= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Yvain comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 6 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (541)
Did Fawkes' "caw!" mean "yes" or "no"?
I interpreted it as meaning "no", then Harry says he's glad because Dumbledore doesn't deserve to have his pet leave him because he was trying to do the right thing, but Fawkes is angry and wants to show Dumbledore how mad he is by giving him the cold shoulder for a short while.
One of the reviewers interpreted the caw as "yes', then Harry says he's glad because he doesn't think Dumbledore deserves a phoenix, then he takes a breath and sort of changes his mind and briefly applies principle of charity to Dumbledore, but understands that Fawkes is trying to make a point by leaving him.
Which way is intended?
I believe we should turn this over to RoosterTeeth.
"Fawkes, does caw mean yes?"
Caw!
"Holy shit! He just said caw means yes. I speak phoenix!"
"Yeah, unless caw means no. In which case, he just said no, caw does not mean yes."
"What, no way. Hey Fawkes, am I right?"
Caw!
"Hah, see?"
I think the first is what is intended. Fawkes is leaving temporarily to make a point.
It must be the first because there seems to be no reason for Eliezer to have induced this particular bit of ambiguity in this particular place deliberately, and there is no way he could possibly have missed that cutting off a sentence and then uttering a sentence that starts with a repetition of the cut off sentence might be interpreted as completing the cut off sentence. On the other hand it's perfectly plausible that he might have overlooked the other possible reading.