You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

argumzio comments on two puzzles on rationality of defeat - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: fsopho 12 December 2011 02:17PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (55)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: argumzio 13 December 2011 03:14:40PM *  1 point [-]

Those are only beliefs that are justified given certain prior assumptions and conventions. In another system, such statements might not hold. So, from a meta-logical standpoint, it is improper to assign probabilities of 1 or 0 to personally held beliefs. However, the functional nature of the beliefs do not themselves figure in how the logical operators function, particularly in the case of necessary reasoning. Necessary reasoning is a brick wall that cannot be overcome by alternative belief, especially when one is working under specific assumptions. To deny the assumptions and conventions one set for oneself, one is no longer working within the space of those assumptions or conventions. Thus, within those specific conventions, those beliefs would indeed hold to the nature of deduction (be either absolutely true or absolutely false), but beyond that they may not.