Yes, exactly! Referring back to the spectrum between episodic and diachronic
personalities, it strikes me that the regular accusations I get of non
sequitur, are something like hairpin turns in my (always bad) rhetoric. It's
also just plain fun to do it and I wish others would do it to me as of
Steve writes:
I'm reminded of a book (long misplaced) I inherited from my grandfather's
library (born in 1898) who was for a modest time (<10 years) the
principal of a High School. The book's title was "Straight and Crooked
Thinking" and had a modest amount of marginalia in his (I
glen∈ℂ wrote:
> The 3 excerpts below seem to indicate the (my?) problem. At first, I
> though Marcus was agreeing with me by listing options for
> harm-of-eating-animals. But then he goes toward monism-by-unification
> with "agreeing on what matters" and
> whole-equilibrium-implies-part-equilibriu
Glen writes:
< But then he goes toward monism-by-unification with "agreeing on what matters"
and whole-equilibrium-implies-part-equilibrium. >
The context was Steve's query about whether I think that multi-objective
optimization is better than single-objective optimization. That's not monism,
The 3 excerpts below seem to indicate the (my?) problem. At first, I though Marcus was
agreeing with me by listing options for harm-of-eating-animals. But then he goes toward
monism-by-unification with "agreeing on what matters" and
whole-equilibrium-implies-part-equilibrium. And I thought Stev
Steve writes:
Too much of our energy seems to be going into characterizing "the other" as
inimical to our own interests and all but guaranteeing a "tectonic
event" is the only way to resolve those differences.
“How did you go bankrupt?"
Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
― Ernest H
Marcus wrote:
>
> One might argue that is harmful to eat animals. One way argue that would be
> to imagine that you were to be eaten. How would you feel?That assumes
> that all species are equally valuable or perceive things in a comparable way.
> A hedonist might argue that the pleasu
Steve wrote:
I assume you mean this in the sense of "single issue voters" and in the
more general sense of multivariate optimization being more "effective"
than univariate in general problem solving?
One might argue that is harmful to eat animals. One way argue that would be
to ima
Marcus -
> The refusal to optimize on one dimension is in general a good policy.
I assume you mean this in the sense of "single issue voters" and in the
more general sense of multivariate optimization being more "effective"
than univariate in general problem solving?
>And illustrating the inter
The refusal to optimize on one dimension is in general a good policy. And
illustrating the interchangeability of symbols in a structural argument is also
a good thing. A better way to argue though, which is not to boil the ocean
but simply to say, "Instances are of no interest to me, let's t
> It's not clear to me which of these Marcus was responding to. But it
> seems like he was responding to (1) with the variation as a function
> of changes in perspective. But your teasing with (2) seems likely,
> too, from which I infer that our world-cutters are dynamic and can be
> complexified
It's not clear to me which of these Marcus was responding to. But it seems like
he was responding to (1) with the variation as a function of changes in
perspective. But your teasing with (2) seems likely, too, from which I infer
that our world-cutters are dynamic and can be complexified dependi
Well, bait and switch is a common, special, sub-category of the very topic, which is: the
map between how we (artificially) cut up the world versus how the world actually is. What
Alexander was pointing out was exactly that. Of course, when it's our preemptively
registered ontology that's being
: "friam@redfish.com"
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Posts from the Scotts
Glen -
I keyboarded a typically long and torturous contribution to this thread early
on, but decided to hold it back and look for a more succinct response. Some
high points, in summary:
1. Stick and Stones ...
2
Glen -
I keyboarded a typically long and torturous contribution to this thread
early on, but decided to hold it back and look for a more succinct
response. Some high points, in summary:
1. Stick and Stones ...
2. Passive-Aggressive modes/roles in Kolmogorov Models
3. Outlier identification wi
Well, sure. But you seem to be relying on some sort of ontological primacy for
the person/animal/organism. Processes like defamation or corruption (or their
opposites) are only different from processes like tissue remodeling or healing
in *scale* or degree, not type/kind. Both involve large coll
< Calling someone an "abuser" implicitly assumes that there are proper ways to
use people and there are improper ways to use people, which seems a little
silly when you say that out loud. >
That said, a physically weak person is entirely capable of abusing a
physically strong person if they ha
Yeah, I had the same reaction. But I lost to my own argument. Since Renee's been a grievance officer for her union, she and I've had an argument
about "violence in the workplace". She claims (and both the union and management agree) that harsh words and aggressive tone and body
language constitu
"She told me that sometimes she needed her boyfriend to do some favor for her,
and he wouldn’t, so she would cry – not as an attempt to manipulate him, just
because she was sad. She counted this as abuse, because her definition of
“abuse” is “something that makes your partner feel bad about sett
It was pointed out to me awhile back that I'd been relatively quiet. So, here's
an excuse to post! 2 posts by my favorite Scotts:
1) Against Lie Inflation
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/16/against-lie-inflation/
2) On two blog posts of Jerry Coyne
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p
20 matches
Mail list logo
