Grammar (was: Working backwards from problems to solutions)

[anonymous FI]

On Oct 19, 2017, at 2:52 AM, 'Evan Frederick O'Leary'
Evan....@colorado.edu wrote:

> It seems like rational thinking involves "working backwards" from
> problems
> to solutions, sometimes using the "process of elimination" to find the
> best
> solution to a problem?

I don't think you understand quotation makes very well.

> Like, if I want to heat my house, well, that requires energy, so I
> have to
> find energy from somewhere, and the heat has to get from some point
> inside
> the house to all points and I have bad insulation along the walls so
> the
> heater can't be located on the edges, and I have flammable carpets and
> the
> only heaters I can afford can cause fires so it has to be put either
> in a
> vent on the walls or ceiling or on a non-carpet surface...

You definitely don't understand commas or sentences very well.

> It seems like this process involves criticism but not criticism of any
> actual details of already-conjectured ideas; the ideas *come from*
> anticipated problems or criticisms.

Incorrect use of commas and sentences, again.

I'm not going to provide details upfront because I don't yet know if
you're interested, and I'm also curious if you could correct these
errors on your own, or would deny the errors exist, or what.


> Another example: AGI must create knowledge, so we must understand
> knowledge, so we must understand epistemology, but my original ideas
> aren't
> getting me anywhere and I have limited time before I die so I should
> study
> what's currently known about epistemology, so I should study popper,
> and
> popper shows how everyone else's ideas can't be right, and I can't
> show
> that popper can't be right, so now all I have are his ideas, so I have
> to
> learn how to program the evolutionary process of conjecture and
> criticism,
> so I have to decide on a programming language with the ability to
> cleanly
> express the rules governing that process, and the only way I know how
> to
> decide that is formalize my understanding of conjecture and criticism
> in
> terms of physical substrates like the ones programming languages can
> control, so I have to understand information in physical terms, and
> what
> computer architectures are possible, and what the rules governing that
> process are (permuting states of information media that instantiate
> ideas
> in order to vary them, constructing measurers, defining rules for what
> constitutes criticism (an idea contradicting another idea), must
> define
> contradiction in terms of logical systems, must detect when
> contradiction
> happens by figuring out how to describe physical instantiations of
> logical
> systems and how to instantiate them (like when building proof
> machines),
> read about emergence, Terence Deacon says emergent systems can be
> characterized in terms of their constraints, find a formalism for
> constraints so it can be programmed, algebra of tasks is the only
> reasonable idea, have to test it against logical systems like
> mathematical
> structures, seems like they could all be understood in terms of rules
> that
> can't be violated, have to see if violations of those rules can be
> represented as tasks with an input and output, etc...

Wow, I thought I was about to read the first multi-sentence paragraph of
the post. But it's actually a 299-word sentence. (Some grammar experts
would actually deny it's a "sentence" at all, rather than calling it a
bad sentence. I think they have a point. There's a concept of what an
English sentence is that goes beyond just some words followed by a
period, and this text doesn't match the concept.)

I think you should capitalize "Popper" because you shouldn't break the
rules of grammar until after you master them. Prior to mastery, you
don't know enough about why the rules exist to make good judgements
about which rules to break in what contexts. And if you try to get
everything correct then your writing is easier to criticize. It's hard
for a critic to comment on a mix of intentional and unintentional
mistakes because he has to guess which are which.


Are you interested in learning to write? I think that's a really useful
skill for having better discussions.


> so I have to decide on a programming language with the ability to
> cleanly express the rules governing that process

This doesn't make sense because you can implement lisp in C or vice
versa. Even assembly has the *ability* to "cleanly express the rules
governing that process" via the standard programming method of layering
abstractions on top of your starting point.

It's hard to tell if this is a conceptual error or a writing error (or
both).

[anonymous FI]

On Oct 19, 2017, at 19:04 PM, 'Evan Frederick O'Leary'
Evan....@colorado.edu [fallible-ideas]

<fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>> I'm not going to provide details upfront because I don't yet know if
>> you're interested, and I'm also curious if you could correct these
>> errors on your own, or would deny the errors exist, or what.
>>
>

> Sure; I don't see why they would make it harder to understand me but
> maybe
> they do. If you see grammar usage that you don't like I'm open to
> criticism.
>
> But if you want to know how much I already care about grammar the
> answer is
> I don't really care and I think a lot of grammar enforcing is useless.

Why do you use commas and periods if you don't really think they matter?
Why not just leave them out?

If they are important to include in your writing, why aren't they also
important to use correctly? I don't see the point of using them
incorrectly.

>>> so I have to decide on a programming language with the ability to
>>> cleanly express the rules governing that process
>>
>> This doesn't make sense because you can implement lisp in C or vice
>> versa. Even assembly has the *ability* to "cleanly express the rules
>> governing that process" via the standard programming method of
>> layering
>> abstractions on top of your starting point.
>>
>> It's hard to tell if this is a conceptual error or a writing error
>> (or
>> both).
>>
>

> I'm confused: "cleanly express" means the syntax is adapted for
> expressing
> some kind of idea. Why else would people use some languages for some
> purposes and other languages for other purposes?

As I said, you can implement any syntax with lisp, C or assembly. They
all have the *ability* to do that.

[Justin Mallone]

On Oct 20, 2017, at 5:38 AM, 'Evan Frederick O'Leary' Evan....@colorado.edu [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:30 PM, 'anonymous FI'
> anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <

> fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 19:04 PM, 'Evan Frederick O'Leary'
>> Evan....@colorado.edu [fallible-ideas]
>> <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not going to provide details upfront because I don't yet know if
>>>> you're interested, and I'm also curious if you could correct these
>>>> errors on your own, or would deny the errors exist, or what.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure; I don't see why they would make it harder to understand me but
>>> maybe
>>> they do. If you see grammar usage that you don't like I'm open to
>>> criticism.
>>>
>>> But if you want to know how much I already care about grammar the
>>> answer is
>>> I don't really care and I think a lot of grammar enforcing is useless.
>>
>> Why do you use commas and periods if you don't really think they matter?
>> Why not just leave them out?
>>
>

> I think I use them to help the reader chunk thoughts the way I'm chunking
> them in my head

As a reader, your non-standard punctuation isn't really helping. Please follow standard conventions.

-JM

[anonymous FI]

On Oct 20, 2017, at 2:38 AM, 'Evan Frederick O'Leary'
Evan....@colorado.edu [fallible-ideas]

<fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:30 PM, 'anonymous FI'
> anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <
> fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>

>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 19:04 PM, 'Evan Frederick O'Leary'
>> Evan....@colorado.edu [fallible-ideas]
>> <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not going to provide details upfront because I don't yet know
>>>> if
>>>> you're interested, and I'm also curious if you could correct these
>>>> errors on your own, or would deny the errors exist, or what.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure; I don't see why they would make it harder to understand me but
>>> maybe
>>> they do. If you see grammar usage that you don't like I'm open to
>>> criticism.
>>>
>>> But if you want to know how much I already care about grammar the
>>> answer is
>>> I don't really care and I think a lot of grammar enforcing is
>>> useless.
>>
>> Why do you use commas and periods if you don't really think they
>> matter?
>> Why not just leave them out?
>>
>

> I think I use them to help the reader chunk thoughts the way I'm
> chunking
> them in my head
>
>>

>> If they are important to include in your writing, why aren't they
>> also
>> important to use correctly? I don't see the point of using them
>> incorrectly.
>>
>

> What would the correct usage be and why is it correct?

Some rules of grammar are:

- longer pause (period) between different thoughts. Don't ask the reader
to hold a dozen things in their head at once.

