JackV comments on Philosophy Needs to Trust Your Rationality Even Though It Shouldn't - LessWrong

27 Post author: lukeprog 29 November 2012 09:00PM

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

Comments (169)

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

Comment author: JackV 30 November 2012 11:37:31AM 7 points [-]

I agree that the answers to these questions depend on definitions

I think he meant that those questions depend ONLY on definitions.

As in, there's a lot of interesting real world knowledge that goes in getting a submarine to propel itself, but that now we know that, have, people asking "can a submarine swim" is only interesting in deciding "should the English word 'swim' apply to the motion of a submarine, which is somewhat like the motion of swimming, but not entirely". That example sounds stupid, but people waste a lot of time on the similar case of "think" instead of "swim".

Comment author: Bugmaster 30 November 2012 04:59:51PM 0 points [-]

Ok, that's a good point; inserting the word "only" in there does make a huge difference.

I also agree with BerryPick6 on this sub-thread.