I felt like “If anybody sees a scottsman, please tell” and when providing a scottman getting a reception of “The kilt is a bit short for a scottsman”. Being clueless is one thing and announcing a million dollar prize pool for an effect that you are never going to consider granting is another.
The argument is not general as digging into each candidate the same set amount does not apply to it or having any kind of scheme where you can justify the scrutinity given.
I though that part of the function was “I hope I have understood this correctly” or “this seems to be a thing” where “is this real?” is kind of the question being asked.
If your lenses are working, more power to you. If your lenses do not catch the things that my lenses make illusions of to me, I am not particularly selling my lenses or particularly explaining the cracks in my lenses to you.
I’m about to give up on this branch of conversation. I’m having trouble parsing what you’re saying. It’s feeling weirdly abstract to me.
If you have an example of something humans actually do that is more of this “positive addiction” thing, in a way that isn’t rooted in the “negative addiction” pattern I describe, I’m open to learning about that.
You gave a hypothetical example type. I noted that in practice when that actually happens it strikes me as always rooted in the “negative addiction” thing. So it doesn’t (yet) work for me as an example.
If there’s something I’m missing about your example, please feel free to clarify.
Don’t slide into claims that I’m just blinding myself with a “pet theory”. If I’m blinding myself, I’m blinding myself to something you can name. Please just name the thing.
I disagree that that examples need to be verbally accessible (but undestand making a scheme where rare data types can be utilised require a lot of good will).
By Aumann agreement style reasoning, if we are both sane and differ in our judgement/perception then somebody got some updating to do. Even if we can’t explicate the opining. I am doing so bad in this discussion that I am kind of orienting being the insane one here. So I consider to have abandoned the thing except for few select threads that seem can be positive.
Alternative word that in some contexts has been a near synonym: compulsiveness
Example of positive addiction: people being on their phones and conversing less face-to-face. (ocurred to me why the search might have special character, positive addiction might not be a problem or concieved as a problem, pure occurrence vs forming a problem). People do not need to find face-to-face time negative for it to occur or hurry to end when it happens.
I think I am curious about how the classifying of the previous two examples were found to not be an instance (Aumann crux).
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
<edit moved to another post for known to be in its own karma bucket>
If I know people might not want to see this and this might tank makes sense to have it separate.
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
Previous opening of the reason why the examples were found not to be instances pattern matches for me to:
Why infactuation? Well, it could be Z, X, Y. Z is based on negative addiction. X is based on negative addiction. Y is based on negative addiction. Infactuation seems to be based on negative addiction
Well what about if it was A, B or C? As is it is an argument from lack of imagination. It needs a reason why the reasons would be exhaustive to leave that territority.
Probably should have just taken small steps previously but here I am explicating. “A” could be that student is having an ordinary balanced life and first love hits. The style of rejection seems that this would be taken with a pattern of : Well the students previous life must have been so negative if addiction can be upkept. If ordinary life counts as “negative life” I am wondering what words “neutral” and “positive” are supposed to mean. (occurred why the special character for the search, mechanism is based on contrast and contrast always has duality (negative and positive here) ). No argument about specific things that could suck in a students life. If the fact that life has downs is obvious enough to just ambiently assume then recognising that it also has ups should not be far. Another pattern of “it can be needing the risk not to happen and that is negative addiction.” closing a branch of inquiry of the type “it can be, therefore it must be”. ∃x=¬∀¬x negates as ¬∃x=∀¬x rather than ¬∃x≠p(¬x)>90%. Sure, if one is searching an efficient or wide solution to the problem inductive reasoning that cares about cogency makes sense. But if one is wondering whether an edge cases exists having a stance that “that is not an edge case as it is rare” is not exactly enlightening. (assuming that approach is first to find the edgecases to estimate then whether their empirical frequency warrants analysis or inclusion).
I felt like “If anybody sees a scottsman, please tell” and when providing a scottman getting a reception of “The kilt is a bit short for a scottsman”. Being clueless is one thing and announcing a million dollar prize pool for an effect that you are never going to consider granting is another.
The argument is not general as digging into each candidate the same set amount does not apply to it or having any kind of scheme where you can justify the scrutinity given.
I though that part of the function was “I hope I have understood this correctly” or “this seems to be a thing” where “is this real?” is kind of the question being asked.
If your lenses are working, more power to you. If your lenses do not catch the things that my lenses make illusions of to me, I am not particularly selling my lenses or particularly explaining the cracks in my lenses to you.
I’m about to give up on this branch of conversation. I’m having trouble parsing what you’re saying. It’s feeling weirdly abstract to me.
If you have an example of something humans actually do that is more of this “positive addiction” thing, in a way that isn’t rooted in the “negative addiction” pattern I describe, I’m open to learning about that.
You gave a hypothetical example type. I noted that in practice when that actually happens it strikes me as always rooted in the “negative addiction” thing. So it doesn’t (yet) work for me as an example.
If there’s something I’m missing about your example, please feel free to clarify.
Don’t slide into claims that I’m just blinding myself with a “pet theory”. If I’m blinding myself, I’m blinding myself to something you can name. Please just name the thing.
I disagree that that examples need to be verbally accessible (but undestand making a scheme where rare data types can be utilised require a lot of good will).
By Aumann agreement style reasoning, if we are both sane and differ in our judgement/perception then somebody got some updating to do. Even if we can’t explicate the opining. I am doing so bad in this discussion that I am kind of orienting being the insane one here. So I consider to have abandoned the thing except for few select threads that seem can be positive.
Alternative word that in some contexts has been a near synonym: compulsiveness
Example of positive addiction: people being on their phones and conversing less face-to-face. (ocurred to me why the search might have special character, positive addiction might not be a problem or concieved as a problem, pure occurrence vs forming a problem). People do not need to find face-to-face time negative for it to occur or hurry to end when it happens.
I think I am curious about how the classifying of the previous two examples were found to not be an instance (Aumann crux).
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
<edit moved to another post for known to be in its own karma bucket>
If I know people might not want to see this and this might tank makes sense to have it separate.
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
Previous opening of the reason why the examples were found not to be instances pattern matches for me to:
Well what about if it was A, B or C? As is it is an argument from lack of imagination. It needs a reason why the reasons would be exhaustive to leave that territority.
Probably should have just taken small steps previously but here I am explicating. “A” could be that student is having an ordinary balanced life and first love hits. The style of rejection seems that this would be taken with a pattern of : Well the students previous life must have been so negative if addiction can be upkept. If ordinary life counts as “negative life” I am wondering what words “neutral” and “positive” are supposed to mean. (occurred why the special character for the search, mechanism is based on contrast and contrast always has duality (negative and positive here) ). No argument about specific things that could suck in a students life. If the fact that life has downs is obvious enough to just ambiently assume then recognising that it also has ups should not be far. Another pattern of “it can be needing the risk not to happen and that is negative addiction.” closing a branch of inquiry of the type “it can be, therefore it must be”. ∃x=¬∀¬x negates as ¬∃x=∀¬x rather than ¬∃x≠p(¬x)>90%. Sure, if one is searching an efficient or wide solution to the problem inductive reasoning that cares about cogency makes sense. But if one is wondering whether an edge cases exists having a stance that “that is not an edge case as it is rare” is not exactly enlightening. (assuming that approach is first to find the edgecases to estimate then whether their empirical frequency warrants analysis or inclusion).