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.

J_Taylor comments on The Singularity Institute's Arrogance Problem - Less Wrong Discussion

63 Post author: lukeprog 18 January 2012 10:30PM

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

Comments (307)

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

Comment author: J_Taylor 23 January 2012 09:43:11PM 2 points [-]

I am aware of the Gettier Problem. I just do not see the phrase, "the ability to constrain one's expectations" as being a proper conceptual analysis of "knowledge." If it were a conceptual analysis of "knowledge", it probably would be vulnerable to Gettieriziation. I love Bayesian epistemology. However, most Bayesian accounts which I have encountered either do away with knowledge-terms or redefine them in such a way that it entirely fails to match the folk-term "knowledge". Attempting to define "knowledge" is probably attempting to solve the wrong problem. This is a significant weakness of traditional epistemology.

So perhaps Eliezer didn't create original solutions to many of the problems I credited him with solving. But he certainly created them on his own. Like Hooke and calculus, really.

I am not entirely familiar with Eliezer's history. However, he is clearly influenced by Hofstadter, Dennet, and Jaynes. From just the first two, one could probably assemble a working account which is, weaker than, but has surface resemblances to, Eliezer's espoused beliefs.

Also, I have never heard of Hooke independently inventing calculus. It sounds interesting however. Still, are you certain you are not thinking of Leibniz?

Comment author: Solvent 23 January 2012 11:04:46PM 0 points [-]

Still, are you certain you are not thinking of Leibniz?

ooops, fixed.

I'll respond to the rest of what you said later.