= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on Mixed Reference: The Great Reductionist Project - 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 (353)
But its just an exterme case of the LW Bad Habit of employig gerrymandered definitions of "meaning".
As opposed to...?
(Just because there's a black box doesn't mean we shouldn't ever work on anything that requires using the black box.)
Using definitions rooted in linguisitics, semiotics, etc.
Is there any such definition of meaning that does not pile up incredibly higher power-towers of linguistic complexity and uses even more mental black boxes?
All the evidence I've seen so far not only imply that we've never found one, but that there might be a reason we would never find one.
OK. There might not be a clean definition of meaning. However, what this sub thread is about Shminux's right to set up a personal definition, and use it to reject criticism.
Valid point. Any "gerrymandered" definitions should be done with the intent to clarify or simplify the solution towards a problem, and I'd only evaluate them on their predictive usefulness, not how you can use them to reject or enforce arguments in debates.
"Gerrymandering" has the connotation of self-serving, as in the political meaning of the term. Hence I do not see it as ever being useful.