• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

HOW TO SHATTER HUME'S GUILLOTINE

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
All behavior is objective except ones subjectivity. That is why the hard problem of consciousness exist. You cannot have a conscio-meter.

Looking in is not the same as looking out.

BEHAVIOR ≠ PREFERENCE

What you need is a "sincerity-o-meter".

 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:45 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
The problem of other minds is Solipsism
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia
How do you explain how purely rational theories always perform more poorly than expected utility theory in economic models and experiments? Expected utility being driven by mental states ie preferences?

Certainty ≠ Reality. Certainty means a very specific thing. It's a technical term. There is obviously something that IS there that heavily influences the outcome. It's not unfalsifiable, and it is observable, and it can predict the future in repeatable fashion.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
There is obviously something that IS there that heavily influences the outcome. It's not unfalsifiable, and it is observable, and it can predict the future in repeatable fashion.

CERTAINTY is a subset of REALITY THE VERIFIABLE PART, THE SCIENTIFIC PART, THE REALM OF THE (IS)
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:15 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,812
-->
@LOGICZOMBIE
These videos are fine, but they do not answer the question. Why is four sigma a relevant confidence threshold?

This is the third time I'm asking, and you have already responded three times with a rhetorical question and three separate scientific literacy videos. But none of them mention four sigmas.

Let me put it this way:
Four sigma is an (OUGHT) statement about how we (OUGHT) to interpret facts.
Science deals EXCLUSIVELY with the realm of the (IS).
Therefore: four sigma is not within the realm of science.

Change my view.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
Why is four sigma a relevant confidence threshold?

Three sigma is obviously an ineffective barrier to preventing "unreliable science".

That's what the vids illustrate.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:15 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,812
-->
Did I miss where the video mentioned sigma?

We agree that science is less reliable than it should be. Where we disagree is that I think changing the alpha value is only a small part of the solution.

1631922673836.png


These are real results all achieved through p hacking. Shifting the alpha results in exchanging type I error for type II, but this is still predictably circumventable through p hacking and the cost is throwing out a lot of real evidence.

Five sigma confidence has been shown to be vulnerable:
Particle physics employs particularly strict requirements for statistical significance referred to as 5-sigma or one chance in 3.5 million of getting a false positive. In 2002 a Japanese experiment found evidence for the Theta-plus pentaquark, and in the two years that followed 11 other independent experiments then looked for and found evidence of that same pentaquark with very high levels of statistical significance. From July 2003 to May 2004 a theoretical paper on pentaquarks was published on average every other day, but later, it was was discovered that it was a false discovery and other experimental attempts to confirm that theta-plus pentaquark using greater statistical power failed to find any trace of its existence.
Source: Veritasium

There are even instances where six sigma confidence has been overturned: https://www.zmescience.com/research/faster-than-light-sub-particle-at-cern-breaks-laws-of-physics/

So four sigma won't fix the issue and comes at a cost. If you show me four sigma, that's not a fact, that's just a strongly supported idea. It is both too stringent and not stringent enough, because scientific literacy is more complicated than small number good. The problems with science are structural and institutional and not fixable with a wave of the hand. Four sigma is your personal preference but it is an ought statement and one I don't agree with.

Knowable scientific facts as something more than probability don't and can't exist. Understanding the extent to which an idea is supported can and will have to suffice.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
Four sigma is an (OUGHT) statement about how we (OUGHT) to interpret facts.
Science deals EXCLUSIVELY with the realm of the (IS).
Therefore: four sigma is not within the realm of science.

Not quite.

It's an incomplete conditional statement.

(IFF) the realm of the (IS) has distinct markers that are quantifiably distinguishable from the realm of the (OUGHT) (THEN) those markers should be made explicit

(IFF) the realm of the (IS) can be identified by empirical demonstration and or logical necessity (THEN) reliability of empirical demonstration is specifically identifiable as SIGMA
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
How do you explain how purely rational theories always perform more poorly than expected utility theory in economic models and experiments? Expected utility being driven by mental states ie preferences?

INACCURATE AXIOMS.
Could you beg the question a little harder please?

It seems ridiculously obvious that (IFF) your model doesn't match "reality" (THEN) your model is fundamentally flawed (i'd take a close look at your PRIMARY AXIOMS)
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
So four sigma won't fix the issue and comes at a cost.

Four SIGMA is a baseline.

You're perfectly free to decide for yourself what you consider "sufficient utility", but you can't pretend a claim is "indisputable fact" if you can't even reach the baseline.

There are plenty of claims below four SIGMA that "might be true" or "are true for practical intents and purposes" or "true enough for government work" or whatever qualifier you wish to apply based on your personal expectations of "sufficient utility" and "sufficient risk mitigation".

(IFF) you have a better way to distinguish the realm of the (IS) from the realm of the (OUGHT) (THEN) i'd be more than happy to adopt it
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:15 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,812
-->
Four SIGMA is a baseline.

You're perfectly free to decide for yourself what you consider "sufficient utility", but you can't pretend a claim is "indisputable fact" if you can't even reach the baseline.

There are plenty of claims below four SIGMA that "might be true" or "are true for practical intents and purposes" or "true enough for government work" or whatever qualifier you wish to apply based on your personal expectations of "sufficient utility" and "sufficient risk mitigation".

(IFF) you have a better way to distinguish the realm of the (IS) from the realm of the (OUGHT) (THEN) i'd be more than happy to adopt it

I can claim it because it's not my baseline. You just won't believe me because you have a very specific personal definition. I don't really think in terms of hume's guillotine, I think it's something to invoke when someone is making a formal philosophical claim but most invocations include some sort of willful misinterpretation of unstated (but intuitive) premises.

I genuinely think that if you just parrot the conclusions of meta-analyses and systematic reviews, you are going to be correct more of the time than if you rigidly adhere to an arbitrary significance.

I think scientific understanding like what was in your videos will help you to know when four sigma isn't enough. For example, in that video you posted about mice as subjects, it wouldn't matter what the p value is if they're generalising from a mouse population to a human population.

I think Bayesian statistics are better than significance testing in basically every way though I know a lot more about significance testing because that's what I was taught in my degree.

I think our scientific institutions are fatally misincentivised to chase false positives and to ignore replication. Registration of methodology prior to research addresses both p hacking and journal selection bias.

It looks like we basically want the same thing but pursue it in very different ways.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
I don't really think in terms of hume's guillotine, I think it's something to invoke when someone is making a formal philosophical claim but most invocations include some sort of willful misinterpretation of unstated (but intuitive) premises.

What do you believe is the correct interpretation ?
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia
<,<

It's a technical term. I have nothing to do with what it's called, it should be very clear what I'm referring to.

It's not pragmatic at all. If humans have goals, they have preferences. This is an is, and this is what connects an is to an ought.

I don't know what the p value of humans having goals is admittingly, but this is not an opinion, it's very much a fact.

Rational theory performs worse because it makes decisions based on the "best" possible choices available with the assumption that other rational agents are also going to do the same. Expected utility will make better decisions because it is in fact including more of what IS (human preference and mental states). You don't see how this would perform better in the stock market??
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
It's not pragmatic at all. If humans have goals, they have preferences. This is an is, and this is what connects an is to an ought.

(IFF) human has no goal and or motive and or preference (THEN) human would not move and would therefore starve and or suffocate unless actively maintained by some other

Eating and drinking and breathing are all EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE OF A LOGICALLY NECESSARY SURVIVIAL INSTINCT (but not necessarily quite as conclusive regarding any other SPECIFIC PREFERENCE).

This shifts survival instinct into the realm of the (IS).

Can you build some sort of (OUGHT) statement out of this ?
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia
Survival instincts = evolutionary strategy
Agree or disagree?

If yes, then that means that as long as you can empirically tie a behavior to evolution it is an is.
That is almost acceptably fair, but in which something like murder or proving manslaughter and negligence becomes way more one sided.

We would be able to convict someone of for kill their spouses suitor very easily, while someone killing another in a car accident would be hard to prove because looking at their phone while going 80mph cannot be tied to evolution.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
We would be able to convict someone of for kill their spouses suitor very easily,

Hold on a second.

That's quite a leap.

And (even iff we accept this leap) wouldn't you reason that (IFF) killing their spouse's suitor(s) (IS) part of survival instinct (THEN) they should NOT be "convicted" (presumably because survival instinct is the basis for morality, sort of a primary moral axiom) ?
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia
Why would ones survival insticts override the survival insticts of another?

You're trying to make the case that motives OUGHT not to be used in the legal system. I think that's ridiculous because motives are the impinging factor that make people break the law. Motives and preferences themselves are not crimes. But your saying that intention (provable or otherwise) should not be considered at all.

And many states do look at crimes of passion that aren't premeditated more leniently.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
But your saying that intention (provable or otherwise) should not be considered at all.

More precisely, I'm suggesting that (IFF) motives are considered (THEN) only motives that are demonstrable up to and beyond a confidence of four SIGMA should be considered.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
You're trying to make the case that motives OUGHT not to be used in the legal system.

You're trying to shift the burden of proof here.

I'm actually questioning WHY motives are even part of the calculation in the first place ?
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia
So motive/ in order to be evidence must be sigma 4?

Do verbal confirmations of motive qualify as sigma 4? If yes, why is any other preference different from this? You qualify it with evolutionary biases. If you qualify it with evolutionary biases, then I don't see how things would change.

If no, why interview the person to begin with? Why do poker players pay so much attention to body language? Why is direct communication ambiguous to you?

Qualitative data is valuable regardless of certainty as exhibited in expected utility theory. Certainty ≠ best outcome
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:45 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
gravity exists independent of my subjectivity T or F
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
gravity exists independent of my subjectivity T or F

First of all, "gravity" might not be your best case.

Contrary to popular opinion, "gravity" is NOT a force.



What we commonly refer to as "gravity" is merely a DESCRIPTION of RELATIONSHIPS between OBJECTS.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
gravity exists independent of my subjectivity T or F

You are going to have some trouble verifying anything without your individual (fundamentally subjective) perception.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:45 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
what I can confirm and what I will confirm are two independent situations.

There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 12:45 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
Contrary to popular opinion, "gravity" is NOT a force.

What we commonly refer to as "gravity" is merely a DESCRIPTION of RELATIONSHIPS between OBJECTS.
If gravity was thought of as a force for nearly 400 years, when it is NOT a force, then how do you know that the other forces are not merely DESCRIPTIONS of RELATIONSHIPS between OBJECTS?
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 12:45 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
1) Why do you call grass "grass"? You don't see grass. You don't shove grass in your eyes. Your eyes detect dots of green with your retinal cells. Then your brain interprets those dots as "grass" and then projects a simulation inside your mind.

It's the simulation you see, not reality.

We can say that without humans to imagine what truth might be like, there would be no simulations inside human minds that would imagine what truth would be like.

2) If only the simulation existed, then your mind could never receive counter-evidence that shows part of the simulation is wrong. You'd think you were always right.

Almost everyone got proved wrong about something or other, sometime.

So clearly, almost everyone believes that objective truth exists.

3) What is "objective" is "that which is dependent on the object. The "object" of a sentence is "that which is being looked at". The subject of a sentence is "that which is doing the looking", the observer.

The "objective", is that which doesn't change for different observers, but does change if you change the object that is being observed.

The Sun is objective and not subjective, because it fulfils the definition of "objective" and does not fulfil the definition of "subjective".

1) Different people all report seeing a large round yellowish ball in the sky at roughly the same place in the sky at the same time. So even when the subjects change, the object often remains the same => the definition of "objective" applies.

2) The same person will report seeing a large round yellowish ball in the sky during the day, but report not seeing it during the night. So the object often changes, even though the subject doesn't => the definition of "subjective" does not apply.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
The Sun is objective and not subjective, because it fulfils the definition of "objective" and does not fulfil the definition of "subjective".

What you're highlighting here is QUANTA.

Certain characteristics of OBJECTS are QUANTIFIABLE.

Not every human can verify the chemical composition of THE SUN.

Not every human can verify the size of THE SUN.

HOWEVER, nearly every human throughout history (even the blind) has experienced some direct evidence of and developed some concept of THE SUN.

AND THEY WERE ONLY ABLE TO DO THIS THROUGH THE LENS OF THEIR FUNDAMENTALLY SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL PERCEPTION.

There is no "perspectiveless" "objective" "reality".

There is no "view from nowhere".

There is no statement or claim that is magically free from SAMPLE-BIAS.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
what I can confirm and what I will confirm are two independent situations.

There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

Any "thing" we don't have evidence of is an aspect of NOUMENON.

Part of the NOUMENON is potentially "knowable", Mysterium Invisus and part of it is fundamentally unknowable, Magnum Mysterium.

I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium). For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality". I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly. It's like the old story of the princess and the pea. Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through nine-million-trillion-ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:45 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
If science were 100% opinion we could never build things like airplanes and computers. And creationism would be as valid as evolution.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
If science were 100% opinion we could never build things like airplanes and computers. And creationism would be as valid as evolution.

It's the "scientific CONCLUSIONS" that are 100% OPINION.

SCIENCE is a data gathering and verification methodology.

What we CONCLUDE from that data is 100% OPINION.

BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DERIVE AN (OUGHT) FROM AN (IS).

SCIENCE IS 100% (IS).
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
2) If only the simulation existed, then your mind could never receive counter-evidence that shows part of the simulation is wrong. You'd think you were always right.

Any "thing" we don't have evidence of is an aspect of NOUMENON.

Part of the NOUMENON is potentially "knowable", Mysterium Invisus and part of it is fundamentally unknowable, Magnum Mysterium.

I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium). For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality". I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly. It's like the old story of the princess and the pea. Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through nine-million-trillion-ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:45 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly.

I considered this when I was in the mental hospital in 2019.

Layers of reality on top of each other. It was definitely scary since I was in the Si flow state.

I relate to it as the deep web. At the top is consensus reality. The deeper you go the more schizophrenic it becomes.

But I do believe there are smaller layers that are infinite. These are the ordered layers, the big picture layers.

The less ordered you view things the less objective and schizo you become.

That doesn't mean order is right. it means it is consistent/not broken.

consistency and completeness of all propositions is impossible yet there is enough data to top-down eliminate the impossible.

metacognition is the facsimile we use because certainty is never certain.

But does Truth come from an outside source? Something outside us provides us with information. All we know is resultant of being formed by the outside. The conjecture that a superintelligence is directing me only makes sense is certain ways. But more likely if simulation is happening it means I am important or I am not. Everything is random or order exists.

From what I understand there is an outside and there is a world simulation. Micro simulations exist in the world simulation, some hidden others open. Some entities exist that are semi superintellects. But there is a structure to them. Between the inside and outside is a vale. This means we do not know if we are in or out. But the inside matches the outside in some way.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:45 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
Do you have some examples of "scientific conclusions" that would be just opinions?

SCIENCE + SCIENCE + SCIENCE + SCIENCE = WE SHOULD BUILD AN ATOM BOMB

that seems like the exception to the norm
no conclusion to build a bomb was derived from the science but the use in war
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:45 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
that seems like the exception to the norm
no conclusion to build a bomb was derived from the science but the use in war

Perhaps you can provide an example of something you believe qualifies as a "scientific conclusion" that is not opinion based.
 
Top Bottom