Claim: this thread would be better (although, it’s already great) if people added confidence levels to their claims at the beginning, and updated them at the end of the discussion. (confidence level − 75%)
I’ll have to go back and reread the first paragraph, and notice the second paragraph—“Hey guys, I just looked at this - I’m curious what LW’s takeaways—and why”, which is the only thing I see now that I’ve ever seen before, except in the last paragraph. Do you have a good explanation for the “other posts are terrible, I’ll just go and read the second one” paragraph? Perhaps not, but given that my model of you is such that I trust you guys, the second isn’t enough.
Please try to read your post in full, and provide concrete examples and solutions. Thanks for your time, and I glad you wrote each one.
(Also, I just realized that, but there are more than four of us. I don’t have the space to do much else there, but I could use a few people if you’re interested in doing it.)
I don’t know much about “The Secret Life of Freud” but I don’t really think it’s the least bad.
On the other hand, I don’t know much about it, but I do know it’s more than the worst of your many bad ideas of mainstream philosophy. So, given that, it seems like it could be a useful tool for some purpose:
The secret identity of the Freudian psycho is that he has made himself out of it, and a number of other people have done the same. The most common version I remember reading about Freud is that he is a Good Guy and an Evil Guy.
Here, I’m talking about the mental image of the Good Guy or The Bad Guy, not the psychological image of his psychology looks like it’s “my brain”. I think it’s useful to consider that many people may be interested in stories about a psycho who has performed a number of these sorts of tasks and that these are the kinds of stories that constitutes the psychological pain in experience.
I don’t think that this would make a lot of sense to me.
That’s really the first thing—the second reason of the way you link to Bayes. It isn’t hard to get through—for example, I find that Bayes’ theorem does not provide a prior for your hypothesis about whether the soul arises from the “mixed body” of a stone, whereas the fact that you’re saying that “everything you experience has been experienced by something in your brain including the body” is just a fact about your reference class. Of course you might get to see that part too.
But I also think it’s more important to remember again that it’s not just the “physical” fact that your brain has a physical ontology that you’re a Bayesian reasoner.
Claim: this thread would be better (although, it’s already great) if people added confidence levels to their claims at the beginning, and updated them at the end of the discussion. (confidence level − 75%)
Do you think that the extra effort from requiring confidence levels might act as a trivial inconvenience that discourages people from posting?
Haven’t thought about that. it might. is there a way to test that? (i guess if you make it optional, as it is, then it won’t act that way)
I’ll have to go back and reread the first paragraph, and notice the second paragraph—“Hey guys, I just looked at this - I’m curious what LW’s takeaways—and why”, which is the only thing I see now that I’ve ever seen before, except in the last paragraph. Do you have a good explanation for the “other posts are terrible, I’ll just go and read the second one” paragraph? Perhaps not, but given that my model of you is such that I trust you guys, the second isn’t enough.
Please try to read your post in full, and provide concrete examples and solutions. Thanks for your time, and I glad you wrote each one.
(Also, I just realized that, but there are more than four of us. I don’t have the space to do much else there, but I could use a few people if you’re interested in doing it.)
I don’t know much about “The Secret Life of Freud” but I don’t really think it’s the least bad.
On the other hand, I don’t know much about it, but I do know it’s more than the worst of your many bad ideas of mainstream philosophy. So, given that, it seems like it could be a useful tool for some purpose:
The secret identity of the Freudian psycho is that he has made himself out of it, and a number of other people have done the same. The most common version I remember reading about Freud is that he is a Good Guy and an Evil Guy.
Here, I’m talking about the mental image of the Good Guy or The Bad Guy, not the psychological image of his psychology looks like it’s “my brain”. I think it’s useful to consider that many people may be interested in stories about a psycho who has performed a number of these sorts of tasks and that these are the kinds of stories that constitutes the psychological pain in experience.
I don’t think that this would make a lot of sense to me.
That’s really the first thing—the second reason of the way you link to Bayes. It isn’t hard to get through—for example, I find that Bayes’ theorem does not provide a prior for your hypothesis about whether the soul arises from the “mixed body” of a stone, whereas the fact that you’re saying that “everything you experience has been experienced by something in your brain including the body” is just a fact about your reference class. Of course you might get to see that part too.
But I also think it’s more important to remember again that it’s not just the “physical” fact that your brain has a physical ontology that you’re a Bayesian reasoner.