post by [deleted] · · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for


Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by curi · 2017-11-12T21:02:13.689Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You can find more discussion of Paths Forward in the comments here. It's higher quality than a lot of the discussion that happened at LW:

Also I made a video with some thoughts on my visit to Less Wrong (which I fear is wrapping up). It's informal and I don't expect it to convince anyone who was unconvinced by the written blog posts. But it has animoji! It's my first recording using anomoji! They're neat! 🦊💩🐶🐱🐔🐼

comment by Yosarian2 · 2017-11-13T10:28:51.848Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I was watching part of your video, and I'm really surprised that you think that LessWrong doesn't have what you call "paths fowrard", that is, ways for people who disagree to find a path towards considering where they may be wrong and trying to hear the other person's point of view. In fact, that's actually a huge focus around here, and a lot has been written about ways to do that.

comment by Gyrodiot · 2017-11-12T20:19:54.077Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

As I'm the one being answered to, a bit of context. A long discussion started on the #philosophy channel of the Slack group. For reasons irrelevant to the present discussion, I'm continuing the exchange on the website linked above.

I'm currently writing an answer to this. I do not claim to represent the LW community, though I'm trying my best to reflect the broad concepts and reasoning outlined in the Sequences, notably. Please correct any blatant inaccuracies in my prose, if you think it worthwhile.

comment by curi · 2017-11-12T20:50:43.139Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

FYI to everyone: The comments on empiricism and instrumentalism (the first link) are basically impersonal and apply to views of many LW participants. The material in the second link is more mixed, but probably some of the comments apply to you, dear reader.