Whatever it refers to, my immediate reaction was that the “we” doesn’t seem to include me—which seems unfortunate, since—AFAICS—my usage is the more standard one. Anyway: your blog—lay down whatever terminology you like.
I thought it was OUR blog—as in our community and not Eliezer’s community.
And yes the more I think about it the more I think a FAQ which defines rationality as “we” use it needs this comment section.
I do not find Eliezer’s definition in itself sufficient. Defining rationality will always be a work in progress and new suggestions should be added. As I see it the present defintion limits itself to a mechanical rationality (as is Eliezer’s want) and excludes “searching”—the act of imagination.
http://www.odlt.org/ballast/pluralis_auctoris.html
Whatever it refers to, my immediate reaction was that the “we” doesn’t seem to include me—which seems unfortunate, since—AFAICS—my usage is the more standard one. Anyway: your blog—lay down whatever terminology you like.
Is this Eliezers Blog?!
I thought it was OUR blog—as in our community and not Eliezer’s community.
And yes the more I think about it the more I think a FAQ which defines rationality as “we” use it needs this comment section.
I do not find Eliezer’s definition in itself sufficient. Defining rationality will always be a work in progress and new suggestions should be added. As I see it the present defintion limits itself to a mechanical rationality (as is Eliezer’s want) and excludes “searching”—the act of imagination.