Shorter, less charitably: Language games can be justified by arguments which rely on language games.
-
-
Pomo does mostly degenerate into language games. But the most valuable insights have nothing to do with language; rather, ontology.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Could you name one?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @chairbender @Meaningness and
1. I didn't seeing anything about pomo in particular. 2. Yudkowsky has been making these points for a decade. (E.g. http://lesswrong.com/lw/nn/neural_categories/ …)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GrumplessGrinch @chairbender and
There’s a long thread about how “meta-rationality” relates to that post of EY’s, and others, starting athttps://meaningness.com/fluidity-preview/comments#comment-1738 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @chairbender and
Why do you keep making strong claims about what rationalists/LW believe when by your own admission you're not familiar with many core texts?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GrumplessGrinch @chairbender and
Which particular claim(s) do you object to? (N.b. also by “rationalists” I do not specifically mean the LW-associated community, although >
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @GrumplessGrinch and
> (despite diversity within that community) my impression is LW folks mainly do fit in the category
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @chairbender and
Lesswrong and its diaspora *are* the rationalist community. Like, what non-LW-associated rationalist are you thinking of?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This comment and its reply from me (right below) may clarify that:https://meaningness.com/eggplant/remodeling/comments#comment-1851 …
-
-
David, is it possible that LW is actually “meta-r” by your definition, even though it uses “r” to label itself?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler @Meaningness and
If you cite Scott/Sarah as not especially “r-ists,” I think you could be charitable and assume the whole lot is (or aspires to) their level.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 6 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.