Henlo.
milanrosko
Karma: 162
Conceptual Typography “spells it out”
Wow what an honor! Thank you.
As an eliminative nominalist, I claim there are no abstractions.
Calculance: A “Core” Ability
because it’s quite limited… it’s a joke btw.
This does not seem to be rational thinking to me.
When it comes to contraceptives, the placebo effect is quite limited.
Good job. Thank you and have a nice week.
Corrected to agentive and changed the part where it derails a bit. Thank you.
Thanks for the mod for the deus ex machina.
I’ve been a LessWrong lurker (without an account) for around ten years, ever since the Roko’s Basilisk “thing”, so… This comic isn’t targeted at the LessWrong community but was created by it.
The unusual style, gaming-related language, and iconography typical of manga and comics help bypass the bias known as “mortality salience.” I’m trying to convey this message more indirectly, aiming to engage people who might not usually be interested in these topics or who would typically engage in “worldview defense”.
Anyway, I’ve corrected a few of the issues that some pointed out. Thanks for the helpful feedback.
What deeply frustrates me is the way content is rated, ordered and created as a broad phenomenon in today’s internet. I find it challenging to cope with how cultural products are dumbed down to the point of being unbearable because of algorithms, click optimization. This bitterness is beginning to affect my life and my relationships with people in general.
Yeah I will close this attempt. I mean currently it has −1 and some other dumb thread that is about how NYC is has like 21. Nah… Fuck this.
Demystifying “Alignment” through a Comic
Yes I agree totally, and will do that definitely. Actually I already started to work on it.
Thank you for your advice. I will definitely consider the short-form in future for most of such dealings...
However, I still believe that there is something to this “ontological mess” thing, but the form is lacking as you point it out.
I like this community a lot because of people like you. Have a nice weekend!
I apologize if my previous tone was not as polite as your detailed response deserved. I want to acknowledge your comment and express my appreciation for your constructive feedback.
“Statement B is a ‘is’ statement too. ‘Is it good or bad’ is by definition an ought statement.”
Yes obviously, but it is “more concerned” about “ought”. It is hard to make formulaic examples because it is also a grammar thing.
“Who argues what? Some argue that the earth’s flat. This doesn’t make it worth discussing.”
Sorry but this argument is very often regurgitated everywhere by “smart people” in this form. It is bit baffling to me why you think otherwise.
“This would not amount to an ‘ought’ statement.”
Okay this again. It is quite common in discussions to “pretend” that a statement is an “ought” statement if the underlying subtext is clear.
For example if things happened in the past or aren’t formulated as an imperative can be “ought” statements plainly because they center around ethics or values.
“I think a better framing of the picture you paint (especially about the ‘gender debate’) is given in this article.”
I think you are referring to this part:
“There is an anti-transgender argument that I take very seriously. The argument goes: we are rationalists. Our entire shtick is trying to believe what’s actually true, not on what we wish were true, or what our culture tells us is true, or what it’s popular to say is true. If a man thinks he’s a woman, then we might (empathetically) wish he were a woman, other people might demand we call him a woman, and we might be much more popular if we say he’s a woman. But if we’re going to be rationalists who focus on believing what’s actually true, then we’ve got to call him a man and take the consequences.”
I don’t want to frame discussions but I gave an example how discussions can be inauthentic.Before I start, I want to define a few terms.
Ontology: Concerned with the most fundamental aspects of existence and categories.
Essence: The “stuff” that makes matter more than what it is but has never been seen or found. Essence is like the core personality of something. It’s what makes a thing uniquely itself, no matter how much you change its appearance or circumstances. The true nature or soul of anything, whether it’s a person, a tree, or even an idea.
Imagine two tomatoes growing on the French and Spanish sides of the border from the same crop. In the end, you have a French tomato and a Spanish tomato because of their “essence.” For me, essence is one of the biggest biases out there.Useful: This is an abstractionist concept (as by D. Dennett). We pretend that things have essence because it’s useful, not because essence is real.
Authentic: I am arguing outside as dictated by what is logical to inside. Arguing that homosexuals may enter heaven to evade from my inner beliefs is inauthentic.
Scientific realism, Empiricism, Rationalism, etc., all lean heavily towards Nominalism and Materialism, meaning they are highly skeptical about “essence” as a general rule.
With this, we look at 99% of the discussions around gender:
We are rationalists. Our entire shtick is trying to believe what’s actually true, not on what we wish were true (Implying that a transgender woman is not a woman because a lacking woman essence and the person is calling this out.)
Here, the “rationalist” is essentialising “woman” as if it is something that is an inherent property that he will name for truth’s sake HOWEVER the other side is also essentialising woman because it is saying that transgender woman are “real woman”.
The discussion is inauthentic as both rationalism and social constructivism are strongly anti-essentialist.
Now, if a Radical Christian says, “That’s not a woman,” this should be regarded as authentic regardless of whether the statement is right.
“You’re asking for flaws in the idea, but more often posts are downvoted for being confusing, boring, or just not particularly helpful for people who use this site.”
Well said.
Help me to become “less wrong”
Haha, I didn’t expect to read something like this today! I love where this is going.
Isn’t it ironic that “Err and err and err again but less and less and less.” describes backpropagation?