memoir: Christmas party 2019 (to § end)

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / notes / a-hill-of-validity-sections.md

diff --git a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
index 967050b..f5452b3 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
+++ b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 blocky sections corresponding to an "event"—
-_ Christmas party 2019 (do this today, 22 October?)
+_ Christmas party 2019
 _ wireheading his fiction subreddit
 
 _ Sasha disaster (dedicate a day?)
@@ -7,6 +7,10 @@ _ the dolphin war (dedicate a day?)
 
 
 With internet available—
+_ Newtonmas
+_ link "Untitled" for Scott's anti-feminism
+_ my mother on "dolphins are intelligent"
+_ link to MIRIcult archive
 _ italics in _The Nation_ article quote?
 _ link "Hero Licensing" chapter of Inadequate Equilibria
 _ "not taking into account considerations" → rephrase to quote "God's dictionary"
@@ -45,6 +49,9 @@ _ dath ilan conspiracy references
 
 
 far editing tier—
+_ rewrite end of Christmas 2019 § with "optimistic about not needing to finish it", and then, "(It does not have a happy ending.)"
+_ post-Christmas conversation should do a better job of capturing the war, that Jessica thinks Scott is Bad for being a psychiatrist
+_ conversation with Scott should include the point where I'm trying to do AI theory
 _ Anna "everyone knows" we don't have free speech 2 Mar 2019, self-centeredness about which global goods matter
 _ footnote to explain why I always include the year with the month even though it could be inferred from context
 _ make sure to quote Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy before calling back to it
@@ -1526,3 +1533,10 @@ what's really weird is having a delusion, knowing it's a delusion, and _everyone
 you can't imagine contemporary Yudkowsky adhering to Crocker's rules  (http://sl4.org/crocker.html)
 
 (If you are silent about your pain, _they'll kill you and say you enjoyed it_.)
+
+4 levels of intellectual conversation https://rationalconspiracy.com/2017/01/03/four-layers-of-intellectual-conversation/
+
+If we _actually had_ magical sex change technology of the kind described in ["Changing Emotions"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions), no one would even consider clever philosophy arguments about how to redefine words: people who wanted to change sex would just do it, and everyone else would use the corresponding language, not as a favor, but because it straightforwardly described reality.
+
+
+Scott said it sounded like I wasn't a 100% category absolutist, and that I would be willing to let a few tiny things through, and that our real difference is that he thought this gender thing was tiny enough to ignore, and I didn't. I thought his self-report of "tiny enough to ignore" was blatantly false: I predicted that his brain notices when trans women don't pass, and that this affected his probabilistic anticipations about them, decisions towards them, _&c._, and that when he finds out that a passing trans women is trans, then also affects his probabilistic anticipations, _&c._ This could be consistent with "tiny enough to ignore" if you draw the category boundaries of "tiny" and "ignore" the right way in order to force the sentence to come out "true" ... but you see the problem. If I took what Scott said in "... Not Man for the Categories" literally, I could make _any_ sentence true by driving a truck through the noncentral fallacy.