Slider

Slider's Comments

Why Do You Keep Having This Problem?

There can be systematic reasons why a problem keeps happening which in itself is not a problem. For example sports judged might get yelled at a lot but that is mainly because sports fans are invested and being in a position of non-power can use the issue to emote safely. Does that mean the judge is doing something wrong? Probably not. Does it mean there is organizational dysfunction in the roles of judge and sports fan? Maybe but not neccesarily.

If something happens with statistical predictability it probably isn't due to random chance and that can be used as a que that it needs or can accept an explanation. And when one does pose an explanation one can be wrong about it.

Even if it is not an opportunity to improve the system/actor it can be a opportunity to learn more about it.

Reality-Revealing and Reality-Masking Puzzles

To me terminology like "puzzle" seems to suggest it is a search for an answer but the process seems also be characterised by avoidance of information generation.

You could have a challenge of lifting a weigth and one could struggle by pulling or pressing hard with their muscles. "tinkering" seems to refer to cognitive adaptation so weightlifting doesn't fit into the definition. But to me it seems it is more about success rather than smarting up. If one phrases it as "I feel uncomfortable when X happens, let's do something different" and "Now I feel comfortable" it is a challenge and a struggle but not a question or a puzzle. If one were to ask "What I could do to make myself comfortable?" that could be answered with knowledge or knowledge generation. But it doesn't seem clear to me whether the struggle actually has question structure.

At most extreme it would not be totally crazy to describe a weightlifter as answering the question "How do I lift these weights?" and the answer being "give muscle motor commands in the order x, y ,z". I guess somebody could help with weigthlifting with turning it into a puzzle "hey I see your technique is wrong. Try lifting like this.". But more usually it is a challenge of bothering the effort and maybe living throught the uncomfortability of the lift. And while even those could be turned into emotional intelligence questions ("emotional technique") they are not standardly tackled as questions.

Someone that is interested in "instrumental epistemology" should be interested in instrumental anything and succeeding at a task often involves succeding in dimensions other than epistemology too. All models are wrong but some are useful so in some situations it might be easy to find models that are very useful but very simple. Like being a religious zealot might give a lot of confidence which could be very useful so a consequentialist mind might recognise the success and lean into that direction. Is such an inductive inference reasonable? Maybe doing quantum mechanics as a bind fate black box leads to "shut up and calculate" be a more succesfull strategy than trying to form a broken understading/intuition and suffer many mistakes. Thus competence might mean abstraction supression.

Deleted

Following instructions doesn't really ring as a bell as a site goal. The setting of the question seems fair but the ill committed in ignoring the context is different from disobeyance.

Does the body have an almost infinite number of potential positions?

I contaminated myself because I thought it was a weird question by itself and had a smell of the answer being embedded in the context. In general "Does this analysis miss anything? I have not included analysis to avoid bias" isn't really an answerable question.

One of the tricks ot ponder on meanings is to wonder what the meaning stands in opposition to. To me it seems the statement plays the role of "enumerating the positions is not a fruitful way of approaching handling of positions" and if it is not enumerable then by theorycrafting it is probably some kind of infinity. And the example "proof" seems to be that for any proposal enumerating scheme you can take a position, apply a small mutator and end up with a position that is not covered by the original enumeration. A weaker versions results if only ""unlikely to be already enumerated".

Taking the logic a bit further it seems that the problem is already in "this position" where the pointing "this" can be ambigious in microparameters where trying to point to "one" position actually results in pointing to a whole class of positions. Thus "counting" positions is problematic and not really needed if we just want to undertand positions and their parameters/positions. So rather than there being a great many number of them an analysis is employed where we do not number them.

A similar thing could be made with water/ice. If you have icecubes it might make sense to count them. However if you have a cup of water or a block of ice it would be unnatural to place a integer amount to describe amount of water (althought with connection to avocadros number there probably is such a number) but neither it would make sense to say that a cup of water contains "infinite" amount of water. One might still care about big cup of water vs small cup of water. However the uncountable sense of size is not directly related to the countable sense of size (measure one in liters and one in objects).

Sets and Functions

You are making partially sense in that you are pointing to a modelling style but it does leave me unsure whether I can correctly fill in the missing bits. My thinking is interferred a lot by "getter functions" that are of the form [code]function get_color(self){ return self.color }. One of the point of such is that attributes tend to be private but methods are public and the programmer should he need to do so could change the implementation details without messing outside customers. So the modeeling style shares a similarity that objects are allowed to secretly have details outside of their interface. Sure if we have verbs and objects mixed up but can express object-like things as verbs by converting objects to verbs we only have to care about one basic ontology type. But I am unsure whether I missed it or is it fortcoming why it is important or valuable to focus on the verbs.

I am unsure what rule-basedness is but if it is different from extensional conception of functions then I would be super intrigued. I can get that sensing should be modelled with functions in that way but it seems contradictory how functions were supposed to be prediction or evolution models. So if I have a(b(c(d))) does it mean that first d goes throught two kinds of evolutions and is then observed or d goes throught one kind of evolution and then observation of that is observed. I am expecting this kind of divison is not an actual problem but I can't effortlessly go from the function formalism to observation/prediction formalisms and would likely make a lot of errors there.

Sets and Functions

That would the ambush part?

I would like to try double crux.

I think in your treatment between different monotheistic gods there would be evidence that would favour one god over another even if both start similarly dysmally low. However if you had two gods and they are indistinguishable from aliens then they should not be distinguishable from each other. I guess there are two senses in that in "evidence we currently have" vs "evidence that could ever exist". Like I would think that god hypothesis would not have increased probability for flying saucers. But if god doesn't raise the expectation of saucers does god raise the expectation of anything? If it doesn't raise the expectation of anything then there is nothing to disagree about because we don't mean anything.

I would like to try double crux.

What would count as successful contact? Can an outside person verify that contact has happened? If someone would convince you that your contact was actually confirmation bias would you change your opinion or probablity in god existing?

I would like to try double crux.

Paraphrasing: By the miracle I understand event or series of events that have either: a) extremely low probability, b) seems to break the laws of Nature or c) have significantly higher probability to occur in the world with God rather than without.

"Low probability events happen all the time"

'I do not believe in "miracles", in the sense that you probably mean'

The sense in which you replied to "miracles" seems not to be able to be understood in the literal definition provided, so you either used your own private definition or did not believe that their definition was accurately spelled out. Now the discussion has shifted and there has been an additonal feature added that miracles are connected to christian worship. If you are assuming they have additional properties it might be fruitful to be explicit about them.

I would like to try double crux.

if the clairvoyant knows any thing ie their experience correlates to anything then the other being is present. But I guess it would be hopeless to establish how reliable the information channel is using that information channel only.

Load More