Can you give an example using a moral argument, or anything that would help illustrate how you take things that don’t look like they are Bayes’ law cases and apply it anyway?
The linked page says imperfectly efficient minds give off heat and that this is probabilistic (which is weird b/c the laws of physics govern it and they are not probabilistic but deterministic). Even if I accept this, I don’t quite see the relevance. Are you reductionists? I don’t think that the underlying physical processes tell us everything interesting about the epistemology.
Do you think of arguments and explanations as types of evidence? If so, how does that work? If not then I wasn’t talking about evidence.
In Bayesian epistemology, most arguments and explanations are just applications of Bayes’ law as discussed at http://lesswrong.com/lw/o7/searching_for_bayesstructure/ . Of course, ‘taking evidence into account’ is the same as using it in Bayes’ law.
Can you give an example using a moral argument, or anything that would help illustrate how you take things that don’t look like they are Bayes’ law cases and apply it anyway?
The linked page says imperfectly efficient minds give off heat and that this is probabilistic (which is weird b/c the laws of physics govern it and they are not probabilistic but deterministic). Even if I accept this, I don’t quite see the relevance. Are you reductionists? I don’t think that the underlying physical processes tell us everything interesting about the epistemology.