flannel jesus

simplify the question as asked, instead of 100 blue eyes 100 brown eyes, think about the same scenario but 2 blue eyes 2 brown eyes

your reasoning is still based on nothing other than unenlighteneds reasoning, and he's already told you his reasoning is based on the guru saying some...

well I'm trying to talk to you about it but you have to actually engage lol. What does the green eyed person have to do with it? Why not just have 3 b...

you haven't justified that it does, is why. You keep begging the question. I do not believe it allows that. Do you understand that? I don't think it d...

if it's this one, then the reasoning is incomplete. Why is the green person relevant? "Green sees blue" so what? So does brown. Skip the inclusion of ...

there's many posts above. Which one is the one that demonstrates that?

You're saying "and yet" as if you've demonstrated that. You haven't

Clever. Obviously everyone could do that to their own eye. That's another loophole answer though - the real answer doesn't involve a loophole

I don't think it's sound or a coincidence. I don't think it's correct. I don't think there's any reason why the green eyed person being there, not say...

If it doesn't matter what the green eyed person says, why is his presence required at all?

it's definitely a difficult, and contentious, problem. I think the official answer is correct but we've already got disagreements here. If you don't m...

so just ignore the first scenario and imagine a scenario where there's 4 people on the island, perfect logicians, no guru, just 2 brown eyes 2 blue ey...

it should be obvious to you now, given unenlighteneds last post, that his reasoning is very much based on what the guru said

but they wouldn't. If the guru didn't say anything, and you don't start adding random things like telepathy, nobody deduces anything. If there's an is...

I have no idea why you're stipulating completely random things. They don't make any sense. Nothing in the description involves any telepathy. You only...

what? If there's only one guy with blue eyes, he would only know that the guru sees blue eyes if the guru told him. There's no way around that.

Not in the scenario with one blue eyed person they don't

but how would he know the guru knows that? The guru didn't say anything. He has no idea what the guru knows

how? How does the blue eyed person know they have blue eyes in that scenario? What's the single blue eyed persons reasoning in that scenario?

It's implicit in the first sentence. The first sentence of his reasoning clearly depends on the guru saying what she said. Please look specifically at...

ok so your reasoning is different from unenlighteneds then. Can you tell us what it is?

If you're saying unenlighteneds first step is the red herring, then that's fine, that means you have different reasoning from him, and so your conclus...

are you sure you know what I'm talking about when I say "the first step of unenlighteneds reasoning"? Because in that first step, in that hypothetical...

You said you base your reasoning on unenlighteneds reasoning. Step 1 of his reasoning completely relies on the guru saying what he said. Can you see t...

To be more specific, Unenlightened's first step of reasoning is If there was only 1 person w. blue eyes, that person would see no blue eyes and theref...

It's not the same though. The reasoning for blue eyed people specifically works because the guru said he sees blue eyes. He didn't say that about brow...

What's the reasoning for brown eyed people? Unenlightened gave reasoning for blue-eyed people

I've heard it said that the new information is in iterative referential knowledge. If you look at the case with only one person with blue eyes, him sa...

oh wow! you're a true hero

Now @unenlightened @LuckyR, here's the more tricky part - what new information did the Guru give them that they didn't already have?

? You two guys are good, I actually couldn't figure this one out myself.

Farmers get the benefit of socialism even if they vote against socialism, so they reap the rewards of socialism for themselves and deny it to everyone...

it means paste your reply into this website and click encode https://www.base64encode.org/ And send me the result that comes out below There's a DECOD...

QW55d2F5LCB5ZXMgdGhhdCdzIHRoZSBhbnN3ZXIhIFlvdSBmaWd1cmVkIHRoYXQgb3V0IHdpdGhvdXQgbG9va2luZyBpdCB1cD8gSW1wcmVzc2l2ZQ==

maybe base 64 encode your post and I can base 64 decode it

testing testing

that colour thing didn't work. I was wondering if this forum has SPOILER technology

nah the solution doesn't need to involve any work arounds like guessing and failing. There's a clean solution. I included this text from the author at...

They can count, but... so what? What's the logic? From the point of view of any person showing up to the boat, how has he logically deduced the colour...

every detail given is part of the solution. The fact that they all have the opportunity to leave exactly once a day is relevant to the final solution ...

none of these match the canonical answer but I would love to see your justifications anyway

I would wager that you think it's special and different because it's part of you, and you think you're special and different DNA is just chemicals. An...

it seems fairly obvious to me it's processing information. No? You accept that DNA is processing information - DNA is chemical dominos as much as anyt...

interesting question for you: Physicalism aside, if consciousness is fundamental, is there something it's like to be an LLM?

And this still doesn't follow There's no "if" when it comes to LLMs. Physicalism IS true for LLMs. They don't have souls. Everything they do and "know...

But you wouldn't be sure no matter what, period. There's no possible world where you would even admit the slightest possibility that it's understandin...

current LLMs convert inputs to outputs, just without muscles or physical sensation. Current LLMs make sense if signals - that chess gpt link demonstra...

I think it's the only tangible comparison we can make at the present moment. Whether they "truly understand" or not is... kinda inaccessible to us. Th...

I don't think the Chinese room argument is very good, to be honest. I think it misses the point entirely. I'll check out the second one.

So anyway, the claim now from you is, if physicalism is true then knowing everything about the physical arrangement of the book should allow you to un...