nath-ormond.bsky.social
aka: Digital Gnosis, aka "Digital Know Nothing"
Software Engineer
Philosopher (MSc) -- Wittgensteinian / Pragmatist / Naturalist
Statistics (MS in progress)
Christian ( no metaphysics )
linktr.ee/digitalgnosis
385 posts
343 followers
379 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Also, you might be interested in @ttahko.bsky.social 's book ( www.cambridge.org/core/element... ) which touches on a bunch of the themes in your paper under a different taxonomy
comment in response to
post
I know you're a busy man, could you point me in any directions you find interesting?
I'm finding that the polysemy in these terms is creating a lot of the problems in topics you're interested in like computation -- particularly wrt understanding mind.
ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp....
comment in response to
post
Maybe after I finish "The Empirical Stance" -- which has for some reason been taking ages to arrive
comment in response to
post
I am -- big fan, just haven't thought to reach out
comment in response to
post
At some point I will be hoping to interview ppl like Deborah Mayo and Aris Spanos at some point too which you might be into.
I also interviewed J.D. Hamkins on Frege's Philosophy of Mathematics a few years back: www.youtube.com/live/jIwm0Xn...
comment in response to
post
Are behaviourists welcome?
comment in response to
post
Thanks for sharing!
comment in response to
post
Looking very healthy Philip -- idk if it's just the lighting, but nice little sun tan going on!
comment in response to
post
Hey Sean Enjoyed this, but I think he didn't give Frequentists a fair hearing!
comment in response to
post
A bit, the problem as I see it is also things like people ignoring that the negation of one of these theories is a catchall
comment in response to
post
My view is each of these specify so little that they have infinite ways to vary. Theism, naturalism, etc.
comment in response to
post
I feel more happy seeing Bayes as one of many tools humans have made.
I also view science as a social, political activity of humans.
Im sure something here will annoy you! 😂
comment in response to
post
But was it true you were smiling?
comment in response to
post
Would you say the "natural" reading is the value we would expect to get from this stochastic process / random variable?
My brain also doesn't like "moments"
(btw not asking to troll, asking so I can be as comfortable as others with these ways of speaking/thinking)
comment in response to
post
For some reason my brain hates the concept of expected value. Its like "well I wasnt expecting it"
comment in response to
post
You need to do a bit more Mimesis before you resolve your cognitive dissonance with a resurrection!
comment in response to
post
Or cease doing philosophy once we see clearly and do something more worthwhile.
I do believe this.
comment in response to
post
I agree, I just wouldnt formalise it. Whats more honest for my thinking (Im NOT accusing you of dishonesty) is that I literally cannot reason about the problem and assign a prior PDF or likelihood such that I can actually update
comment in response to
post
And the other point I would get to is like, so what. What are you going to do? Write a Dutch book? Cool, I'm off to the gym.
comment in response to
post
What measure are you using for a uniform distribution over infinite degrees of freedom?
comment in response to
post
I am, and God has far more internal degrees of freedom than the Earths entire weather system
comment in response to
post
Yeah I still can't evaluate it at all from then
comment in response to
post
It's a 32 number lottery
comment in response to
post
Because I think the a priori is a myth and Im supposed to be imagining myself reasoning about linguistic concepts prior to my acquisition of language is one reason.
Another is that I can't quantify P(AnB) or P(B) so cant compute the value!
comment in response to
post
Suppose I pick a lottery ticket. I either do or dont win the lottery, so I have a 50/50 prior. youtu.be/z5LrqcweJR4?...
comment in response to
post
I dont think it makes any sense of assigning a prior here, or a likelihood for that matter. I think its not assessable in a Bayesian framework.
comment in response to
post
I just like it when she isn't talking! Im not a physicalist