3 ms·

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 depen

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.

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.