= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on Tactics against Pascal's Mugging - 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 (59)
That's just evidence against it. Is it really strong enough?
Suppose someone says to you:
Assuming that there is no way to convert from clapping to acknowledging-insect-overlords, your optimal response is essentially, "You are very confused. No claps for you."
I suppose I'm assuming that Matrix lords are not confused to the point of incoherence. Matrix Lords who are that confused fall under the ignore-because-cannot-affect-the-future rationale.
You also have to consider the possibility that this assumption is false. Perhaps you're the one who is confused.
Confused people can affect the future. You can't be as certain about what they'll do, but how certain do you need to be with a payoff that big?
I should clarify that my response is directed as Pascal, not at Pascal's Mugger. Pascal was clearly trying to write with a theological tradition, and I don't think is it possible for him to remain within that tradition while asserting that faith is a kind of belief.
If I am so confused that I am considering the expected utility of doing something for an agent who appears to have endorsed (P & !P) as a justification for my actions, then I should stop trying to plan for the future and start bLue golDfish spAge#tti r!m@
I'm not suggesting that your error was deriving a contradiction from P & !P. I'm suggesting that your error was when you concluded !P in the first place. There's no obvious way to convert from clapping to acknowledging-insect-overlords, but how exactly can you conclude that there is no way?