tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post3785794384528377216..comments2024-03-28T19:14:33.619-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: 1% SkepticismEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-33069793945714741582015-07-21T11:10:24.259-07:002015-07-21T11:10:24.259-07:00That was very nice, thank you.But I am again confr...That was very nice, thank you.<br><br>But I am again confronted with the search for THE solution. Perhaps it is instead a SEQUENCE solution. It's not necessary that Boltzmann's Brain construct us "as final product". It can be merely the kick-starter and Evolution finishes the job.<br><br>It's like saying I destroyed a two story house with a baseball. No, I threw the baseball into the snow at the peak of the mountain, that ball started rolling and picked up snow, such that the weight and velocity of the Earth's largest snowball . . . took out the house below. Though my baseball throw was required, it alone wasn't enough. The secondary contributing part of the rolling/adhering/growing snowball . . . completed the job.<br><br>Not all solutions are "single", some are "sequences". And neither part is right nor wrong nor complete. But parts of a whole.<br><br>The same "argument" occurs in Creationism vs Evolution. Why must it be "vs"??? Why can't the answer be Creationism + Evolution? I respectfully submit, it can.<br><br>Similar flaws occur in searching for "Energy Independence" (from oil). We can't use Solar Power, it only produced 15% what we need. We can't use Wind Power, it only produced 15% what we need. We can't use Wave Motion Power, it only produced 15% of what we need. But by my count, if we used all three, we're up to 45%. Why then is the 45% dismissed, because it's a multi-part (or sequential) solution, and solely because its not 'all in one'?<br><br>More possibilities might open up for your 1%, if you accept sequences as well as 'all in one' possibilities.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05185571559008215900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-81148288108699635612013-06-30T04:02:31.173-07:002013-06-30T04:02:31.173-07:00Perhaps when you lock yourself into vivid dreams t...Perhaps when you lock yourself into vivid dreams those percentages will change. <br /><br />When a brain evolves to the point that it can manufacture and conjure thoughts from the subconscious into the conscience it could be more plausible to discern which reality is our true reality or maybe just complicate things more. Perhaps we as individuals are not living a single reality at all but only part of a bigger reality. That we are all connected as one consciousness at a level we are not yet aware of. There are many primitive species of insects and even micro organisms that alone, cannot accomplish many tasks but as a collective are able to solve complex solutions.<br /><br />This may explain phenonama where groups of complete strangers find themselves at the same spot for the same reason, or how many people have the same ideas, dreams, inventions, cravings and more. I work at a resturant and come to notice that groups of people unknown to each other will order the same plates of the same entrees and when we finish that seating groups of other people will repeat the task only with different entrees.<br /><br />I am heading on the path that we as a species, are connected at a quantum level, or a level yet discovered, separated only by measures put in place to have us appear as a single, personal entity. it would answer a lot of questions and undoubtedly create moreblackboxdiseasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01077370906815662212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-78838795276348961952013-06-14T12:06:51.044-07:002013-06-14T12:06:51.044-07:00The part that caught me is how the skepticism affe...The part that caught me is how the skepticism affects decision making-- if you succumb, it tips you into "why bother with duty (weeds), indulge in pleasure (Borges)." Maybe your mind is working backward? "Weeding is a drag, I rather read Borges...and it probably doesn't matter anyway." <br />If so, you don't need esoteric alternative scenarios; the mundane 1% (or, more likely, 0.001%) possibility that your teenage son will weed tomorrow suffices to tilt you into indulgence. (Although, the esoteric scenarios are far more interesting and, thereby, make a better excuse.) <br /><br />I guess I'm skeptical that your skeptical bent changes your behavior in comparison to a more credulous you. $9,000,000,000 Write Offhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455548811771787363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-77234598560823645122013-06-02T02:19:07.674-07:002013-06-02T02:19:07.674-07:00Surety - if it's stupid, but you don't die...Surety - if it's stupid, but you don't die, it's not stupid.<br /><br />If you do die, you don't know you were wrong anyway.Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-25523762450466079692013-06-01T13:44:35.686-07:002013-06-01T13:44:35.686-07:00Possible: Only if the trials are sufficiently inde...Possible: Only if the trials are sufficiently independent and I can trust my memory!Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-58131901303223680222013-05-30T21:18:05.305-07:002013-05-30T21:18:05.305-07:00Hey Eric - tell me something. Wouldn't each mo...Hey Eric - tell me something. Wouldn't each moment of consciousness equal a lesser or - equal to the the parallel - skepticism vs. certainty that would be harder to offset a more built construct of conscious? That is to say, how can you be so sure you're unsure?Pactura Observahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04312077443316784070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-8765372845033231432013-05-30T13:03:35.770-07:002013-05-30T13:03:35.770-07:00Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Scott! I agree...Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Scott! I agree that there are reasons to worry that I might be vastly deluded in my psychological self-conception too, though I find that issue a little more difficult to finger than the three types of skepticism I mention above. In my post on "Waterfall Skepticism" I discuss the possibility that I'm a madman. I am also working on an essay on moral self-skepticism tentatively titled "How Do I Know If I'm a Jerk?" Radical eliminativism about consciousness and meaning/reference based concerns don't compel me as much, for some reason which I probably ought to figure out how to articulate!Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-2608720763278654842013-05-30T11:48:59.038-07:002013-05-30T11:48:59.038-07:00There's a problem here with the term, 'rad...There's a problem here with the term, 'radical,' I think, as well as a tension with your work on metaphysical crazyism. Metaphysical crazyism in the philosophy of mind actually *entails* radical skepticism, to the extent that 'radical' is taken to mean levels of incredulity of commonsense belief that the vast majority would consider 'crazy.' <br /><br />This is one reason I've never been able to muster much interest in the three brands radical skepticism you mention: they strike me as small potatoes when you consider some of the ways science is directly cutting against the grain of intuitivity. There's physics, of course, but for me the big elephant in the room is meaning skepticism. Has anyone noticed how many 'silent eliminativists' seem to haunt neuroscience circles nowadays?<br /><br />On a personal level this is the form of skepticism that I've been trying to escape for years. It often keeps me awake at night. Twinges of dizziness, nausea, are common... even prolonged periods of anxiety, something I imagine to be akin to derealization and/or depersonalization. <br /><br />Ever since I began reading cognitive psychology fifteen years ago, and slowly came to the conviction of human theoretical incompetence outside the sciences, I have been stricken with the conviction that, all things being equal, our prescientific notion of ourselves will turn out to be every bit as blinkered as our prescientific notions of the cosmos - with the added wrinkle that we're talking about modes of sense-making that constitute the mandatory frame of our ability to cognize ourselves at all.<br /><br />All in all, I probably spend less than 1% of my *time* thinking about these problems, but it's virulent enough to infect the other 99% of the time with the pervasive and corrisive odour of fraudulence.<br /><br />Like apples, it only takes one, particularly bad 1% to spoil the whole bushel! Scott Bakkerhttp://rsbakker.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-80242901689079587622013-05-30T07:58:16.196-07:002013-05-30T07:58:16.196-07:00@ Alexander: Thanks for the link. Weird stuff!
@...@ Alexander: Thanks for the link. Weird stuff!<br /><br />@ Michel: Still here! Or, maybe, here for the first time with illusory memories of having been here before.<br /><br />@ Anon: I agree, but since I'm only claiming 1% total for all scenarios combined, I don't think there's any inconsistency there. Obviously, it would be a problem to claim 1% for each of 101 mutually inconsistent skeptical scenarios....Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-86005784593631931812013-05-30T07:08:33.298-07:002013-05-30T07:08:33.298-07:00You wrote: Skeptical doubts stay in the classroom,...You wrote: <i>Skeptical doubts stay in the classroom, in the office, in the books. They don't come home with you.</i><br /><br />Check out <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk" rel="nofollow">Roko's basilisk</a> for an example that some people took home.Alexander Kruelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01642702020137086489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-44345992127275530862013-05-30T05:34:31.431-07:002013-05-30T05:34:31.431-07:00Anonymous: Fascinating idea: an Achilles-and-the-h...Anonymous: Fascinating idea: an Achilles-and-the-hare approach to doubt? But Eric's original piece states that he envisages his doubt growing to 50 or 80 % so I don't think your assumption holds. The poor man is at only 97% certainty already, 1% down for each of his scenarios!<br /><br />I sense a story in there: present someone with another skeptical scenario each day, until the sheer volume of doubt makes them stop wanting to live.<br /><br />No, Eric! Not you, You're real, Eric. Snap out of it!<br /><br />Too late. He's gone. A true martyr to philosophy.