site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   30545 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A concept could be free of internal contradiction while also not having any empirical implications. So which definition of "incoherence" are you working with?

Hmm.. I'm struggling to find a proper framing for my thoughts on the matter.

To me, there is a category I think can usefully describe things as diverse as free will, p-zombies, x +3ab^2=Zebra, high temperature bullshit from GPT-2, and a schizophrenic rant that conveys no information.

But no, I don't think "constraining expectations" is the measure I would use to define it, even if most coherent concepts that humans typically articulate end up having that effect.

Since we live in the future, I asked my trusty pocket AI for help, and on reflection, I endorse its answer:

Incoherence, in a broad sense, can be described as any idea, statement, or concept that lacks logical consistency, meaningful connection, or intelligible context. This could happen due to illogicality, contradiction, irrelevance, or incomprehensibility. Here is an attempt at a definition that encompasses the diverse examples you've provided:

Incoherence: The quality of lacking a clear and comprehensible logical structure, the absence of meaningful connections or a consistent context, the presence of contradictions, or a failure to transmit a recognizable or intelligible thought across a variety of communicative mediums, whether it is in semantics (e.g. "x +3ab^2=Zebra"), AI-generated text (e.g. inaccurate or nonsensical statements), subjective experiences (e.g. p-zombies), debates around metaphysical concepts (e.g. free will), or mental health phenomena (e.g. the disjointed or illogical speech of a schizophrenic episode). This might result in a failure to reasonably interpret, understand, or predict based on the given information, idea, or concept.

Ah, I love living in a time of manmade technological marvels beyond my comprehension.

I feel like I should remind you that your belief that other humans have qualia also does not "constrain your expectations" in any way. There's no empirical test you could do to confirm or deny that belief. It could easily be the case on a materialist view that you are the only person with qualia - e.g., your brain is the only brain that has just the right kind of structure to produce qualia, or you could be living in a simulation and everyone else is an unconscious NPC. And yet still you stated:

In my comment, I stated that I have a prior of near 1 that I am personally conscious, and a pretty close value for the materialist claim that qualia and consciousness arise from the interactions of the neurons in my brain.

Therefore, since other humans have brains very similar to mine, it's not much of a leap to assume that the same materialist logic applies to them, hence the vast majority are conscious beings with qualia.

Obviously I make no claims that I have a empirical method of finding qualia itself, only reasons to strongly suspect it exists; but unlike those who believe that it is beyond the magisterium of empirical investigation, I think that sufficiently advanced science can answer the question.

I could see it as beyond the abilities of baseline humans to answer, because Allah knows we've been trying for millennia, but I don't see it being inscrutable to a superhuman AGI, and it might turn out to be the answer is so distressingly simple that we all collectively face-palm when we hear it.

p-zombies

are simply not incoherent in the way that

x+3ab^2=Zebra

is incoherent.

You provided one argument for thinking so, and I explained why it was unsound. So I’m not sure why you’re still repeating that claim.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats