5 ms·

> We live in a three-dimensional world and we don’t have to worry about the fact that the mind makes mistakes when it’s forced to deal with an unnatural, two-di

> We live in a three-dimensional world and we don’t have to worry about the fact that the mind makes mistakes when it’s forced to deal with an unnatural, two-dimensional world. This is amusing. To a mathematician, physicist, computer scientist, logician, 2 dimensions are often easier to reason about than 3. > Honesty in the future is best predicted by honesty in the past, not by whether a person looks you steadily in the eye or claims a recent religious conversion. This doesn't give people the chance to change if the whole system is based on everyone retaining an internal consistency in inferencing that is checked against reality by testing it. > The conjunction of two events can’t be more likely than just one event by itself. This is mathematically incorrect. If two events are mutually dependent on the other to occur then two events are more likely to occur together than either or independently. > The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Apply this reasoning to yourself before you expect it from others. Apply it to the things about you that are the hardest to change, that you actually want to change. Shortest path to compassion, and one of the hardest lessons to learn.

iamthepieman 8y ago
>This doesn't give people the chance to change if the whole system is based on everyone retaining an internal consistency in inferencing that is checked against reality by testing it. Yes it does, start being honest and eventually people's most recent memories or interactions with you will be ones of honesty. This is different, of course, than the one strike and your out criminal offense system in the U.S.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  I'm speaking hypothetically, first. Secondly, that assumes way too much about how people think.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
smadge 8y ago
>> The conjunction of two events can’t be more likely than just one event by itself. > This is mathematically incorrect. If two events are mutually dependent on the other to occur then two events are more likely to occur together than either or independently. The original statement is correct. You are talking about conditional probability: the probability that one event will occur given that another event has occurred. i.e. if A and B are two events P(A|B), read as the probability of A given B. This is equal to P(A and B)/P(B). Notice that, The conjunction of the two events, P(A and B), is divided by the probability of B, P(B). We have reduced the probability space to the smaller space of just B. The conjunction of two events is just their set intersection (at least in a probability system which defines events as sets of outcomes) and can never be larger than either event.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  That assumes events are sequentially occurring.
  - tetromino_ 8y ago
    I think there's an issue of terminology. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(probability_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(probability_theory) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space for what mathematical statistics means by the term "event". I suspect that what you are calling "events" are actually values of some function defined on the set of (mathematical) events. Such a function is called a random variable. The values of a random variable are a major object of study in statistics - but they are not events.
    - s-shellfish 8y ago
      I'm trying to direct this conversation away from using logic and math to reason about interpersonal relationships. It's garbage. Math talks about math. Logic talks about logic. This article conflates it with how people think about one another. They are calling an event that occurs twice a singular event. My mind, your mind, the same statement, understood and accepted twice, possibly at different points in time (which is obvious given the fact that I have to literally hit send on this message) but you may be thinking the same thoughts as I at the same time, mutually dependent because we are all idiots that think it's fine to use logic and math to describe all minds. It's not an RV when it comes to thoughts you choose to think! The RV is the thoughts you don't want to think.
losvedir 8y ago
> If two events are mutually dependent on the other to occur then two events are more likely to occur together than either or independently. But that's not the statement that you're saying is incorrect. In your scenario, if A and B always occur together then P(A) == P(B) == P(A & B), and the original statement that P(A & B) is not greater than either P(A) or P(B) is still true (it's equal).
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  The reasoning they are using isn't pure logic or math. You need more than logic and math to reason about people emotionally. There's mutually established dependencies in relationships. One depends on the other but both minds think. This is ridiculous reasoning to turn this crap into a math or logical expression to begin with. The fact that we have to argue out of common sense about emotions with logic and math is ridiculous enough and sucks because guess what! We know we reasoned ourselves into it. People affect one another. Sometimes people understand each other mutually at the same time. It's not out of the space of probability for empathy to happen at the same moment in time and be dependent on the fact that both people are working towards it together.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    The statement is that P(A ∧ B) is always less than or equal to both P(A) and P(B). You're arguing that P(A ∧ B) can be greater than P(A ∧ ¬B) and can be greater than P(B ∧ ¬A), which is true, but it's a totally different statement. You're confused about the language, and building some emotions-based interpretation around it.
    - s-shellfish 8y ago
      > You're confused about the language, and building some emotions-based interpretation around it. That is what the article is about. I believe there are more ways to reason than just using logic or probability when it comes to determining how people think. That's just reality. The crux of my argument rests on thinking about thinking. Also, please don't tell me I'm confused. I'm not confused. You are cherry picking an argument and that has derailed me from my original point. Thinking about thinking influences the probabilities of what thoughts will occur as consequence in ways that are intrinsically entangled. You can extrapolate that reasoning to yield how and why people think about how other people think and for what purpose. Please reread what I said originally instead of latching on a single point by taking advantage of the fact that multiple people have responded to different points in unison to my perspective. You know I can assume you are responding to a specific point and you can continue directing the conversation using that point to begin with as a foundation for weakening my argument. You also know I can't assume you have read the whole lineage of comments resulting from my original argument, as can anyone else responding to this thread chain. I said mutually dependent - you can try to understand this if you choose to do so. But honestly all of this is ridiculous.
s-shellfish 8y ago
Edit: internal inconsistency is just as adequate

iamthepieman 8y ago

>This doesn't give people the chance to change if the whole system is based on everyone retaining an internal consistency in inferencing that is checked against reality by testing it. Yes it does, start being honest and eventually people's most recent memories or interactions with you will be ones of honesty. This is different, of course, than the one strike and your out criminal offense system in the U.S.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s-shellfish 8y ago
I'm speaking hypothetically, first. Secondly, that assumes way too much about how people think.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

smadge 8y ago

>> The conjunction of two events can’t be more likely than just one event by itself. > This is mathematically incorrect. If two events are mutually dependent on the other to occur then two events are more likely to occur together than either or independently. The original statement is correct. You are talking about conditional probability: the probability that one event will occur given that another event has occurred. i.e. if A and B are two events P(A|B), read as the probability of A given B. This is equal to P(A and B)/P(B). Notice that, The conjunction of the two events, P(A and B), is divided by the probability of B, P(B). We have reduced the probability space to the smaller space of just B. The conjunction of two events is just their set intersection (at least in a probability system which defines events as sets of outcomes) and can never be larger than either event.

s-shellfish 8y ago
That assumes events are sequentially occurring.
- tetromino_ 8y ago
  I think there's an issue of terminology. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(probability_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(probability_theory) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space for what mathematical statistics means by the term "event". I suspect that what you are calling "events" are actually values of some function defined on the set of (mathematical) events. Such a function is called a random variable. The values of a random variable are a major object of study in statistics - but they are not events.
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    I'm trying to direct this conversation away from using logic and math to reason about interpersonal relationships. It's garbage. Math talks about math. Logic talks about logic. This article conflates it with how people think about one another. They are calling an event that occurs twice a singular event. My mind, your mind, the same statement, understood and accepted twice, possibly at different points in time (which is obvious given the fact that I have to literally hit send on this message) but you may be thinking the same thoughts as I at the same time, mutually dependent because we are all idiots that think it's fine to use logic and math to describe all minds. It's not an RV when it comes to thoughts you choose to think! The RV is the thoughts you don't want to think.

losvedir 8y ago

> If two events are mutually dependent on the other to occur then two events are more likely to occur together than either or independently. But that's not the statement that you're saying is incorrect. In your scenario, if A and B always occur together then P(A) == P(B) == P(A & B), and the original statement that P(A & B) is not greater than either P(A) or P(B) is still true (it's equal).

s-shellfish 8y ago
The reasoning they are using isn't pure logic or math. You need more than logic and math to reason about people emotionally. There's mutually established dependencies in relationships. One depends on the other but both minds think. This is ridiculous reasoning to turn this crap into a math or logical expression to begin with. The fact that we have to argue out of common sense about emotions with logic and math is ridiculous enough and sucks because guess what! We know we reasoned ourselves into it. People affect one another. Sometimes people understand each other mutually at the same time. It's not out of the space of probability for empathy to happen at the same moment in time and be dependent on the fact that both people are working towards it together.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  The statement is that P(A ∧ B) is always less than or equal to both P(A) and P(B). You're arguing that P(A ∧ B) can be greater than P(A ∧ ¬B) and can be greater than P(B ∧ ¬A), which is true, but it's a totally different statement. You're confused about the language, and building some emotions-based interpretation around it.
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    > You're confused about the language, and building some emotions-based interpretation around it. That is what the article is about. I believe there are more ways to reason than just using logic or probability when it comes to determining how people think. That's just reality. The crux of my argument rests on thinking about thinking. Also, please don't tell me I'm confused. I'm not confused. You are cherry picking an argument and that has derailed me from my original point. Thinking about thinking influences the probabilities of what thoughts will occur as consequence in ways that are intrinsically entangled. You can extrapolate that reasoning to yield how and why people think about how other people think and for what purpose. Please reread what I said originally instead of latching on a single point by taking advantage of the fact that multiple people have responded to different points in unison to my perspective. You know I can assume you are responding to a specific point and you can continue directing the conversation using that point to begin with as a foundation for weakening my argument. You also know I can't assume you have read the whole lineage of comments resulting from my original argument, as can anyone else responding to this thread chain. I said mutually dependent - you can try to understand this if you choose to do so. But honestly all of this is ridiculous.

s-shellfish 8y ago

Edit: internal inconsistency is just as adequate