[TODO: lit search or ask linguistics.stackexchange for literature on what gender/plural/case/&c. distinctions are for? Is it just the collision/ambiuity reduction, or is there something else? Oh, or Anna T./Elena might know]
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wqmmv6NraYv4Xoeyj/conversation-halters
-> anything that people are motivated to argue about is not arbitrary. It is being controlled by invisible criteria of evaluation, it has connotations with consequences
+> Appeal to arbitrariness - again, the notion that [word definitions are arbitrary](https://www.lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/) serves as a good example (in fact I was harvesting some of these appeals from that sequence). It's not just that this is wrong, but that it serves to cut off further discourse. Generally, anything that people are motivated to argue about is not _arbitrary_. It is being controlled by invisible criteria of evaluation, it has connotations with consequences, and if _that_ isn't true either, the topic of discourse is probably not "arbitrary" but just "meaningless". No map that corresponds to an external territory can be arbitrary.
+
+> _Appeal to inner privacy_ - "you can't possibly know how I feel!" It's true that modern technology still encounters some slight difficulties in reading thoughts out of the brain, though work is underway as we speak. But it is rare that the exact details of how you feel are the key subject matter being disputed. Here the bony borders of the skull are being redeployed as a hard barrier to keep out further arguments.
+
If Scott Alexander's "The Categories Were Made For Man ..." had never been published, would we still be talking about dolphins and trees in the same way?
when I was near death from that salivary stone, I mumbled something to my father about "our people"
-If we're going to die either way, wouldn't it be _less dignified_ to die with Stalin's dick in his mouth?
+If the world is ending either way, wouldn't it be more dignified for him to die _without_ Stalin's dick in his mouth?
[Is this the hill he wants to die on? The pronouns post mentions "while you can still get away with disclaimers", referring to sanction from the outside world, as if he won't receive any sanction from his people, because he owns us. That's wrong. Yudkowsky as a person doesn't own me; the Sequences-algorithm does
Maybe he was following the same sucking-off-Stalin algorithm internally the whole time (just like Anna was), and I only noticed it in 2016+ because the environment changed, not the algorithm? I doubt it, though (rather, the environment changed the algorithm)
http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/honesty-and-perjury/
+
+
+origins of the strawberry example
+https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10155625884574228
+https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154690145854228
+(Note: we can do this with images of strawberries! The hard problem is presumably inventing nanotech from scratch.)
+
+lack of trust as a reason nothing works: https://danluu.com/nothing-works/ shouldn't the rats trust each other?
+
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff