How not to be a Naïve Computationalist

I like the irreverent attitude exemplified by this posting. But the posting might have been improved if it had attempted to provide a short characterization of what a Naïve Computationalist believes that a wise and well-informed Computationalist does not. And vise versa.

... having wasted substantial amounts of time reading those parts that should not be read of philosophy, and not intending to do the same mistake in other areas, I ask you to publish a selection of readings in your area of expertise, The Sequences are a major rationality shortcut, and we need more of that kind.

Wow! Thanks for doing this regarding Computationalism. I don't really have an area of expertise such that I could produce a list like yours, but I can think of some areas where such a list would be very helpful (to me, at least).

• How not to be a Naive Consequentialist: The ethical thinking here is a bit ... hmmm, lets say ... parochial because it has never confronted the best thinking of other schools of ethics (i.e. deontological ethics, virtue ethics, and contractarian ethics). Neither has it really addressed foundational issues within consequentialism itself - issues addressed by people like Sen and Harsanyi. It would be best if we could discuss our own ethical viewpoints in terms that other people can understand.

• How not to be a Naive Evolutionist: Apart from some overenthusiasm for the just-so-stories of the less reputable parts of evolutionary psychology, LessWrongers seem to have a fairly good grasp of the philosophical implications of Darwinian evolution. But I have noticed some lack of awareness of some of the recent political/intellectual history of the field, plus a bit of the usual difficulty that outsiders have in separating the headline-grabbing pop science from the real science.

• How not to be a Naïve Realist/Reductionist: This one is probably controversial, but what I have in mind here is not to overthrow realism and reductionism, but rather to provide some exposure to the saner criticisms of these philosophical doctrines. What naturalism meant before Quine. What emergence means to Philip Anderson. What is meant by scientific anti-realism and why it isn't a totally insane viewpoint.

• How not to be naive about logic, models, and proof theory - particularly as they relate to proving program correctness and program equivalence. The importance of these topics to the topic of FAI are obvious. Yet a basic knowlege of the techniques and terminology of this field are sorely lacking in many of us. It is not rocket science.

We could probably also use such reading lists in the fields of machine learning, game theory, and Bayesian statistics. Perhaps also GOFAI. And at least one reading list on practical rationality.

The desired feature which they have achieved, and you soon will, is to be able to state reasons, debugg opponents and understand different paradigms, as opposed to just thinking that it’s 0 and 1’s all the way down and not being able to say why.

I like and agree with the implication that reading these is needed to defend computationalism, but not needed to believe for correct reasons that computationalism is true.

What is naive computationalism? Would you classify Giles's questionnaire or my reply to dfranke as naive? If the answer is "yes" for either of them, could you point out where it goes wrong?

XOR means you only have to read one, the second one being more awesome and complex.

To most people, it does not mean that. I suggest you use OR where you now use XOR.

Thanks for the (potentially) very useful post. Upvoted with pleasure, as the best thing in while fitting the criterion: "I'd like to see more posts like this on LessWrong."

But I think I have all philosophy majors with me when I say that there must be a simpler way to get to the knowledge level we reach upon graduation.

Certainly not all, but I'm with you.

Finally, having wasted substantial amounts of time reading those parts that should not be read of philosophy, and not intending to do the same mistake in other areas, I ask you to publish a selection of readings in your area of expertise, The Sequences are a major rationality shortcut, and we need more of that kind.

Be cheered that you've been through the worst of it - few other fields have so very many " parts that should not be read " yet nonetheless have so many parts that should be read.

My eyes hurt! What on earth happened to the formatting?

I started with "37 Ways words can be Wrong" and didn't find much immediate benefit from the exercise in the way of being less naive about Computationalism.

I scroll down your list and see there's a lot about language. Is such an extensive education in language quite necessary? (Or do I need to keep reading to see?)

Thank you for this post. Would you please make the font easier to read?

deleted

Question, hopefully one betraying my busynes, not laziness :D......can you watch the BBC production of Darwin's Dangerous Idea instead of reading it? And if so, which sections correspond?

Thanks loads.