Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:15 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:14 pm What the fuck is this 'Earth' thing you are talking about. On the wrong hand you are talking about something you think you have a comprehension of...do you truly believe you have a grasp on the nature of reality...simply because you appear to be stuck on some firmament that pertains to a place you refer to as 'Earth'?

I don't have a grasp on the NATURE of reality. Anybody who claims to is lying. Because even science makes no ontological claims.

I just believe way less bullshit than most.

I gave up on simply believing.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:17 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:15 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:13 pm Then what's your problem, I don't know of any case where my model disagrees with experiment.

No shit. Because you've engineered to be unfalsifiable. Consciously.

Some of it is falsifiable.

I really have absolutely no idea what you are arguing against. All my models are based on known facts.
Yours aren't, we know for a fact that Shannon information is just abstraction/description/abstract construct, not "something additional".

Shannon information is the foundation of decision theory.

Decision theory is the foundation of choice-making/value-discrimination which is where psychology and economics overlap.

You can tell me ANYTHING else you want about psychology, if you reject the claim that drawing distinctions is a fundamental ability of minds I will deconstruct your entire belief-system. Bit by bit!

1 bit of information = 1 mental distinction.

Straight out of Mathematics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:19 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:17 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:15 pm
No shit. Because you've engineered to be unfalsifiable. Consciously.

Some of it is falsifiable.

I really have absolutely no idea what you are arguing against. All my models are based on known facts.
Yours aren't, we know for a fact that Shannon information is just abstraction/description/abstract construct, not "something additional".

Shannon information is the foundation of decision theory.

Decision theory is the foundation of choice-making/value-discrimination which is where psychology and economics overlap.

You can tell me ANYTHING else you want about psychology, if you reject the claim that drawing distinctions is a fundamental ability of minds I will deconstruct your entire belief-system. Bit by bit!

1 bit of information == 1 distinction.

Bringing in psychology here is idiotic.
You can only use 1 bit of information as 1 distinction IF you already have a system that is compatible with processing that type of information, so this doesn't hold either.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:23 pm Bringing in psychology here is idiotic.
You can only use 1 bit of information as 1 distinction IF you already have a system that is compatible with processing that type of information, so this doesn't hold either.

Ok. Lets go! I will ruin your belief system

ANY distinction is 1 bit of information. This is a universal claim.

Is A = A ?

No! Spacetime discrepancy. 1 bit of information.

Am I thirsty? No! 1 bit of information.
Am I feeling anxiety? Yes. 1 bit of information.

Any positive claim you make about reality - I can turn into a yes/no question!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

And so maybe I can't decide if you are thirsty, but YOU can!

That's just information asymmetry. I don't have access to the information you have.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:24 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:23 pm Bringing in psychology here is idiotic.
You can only use 1 bit of information as 1 distinction IF you already have a system that is compatible with processing that type of information, so this doesn't hold either.

Ok. Lets go! I will ruin your belief system

ANY distinction is 1 bit of information. This is a universal claim.

No, you won't. You don't even understand bits.
1 bit is 1 bit, that says nothing about what it's the distinction of.

The most distinct part of data in the 'human' comprehension. Binary at its most poignant part of 'information'.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:29 pm No, you won't. You don't even understand bits.
1 bit is 1 bit, that says nothing about what it's the distinction of.

That doesn't mater. AT ALL!
I don't understand 1 bit any more than you can understand 1 second of time (because nobody understands what time IS). To speak of what things ARE is metaphysics. Please don't waste anybody's time!

What matters is that you know HOW to measure it.

You claim to be able to distinguish between people with Aspergers vs people without Aspergers
Or introversion vs extroversion
Or sanity vs insanity

That is a distinction. It is called binary classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification

You claim that you are able to accurately categorize people.
So then we should be able to set up an experiment! Testability baby!

Take 100 candidates and 100 psychologists.

Let each psychologist sort the candidates into binary categories A/B (whatever they may be).

If at least 50 psychologists don't get the EXACT SAME distribution then there is NO method to your madness!
It means that your classification rule is as good as guessing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

And that's just the lowest bar possible. Wait till you are expected to diagnose 100 different mental conditions (where you need 7 bits of precision)!

But, you probably knew that psychology is bullshit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicati ... psychology

Hey, while U both attempt to prove you can argue a point...the rule of the BRITISH forum is - DONT POST LINKS.

