= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Also, does my signing my comments offend you?
It hurts aesthetically by disrupting uniformity of standard style.
Fair enough. It's a habit of mine that I'm not married to. If members of this board take issue with it, I can stop.
So reading about something in a book is a sensory experience now? I beg to differ.
You are disputing definitions. Reading something in a book is a sort of thing you'd change expectation about depending on your model of the world, as are any other observations. If your beliefs influence your expectation about observations, they are part of your model of reality. On the other hand, if they don't, they are sometimes too part of your model of reality, but it's a more subtle point.
And returning to your earlier concerns, consider me having a special insight into the intended meaning, and proving counterexample to the impossibility of continuing the discussion. Reading something in a history book definitely counts as anticipated experience.
Very interesting read on disputing definitions. While the solution proposed there is very clever and elegant, this particular discussion is complicated by the fact that we're discussing the statements of a person who is not currently participating. Coming up with alternate words to describe our ideas of what "sensory experience" means does nothing to help us understand what he meant by it. Incidentally this is why I didn't want to get drawn into this debate to begin with.
Also -- "consider me having a special insight into the intended meaning" -- on what grounds shall I consider your having such special insight?
What's important isn't the number of degrees of removal, but that the belief's being true corresponds to different expected sensory experiences of any kind at all than its being false. The sensory experience of perceiving patterns of ink on a piece of paper counts.
Now you could say: "reading about the Crusades in history books is strong evidence that 'the Crusades happened' is the current academic consensus," and you could hypothesize that the academic consensus was wrong. This further hypothesis would lead to further expected sensory data - for instance, examining the documents cited by historians and finding that they must have been forgeries, or whatever.
If you adapt that position, then the belief in ghosts for instance will result in the sensory experience of reading or hearing about them, no? Can you then point to ANY belief that doesn't result in a sensory experience other than something that you make up yourself out of thin air?
If the concept of sensory experience is to have any meaning at all, you can't just extrapolate it as you see fit. If you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or touch an object directly, you have not had sensory experience with that object. That does not mean that that object does not exist though.
DP
I read somewhere that if spin about and click my heels 3 times I will be transported to the land of Oz. Does that qualify as a concrete reason to believe that such a land does indeed exist?
That indeed serves as evidence for that fact, though we have much stronger evidence to the contrary.
N.B. You do not need to sign your comments; your username appears above every one.
So the fact that something was written somewhere is sufficient to meet your criteria for considering it evidence? I take it you have actually tried clicking your heels to check whether or not you would be teleported to Oz then?
Also, does my signing my comments offend you?
DP
I stated that taking the OP's reasoning to its logical conclusion requires one to "evict" all beliefs in everything that one has not, and does not anticipate to, personally see, hear, smell, taste, or touch.
Right, but RobinZ was not arguing against this claim (depending on what you mean by 'personally' here) but rather pointing out that your reasoning was flawed.
For instance I don't anticipate that my belief that The Crusades took place will ever directly affect my sensory experiences in any way.
RobinZ pointed out that your belief that the crusades took place affects your sensory experience; if you believe they happened, then you should anticipate having the sensory experience of seeing them in the appropriate place in a history book, if you were to check.
If you thought that your belief that the crusades happened did not imply any such anticipated experiences, then yes, it would be worthless and on the same level as belief in an invisible dragon in your garage.
So reading about something in a book is a sensory experience now? I beg to differ. A sensory experience of The Crusades would be witnessing them first hand. The sensory experience of reading about them is perceiving patterns of ink on a piece of paper.
DP
Edit: Also, I think that RobinZ didn't state that as something that she believed, she stated that as something that she believed the OP meant. It's that subjective interpretation of his position that I didn't want to debate. If you wish to adapt that position as your own and debate its substance, we certainly can.
You misunderstand. Vladimir Nesov was not claiming that you don't believe that the author's intended meaning is ambiguous. Rather, he was claiming that your belief that "the author's intended meaning is ambiguous" is false, or at least not enough to constitute a good reason for stopping the discussion.
The point of calling speech 'human telepathy' in this instance is that you claimed there's no way to know what the author was thinking since we "can't read his mind". But there is a way to know what the author was thinking to some extent, so by reading your own reasoning backwards we therefore indeed can read minds.
