Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Anna2 05 February 2008 07:36:23AM 0 points [-]

Well now i'm comfortable again. I keep getting deleted. It must be my karma. I'm posting in the wind

At least someone is listening.

Comment author: Anna2 05 February 2008 05:55:23AM -1 points [-]

Eliezer: But what is a thing? And what's a property? Soon the two are lost in a maze of words defined in other words, the problem that Steven Harnad once described as trying to learn Chinese from a Chinese/Chinese dictionary.

What if you are reaching towards an all Chinesse audience and don't know how to speak Chinese? Would you not use words that would attract such audience? Would you not require a dictionary? Would you not strive to make that audience hear you. Maybe using platonic wording is not the best way to get your point accross but sometimes the least obvious response is just as important. I agree that communication is the most important factor when expressing the best set ideas. Sometimes subtle remarks or "the least logical and rational response" may not seem like rational response but to those looking at going beyond the simple facts of describing what color is red, it may seem interesting, as red is self-subjective. I can describe a "tiger" with words, i'm just not clear why would I need to describe a tiger.

Eliezer: The strongest definitions use a crossfire of intensional and extensional communication to nail down a concept. Even so, you only communicate maps to concepts, or instructions for building concepts - you don't communicate the actual categories as they exist in your mind or in the world.

You don't communicate the actual catagories as they exist in your mind or in the world...but someone has too.

Eliezer: But abuse definitions just a little, and they turn into magic wands - in arguments, of course; not in reality.

To define something is to understand what you are defining. An example of a red sock will not make the other understand if they have never seen a red sock. Being creative enough to make that person see the red sock without ever have set eyes on it is poetry.

Comment author: Anna2 29 December 2007 09:11:28AM -1 points [-]

Stop deleting me, you are being bias. It doesn't make you look good, trust me. What are you afraid of? I'm not that important!


Comment author: Anna2 29 December 2007 08:32:15AM 0 points [-]

What makes you so sure people will follow you? The funny thing about leadership is that you never know when your fellowship will let you down as opposed to those that have sworn their leadership.

Is there a difference, what makes a fellowship?

Just Curious. Anna

Comment author: Anna2 05 August 2007 07:51:42AM 2 points [-]

My apology, it's a long post but they are my final thoughts.

Eliezer: "Robin, I would indeed put someone who called themselves a Unitarian in a different class from someone who called themselves a Zoroastrian or Christian. It's still a big blatant mistake, but so long as the person is willing to take strict personal responsibility for their own moral judgments, it's a less urgent matter."

I'm not really clear as to why? Do you not think Unitarian has some affiliation to Zoroastrian or Christianity? Where do you think moral judgements come from? The laws written in any given literature are clear interpretations as to what was going on in that particular time frame, that does not mean they where right or wrong, it means they exist for a reason.

Eliezer, I believe you are a smart, highly inquisitive individual but your expertise does not reach the realm of belief as you clearly demonstrate an ignorance in regards to religion, spirituality, enlightment or such pretense. Please read more thoughts in regards to religion within history, scriptures, books, psalms, philosophy, psychology, etc., before judging the belief of belief. Your video example of the Jesus Camp was an awakening for me as I acknowledged that not all individuals are aware of the science behind religion and in fact, religion may be used as a source of irrationalism. The bias approach you took was in only refering to the "kooks" of religion instead of realizing that there exists many that are religious that don't exhibit that behavior. Within the context of kooks, I understand the need to promote Atheism but that does not mean that Atheists are more rational than the Christians if both have not done the research to understand the possibilities within the religious context.

Anyhow, it's been a pleasure. Thanks Robin (and many fascinating contributors) for creating Overcoming Bias. It might not appear but I have learned a great deal about bias. If your intention was to teach, you are doing a great job. At first, it was hard to grasp the concept but with time i've learned quite a lot.

It's time for me to go as I can't possibly stay and listen to people talk about overcoming bias and yet reply "your not smart enough to undertstand", that kinda contradicts the whole idea.

Without being aware, thanks to the many that have aided in my education.

Take care and I wish you well, Anna

In response to Open Thread
Comment author: Anna2 05 July 2007 04:18:56AM 0 points [-]

I've thought about the Jesus Camp video you presented to me. I am curious, why those particular examples to get your point accross regarding the post?

Just Curious Anna

Comment author: Anna2 07 May 2007 02:58:02AM -1 points [-]

Joe: When you think about the commercialization of Christmas, is the perpetuation of Santa and presents still a noble lie? Or does it now become a perverse destruction of what was supposed to be a religious celebration of the birth of Christ?

Just a thought. Maybe the initial story behind "The Clause family" was created to help people understand about generosity. Feeling grateful of family and friends. Taking the time to appreciate and celebrate.

I'm not sure how it literally became a man in a red suit and reindeer when in turn it has been clearly associated to the birth of Jesus but i'm pretty sure that there is either a moral and ethical story behind it or a marketing strategy.

Obviously if the story survived this long, there must have been something good and worthwhile about it.


Comment author: Anna2 21 April 2007 04:33:29AM 0 points [-]

I asked: "What happens if you take faith out of the equation, will people be more or less inclined to want to be moralistic and can ethical behavior exist without the rules and regulations that have been governed by faith?"

>Kevembuangga: My point was, ethical behavior is not "governed" by faith, it is endorsed by faith.

For you. A religious person may feel that their ethical behavior is governed by their faith.

> suppose you are a theist, aren't you?

I believe in Something as opposed to Nothing but I am not a theist. I don't believe in Gods or Goddesses. I don't see how that's relevant.

Regarding: >that the whole idea of bringing "rationality" to moral dilemmas is futile and dangerous.

I agree that it's futile.

Rationality is about looking at it from someone else's point of view and deciding if it is "right for you" or "wrong for you", without judgement.

Morals are about beliefs and faith.

Ethical behavior is about "right or wrong".

I have wondered? "How can I believe myself to be rational and logical and still believe in something that I can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell."

I apologize, (yes, that's weird to you, I know) if my post was too long.

Comment author: Anna2 20 April 2007 12:12:47AM 0 points [-]

>Weirder and weirder, why would this thread have been titled "Consolidated Nature of Morality?"

Weird because I apologized for bringing up faith when the thread was about Morality?

>On top of that idiosyncratic cultural traits have been built which sometimes run counter the "basics"....

I have no idea how this reflects the question I was asking regarding that if faith is taken out of the equation will people be more or less inclined to want to be moralistic. I guess this weird one is not smart enough to grasp your intellectual ideas. Thanks for your time, it has been interesting.

Comment author: Anna2 19 April 2007 05:51:00PM 0 points [-]

Kevembuangga: Aren't you confusing morality with fear of retribution? I am curious to know what you think morality is about!

For me, morality is about the ethical behavior of individuals or groups.

Many people associate morality with faith. The example of the fear of retribution is what makes them strive to be moralistic. I was curious to know what happens when you take faith out of the equation? Will people no longer strive to be moralistic? Can ethical behavior exist without the rules and regulations that have been governed by faith?

I know these questions don't fit into the main discussion of the thread, my apology.

View more: Next