Vaniver comments on Bayes Slays Goodman's Grue - Less Wrong

0 Post author: potato 17 November 2011 10:45AM

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

Comments (120)

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

Comment author: Vaniver 17 November 2011 03:39:59AM 2 points [-]

The theory holds that the world consists of ultimate logical "facts" (or "atoms") that cannot be broken down any further.

(from wikipedia) For "green" to be atomic, that suggests it cannot be broken down. Are you suggesting that "green" cannot be broken down to statements about energies of photons?

Comment author: potato 17 November 2011 03:41:54AM 2 points [-]

No, I just mean that (or goodman just means that) if we assume the meanings of grue and bleen, then we have to define green in terms of grue and bleen and a time interval.

Comment author: Vaniver 17 November 2011 04:18:42AM 9 points [-]

But where can I find grue and bleen? If knowledge of them were deleted from my memory, would I reform those concepts?

If you deleted my knowledge of color, but left me my eyes, I could still distinguish between photons of 2.75 eV and photons of 2.3 eV. That's a difference you can find outside you and that persists.

Comment author: potato 17 November 2011 06:01:15AM 2 points [-]

right, thats the point, to solve the problem, you have to move into semantics.