For example, the first link is of ‘Vladimir_Nesov’ writing a single, stand-alone, comment that is not about what is being discussed here. Nor was he asking the OP about tabooing a word.
Taboo “exists”. Does the physical world contain things you don’t see? Also, lack of absolute certainty doesn’t imply confidence in absence, one shouldn’t demand unavailable kind of proof and take its absence as evidence.”
If you are still confused about what is being discussed, or confused as to how to use the search tool, then I would suggest taking some time to reflect. As I’m unsure how to spell things out even more explicitly and directly.
He was asking the other commentor to taboo the word “exists”, and trying to get at the mechanistic interpretation in the second sentence—does it mean that the physical world contains things you don’t see?
I was asking you (the commentor) to taboo the word “weird” and asking a similar clarifying question—what do you actually think is true about groups that last a long time and their practices, without using the word weird.
It feels fairly isomorphic to me.
Anyways, I can taboo the word “taboo” in order to get back to the object level question here:
What do you actually think is true about groups that last a long time and their practices that must be true, without using the word “weird”?
I think this quite off topic, I was just interested in what you meant.
The first 3 instances I found in search all seem to be suggesting a specific person taboo something to clarify their meaning
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7LnwkPdRT67ybhFzo/subjective-realities#sv9jXE5S76sovEwt3
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QvYKSFmsBX3QhgQvF/morality-isn-t-logical#ENYAvvLJq3qkxo8Ak
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XqmjdBKa4ZaXJtNmf/raising-the-sanity-waterline#Y54j8fxZEjbpMWBvJ
Did you paste the correct links?
For example, the first link is of ‘Vladimir_Nesov’ writing a single, stand-alone, comment that is not about what is being discussed here. Nor was he asking the OP about tabooing a word.
“Vladimir_Nesov12y24
Taboo “exists”. Does the physical world contain things you don’t see? Also, lack of absolute certainty doesn’t imply confidence in absence, one shouldn’t demand unavailable kind of proof and take its absence as evidence.”
If you are still confused about what is being discussed, or confused as to how to use the search tool, then I would suggest taking some time to reflect. As I’m unsure how to spell things out even more explicitly and directly.
He was asking the other commentor to taboo the word “exists”, and trying to get at the mechanistic interpretation in the second sentence—does it mean that the physical world contains things you don’t see?
I was asking you (the commentor) to taboo the word “weird” and asking a similar clarifying question—what do you actually think is true about groups that last a long time and their practices, without using the word weird.
It feels fairly isomorphic to me.
Anyways, I can taboo the word “taboo” in order to get back to the object level question here:
What do you actually think is true about groups that last a long time and their practices that must be true, without using the word “weird”?