*Membership spots not really limited!
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 )
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".