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.

TheOtherDave comments on Stupid Questions December 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

16 Post author: Gondolinian 08 December 2014 03:39PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (341)
Tags: stupid_questions

Comments (341)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 15 December 2014 03:56:52PM *  0 points [-]

Back in 2010, Will Newsome posted this as a joke:

Sure, everything you [said] made sense within your frame of reference, but there are no privileged frames of reference. Indeed, proving that there are privileged frames of reference requires a privileged frame of reference and is thus an impossible philosophical act. I can't prove anything I just said, which proves my point, depending on whether you think it did or not.

But isn't it actually true?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 15 December 2014 04:55:42PM 0 points [-]

What would I do differently if I believed it was true, or wasn't?
What expectations about future events would I have in one case, that I wouldn't have in the other?
What beliefs about past events would I have in one case, that I wouldn't have in the other?

Comment author: [deleted] 15 December 2014 06:54:19PM *  0 points [-]

I understand that this has no decision-making value. I'm only interested in the philosophical meaning of this point.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 16 December 2014 01:09:45AM 0 points [-]

Hm.
Can you say more about what you're trying to convey by "philosophical meaning"?

For example, what is the philosophical meaning of your question?

Comment author: [deleted] 16 December 2014 03:52:47PM 0 points [-]

That if we are to be completely intellectually honest and rigorous, we must accept complete skepticism.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 16 December 2014 09:36:12PM 0 points [-]

Hm.
OK. Thanks for replying, tapping out here.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 16 December 2014 08:35:21PM 0 points [-]

Maybe we could honestly accept than impossible demands of rigor are indeed impossible. And focus on what is possible.

You can't convince a rock to agree with you on something. There is still some chance with humans.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 December 2014 06:16:19PM *  0 points [-]

The Tortoise's mind needs the dynamic of adding Y to the belief pool when X and (X→Y) are previously in the belief pool. If this dynamic is not present—a rock, for example, lacks it—then you can go on adding in X and (X→Y) and (X⋀(X→Y))→Y until the end of eternity, without ever getting to Y.

This appears to be a circular argument.

Maybe we could honestly accept than impossible demands of rigor are indeed impossible. And focus on what is possible.

This is why I wrote this:

I understand that this has no decision-making value.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 16 December 2014 12:09:10AM 0 points [-]

It means you should learn to like learning other languages/ways of thinking.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit