= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ike comments on Rationality Quotes November 2014 - 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 (337)
Factually speaking, I think if you saw that happen, you would believe, regardless of your protestations now.
I don't think it's literally factually :-D
I think you're right. It's closer to, say... "serious counterfactually speaking".
Realistically speaking?
Unfortunately this still suffers from the whole "Time Traveller visits you" part of the claim - our language doesn't handle it well. It's a realistic claim about counterfactual response of a real brain to unrealistic stimulus.
I'll be sure to ask you the next time I need to write an imaginary comment.
It's not like anyone didn't know what I meant. What do you think of the actual content? How much do you trust faul_sname's claim that they wouldn't trust their own senses on a time-travel-like improbability?
Anecdotal evidence of the reaction of normal people to seeing something impossible:
http://www.bcgreen.com/comments/not_kansas.html
I wasn't the pedant. I was the tangential-pedantry analyzer. Ask Lumifer.
Your comment was fine. It would be true of most people, I'm not sure if Faul is one of the exceptions.