Dentin comments on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 01:58AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (154)

Comments (154)

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

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 02:06:10PM 1 point [-]

X is really hard to express (in general, or for you in particular) and on these occasions you have not been successful. So, while the other people could have understood X, they haven't yet had it explained clearly enough.

This is pretty much it, although I'm frustrated at the sheer lack of engagement.

I think you are simply incorrect to say that no one who disagreed with you in the Dust Theory thread actually understands Dust Theory.

I didn't say that, I said that no one understood my specific argument and that a few just didn't understand Dust Theory.

Comment author: Dentin 13 July 2015 01:48:55PM 2 points [-]

I'm pretty sure I understand your specific argument regarding dust theory. I'm also pretty sure that the reason I'm not upset is because I require observables to actually care about things like that. You're worried about an idea/argument that has no backing evidence, makes no observable predictions, and is unfalsifiable - no matter how horrible it sounds, it isn't sane to fret over that sort of thing.

Also, I would encourage you to spend some time on the concept of identity for yourself. Even if your idea/argument did have backing evidence, it wouldn't be horrible to me because I allow distributed identity.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit