Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8461713" data-attributes="member: 71699">If floating ASIs allow them more creativity, great. To say 'believes' evinces disbelief.Not a purity test, more a logical one. We frequently hit deadlocks on these forums around reported experiences, with no apparent way to resolve them. Poster A asserts experience X. Poster B asserts experience Y. Without access to each poster's inner state, or robust evidence to bring to bear from elsewhere (e.g. clinical studies of the experiences under contention) we seem to lack means to come to anything other than conclusions divided along the fault lines.I was thinking about the philosophical framings of possible worlds and pragmatism. While we might resist agreeing that in our actual world such-and-such is X, we can more easily agree that in a possible world it might be X. We can think about what that world would be like - the consequences of X being true - without having to commit to accepting that X is true of our actual world.In the case to hand, you might doubt that some players find floating ASIs allow them more creativity. But you might be prepared to accept that in some possible (alternate) world, there are players for whom floating ASIs do in fact allow more creativity. One can doubt something, while still accepting it is possible. That seems like what could be implied by the reserved wording you choose.EDIT So I am asking, could that be leveraged to come closer to resolving these kinds of deadlocks?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8461713, member: 71699"] If floating ASIs allow them more creativity, great. To say 'believes' evinces disbelief. Not a purity test, more a logical one. We frequently hit deadlocks on these forums around reported experiences, with no apparent way to resolve them. Poster A asserts experience X. Poster B asserts experience Y. Without access to each poster's inner state, or robust evidence to bring to bear from elsewhere (e.g. clinical studies of the experiences under contention) we seem to lack means to come to anything other than conclusions divided along the fault lines. I was thinking about the philosophical framings of possible worlds and pragmatism. While we might resist agreeing that in our actual world such-and-such is X, we can more easily agree that in a possible world it might be X. We can think about what that world would be like - the consequences of X being true - without having to commit to accepting that X is true of our actual world. In the case to hand, you might doubt that some players find floating ASIs allow them more creativity. But you might be prepared to accept that in some possible (alternate) world, there are players for whom floating ASIs do in fact allow more creativity. One can doubt something, while still accepting it is possible. That seems like what could be implied by the reserved wording you choose. EDIT So I am asking, could that be leveraged to come closer to resolving these kinds of deadlocks? [/QUOTE]

Verification