The psychophysical argument seems intuitively wrong to me due to physicalist priors, and so the example of a physically identical world where all conscious experience is replaced by buzzing parses as an inherent contradiction. Doubt I have good reasoning for those priors though.
Whether intuitions are justified depends on the definition of justified? And intuitions? Actually, a lot of philosophical questions feel like that.
Quick clarification: I don't think that the goblins have any justification to "retain". My point is just that learning about the *origins* of their belief doesn't change anything. They're reasonable to ignore origins-based debunking arguments. But it doesn't follow that their belief is justified. It's unjustified for independent reasons.
Similarly with your believing that "100!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ends in a 9." What else do you know about that number? Do you know enough to be able to work out what its final digit (in decimal representation) is? If not, you obviously shouldn't think it ends in a 9. Whether the belief is a result of hypnosis is strictly irrelevant, and doesn't change what you ought to believe. But that's precisely because you shouldn't have believed it even *before* learning about the causal origins.
Nice read. I really enjoyed the א, ב, ג (though I didn’t understand if there was some joke that was particular to this piece).
The psychophysical argument seems intuitively wrong to me due to physicalist priors, and so the example of a physically identical world where all conscious experience is replaced by buzzing parses as an inherent contradiction. Doubt I have good reasoning for those priors though.
Whether intuitions are justified depends on the definition of justified? And intuitions? Actually, a lot of philosophical questions feel like that.
Quick clarification: I don't think that the goblins have any justification to "retain". My point is just that learning about the *origins* of their belief doesn't change anything. They're reasonable to ignore origins-based debunking arguments. But it doesn't follow that their belief is justified. It's unjustified for independent reasons.
Similarly with your believing that "100!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ends in a 9." What else do you know about that number? Do you know enough to be able to work out what its final digit (in decimal representation) is? If not, you obviously shouldn't think it ends in a 9. Whether the belief is a result of hypnosis is strictly irrelevant, and doesn't change what you ought to believe. But that's precisely because you shouldn't have believed it even *before* learning about the causal origins.