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

In response to Heat vs. Motion
Comment author: Ron_Hardin 01 April 2008 10:23:39AM 1 point [-]

Heat has to do more with equilibrium than kinetics.

Comment author: Ron_Hardin 10 March 2008 01:14:45AM 0 points [-]

A=A is not a tautology.

Usually the first A is taken broadly and the second A narrowly.

The second, as they say, carries a pregnancy.

Comment author: Ron_Hardin 09 March 2008 03:44:50PM 2 points [-]

``Why do I think I can avoid literary effects and reason directly instead?''

Comment author: Ron_Hardin 08 March 2008 04:54:05PM 0 points [-]

Then there's Edmond Jabes, on freedom and how words come to mean anything.

Comment author: Ron_Hardin 07 March 2008 12:06:53AM 0 points [-]

It must be a Princess Diana effect.

Comment author: Ron_Hardin 04 March 2008 01:04:03PM 2 points [-]

"If we let ethical considerations get in the way of scientific hubris, then the feminists have won!"

Back when science was fun :

`` Watson, repeating similar experiments [to Pavlov], noted the ``transference'' aspect of such conditioning. Having found that the violent striking of an iron bar produced fear in an infant, he noted that he could give a ``fear'' character to some hitherto neutral object, such as a rabbit, by placing it before the child each time the iron bar was struck; he next demonstrated that this conditioned fear of the rabbit was transferred with varying degrees of intensity to other things having similar properties(such as fur coats or cotton blankets).''

- Kenneth Burke, _Permanence and Change_ p.11

Comment author: Ron_Hardin 03 March 2008 12:01:17AM 0 points [-]

Apple(X) <==> [ Green(X) or Red(X) ] and Edible(X) and Size(X, medium), etc.

The criteria for ordinary language making something count, or fit the case, are ordinary language criteria, not mathematical criteria, of counting or fitting.

That is, ordinary language rules the operation of ordinary language, using the ordinary meanings of count and fit, not the mathematical ones.

Ordinary concepts (nice red apple) are not less precise than mathematical concepts ; but they give precision a certain shape.

The philosopher (not the mathematician!) wants to say that ordinary langauge lacks something that mathematics has. The philosopher however is not curious about why he thinks this.

Comment author: Ron_Hardin 02 March 2008 11:43:21AM 0 points [-]

What does a word point to? See an essay on words as labels in Stanley Cavell _The Claim of Reason_ p.175

In the background is always : what is this fantasy about? Meaning in this context the AI fantasy.

Actual robot fantasies begin around p.403

Comment author: Ron_Hardin 29 February 2008 09:36:02PM 0 points [-]

But the more important point: Suppose you've got an iron flywheel that's spinning very rapidly. That's definitely kinetic energy, so the average kinetic energy per molecule is high. Is it heat? That particular kinetic energy, of a spinning flywheel, doesn't look to you like heat, because you know how to extract most of it as useful work, and leave behind something colder (that is, with less mean kinetic energy per degree of freedom).

Systems in thermal contact (by radiation of nothing else) come to the same temperature. That makes it pretty objective if one of the systems is a thermometer, whether it's heat or not.

Comment author: Ron_Hardin 29 February 2008 09:27:39PM 1 point [-]


That was actually a joke. Though people would be hard-pressed to guess what happens if you try it.

Gyroscopes are very unintuitive, because people intuitively but incorrectly think that pushing on something changes its position, a mistake that gyroscopes bring out.

View more: Next