If you want to punch babies, then you should not punch babies. (x)
This is WillSawin_Should. NormalAnomaly_Should says the same thing, because we’re both humans. #$%^$_Should, where #$%^$ is the name of an alien from planet Mog, may say something completely different. You and I both use the letter sequence s-h-o-u-l-d to refer to the output of our own unique should-functions.
Lukeprog, the above is how I understand your post. Is it correct?
No. We both use the letter sequence “should” to direct our actions.
We believe that we should follow the results of our should-functions. We believe that the alien from Mog is wrong to follow the results of his should-function. These are beliefs, not definitions.
Imagine if you said “The sun will rise tomorrow” and I responded:
“This is NormalAnomaly_Will. WillSawin_Will says the same thing, because we’re both humans. #$%^$_Will, where #$%^$ is the name of an alien from planet Mog, may say something completely different. You and I both use the letter sequence w-i-l-l to refer to the output of our own unique will-functions.”
Normal_Anomaly’s ontology is coherent. What you describe regarding beliefs is also coherent but refers to a different part of reality space than what Normal is trying to describe.
I don’t understand what “ontology” and “reality space” mean in this context.
Here’s a guess:
You’re saying that the word “WillSawin_Should” is a reasonable word to use. It is well-defined, and useful in some contexts. But Plain-Old-Should is also a word with a meaning that is useful in some contexts.
I was trying to convey that when you speak of beliefs and determination of actions you are describing an entirely different concept than what Normal_Anomaly was describing. To the extent that presenting your statements as a contradiction of Normal’s is both a conversational and epistemic error.
This is WillSawin_Should. NormalAnomaly_Should says the same thing, because we’re both humans. #$%^$_Should, where #$%^$ is the name of an alien from planet Mog, may say something completely different. You and I both use the letter sequence s-h-o-u-l-d to refer to the output of our own unique should-functions.
Lukeprog, the above is how I understand your post. Is it correct?
No. We both use the letter sequence “should” to direct our actions.
We believe that we should follow the results of our should-functions. We believe that the alien from Mog is wrong to follow the results of his should-function. These are beliefs, not definitions.
Imagine if you said “The sun will rise tomorrow” and I responded:
“This is NormalAnomaly_Will. WillSawin_Will says the same thing, because we’re both humans. #$%^$_Will, where #$%^$ is the name of an alien from planet Mog, may say something completely different. You and I both use the letter sequence w-i-l-l to refer to the output of our own unique will-functions.”
Normal_Anomaly’s ontology is coherent. What you describe regarding beliefs is also coherent but refers to a different part of reality space than what Normal is trying to describe.
I don’t understand what “ontology” and “reality space” mean in this context.
Here’s a guess:
You’re saying that the word “WillSawin_Should” is a reasonable word to use. It is well-defined, and useful in some contexts. But Plain-Old-Should is also a word with a meaning that is useful in some contexts.
in which case I would agree with you.
I was trying to convey that when you speak of beliefs and determination of actions you are describing an entirely different concept than what Normal_Anomaly was describing. To the extent that presenting your statements as a contradiction of Normal’s is both a conversational and epistemic error.
You can write_underscored_names by escaping the _ by preceding it with a \.