- smaller pause (comma) between independent clauses joined with a
coordinating conjunction

- identify which of your thoughts are more important (make them main
clauses) and less important (subordinate them)

- avoid writing text that reads ambiguously and then trying to fix it
with commas – rephrase instead

- keep your tenses and plurals straight

- make every pronoun have a clear antecedent (*literal* word or phrase
it unambiguously refers to).

you wrote:

> Like, if I want to heat my house, well, that requires energy, so I
> have to
> find energy from somewhere, and the heat has to get from some point
> inside
> the house to all points and I have bad insulation along the walls so
> the
> heater can't be located on the edges, and I have flammable carpets and
> the
> only heaters I can afford can cause fires so it has to be put either
> in a
> vent on the walls or ceiling or on a non-carpet surface...

This should be split into multiple sentences because it expresses
multiple thoughts.

There should be a comma before "and I have bad insulation".

There may be missing commas before "and the only heaters" or "so it has
to be put". It's hard to tell because the sentence is a mess – it's
hard for a reader to analyze and understand the writer's intentions.

The use of "well" causes misreadings because "heat my house well" works
as a phrase, which is how I initially read it. But "well" could be an
exclamation here instead. If "well is an exclamation, then it should be
changed, or the sentence rearranged, to prevent misreading. In this
case, just omit "well" because, if it's an exclamation, it's
unnecessary.

The use of "well" offset by commas makes it unclear if there's supposed
to be a pause between "house" and "that", or alternatively if the pauses
are only for the sake of the "well". If you delete "well", whether you
leave one comma or not changes the meaning. So that makes the sentence
ambiguous because the reader doesn't know if you would include a comma
without the "well" or not.

Towards the end it says "heaters ... it" instead of "heaters ... they".
And the antecedent is somewhat ambiguous.

"a vent" would normally go on one wall, not multiple walls. And a vent
goes *in*, not *on*, a wall.

Leaving the rest largely the same, it should be a colon, not a comma,
after "like".

Perhaps the biggest problem with the paragraph (after lack of periods)
is the lack of subordination. It's all "and" and "so", which are both
coordinating conjunctions. Coordinate means equally important, whereas
subordinate means less important. Writers need to organize their
thoughts by figuring out what is more or less important and then making
their grammar represent that. Without subordination, you aren't
communicating basic information to readers, so they have to judge it for
themselves. It's your job as a writer to decide the relationships
between the stuff you write about and use English grammar to express
those relationships. But you didn't think through and express those
relationships.



I chose to bring up grammar because I find you posts pretty unreadable
and confused. There's a ton to unpack, but I can't unpack the concepts
when the writing itself is full of errors that get in the way of
communication. Grammar isn't just a bunch of stuffy rules for saying
"gotcha!", it's a way or organizing and communicating thoughts. You
already use lots of grammar correctly (if you didn't, I wouldn't be able
to understand you at all), but you could communicate better by upgrading
your writing skills.

It's hard to discuss the large issues when they're built out of small
errors. And grammar is particularly *objective* which makes it a good
starting place. It'll be easier to make progress since we'll have less
trouble with debating what is and isn't an error.

In the big picture, FI/BoI/etc ideas are more advanced than you're used
to dealing with in other places. Consequently, more precision is needed
to deal with them effectively. If you don't read in a super precise way
– which is how the ideas are written – then it will lead to tons of
misunderstandings.

>>>>> so I have to decide on a programming language with the ability to
>>>>> cleanly express the rules governing that process
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't make sense because you can implement lisp in C or vice
>>>> versa. Even assembly has the *ability* to "cleanly express the
>>>> rules
>>>> governing that process" via the standard programming method of
>>>> layering
>>>> abstractions on top of your starting point.
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to tell if this is a conceptual error or a writing error
>>>> (or
>>>> both).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm confused: "cleanly express" means the syntax is adapted for
>>> expressing
>>> some kind of idea. Why else would people use some languages for some
>>> purposes and other languages for other purposes?
>>
>> As I said, you can implement any syntax with lisp, C or assembly.
>> They
>> all have the *ability* to do that.
>>
>

> True. I should have said "have the ability to cleanly express *without
> layering abstractions*"

No programming languages express much of anything cleanly without
layering abstractions. The main activity of programming is to layer
abstractions. The main features of good programming languages are tools
to facilitate abstractions, such as being able to define functions
(functions are a layerable abstraction).

