= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on If we live in a simulation, what does that imply? - 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 (59)
Pardon me, my hypotheses left out "An intended deduction that is, in fact, fallacious" (I had thought including it would be impolite). Normally I would let conflation of oneself with multiple people pass in casual speak but if people start bring out bullets with formal "Therefore" and the fancy ansi character that represents it I find it jarring if the logic just doesn't follow. If it's worth bullets and symbols it's worth one of "probably", "some humans are similar to me in this regard" or "at least one human".
I have done no such thing. Rather, I have used 'some' to mean 'one or more', which is conventional in math, logic, and philosophy more generally.
According to Wikipedia:
The 'some' is fine and if the replacement with symbols was intended as a correction rather than a denial then it would be fine. However, when writing complete sentence replies to others speaking English philosophers still use plurals correctly.
A philosopher could correctly write "Wedrifid is just some human" but is unlikely to write "Wedrifid is just some "humans". Suppose that there happens to be a subculture (philosophy or otherwise) where it is conventional to write "humans" where English only permits the singular. Even then, when making a retort to a user speaking the colloquial form it would be required to include some reference to the language variant. In the same way when someone goes around declaring "Carbon is a metal!" to a general audience it is necessary to include something like "in the astronomical sense".
I may be shooting an allied soldier here but as it stands this is a valid argument but this was not a valid argument. It was a misleading response to the preceeding comment, regardless of how flawed that comment may have been.