Logos01 comments on Practicing what you preach - Less Wrong

2 Post author: TwistingFingers 23 October 2011 06:12PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (294)

Comments (294)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Logos01 25 October 2011 07:57:48AM -1 points [-]

If you say so.

I opened up this dialogue by stating that there was a difference between rationality and instrumental rationality. Do you understand why this is relevant?

As to whether it is "established ideology" or not: "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

For goodness' sake. "Established" as in "has already been described in detail".

... Exactly what were you intending to communicate with this? Because I can assure you that right now the only readings I have available to me make it entirely non-sequiturous.

Comment author: pedanterrific 26 October 2011 02:27:50AM 0 points [-]

We wrote:

I simply thought your response indicated that you were not aware that "Rational behaviour is whatever makes you win" was a reference to an established ideology,

As to whether it is "established ideology" or not: "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

I thought it meant:

I simply thought your response indicated that you were not aware that "Rational behaviour is whatever makes you win" was a reference to a previously-described idea,

As to whether it is "a previously-described idea" or not: "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

I'm pretty sure you thought it meant:

I simply thought your response indicated that you were not aware that "Rational behaviour is whatever makes you win" was a reference to a sacred LW doctrine,

As to whether it is "sacred LW doctrine" or not: "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Comment author: Logos01 26 October 2011 02:38:10AM 1 point [-]

The latter is a sufficiently valid statement. For what it's worth, "ideology" is not a term that carries the meaning you were working with in "a previously-described idea", so this should have been somewhat more obvious.

On a more important level: I don't care about what Eliezer wrote there, in this thread, for a very simple reason: It's not relevant to the discussion. Whether or not it's been said before, or whether or not Eliezer is the one who said it, just doesn't matter.

Comment author: pedanterrific 26 October 2011 02:41:12AM 1 point [-]

The latter is a sufficiently valid statement. For what it's worth, "ideology" is not a term that carries the meaning you were working with in "a previously-described idea", so this should have been somewhat more obvious.

You're right, that was a bad choice of words. I apologize for the confusion.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit