4 ms·

> Why not? Because thats the exercise we agreed to practice; how to make a theory without assuming anything. I neither believe nor disbelieve this person, how

> Why not? Because thats the exercise we agreed to practice; how to make a theory without assuming anything. I neither believe nor disbelieve this person, how am I to use their testimony to construct a theory without taking it as some English words with particular meanings that are presumed to be presented in good faith as an accurate representation of their perspective? > Not quite the same way, because I can answer the "why not" question, and I'm pretty sure you can't. Ok how do you answer the “why not?” question? > How do you account for that consistency? Ok if I correctly understand you, you’re saying that I can infer a consistency between phenomena by observing that they appear to be similar. Is that an accurate restatement of your thesis?

lisper 6y ago
> I neither believe nor disbelieve this person, how am I to use their testimony to construct a theory without taking it as some English words with particular meanings that are presumed to be presented in good faith as an accurate representation of their perspective? By constructing all possible explanations you can think of for the totality of what you observe and choosing the one that seems most likely to be correct. Possible explanations include: 1. The world is more or less as it appears to be. Most words mean more or less what you think they mean most of the time. Most people usually give truthful answers to mundane questions. And so on. 2. The world is not as it appears to be, and the fact that it appears different from its true nature is all part of a grand conspiracy to conceal the truth from you. 3. The world is not as it appears to be, but the fact that it appears different from its true nature is not a conspiracy, it's just that you happen to inhabit a particularly weird branch of the multiverse where things happen to appear as they do against astronomical odds. 4. You are actually a butterfly dreaming he is a Chinese philosopher dreaming he has hanging out on Hacker News. 5. Shrimp noodles every second purple kilogram. 6. Bzork snoz biff boff. Constructing additional possibilities is left as an exercise. > Ok how do you answer the “why not?” question? Because I don't believe that you actually give any credence to the theory that people around you are shape-shifting space aliens disguising themselves as people as part of a grand conspiracy to prevent you from discovering the fact that you are a 13-dimensional being with super-powers who would take over the universe if you became aware of your true nature. In fact, I would give long odds that that possibility never entered your mind before I suggested it, and that you consider the idea to be completely absurd. > you’re saying that I can infer a consistency between phenomena by observing that they appear to be similar. Not quite, it is the appearance of similarity itself that I am asking you to account for. In general I am asking you to account for the patterns and regularities in your perceptions. I am asking you to account for the fact that you appear to be able to navigate your existence, to obtain enough food and shelter to survive, to avoid falling off cliffs and being hit by buses. I am asking you to account for the fact that you are engaged in this exchange, that you are interacting with some kind of device (or at least perceiving yourself to be doing so), the fact that the text you are reading right now make more sense to you than #6 above, and that I was able to predict that this would be the case.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Makes sense, thanks for breaking it down for me.

lisper 6y ago

> I neither believe nor disbelieve this person, how am I to use their testimony to construct a theory without taking it as some English words with particular meanings that are presumed to be presented in good faith as an accurate representation of their perspective? By constructing all possible explanations you can think of for the totality of what you observe and choosing the one that seems most likely to be correct. Possible explanations include: 1. The world is more or less as it appears to be. Most words mean more or less what you think they mean most of the time. Most people usually give truthful answers to mundane questions. And so on. 2. The world is not as it appears to be, and the fact that it appears different from its true nature is all part of a grand conspiracy to conceal the truth from you. 3. The world is not as it appears to be, but the fact that it appears different from its true nature is not a conspiracy, it's just that you happen to inhabit a particularly weird branch of the multiverse where things happen to appear as they do against astronomical odds. 4. You are actually a butterfly dreaming he is a Chinese philosopher dreaming he has hanging out on Hacker News. 5. Shrimp noodles every second purple kilogram. 6. Bzork snoz biff boff. Constructing additional possibilities is left as an exercise. > Ok how do you answer the “why not?” question? Because I don't believe that you actually give any credence to the theory that people around you are shape-shifting space aliens disguising themselves as people as part of a grand conspiracy to prevent you from discovering the fact that you are a 13-dimensional being with super-powers who would take over the universe if you became aware of your true nature. In fact, I would give long odds that that possibility never entered your mind before I suggested it, and that you consider the idea to be completely absurd. > you’re saying that I can infer a consistency between phenomena by observing that they appear to be similar. Not quite, it is the appearance of similarity itself that I am asking you to account for. In general I am asking you to account for the patterns and regularities in your perceptions. I am asking you to account for the fact that you appear to be able to navigate your existence, to obtain enough food and shelter to survive, to avoid falling off cliffs and being hit by buses. I am asking you to account for the fact that you are engaged in this exchange, that you are interacting with some kind of device (or at least perceiving yourself to be doing so), the fact that the text you are reading right now make more sense to you than #6 above, and that I was able to predict that this would be the case.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Makes sense, thanks for breaking it down for me.