You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Logos01 comments on Practicing what you preach - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: TwistingFingers 23 October 2011 06:12PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (294)

Comments (294)

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

Comment author: Logos01 25 October 2011 07:57:48AM -1 points [-]

If you say so.

I opened up this dialogue by stating that there was a difference between rationality and instrumental rationality. Do you understand why this is relevant?

As to whether it is "established ideology" or not: "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

For goodness' sake. "Established" as in "has already been described in detail".

... Exactly what were you intending to communicate with this? Because I can assure you that right now the only readings I have available to me make it entirely non-sequiturous.

Comment author: pedanterrific 26 October 2011 02:27:50AM 0 points [-]

We wrote:

I simply thought your response indicated that you were not aware that "Rational behaviour is whatever makes you win" was a reference to an established ideology,

As to whether it is "established ideology" or not: "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

I thought it meant:

I simply thought your response indicated that you were not aware that "Rational behaviour is whatever makes you win" was a reference to a previously-described idea,

As to whether it is "a previously-described idea" or not: "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

I'm pretty sure you thought it meant:

I simply thought your response indicated that you were not aware that "Rational behaviour is whatever makes you win" was a reference to a sacred LW doctrine,

As to whether it is "sacred LW doctrine" or not: "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Comment author: Logos01 26 October 2011 02:38:10AM 1 point [-]

The latter is a sufficiently valid statement. For what it's worth, "ideology" is not a term that carries the meaning you were working with in "a previously-described idea", so this should have been somewhat more obvious.

On a more important level: I don't care about what Eliezer wrote there, in this thread, for a very simple reason: It's not relevant to the discussion. Whether or not it's been said before, or whether or not Eliezer is the one who said it, just doesn't matter.

Comment author: pedanterrific 26 October 2011 02:41:12AM 1 point [-]

The latter is a sufficiently valid statement. For what it's worth, "ideology" is not a term that carries the meaning you were working with in "a previously-described idea", so this should have been somewhat more obvious.

You're right, that was a bad choice of words. I apologize for the confusion.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit