check in

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / content / drafts / a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md

diff --git a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
index 85ef6c2..fdc264f 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
+++ b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
@@ -314,3 +314,9 @@ But if someone without a dog spoke, then they'd get pattern-matched as a partisa
 
 
 As far as I can tell, Professor, I'm just doing what _you_ taught me—carve reality at the joints, speak the truth, even if your voice trembles, make an extraordinary effort when you've got Something to Protect.
+
+"Beliefs about the self aren't special" is part of the whole AI reflectivity thing, too!!
+
+> decision-theoretically, it's also not their fault. They were all following a strategy that was perfectly reasonable until they ran into someone with an anomalously high insistence that words should mean things
+
+Sure: everyone in a conflict thinks they're acting defensively against aggressors infringing on their rights, because in the cases where everyone agrees what the "actual" property rights are, there's no conflict.