From: Eliezer Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Mon Feb 03 1997 - 22:21:52 MST
Look, I'm just trying to establish a distinction between form and
content here. Everything you objected to is simply packaging for your
convenience and the convenience of our hapless readers. If I take away
the packaging, which is all that you're objecting to, what's left still
makes perfect non-circular sense.
And, in another note, I'd like to point out that your defense has now
completely wandered away from its earlier position that my definition of
"definition" - as opposed to "my definition of "definition"" - is
circular, and is now reduced to claiming that all definitions must rely
on pre-existing ideas. Again, how is my definition of "definition"
circular, as opposed to our discussion of it? Please do not object to
this paragraph on the grounds that _it_ is circular. I know this
paragraph is circular, but this is not my definition of "definition".
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://tezcat.com/~eliezer/singularity.html
http://tezcat.com/~eliezer/algernon.html
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
everything I think I know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:08 MST