All of Mardonius's Comments + Replies

Well, I was specifically thinking of this passage

The Great Reductionist Project can be seen as figuring out how to express meaningful sentences in terms of a >combination of physical references (statements whose truth-value is determined by a truth-condition directly >correspnding to the real universe we're embedded in) and logical references (valid implications of premises, >or elements of models pinned down by axioms); where both physical references and logical references are to >be described 'effectively' or 'formally', in computable or lo

... (read more)

Amusingly, this endeavor also sounds like your arch-nemesis David Chalmers' new project, Constructing the World. Some of his moderate responses to various philosophical puzzles may actually be quite useful to you in dismissing sundry skeptical objections to the reductive project; from what I've seen, his dualism isn't indispensable to the interesting parts of the work.

Isn't this, essentially, a mild departure from late Logical Empiricism to allow for a wider definition of Physical and a more specific definition of Logical references?

1Eliezer Yudkowsky11y
I don't see anything similar to this post on a quick skim of . Please specify.

But who self-identifies as a reactionary? That said, there are a number of large holes in the political question. A Left Anarchist is going to feel severely pissed off with having to choose between state socialism and anarcho capitalism.

Lots of people. I've seen a number of reactionary blogs discussed here, so there probably are several self identified reactionaries.

I agree, most personality traits can be aquired, even if they are heavily selected against genetically. But it isn't always desirable to do so, even if these habits are considered socially useful.

For instance, I'm naturally a night person, but I developed through self discipline, over the course of holding down a standard 9-5 job, a habit of 'early rising', even on weekends. This had, over a period of time, a seriously negative effect on my health and cognitive ability. Switching to a job that allowed me to revert to a more natural sleep cycle was a much b... (read more)

1Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) 12y
Agreed. Also, someone who has naturally strong self-control and feels guilty when they "slip up" can still develop a habit of not exercising and eating junk food. That doesn't mean it's a useful habit. Note: I think the "natural sleep cycle" problem might have more to do with social expectations than innate tendencies. For example, I work mostly mornings, including several shifts a week that start at 6 am. My sleep schedule is set at 11pm-7am, although I can fall asleep as early as 9:30 if I know I have to be up at 5:00, and I have a lot of trouble staying up for, say, parties. I miss out on most of the reputation-related benefits of actually going out with people my age...when I do, I'm usually a tired wreck by midnight. It seems to me that anyone who wanted to make more of an effort than I do to be social would necessarily sacrifice the ability to easily wake up early.

I believe Carnap is also primarily listed as a philosopher in wikipiedia, and he certainly counts as a major contributor to modern logic (although, of course, much of his work relates to mathamatics as well).

There is, of course, Tolkien. Though he gained fame for his prose rather than for, say, 'The lay of Earendil'

Simple! Tell them they too can follow the way of Lu-Tze, The Sweeper! For is it not said, "Don't knock a place you've never been to"

Perhaps it's due to the fact that TV Tropes' mission is essentially to perform inference on the entire body of human fiction, and create generalised models (tropes or trope complexes) from that data. In many ways, it's science applied to things that are made up!

speak for yourself Sir, I intend to live forever

-Jonathan Frakes, as William T Riker

A fine intention. But until we make the technology, we are still, after all, only mortal. "Had we but world enough and time But we don't So let's get on with it." -- Andrew Marvell, "To His Coy Mistress" (abridged)

Um, isn't the knowledge of many spurious arguments and no strong ones over a period of time weak evidence that no better argument exists (or at least, has currently been discovered?)

I do agree with the second part of your post about argument matching, though. The problem becomes even more serious when it is often not an argument against X from someone who takes the position, but a strawman argument they have been taught by others for the specific purposes of matching up more sophisticated arguments to.

Yes. This is discussed well in the comments on What Evidence Filtered Evidence?.

Hi, been reading this site since it split from OB, but have never commented, though on occasion I have been tempted.