3 ms·

I probably was moving goalposts, but it's just one of those issues where it's hard to communicate with each other. I guess i'm not very good at visualising othe

I probably was moving goalposts, but it's just one of those issues where it's hard to communicate with each other. I guess i'm not very good at visualising other people's experiences :p

JshWright 6y ago
I guess I should clarify that I don't think you were arguing in bad-faith ("moving the goalposts" is a bit a of a charged phrase in the current political climate). I appreciate the conversation!
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  It's frustrating that so few people argue on simulacrum level 1. (Reference: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-and-subjectivity?commentId=JTcLcW8tcBQwmRJPu https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-...) Moving the goalposts is bad arguing. Bad arguing is often due to bad-faith arguing; but good arguing is hard, so it's also often accidental. Yet, people equate pointing out flaws in an argument with accusations of intellectual dishonesty: it's been politicised.
  - jooize 6y ago
    Thank you for these thoughts and that link. Spent an hour reading there, the article[1], and about The Gervais Principle[2]. [1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-and-subjectivity https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-... [2]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
function_seven 6y ago
So we have a meta-problem of different abilities to visualize or imagine the concepts of visualization :) Sorry, but this is too funny. There's some sort of fundamental difficulty when humans are trying to compare their varying (or not?) qualia. Like those stoner-philosphy questions. ("Is the 'red' I see the same hue as the 'red' you see? How would we ever know??") There's an element of that unsolvable problem here; of knowing whether the other person is describing their internal mental state using the same definitions as you are.

I probably was moving goalposts, but it's just one of those issues where it's hard to communicate with each other. I guess i'm not very good at visualising other people's experiences :p

JshWright 6y ago

I guess I should clarify that I don't think you were arguing in bad-faith ("moving the goalposts" is a bit a of a charged phrase in the current political climate). I appreciate the conversation!

wizzwizz4 6y ago
It's frustrating that so few people argue on simulacrum level 1. (Reference: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-and-subjectivity?commentId=JTcLcW8tcBQwmRJPu https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-...) Moving the goalposts is bad arguing. Bad arguing is often due to bad-faith arguing; but good arguing is hard, so it's also often accidental. Yet, people equate pointing out flaws in an argument with accusations of intellectual dishonesty: it's been politicised.
- jooize 6y ago
  Thank you for these thoughts and that link. Spent an hour reading there, the article[1], and about The Gervais Principle[2]. [1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-and-subjectivity https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-... [2]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

function_seven 6y ago

So we have a meta-problem of different abilities to visualize or imagine the concepts of visualization :) Sorry, but this is too funny. There's some sort of fundamental difficulty when humans are trying to compare their varying (or not?) qualia. Like those stoner-philosphy questions. ("Is the 'red' I see the same hue as the 'red' you see? How would we ever know??") There's an element of that unsolvable problem here; of knowing whether the other person is describing their internal mental state using the same definitions as you are.