[Justin Mallone]

On Oct 20, 2017, at 1:52 PM, 'anonymous FI' anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Grammar isn't just a bunch of stuffy rules for saying
> "gotcha!", it's a way or organizing and communicating thoughts.

Another thing people have to learn from FI cuz some shitty school teacher tormented them (by e.g. making them ask to go to the bathroom The Correct Way)

-JM

[Elliot Temple]

On Oct 19, 2017, at 7:04 PM, 'Evan Frederick O'Leary' Evan....@colorado.edu [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>> I'm not going to provide details upfront because I don't yet know if
>> you're interested, and I'm also curious if you could correct these
>> errors on your own, or would deny the errors exist, or what.
>
>

> Sure; I don't see why they would make it harder to understand me but maybe
> they do. If you see grammar usage that you don't like I'm open to criticism.
>
> But if you want to know how much I already care about grammar the answer is
> I don't really care and I think a lot of grammar enforcing is useless.

When DD was writing BoI, he and I had lengthy discussions about the grammar of individual sentences, and about grammar rules in general. Do you think that was a poor use of our time?

Do you think details don’t matter in general, or just don’t matter when it comes to communication, or what?

DD and I are very precise thinkers and use precise grammar to match our thoughts. I can see why approximate grammar would seem satisfactory if your thoughts are approximate too. In that case, learning about grammar would be a way to work towards having more precise thoughts. It’d also help with more precise reading so you can miss fewer of our points.


I know the stereotype you refer to, but I don’t think I’ve ever actually run into a grammar enforcer (unless you count some recent posts here). Could you link to an example discussion where you ran into one? What I have run into is people who complain about *style* – e.g. using informal language, simple (unimpressive) words, lowercase letters, etc. They aren’t actually pointing out mistakes, they’re just looking for an excuse to ignore your arguments. Their point is basically, “You write like a teenager, therefore I’m going to ignore you.” This type of person’s favorite thing to complain about isn’t grammar, it’s the word “ur”.

I’ve run into people who are pedantic and split hairs in dumb ways. But I don’t recall anyone who wanted me to learn how to use commas. Actually I’d love if someone would try that – I have some grammar questions I’d ask them, e.g. about asyndeton and comma lists. I imagine the word “asyndeton” would scare them off of trying to lecture me about grammar, but my actual hope would be that they could give me useful information (I have a genuine question about when and why to omit “and” from a comma list).


PS every time you put a quote in your post, you also need to put the source of the quote in your post. For example, I have “Evan...wrote” above to attribute my quote to you. But you quoted “I’m not going to...” without saying who wrote it. Please see:

http://fallibleideas.com/discussion/guidelines

And try to think about it conceptually. Quotes need sources, right? Use common sense. And the way quote levels work is if you quote a quote, that’s level 2 (it has 2 quote markers, because the original has 1 quote marker and then you’re quoting *that). And if I write something with 2 quote markers, and you want to quote me, then you’ll use 3 (1 because you’re quoting something, and 2 because they were in the original).

If you don’t understand, google how quotes work or ask a question. Don’t just ignore it and keep posting unsourced quotes.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com

[anonymous FI]

On Oct 20, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com>
wrote:

People don't want to write clearly, they want plausible deniability.
They want room to bluster and go in circles if challenged.

People don't want to read clearly, they want to evade incoming critical
arguments. They want room to misunderstand everything in convenient
ways.

People don't want to think clearly, they want to hide their own values
from themselves. They want room to pretend they're something that
they're not.

[Elliot Temple]

On Oct 20, 2017, at 10:52 AM, anonymous FI <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the big picture, FI/BoI/etc ideas are more advanced than you're used to dealing with in other places. Consequently, more precision is needed to deal with them effectively. If you don't read in a super precise way – which is how the ideas are written – then it will lead to tons of misunderstandings.

Normally people write and think in an approximate way. They don't control the details of what they say.

That causes problems if they come here, because people here expect writers to mean what they say in a more precise, considered way. Here, some people expect each word to be chosen intentionally. This can lead to arguments about details which people wrote but didn't mean. I see that's happened on multiple occasions with Evan already.

