= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'm a first-year grad student, and I'd be more than happy to take down any ID'er that crosses my path while dressed in jeans.
Jeans are comfy.
EDIT: Oh. I don't have a biology degree. Nevermind then.
In response to
FHI postdoc at Oxford
Yeah, um, can you guys wait five years?
In response to
Don't be Pathologically Mugged!
Omega really needs to stop killing copies of me.
It's just not right.
Do you mean "the exponential function is approximately linear over a small enough scale"?
Both are true.
Sorry about that. Our first diavlog was better, IMHO, and included some material about whether rationality benefits a rationalist - but that diavlog was lost due to audio problems. Maybe we should do another for topics that would interest our respective readers. What would you want me to talk about with Scott?
It's okay.
What do you disagree with Scott over? I don't regularly read Shtetl-Optimized, and the only thing I associate with him is a deep belief that P != NP.
I don't really know much about his FAI/AGI leanings. I guess I'll go read his blog a bit.
Upvoted, but it wasn't nearly as fascinating as I'd hoped, because it was all on our home turf. Eliezer reiterated familiar OB/LW arguments, Aaronson fought a rearguard action without saying anything game-changing. Supporting link for the first (and most interesting to me) disagreement: Aaronson's "The Singularity Is Far".
I agree. I stopped watching about five minutes into it when it became clear that EY and Scott were just going to spend a lot of time going back-and-forth.
Nothing game-changing indeed. Debate someone who substantially disagrees with you, EY.
My point was that it's a category error to consider them as indistinguishable,
I didn't say I can't distinguish them, I said the particular attack on emotivism applies just as well to projectivism.
My bad; I misread you.
I think some confusion here might arise from missing the distinction between "projectivism" and "ethical projectivism". Projectivism is a family of theories in philosophy, one of which applies to ethics.
You might be talking past each other.
If you understand the point, could you spell it out? Weren't there supposed to be three points? I don't see anything in the above to distinguish emotivism from projectivism. I suspect that you just assumed an argument against something you rejected was the argument you use.
There are three points, marked with bullet points.
1) "Moral approval" is magical. 2) Reducing "This is good" to "I like this" misrepresents the way people actually speak. 3) Emotivism doesn't account for the use of sentences in a context -- which is the whole of actual ethical speech.
Emotivism is very different from projectivism. One is a theory of ethical language, and one is a theory of mind.
EDIT: Perhaps this wasn't so clear -- one consequence of projectivism is a theory of ethical language as well; see Psychohistorian below. My point was that it's a category error to consider them as indistinguishable, because projectivism proper has consequences in several other fields of philosophy, whereas emotivism proper is mostly about ethical language and doesn't say anything wrt how we think about things other than moral approval.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I confess, when I first wrote out the CDT calculations for Newcombe's Paradox, I assumed that the prediction 'caused' the choice, and got one-boxing as a result.
Then I got confused, because I had heard by then that CDT suggests two-boxing.
Now I'm working on getting a copy of Causality so I can figure out if the network formalism still supports the prediction not being causally binding on the outcome.