= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on You Are Likely To Be Eaten By A Grue - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (36)
I like this post, but it feels like it's missing something to motivate the clever title. You didn't seem to identify a "grue" (presumably, some horrible consequence from not being luminous), which doesn't seem terribly difficult to do in this case. Perhaps it doesn't belong in this post, but surely the title demands one.
Also, is "luminous" a modifier for beliefs, people, or both? Should there be two different words? Did I miss that discussion along the way?
The title seemed obvious to me: lacking luminosity you lack light, and, as the immortal text adventure Zork so memorably told us, when...
The implication is pretty clearly that you ought to pay attention to this problem.
You are walking around without a light source. Unless you change that you are (in actuality) likely to be eaten by a grue. What exactly a grue is is (at least in some versions?) unspecified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_(monster)
Both - it's just easier that way. A luminous person has lots of luminous brain-items (not necessarily just beliefs); a luminous brain-item is known to the person who has it, even if they're not generally very luminous.
It feels like the title could have been saved for a follow up post. Such a waste!