Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

What Hacker News says

1. dmfdmfMar 2024
   I think learning it all on your own is not efficient even for a genius. At the very least (assuming you are a genius) you should do a double major in Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering and a minor in philosophy at a mid- or top-tier university. EE and ME are the practical expression of the foundation of classical physics. Einstein's early work was related to integrating these two fields. In short (I am a bit sketchy on the exact details since it has been a while), before Einstein there was an odd inconsistency in Maxwell's equations whereby the results differed if the magnets were moving or the coils were moving in generating electricity. Since all motion is relative, at least mathematically, it should not matter which was moving. Einstein's revolution amounted to modifying the concepts of space and time (using Lorentz transformations) to make that inconsistency go away BUT it is possible that that is not the only possible solution to the puzzle. Once you get your BS degrees you should get your PhD in physics at a mid-tier school or no one will listen to you.

   The reason you need to minor in philosophy is to understand the history of the field going all the way back to the Greeks. Most importantly, you need to clearly define a theory of concepts and apply it to fundamental concepts such as existence, consciousness, free will, space and time. Current physics (and math, btw) are vitiated by inconsistent fundamental concepts. In fact, Einstein's concept of spacetime is a denial of consciousness (an axiom) and a deadend. The fundamental concepts in physics should be lightspace and gravitytime to avoid this error. You won't learn much in modern philosophy courses in regard to these issues but you need to understand the history and read Ayn Rand's Philosophy:Who_Needs_It, Introduction_To_Objectivist_Epistemology and the title essay of her anthology For_The_New_Intellectual.

   Show morethread
2. abtinfMay 2020
   Curse words are bad for human life because they seem like tools of cognition, but they aren’t. When used as words, they can only confuse and mislead you.

   However, sounds that aren’t words can be very useful—they are perceptual evidence that we use in our reasoning. We identify groups of perceptions by differentiating them from other perceptions, integrate them into concepts based on their similarities, and assign words to represent all of concretes of that group.

   So you have many “noise” experiences from yourself and in human interactions, identify some as happy, and now you have a useful new tool of cognition in the form of “happy noise”. With additional experience, you can refine that into many sub-concepts, like “pleasurable moan”, “contented sigh”, “silly giggle”, and so forth.

   Curse words are different because they are just noise. If I say “happy noise”, you know broadly what I’m referring to. But if I say the word “fuck”, you have no idea what that word means—you would have to make guesses either based on the surrounding words that have semantic meaning, or based on how I said it using your conceptual knowledge of the kinds of noises.

   That’s why you see curse words used in every kind of context as undifferentiated noise.

   With my kids, I tell them that using any word they don’t understand is a curse word. It hurts their own life if they make the noise of advanced words they don’t yet understand, because it introduces ambiguity into their thinking.

   For more information on the role of precepts and concepts in human cognition, I suggest reading “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”.

   Show morethread
3. beanerMar 2020
   I'm not sure! There is the idea of the "stolen concept fallacy", which is to reason about something while denying that you are able to reason as the result of sensory perception, which if you accept, might mean there's some naturally resulting axioms about the senses and what a consciousness is capable of knowing.

   These aren't my ideas. At the risk of having this and my first comment downvoted into oblivion, I got them from Ayn Rand. She has a short (80-page) nonfiction book about just these things which I think is remarkable, called Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. If you are not predisposed to despising the author, it's a quick, very interesting read that I recommend.

   Edit: And there are the downvotes...

   Show morethread
4. abtinfJan 2020
   Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology has radically changed my view of almost everything, including software development. I’m able to cut through a lot of controversial issues by using its methods to ask incisive questions.

   https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology...

   thread
5. IsaacLMar 2017
   1. "There is an objective reality". 2. "Reality is consistent". 3. "The human mind is capable of knowledge about reality".

   These all need to be taken as axioms if any further knowledge is going to be possible.

   There's a book called Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology which covers this in much more detail. (Ayn Rand gets a bad rep, but few people know about her theories of concepts and knowledge. They indicate the path to solving many of the issues in philosophy of science).

   Show morethread
6. IsaacLDec 2016
   I went down this same rabbithole - Bayesian rationality to 'postrationality'.

   ('post' implies 'better than', but literally means 'not'. Still, Chapman knows a lot more about AI than Eliezer, and has an interesting write-up of his research into AI based on Heidegger's philosophy).

   I was saved by Ayn Rand - yes, the person analytical, continental and other philosophers all agree to dismiss - specifically her epistemology and theory of concepts. (The Rand to read is "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". Or click around here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/book/conceptual.html)

   Show morethread