5 ms·

Have you heard of Aumann’s agreement theorem? [1] Consensus is possible, provided that the interlocutor have a shared goal and maximize for information exchang

• ordu 7y ago
  > I don’t have beliefs - I have methods of various degrees of effectiveness that get me what I want. It is a self-contradictory claim. You believe in your methods. You believe that your vision works by means of your methods, but how do you know this? Take a look at a your hand, all your mind get from it is a bunch of "pixels" from your retina, and by some means your mind construct a mental representation named "hand". How your mind had learnt to do it? Did it use bayesian learning or maybe it used some other mistaken method and your vision fools you? Maybe in the basis of your bayesianism lays totally non-bayesian vision? Maybe information about reality you have is not facts? You fool yourself believing that you use bayesian reasoning. Mostly your mind thinks for yourself by itself, all you can do is to get into your consiousness some small part of reasoning and to check it with bayes. No one proved that it is possible to build mind based on the bayesianism. Our computational resources are weak for this. You cannot be a bayesian mind while you have no ability to reflect all the reasoning of your mind, starting with individual "pixels" from your retina as informational input and ending with claims like "there is no God". So you are believing that you are bayesian mind, and therefore Aumann's theorem is applicable to you.
  • ukj 7y ago
    That's generally how all the Philosophy language-games work. You claim that I've contradicted myself and then you go onto re-describe my argument in your vocabulary. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet... You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication. Not only are you imposing your language onto me, you are trying to impose your logic onto me also - failing to realise that logic is also just an instrument. And in so far as you seem to care about contradictions - your dogma/religion is the 'Law' of non-contradiction. It's a false God, a man-made authority. Trivially side-stepped with either Dialetheism or Paraconsistent logic. Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large -- I contain multitudes. --Walt Whitman Bayesianism, Intuitioinism, Structuralism, Counter-factualism, Reflection, Introspection, Self-reference, methodism, particularism (obviously the list is incomplete) are just some of the tools (formal languages/models - used for communicating with other humans, not to be mistaken for ontologies) in my toolbox. How and when I might use any particular instrument is context-dependent and is largely up to me. It's purposeful and intentional. The rest of the time my mind does whatever it does all by itself - I can't tell you what the autopilot 'believes'. And I am not here to be persuaded (by you or anybody) that your way is better than my way - I can change my mind all by myself if you give me the relevant information. That's how I use introspection/reflection.
    • ordu 7y ago
      > You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication. You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker. > Bayesianism, Intuitioinism, counter-factualism, methodism, particularism (obviously the list is incomlete) are just some of the tools in my toolbox. How and when I might use any particular instrument is up to me. No, there comes another question: how you might claim that Aumann's theorem is applicable to you, if you are not a strictly bayesian? Maybe logic is also just a one tool of many, and can be rejected when you feel like that? Have you formal rules to judge when some or other tool might be used or rejected? If so, do you believe in this rules to work? All I want to show, that you cannot reason without some beliefs you take as granted. So your claim that you have no beliefs is false.