= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Clicking the "Donate now" button under "PayPal or Credit Card" does not seem to do anything other than refresh the page.
(browser Firefox 48.0 , OS Ubuntu)
How do you determine which is right?
Why, you look at what France and other European countries did. We know that whatever they did led to Paris and Brussels. Do you think they radicalized the Muslims by heavy-handed patrolling of Muslim neighbourhoods and being generally oppressive toward them? Or did the European policy involve averting their eyes and issuing proclamations about how Muslims should feel welcome (the term "appeasement" isn't terribly popular)?
We know that whatever they did led to Paris and Brussels
Correlation / Causation?
In response to
Lesswrong 2016 Survey
[Survey Taken Thread]
By ancient tradition, if you take the survey you may comment saying you have done so here, and people will upvote you and you will get karma.
Let's make these comments a reply to this post. That way we continue the tradition, but keep the discussion a bit cleaner.
In response to
Sorting Pebbles Into Correct Heaps
I wonder: do the names Y'ha-nthlei, Y'not'ha-nthlei, and At'gra'len'ley mean anything? I assume Y'ha and Y'not'ha mean "you have" and "you don't have", but beyond that it just seems random.
"This painting is beautiful" is a statement about the reaction of the speaker's brain upon seeing the painting.
Well, not only the speaker, otherwise it'd be completely equivalent to "I like this painting" which it isn't. It is a claim about ambijective features of the painting -- more or less "this painting has certain features such that brains (at least those raised in cultural contexts similar to us) typically produce pleasant reactions".
As I understand it, "This painting is beautiful" is completely equivalent to "I like (the visual aspects of) this painting".
Definitional arguments are not useful. Even using your interpretation, the point stands: the statement, properly understood, is empirical truth.
I was trying to get at the unnecessary turn into neuroscience.
"This painting is beautiful" is a statement about the reaction of the speaker's brain upon seeing the painting.
Why bring the brain into it? Why not say that "This painting is beautiful" is a statement about the reaction of the speaker? Or, paralleling Good_Burning_Plastic, a statement about the reaction of people generally (at least those raised in etc.)?
Why bring the brain into it?
No particular reason.
"This painting is beautiful" is a statement about the reaction of the speaker
That is what I mean, yes.
Or, paralleling GoodBurningPlastic, a statement about the reaction of people generally
Whether we define beauty to be the reaction of the speaker, or the reaction of the majority of a certain group of people that are similar to the speaker, is not relevant: in both cases "This painting is beautiful" becomes an empirical truth instead of an "affective" truth.
If I say "This painting is beautiful", I mean "my brain produces a pleasant reaction upon seeing this painting".
If I say "This painting is round", do I mean "my brain produces a sensation of roundness upon seeing this painting"?
No. "This painting is round" is a statement about the properties of the painting itself, independent of any observer. "This painting is beautiful" is a statement about the reaction of the speaker's brain upon seeing the painting. The syntactical similarity between those different kinds of statements in English (and all other natural languages that I know of) is unfortunate to say the least.
In response to
On Empirical Truth and Affective Truth
I do not think we should dilute the meaning of the word "truth" like this.
If I say "This painting is beautiful", I mean "my brain produces a pleasant reaction upon seeing this painting". The latter sentence is empirical truth. See also 2-Place and 1-Place Words
"This place feel right to me" -- true! Affectively true.
Also empirically true!
Shakespeare is truth
If by this, you mean "I like Shakespeare's writing" (an empirical truth), just say so.
In response to
Crazy Ideas Thread
All advertising for a product should be produced by a competitor of the company that makes the product. This should be required by law.
Truth in advertising laws should keep the thus-produced advertising more or less factual. It would be much less annoying and manipulative than current advertising.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Huh, thanks for the heads up. If you use an ad-blocker, try pausing that and refreshing. Meanwhile, I'll have someone look into it.
Ah yes, pausing ghostery seems to fix it.