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 
-
-
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 -
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 -
_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.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun
That's probably one of the key issues. I do find it nonstandard and I guess I think of it mostly as a negation, like the opposite of emotional, heated or social cognition. It's a difficult word to work with and I guess if I were you I'd make up a new word (less baggage that way).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @everytstudies @reasonisfun
Hmm. If “rational” just means “not excessively emotional and therefore clearly wrong,” there’s almost nothing to rationalism, is there? “Yeah, don’t do that.” Bay Rationalism takes rationality=decision theory, which is very narrow but at least there’s some content to it.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - 2 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.