None of this requires that you pretend to know more than you do.

I don't have to pretend to know whether I'm in a simulation or not. I can admit my ignorance, and then act, knowing that I do not know for certain if my actions will serve.

I think of this in levels

I can't prove that logic is true. So I don't claim to know it is with probability 1. I don't pretend to.

But, IF it is true, then my reasonings are better than nothing for understanding things.

So, my statements end up looking something like: "(IF logic works) the fact that this seems logical mean... (read more)

Yes, if you can't solve the presupposition problem, the main alternative is to carry on as before, at the object level, but with less confidence at the meta level. But who is failing to take that advice? As far as I can see, it is Yudkowsky. He makes no claim to have solved the problem of unfounded foundations, but continues putting very high probabilities on ideas he likes, and vehemently denying ones he doesn't.

To say you "should" be moral is tautological. It's just saying you "should" do what you "should" do.

Ok. You sh... (read more)

Open thread, Jul. 25 - Jul. 31, 2016

by MrMind 1 min read25th Jul 2016133 comments


If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "