tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post5985744692812897620..comments2024-03-25T11:49:21.281-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Wildcard SkepticismEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-48692862862003370702014-08-09T13:50:00.735-07:002014-08-09T13:50:00.735-07:00In a recent debate I hear and interesting approach...In a recent debate I hear and interesting approach to this problem. <br /><br />The suggestion was that you don't have logical access to determining the probability of these scenarios. This means that it is an act of defying logic to add them into your decision matrix in the same way as to defy logic more generally. So the logical answer is to just not do it.<br /><br />This was proposed as a way out of decision paralysis due to possible non zero probabilities of infinities that are potentially impossible to keep out of decision matrices.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-70672127890527070932014-07-25T08:38:22.240-07:002014-07-25T08:38:22.240-07:00I don't know about the proof, Howie, unless yo...I don't know about the proof, Howie, unless you think the "regress argument" works. (Search "regress argument" skepticism and you'll see what I mean.)Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-42196179301531678952014-07-24T20:33:38.994-07:002014-07-24T20:33:38.994-07:00I just like how goofy looks like an idiot in that ...I just like how goofy looks like an idiot in that picture, but at the same time that'd be bloody hard to do!<br /><br />Sorry, too much subtext - blame Scott!Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-72746892648158621912014-07-24T11:46:18.895-07:002014-07-24T11:46:18.895-07:00yes, but all the scenarios tend to sing as one voi...yes, but all the scenarios tend to sing as one voice in some force, external or internal, making our experiences illusory.<br />Descartes threw every doubt imaginable, in his first meditation.<br />Still your approach makes sense.<br />Could there be some kind of theorem like Godel's incompleteness theorem that says any worldview is subject to radical doubt?Howie Bermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-75589054880101756502014-07-24T11:37:46.341-07:002014-07-24T11:37:46.341-07:00Howard, I'm inclined to think it very much dep...Howard, I'm inclined to think it very much depends on the initial assumptions. That's part of what makes my "1% skepticism" view different from, say, "brain-in-a-vat" skepticism: It depends on there being grounds for doubt that are reasonable given the reasoner's intellectual starting point.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-27269621079559402842014-07-23T17:46:40.590-07:002014-07-23T17:46:40.590-07:00Does the specific form of skepticism matter less t...Does the specific form of skepticism matter less than the general thrust of the argument; namely the irreality of what we take as real? Just like there is math based in tens or twos, the essential argument is the same?<br />To what degree does the skeptical argument rely on the reality that is assumed to be the case initially?howard bermannoreply@blogger.com