This isn't hair splitting. It's people arguing using the same standards that they apply to their own writing. These standards are productive and useful. They're necessary for making or understanding great material like BoI or the FI essays.

In addition to people writing approximately, they read approximately. This can match up well, in a way. You write a few main points and some random junk. The reader is used to most things people write being random junk, so he just tries to pick out a few main points rather than consider the exact meaning of what was written.

(This can also go horribly wrong when main points get ignored as junk, and junk gets taken as a main point. It also goes wrong sometimes when people have a spurt of attention-to-detail. And it also gives people the option to dishonestly ignore challenging arguments by focusing on details instead.)

In recent discussions, Evan is getting limited replies to his main points because there's so many things wrong with them that it's overwhelming. To unpack and analyze it all, one has to start somewhere and go step-by-step.

The errors people ignore in typical discussions are incompatible with the sort of search for truth that FI is about. They actually matter if one wants to get things right. Most discussions are *unproductive*, and we try to do things differently here.

If Evan wants to become a peer of DD and I (I don't know what his life goals are), he'll have to learn a lot of skills we use. Things like grammar are *table stakes* – assumed basic prerequisites for the kinds of discussions we have. You don't sit down at a poker table with betting stakes you can't afford, and you also shouldn't try to debate people who are using precision, background knowledge, methodology, etc., that you haven't learned.

It's OK to initially try to debate to find out if you're overmatched. But you need to be able to recognize you're outclassed – which is hard. It's important (but difficult) not to mistake your own misunderstandings of advanced arguments for the arguments being flawed and the people being your peers.

Most people are used to judging by authority/prestige instead of making accurate judgements of skill. I often get underestimated because I made the *wise* choice to spend thousands of hours discussing with DD instead of getting credentials from teachers who are dumber than me. But that's not the whole issue – plenty of highly ignorant, confused, outclassed persons have tried to lecture DD on basic stuff. That's actually *common* when DD joins email discussions (even using his real name at forums based on his work).

I learned my standards of discussion, use of precision, etc, as *necessary components* of discussing and debating with DD. For the first ~5 years I lost *literally 100%* of substantial arguments with DD because I didn't have the skillset to get things right that DD would miss. (I could get some single detail right that he missed. But a substantial issue has *many* details, so overall I'd get far more of the wrong than DD did.)

I knew I was outclassed and loved losing arguments. I used it as a learning opportunity, rather than actually expecting to win the debates. I asked a ton of questions; I didn't just argue. I had to become a more precise and knowledgeable thinker in order to keep up with DD before I could win a significant argument.

Other people here have only done that to a lesser extent than I did, which is an ongoing problem that needs addressing. Evan is near the beginning of that process, but I don't think he understands the situation. I hope this helps.

Some people think domain expertise will let them win arguments. But it won't. If you discuss a subject like art which DD knows less about, he's wise enough not to make claims that go beyond his knowledge. If DD argues with an art expert about art, he'll have chosen a specific point where he knows enough to judge that he's right. His general thinking methodology will still outclass the art expert. DD would only debate some art point that he'd specifically researched, or more often choose one where philosophy (or physics or another of his areas of expertise) is relevant and gives him a huge advantage (whether the artist realizes that or not).

Since DD quit philosophy, there's only one person here with the skillset to have any real chance to win an argument with me – and only barely, and they don't even post much. This really sucks for me. I've tried very hard to find anyone skilled enough. The best candidate was Thomas Szasz, but he died. I've also tried very hard to help people learn more skill. I think this has helped people lots, but not nearly enough for them to keep up with me in arguments (in the same way that, when I was new, I was not able to keep up with DD in arguments).

Anyway, skill level differences aren't an ignorable thing. They lead to concrete discussion problems, and they're relevant to important life choices (such as what activities to prioritize).

The very fact that much higher skill levels are achievable is not commonly known. People commonly assume it's just a matter of being born a genius or something. And then when talking with a "genius" like DD, they appear to think something like, "He's a genius in general, but I'm right this time." People often do that even after they lost the last dozen arguments in very one-sided ways.

