But it isn’t just social cues. It could turn out that we’ve all been misadding for a million years, including you. It might very well turn out that •• + •• = ••• . What? It looks wrong to you? Well you’ve just miscounted again.
The point is that even a statement as intuitively obvious as 2+2=4 should still be allowed to be overthrown.
The point is that even a statement as intuitively obvious as 2+2=4 should still be allowed to be overthrown.
I think including the idea of changing beliefs in this post was a mistake, for it’s not the point, but most of the discussion is spent on it. A belief as obvious as “2+2=4” should still have a reason behind it, the way you come to believe even the simplest things should be set up so that you’d believe them correctly, whatever they turn out to be, instead of having them fixed by the magical “a priori”.
We’re talking about completely different things here!
I was talking about “what if reality was actually like •• + •• = ••• and how would we know”. I wasn’t talking maps.
It might very well turn out that •• + •• = ••• . What? It looks wrong to you? Well you’ve just miscounted again. The point is that even a statement as intuitively obvious as 2+2=4 should still be allowed to be overthrown.
You wouldn’t believe how much brain hemorrhage this last statement is giving me right now. My map of the world says “If I lived in a universe where the territory is like •• + •• = ••• my brain and my map itself would start to disappear—they don’t, so my map can’t possibly be wrong about this”. It truly seems impossible to me that we could be wrong about the territory in such a fundamental way… I can think the words “oh sure I would update if I came across evidence to the contrary”, but every fiber in my brain screams “this is retarded, I exist and that’s why in our universe •• + •• must be •••• and nothing else, end of story”.
Cogito ergo sum, ergo •• + •• = ••••
On the other hand it seems easy to say that my map could be mistaken about the physical implications of the hypothetical •• + •• = ••• scenario but it’s just so… argh.
But it isn’t just social cues. It could turn out that we’ve all been misadding for a million years, including you. It might very well turn out that •• + •• = ••• . What? It looks wrong to you? Well you’ve just miscounted again.
The point is that even a statement as intuitively obvious as 2+2=4 should still be allowed to be overthrown.
I think including the idea of changing beliefs in this post was a mistake, for it’s not the point, but most of the discussion is spent on it. A belief as obvious as “2+2=4” should still have a reason behind it, the way you come to believe even the simplest things should be set up so that you’d believe them correctly, whatever they turn out to be, instead of having them fixed by the magical “a priori”.
We’re talking about completely different things here!
I was talking about “what if reality was actually like •• + •• = ••• and how would we know”. I wasn’t talking maps.
You wouldn’t believe how much brain hemorrhage this last statement is giving me right now. My map of the world says “If I lived in a universe where the territory is like •• + •• = ••• my brain and my map itself would start to disappear—they don’t, so my map can’t possibly be wrong about this”. It truly seems impossible to me that we could be wrong about the territory in such a fundamental way… I can think the words “oh sure I would update if I came across evidence to the contrary”, but every fiber in my brain screams “this is retarded, I exist and that’s why in our universe •• + •• must be •••• and nothing else, end of story”.
Cogito ergo sum, ergo •• + •• = ••••
On the other hand it seems easy to say that my map could be mistaken about the physical implications of the hypothetical •• + •• = ••• scenario but it’s just so… argh.