A decision matrix is a very simple tool that can give an overview of an argument. Points for and against each alternative have positive and negative values.
However, if those values themselves depend on other calculations, or are interdependent, the decision matrix provides no way to display that, so it is not a complete modelling language.
Not quite in the same class as the listed software. Useful, I've used them, but they get really complicated with more variables. If you look at what they've got, it doesn't exactly seem bayesian. They don't work of probability, but off of absolute truths. Debating each piece of minutia in a sort of tree structure. It could definitely be improved upon.
This solution doesn’t work. Why? Because I pledge that if anyone fails to accept a “Pascal’s Mugging style trade-off with full knowledge of the problem, then I will slowly torture to death 3^^^^3 sentient minds”. I’ve just canceled out your pledge.
You could say all your allies take the same pledge as you, and you have more allies than me, but that’s getting too far into the practicalities of our lives and too far away from a general solution. A general solution can’t assume that the person considering whether to accept a Mugging will have heard either of our pledges, so the person would be unable to take those pledges into account for their decision.
I don’t know the actual solution to Pascal’s Mugging myself. I’ve pasted my outline-form notes on it so far into a reply to this comment, in case they’re useful.
As an omnipotent god entity I pledge to counter any any attempt at pascals muggings, as long as the mugger actually has the power to do what they say.
I’ve just canceled out your pledge.
Yep. You did, or you would have if you could actually carry through on your threats. I maintain that you can't. Now it's a question of which of our claims is more likely to be true. That's kind of the point here. When you're dealing with that small or a probability then the calculation becomes useless and marred by noise.
If I'm correct, and I'm one of the very few entities capable of doing this, who happen across your world anyway, then I can cancel out your claim and a bunch of future claims. If you're correct then I can't. So the question is, how unlikely are my claims? How unlikely are yours? Are your claims significantly more likely (on the tiny scales we're working with) then mine?
But yes, now that I look at it more in depth (thank you for the links), it's obvious that this is a reiteration of the "counter" solution, but with actual specific and viable threats behind it.
Now I tend not to follow this form very much, so please excuse me if this has been suggested before.
It actually, has. Within the last week or two.
Apparently my search-fu is weak. Would you care to link, or suggest search terms that would make finding it less arduous?
EDIT: found it, I think, over here. One of the obvious issues is that it's not a credible threat.
So far I haven't seen a counter argument over there that satisfies me. If there is anywhere that they go into it more in depth, please do give it a link here.
Now I tend not to follow this form very much, so please excuse me if this has been suggested before. Still, I don't know that there's anyone else on this board who could actually carry out these threats.
If anyone accepts a pascals mugging style trade off with full knowledge of the problem, then I will slowly torture to death 3^^^^3 sentient minds. Or a suitably higher number if they include a higher (plausible, from my external viewpoint) number. Rest assured I can at least match their raw computing power from where I am. Good luck.
EDIT: I'm told that Eleizer proposed a similar solution over here, although more eloquently then I have.
IMPACT is conducting original research to develop and integrate formal, computational models of policy and arguments about policy, to facilitate deliberations about policy at a conceptual, language-independent level. These models will be used to develop and evaluate a prototype of an innovative argumentation toolbox for supporting open, inclusive and transparent deliberations about public policy.
The IMPACT project, funded by the EU, is building a tool to make debates easier to keep track of, and presumably more rational. It look sort of like an AI, where all the dirty work and low level stuff is done by humans, but the actual result is determined by the structure of the machine. Certainly you could subvert it by placing incorrect standards of evidence on particular papers/arguments, but on the whole it looks interesting.
Sort of a wiki-decision framework.
What do you think about this type of project? Are there any existing argument modelling languages, like UML for arguments? Is this the best approach?
Why does Albus have such a belief? He witnessed Harry kill a dementor, yes, but not control one.
That's not to say that he would disbelieve that Harry could do it, but I see no reason for him to have a reason to "very very strongly believe" it.
Because harry can carry through on his threats, and it seems the standard mental model for dementors has them being self-serving. A dementor should respond to threats, as far as I can tell.
When I was arguing this I was also taking into account that albus (and the great hall) had seen the dementor be afraid of harry, but it occurs to me that that was in the future.
Here's a company (soon) selling a DIY kit to build your own.
I'll believe it when I see it. It currently looks like a market research page scouting for interest.
I'd definitely use this if I could get it. It is far less invasive and even potentially cheaper (over a reasonable term) than the cerebrolysin injections I give myself.
Would you mind going over your cerebrolysin injections a bit?
/necrothurging
Here looks like a good place.
http://brmlab.cz/project/brain_hacking/tdcs
I'm going to be experimenting with them at the london hackspace so anyone from london is interested, give me a shout,
That ones actually a bit dangerous. The current regulator is rated to go that low, so it's going to be unreliable. In this instance unreliable means brain lesions.
But Harry's memory didn't include Voldemort casting Avada Kedavra on Harry. That memory is neutral WRT the "rebounded Avada Kedavra" hypothesis.
Also, no part of a rebuttal to your comment, but re-reading the scene, what's with this line?:
And the boy in the crib saw it, the eyes, those two crimson eyes, seeming to glow bright red, to blaze like miniature suns, filling Harry's whole vision as they locked to his own -
they locked to his own
legilimency of some sort? or simply dramatic license. I don't remember any example of that particular action being pointed out that wasn't leglimency.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
The fact that we're not dying off right now proves this untrue.
I never threatened to harm you. Yes, on average, you're significantly more likely to be in the torture group then where you are now, but anthropic principle and all that.