Friday, August 19, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Gravitus of Significance - or - "Don't stand in the fire!"
Ages ago I had this conversation on the RPG.net forums with a guy. The thread was about alot of stuff, but it got to the point where the example was something like this: Every round something is in the fire, it has a 25% chance of being burned.
And basically two camps came about, over whether that 25% stacked. Some said it did and some say it didn't. I'll go with the latter, because I'm not part of that camp and so its interesting.
Basically, IIRC, their arguement that the 25% chance in one round in no way correlates with the 25% chance in the next round. They aren't connected, they'd say. They don't stack. They don't add up to a greater chance. It's only ever 25%, into perpetuity.
Of course, they were saying it from the safe space of it being a made up world. But regardless, I can allllmost humour this perception in my head. Which makes it interesting.
The question is, is the idea of one being alive atleast partially the instinct/reflex to stack those odds?
I can almost frame it in my head, but it's hard to do. That the sum of 'you' is the conclusion, if you were standing in the fire, the odds ADD UP? That it's NOT the same percentage every single round. That it's MORE than that!?
A logica construct insisting that this instance does adds up, when actually it doesn't (and remember, I'm in the camp that said it does add up). And if this logica construct ever resolved itself with the rest of the universe, it would flatten into it (instead of being an abberant bulge) and instead simply state there is no difference between one round and the next? Harmony with the universe means thinking from the frame that when your standing in the fire, the moments do not add?
And yeah, 'logica' is made up, but it sounds more fun that way...
And basically two camps came about, over whether that 25% stacked. Some said it did and some say it didn't. I'll go with the latter, because I'm not part of that camp and so its interesting.
Basically, IIRC, their arguement that the 25% chance in one round in no way correlates with the 25% chance in the next round. They aren't connected, they'd say. They don't stack. They don't add up to a greater chance. It's only ever 25%, into perpetuity.
Of course, they were saying it from the safe space of it being a made up world. But regardless, I can allllmost humour this perception in my head. Which makes it interesting.
The question is, is the idea of one being alive atleast partially the instinct/reflex to stack those odds?
I can almost frame it in my head, but it's hard to do. That the sum of 'you' is the conclusion, if you were standing in the fire, the odds ADD UP? That it's NOT the same percentage every single round. That it's MORE than that!?
A logica construct insisting that this instance does adds up, when actually it doesn't (and remember, I'm in the camp that said it does add up). And if this logica construct ever resolved itself with the rest of the universe, it would flatten into it (instead of being an abberant bulge) and instead simply state there is no difference between one round and the next? Harmony with the universe means thinking from the frame that when your standing in the fire, the moments do not add?
And yeah, 'logica' is made up, but it sounds more fun that way...
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Arguments Demand
Quoted without any real context, but still fun. More fun if said while on the ridge of a mountain in a thunderstorm, with swords made of lightening in each hand. Rather than sitting at a 'puter with a blankey over ones lap to keep away the chill...
Yes, but this seems the core of your certainty, the last nub. That you have to be disproved or otherwise you have asserted something of substance?
Do I have to disprove the jehovah's witnesses at the door, otherwise if I can’t I must accept some substance to their assertions?
Feel free to say yes. I can think of no arguments against saying so. In your case or in theirs.
Edit: I was a bit naughty not to provide context. After thinking about it, what the person was saying came in two parts - an idea, and then the phrase 'we have reason to do this' and 'we should do this'.
I was really aiming at the 'we', 'have reason' and especially 'should' part. Sadly I kind of aimed at the whole/both things at once, which added obsfucation to things.
I'm hoping there will be a third edit, where what is meant by 'we should' is described. I guess I should (ha, there's that word again!) list the whole conversation. But I'm not sure what I'm aiming for with this blog yet. Currently I'm just indulging the one model (my own). Whether it's applicable is interesting, but I'd like to actually finish a draft of that model first.
Anyway, I further asked:
Second edit: No luck - on 'We should'
So, my responce
I'm actually really surprised at someone saying 'We should...' is not in itself an argument? Somehow if you say 'we' - which is to refer to every single human on the planet (!!!), it becomes less argumentative than if you only refer to two or three people and what they should do? Wow?
But if I’m wrong, you haven’t yet provided a single argument as to _why_
Yes, but this seems the core of your certainty, the last nub. That you have to be disproved or otherwise you have asserted something of substance?
Do I have to disprove the jehovah's witnesses at the door, otherwise if I can’t I must accept some substance to their assertions?
Feel free to say yes. I can think of no arguments against saying so. In your case or in theirs.
Edit: I was a bit naughty not to provide context. After thinking about it, what the person was saying came in two parts - an idea, and then the phrase 'we have reason to do this' and 'we should do this'.
I was really aiming at the 'we', 'have reason' and especially 'should' part. Sadly I kind of aimed at the whole/both things at once, which added obsfucation to things.
I'm hoping there will be a third edit, where what is meant by 'we should' is described. I guess I should (ha, there's that word again!) list the whole conversation. But I'm not sure what I'm aiming for with this blog yet. Currently I'm just indulging the one model (my own). Whether it's applicable is interesting, but I'd like to actually finish a draft of that model first.
Anyway, I further asked:
Does the link cover what you mean by ‘We should’? I’ve looked through, but might have missed it?
It’s just that ‘We should’ are two of the most explosive words in the world, and you’ve put them together. I imagine most wars start with a ‘We should’.
Maybe I make a great fuss of what is just a term of phrase. It could be just a silly fear and missplaced awe I have for those words. But dread I do find in those few inky marks (well, pixelley marks).
Second edit: No luck - on 'We should'
It is simply a fact that “we should…” is not an argument.
So, my responce
If you had said ‘Those three people over there should…’, you’d probably find those three people would prickle at you telling them what do do
Why is that, if it’s not an argument your pitching to them?
I'm actually really surprised at someone saying 'We should...' is not in itself an argument? Somehow if you say 'we' - which is to refer to every single human on the planet (!!!), it becomes less argumentative than if you only refer to two or three people and what they should do? Wow?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
You know, this repeated some of my own wording for how I navigate life, in terms of working from probables – which creeped me out a bit.
Except does he practice it? He has no theories? Yet to say something isn’t a theory is to assume the total impossiblity of error in doing so?
I mean, the wording above is actually quite subtle – “There is no reason one cannot take a logically sound position with confidence without having to assume the total impossibility of error in doing so.”
Yes, so he says there’s not reason you can’t do that. He’s not actually saying he does it, in saying so, though.
But lets read it charitably, for a moment. What does it mean when he says he simply acts as if he knows?
Does that fire off a belief instinct in others to believe him? Does it fire it off inside himself?
Can you say “Everything I say might be wrong” then go on for six years speaking only as if your right, relying on one disclaimer utterance from years prior? Does this work?
And because everyone else prudently avoided bringing it up…
Is he just having us on? Everyone did read the sharks with lasers bit, didn’t they?
This isn't any method used in the practice of science? Which third parties? The ones of his choosing?
If you ask a thousand people to measure something by using a certain metric and they all report the same result, you probably have an objective metric.
The pornography observation about the first book would also be reported by every single person over a sample of a thousand or more people? This is obviously not the case?