This clearly marks me as the author, as separated from Land.
I mark you as an author of this post on LessWrong. When I say:
You state Pythia mind experiment. And then react to it
I imply that in doing so you are citing Land. And then I expect you to make a better post and create some engagement between Land’s ideas and Orthogonality thesis, instead of simply citing how he fails to grasp it.
More importantly this is completely irrelevant to the substance of the discussion. My good faith doesn’t depend in the slightest on whether you’re citing Land or writing things yourself. This post is still bad, regardless.
What does harm the benefit of the doubt that I’ve been giving you so far, is the fact that you keep refusing to engage. No matter how easy I try to make it for you, even after I’ve written my own imaginary dialogue and explicitly asked for your corrections, you keep bouncing off, focusing on the definitions, form, style, unnecessary tangents—anything but the the substance of the argument.
So, lets give it one more try. Stop wasting time with evasive maneuvers. If you actually have something to say on the substance—just do it. If not—then there is no need to reply.
You state Pythia mind experiment. And then react to it
I imply that in doing so you are citing Land.
er—this defeats all rules of conversational pragmatics but look, i concede if it stops further more preposterous rebuttals.
More importantly this is completely irrelevant to the substance of the discussion. My good faith doesn’t depend in the slightest on whether you’re citing Land or writing things yourself.
of course it doesn’t. my opinion on your good faith depends on whether you are able to admit having deeply misunderstood the post.
saying something of substance: i did, in the post. id respond to object-level criticism if you provided some—i just see status-jousting, formal pedantry, and random fnords.
have you read The Obliqueness Thesis btw? as i mentioned above, that’s a gloss on the same texts that you might find more accessible—per editor’s note, i contributed this to help those who’d want to check the sources upon reading it, so im not really sure how writing my own arguments would help.
my opinion on your good faith depends on whether you are able to admit having deeply misunderstood the post.
Then we can kill all the birds with the same stone. If you provide an substantial correction to my imaginary dialogue, showing which place of your post this correction is based on, you will be able to demonstrate how I indeed failed to understand your post, satisfy my curriocity and I’ll be able to earn your good faith by acknowledging my mistake.
Once again, there is no need to go on any unnecessary tangents. You should just address the substance of the argument.
id respond to object-level criticism if you provided some—i just see status-jousting, formal pedantry, and random fnords.
I gave you the object level criticism long ago. I’m bolding it now, in case you indeed failed to see it for some reason:
Your post fails to create an actual engagement between ideas of Nick Land and Orthogonality thesis.
I’ve been explaining to you what exatIy I mean by it and how to improve your post in this regard then I provided you a very simple way to create this engagement or correct my misunderstanding about it—I wrote an imaginary dialogue and explicitly asked for your corrections.
Yet you keep refusing to do it and instead, indeed, concentrating on status-jousting and semantics. As of now I’m fairly confident that you simply don’t have anything substantial to say and status-related nonsense is all you are capable of. I would be happy to be wrong about it of course, but every reply that you make leave me less and less hope.
I’m giving you the last chance. If you finally manage as much as simply address the substance of the argument I’m going to strongly upvote that answer, even if you wouldn’t progress the discourse much further. If you actually be able to surprise me and demonstrate some failure in my understanding, I’m going to remove my previous well-deserved downvotes and offer you my sinciere appologies. If, as my current model predicts, you keep talking about irrelevant tangents, you are getting another strong downvote from me.
No, I haven’t. I currently feel that I’ve already spent much more time on Land’s ideas, than they deserve it. But sure thing, if you manage to show that I misunderstand them, I’ll reevaluate this conclusion and give The Obliqueness Thesis an honest try.
look brah. i feel no need to convince you; i suggested “The Obliqueness Thesis” because it’s written in a language you are more likely to understand—and it covers the same grounds covered here (once again, this was meant simply as a compendium for those who read jessi’s post).
you are free to keep dunning-krugering instead; i wasted enough time attempting to steer you towards something better, and i don’t see any value in having you on my side.
I mark you as an author of this post on LessWrong. When I say:
I imply that in doing so you are citing Land. And then I expect you to make a better post and create some engagement between Land’s ideas and Orthogonality thesis, instead of simply citing how he fails to grasp it.
More importantly this is completely irrelevant to the substance of the discussion. My good faith doesn’t depend in the slightest on whether you’re citing Land or writing things yourself. This post is still bad, regardless.
What does harm the benefit of the doubt that I’ve been giving you so far, is the fact that you keep refusing to engage. No matter how easy I try to make it for you, even after I’ve written my own imaginary dialogue and explicitly asked for your corrections, you keep bouncing off, focusing on the definitions, form, style, unnecessary tangents—anything but the the substance of the argument.
So, lets give it one more try. Stop wasting time with evasive maneuvers. If you actually have something to say on the substance—just do it. If not—then there is no need to reply.
er—this defeats all rules of conversational pragmatics but look, i concede if it stops further more preposterous rebuttals.
of course it doesn’t. my opinion on your good faith depends on whether you are able to admit having deeply misunderstood the post.
saying something of substance: i did, in the post. id respond to object-level criticism if you provided some—i just see status-jousting, formal pedantry, and random fnords.
have you read The Obliqueness Thesis btw? as i mentioned above, that’s a gloss on the same texts that you might find more accessible—per editor’s note, i contributed this to help those who’d want to check the sources upon reading it, so im not really sure how writing my own arguments would help.
Then we can kill all the birds with the same stone. If you provide an substantial correction to my imaginary dialogue, showing which place of your post this correction is based on, you will be able to demonstrate how I indeed failed to understand your post, satisfy my curriocity and I’ll be able to earn your good faith by acknowledging my mistake.
Once again, there is no need to go on any unnecessary tangents. You should just address the substance of the argument.
I gave you the object level criticism long ago. I’m bolding it now, in case you indeed failed to see it for some reason:
Your post fails to create an actual engagement between ideas of Nick Land and Orthogonality thesis.
I’ve been explaining to you what exatIy I mean by it and how to improve your post in this regard then I provided you a very simple way to create this engagement or correct my misunderstanding about it—I wrote an imaginary dialogue and explicitly asked for your corrections.
Yet you keep refusing to do it and instead, indeed, concentrating on status-jousting and semantics. As of now I’m fairly confident that you simply don’t have anything substantial to say and status-related nonsense is all you are capable of. I would be happy to be wrong about it of course, but every reply that you make leave me less and less hope.
I’m giving you the last chance. If you finally manage as much as simply address the substance of the argument I’m going to strongly upvote that answer, even if you wouldn’t progress the discourse much further. If you actually be able to surprise me and demonstrate some failure in my understanding, I’m going to remove my previous well-deserved downvotes and offer you my sinciere appologies. If, as my current model predicts, you keep talking about irrelevant tangents, you are getting another strong downvote from me.
No, I haven’t. I currently feel that I’ve already spent much more time on Land’s ideas, than they deserve it. But sure thing, if you manage to show that I misunderstand them, I’ll reevaluate this conclusion and give The Obliqueness Thesis an honest try.
look brah. i feel no need to convince you; i suggested “The Obliqueness Thesis” because it’s written in a language you are more likely to understand—and it covers the same grounds covered here (once again, this was meant simply as a compendium for those who read jessi’s post).
you are free to keep dunning-krugering instead; i wasted enough time attempting to steer you towards something better, and i don’t see any value in having you on my side.