= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Muehlhauser-Goertzel Dialogue, Part 1 - 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 (161)
Wow, I only associate that level of arrogance with Eliezer.
I don't see how it's arrogance, except maybe by insinuation/connotation; I'll think about how to remove the insinuation/connotation. I was trying to describe an important skill of rationality, not assert my supremacy at that skill. But describing a skill sort of presupposes that the audience lacks the skill. So it's awkward.
It's arrogance because you're implying that you've already thought of and rejected any objection the reader could come up with.
Didn't mean to imply that; deleted the offending paragraph at any rate.
Your comments are probably better without such meta appendices. I lambast LW for being wrong about many worlds and for having a crypto-dualist philosophy of mind, and I find directness is better than intricate attempts to preempt the reader's default epistemology. Going meta is not always for the best; save it up and then use it in the second round if you have to.
This applies doubly for those whose 'meta' position is so closely associated with either fundamental quantum monads or outright support of theism based on the Catholic god.
(Inconsequential stylistic complaint: Atheists like to do it all the time, but it strikes me as juvenile not to capitalize "Catholic" or "God". If you don't capitalize "catholic" then it just means "universal", and not capitalizing "God" is like making a point of writing Eliezer's name as "eliezer" just because you think he's the Antichrist. It's contemptibly petty. Is there some justification I'm missing? (I'm not judging you by the way, just imagining a third party judge.))
That's true. Not writing "Catholic" was an error. It's not like the Catholic religion is any more universal than, say, the 'Liberal' party here is particularly liberal. Names get capitals so we don't confuse them with real words.
But here you are wrong.
When referring to supernatural entities that fall into the class 'divine' the label that applies is 'god'. For example, Zeus is a god, Allah is a god and God is a god. If you happened to base your theology around Belar I would have written "the Alorn god". Writing "the Alorn God" would be a corruption of grammar. If I was making a direct reference to God I would capitalize His name. I wasn't. I was referring to a religion which, being monotheistic can be dereferenced to specify a particular fictional entity.
Other phrases I may utter:
The historic conceit that makes using capitalization appropriate when referring to God does not extend to all usages of the word 'god', even when the ultimate referent is Him. For all the airs we may give Him, God is just a god - with all that entails.
Sorry, you're right, what confused me was "catholic god" in conjunction; "Catholic god" wouldn't have tripped me up.
I think you're right, I'll just remove it.
By the way I've come to think that your intuitions re quantum mind/monadology are at least plausibly correct/in-the-right-direction, but this epistemic shift hasn't changed my thoughts about FAI at all; thus I fear compartmentalization on my part, and I'd like to talk with you about it when I'm able to reliably respond to email. It seems to me that there's insufficient disturbed-ness about disagreement amongst the serious-minded Friendliness community.
Also, what's your impression re psi? Or maybe it's best not to get into that here.
Sounds like a good thing to have in a "before hitting 'reply,' consider these" checklist; but not to add to your own comment (for, as Will might say, "game-theoretic and signaling reasons.")