Warrigal comments on It's not like anything to be a bat - Less Wrong

15 Post author: Yvain 27 March 2010 02:32PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (189)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 March 2010 02:31:37AM 1 point [-]

You've managed to confuse me. I suspect, though, that this analogy is relevant:

What is the probability that the text between the quotation marks in this paragraph is "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce id velit urna, ac sollicitudin libero. Phasellus ac rutrum nisl. In volutpat scelerisque justo, non congue diam vestibulum sit amet. Donec."? The prior probability of this being true is minuscule, looking something like 10^-60; therefore, you might as well rule it out now.

On the other hand, I suspect that we don't actually disagree at all. After all, you seem to be arguing for a position I agree with; I'm simply not sure whether you're arguing correctly or not.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 March 2010 11:40:27AM 1 point [-]

What is the probability that the text between the quotation marks in this paragraph is "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce id velit urna, ac sollicitudin libero. Phasellus ac rutrum nisl. In volutpat scelerisque justo, non congue diam vestibulum sit amet. Donec."? The prior probability of this being true is minuscule, looking something like 10^-60; therefore, you might as well rule it out now.

Prior to what exactly? I do have a prior for "a randomly generated ascii string of that particular length being the same as the string given". I wouldn't be able to know to use that as the prior unless I have already been given some information. Then there is all the knowledge of human languages and cultural idiosyncracies I happen to have. Which of those am I allowed to consider? It's hard to tell since, well, you've alreay given me the answer. It's a bit post for any 'prior' except meta-uncertainty. I would need a specific counter-factual state of knowledge to be able to give a reasonable prior.

(All of which I believe supports your point.)

Comment author: bogus 29 March 2010 01:09:35PM 0 points [-]

This seems to be a case of extraordinary claims are extraordinary evidence. It's like saying, "well yes, the fact that I have a brain is pretty extraordinary, but so what? I clearly have one". It doesn't distinguish between a Boltzmann brain and a brain arising normally via natural selection. So is your consciousness a Boltzmann consciousness?