Hi, am back from the city, and a bit sleepy. I’ll try my best with my comment. =)
Michael:
I was not so much commenting on this specific post as on the whole series. Your example seems to me to boil down to a case of bait-and-switch.
Eliezer:
,,When people start violently arguing over their communication signals while they (a) understand what each other are trying to say″
Here the problem is already at full swing, and it’s the same as philosophers arguing about the “real” definition of X. As soon as you have managed to get your point across, any further insistance, or even “violent arguing” only shows lack of insight or sincerity.
,,and (b) are trying to do an inference that they could theoretically do as single players, something has gone wrong″
I see no problem about inferences as long as it’s clear to everyone what the inference is about (and nobody tries to sneak a switch later).
Hi, am back from the city, and a bit sleepy. I’ll try my best with my comment. =) Michael: I was not so much commenting on this specific post as on the whole series. Your example seems to me to boil down to a case of bait-and-switch. Eliezer: ,,When people start violently arguing over their communication signals while they (a) understand what each other are trying to say″ Here the problem is already at full swing, and it’s the same as philosophers arguing about the “real” definition of X. As soon as you have managed to get your point across, any further insistance, or even “violent arguing” only shows lack of insight or sincerity. ,,and (b) are trying to do an inference that they could theoretically do as single players, something has gone wrong″ I see no problem about inferences as long as it’s clear to everyone what the inference is about (and nobody tries to sneak a switch later).