While the argument that you make here against thought-terminating jargon seems superficially plausible, I feel like ultimately it fails to reckon with the full sigma-algebra measure over possible linguistic abstractions that could be deployed in a given context — a measure subject to divergences analogous to those arising from loop diagrams in quantum field theory, sometimes leaving abstruse technical terms as the only fully renormalizable and regularized solution available, so to speak.
I've always been confused by Yudkowsky's dislike of the phrase emergence because I don't often see it used as an explanation at all. It's a statement about what kind of explanation something has, but not an explanation itself. In the specific case of philosophy of mind, the main way I see it used is not as an attempt to explain the mind, but a response to simplistic arguments against physicalism that commit the composition fallacy. And this is a perfectly valid use of it - the definition of "emergent phenomenon" is basically, "counterexample to the composition fallacy," so it's fine to respond to someone making an invalid argument that assumes the properties of the whole must also be properties of the parts by saying, "No, the whole is an emergent phenomenon." If you take it out of the context and treat, "It's an emergent phenomenon," as an explanation, then it's indeed thought-terminating jargon, and not an explanation at all. But I'm not sure I've ever seen someone actually use it that way. Maybe people are doing that, and I just haven't noticed.
For a touch of irony on the somewhat constant "continental confusion," Husserl says something to an equivalent effect about thought, language, formality, and clarity in Ideas I.78:
"What alone counts here is to not let oneself be confused by arguments that, for all their formal precision, leave out any correspondence to the primordial sources of validity, those of pure intuition. What matters is remaining faithful to the “principle of all principles” [i.e., to the notion] that perfect clarity is the measure of all truth and that assertions that give true expression to their givennesses need not trouble themselves with any arguments, however elegant they may be." (Trans. Dahlstrom)
I think the global point here is extremely accurate, and it's self proving by the fact that all the local examples you invoke are probably wrong. Unfortunately there's not a slogan explanation of why. I do however appreciate the novelty of an argument that performs its antithesis.
Great article. I agree with everything you wrote (for once). May I suggest updating away from Utilitarianism and VNM Utility? The former is almost certainly false, the latter qualifies as thought-terminating formalism. I mean, how much more thought-terminating can you get than "shut up and multiply"?
While the argument that you make here against thought-terminating jargon seems superficially plausible, I feel like ultimately it fails to reckon with the full sigma-algebra measure over possible linguistic abstractions that could be deployed in a given context — a measure subject to divergences analogous to those arising from loop diagrams in quantum field theory, sometimes leaving abstruse technical terms as the only fully renormalizable and regularized solution available, so to speak.
lmao!
Also, love your blog!
I've always been confused by Yudkowsky's dislike of the phrase emergence because I don't often see it used as an explanation at all. It's a statement about what kind of explanation something has, but not an explanation itself. In the specific case of philosophy of mind, the main way I see it used is not as an attempt to explain the mind, but a response to simplistic arguments against physicalism that commit the composition fallacy. And this is a perfectly valid use of it - the definition of "emergent phenomenon" is basically, "counterexample to the composition fallacy," so it's fine to respond to someone making an invalid argument that assumes the properties of the whole must also be properties of the parts by saying, "No, the whole is an emergent phenomenon." If you take it out of the context and treat, "It's an emergent phenomenon," as an explanation, then it's indeed thought-terminating jargon, and not an explanation at all. But I'm not sure I've ever seen someone actually use it that way. Maybe people are doing that, and I just haven't noticed.
Hmm I feel like I've seen a lot of people sweep the deep puzzles under the rug by just saying the word emergence.
For a touch of irony on the somewhat constant "continental confusion," Husserl says something to an equivalent effect about thought, language, formality, and clarity in Ideas I.78:
"What alone counts here is to not let oneself be confused by arguments that, for all their formal precision, leave out any correspondence to the primordial sources of validity, those of pure intuition. What matters is remaining faithful to the “principle of all principles” [i.e., to the notion] that perfect clarity is the measure of all truth and that assertions that give true expression to their givennesses need not trouble themselves with any arguments, however elegant they may be." (Trans. Dahlstrom)
I think the global point here is extremely accurate, and it's self proving by the fact that all the local examples you invoke are probably wrong. Unfortunately there's not a slogan explanation of why. I do however appreciate the novelty of an argument that performs its antithesis.
What?
I'll take me a few days to write it up, but if you're open to it I'm happy to unpack it
Great article. I agree with everything you wrote (for once). May I suggest updating away from Utilitarianism and VNM Utility? The former is almost certainly false, the latter qualifies as thought-terminating formalism. I mean, how much more thought-terminating can you get than "shut up and multiply"?