= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dlthomas comments on Bayes Slays Goodman's Grue - 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 (120)
I don't see any reason such an object is likely to eat me when I'm walking around in the dark.
I don't see the relevance. Nelson's problem is about the general validity of inductive inference. Do you have a solution that doesn't depend upon inductive inferences?
Was this meant to be a response to my other comment? If not, I think one of us is missing the other's joke, but have no idea which one.
No, it was supposed to be a response to its actual parent. I assumed that you were (somewhat but not entirely) humorously suggesting that the problem can somehow be solved by some appeal to natural selection or the like.
Ah, no, I was simply making reference to the fact that the Zork games from way back when (the first was apparently late-1970's) would warn you,
... when you wandered into an unlit area.
I have seen something like
in someone's email signature, and been delighted by it. (Though I worry that part of my delight derives from smugness about getting the joke.)
Sorry, my mistake!
No worries at all; I just didn't want to invest the time trying to figure out how it related to my serious comment if it turned out to be a joke I didn't get, or vice-versa.