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.

chaosmage comments on The Useful Definition of "I" - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: ete 28 May 2014 11:44AM

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

Comments (47)

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

Comment author: chaosmage 28 May 2014 04:26:17PM 1 point [-]

Try to taboo the word "I", use terms like "what the brain that types this refers to as itself", and you won't be lost anymore.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 May 2014 05:22:19PM *  2 points [-]

That sounds much, much worse than just using the word 'I'. And why do you think that's the correct taboo-replacement?

Edit: I worked out what bothers me about this advice.

A: I'm lost, can you help me find the hospital?

B: Just call this street corner 'the hospital'. Now you're there!

Comment author: chaosmage 28 May 2014 06:06:09PM *  0 points [-]

Because it helps me not be confused, and I imagine it would help you to not be confused either.

It is unfortunate the more precise terms are hard to express in the languages developed by our tribes of hominids, but it appears nature wasn't written in those.

Comment author: ete 28 May 2014 06:20:00PM 0 points [-]

I think this is useful. "I" seems to refer to two quite different coherent things current-me (specific thing) and general-me (collection of things I consider to be in group "I"), plus sometimes a few others which fall apart at edge cases, like physical and causal continuity "I"s. Consciously going over exactly what you mean by "I" makes it much easier to not skip around different definitions, though it is super-clunky in English.