Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote:Wisdom as I appreciate it is the conscious understanding of universal laws, how they interact, and what they produce. Rationalization tries to improve upon it but it never works. Universal laws are universal laws and no amount of insult or wishful thinking can change them.

I agree. It is something like this.

Gary Childress wrote:
Thank you, Jaded Sage. For being a compassionate human being.

I didn't see this until now. You are quite welcome.

hajrafradi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Winning a lottery does not imply prediction.

Winning a lottery is ad acta. It is the fulfillment of a prediction.

I'm not sure that buying tickets to a lottery does not imply prediction. If there were no prediction made, including possibly a statistical probability of winning, then why would anyone buy a lottery ticket?

"I have a one in roughly fifteen million chance of winning. Therefore I buy a lottery ticket because (Now substitute the more likely part:) ... Because I am quite sure I won't win, (or) ... Because I feel I have a better chance to win."

Either way, the ticket purchaser makes a prediction.

Or at least he has hopes to win.

I mean, he chooses a set of numbers. He must have a reason (false or true) for thinking these numbers, his set, is more likely to win the big prize. This is a prediction. "I do have faith in my numbers having a better chance of winning than any other set of numbers."

Some lottery players let the machine choose their numbers. They make a prediction too: "I predict that any set of numbers has an equal chance of winning to other sets of numbers. Therefore I predict that one random arrangement of numbers will be the winning numbers, and my chances of my numbers matching the winning numbers is very small, but not zero; and I predict that my return on investment is going to be negatively impacted by the return / risk ratio, but hey."

You've turned a bad joke into a suicide note for reason.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

hajrafradi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Winning a lottery does not imply prediction.

Winning a lottery is ad acta. It is the fulfillment of a prediction.

I'm not sure that buying tickets to a lottery does not imply prediction. If there were no prediction made, including possibly a statistical probability of winning, then why would anyone buy a lottery ticket?

"I have a one in roughly fifteen million chance of winning. Therefore I buy a lottery ticket because (Now substitute the more likely part:) ... Because I am quite sure I won't win, (or) ... Because I feel I have a better chance to win."

Either way, the ticket purchaser makes a prediction.

Or at least he has hopes to win.

I mean, he chooses a set of numbers. He must have a reason (false or true) for thinking these numbers, his set, is more likely to win the big prize. This is a prediction. "I do have faith in my numbers having a better chance of winning than any other set of numbers."

Some lottery players let the machine choose their numbers. They make a prediction too: "I predict that any set of numbers has an equal chance of winning to other sets of numbers. Therefore I predict that one random arrangement of numbers will be the winning numbers, and my chances of my numbers matching the winning numbers is very small, but not zero; and I predict that my return on investment is going to be negatively impacted by the return / risk ratio, but hey."

You've turned a bad joke into a suicide note for reason.

Why do you say hajrafradi's passage above is a "suicide not for reason"?

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You've turned a bad joke into a suicide note for reason.

Why do you say hajrafradi's passage above is a "suicide not for reason"?

I think HobbesChoice wrote "note" not "not".

But I also don't understand why she calls the post a suicide note.

hajrafradi wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You've turned a bad joke into a suicide note for reason.

Why do you say hajrafradi's passage above is a "suicide not for reason"?

I think HobbesChoice wrote "note" not "not".

But I also don't understand why she calls the post a suicide note.

Sorry, typo on my part. I meant "note".

Jaded Sage wrote:

Nick_A wrote:Wisdom as I appreciate it is the conscious understanding of universal laws, how they interact, and what they produce. Rationalization tries to improve upon it but it never works. Universal laws are universal laws and no amount of insult or wishful thinking can change them.

I agree. It is something like this.

I am extremely happy you are finally agreeing with someone's post, JadedSage. It was getting extremely tiresome to read that "this is not wisdom, but insight", and "wisdom is a way of thinking", and the like.

It is a great relief to me, because I am an INTJ, that finally someone hit the jackpot for you.

My joy does not even get diminished by my vehemently denying the truth in what you held so far the best definition of wisdom to your standards.

Because, indeed, I deny there are univesal laws that govern human nature. Human nature is evolving, has been evolving, and will be evolving. Univesal laws can't change, by definition. So an unchanging law can't be acting on a moving target, so to speak.

So you say, for instance, that reciprocity is a universal law. But not to a narcissist. So is the narcissist exempt from the universal law? If he is, then the law is not universal. If he is not exempt, then the universal law is something different, because the universal law of reciprocity is not universal.

Let me give you another example. Compassion, understanding and kindness are "good". So the universal law is that humans should behave with compassion, understanding and kindness. But they all don't. Some do, some don't. What is it about a universal law that makes it universal law? The fact that it is applicable universally, to everyone at each time and all the time, and the fact they can't be contravened. Rules can be broken, laws can't.

