The spirit of the Fun Criterion
See full discussionLog in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.If you have alternate suggestions, I'm of course eager to hear them!
My suggestion is to just stick with Deutsch’s terms. He is already using “the nearest existing term[s]” to what he means. That implies that there’s already a change (in usage, not in words).
Changing the words on top of his change is going to be difficult without moving further away from what he means, even if you explain your changes. It’s just going to confuse people and make the concepts harder to discuss, not easier.
You set out to make the concepts easier to discuss but I think you’ve inadvertently caused the opposite effect.
If I were having a technical discussion with DD, Lulie, or you, I’d stick with those terms, since they’re the most technically accurate and you already understand them. However, when explaining the different types of knowledge to people who don’t quite grasp it yet or struggle to picture what it is, I’ve found that these labels help. These labels already have a meaning that is more commonly associated to sensations in the mind.
Well, if you have empirically found that your new labels have helped you explain these concepts, then I’d normally be inclined to agree with you. But then I saw this part:
These labels already have a meaning that is more commonly associated to sensations in the mind.
But you use your labels with new meanings they aren’t commonly associated with. Like calling sudden sadness a drive, as I point out in #1704. Nobody would call that a drive.
Is this maybe because you’re not a native speaker? I don’t mean to get personal here, I’m just trying to look for alternate explanations.
I’ve added a comment on #1704 to clarify my point. I don’t think my English is the issue here. If/where we disagree, it’s more likely due to a gap in mutual understanding or an error in the substance of my knowledge.
Your new comment notwithstanding, I invite you to be more critical of your English. I’ve pointed out several issues already (which, to your credit, you did fix), and you’ve since made more mistakes (eg see #1729, and in a recent DM you wrote “criticizems”). A typo of that magnitude plausibly indicates deeper issues.
Again, I don’t mean to get too personal here – forgive me if that’s how it comes across.