Non Significance

About

Non Significance's posts

Post has attachment

Non Significance

Public

Aug 4, 2015

Thank you for your answer! I'll respond as soon as possible.

Dear Dr. B: Can you make up anything in theoretical physics?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post has attachment

Non Significance

Public

Aug 3, 2015

What do you think? Ok? Comments?

What is probability?

amoral-atheist.blogspot.com

Non Significance

Public

Aug 2, 2015

I'm on twitter now:@Amoral_Atheist
I'm sorry for making so few youtube videos, but it's complicated and my laptop sucks (a lot!)... working on it, though. Hope to finish next weekend.

Non Significance

The Thinking Atheist Discussion

Jul 23, 2015

This is a sincere question, i.e. I don't know where better to ask: In a discussion, how do you know when/which moment it is ok to “interrupt” your discussion partner? (Interrupt does not necessarily need to mean that you have to fall into his word but it might mean that. How long should the pause be?)

To explain my question: I am organizing a philosophy club. The first meeting took place today. I am very introverted (but very interested in the subject otherwise I wouldn’t do it) so I find it hard to interrupt people or to blur out my opinion.

But as I was organizing it (and giving a talk myself which as interrupted several times (which is good, because it was all about discussion)), I think I maybe should have said more (not sure, but maybe). But how do I know when the right time is? This is difficult, because you don’t want to be impolite.

Post has attachment

Non Significance

Public

Jul 18, 2015

Decision making...

amoral-atheist.blogspot.com

Post has attachment

Non Significance

Philosophy of Science on G+Discussion

Aug 3, 2015

Hi everybody,
I hope I'm not bothering you.
I wrote something on probability, i.e. about the question what probability is, the difference between the objective and the subjective viewpoint (frequentist vs. bayesian) on my blog. I want to make a youtube-video about this, but I just wanted to have some opinions before, if possible.
Unfortunately the text is too long to post it here, so here is a link: http://amoral-atheist.blogspot.com
I'd be happy to hear your opinion on it.

Non Significance: +Nicolas Fillion
Thank you for your response! I appreciate it! I'll reply probably ;) tomorrow. See you

Non Significance: Hi +Nicolas Fillion ,
Thank you very much for your response. I can see why you don’t like the question – for me the important point is that there is not just one point to look at probability and that there is a philosophy behind it.

(E.g. it is not so easy to say something has x% probability or will occur with x% probability, because it depends on the definition of probability how to look at it or what it means. Of course counting frequencies is easy in theory, but e.g. when a doctor wants to calculate the probability of a patient surviving the next year, the question might be, which class the patient belongs to… all patients with the disease, those how got admitted late to the hospital, those over 50 years of age, those with good health insurance etc. And is it correct after all to say that the patient will die with a probability of 50 (or whatever) percent? I personally sympathize more with the subjective view… As the patient will either die or not, only we can’t know with the information available, but can have a belief. (Maybe what I find more likeable with that is that the subjectivity is stated (more) explicit.)

Do you have a link to the Laplacian style for me? To be honest all I know about him is the Laplace Experiment and the rules to calculate Laplace probabilities (hope the translation is correct).

“I don't at all how adopting a frequentist point of view helps with that problem.” Are you referring to the lottery example? Well, yes, a frequentist way of thinking doesn’t help much here. I will try to improve the paragraph. Do you think the frequentist way helps in other problems/situations? Of course we need counts of relative frequency (or they are helpful) it is questionable how the relative frequency of a group can be transfered to individual entities – I think this is the interesting question. (Maybe the opposing/matching question to the question of inductive reasoning.)

Nicolas Fillion: Hi +Amoral Atheist ,

Regarding the Laplace approach, I had in mind his famous "A Philosophical Essay on Probability". It was written in French, but there's a full English translation available here: http://bayes.wustl.edu/Manual/laplace_A_philosophical_essay_on_probabilities.pdf.

Regarding the commentary between parentheses, I think it's a very legitimate concern, but I would stress one methodological/terminological nuance. From a mathematical point of view, all there is to being a probability is to satisfy the Kolmogorov axioms (or some related axiom set). That is the definition of probability. Now, there are different interpretations of probability, as you emphasize, but I would not say that they are different definitions. They consist in different ways of interpreting the mathematical formalism. Now, as you say, they key problem having to do with interpretation is: how do you measure the probability of events. This, however, is an issue having to do not with the interpretation of probability, not with its definition, in my opinion. And then, well, you have the standard stories about that, which I'm sure you know all about!

Post has attachment

Non Significance

Public

Aug 3, 2015

It is indeed...

