Imagine that you planned a long hike through a remote area, and suggested that it might help to have an experienced hunter-gather along as a guide. Should listeners presume that you intend to imprison and enslave such guides to serve you? Or is it more plausible that you propose to
There was a topic about space colonization in college debate and the Mitchell and Chaudhary piece of evidence was big on it -- pretty funny turn of events.
Postmodern writing makes much more sense if you simply think about it as GPT-3 fed with the instructions to replicate other postmodern writings. So it'll follow rules like adding the word 'white' or 'colonizer' to things when appropriate, and if the text adheres to these rituals it passes peer-review.
I see. So your plan is for a few hundred hunter gatherers to carry on the human race, and you will arrange things in just such a way that 20,000 years hence society will be equivalent(?) to what it is today.
Sounds tricky. I suppose you'll set up a video projector, and every few centuries a home movie will play in which you give the budding civilization your guidance. Luckily you can predict now exactly what you'll have to say and when using the immutable laws of psychohist-I mean, American settler economics.
Their take is directly contradicted by the quotation they use! They quote you saying that "Of course, such people would need to be disciplined enough to wait peacefully in the refuge until the time to emerge was right."But prisoners don't need disciple to stay imprisoned. The discipline is clearly required because the people under discussion are free to leave.
In your PDF, the "eurycosm" seems to be implicitly a reality in which observers and their observations have definite, objective existence. For instance, take the quote, "In mathematical language, this implies that we can identify simplicity, surprisingness and intensity as three different (observer-dependent) partial orderings on the eurycosm." This indicates that the eurycosm remains a fixed, mathematical structure to which different observers can apply different partial orders.
Maybe the eurycosm is "larger" than what we commonly think of as the world. The same could be said of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. But in both cases - MWI/eurycosm - there does at least seem to be some enclosing base reality that everything else is a part of.
You also indicate that any entity may be an observer - if I'm interpreting this right you are including atoms and particles as entities. From this it follows that atoms and particles, and other objects normally thought of as inanimate, have objective existence within the eurycosm.
This all seems a far cry from Mitchell and Chaudhury's apparent belief that the world can be whatever a culture imagines it to be.
I liked your book, "The AGI Revolution," by the way.
Arguing over whether euryphysics is right or not is somewhat beside the point, but I would say that I am skeptical of attempts to take "probability" or "surprisingness" as fundamental concepts. Probability is subjective. Probability is also a complex high-level function of minds. Agents develop probabilities as just a tool to help them select better policies. Probability is not always even the best tool for forming policy; e.g. Dempster-Shafer theory is a more effective alternative to probability in some contexts. It doesn't strike me as suitable for fundamental physical rules.
So I love Robin and his work and generally am irritated by modern woke-ism ... However I also reject the naive notion of an objective world and single time axis, see https://eurycosm.blogspot.c... if you're genuinely curious how such a world view can be sensibly framed...
Hmm, there's two different senses of "accept". If I were jdgalt, I probably should have said "allowed" and made the focus of the complaint more clear. You're right that "accept" in this case most intuitively means active endorsement.
I don't like debating things that I have so little experience with, so I'll trust your account that the CRT articles are quarantined.
That may be what you "read," but what he literally said is that Wikipedia "accepts those usages." It does not. In articles that aren't about critical theory, Wikipedia uses the terms "enslavement" and "white" in the conventional ways.
I read jdgalt as meaning that Wikipedia gives CRT preferential treatment, rather than that it officially endorses it. If you accept the CW premise that there are two sides in a zero-sum fight, then this makes sense.
brezn, it's not logical to try to justify a specific allegation ("Wikipedia accepts critical theory definitions of enslavement or whiteness") by pointing to a second, unrelated allegation ("far right coded articles get banned"). "X has negative attribute Y" does not follow from "X has negative attribute Z." I don't know what you call this type of bias, where people try to reduce everything to "X is entirely good" or "X is entirely bad," and any evidence that X isn't entirely good must mean it is entirely bad and has all bad attributes. I see it a lot though.
I don't really know much about the wikipedia CW debate, but my guess is that there's a double standard where far right coded articles get banned, while far left coded ones get to stay up. That's just my guess. I haven't actually seen it happen myself.
What makes you think Wikipedia accepts those usages? The general article on "Slavery" does not use them. The most that could be said is that Wikipedia documents CRT concepts within articles specifically about CRT, not that it endorses them.
Your mistake was to try to engage in reasoned discussion with anti-colonialists, anti-white racists, or any other wokies in the first place. "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
I think they misinterpreted it as saying someone else would have to discipline them, rather than they'd have to be disciplined.
