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.

prase comments on Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Argument - Less Wrong Discussion

74 Post author: palladias 18 February 2013 05:05PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (95)

Comments (95)

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

Comment author: prase 18 February 2013 08:42:29PM 9 points [-]

Bayes was a priest, after all. Now divine quote of gay Turing would be a different feat altogether.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 18 February 2013 10:58:13PM *  4 points [-]

... or polyamorous agnostic Russell, maybe?

(Also, Bayes was a Presbyterian minister — not a priest, which (in England) would imply Catholic or Anglican. It was the family trade; his father was also a minister.)

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 19 February 2013 03:07:00AM 1 point [-]

divine quote of gay Turing

I'm not sure I know how to parse this.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 February 2013 05:57:36AM *  2 points [-]

divine quote of gay Turing

I'm not sure I know how to parse this.

Showing results for: Divine quotation of gay Turing

  • God quoting Turing would be more remarkable than got quoting Bayes because the latter was a priest (and so already affiliated with God) while the former is notoriously homosexual (while God is allegedly violently homophobic).
Comment author: Eugine_Nier 20 February 2013 05:02:48AM 1 point [-]

God quoting Turing would be more remarkable than got quoting Bayes because the latter was a priest (and so already affiliated with God) while the former is notoriously homosexual (while God is allegedly violently homophobic).

So? God is still willing to work with (and through) sinners.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 February 2013 05:19:31AM *  1 point [-]

So? God is still willing to work with (and through) sinners.

It isn't my position. Merely one I translated into well formed English. Any questions should be directed to the original source.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 19 February 2013 06:01:48AM 0 points [-]

The word I had trouble parsing was "of." I think ESRogs' hypothesis is probably correct, though.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 February 2013 06:08:04AM *  0 points [-]

The word I had trouble parsing was "of." I think ESRogs' hypothesis is probably correct, though.

That seems highly unlikely: it would make prase's comment not fit the context. I think you have been misled.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 19 February 2013 06:16:08AM 0 points [-]

Oh, hmm. I got confused about what ESRogs' hypothesis actually implied. Never mind. Anyway, I agree with your interpretation but still think the original phrasing was quite confusing.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 February 2013 07:07:12AM 0 points [-]

Anyway, I agree with your interpretation but still think the original phrasing was quite confusing.

Very much so. Without context the intended meaning would definitely not be the top of the hypothesis list.

Comment author: prase 19 February 2013 11:08:51PM *  0 points [-]

Wedrifid's interpretation is the intended one. I agree that the chosen formulation wasn't particularly clear.

Comment author: ESRogs 19 February 2013 05:02:51AM 0 points [-]

I think that should be read as 'by' rather than 'of'.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit