I’m not actually avoiding you. I’ve picked a few comments to answer each day, and there’s a growing unanswered backlog. At some point I’ll go back and tie up loose ends, if I can figure out a way to do so that won’t drive everyone to exasperation.
The examples of prose held up as jargon-ridden or redundant seem pretty tame to me, and do actually say something. Consider that list of “constituting relations of consciousness”, for example. Every item in that list is either a specific relation that ties things together (e.g. simultaneity) or a structure held together by a particular relationship (e.g. a logical conjunction). The issue was whether or not the relations which make up a conscious state can be identified with physical relations, and I was providing a partial inventory of the relations in question. Without such a list there was no prospect of a real discussion.
Similarly, in the comment above which Robin Z dismissed, I stated aspects of my position for context, answered her questions, and provided an evaluation of one of Eliezer’s articles.
You misunderstand the criticism of jargon. It’s not there’s no meaning, or redundancy, or you’re using them incorrectly. It’s that you’re making it unnecessarily difficult to follow, and thus causing any possible errors on your part to be less obvious yet seem more sophisticated.
As a rationalist, your beliefs should be taboo-invariant. If you can only communicate your ideas using rare phrases, you don’t really understand your own point; if you deliberately chose not to make it easier to follow, I have no sympathy. Either way, there’s no point to spending time considering your arguments.
Similarly, in the comment above which Robin Z dismissed, I stated aspects of my position for context, answered her questions, and provided an evaluation of one of Eliezer’s articles.
Strictly speaking, you didn’t explicitly answer my question about the videogame, but for the most part this is true. Nevertheless, I defend my response: the content of your response was, in fact, the assertion of the very claims I wanted you to defend.
You realize he can read this, right? :P
But seriously: Mitchell, drop the big words. We won’t think less of you for it.
Yes, but he generally avoids reading my comments anyway ;-)
But just for the record:
@Mitchell_Porter: You unnecessarily throw around jargon in these discussions. A case in point is the fourth paragraph here.
ETA: Word of advice: Never criticize someone unless you’d be willing to say it directly to their monad ;-)
I’m not actually avoiding you. I’ve picked a few comments to answer each day, and there’s a growing unanswered backlog. At some point I’ll go back and tie up loose ends, if I can figure out a way to do so that won’t drive everyone to exasperation.
The examples of prose held up as jargon-ridden or redundant seem pretty tame to me, and do actually say something. Consider that list of “constituting relations of consciousness”, for example. Every item in that list is either a specific relation that ties things together (e.g. simultaneity) or a structure held together by a particular relationship (e.g. a logical conjunction). The issue was whether or not the relations which make up a conscious state can be identified with physical relations, and I was providing a partial inventory of the relations in question. Without such a list there was no prospect of a real discussion.
Similarly, in the comment above which Robin Z dismissed, I stated aspects of my position for context, answered her questions, and provided an evaluation of one of Eliezer’s articles.
You misunderstand the criticism of jargon. It’s not there’s no meaning, or redundancy, or you’re using them incorrectly. It’s that you’re making it unnecessarily difficult to follow, and thus causing any possible errors on your part to be less obvious yet seem more sophisticated.
As a rationalist, your beliefs should be taboo-invariant. If you can only communicate your ideas using rare phrases, you don’t really understand your own point; if you deliberately chose not to make it easier to follow, I have no sympathy. Either way, there’s no point to spending time considering your arguments.
Strictly speaking, you didn’t explicitly answer my question about the videogame, but for the most part this is true. Nevertheless, I defend my response: the content of your response was, in fact, the assertion of the very claims I wanted you to defend.