A nihilist can still have preferences.
> On Oct 12, 2023, at 10:21 AM, glen wrote:
>
> I think that's an ideological stance, not a brute fact. The use of the term
> "better" is nothing but an "ought", which is difficult to derive from an "is".
>
>> On 10/9/23 10:07, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>
Yep. And the same is true with Frank's trolling about the well-definedness of truth.
Consistency, like reduction and isolation, is a fantastic tool but a bad master. When
Hanson argues that we must continue to have babies or risk the halt of innovation, it's
with a fixed backdrop, worldview. Ad
Glen -
I think I agree with this spirit... and the invocation of a
high-dimensional (but finitely so) landscape is not only the constraints
we live in, but in some sense the ones we *choose* to live in? I think
excess/sloppy meaning might be another term for a local/temporary
increase (or
Well, *if* one is constrained to inhabiting attractors to begin with, then a mechanism for hopping
between attractors is a "good thing". But I'd argue that this is a mere band-aide,
treating the symptom rather than the cause. The real disorder is the tendency to inhabit attractors
... or perhap
I think that's an ideological stance, not a brute fact. The use of the term "better" is nothing but
an "ought", which is difficult to derive from an "is".
On 10/9/23 10:07, Marcus Daniels wrote:
We are better off if the ones that carry demonstrably false claims are
proportionately devalued.
