IQ (moved subtopic)

Oh I see, sorry, I thought you meant splitting the game into blocks of 4 flips.

The problem with utilitarianism is that moral values are subjective in nature and that moral actions can't always based on their potential consequences. For example, the reason we so so many soldiers come home from war with PTSD isn't because they saw crazy **** go do down but because they killed people. No matter how much they went into war thinking it was justified, whether or not it was justified (subjective), and no matter how many people thank them for their service and call them heroes, they can't reconcile themselves with their actions. Their internal suffering is partially a result of others' utilitarian justifications. The kind of individual decisions one makes, even as it relates to voting for the "lesser of two evils," can lead to internal conflict. Referring to someone who refuses to vote for "the lesser of two evils" as unethical, denies them their own moral intuitions. Utilitarianism is often far more cold and unsympathetic than its antithesis. That's not to say that individuals shouldn't take the utilitarian route in some situations, but it also shouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor.

Take 2 coins vs 3.

Every 4 game, you lose one (both coins, go to 0), get to 4:1 once, stay put twice.

What's the ev of 4:1? 4/5 right, we generalized the 1 vs n right?

So your ev is 4/5 = every 2 games out of 4 (2 are a redraw) so 8/20 -> 2/5

I never read it because the challenge was offered specifically to shame those nitwits who thought my father, who almost never did anything wrong and had recently died, was burning in hell. If Jennings was defending them, I didn't want to read words that would make me incredibly angry. If he was simply trying to assert that he could beat me on certain tests it would have been disrepectful to my father to argue that point even if I thought he was wrong.

An interesting thing about these hypothetical scenarios is that they have nothing to do with how reality works. As of now, I'd have to say that I don't know, but I'm not even sure I could come up with an answer if I thought about it for a long time. For one, I don't how it would change the course of history, and secondly, given how very, very hypothetical it is, it doesn't speak to me on a moral level. I could try to make a rational argument one way or the other, but I don't think either one would undoubtedly ring true.

this paper was making the rounds on gambling twitter recently

https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-c...

Is it sundown yet where you are, David?

It's only very hypothetical because of a scientific technicality. Saying it doesn't speak to you on a moral level sounds like gobbledygook. I could just as easily have said something like "find a way to circulate an untrue devastating rumor that would swing the election away from the obvious winner according to the polls." The bottom line is that you can reverse the outcome of an election singlehandedly and secretly via artificial/dishonest means and I want to know whether this election would be a case where you would use that power.

Meawhile, I just started a thread about this subject.

You want me to go to bed? Did you get my message?

wp

I'd like to add that the reason it doesn't speak to my on a moral level is because it's something that, at least on its surface, I haven't really taken in. Moral intuitions have to be felt initially before they're thought through. Sometimes, even after doing that, I don't have an answer. For example, I'm undecided on guns because I have a hard time balancing my own morals with government ethics when it comes to that issue, but the more I think about it, the more I want to say that I would not secretly push that button because it's not my place to decide for others.

It would be more difficult for me to remain true to my beliefs as a politician who has to tell lies and half-truths to get elected than to be a king who just did what he thought was right. The paradox, of course, is that in the first case I would have to lie to voters to get elected, and in the second, there would be no voters, even I could take my subjects' concerns into consideration. Where does this land me on the button thing?

No, just waiting to wish you Shanah Tova!!

I did. I’m still thinking about it.

We are having some miscommunication here that is too trivial to be worth fixing. As to the post where you mentioned not voting for the lesser of two evils when the better one is still really really bad I have no idea how to easily find it.

Do you agree that if the probability for the two original 00 neighbors is 1/37, common sense would tell you that all the slats have to be rather than some being more and some being less?

Yes. Intuitively, none can be more likely than the neighbours. But if they were all less likely than 1/37, the probability wouldn't add up to 1. So it suffices to show that the neighbours are 1/37.

Yeah I think this makes sense. Thanks.

I disagree strongly with the list of names above and below mine.

Oof. Sorry Xnerd and eda. I thought grizy liked both of you.

Just about anyone who has done anything extremely difficult has participated in slavery, at least temporarily. A high level athlete during training understands that they are not allowed to say no to their trainer. Both are participating in an implicit slave + master dynamic for the sake of achieving greatness.

What I’m saying is forbidden for understandable historical reasons. For much of human history slavery was not entered into consensually. Still, slavery is an aspect of the story of the soul, which is why it has been projected externally and acted out for so much in history.

It’s true that our ancestors didn’t value consent and freedom enough, but it’s also true that modern westerners are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Why? Because greatness is not a choice if humanity wants to pass through the great filter.

Intelligence = the ability to impose your will on reality

Wisdom = knowing what reality is and knowing what you should want your will to be

Accepting the above, you cannot be highly intelligent without having wisdom.

lol at voluntarily accepting to obey someone = slavery.

Obeying someone against your will = slavery

Voluntarily agreeing to slavery is still slavery.

Achieving greatness requires you to acknowledge the choice between two wills and to identify with the oppressed will over the dominant will.

Sounds more like the Fuhrerprinzip. Plato's Socrates, in contrast, claimed to be wise because he did not pretend to know what he didn't know, and because he knew that he knew very little, being constrained by personal perception, and because he did not mistake opinion for knowledge. Although of course Plato's politics don't bear very close inspection, as Popper pointed out.

Deconstruction is a necessary part of the wisdom journey.