3 ms·

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 vocab

by 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.
- ukj 7y ago
  >You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker. As with all things in Logic/Formal languages - the conclusions are true IF you accept the axioms. The CHOICE to accept (or reject) the axioms (read: play the game according its set of normative rules) is up to you. It's cooperative game theory. Aumann's theorem applies to me in as much as my goal in any conversation/interaction is to optimise for consensus-building - to this end, I will happily abandon my language and adopt my interlocutors' (if they are not comfortable doing so). If my interlocutors understand how 'the game' works and are themselves comfortable using language effectively/metaphorically/constructively/adaptively in real-time then there's no need for compromise on my part. It seems to me that you are playing a non-cooperative game. You are trying to 'be right. That signals to me that you aren't even playing by the same rules as me. So if you dislike the word 'methods' and you would much prefer me to use the word 'beliefs' when talking to you - I will happily do that (after I've made my point). >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. Then it's false. So what? You seem like you belong to the Church of Truth also... All models are wrong, but some are useful --George Box Since you are the one making positive claims about 'my beliefs', then (by the rules I am guessing you subscribe to, but I don't) the burden of proof is on you?
  - ordu 7y ago
    > Aumann's theorem applies to me in as much as my goal in any conversation/interaction is to optimise for consensus-building But Aumann's theorem is true for rationalists only. I checked wikipedia artice, and seems that it is not just about bayesian rationality as I thought, it is about any rationality. Why do you think, that you are rational agent? All the psychology shows that people are irrational beings. > It seems to me that you are playing a non-cooperative game. > That signals to me that you aren't even playing by the same rules as me. Maybe I am. Why should I? What could I gain from being cooperative in this particular case? What could I gain from following your rules? > You are trying to 'be right. No, I'm trying to make a point. I'm not interested in the search for consensus. I need no consensus. I made a point. You have a choice to understand it or to not understand. You have a choice to agree or to disagree. I'm interested in your understanding, but I'm not interested in your agreement. Your disagreement is much more fun, it could be much more educational for me. It is more educational for you also, though it is more about your gain, then mine. An agreement is boring and useless. > So if you dislike the word 'methods' No, it is misunderstanding. I'm trying to say, that methods are also beliefs, or they based on beliefs. > Then it's false. So what? You seem like you belong to the Church of Truth also... > All models are wrong, but some are useful --George Box Of course all models are wrong, but some are useful. Moreover, our mind can work only with models. Logic is one of such a models, it can simplify a lot of cases by reducing them into true/false statements. Either you have beliefs or you have not. Isn't it? Or your point that it is not so simple and dichotomy cannot capture all relevant properties of the problem? Could you propose some other model which we can use to speak about your beliefs that you take as granted and do not question? > Since you are the one making positive claims about 'my beliefs', then (by the rules I am guessing you subscribe to, but I don't) the burden of proof is on you? I cannot prove that, because to prove I need to find an example of your belief. It is a hard work by itself and it is more so, because English is not my native language. But I can give you tools to find your beliefs which you had not questioned yet. Dig your methods, they are themselves based on assumptions.

by ukj 7y ago

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.

ukj 7y ago
>You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker. As with all things in Logic/Formal languages - the conclusions are true IF you accept the axioms. The CHOICE to accept (or reject) the axioms (read: play the game according its set of normative rules) is up to you. It's cooperative game theory. Aumann's theorem applies to me in as much as my goal in any conversation/interaction is to optimise for consensus-building - to this end, I will happily abandon my language and adopt my interlocutors' (if they are not comfortable doing so). If my interlocutors understand how 'the game' works and are themselves comfortable using language effectively/metaphorically/constructively/adaptively in real-time then there's no need for compromise on my part. It seems to me that you are playing a non-cooperative game. You are trying to 'be right. That signals to me that you aren't even playing by the same rules as me. So if you dislike the word 'methods' and you would much prefer me to use the word 'beliefs' when talking to you - I will happily do that (after I've made my point). >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. Then it's false. So what? You seem like you belong to the Church of Truth also... All models are wrong, but some are useful --George Box Since you are the one making positive claims about 'my beliefs', then (by the rules I am guessing you subscribe to, but I don't) the burden of proof is on you?
- ordu 7y ago
  > Aumann's theorem applies to me in as much as my goal in any conversation/interaction is to optimise for consensus-building But Aumann's theorem is true for rationalists only. I checked wikipedia artice, and seems that it is not just about bayesian rationality as I thought, it is about any rationality. Why do you think, that you are rational agent? All the psychology shows that people are irrational beings. > It seems to me that you are playing a non-cooperative game. > That signals to me that you aren't even playing by the same rules as me. Maybe I am. Why should I? What could I gain from being cooperative in this particular case? What could I gain from following your rules? > You are trying to 'be right. No, I'm trying to make a point. I'm not interested in the search for consensus. I need no consensus. I made a point. You have a choice to understand it or to not understand. You have a choice to agree or to disagree. I'm interested in your understanding, but I'm not interested in your agreement. Your disagreement is much more fun, it could be much more educational for me. It is more educational for you also, though it is more about your gain, then mine. An agreement is boring and useless. > So if you dislike the word 'methods' No, it is misunderstanding. I'm trying to say, that methods are also beliefs, or they based on beliefs. > Then it's false. So what? You seem like you belong to the Church of Truth also... > All models are wrong, but some are useful --George Box Of course all models are wrong, but some are useful. Moreover, our mind can work only with models. Logic is one of such a models, it can simplify a lot of cases by reducing them into true/false statements. Either you have beliefs or you have not. Isn't it? Or your point that it is not so simple and dichotomy cannot capture all relevant properties of the problem? Could you propose some other model which we can use to speak about your beliefs that you take as granted and do not question? > Since you are the one making positive claims about 'my beliefs', then (by the rules I am guessing you subscribe to, but I don't) the burden of proof is on you? I cannot prove that, because to prove I need to find an example of your belief. It is a hard work by itself and it is more so, because English is not my native language. But I can give you tools to find your beliefs which you had not questioned yet. Dig your methods, they are themselves based on assumptions.