So this shmafu that you very likely like, and agree with, JadedSage, is something I don't agree with.

hajrafradi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You've turned a bad joke into a suicide note for reason.

But I also don't understand why she calls the post a suicide note.

Oh, I get it. HobbesChoice, you think my thinking is so unreasonable, that reason (poetic anthropomorphism) must write something like my post, in utter confusion, pain and disgust, before it'd kill itself as a desperate attempt to put an end to its extreme pain.

I am not going to pass judgment on that, either way. That is your opinion, and I respect it.

I think you girls can work this one out for yourselves.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you girls can work this one out for yourselves.

Or from the sounds of it, maybe it isn't that important to work out.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Systematic wrote:Wisdom is the capacity to predict the future or have insight into what is real based on abstractions.

Future prediction is the foolish claim of the so-called mystic.

I should have known that you would say that.

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you girls can work this one out for yourselves.

Or from the sounds of it, maybe it isn't that important to work out.

True.

Systematic wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Systematic wrote:Wisdom is the capacity to predict the future or have insight into what is real based on abstractions.

Future prediction is the foolish claim of the so-called mystic.

I should have known that you would say that.

As the editor said whilst sacking the astrology columnist; "As you will no doubt have foreseen, I'm going to have to let you go."

hajrafradi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Winning a lottery does not imply prediction.

Winning a lottery is ad acta. It is the fulfillment of a prediction.

I'm not sure that buying tickets to a lottery does not imply prediction. If there were no prediction made, including possibly a statistical probability of winning, then why would anyone buy a lottery ticket?

"I have a one in roughly fifteen million chance of winning. Therefore I buy a lottery ticket because (Now substitute the more likely part:) ... Because I am quite sure I won't win, (or) ... Because I feel I have a better chance to win."

Either way, the ticket purchaser makes a prediction.

Or at least he has hopes to win.

I mean, he chooses a set of numbers. He must have a reason (false or true) for thinking these numbers, his set, is more likely to win the big prize. This is a prediction. "I do have faith in my numbers having a better chance of winning than any other set of numbers."

Some lottery players let the machine choose their numbers. They make a prediction too: "I predict that any set of numbers has an equal chance of winning to other sets of numbers. Therefore I predict that one random arrangement of numbers will be the winning numbers, and my chances of my numbers matching the winning numbers is very small, but not zero; and I predict that my return on investment is going to be negatively impacted by the return / risk ratio, but hey."

Now you're talking of, "games of chance!" Which has nothing to do with prediction! Chance is just that, one cannot chance a win and then call it a prediction. If it truly be prediction, they would win over an over again ad-infinitum. A prediction is based upon something calculable. There has to be constants so as to eliminate variables.

"To predict is usually to foretell with precision of calculation, knowledge, or shrewd inference from facts or experience: The astronomers can predict an eclipse; it may, however, be used without the implication of underlying knowledge or expertise: I predict she'll be a success at the party."

Immediately above, to my way of thinking, the former is truly prediction while the latter is simply guessing.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Now you're talking of, "games of chance!"

I hear you, Spheres.

I imply from what you are saying that those who play the lotteries are willing to lose money, and they willingly throw it away. I don't think people are that stupid. They may have no understanding of game theory, and they make a mistake, I appreciate that, by wagering on a losing game. But then to their perception they are not wagering; they are predicting that against all odds they will win. If they did not predict that, then they would not buy the ticket. "I predict I will lose; therefore I won't buy a ticket" is the sensible person's motto. A wagerer may say, "I predict I will win; therefore I will buy a ticket." Try imagining a wagerer saying the actual status quo: "I predict I will lose; therefore I will buy a ticket."

Yes, you're right, lottery is a game of chance. But those who buy tickets, have a stronger conviction that they will win, than their actual math probability. To them there is a prediction made by them that they will win. Most make this prediction in error. This is a bad prediction. But it's a prediction nonetheless.

So there are good predictions, and there are bad predictions. Predicting on the lottery that you will win is a bad prediction, but a prediction nonetheless.

From the accuracy point of view: prediction on the perceived higher-than-normal chance numbers are chosen with a predictive value for the wagerer; in reality, they have no predictive value. Family birthdays, grade point averages, IQ, shoe size, etc. all can be deciding values to use when checking numbers. Of course they won't have a higher chance of winning; but people who choose them choose them for a reason, and the reason must include a clause "because these numbers will win." If the wagerer does not believe those numbers will win, then s/he'll use a different set of numbers.

"A great empire's army will fall at the battle." - the Oracle of Delphi. This was a safe prediction, without knowing any of the facts, or anything of predictive value in the situation the night before the battle. It was also a good prediction, because it had no chance of being wrong. Yet it evades making any sort of concrete, tangible prediction.