Or if you want to taboo true, “more likely to result in beliefs that accurately predict percepts.”
If I were to point out that my memories say that making some assumptions tend to lead to better perception predictions (and presumably yours also), would you accept that?
Are you actually proposing a new paradigm that you think results in systematically “better” (using your definition) beliefs? Or are you just saying that you don’t see that the paradigm of accepting these assumptions is better at a glance, and would like a more rigorous take on it? (Either is fine, I’d just respond differently depending on what you’re actually saying.)
If I were to point out that my memories say that making some assumptions tend to lead to better perception predictions (and presumably yours also), would you accept that?
I’d only believe it if you gave evidence to support it.
Are you actually proposing a new paradigm that you think results in systematically “better” (using your definition) beliefs? Or are you just saying that you don’t see that the paradigm of accepting these assumptions is better at a glance, and would like a more rigorous take on it? (Either is fine, I’d just respond differently depending on what you’re actually saying.)
The latter. What gave you the suggestion that I was proposing an improved paradigm?
Though the linked article stated that one only needs to believe that induction has a non-super-exponentially small chance of working and that a single large ordinal is well-ordered, but it did really justify this. It spoke nothing about why belief in one’s percepts and reasoning skills is needed.
If I were to point out that my memories say that making some assumptions tend to lead to better perception predictions (and presumably yours also), would you accept that?
Are you actually proposing a new paradigm that you think results in systematically “better” (using your definition) beliefs? Or are you just saying that you don’t see that the paradigm of accepting these assumptions is better at a glance, and would like a more rigorous take on it? (Either is fine, I’d just respond differently depending on what you’re actually saying.)
I’d only believe it if you gave evidence to support it.
The latter. What gave you the suggestion that I was proposing an improved paradigm?
You seemed to think that not taking some assumptions could lead to better beliefs, and it wasn’t clear to me how strong your “could” was.
You seem to accept induction, so I’ll refer you to http://lesswrong.com/lw/gyf/you_only_need_faith_in_two_things/
Though the linked article stated that one only needs to believe that induction has a non-super-exponentially small chance of working and that a single large ordinal is well-ordered, but it did really justify this. It spoke nothing about why belief in one’s percepts and reasoning skills is needed.