Do people still have value to you?

Your posts are welcome here purelambdaphi , but would you please use everyday English phraseology?  Not everyone here is familiar with your philosophical terminology as it is not commonly used in everyday speech. Everyday English would help more people to respond.

ArchaeC said:

Your posts are welcome here purelambdaphi , but would you please use everyday English phraseology?  Not everyone here is familiar with your philosophical terminology as it is not commonly used in everyday speech. Everyday English would help more people to respond.

ArchaeC said:

Apology accepted.

ArchaeC said:

Ah I see! AI is caught in a loop.

I get upset whenever new members find themselves being criticised for their autistic traits.

Differences in communication are a core feature of autism, and can include using more "formal, precise and technical speech":

NAS - Autism and communication

Regardless of whether or not any of us might find another person's style harder to read or to understand, to me "inclusivity" includes not criticising anyone's differing style, and not expecting / asking / requiring them to mask - including by writing differently than they prefer to.

This article also refers:

"A lot of autistic people have grown up being told that they are aliens, or that they sound like robots, or there’s just something wrong with them,” Young says. When ChatGPT came along, they “quickly realized that it kind of sounded like I do”—logical and specific."

Wired - For Some Autistic People, ChatGPT Is a Lifeline

Bunny said:

I get upset whenever new members find themselves being criticised for their autistic traits.

I'm not sure it is fair to accuse ArchaeC  of criticising - I would see this as a request for using a communication style that others can access while explaining why this is necesary.

As an autist I have needed this sort of prompt to enable me to work in groups interactions in the past and I think this would be very helpful to the OP here as their communication style is sufficiently obtuse as to be excluding of most ofthers here.

purelambdaphi said:

I don't know what you mean when you say, "Your style of writing initially seemed more appropriate to a 2nd year university psychology dissertation."

I'll illustrate some of the sentences you have used and what I believe you will find the vast majority of the population would use instead. Please note this is not criticism, just explaining it to potentially see why there may be a communication gap happening.

I made no normative claims

I didn't make claims about standards

I hope I haven't caused you to believe interactions with me are generally likely to become adversarial

I hope you don't think I have lots of arguements

I'll specifically use terms as understood under my semantics of value

I'll tell you what it means to me.

I was using the term in its set-theoretical sense.

I was using the term how it was meant to be used.

To give a pertinent material example: the set F of people who are also your friends (set "friends", hereafter) is explicitly smaller than the set H of all people in general. Hence, by definition, the relevant set "friends" is a proper subset of the set of all people.

I'm not sure I can imagine this being part of a regular conversation to be honest. It was this sort of writing that led to me description of university conversations.

I guess a lot of this is finding ways to say simply what you mean by using more common words. They may lack the specific meaning you want but they are more likely to be understood and possibly replied to but those you talk to.

I hope it is of some use to you. i'll stop now as making more examples can feel like negative rather than positive criticism.

My intention is to be understood, and that's what I suspect I aimed to accomplish. I don't know what you mean when you say, "Your style of writing initially seemed more appropriate to a 2nd year university psychology dissertation."

The only words I used that I would expect, in some level, would seem confusing to people is "non/instrumental" or "moral/social value". And I did offer clarification by examples to the one I anticipated people would likely find most difficult to understand.

I'm open to clarifying any term or reasoning further upon request.

My intention is to be understood, and that's what I suspect I aimed to accomplish. I don't know what you mean when you say, "Your style of writing initially seemed more appropriate to a 2nd year university psychology dissertation."

The only words I used that I would expect, in some level, would seem confusing to people is "non/instrumental" or "moral/social value". And I did offer clarification by examples to the one I anticipated people would likely find most difficult to understand.

I'm open to clarifying any term or reasoning further upon request.

purelambdaphi said:

I don't know what you mean when you say, "Your style of writing initially seemed more appropriate to a 2nd year university psychology dissertation."

I'll illustrate some of the sentences you have used and what I believe you will find the vast majority of the population would use instead. Please note this is not criticism, just explaining it to potentially see why there may be a communication gap happening.

I made no normative claims

I didn't make claims about standards

I hope I haven't caused you to believe interactions with me are generally likely to become adversarial

I hope you don't think I have lots of arguements

I'll specifically use terms as understood under my semantics of value

I'll tell you what it means to me.

I was using the term in its set-theoretical sense.

I was using the term how it was meant to be used.

To give a pertinent material example: the set F of people who are also your friends (set "friends", hereafter) is explicitly smaller than the set H of all people in general. Hence, by definition, the relevant set "friends" is a proper subset of the set of all people.

I'm not sure I can imagine this being part of a regular conversation to be honest. It was this sort of writing that led to me description of university conversations.

I guess a lot of this is finding ways to say simply what you mean by using more common words. They may lack the specific meaning you want but they are more likely to be understood and possibly replied to but those you talk to.

I hope it is of some use to you. i'll stop now as making more examples can feel like negative rather than positive criticism.