Things don’t have to be adversial and they don’t have to not be adversial. I do not know if we are being adversial. Nor do I know if I was being adversial. I do however think my forecast of a possible disection of my answer has been met by you answer.
In a sense I would think that everything we say is tautological for ourselves and seldom tautological for others. I would certainly think my useage of the word “choice” is personal and ideosyncratic as choosing and its fundament is after all anchored in the moment of existence. The object of choosing is undefined until defined and this “search-result” is charged with the web of individuality.
“If you define “choice” to cover this scenario (reentrance to the orgasium) in the context of a “who is worth helping” discussion, I question the value of the definition.”
I have not at any point participated in the discussion “who is worth helping”. (My answer to that is too radical for your ears.) In other words your disection is wrong—as it has been at every stage. As such a mechaniclal deconstruction based on your own hobby horses must necessarily be.
I am trying to express some complicated truths. You, kind sir, do not have access to these truths. Nor can I give you access. You are looking at my finger.
I found the above comment to be mostly incoherent, so I’ll reply to the meaningful parts.
I have not at any point participated in the discussion “who is worth helping”.
Infotropism made a comment that essentially said people are more likely to help “cute puppies” than “dirty hobos” due to buggy hardware. You replied that your dog’s senses are probably sharper than a hobo’s, and that the hobo chose his or her condition. I deem that “participation”, even if you didn’t understand what was being discussed or implied.
I think we two are in a personal dialogue here—off the beaten track as it were, as I don’t think others wil come visiting. Fine. We are also weaving a thread of mutual “conotations” (or in our case “misconnotations”). Also fine. A little case-study—just for us!
A case study in disagreement! (he he)
As you point out—Infotropism made a point about helping cute puppies contra hobos. This was a reply to an earlier point from me on “compassion”. Compassion is not directly related to helping. I work in the helping profession—this does not mean I am theoretically interested in “helping”. I was not participating in a discussion on helping. Originally I was attacking Eliezer for his arrogance, which has been sidestepped to diverse diversions. Infortropism and I went on to riff on common and separate themes. Then you came along.
I am neither posturing nor condescending. I am simply making the point, that what I say will appear incohernt to you, just as I do not understand why you are so sure you are right, why you think you can find meaningful parts from a whole you find incoherent and why you think you have the right to deconstruct or correct another’s expression. What you assume to be a rational and impartial analysis (by you of me) appears posturing and condescending to me! Your analysis postulates a greater intelligence, a sharper insight, a greater stringency. None of which I recognize.
Yours is also the conceit of Eliezer who wants to program intelligence and thus thinks that things have to be reduced to algorithms, before one has understood them. It is a mechanical intelligence.
Does one wish to dance with a jerky doll or talk to a human? For that is how your deconstruction seems to me!
Let’s just say that I am divergent and you are convergent in our ways of thinking???
You win more points than I do from our audience. This is because convergence is the dominant style here on LW. Once in a while I get a little snarky over it. And probably I should be moving on to greener pastures. Even though I think these two styles should be able to finde a synthesis or at least improve on each other.
Interesting!
Things don’t have to be adversial and they don’t have to not be adversial. I do not know if we are being adversial. Nor do I know if I was being adversial. I do however think my forecast of a possible disection of my answer has been met by you answer.
In a sense I would think that everything we say is tautological for ourselves and seldom tautological for others. I would certainly think my useage of the word “choice” is personal and ideosyncratic as choosing and its fundament is after all anchored in the moment of existence. The object of choosing is undefined until defined and this “search-result” is charged with the web of individuality.
“If you define “choice” to cover this scenario (reentrance to the orgasium) in the context of a “who is worth helping” discussion, I question the value of the definition.”
I have not at any point participated in the discussion “who is worth helping”. (My answer to that is too radical for your ears.) In other words your disection is wrong—as it has been at every stage. As such a mechaniclal deconstruction based on your own hobby horses must necessarily be.
I am trying to express some complicated truths. You, kind sir, do not have access to these truths. Nor can I give you access. You are looking at my finger.
I am looking at the moon.
Or mabye vice-versa.
I found the above comment to be mostly incoherent, so I’ll reply to the meaningful parts.
Infotropism made a comment that essentially said people are more likely to help “cute puppies” than “dirty hobos” due to buggy hardware. You replied that your dog’s senses are probably sharper than a hobo’s, and that the hobo chose his or her condition. I deem that “participation”, even if you didn’t understand what was being discussed or implied.
How very condescending. Spare me your posturing.
I think we two are in a personal dialogue here—off the beaten track as it were, as I don’t think others wil come visiting. Fine. We are also weaving a thread of mutual “conotations” (or in our case “misconnotations”). Also fine. A little case-study—just for us!
A case study in disagreement! (he he)
As you point out—Infotropism made a point about helping cute puppies contra hobos. This was a reply to an earlier point from me on “compassion”. Compassion is not directly related to helping. I work in the helping profession—this does not mean I am theoretically interested in “helping”. I was not participating in a discussion on helping. Originally I was attacking Eliezer for his arrogance, which has been sidestepped to diverse diversions. Infortropism and I went on to riff on common and separate themes. Then you came along.
I am neither posturing nor condescending. I am simply making the point, that what I say will appear incohernt to you, just as I do not understand why you are so sure you are right, why you think you can find meaningful parts from a whole you find incoherent and why you think you have the right to deconstruct or correct another’s expression. What you assume to be a rational and impartial analysis (by you of me) appears posturing and condescending to me! Your analysis postulates a greater intelligence, a sharper insight, a greater stringency. None of which I recognize.
Yours is also the conceit of Eliezer who wants to program intelligence and thus thinks that things have to be reduced to algorithms, before one has understood them. It is a mechanical intelligence.
Does one wish to dance with a jerky doll or talk to a human? For that is how your deconstruction seems to me!
Let’s just say that I am divergent and you are convergent in our ways of thinking???
You win more points than I do from our audience. This is because convergence is the dominant style here on LW. Once in a while I get a little snarky over it. And probably I should be moving on to greener pastures. Even though I think these two styles should be able to finde a synthesis or at least improve on each other.
Mvh
I think I have that right because I do have that right.
Ah!
You must be talking about epistemic accuracy. Getting things right and not just less wrong.
I am actually rather curious.… who or what has given you this right? What does it correlate with?
Sky-hooks?