All of thales's Comments + Replies

I had a similar discussion with a family member, about the existence of the Christian god, where I received that exact response. My wife was sitting right there. I responded with something along the lines of, "True, but my 'faith' in her love is already backed up by evidence, and besides, I have plenty of evidence that she exists. If there was evidence for God and evidence of His love, I would happily put faith in that too."

But I agree - it definitely caused me to pause to consider a tactful response.

I'm new here and didn't know if this has been a topic of discussion yet, but I found this story to be fascinating:

In short, two psychologists modeled decision-making in a variation of the Prisoner's Dilemma with a "quantum" probability model. Their motivation was to reconcile results from actual studies (the participants consistently made apparently irrational choices) with what classical probability theory predicts a rational agent would choose.

Oh, and the quantum thing isn't new-age mysticism at all. It'... (read more)

EDIT: I looked at the context, and I'm setting a bad example for thales. This is off-topic for the post, so it should have been put in Open Thread instead. But EY already responded, so I'll leave my comment instead of deleting it. Same justification Penrose used for saying quantum mechanics is required to explain consciousness. This is very interesting. I would guess that this is linked to instinctive fight-or-flight decisions, and has to do with adrenaline, not rational decisions. I assume this is a 2-round PD? Otherwise, why 66% defecting in response to cooperation? When the action is unknown, you don't assume 1-1 odds. But you certainly would predict that P(defection) | unknown is between P(defection) | defection and P(defection) | cooperation. This isn't cognitive dissonance, but whatever. Sounds to me - and this is based on more than what I quoted here - like they are simply positing that people think that the probability of their defecting is correlated with the probability of the other person defecting. Possibly they just don't understand probability theory, and think they're working outside it. I attended a lecture by Lofti Zadeh, inventor of fuzzy logic, in which he made it appear (to me, not to him) that he invented fuzzy logic to implement parts of standard probability theory that he didn't understand. But the math for that explanation doesn't work. You'd have to read their paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society B to figure out what they really mean.