Robin Hanson wrote:
> "J. Maxwell Legg" writes:
Sorry I should have said I presumed it isn't what you meant, but should have; -
because it makes sense. At least you should have considered saying 'not rational'
instead of or as opposed to irrational; - this is from the point of view of the
trinary circuit. (1,0,-1 where rational = 1, not rational = 0, and irrational =
> >> It's irrational for the mind cores to agree to disagree about the
> >>rationality
> >> of either of their modules.
> >>
>
> >What I think you should be saying is that there is an inability to make the
> >measurements of irrationality because of the secretive person's unwillingness
> >to be measured.
>
> No that's not what I meant at all.
>
Are we talking about the same thing?