= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Wei_Dai comments on Metaphilosophical Mysteries - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (255)
Agreed, but I think it's also, "why do we have fewer self-shadowing blind-spots than we might expect, given what we know about how evolution works?"
And while you're right that we can't be sure at this point that we have zero self-shadowing blind-spots (philosophical oversights that we'll never detect), I think there's a reasonable chance that's in fact the case. ETA: My argument for this belief is that one possible reason why we have fewer self-shadowing blind-spots than we might expect is that there is a single "ability to philosophize" that is sufficient (given enough raw intelligence) to overcome all such blind spots.
The opposite explanation also works: we use so many unrelated heuristics that there's no single area where they all fail simultaneously.
If some of the heuristics are failing and some are succeeding, they are producing different results. Which process determines which results are correct? Should this be called "philosophical ability"?
(non-rhetorical questions)
It doesn't necessarily have to be cenralized. Some heuristics could have different weights than others, and stronger ones win out. Or there could be a reflective equilibrium among them.
...not that there's any evidence for any of this.