= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Dark Side Epistemology - 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 (110)
Too late - it's been 3 and a half years.
"epistemologically " is a word, but it's hard to tell when to instead say "epistemically".
Somewhat amusing, but it should not be surprising that most of the commentary on old sequence posts is people reading them and engaging with the ideas for the first time.
Yes, it's the time language that got me.
That's ridiculous: whenever I want to comment, I always observe that I am reading 4-year-old arguments and keep on scrolling.
An interesting claim I came across recently is that most people view the Internet as opening up the past, but that isn't quite right--the past was always accessible, through books and stories and so on. What the internet does that is strange is extend the present into the past, so that content created in 2001 or 2012 or so on can be indistinguishable from content created in 2016, if the formatting, context, or dynamics are the same.
That is, one doesn't expect Jane Austen to return any fan letters, but sometimes when you respond to a four-year old comment, you get a response within a day.
I don't know if that's right. The past was always accessible to some degree, but never before as an overwhelming exhaustive array of minutiae. It's precisely because of that level of detail that this past looks so much like the present.
Necro-commenting isn't usually frowned upon around here.