Its hard To Sleep At Night | All Quotes | Love Image Collections

love.catchsmile.com

Post has attachment

Non Significance

Public

Jul 29, 2015

Post has shared content

Non Significance

Psychology General discussion

Jul 18, 2015

Hi, I'm not sure if I should really start the educational program to become a cognitive behavioral therapist... I don't think I would be good at giving advice to other ppl, I don't even know what to do myself. Currently I work in research, but that is a very unsave job...
I wrote a blog post about that (bc I it is to long to post it entirely here).
Would be happy about your opinion.
P.S.: Wasn't sure if I should but it under career, because there it sais "grad school"...

Originally shared by Non Significance

Decision making...

amoral-atheist.blogspot.com

Non Significance: +David Teachout
“The inability to “look inside” someone else is truly overrated in my book.”

It probably is. I read the discussion about Meehls book “clinical versus statistical prediction” (didn’t read the book itself, don’t have the time at the moment), which says that statistical prediction is more reliable than clinical prediction (and also diagnostic). Now, that does not (necessarily) say much about therapy (maybe the book does, I don’t know) but I could imagine that it can be better if therapists follow “established” rules/guidelines rather than their gut feelings (or some instincts etc.), but that doesn’t mean that the therapist does not have to understand what the patient is saying. And I’m worried that I won’t understand or misunderstand. Or won’t be able to say what I want to say in good words. (Or that I’m too confused myself, i.e. don’t know what is right. I mean, how do you know?)

“I simply don’t consider it as much of a shortcoming as many do, instead focusing on the heuristic biases that are an everyday constancy for all of us.”

What do you mean with that?

“I think this is a holdover from Cartesian dualism and the perpetual mythologizing of a human soul.”

Yes, this might be.

“When it comes to therapeutic relationships what you’re describing is far less to do with being uncertain about what may or may not have been said and more to do with why the client thought to start complaining at this point. There is no cognitive past, there is only present rebuilding.”

I think, I don’t quite understand. Are you saying the question then is not what the therapist did false (or the patient understood false, or whatever) but why the patient now (and not before) expresses that he is unwell with what the therapist said?

Thank you for this discussion!

David Teachout: Glad you’re appreciating it :-)

For heuristics I can’t recommend Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking: Fast and Slow”

As to memory, though it isn’t focused on this, I highly recommend Kathryn Schulz’s “Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error.”

I frankly, were I in charge of a psychology program, would require both those books as part of the reading curriculum.

Non Significance: +David Teachout Thank you for your recommendations!

Post has shared content

Non Significance

Philosophy General Discussion

Jul 14, 2015

Originally shared by Non Significance

Can it be right to make decisions for other people?

amoral-atheist.blogspot.com

Non Significance: + Tom "Uncle Ret" Paulk : I'm not sure... Of course "you" are making decisions for other people all the time (people are making decisions for other people all the time) but that doesn't mean that this is right. But I don't want to say it is wrong. Parents are making decisions for their children to (hopefully) help their children to become independent individuals once... in a similar way it could be argued that when you prevent someone from dying by intoxication (as an example) you give them the possibility to make clear decisions later - without being effected by a substance (or something else which might have strong temporal effects on a person’s decision making, like acute depression, any kind of overwhelmed feelings etc.). But then... to decide if or if not a person’s life is worth living is the "strongest" decision you can make... it is (might be) different from deciding which job an employee has to do of if a child can have sweets or not. Of course if you “decide” that someone’s life is or might be worth living it is not the same as deciding it is not, because there is a future for him where he can make decisions so you leave some decision to the person, (while, when you decide, that it is not… then there might be no decision to make anymore… (I’m not talking about killing someone here, but about letting someone die.)).

The question if live is worth living itself is of course a philosophical one. I hope you don’t misunderstand me here. I do not think that it depends on persons contributions to society if his/her live is worth living. But if a person feels miserably, there is the question if live is worth living (it might be there independent on how someone feels, but if someone is not well, the question – not the answer - is obvious).

Of course you can still say, yes, the question is there, BUT the person can decide later whether or not he thinks life is worth living, whether or not he wants to live or die. But when is later? Which is a situation when you are capable of making decisions then? If you once start to take away a person’s capability to make decisions (such important ones) it is difficult to draw the line. Can we decide if life is worth living when we are depressed? Frustrated? Sad? All these things are parts of which make live worth or not worth living… So how can it be, that we can say (figuratively) “Oh no, you are too depressed make your own decisions about life?” As I said before, some states might be really temporarily, like acute intoxication, acute depression, acute schizophrenic episodes, and things like that… But some people who suffer from this also suffer from chronic disease. Of course, they could still kill themselves as long as they don’t have any disability which hinders them after the acute episode, if they decide life is not worth living. But then, dying might be easier than killing. And by hindering someone to die he would have to kill (himself).

Tom Paulk: Short answer, since I am at work and can't focus long on responding. There are a number of good books that explore morality from a godless perspective that would better answer your questions. When it comes to individual cases, such as the one you descrived, you might have been concerned that the person had alchohol poisoning, while I would think given his circumstance might be self medicating.

For me to intervene in this situation means a disruption in the current and potentially future well being of the person because I as an individual am not equipped to provide lasting positive aid. This is something that society has struggled with for milinea with various degrees of success depending largely on the local populations mindset and compassion.

If I intervene unwarrantedly I am opening the individual up to possibly unwanted medical and police attention rather than the slumber the man was enjoying. For the man, he becomes saddled with medical debt he cannot repay and potentially a police record and an evicition from his resting spot, possibly even time in jail. During all of which, he is completely out of control of his own life, which is one of the factors that leads our species to frustration and anger- exacerbating his immediate problem because his responses to being controlled can lead to increased misery for him.

This in my opinion is something that can be better dealt with policy that provides better mental health care and other support avenues for the homeless.

So again, yes making decisions for other people can be right and lead to positive outcomes. However, doing so is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what the positve outcome is?

Non Significance: +Tom Paulk
“When it comes to individual cases, such as the one you descrived,you might have been concerned that the person had alchohol poisoning, while I would think given his circumstance might be self medicating.”

It surely is self medicating (in a lot of cases, at in homeless people maybe in all or at least nearly all). But that doesn’t exclude the possibility that he was poisoned with alcohol. It was also a very hot day so also just lying in the sun for a few hours (with alcohol intoxication) might be dangerous. Obviously I didn’t know for how long he was already lying there, though. My primary fear was that he was falling into the pond. The water is not deep but children can drawn in flat water so that must apply to drunk persons as well. Maybe someone would have helped in this case anyways, but I’m not sure about that and I’m not sure how noticeable a person who drowns this way is… and of course it might have been that he’d fallen into the pond a few hours later at night when no one (or not many) people is/are around anymore.

“For me to intervene in this situation means a disruption in the current and potentially future well being of the person because I as an individual am not equipped to provide lasting positive aid.”

That is also true and this is why I don’t know if it was right to do anything – or to say it better, now, I don’t think it was right. I mean, not that he was well at the moment (or is well in the situation, it doesn’t seem so) but it won’t change for better, that is the problem.

“If I intervene unwarrantedly I am opening the individual up to possibly unwanted medical and police attention rather than the slumber the man was enjoying. For the man, he becomes saddled with medical debt he cannot repay and potentially a police record and an evicition from his resting spot, possibly even time in jail.”

To be honest, I did think of consequences (especially later, but also at that moment I really didn’t wanted to disturb him) but not that he might have to pay for the ambulance. I googled it now and it sais, that homeless persons don’t have to pay for it (on official sites, I live in Germany) and the “only” problem is that doctors often don’t treat them very well or don’t like to treat them at all. However, I wonder how someone can prove that he is really homeless. That could be a difficult task, especially for someone living on the street and especially in a highly bureaucratic state. So I hope that I didn’t cause him any trouble with that, I really hope it.

A few weeks ago I did a first aid course. There I asked what to do when you walk by homeless persons and don’t know if they are well or not. (Of course I’m definitely not revering to any homeless persons, I mean for most it is clear that they are more or less “ok” but some month ago for example I walked by a woman who was half lying on a park bench and half not… in a very, very strange way, like I didn’t know if she was alive or not. This was the kind of situation I was revering too.) And he said, defiantly always call the ambulance, you cannot just not call them because it is a homeless person (of course not, this was not quite what I was thinking anyways) and that they are there for this.

“During all of which, he is completely out of control of his own life, which is one of the factors that leads our species to frustration and anger- exacerbating his immediate problem because his responses to being controlled can lead to increased misery for him.”

Yes, basically it is impossible to know the consequences of the interference in another person’s life. Of course we deal with other persons all the time and never know the consequences, but he didn’t want any interference so… I don’t think it was right.

“This in my opinion is something that can be better dealt with policy that provides better mental health care and other support avenues for the homeless.”

Of course. But that is of course something that would have to be built (over a probably longer time) and is not available now as an alternative between doing nothing and going home and trying to interfere with the means available.

“So again, yes making decisions for other people can be right and lead to positive outcomes. However, doing so is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what the positve outcome is?”

Yes, only the person itself can decide if an outcome is positive or not. And even that might be difficult because you never know your alternative lives (like how live would have gone, if not… etc.).

Wait while more posts are being loaded

Press question mark to see available shortcut keys