= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Collaborative Truth-Seeking - 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 (17)
Do you claim that accepting MWI is a necessary part of rationality and/or do you claim that there is empirical difference between an MWI world and a Copenhagen world?
I should have been more clear: I meant debates between candidates, e.g. debates between candidates for the presidency of the United States. Clearly you want to win such a debate rather than truth-seek, and clearly your goals aren't exactly trivial.
Sorry to bring in MWI - it is how I model actions and decisions, but it's not necessary to the conversation.
Agreed, and I was unclear above. Many times you want to "win" by convincing people to follow you, even if you are encouraging untruth in them. You still benefit by knowing the truth, as it will help you manipulate them. I'd argue that this drifts from rationality to ethics pretty quickly, but you're absolutely right: the point of debate may not be rational truth-seeking in the first place.