= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Rukifellth comments on Open thread, July 16-22, 2013 - 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 (297)
Brilliant, fantastic. I'll be incredibly happy if anyone can link me to a counter argument, because this has been weighing rather heavily on me. Why else would I rot13 this?
counter-argument to WHAT? As with solipsism, this doesn't seem to anticipate any different experiences. This means that literally every piece of evidence is neutral between the two world-views. Either the universe is the universe and not in your head or it's in your head and seems like a universe. Either way you can reliably get results from interacting it in certain ways. If the entire universe is a simulation in your brain it's exactly as complicated and you have as much control over it as if it wasn't. Why do you care?
To put it another way, there's no use considering the theory that a malevolent demon is in control of all the information you receive. Everything you know is because it wants you to know it. You can never prove one way or the other if it exists, so it may as well NOT exist.
Open Individualism.
Someone else already went that route, and I explained why Open Individualism wasn't like solipsism. The discussion ended after my response.
That difference has no effect on your anticipated experiences.
Not that I'm advocating the existence of zombies, but technically neither does having a zombie for a boyfriend. Eliezer Yudkowsky didn't knock-down the zombie possibility by talking about anticipated experiences, he knocked it down by explaining the logical impossibility,
I don't understand how saying that will make the concept go away.
The logical impossibility depended on how you couldn't have conversations about consciousness without it. If you're the only thing that exists how can I disagree with you about it? How did you learn about it from a philosopher?
Had I read the argument from someone else at an earlier date, I'd probably use an argument-from-difference like you are. Such a scenario is more than logically possible- I might have actually considered the problem in the past. I have no doubt that the person who had once disagreed with OI is me.
Do you want to take this to PM, if only to save on your karma?
Nah I've pretty much lost interest. Sorry. I don't particularly care about my karma except as evidence on average. The troll toll doesn't bother me. This issue is a lot less important to me because I'm not coming from a position of believing I'm the most important thing.
Neither do I.
In that case, can you direct me to any relevant resources?