A first lesson in meta-rationality
metarationality.com
A first lesson in meta-rationality
1–10 of 108 posts
Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality
#2As people and societies we evolve towards metarationality. The reality is too complex to be handled within a single theory. We have to develop metarationality (wisdom) and pragamaticaly make jumps between contradictory theories. Any other aproach is doomed because the complexity will be always too much for any "single rationality" approach.
Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality
#3Another good introduction: https://drossbucket.com/2017/09/30/metarationality-a-messy-i...
Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality
#4Another good introduction: https://drossbucket.com/2017/09/30/metarationality-a-messy-i...
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.)
Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality
#5Another good introduction: https://drossbucket.com/2017/09/30/metarationality-a-messy-i...
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 map…
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..
Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality
#6Another good introduction: https://drossbucket.com/2017/09/30/metarationality-a-messy-i...
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 map…
I’ve heard about this idea in a form: «All models are false. Some are useful.»
Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality
#7An interesting category of problems are like Bongard problems in that you have to deduce the rule from examples, but the examples are presented one at a time at random long intervals so you have to work from memory. Most real-world learning is like this.
When working from memory, it's normal for your memory to have already parsed the previous situation into features. As some of the later examples in the blog illustrate, it's easy to fall into parsing examples into the wrong set of features, which is how you'll remember them.
While I could solve all the problems in the article, I doubt I could solve any but the simplest if I was shown 1 image per day over 12 days and not allowed to write anything down.
Perhaps the lesson is that when you're trying to deduce a rule (say, for what conditions your software crashes in) you can increase your rule-discovering power greatly by making notes and being able to look at several examples side-by-side.
Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality
#8David Chapman has multiple sites for approaching the same problem. However, all the sites (or 'books') are incomplete.
Every time I come across something by him I just want to read a complete book on the topic of metarationality from cover to cover.
Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality
#9Another good introduction: https://drossbucket.com/2017/09/30/metarationality-a-messy-i...
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 map…
The above comment should be attributed to https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hxxN75ZQ5GY4Tjwkv/inscrutabl...
Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality
#10Another good introduction: https://drossbucket.com/2017/09/30/metarationality-a-messy-i...
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 map…
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.