Originally posted by FreakyKBH In my view, such a theory (branch, discipline or what-have-you) which depends so critically on highly subjective input and/or parameters cannot but be condemned to (at minimum) equal amounts of subjectivity.
I'll repeat. You obviously don't know what the hell I am talking about.
Either that, or you are deliberately and maliciously mis-characterizing what you have quoted. Your claim amounts to the equivalent of:
The mathematical expression "addition" is highly subjective because it depends so critically on highly subjective input and/or parameters.
So do you thus condemn all of mathematics? Or will you admit that you are wrong?
Originally posted by twhitehead I'll repeat. You obviously don't know what the hell I am talking about.
Either that, or you are deliberately and maliciously mis-characterizing what you have quoted. Your claim amounts to the equivalent of:
The mathematical expression "addition" is highly subjective because it depends so critically on highly subjective input and/or parameters.
So do you thus condemn all of mathematics? Or will you admit that you are wrong?
For well-rounded consideration, I have posted some of the salient points relative to the topic you have inserted into the conversation. While the concept is abstract, it is nonetheless simple enough for the average person to comprehend.
To further highlight the limitations with your example of the so-called irrefutable, I emboldened the subjective aspects. It doesn't require an overly-analytical mind to grasp the short-comings imposed by these highly-subjective ingredients.
There is no mischaracterization; there is no denying of foundational elements of mathematics, either--- your failed attempt at strawman debate notwithstanding. What is evident is that game theory works... provided the assumption of non-objective "givens."
Originally posted by snowinscotland [i]Actually, morals make no sense whatsoever from an evolutionary standpoint. Morality assumes an objective reality upon which the concepts themselves are dependent, of which they reflect all or part. Evolution, put simply, is just pure, dumb luck/chance. Nothing objective, nothing subjective, no purpose. Survival of the fittest doesn't allow for weak ...[text shortened]... I ask what books you read and absorbed? I cannot recollect any that made such a statement.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH For well-rounded consideration, I have posted some of the salient points relative to the topic you have inserted into the conversation. While the concept is abstract, it is nonetheless simple enough for the average person to comprehend.
To further highlight the limitations with your example of the so-called irrefutable, I emboldened the subjective aspe ...[text shortened]... at is evident is that game theory works... provided the assumption of non-objective "givens."
Now I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
However, I repeat: It is possible to mathematically prove using game theory that the evolutionary process can and is expected to, give rise to morals remarkably similar to those we see amongst many living things. It can be done in pure mathematics with no subjectivity whatsoever and it can be done as a mathematical proof - absolutely indisputable.
Originally posted by twhitehead Now I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
However, I repeat: It is possible to mathematically prove using game theory that the evolutionary process can and is expected to, give rise to morals remarkably similar to those we see amongst many living things. It can be done in pure mathematics with no subjectivity whatsoever and it can be done as a mathematical proof - absolutely indisputable.
I guess you just don't know what the term 'subjective' means. Either that, or you don't understand how game theory functions. Or, possibly both.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH I guess you just don't know what the term 'subjective' means. Either that, or you don't understand how game theory functions. Or, possibly both.
Lets look back at your origional claim about game theory:
Quite a bold statement for a theory which rests so heavily on assumptions and subjectivity.
You haven't shown in any way that the theory 'rests so heavily on assumptions and subjectivity.' Please either provide some reasoning to back up such a claim or admit that you were wrong. Don't forget that we are talking about a whole branch of mathematics here not science. We are talking about pure indisputable logic. As I pointed out (and you didn't respond to) your off-hand dismissal should equally apply do addition.
Originally posted by twhitehead Lets look back at your origional claim about game theory:
[b]Quite a bold statement for a theory which rests so heavily on assumptions and subjectivity.
You haven't shown in any way that the theory 'rests so heavily on assumptions and subjectivity.' Please either provide some reasoning to back up such a claim or admit that you were wrong. Don't ...[text shortened]... d out (and you didn't respond to) your off-hand dismissal should equally apply do addition.[/b]
Sure I did. Go back to page two, fourth entry from the bottom, wherein I c/p several entries from a well-respected source.
You state that Evolution is 'dumb luck', and yet you claim to have studied 'everything around it'. Can I ask what books you read and absorbed? I cannot recollect any that made such a statement.
yes. seriously. What books have you read and absorbed that state that evolution is 'dumb luck'.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Sure I did. Go back to page two, fourth entry from the bottom, wherein I c/p several entries from a well-respected source.
C/p entries with highlighted words in does not prove a point.
If I c/p from the bible and highlight the word 'lies' does that prove that the bible is based on lies? As I pointed out before, and you are yet to respond, addition takes variable arguments. Does that give you good reason to dismiss addition as a 'subjective' concept?
Pick any simply example from game theory and show me that it is subjective and not bound by the rigorous rules of mathematics.
Originally posted by twhitehead C/p entries with highlighted words in does not prove a point.
If I c/p from the bible and highlight the word 'lies' does that prove that the bible is based on lies? As I pointed out before, and you are yet to respond, addition takes variable arguments. Does that give you good reason to dismiss addition as a 'subjective' concept?
Pick any simply exampl ...[text shortened]... theory and show me that it is subjective and not bound by the rigorous rules of mathematics.
Here's an easy one. How does one objectively quantify welfare? If you're able to do that, you will have solved one of the longest running feuds in American politics.
Originally posted by snowinscotland You state that Evolution is 'dumb luck', and yet you claim to have studied 'everything around it'. Can I ask what books you read and absorbed? I cannot recollect any that made such a statement.
yes. seriously. What books have you read and absorbed that state that evolution is 'dumb luck'.
Why not ask me to produce a dictionary that pegs the word at nine letters?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Here's an easy one. How does one objectively quantify welfare? If you're able to do that, you will have solved one of the longest running feuds in American politics.
Welfare is not an example from game theory. It may be a possible application. Its like you claiming that the unpredictability of the stock market, disproved the reliability of addition.
Originally posted by twhitehead Welfare is not an example from game theory. It may be a possible application. Its like you claiming that the unpredictability of the stock market, disproved the reliability of addition.
So now you are declaring the source I cited is in error?
The Moral Instinct
24 Jan '08 11:06
Back to Top