He’s naive enough to reinvent LP. And since when was “coherent , therefore true” a precept of his epistemology?
TheAncientGeek
Karma: 544
You should do good things and not do bad things
You know that is not universally followed?
Not saying your epsitemology can do things it can;’t do.
Motte: We can prove things about reality.
Bailey: We can predict obervations.
Why would one care about correspondence to other maps?
It’s worse than that , and they’re not widely enough know
Usually, predictive accuracy is used as a proxy for correspondence to reality, because one cannot check map-territory correspondence by standing outside the map-territory relationship and observing (in)congreuence directly.
If “like” refers to similarity of some experiences, a physicalist model is fine for explaining that
We can’t compare experiences qua experiences using a physicalist model, because we don’t have a model that tells us which subset or aspect of neurological functioning corresponds to which experience.
If it refers to something else, then I’ll need you to paraphrase.
If you want to know what “pain” means, sit on a thumbtack.
You can say “torture is wrong”, but that has no implications about the physical world
That is completely irrelevant. Even if it is an irrational personal pecadillo of someone to not deliberately cause pain , they still need to know about robot pain. Justifying morality form the ground up is not relevant.
That’s just another word for the same thing? What does one do operationally?
I can also use”ftoy ljhbxd drgfjh”
But you could not have used it to make a point about links between meaning, detectabiity, and falsehood.
If you have no arguments, then don’t respond.
The implicit argument is that meaning/communication is not restricted to literal truth.
Let me answer that differently. You said invisible unicorns don’t exist. What happens if an invisible unicorn detector is invented tomorrow?
What would happen is that you are changing the hypothesis. Originally, you stipulated an invisible unicvorn as undetectable in any possible way, in relation to which I agreed that one could use an armchair argument like occam’s razor against their existence. Now you imply that they possible could be detected, in which case I withdraw my original claim, because if something could be detected, then armchair arguments are not appropriate.
My take is that the LP is the official doctrine, and the MWI is an unwitting exception.
Everyone builds their own maps and yes, they can be usefully ranked by how well do they match the territory.
How do you detect that?
In what way is “there is an invisible/undetectable unicorn in your room” not “useless for communication”?
Well, you used it,.
I can give you a robot pain detector today. It only works on robots though. The detector always says “no”. The point is that you have no arguments why this detector is bad.
Its’ bad because there’s nothign inside the box. It’s just a apriori argument.
That’s harder to do when you have an explicit understanding.
Yes, that’s one of the prime examples.
Do you think anyone can undertstand anything? (And are simplifications lies?)
Yes, I said it’s not a fact, and I don’t want to talk about morality because it’s a huge tangent. Do you feel that morality is relevant to our general discussion?
Yes: it’s relevant because “tortruing robots is wrong” is a test case of whether your definitons are solving the problem or changing the subject.
and also don;’t want to talk about consciousness.
What?
You keep saying it s a broken concept.
A theory should be as simple as possible while still explaining the facts. There are prima facie facts facts about conscious sensations,that are not addressed by talk of brain states and preferences.
What facts am I failing to explain?
That anything should feel like anything,
Proper as in proper scotsman?
Proper as not circular.
Circular as in
“Everything is made of matter. matter is what everything is made of.” ?
I also claim that meta-rationalists claim to be at level 3, while they are not.
Can you support that? I rather suspect you are confusing new in the historic sense with new-to-rationalists. Bay area rationalism claims to be new, but is in many respects a rehash of old ideas like logical positivism. Likewise, meta rationalism is old, historically.
, I haven’t seen any proof that meta-rationalists have offered god as a simplifying hypothesis of some unexplained phoenomenon that wasn’t trivial.
Theres a large literature on that sort of subject. Meta rationality is not something Chapman invented a few years ago.
But the entire raison d’etre of mathematics is that everything is reducible to trivial, it just takes hundreds of pages more.
You still have relative inscrutability, because advanced maths isn’t scrutable to everybody.
but claiming that something is inherently mysterious...
Nobody said that.
Obviously, anything can be of ethical concert, if you really want it to be
Nitpicking about edge cases and minority concerns does not address the main thrust of the issue.
“pain is of ethical concern because you don’t like it” is a trivial fact in the sense that, if you loved pain, hurting you would likely not be morally wrong.
You seem to be hinting that the only problem is going against preferences. That theory is contentious.
is “the concept of preference is simpler than the concept of consciousness”, w
The simplest theory is that nothing exists. A theory should be as simple as possible while still explaining the facts. There are prima facie facts facts about conscious sensations,that are not addressed by talk of brain states and preferences.
“consciousness is generally not necessary to explain morality”, which is more of an opinion.
That is not a fact, and you have done nothing to argue it, saying instead that you don;t want to talk about morality and also don;’t want to talk about consciousness.
Of course, now I’ll say that I need “sensation” defined.
Of course, I’ll need “defined” defined. Do you see how silly this its? You are happy to use 99% of the words in English, and you only complain about the ones that don’t fit your apriori ontology. It’s a form of question-begging.
. That’s because I have never considered “Is X a concept” to be an interesting question.
You used the word , surely you meant something by it.
At that point proper definitions become necessary.
Proper as in proper scotsman?
What is stopping me from assigning them truth values?
The fact that you can’t understand them.
You may prefer “for meaningless statements there are no arguments in favor or against them”, but for statements “X exists”, Occam’s razor is often a good counter-argument.
If you cant understand a statement as exerting the existence of something, it isn’t meaningless by my definition. What I have asserted makes sense with my definiions. If you are interpreting in terms of your own definitions....don’t.
I want you to decide whether “there is an invisible/undetectable unicorn in your room” is meaningless or false.
I think it is false by occam;’s razor, which automaticaly means it is meaningful, beause it it were meanignless I would not know how to apply occam’s razor or anything else to it.
This started when you said that “robots don’t feel pain” does not follow from “we have no arguments suggesting that maybe ‘robot pain’ could be something measurable”. I’m trying to understand why not
Because it needs premises along the lines of “what is not measurable is meaningless” and “what is meaningless is false”, but you have not been able to argue for either (except by gerrymandered definitions).
Does “invisible unicorns do not exist” not follow from “invisible unicorns cannot be detected in any way?”
There’s an important difference between stipulating something to be indetectable … in any way, forever … and having contingent evidence that we cannot detect something at time T. What happens if a robot pain detector is invented tomorrow? Then you would have doen the thing people are always accusing philosophers of doing: you would have an armchair argument, based on wordplay that is “true” in some way that has nothing to do with reality.
Those sound like fixable problems.