Comment on Why one-box?

Sun, 30 Jun 2013 04:05:36 GMT

I agree. A semantic debate is uninteresting. My original assumption about the differences between two-boxing philosophers and one-boxing LWers was that the two groups used words differently and were engaged in different missions.

If you think the difference is just:

(a) semantic; (b) a difference of missions; (c) a different view of which missions are important

then I agree and I also agree that a long hair splitting debate is uninteresting.

However, my impression was that some people on LW seem to think there is more than a semantic debate going on (for example, my impression was that this is what Eliezer thought). This assumption is what motivated the writing of this post. If you think this assumption is wrong, it would be great to know as if this is the case, I now understand what is going on.

Discuss