3 ms·

>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

by 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

> 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.