From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Thu Jul 22 1999 - 16:35:09 MDT
Paul Hughes, I strongly suspect that you and Crocker are using entirely
different definitions of the word "belief". You're defining it as an
assertion that is believed with 100% probability and is probably
emotionally supported. Crocker is defining it as a probabilistic
assertion, which probability is *not* necessarily 50% or greater, but
which *is* more likely (to within, say, an order of magnitude) than any
alternate assertions.
That's why I said that neither Crocker nor I "believed" in anything, and
why Crocker said that refusing to believe in anything is a form of moral
cowardice. I meant that certainties are unnecessary, and Crocker meant
that claiming to refuse all judgement (as to which of two assertions is
*more* plausible) is being afraid to say anything because you might be
proved wrong. (It's also dishonest; you can't avoid such judgements and
remain functional.)
Do you believe that you can't believe in anything? This strikes me as
being inconsistent.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/tmol-faq/meaningoflife.html
Running on BeOS Typing in Dvorak Programming with Patterns
Voting for Libertarians Heading for Singularity There Is A Better Way
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:32 MST