= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on A few misconceptions surrounding Roko's basilisk - 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 (125)
If a philosophical framework causes you to accept a basilisk, I view that as grounds for rejecting the framework, not for accepting the basilisk. The basilisk therefore poses no danger at all to me: if someone presented me with a valid version, it would merely cause me to reconsider my decision theory or something. As a consequence, I'm in favor of discussing basilisks as much as possible (the opposite of EY's philosophy).
One of my main problems with LWers is that they swallow too many bullets. Sometimes bullets should be dodged. Sometimes you should apply modus tollens and not modus ponens. The basilisk is so a priori implausible that you should be extremely suspicious of fancy arguments claiming to prove it.
To state it yet another way: to me, the basilisk has the same status as an ontological argument for God. Even if I can't find the flaw in the argument, I'm confident in rejecting it anyway.
...
Despite the other things I've said here, that is my attitude as well. But I recognise that when I take that attitude, I am not solving the problem, only ignoring it. It may be perfectly sensible to ignore a problem, even a serious one (comparative advantage etc.). But dissolving a paradox is not achieved by clinging to one of the conflicting thoughts and ignoring the others. (Bullet-swallowing seems to consist of seizing onto the most novel one.) Eliminating the paradox requires showing where and how the thoughts went wrong.
I agree that resolving paradoxes is an important intellectual exercise, and that I wouldn't be satisfied with simply ignoring an ontological argument (I'd want to find the flaw). But the best way to find such flaws is to discuss the ideas with others. At no point should one assign such a high probability to ideas like Roko's basilisk being actually sound that one refuses to discuss them with others.