TheOtherDave comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (July 2012) - Less Wrong

20 Post author: ciphergoth 18 July 2012 05:24PM

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

Comments (843)

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

Comment author: TheOtherDave 14 September 2012 08:54:42PM 0 points [-]

how would a possibly insane person determine that insanity X is a possible kind of insanity?

Perhaps they couldn't. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Also, this approach presumes that your understanding of the way probabilities work and of the existence of probability at all is accurate. Using the concept of probability to justify your position here is just a very sneaky sort of circular argument

Sure. If I'm wrong about how probability works, then I might be wrong about whether I can rule out having X-type insanity (and also might be wrong about whether I can rule out being a butterfly).

Comment author: chaosmosis 14 September 2012 09:40:48PM *  0 points [-]

Perhaps they couldn't. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

I didn't think that your argument could function on even a probabilistic level without the assumption that X-insanity is an objectively real type of insanity. On second thought, I think your argument functions just as well as it would have otherwise.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 14 September 2012 09:56:13PM 1 point [-]

If it's not an objectively real type of insanity, then I can certainly rule out the possibility that I suffer from it. If it is, then the assumption is justified.