<br /><br />Please take note of that, class. If you're going to put a skepticism function in your AI, you must set the limit conditions at 1% and make sure the fail-safes kick in before your program shuts itself down. OK, that's it, don't forget the due dates for your term papers. See you Monday.clasqmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12812785541545674276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-16756134294353374002013-05-30T02:28:08.442-07:002013-05-30T02:28:08.442-07:00The more sceptical scenarios you give real probabi...The more sceptical scenarios you give real probability to, the smaller the probability you should give to each one, assuming you continue to have 1% credence in 'I am in some sceptical scenario'. If you're only seriously considering a Boltzmann brain scenario where you have existed for a few seconds, that gets all your 1% sceptical credence, but when you start to also seriously consider a particular simulation scenario, since you have no reason to prefer it to the Boltzmann one, or vice versa, you should only have credence 0.5% in each. There are very many conceivable incompatible scenarios - it may well be that you shouldn't end up giving any of them a credence large enough to calculate or comprehend, even if you allot more than 1% of your credence to scepticism (even if you go up to 99% credence in scepticism in general, all you have to do is multiply the number of sceptical scenarios you know of hundredfold, which is surely possible if you devote your time to it, and you're back where you started).<br /><br />So, the more sceptical you get, in terms of the number of scenarios you are willing to give any credence to, the less you should worry about the results of any particular scenario (that you will be dead in 5 secs, that things you remember and care about never existed, etc.). Since 'I am in some sceptical scenario' isn't very worrying on its own, if you are a committed sceptic you shouldn't have anything more to worry about than the rest of us.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-527997712911541412013-05-29T23:58:24.846-07:002013-05-29T23:58:24.846-07:00It is possible that all this is illusory. The REAL...It is possible that all this is illusory. The REAL reality is the universe in which the Boltzmann brain temporarily floats, or the 22nd century child playing the game, or the universe of the dreamer.<br /><br />But the mere fact that we have no way of choosing between those three alternatives shows that we have no access to those realities. We can speculate, but we cannot enter into them. There are a few movies where a character supposedly steps off the screen and enters the real world. Unfortunately, WE are stuck in the movie.<br /><br />So let's suppose for a moment it's the simulation scenario. You don't exist in the REAL reality, only in this secondary one. Your supposed past consists of lines of code and a data file. So do you. Well, then, what makes you think you have free will to decide to read Borges or not? It is predetermined by the coder and adjusted by the player. The best you can hope for is that your subroutine was hooked up to a random number generator somewhere along the line. Even your doubt itself is predetermined. The Boltzmann brain is in a similar position. If the particles had congealed slightly differently, your existence, including your doubt, would have been different, perhaps nonexistent.<br /><br />The dream scenario is more interesting. But unless one of the religions is correct in its prescriptions of how to wake up (Buddhism would make this claim), we remain stuck in the dream.<br /><br />But wait! "Dream" uses an analogy from *this* existence. So there are at least three levels of reality now: REAL reality, the dream-state that we cal normal wakefulness, and the double-dream that we normally call a dream. Even if you did "wake up" to the REAL, how would you know that there wasn't a fourth, REALLY REAL level above that? Skepticism just went to 1.1%<br /><br />I need a coffee. Thank you for reading, my imaginary friends.clasqmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12812785541545674276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-54394561240076526042013-05-29T16:21:45.572-07:002013-05-29T16:21:45.572-07:00Thanks. I'll think about your post. I have a b...Thanks. I'll think about your post. I have a book somewhere on the history of skepticism that divides the field into Academic and Phyrronic. It sounds like modern skepticism has branched out somewhat- I mean in addition to Descarteshoward bermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-27714973288328133052013-05-29T15:44:14.538-07:002013-05-29T15:44:14.538-07:00Yes, Howard, there are skeptics in non-modern, non...Yes, Howard, there are skeptics in non-modern, non-Western cultures too -- like Zhuangzi mentioned above.<br /><br />I agree that it's too easy for a skeptic to say "I doubt X, prove me wrong!" without any grounds for doubt. However, in the three cases above, I think there are at least some slender grounds for doubt. It's not as glib as just asking "why" until your interlocutor is exhausted or as asking for a proof of the reasonableness of deduction that doesn't assume the reasonableness of deduction.<br /><br />But the post isn't really intended to support those three types of skeptical doubt -- they are too briefly presented for that! Rather, my aim is to explore the consequences for someone willing to allow a modicum of doubt for roughly those sorts of reasons.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-9006785425036201702013-05-29T14:25:36.882-07:002013-05-29T14:25:36.882-07:00I went through a skeptical phase when young, and t...I went through a skeptical phase when young, and though your post has some plausibility, I am skeptical of skeptical paradigms for the mere reason that they may be chance artifacts of particular cultures such as our own. Of course in a computer simulated universe the simulated people come up with the idea of a simulated universe. It is too glib and my guess is that skeptical ideas should be more challenging and not become something of a sport. So, first research question: do non modern, non western cultures have their skepticism?Howard Bermannoreply@blogger.com