*Membership spots not really limited!

FROGMAN

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.

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".

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.

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.- The Outhouse. We're not CBR yet, but the mods are trying really hard.

FROGMAN

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.- The Outhouse. We're not CBR yet, but the mods are trying really hard.

FROGMAN

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.

FROGMAN

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.- The Outhouse. We're not CBR yet, but the mods are trying really hard.

Not a Kardashian

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.

Not a Kardashian

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.

penile prisoner

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

penile prisoner

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.

penile prisoner

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.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

penile prisoner

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?

penile prisoner

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?

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

FROGMAN

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.- The Outhouse. We're not CBR yet, but the mods are trying really hard.

FROGMAN

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.- The Outhouse. We're not CBR yet, but the mods are trying really hard.

FROGMAN

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.- The Outhouse. We're not CBR yet, but the mods are trying really hard.

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.- The Outhouse. We're not CBR yet, but the mods are trying really hard.

FROGMAN

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.- The Outhouse. We're not CBR yet, but the mods are trying really hard.