= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
potato comments on Bayes Slays Goodman's Grue - 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 (120)
If we take "green" and "bleen" as primitives, then it is the definition of "green" which requires the time interval, not grue.
But if we go down to the level of photons, "green" and "blue" don't require a time interval in their definitions, yet "grue" and "bleen" do.
What do you mean by "primitives"?
It seems to me that the only sensible primitives are photons, which have particular energies. A perception system that has two sets of mappings from energies to names and a clock is necessarily less simple than a perception system that has one mapping from energies to names.
logical primitives, look up logical atomism, take it with a grain of salt.
(from wikipedia) For "green" to be atomic, that suggests it cannot be broken down. Are you suggesting that "green" cannot be broken down to statements about energies of photons?
No, I just mean that (or goodman just means that) if we assume the meanings of grue and bleen, then we have to define green in terms of grue and bleen and a time interval.
But where can I find grue and bleen? If knowledge of them were deleted from my memory, would I reform those concepts?
If you deleted my knowledge of color, but left me my eyes, I could still distinguish between photons of 2.75 eV and photons of 2.3 eV. That's a difference you can find outside you and that persists.
right, thats the point, to solve the problem, you have to move into semantics.