Do it on your own fruition.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:44 pm Hey, while U both attempt to prove you can argue a point...the rule of the BRITISH forum is - DONT POST LINKS.

Stupid rule.

Translates to "Don't cite any sources, or point to any evidence".

I have no time for stupid rules.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:46 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:44 pm Hey, while U both attempt to prove you can argue a point...the rule of the BRITISH forum is - DONT POST LINKS.

Stupid rule.

Translates to "Don't cite any sources, or point to any evidence".

I have no time for stupid rules.

Cite your own evidence by your own reasoning...or is that too much to ask for?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:40 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:29 pm No, you won't. You don't even understand bits.
1 bit is 1 bit, that says nothing about what it's the distinction of.

That doesn't mater. AT ALL!
I don't understand 1 bit any more than you can understand 1 second.

What matters is that you know HOW to measure it.

You claim to be able to distinguish between people with Aspergers vs people without Aspergers
Or introversion vs extroversion
Or sanity vs insanity

That is a distinction. It is called binary classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification

You claim that you are able to accurately categorize people.
So then we should be able to set up an experiment! Testability baby!

Take 100 candidates and 100 psychologists.

Let each psychologist sort the candidates into binary categories A/B (whatever they may be).

If at least 50 psychologists don't get the EXACT SAME distribution then there is NO method to your madness!
It means that your classification rule is as good as guessing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

And that's just the lowest bar possible. Wait till you are expected to diagnose 100 different mental conditions (where you need 7 bits of precision)!

But, you probably knew that psychology is bullshit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicati ... psychology

You said we need 1 bit for a decision.
But now you say we also need a human (or some similar stuff like a computer I guess) for that decision, otherwise there's no way to make sense of that bit.
A human or computer etc. is made of many particles, and a part of that is used for the decision.

So much for your theory

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pmYou said we need 1 bit for a decision.
But now you say we also need a human (or some similar stuff like a computer I guess) for that decision, otherwise there's no way to make sense of that bit.
A human or computer etc. is made of many particles, and a part of that is used for the decision.

So much for your theory

Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm You said we need 1 bit for a decision.

Indeed. If you are to answer any yes/no question - you need 1 bit of information.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm But now you say we also need a human (or some similar stuff like a computer I guess) for that decision, otherwise there's no way to make sense of that bit.

Hey Mr 'I understand contexts' can you give me an example of decision-making that does not involve an entity with some agency? You can't? I guess that's an omission in your world-view.

Can you think of anything other than humans which cares to ASK QUESTIONS? You can't? I guess your model of reality is fucked up, eh?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm A human or computer etc. is made of many particles, and a part of that is used for the decision.

A human is a computer. The mind is a measuring apparatus.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm So much for your theory

Hey Mr "I understand contexts", can you give me an example of any theories (MAN MADE NOTIONS!!!) that exist outside of the SOCIAL context of HUMANIT? You can't? SO I guess we have to factor in the HUMAN element then!

For a psychologist you are pretty dumb.

Maybe you have spent no time trying to factor yourself or how your mind works into your model of reality? What a shame!

If you want to do science you need a reference frame. You need an observer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

And if you don't know thyself - you'll make for a pretty stupid scientist!

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm You said we need 1 bit for a decision.

Indeed. If you are to answer any yes/no question - you need 1 bit of information.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm But now you say we also need a human (or some similar stuff like a computer I guess) for that decision, otherwise there's no way to make sense of that bit.

Hey Mr 'I understand contexts' can you give me an example of decision-making that does not involve an entity with some agency? You can't? I guess that's an omission in your world-view.

Can you think of anything other than humans which cares to ASK QUESTIONS? You can't? I guess your model of reality is fucked up, eh?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm A human or computer etc. is made of many particles, and a part of that is used for the decision.

A human is a computer. The mind is a measuring apparatus.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm So much for your theory

Hey Mr "I understand contexts", can you give me an example of any theories (MAN MADE NOTIONS!!!) that exist outside of the SOCIAL context of HUMANTT? You can't? SO I guess we have to factor in the HUMAN element then!

For a psychologist you are pretty dumb.

Maybe you have spent no time trying to factor yourself or how your mind works into your model of reality? What a shame!

If you want to do science you need a reference frame. You need an observer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

You are saying:
- we need 1 bit
- we need way more than 1 bit

You said many times that contradictions don't exist, so I assume the above doesn't bother you.