Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
Meaningness's profile
David Chapman
David Chapman
David Chapman
@Meaningness

Tweets

David Chapman

@Meaningness

Better ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—around problems of meaning and meaninglessness; self and society; ethics, purpose, and value.

meaningness.com/about-my-sites
Joined September 2010

Tweets

  • © 2020 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness

      If the extent to which the world makes sense is somewhere between 0 and 100%, does falling short of 100% make it true that it doesn't make sense? I think only if said against a very particular background.

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    2. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @everytstudies

      This raises key issues in the ontology of truth! One way of relativizing an absolute statement, that is importantly true in some sense (like @reasonisfun’s) is to assert that its opposite is also true. That then prompts the question “how can that be?”

      1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
    3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @everytstudies @reasonisfun

      One answer can be yours: it’s true to some extent between 0.0 and 1.0. Or, it’s absolutely true that some parameter of it likes between 0.0 and 1.0. That prompts the question “how do we get that number?” Which in this specific case seems meaningless and unanswerable.

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
    4. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @everytstudies @reasonisfun

      There’s other ways of resolving a paradox of a statement and its negation both being importantly true. There’s no general method. One needs to dig into the specifics. In this case, one should ask “what does ‘making sense’ mean? How, when, and why does the world ‘make sense’?”

      2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
    5. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun

      Yes, very much that. I just suspect you're being coy when making blanket statements like the OP that you know requires a bucketload of interpretation to evaluate and I sorta want to call you out on it 😋

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    6. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @everytstudies @reasonisfun

      Ah… what would be a better approach, do you think?

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    7. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun

      Depends on what you're trying to do exactly, doesn't it? I think most people confronted with the assertion that the world doesn't make sense would take the wrong message from it. I did when I first read your stuff.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    8. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @everytstudies @reasonisfun

      Ah, that’s interesting. What’s the wrong message, and how can I communicate the right one more effectively, or prevent the misunderstanding?

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
    9. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun

      In my mind the wrong message would be that there is no reality out there and it's all in our minds, or that all knowledge is completely subjective (everything equally valid) and other such boogeymen.

      1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
    10. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @everytstudies @reasonisfun

      Yes, this is an expositional problem. There’s 200 years of people (Romantics) saying rationalism is wrong for reasons X. I explicitly reject that analysis, and say rationalism is wrong for reasons Y, which are unfamiliar to rationalists (although not unique to me).

      1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes
      David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 4 Feb 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @everytstudies @reasonisfun

      I need to prevent the misunderstanding that I’m just reiterating the tired wrong arguments X. The Eggplant attempts that by devoting the introduction to saying how great rationality is, and how it’s under threat, and that strengthening it is critical. Will that be enough?

      9:39 AM - 4 Feb 2019
      • 6 Likes
      • John Nerst Kacper Wikieł Jules Pitt Ian Hines Uncarved Bitmap Mimetic Contagion
      4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 4 Feb 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun

          There are a few issues as far as I'm concerned. Your nonstandard use of "rationality" to mean formal, strictly systematic reasoning threw me off for quite a while. I assume this has to do with your background in AI? I'd wager it's not what most people would mean by the word.

          2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 4 Feb 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @everytstudies @reasonisfun

          Yes, as the Bay Rats have increasingly been noticing, there’s no coherent thing people in general mean by “rationality,” and this causes problems. OTOH, this isn’t specific to “rationality,” it’s just a problem with words. Not clear why it should be any worse in this case?

          1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
        4. 6 more replies
        1. New conversation
        2. mrgunn‏ @mrgunn 4 Feb 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @everytstudies @reasonisfun

          Maybe my perspective is useful, because I came to your stuff as a fairly blank slate. I am a scientist, rationality seems to be the way I solve problems & gain understanding, but I've read a bit of Kahneman & know that's not the whole picture. 1/

          2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        3. mrgunn‏ @mrgunn 4 Feb 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @mrgunn @Meaningness and

          I had to read quite far into your stuff, David, before I understood what you were trying to say. I initially had a lot of resistance to your criticisms of rationality because I couldn't see what was on the other side of nebulosity. 2/

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        4. 6 more replies
        1. New conversation
        2. Lulie‏ @reasonisfun 4 Feb 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @everytstudies

          Perhaps saying what meta-rationalism is *not* (explicitly) would help? Like "The Romantics thought X, but that too wasn't quite right because..." or "The reader may interpret this as advocating anti-realism, subjectivism, etc., but it is not those things because..."

          2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 4 Feb 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @reasonisfun @everytstudies

          David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman

          Yup! Here’s a bit from the Eggplant book where I do that:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1079802460124766215 …

          David Chapman added,

          David Chapman @Meaningness
          Rationalism tends to lump all phenomena other than formal rationality as a single deficient category. “Dual process” theories systematize this error. pic.twitter.com/mCafGrQbpz
          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        4. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Stephen Pimentel‏ @StephenPiment 4 Feb 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @everytstudies @reasonisfun

          There’s a kind of law that no amount of rhetorical positioning is sufficient to preclude a misunderstanding among those inclined to it, particularly when the misunderstanding is strong attractor in cognitive space.

          2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Lulie‏ @reasonisfun 4 Feb 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @StephenPiment @Meaningness @everytstudies

          "It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." (Karl Popper)

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        4. 2 more replies

      Loading seems to be taking a while.

      Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2020 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Imprint
        • Cookies
        • Ads info