People do already exist with these needs. The current community. All of whom will suffer if there's no succeeding generation. I agree. Procreation sho...
Virtually all humans thrive on the company of others. The greatest harms we suffer are ostracisation and loneliness, far greater than any physical har...
You talk about meaning, I'm talking about good. Two different objectives. What is meaningful is fine being subjective. We can each make our own choice...
It's perfectly clear. I'm asking exactly the same of you as you just asked of me. The citations from which you've derived your view. If you don't unde...
Nothing. 'Seeing' is a process of inference. Nothing is seen directly. Everything that is seen is seen indirectly. It's not a direct process, it has s...
This is the one I'm asking about. And... ... Why? Are these just spontaneous feeling you have, not derived from any deeper objective? They seem, no of...
I've just given three examples in which the subject of observation is the hidden state. As I said, why don't we start with the papers from which you'v...
Then what is your chief concern? So you don't breathe, eat or move then? You are never inactive, so you're always doing. The choice is over what to do...
First mention, first paper. It is the hidden states which are being inferred by the process in question (in this case 'seeing') ie what we 'see' is th...
You've not demonstrated that being certain one's actions don't cause irreversible harm before acting minimises harm to others though. The inaction res...
We don't. As I said in the other thread, if you're going to start saying that 'direct' requires no intervening data nodes, then we do not 'directly' e...
This is simply not possible (where 'internal' applies to some self-organsing system). To recognise a system, a self organising one, there has to be an...
"Expand", maybe. "Replace" is what I'm less convinced by. Indeed, but not told us that words we've been using for one purpose are 'wrong'. Correct use...
Yes, I agree. There's no point in reducing harm just for the sake of following some rule about reducing harm. We usually weigh predicted harms and ben...
Ah, then we're using two different meanings of 'hidden states' which is causing the confusion. I'm using hidden states in its technical sense with reg...
Yes, clearly. One does not otherwise know the outcome in advance and cannot match it to one's intention. Morality is about what we ought to to. It is ...
Because that would involve omniscience and none of us are. Well then you're not using the word 'moral' correctly. The degree of prior certainty you're...
One cannot have both, so you've made moral action impossible. Thus the word 'moral' becomes pointless. I suggest, therefore we find it new use - perha...
Yes, I think one can reason badly about the courses of action which would most benefit the community and ignoring individual welfare would be one such...
It's the basis of my argument against anti-natalism. One only need a reasonable belief that one's child will not suffer greatly for any small sufferin...
True. It's a consideration one ought to take into account. My preferred solution to the unknown consequences problem is to consider ethics about virtu...
By it, the simplest justification for having a child is that it will do more to improve the welfare of one's community (including the future child) th...
Good odds is the requirement, not the justification. One cannot reasonably justify having a child on the basis of good odds that they'll be happy alon...
Yes. NU is as bizarre a ethic as any. Why would we eliminate harm with no-one around to enjoy their harm-free life? One might as well have an ethic ar...
I agree to an extent, but one has to have careful limits if one is to do that and I think those limits create an asymmetry. Looking at just utility we...
I have a lot of sympathy for this view, it's basically the same as my own, but I'd quibble with the word 'reality'. I don't think we use the word 'rea...
I agree. I cannot for the life of me think why arguments against anti-natalism always seem to descend into this particular lunacy. It is obvious that ...
No. That was my point (reductio ad absurdum, I believe it's called?). That's not how we use the word 'know'. We use the word 'know' to refer to succes...
Not how I use the word reason. If you're talking about purpose, then fine. The purpose of neurons is not to represent the outside world. We know this ...
Then the hidden state would be whatever lay outside whatever nodes you had as the new Markov boundary. The existence of hidden states is just a mathem...
You were talking about perception. If you're now talking about the future, then no, I don't think we can know the future (in general). I'm claiming we...
Nothing non-serious about it. If you want to say we don't actually 'know' a hidden state because all we 'really' have access to is our inference about...
That's really interesting, thanks. Did you ever read the article here... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1059712319862774 ...where Frist...
Well, if we're not 'overstating', you only know what you currently remember about what happened when you tested the model. All thought is post hoc by ...
Glad you liked them. It's rich ground for study. It's from a stock of image links I have. It'll be from a paper, but I don't know which, I'm afraid. T...
Depends on the context the words are used in. I don't hold with 'strictly speaking' when it comes to definitions. Words mean whatever they're successf...
@"Banno". Found it. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10066600/1/Friston_Variational%20ecology%20and%20the%20physics%20of%20sentient%20systems_Pro...
I don't need premises. I don't consider ants have bank accounts. I don't consider atoms have feelings. I can't for the life of me think why anyone wou...
Not at all, it predicts cognitive bias in those unaware of the issue and less so in those aware of it. Easily falsifiable by showing a general lack of...
Indeed. But the theory behind clickbait never said anything like "and even knowing about this won't change the model" so the actual psychological theo...
Well, no. In the first instance, psychology's replication rate is similar (marginally better, in fact) to medicine. Do you refuse medical treatment? B...
Have they? Or was it the counterculture in the 60s very few of whom had even picked up Freud? Besides which, has that rendered Freud's theories false?...
Absolutely. But do they actually change mental practices in any way which then falsifies the theory. Are these people actually thinking in a meaningfu...
Comments