the financial one is the only one where we have truly have brought maximum resource and human capital to bear. Are you thinking of this book? If I had to name the single epistemic feat at which modern human civilization is most adequate, the peak of all human power of estimation, I would unhesitatingly reply, “Short-term relative…
Bingo. What did you think of the book?
I think the part that really shook me, and made a lasting impact, was this:
But in the early days when Omegaven was just plain illegal to sell across state lines, some parents would drive for hours, every month, to buy Omegaven from the Boston Children’s Hospital to take back to their home state. I, for one, would call that an extraordinary effort. Those parents went far outside their routine, beyond what the System would demand of them, beyond what the world was set up to support them doing by default. Most people won’t make an effort that far outside their usual habits even if their own personal lives are at stake.
It made me think hard about what trying hard to really fix something looks like, and what options I fail to entertain. And since reading that I've become more willing to actually do what's necessary to solve problems, even at risk of inconveniencing myself or worse, looking weird. Sometimes I meet people who prioritize not looking weird over the lives of themselves and their loved ones (like in the early days of the pandemic, when non-Asian people were still too embarrassed to wear masks in public). And when I find myself thinking that way, I think back to this book and think, let's make an extraordinary effort today.
I think the book would be better without Simplicio though, who is a pretty annoying strawman character.