Huh, interesting—so are you seeing yourself as disagreeing with normal LW epistemic norms of clearly stating your position? It just seems oddly deceptive to not say clearly what you believe because it might weird the other person out.
Discussing the disagreement could then be meaningful.
Do you think the discussion under e.g. the Bentham’s Bulldog’s post I cite is productive? Or do you think it would’ve been more productive if they had realized that there’s a metaphysical disagreement?
No, I’m not disagreeing with this. I did mention “perhaps saying that in some sense it is, and moving on” and “after you’ve already established that the label is correct in the obvious senses”. The issue is with restating it where it’s not relevant as if it is, perhaps even in lieu of engaging on substance, and the connotational externalities of that.
Where you said “this is the actual crux, right?”, I don’t understand what you are talking about. I asked, you didn’t clarify. I dread that you meant that whether it’s a “metaphysical stance” is a crux, which it clearly isn’t, but I’m unable to tell what you meant.
I believe in a lot of these crazy metaphysics myself!
The primarily alarming thing is that you are stating claims in subtly wrong ways, and when I point it out, you keep agreeing (as you also did in this thread), without engaging on substance, as if there’s no difference. I have no way of knowing if you do see the points I’m making, since you don’t signal that you do (agreeing without clarification doesn’t signal that; it’s possible that you do, but I still don’t know).
So to be clear, I do think it’s possible you’re affected by the issues with connotations of “metaphysical stance”, I just wasn’t claiming that then (and still don’t, beyond it being a possibility). This could manifest in accepting many variations on ideas and not discriminating among them in a load-bearing way. And then nodding along when an aboriginal corrects your descriptions of their beliefs. Treating your own beliefs in the same way doesn’t really refute the issue.
The primarily alarming thing is that you are stating claims in subtly wrong ways, and when I point it out, you keep agreeing (as you also did in this thread), without engaging on substance, as if there’s no difference. I have no way of knowing if you do see the points I’m making, since you don’t signal that you do (agreeing without clarification doesn’t signal that; it’s possible that you do, but I still don’t know).
This feels a bit exhausting to get into, maybe I will tomorrow morning—just letting you know that I saw it.
(I generally oppose the norm of there being any obligation to respond in any detail or at all, and regret the possibility that my actions might be feeding it. The intent was to explain the background of what got me argumentative here. I don’t really endorse how I’m handling my side in this thread. This is a sufficiently unusual situation that I’m not sure what to do, other than the simpler out of staying silent.)
Ah, sorry I missed your question. Very late over here. No, I definitely didn’t mean to say that whether to call it metaphysical is the crux between us. I meant that those metaphysical beliefs (themselves) are often the crux between anti-FDTers and FDTers. I mean, that’s one of my core claims in the post, I say that explicitly. So do you disagree with that?
I just think, on the current margins, in the popular discussions like the one I linked under Bentham’s Bulldog’s post, we very clearly need more acknowledgement of the metaphysical disagreements that people probably have (since there is basically no acknowledgement currently). So that’s what I’m trying to push for.
Huh, interesting—so are you seeing yourself as disagreeing with normal LW epistemic norms of clearly stating your position? It just seems oddly deceptive to not say clearly what you believe because it might weird the other person out.
Do you think the discussion under e.g. the Bentham’s Bulldog’s post I cite is productive? Or do you think it would’ve been more productive if they had realized that there’s a metaphysical disagreement?
No, I’m not disagreeing with this. I did mention “perhaps saying that in some sense it is, and moving on” and “after you’ve already established that the label is correct in the obvious senses”. The issue is with restating it where it’s not relevant as if it is, perhaps even in lieu of engaging on substance, and the connotational externalities of that.
Where you said “this is the actual crux, right?”, I don’t understand what you are talking about. I asked, you didn’t clarify. I dread that you meant that whether it’s a “metaphysical stance” is a crux, which it clearly isn’t, but I’m unable to tell what you meant.
The primarily alarming thing is that you are stating claims in subtly wrong ways, and when I point it out, you keep agreeing (as you also did in this thread), without engaging on substance, as if there’s no difference. I have no way of knowing if you do see the points I’m making, since you don’t signal that you do (agreeing without clarification doesn’t signal that; it’s possible that you do, but I still don’t know).
So to be clear, I do think it’s possible you’re affected by the issues with connotations of “metaphysical stance”, I just wasn’t claiming that then (and still don’t, beyond it being a possibility). This could manifest in accepting many variations on ideas and not discriminating among them in a load-bearing way. And then nodding along when an aboriginal corrects your descriptions of their beliefs. Treating your own beliefs in the same way doesn’t really refute the issue.
This feels a bit exhausting to get into, maybe I will tomorrow morning—just letting you know that I saw it.
(I generally oppose the norm of there being any obligation to respond in any detail or at all, and regret the possibility that my actions might be feeding it. The intent was to explain the background of what got me argumentative here. I don’t really endorse how I’m handling my side in this thread. This is a sufficiently unusual situation that I’m not sure what to do, other than the simpler out of staying silent.)
Thanks Vladimir, really appreciate that actually.
Ah, sorry I missed your question. Very late over here. No, I definitely didn’t mean to say that whether to call it metaphysical is the crux between us. I meant that those metaphysical beliefs (themselves) are often the crux between anti-FDTers and FDTers. I mean, that’s one of my core claims in the post, I say that explicitly. So do you disagree with that?
I just think, on the current margins, in the popular discussions like the one I linked under Bentham’s Bulldog’s post, we very clearly need more acknowledgement of the metaphysical disagreements that people probably have (since there is basically no acknowledgement currently). So that’s what I’m trying to push for.