So for this we do have some pretty good evidence,
For what? For which of the three or four views you have been putting forward?
Science gives us good evidence against naive realism, but theproblem is that there is more than one alternative to naive realism. So, further arguments are needed to support a specific alternative to naive realism.
You can find the raw material of the things in the territory, but you can’t find the template that you are using to categorise them..so says the cookie cutter theory .you are supplying the cutter, not the dough .
To be in the map is to be in the territory.
Or not. There’s a metaphor where concepts and categories are something you see instead of the territory, ie. the veil of perception, but there’s also a metaphor where concepts and categories are a lens through which one sees the territory. Making an arbitrary choice of metaphor doesnt prove anything.
Language does, because it allows you to define necessary but insufficuent causes, unnecessary but sufficient causes, and so on. Language contains a lot of subtle distinctions that aren’t made clearer—quite the contrary—by folding them all into the graphical symbol of an arrow.
“There is no causation in the territory” is a claim about the territory. It cannot be asserted if the territory is unknowable.
You need to distinguish between a number of subtly different claims:
The territory is knowable, and known not to contain certain things (which are nonetheless useful for mapping purposes . (Eg. Nobody has 2.4 children).
The territory is only knowable , “via” human concepts (Kant)
The territory is unknowable, or equivalently correspondence between map and territory is impossible.
Etc.
My point is that the entirety of what we think we mean when we say A⟹B is ontological, i.e it’s in the map. Not once ever has causality existed in the territory.
Is there an argument to support that?
Try to imagine what the world is like if you’re not modeling it. Are you picturing atoms? Particles? Wave functions? Strings?
Wrong!
Those are all models we impose on the world to make sense of it. Useful ones, usually, but still models
And is there an argument to support that?
I can see how the mere usefulness of a map level category isn’t sufficient reason to believe that the feature exists in the territory. But, equally, the usefulness of a map level feature is no reason to believe that there is not something corresponding to it in the territory. Nor is the fact that it is a map level symbol. Maps are not necessarily false, nor necessarily true.
And the same applies to any realistic AI. AIs aren’t going to be rational or irrational in a binary sense, they are going to have certain computational resources which they apply to certain problem domains with certain levels of optimisation. They’ll be able to solve some relatively simple problems perfectly, but there is still a whole class of problems that cannot be brute forced, and every imperfect AI design will be imperfect in its own way—it will have its own heuristics and therefore it’s own biases. Which spells trouble for the general project of trying to predict ASI behaviour on the basis that they will be rational.
In the United States the GDP has contracted by about 10% since COVID started. This corresponds to ~21.5M QALYs
It doesnt correspond to 21.5M QALYs actually lost , because you can’t assume that the 100% money would have been spent on healthcare. About 18% does in the US.
Because the presence of an anti-blackmail norm enables the company to accuse whistleblowers of blackmail.
An anti blackmail norm can be balanced out by a pro whistle blowing norm . Which isn’t the same thing as a pro blackmail norm.
Legal blackmail as a means of uncovering wrongdoing needs to be compared.against the alternatives...which are chiefly legallt protected whistleblowing, and legally protected journalism. To cut a long story short , journalists have a direct financial incentive to publish, whistle blowers are neutral , and rational blackmailers are incentivised not to disclose information, but rather to keep their victims paying on the threat of disclosure.
But it is a problem if you combine it with high levels of confidence.
It’s another unfounded assumption that you should disbelieve in anything you cannot prove all the way down.
I’ve heard of a couple of possible mechanisms for metabolic privilege—brown fat and resting activity (the latter is basically fidgeting). I’m also someone who can maintain weight fairly easily.
If you are going to throw that away and talk about determinism, then you’re talking about a timeless mathematical object and it makes no sense to use words like “before”
Block universe theory isn’t implied by deteminism.
But even if it us the case , it would only mean that predermination isn’t any truer than postdetrmination. If technically true, that doesn’t address typical concerns about free will.
Your destiny is fixed, but it is not fixed before you were born.
if you do look at it timefully, then of course the future comes after the present, not before it, and is caused by your decisions
Determinism doesnt allow any special status for the complex physical events known as decisions. So it doesn’t support folk intutions that human choices are making a real difference.
The second argument makes sense, but it doesnt seem to me like the math really checks out. That is to say, yes, a house will appreciate, but so will the money invested in a company concerned with buying, creating, maintaining, and renting houses.
Except that if you live in your investment , you save on rent. So you make at least one profit, and maybe two.
100 monthly in the SNP500 re-investing all dividends (averaging out an 11.3% increase every year) and spent 50$ on rent.
You’re assuming rent is half of mortgage. Why would it be, for equivalent accommodation?
I kind of see your point about the personal and societal benefits of renting, but there are a lot of ifs and buts. Whether renting is a good option depends a lot on the regulatory system and state policy. If renting is built on top of a largely mortgage-backed private ownership market, it’s going to be largely disadvantageous to the renter.
Unless you are moving from place to place to take up reasonably well paying jobs, which I did for a while myself.
And I kind of see the downsides of the property ownership obsession. In the UK, property is so much better than anything else as an investment that bonds and equities are almost ignored by the median person. Yet a lot of the gains are re-absorbed in swings and roundabouts—once a family pay off a mortgage, the equity is needed to get the next generation “on the ladder”, and so on.
Rent is much cheaper than mortgage
It can be , if rented accommodation is publically owned , and not-for-profit, but the UK has stepped back from that .
What’s the value proposition of enlightenment?
You shouldn’t assume that your current values are particularly objective, or that they are particularly fixed .
Feel free to explain how they come together.