It's hard to talk with people when there's vast skill level differences. Most either don't want to talk, or want to debate. But then everything they say is wrong in dozens of ways, and if I went through and pointed it all out they'd just misunderstand. It's possible to try to get in their head and figure out what reply would make sense from their perspective – but it's a massive amount of work to try to do that thousands of times and people aren't persistent enough to want to untangle all their misconceptions even if you were willing to help them that much. DD did *not* help me on those terms. I did most of the work in my own learning process rather than expecting DD to do it for me. I did way more work to bridge the gap between us than he did. I put in a ton of effort to figure things out rather than expecting DD to find ways to make everything easy for my existing perspective.

At the start, two virtues I had were: I liked criticism and I was interested in trying to get things precisely right. I never complained that DD was criticizing the wrong things. A mistake is a mistake. I wanted to fix all my mistakes and regarded them all as important. I didn't put topic boundaries on my learning.

It's hard to talk to people about this stuff. There's lots of common bad reactions to meta discussion. And also lots of common bad reactions to non-meta approaches. I already tried several non-meta discussions with Evan and he never followed up much. The need for persistence to keep going until you get things right is a meta issue that's non-standard elsewhere.

And ppl routinely think i'm bragging or appealing to authority, and then just want to get back to (outclassed) non-meta debating (usually followed pretty quickly by quitting).

So far, Evan doesn't appear to really be trying to learn and follow the FI way of doing things. E.g. we regard quoting as important here. That's been established for over 20 years. It was something I was willing to learn when I was new. It's something DD uses and regards as important. Quoting is important for more precise discussion – which also needs to be learned to get anywhere.



Elliot Temple
Get my philosophy newsletter:
www.fallibleideas.com/newsletter

[anonymous FI]

This is way too much *socially unusual* meta way too early on. It will
alienate most people.

But Evan's discussions are all disasters. They, too, risk alienating
him. If you don't do meta discussion, here are some things that could
happen

- Evan quits because his discussions aren't productive.

- Evan thinks discussion is a game and doesn't expect it to be
productive. He stays and keeps discussing unproductively. At least until
someone starts questioning him persistently.

- Evan thinks his discussions are great and doesn't notice the problems.
But he does notice, in some broad way, that his life isn't rapidly
becoming amazing as a result of the discussions. The ineffectiveness is
hard to miss in the bigger picture.

- Evan is used to discussions that are far worse, and so he's impressed
with discussions I consider failures.

- Evan gets frustrated when no one concedes anything to him (but they
keep on criticizing), and finds people too arrogant and unwilling to
listen.

The outlook is pretty grim via this kind of approach. Maybe if Evan was
160 IQ and had some world class virtues, this would work fine. But that
isn't the situation.

But on the other hand, what good is all this meta discussion going to
do? People like Alan are going to ignore it, even though it applies to
them. Or if not exactly ignore, then think "yeah good points" and then
not actually do much of anything about it...

Evan isn't prepared to contemplate the perspective you're sharing.
You're offering a whole perspective on life and 10-year-plan, and he
just wants to engage with smart stuff now. And he can't do that, he's
incompetent at it, and he puts the majority of his effort into fooling
himself. That's his (bad) choice and there's nothing you can do about
it. Telling him the situation won't work. Arguing with him won't work.
Leading him through a series of questions won't work. You've tried this
stuff a million times.

You (ET) should just ignore him (Evan). Let him fail while you do your
own thing. He's so blatantly a lost cause. He's broken. And you knew
that before his first post. So what are you doing?

If you really must do something, just get rid of him. Pick a starting
point at random and ask questions until he stops answering. Then ask
questions about his refusal to answer until he quits. And if you get rid
of Evan that way, do everyone else too. Why not? What's the difference,
really? They all suck and you know it. And they know it too, and they
have no realistic plans to change, which is why they mostly ignore your
calls to action.

Or just make your websites. That's a good project. That's better than
talking to arrogant fools.