Advertisement

Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

This is the main board on The Outhouse, where Outhousers talk about everything. No topics are off limits, and it doesn't have to be about comics. All the topics from the other boards also show up in The Asylum, so you never have to leave1

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Logged in users see WAY LESS ADS, so why not register? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

Spektre
User avatar
Great Scott!!!
 
Posts: 4452
Likes: 235 posts
Liked in: 341 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby Spektre » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:06 pm

PDH wrote:I'm going to try and avoid repeating material, here.



I've noticed that the more you come to realise the frailties of your position, the more you come to rely on intellectual condescension and bluster. Interesting.


Interesting hypothesis, but not one I concur with. Exploring it for a moment though reveals...

PDH wrote:Also, Spektre, in whatever thread you're on, you could stand to avoid making the Worst Argument in the World.
I think you really are the densest person I've ever encountered.
Nothing will ever penetrate his snake-infested, nuclear bunker of a mind.


...that your position must be exceptionally weak.


PDH wrote:The claim was that Bayes' Theorem (so sorry about misplacing my apostrophe before :roll: )


I just deduced it made sense given your misunderstanding of the theorem.

PDH wrote:describes how probabilities are altered in light of new information. This is significant because you think it's somehow a problem that consequentialists are rational.

You respond to me as if I was making the claim that we can derive the whole of Bayesian Epistemology from Bayes' Theorem alone. This isn't true, you need a couple of other assumptions, too, such as the claim that epistemic states can be represented as probability distributions. That's why most of the people who know how to use the Theorem are not properly speaking Bayesians and why merely knowing and having used the theorem does not make you an expert on Bayesian Epistemology.


Your double speak is in are form today. "That is why most people who know the Theorem do not know the theorem". LOL, priceless.

The problem you have seems to stem from a lay-person grasp of science. I suspected this in a previous thread when you made similar claims. The entire field of probability was not developed to claim information of certainty does not exist. A simple example to illustrate, the roll of two dice. One will often explain the outcome of this roll as a probability. Each of the 6 sides has a probability of 1/6 of occurring. Bayes theorem may be employed to tell me what is the probability that the total roll will equal a "7" given that the first die was "less than 3" for example. From a black box perspective, this is often all the information I need about the system.

It is in no way however meant to conclude that it is impossible to calculate the exact outcome of the role without probability. By knowing the initial states of the dice and the external forces acting upon them, you can with 100% certainty express exactly what the outcome is. The information IS knowable absent probabilistic models, and certainly absent time delayed information. I need not wait for the consequence of the dice roll to indeed know that this role is inherently a "9", or a "4".

Once again folks, note the sheer volume of words to say nothing to the fact that the consequentialist does nothing but kick the moral judgement one step down the road to make a arbitrary decision about an act's morality. The theory makes an appeal to an inherent morality and is thus not self-consistent.


PDH wrote:Once again, folks, note how Spektre just replaces his opponents arguments with more extreme and simplified versions of them because he has no response. I have explicitly described the difference between these two things and its relevance, if you can't respond to this you would be better off writing nothing at all then misrepresenting it.


Once again, note how PDH resorts to saying "I already did this", to try and distract from, "I didn't do this." His theory, when held up to scrutiny crumbles and he is left with "but I already proved that".
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Advertisement

Spektre
User avatar
Great Scott!!!
 
Posts: 4452
Likes: 235 posts
Liked in: 341 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby Spektre » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:08 pm

habitual wrote:You're falling behind Spek.



Hab


Not at all. You seem to be one of the few still over in the taxation isn't theft camp.
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Spektre
User avatar
Great Scott!!!
 
Posts: 4452
Likes: 235 posts
Liked in: 341 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby Spektre » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:11 pm

Thunderstorm wrote:
Assuming we are doing this in the US, in the modern world, starting tomorrow, and everyone has planned for this and it's all ready to go. There is no more United States. No more States. No more city government either, right? No more taxes, no more social services, no more regulations, no more laws, no more rights.

Who handles 9-11? Do we have a volunteer fire department go in and deal with this? Where do they get money for equipment and resources? Who maintains the fire hydrants? Who deals with the international aspects of this? Is it all Corporate? Because if it is, you're replaced the Goverment with big business.

What about Katrina? If this is a corporate controlled disaster, is it cost-effective to house low-income people who may not even be working? Is there a profit incentive to rebuild low-income neighborhoods? Is there any incentive at all to preserve the history or culture?

I really do want to know how these things would work.


I'll get to the meat of this (assuming PDH doesn't throw it somewhere) soon when I have more time, but to clarify before them. Are we doing this "tomorrow", or after "everyone has planned for this and it's all ready to go."? Those two don't seem compatible.
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Thunderstorm
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 18630
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 5 posts
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:24 am
Title: Whitest Poster 2010!!


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby Thunderstorm » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:23 pm

Spektre wrote:
I'll get to the meat of this (assuming PDH doesn't throw it somewhere) soon when I have more time, but to clarify before them. Are we doing this "tomorrow", or after "everyone has planned for this and it's all ready to go."? Those two don't seem compatible.


We can give everyone however much time they need, or do it tomorrow. I'm just suggeting this scenario happens as the world currently exists... not after a great disaster or anything.

habitual
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 18905
Likes: 134 posts
Liked in: 231 posts
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:41 am
Location: The Rock of Eternity
Title: Habinger of Doom!


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby habitual » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:27 pm

Spektre wrote:
Not at all. You seem to be one of the few still over in the taxation isn't theft camp.


If by few you mean many then maybe, and if by many you mean everyone then yes.

It's comforting that your eight year old nephew has a bat-shit crazy uncle. :D

Hab

PDH
penile prisoner
 
Posts: 7372
Likes: 49 posts
Liked in: 119 posts
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:10 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby PDH » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:28 pm

Again with this meat-throwing thing. It's puzzling.

PDH
penile prisoner
 
Posts: 7372
Likes: 49 posts
Liked in: 119 posts
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:10 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby PDH » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:47 pm

Spektre wrote:Your double speak is in are form today. "That is why most people who know the Theorem do not know the theorem". LOL, priceless.


You see what I mean about you just literally changing what people write?

"People who know the theorem often don't know or agree that it has the significance for epistemology that Bayesians claim," would have been a more accurate way of putting it.

Again, why must you straw-man someone's position? Do you not have a response to it?

The problem you have seems to stem from a lay-person grasp of science. I suspected this in a previous thread when you made similar claims. The entire field of probability was not developed to claim information of certainty does not exist. A simple example to illustrate, the roll of two dice. One will often explain the outcome of this roll as a probability. Each of the 6 sides has a probability of 1/6 of occurring. Bayes theorem may be employed to tell me what is the probability that the total roll will equal a "7" given that the first die was "less than 3" for example. From a black box perspective, this is often all the information I need about the system.

It is in no way however meant to conclude that it is impossible to calculate the exact outcome of the role without probability. By knowing the initial states of the dice and the external forces acting upon them, you can with 100% certainty express exactly what the outcome is. The information IS knowable absent probabilistic models, and certainly absent time delayed information. I need not wait for the consequence of the dice roll to indeed know that this role is inherently a "9", or a "4".


Probability in the Bayesian sense is literally a measure of uncertainty, Spektre. This is one of the principle differences between the Bayesian and Frequentist views.

Suppose we use cards instead of dice. The dealer pulls a card from a pack and places it face down on the table. He then asks you, 'What is the probability that the card thus drawn is the Ace of Spades?'

You answer, '1/52, of course.'

Now suppose we make it interesting. The dealer permits us to ask yes/no questions of him.

You ask, 'Is it from a red suit?'

He says, 'No.'

'OK, is it from Clubs?'

'No.'

And so on. After the first question, a rational person would hold that the probability that the card is the Ace of Spades is 1/26. After the second, 1/13. We got some new information about the system and had to update our probabilities accordingly.

If you deny this you are going to lose the game. The person who updates and acts on his new information will be right 1/13 times on average, the person who does not, will be right 1/52 times. See the Monty Hall problem, for example.

Because we have an account of knowledge (knowledge is a probability distribution) and an account of knowledge acquisition (Bayes' Theorem) Bayesians argue that between these two things we in fact have an epistemology. It allows us to measure how degrees of plausibility change in light of new evidence. This is not a new discovery. It's used all the time in e.g. cognitive science where it is literally what is meant by 'rational' and 'calibrated.'

You can reject this account of epistemology if you want but that won't change your probability of being right. That is determined by evidence.

But whatever, I don't need to make a case for Bayesian Epistemology here. Unless you're going to deny that we ought to change our beliefs in light of new evidence or something, your argument falls.

PDH
penile prisoner
 
Posts: 7372
Likes: 49 posts
Liked in: 119 posts
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:10 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby PDH » Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:03 pm

Spektre wrote:Once again, note how PDH resorts to saying "I already did this", to try and distract from, "I didn't do this." His theory, when held up to scrutiny crumbles and he is left with "but I already proved that".


I did already do it. I explicitly told you the difference. Your only response was to claim that the words were too hard for you to understand.

