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.
-
-
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 -
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 -
Replying to @everytstudies @reasonisfun
Ah… what would be a better approach, do you think?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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?
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
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
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?
-
-
_The Eggplant_ points out the problem and does its best to be specific about what I do mean, first in the intro and then in much greater detail later. Here’s the intro discussion. https://meaningness.com/eggplant/terms#rationality …pic.twitter.com/9eFWvNSWBh
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I guess I don’t think this is “non-standard”; it seems as mainstream a usage as any other.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 4 more replies
New conversation -
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.