Dpar

Karma: 16

Dpar Aug 9, 2010, 7:27 PM
0 points
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)
Fair enough. So if, on your authority, the OP believes that reading about something is anticipated experience, does that not then cover every rumor, fairy tale, and flat out non-sense that has ever been written? What then would be an example of a belief that CANNOT be connected to an “anticipated experience”?

Dpar Aug 9, 2010, 7:19 PM
−1 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
“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.

Dpar Aug 9, 2010, 7:13 PM
12 points
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
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.

Dpar Aug 9, 2010, 7:10 PM
1 point
0
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)
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?

Dpar Aug 9, 2010, 7:01 PM
−5 points
0
in reply to: Oligopsony’s comment on: Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)
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

Dpar Aug 9, 2010, 6:44 PM
−4 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
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

Dpar Aug 9, 2010, 6:32 PM
0 points
−1
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)
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.

Dpar Aug 9, 2010, 6:06 PM
−1 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)
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

Dpar Aug 9, 2010, 5:41 PM
2 points
in reply to: RobinZ’s comment on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
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

Dpar Aug 9, 2010, 5:33 PM
2 points
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)
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

Dpar Jun 7, 2010, 11:27 AM
0 points
in reply to: RobinZ’s comment on: Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)
A belated thanks! :)

DP

Dpar Jun 7, 2010, 11:27 AM
0 points
in reply to: RobinZ’s comment on: Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)
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.

DP

Dpar Jun 7, 2010, 11:07 AM
2 points
in reply to: RobinZ’s comment on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
I presume that you have encountered liars in the real world as well. Do you, on that basis, habitually assume that a random stranger engaging in casual conversation with you is a liar?

My point is that pathological liars are a small minority. So if you’re dealing with a person that you know absolutely nothing about, and who does not have any conceivable reason to lie to you, there is nothing unreasonable in assuming that he’s telling you the truth, unless you have factual evidence (i.e. you have accurate, verifiable knowledge of ambulance policies) that contradicts what he’s saying.

DP

Dpar May 11, 2010, 6:57 AM
4 points
on: Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)
What about knowledge for the sake of knowledge? For instance I don’t anticipate that my belief that The Crusades took place will ever directly affect my sensory experiences in any way. Does that then mean that this belief is completely worthless and on the same level as the belief in ghosts, psychics, phlogiston, etc.?

Wouldn’t taking your chain of reasoning to its logical conclusion require one to “evict” all beliefs in everything that one has not, and does not anticipate to, personally see, hear, smell, taste, or touch? After all, how much personal sensory experience do you have that confirms the existence of atoms, for example?

DP

Dpar May 11, 2010, 6:36 AM
0 points
in reply to: tel’s comment on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
The author did not mention anything about an exceptionally high percentage of liars in IRC relative to the general population (which would be quite relevant to his statement) therefore there’s no reason to believe that such had been HIS experience in the past.

Given that, there is no reason for HIM to presume that the percentage of compulsive liars in IRC would different from the general population. YOUR experiences may, of course, be drastically different, but they are not the subject of discussion here.

DP

Dpar May 11, 2010, 6:22 AM
−1 points
in reply to: Sniffnoy’s comment on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
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?

DP

Dpar May 11, 2010, 6:20 AM
1 point
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
Which, as I said later on in the same paragraph, is irrational and unlikely behavior. Therefore, when lacking any factual evidence, the reasonable presumption is that that’s not the case.

DP

Dpar 14 Jan 2010 18:41 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: tel’s comment on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
The level of “trust” you have in a person should be inversely proportional to the sensationalism of the claim that he’s making.

If a person tells you he was abducted by a UFO, you demand evidence.

If a person tells you that on the way to work he slipped and fell down, and you have no concrete reason to doubt the story in particular or the person in general, you take that at face value. It is a reasonable assumption that a perfect stranger in all likelihood will NOT be delusional or a compulsive liar.

DP

Dpar 14 Jan 2010 18:36 UTC
1 point
on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
I don’t see that you did anything at all irrational. You’re talking to a complete stranger on the internet. He doesn’t know you, and cannot have any possible interest in deceiving you. He tells you a fairly detailed story and asks for you advice. For him to make the whole thing up just for kicks is an example of highly irrational and fairly unlikely behavior.

Conversely, a person’s panicking over chest pains and calling the ambulance is a comparatively frequent occurrence. Your having read somewhere something about ambulance policies does not amount to having concrete, irrefutable knowledge that an ambulance crew cannot make an on-site determination that there’s no need to take a person to the hospital. To a person without extensive medical knowledge there is nothing particularly unlikely about the story you were told.

Therefore, the situation is this—you are told by a complete stranger that has no reason to lie to you a perfectly believable story. You have no concrete reason (“read something somewhere” does not qualify) to doubt either the story or the man’s sanity. Thus there is nothing illogical about taking the story at face value. You did the perfectly rational thing.

Since there was no irrationality in your initial behavior, the conclusions that you arrive at further in your post are unfounded.

DP