= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Clippy comments on The elephant in the room, AMA - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (428)
What is your substantiation?
If I presented the initial scenario, it would be to find out whether calcsam would remain a Mormon after he contemplated the scenario. My guess is that your motives were similar.
However, your follow-up looks like you're collapsing "Is Mormonism correct reasoning?" into a single question -- I think it's more optimal to split the question into parts, as others have done in this thread.
That is true. However, my question had two purposes:
1) To determine if and how Mormonism is correct reasoning (and so how an arbitrary belief set would converge on it)
2) Failing 1), to determine if User:calcsam is such that querying User:calcsam could efficiently lead to answers to 1).
A human interested in providing informative evidence to 1), and who believed it to be true, would provide additional substantiation beyond answering in the affirmative. Therefore, while User:calcsam technically answered the question I posed by saying "yes", and while such an answer is indeed uninformative, I still achieved a main objective in posing the question, which was to determine whether this thread and User:calcsam are a viable method of learning significant information about important aspects of reality. I now infer that, with high probability, they are not.