There was a topic about space colonization in college debate and the Mitchell and Chaudhary piece of evidence was big on it -- pretty funny turn of events.
Postmodern writing makes much more sense if you simply think about it as GPT-3 fed with the instructions to replicate other postmodern writings. So it'll follow rules like adding the word 'white' or 'colonizer' to things when appropriate, and if the text adheres to these rituals it passes peer-review.
I see. So your plan is for a few hundred hunter gatherers to carry on the human race, and you will arrange things in just such a way that 20,000 years hence society will be equivalent(?) to what it is today.
Sounds tricky. I suppose you'll set up a video projector, and every few centuries a home movie will play in which you give the budding civilization your guidance. Luckily you can predict now exactly what you'll have to say and when using the immutable laws of psychohist-I mean, American settler economics.
Their take is directly contradicted by the quotation they use! They quote you saying that "Of course, such people would need to be disciplined enough to wait peacefully in the refuge until the time to emerge was right."But prisoners don't need disciple to stay imprisoned. The discipline is clearly required because the people under discussion are free to leave.
In your PDF, the "eurycosm" seems to be implicitly a reality in which observers and their observations have definite, objective existence. For instance, take the quote, "In mathematical language, this implies that we can identify simplicity, surprisingness and intensity as three different (observer-dependent) partial orderings on the eurycosm." This indicates that the eurycosm remains a fixed, mathematical structure to which different observers can apply different partial orders.
Maybe the eurycosm is "larger" than what we commonly think of as the world. The same could be said of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. But in both cases - MWI/eurycosm - there does at least seem to be some enclosing base reality that everything else is a part of.
You also indicate that any entity may be an observer - if I'm interpreting this right you are including atoms and particles as entities. From this it follows that atoms and particles, and other objects normally thought of as inanimate, have objective existence within the eurycosm.
This all seems a far cry from Mitchell and Chaudhury's apparent belief that the world can be whatever a culture imagines it to be.
I liked your book, "The AGI Revolution," by the way.
Arguing over whether euryphysics is right or not is somewhat beside the point, but I would say that I am skeptical of attempts to take "probability" or "surprisingness" as fundamental concepts. Probability is subjective. Probability is also a complex high-level function of minds. Agents develop probabilities as just a tool to help them select better policies. Probability is not always even the best tool for forming policy; e.g. Dempster-Shafer theory is a more effective alternative to probability in some contexts. It doesn't strike me as suitable for fundamental physical rules.
So I love Robin and his work and generally am irritated by modern woke-ism ... However I also reject the naive notion of an objective world and single time axis, see https://eurycosm.blogspot.c... if you're genuinely curious how such a world view can be sensibly framed...
Hmm, there's two different senses of "accept". If I were jdgalt, I probably should have said "allowed" and made the focus of the complaint more clear. You're right that "accept" in this case most intuitively means active endorsement.
I don't like debating things that I have so little experience with, so I'll trust your account that the CRT articles are quarantined.
That may be what you "read," but what he literally said is that Wikipedia "accepts those usages." It does not. In articles that aren't about critical theory, Wikipedia uses the terms "enslavement" and "white" in the conventional ways.
I read jdgalt as meaning that Wikipedia gives CRT preferential treatment, rather than that it officially endorses it. If you accept the CW premise that there are two sides in a zero-sum fight, then this makes sense.
brezn, it's not logical to try to justify a specific allegation ("Wikipedia accepts critical theory definitions of enslavement or whiteness") by pointing to a second, unrelated allegation ("far right coded articles get banned"). "X has negative attribute Y" does not follow from "X has negative attribute Z." I don't know what you call this type of bias, where people try to reduce everything to "X is entirely good" or "X is entirely bad," and any evidence that X isn't entirely good must mean it is entirely bad and has all bad attributes. I see it a lot though.
I don't really know much about the wikipedia CW debate, but my guess is that there's a double standard where far right coded articles get banned, while far left coded ones get to stay up. That's just my guess. I haven't actually seen it happen myself.
Shame on them for exploiting political divisions.
What makes you think Wikipedia accepts those usages? The general article on "Slavery" does not use them. The most that could be said is that Wikipedia documents CRT concepts within articles specifically about CRT, not that it endorses them.
Wikipedia discredits itself by accepting those usages. I recommend infogalactic.com instead.
Your mistake was to try to engage in reasoned discussion with anti-colonialists, anti-white racists, or any other wokies in the first place. "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."