Let me make it as simple as I can: the difference between valuing something as an end rather than as a means to an end is very different from value being located inside objects rather than brains. If I value money because it can get me food like turnips that doesn't mean that turnips are inherently good. It means only that I don't buy turnips as a means to some further end (like me not wanting to starve to death or something). The value is still extrinsic in that if you like turnips that is a fact about your mind, it is not a fact about the turnips.

The turnips aren't radiating particles of inherent goodness, they're not glowing with an aura of mystical value. An alien that couldn't digest them or just a human that didn't like turnips probably wouldn't value them at all, because the value is located in their minds, not in the turnips.

This is why your criticism is totally irrelevant to things like preference utilitarianism and desirism. For example, on desirism the relationship between desires and states of affairs is where value comes from and the theory is concerned with what desires people generally have many and strong reasons to promote and vice versa. Do people generally have many and strong reasons to promote theft? No, quite the opposite. And so on. At no point does desirism require value to be intrinsic.

And you still haven't answered several of my questions of which this is the most pressing: what do you have that is more important than consequences? If your moral prescriptions make the world a worse place, why should I follow them?

adamiani
Snake On A Plane
 
Posts: 129
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 8 posts
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:55 pm


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby adamiani » Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:59 pm

Spektre wrote:
Not at all. You seem to be one of the few still over in the taxation isn't theft camp.


Seriously?
Do we need a show of hands?
Is anyone actually entertaining this nonsense?
Because you pretty much just ignore the social contract entirely.

Taxation isn't theft. Taxation is membership dues to a club to which you choose to belong, and are wholly free to leave if you don't like it.

adamiani
Snake On A Plane
 
Posts: 129
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 8 posts
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:55 pm


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby adamiani » Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:03 pm

Spektre wrote:
A minarchist. We have been through this.


So, go forth, found your minarchist utopia. It's not like there's a high barrier to entry, or a lot of organizational startup costs. Show us all how it's done.

Spektre
User avatar
Great Scott!!!
 
Posts: 4452
Likes: 235 posts
Liked in: 341 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby Spektre » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:53 pm

adamiani wrote:
Seriously?
Do we need a show of hands?
Is anyone actually entertaining this nonsense?
Because you pretty much just ignore the social contract entirely.

Taxation isn't theft. Taxation is membership dues to a club to which you choose to belong, and are wholly free to leave if you don't like it.


Silliness. Explain how you think in your world this would play out if you simply decided to no longer pay your taxes to the state.

Once again, the "social contract" occupies the same space as the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Spektre
User avatar
Great Scott!!!
 
Posts: 4452
Likes: 235 posts
Liked in: 341 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby Spektre » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:54 pm

adamiani wrote:
So, go forth, found your minarchist utopia. It's not like there's a high barrier to entry, or a lot of organizational startup costs. Show us all how it's done.


Ignorance on display again. There is a huge barrier to entry, unless you think terra-forming, say Mars, is an easy task.
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Spektre
User avatar
Great Scott!!!
 
Posts: 4452
Likes: 235 posts
Liked in: 341 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby Spektre » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:58 pm

adamiani wrote:
Seriously?
Do we need a show of hands?
Is anyone actually entertaining this nonsense?
Because you pretty much just ignore the social contract entirely.

Taxation isn't theft. Taxation is membership dues to a club to which you choose to belong, and are wholly free to leave if you don't like it.


That taxation is theft has already been settled. Of course it is.

"When you look at it that way, it's absolutely theft."
"It is theft, by a reasonable definition of the word but theft isn't always wrong."
and Jude of course advocates for theft as a way of life.

You're a shrinking minority
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Spektre
User avatar
Great Scott!!!
 
Posts: 4452
Likes: 235 posts
Liked in: 341 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby Spektre » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:59 pm

PDH wrote:Again with this meat-throwing thing. It's puzzling.


I cited your post explaining this to you before. "Real men go for the meat." or some such thing.
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Spektre
User avatar
Great Scott!!!
 
Posts: 4452
Likes: 235 posts
Liked in: 341 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Canadian, British, Swedish, Australian Posters...

Postby Spektre » Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:01 pm

PDH wrote:
You see what I mean about you just literally changing what people write?

"People who know the theorem often don't know or agree that it has the significance for epistemology that Bayesians claim," would have been a more accurate way of putting it.

Again, why must you straw-man someone's position? Do you not have a response to it?


You are conflating straw manning with de-obfuscating.
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

leave a comment with facebook

PreviousNext

Return to The Asylum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 54 guests

Advertisement