By the time kid 2 got box 2 open and discovered it contained a lump of coal, kid 1 had eaten the cookie. Between the first bite of the cookie and the discovery of the lump of coal, both kids inhabited a reality where proposition A was assumed to be true.
-
Show this thread
-
This is what it means for a reality to be constructed out of the benefit of doubt. The brief period where Prop A *might* have been true was also the period when kid 1 was *really* eating the cookie.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
In modal logic terms, the cookie was eaten in all possible worlds (P: ▢ the cookie is eaten by kid A) but there was a second cookie only in *some* possible worlds (Q: ⋄ There is a cookie). In between was world W where both P and Q were true for period T.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
In your model, in W Q was ASSUMED AS PROBABLY TRUE, it was never true; kid 2 gambled on what the other box contained
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LucioMM1
Probability theory is a an unnecessary level of epistemology that is neither necessary not sufficient to account for modal structure of subjective reality. I’m trying to describe at a level that works even for belief dynamics of babies and chimps.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
I think de finetti answers this perfectly, and i agree with him that even simple living beings operate on subjective probability estimates all the time
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LucioMM1
But not consciously Just as modulation of emotional states like caring, excitement etc via dopamine regulation mainly. “Probabilistic belief” maps to things like “engaged” or “apathetic” and is not determinative (other factors modulate those states too)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
There is no need for coscience to enter the picture, i agree. Living beings are wired to gamble
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LucioMM1
They’re wired to behave in ways we tend to narrativize as “gambling” It’s like pretending cats and dogs can understand what we say in human language because they respond appropriately sometimes
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
We model it as gambling because it works as a descriptive and predictive model of behaviour. Risk taking under uncertainty is basically every day in life
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Sure. You’re modeling for predictive success. I’m modeling for descriptive accuracy of subjective experience. “What is it _like_ to hold what logicians call a probabilistic belief”
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Oh ok sorry. You want to dive into the black box. I understand the curiosity but I can't add much to that interest, I don't have sufficient knowledge of neurological dynamics
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.