I stated that taking the OP's reasoning to its logical conclusion requires one to "evict" all beliefs in everything that one has not, and does not anticipate to, personally see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. RobinZ responded by saying that the OP's point is less strong than I think. Since two (presumably) reasonable people can disagree on what the OP meant, his point, as it is written, is by definition ambiguous.
Where do we go from here other than debate what he really meant? What is the point of such debate since neither of us has any special insight into his thought process that would allow us to settle this difference of subjective interpretations? I believe that to be sufficient reason for stopping the discussion. I'm not sure what specifically Vladimir takes issue with here.
As to your point of human telepathy -- comparing reading what someone wrote to reading his mind is a very big stretch. I can see how you could make that argument if you get really technical with word definitions, but I think that it is generally accepted that reading what a person wrote on a computer screen and reading his mind are two very different things.
DP
I think at this point the questions have become (a) "how many bits of evidence does it take to raise 'someone is lying' to prominence as a hypothesis?" and (b) "how many bits of evidence can I assign to 'someone is lying' after evaluating the probability of this story based on what I know?"
I believe your argument is that a > b (specifically, that a is large and b is small), where the post asserts that a < b. I'm not going to say that's unreasonable, given that all we know is what Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote, but often actual experience has much more detail than any feasible summary - I'm willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt, given that his tiny note of discord got the right answer in this instance.
My argument is what I stated, nothing more. Namely that there is nothing unreasonable about assuming that a perfect stranger that you're having a casual conversation with is not trying to deceive you. I already laid out my reasoning for it. I'm not sure what more I can add.
DP
I was going to write a more detailed reply, but then realized that any continued discussion will require us to debate what exactly the OP meant to say in his post, which is pointless since neither of us can read his mind. So let's just call it a day.
This is something of a fallacy of gray. Of course we can read his mind, through the power of human telepathy, by reading more on the same topic. We can't read minds perfectly, but perfect knowledge is never available anyway, and unless you can point out the specific uncertainty you have that decides the discussion, there is no sense in requiring more detail. You might want to stop the discussion for other reasons, but the reason you stated rings false.
First of all, calling speech "human telepathy" strikes me as a little pretentious, as well as inaccurate, since the word "telepathy" is generally accepted to have supernatural connotations. Speech is speech; no need to complicate the concept.
Secondly, the article you linked seemed a little rambling and without a clear point. All I was able to take away from it is that the meaning of words is relative. If that's the case then I respond with "well, duh!"; if I missed a deeper point, please enlighten me.
Finally, when you take it upon yourself to question another person's purely subjective reasoning, you're treading very close to completely indefensible territory. If I say that I wanted to stop the discussion because I believe that the author's intended meaning is ambiguous, it's a tall order to question that that is indeed what I believe. Unless you can come up with clear evidence of how my behavior contradicts my stated subjective opinion, you more or less have to take my word that that really is what I think.
DP
Belatedly: Welcome to Less Wrong! Please feel free to introduce yourself.
A belated thanks! :)
DP
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Yes. It's really sucky evidence.
This doesn't remotely follow and is far weaker evidence than other available sources. For a start, everyone knows that you get to Oz with tornadoes and concussions.
It makes you look like an outsider who isn't able to follow simple social conventions and may have a tendency towards obstinacy. (Since you asked...)
"This doesn't remotely follow and is far weaker evidence than other available sources. For a start, everyone knows that you get to Oz with tornadoes and concussions."
Let's not get bogged down in the specific procedure of getting to Oz. My point was that if you truly adapt merely seeing something written somewhere as your standard for evidence, you commit yourself to analyzing and weighing the merits of EVERYTHING you read about EVERYWHERE. Do you mean to tell that when you read a fairy tale you truly consider whether or not what's written there is true? That you don't just dismiss it offhand without giving it a second thought?
"It makes you look like an outsider who isn't able to follow simple social conventions and may have a tendency towards obstinacy. (Since you asked...)"
Like I said above to Vladimir, it's not a big deal, but you're reading quite a bit into a simple habit.