I do not know how to operationalize this into a bet, but I would if I could.
My bet would be something like…
If a person can Belief Report / do Focusing on their beliefs (this might already eliminate a bunch of people)
Then I bet some lower-level belief-node (a crux) could be found that would alter the upper-level belief-nodes if the value/sign/position/weight of that cruxy node were to be changed.
Note: Belief nodes do not have be binary (0 or 1). They can be fuzzy (0-1). Belief nodes can also be conjunctive.
If a person doesn’t work this way, I’d love to know.
There are a lot of rather specific assumptions going into your model, here, and they’re ones that I find to be anywhere between “dubious” to “incomprehensible” to “not really wrong, but thinking of things that way is unhelpful”. (I don’t, to be clear, have any intention of arguing about this here—just pointing it out.) So when you say “If a person doesn’t work this way, I’d love to know.”, I don’t quite know what to say; in my view of things, that question can’t even be asked because many layers of its prerequisites are absent. Does that mean that I “don’t work this way”?
Aw Geez, well if you happen to explain your views somewhere I’d be happy to read them. I can’t find any comments of yours on the Sabien’s Double Crux post or on the post called Contra Double Crux.
The moderators moved my comments originally made on former post… to… this post.