I would expect that in principle we can derive Mary's reaction of "aha, now I know what it is like to see red" from a complete physical description of her brain processing. — Apustimelogist

Touching is by many considered an object coming into contact with another, which perhaps requires the objects occupying the same space. — elucid

Reading Like a Writer: A Guide for People Who Love Books and for Those Who Want to Write Them
- Francine Prose — Amity

The ideas that burst from my brain were circled, underlined, numbered, asterisked and arrowed. There has to be a better way. — Amity

I think it is important that a story is enjoyed AND understood. Otherwise, what's the point? — Amity

I have two larger projects that require this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Read a lot. — Tom Storm

It you want to improve your description, read Bradbury. When I was 19, my first chief tech gave me an old paperback copy of Dandelion Wine. It was a revelation worthy of a fanfare by the celestial brass. I still consider him the grand master of evocative description. — Vera Mont

Murakami — javi2541997

he doesn't leave his desktop until he reaches five or more pages (written in Japanese characters) — javi2541997

As if you were describing something to a blind person, for example. — Outlander

If I do that I run the risk of disrupting the flow and then it can take a very long while before I get back into it. — Benkei

Do you think it is a matter of artistically focusing on crafting your language at the sentence level as an aesthetic choice, — wonderer1

This shows that the T aspect of JTB is required. — PL Olcott

If it is true that much of what we think of as knowledge isn’t actually knowledge
then we must accept that as it is. — PL Olcott

What we cannot know with absolute certainty is that a kitten that we are looking at
right now physically exists, or is not a mere figment of the solipsist's imagination. — PL Olcott

Consider first the two possible outcomes conditional on today being Monday. Since Sleeping Beauty always is awakened on Monday regardless of the coin toss result, P(Monday-Heads) = P(Monday-Tails). Consider next the two possible outcomes conditional on the coin having landed tails. Since in that case Sleeping Beauty is awakened once on Monday and once on Tuesday, P(Monday-Tails) = P(Tuesday-Tails), which is something that the Thirders, Halfers and Double-halfers all agree on. We therefore have that P(Monday-Heads) = P(Monday-Tails) = P(Tuesday-Tails). Lastly, since Sleeping Beauty isn't inquiring about the probabilities that any of those three outcomes will occur at least once during her current experimental run, but rather about the probability that her current awakening episode is the realization of one of those three outcomes, the three possibilities are exclusive and exhaustive, and their probabilities must therefore sum up to 1. They therefore all three are 1/3, and P(Tails) = P(Monday-Tails) + P(Tuesday-Tails) = 2/3. — Pierre-Normand

whenever she awakens, the coin landed (or will land) tails two times out of three — Pierre-Normand

However, it seems ridiculous to say that an iterative string creation program is somehow equivalent to its outputs. No one will be happy if they hire a software engineer to create a specific program and they receive an iterative string generator that would, eventually, produce the ideal program they are looking for. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Evolving the universe forward might allow you to turn T1 into any other time in the universe, but in order to halt the process and output the description of the time you want to describe using T1 you'd need to already have a total description of the time you want so that you can match the two. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Anyhow, I found simple requests to "critically assess" my answers can mitigate the agreeability bias. — Baden

hypostatization (reification) — NOS4A2

The thirder view is that only the current slice that you might be is relevant, and there are more being-interviewed slices in the tails partition, so you're more likely one of those. — Srap Tasmaner

the correct analysis is that the coin flip partitions SB's future slices into a heads set and a tails set, just two, equal chances of being in each set. — Srap Tasmaner

She is therefore being asked "What is P(C | M) , where M is your current mental state?" — sime

Task :

Determine the marginal distribution P (C = head ) from the above premises — sime

It's just right, look at the code!

All coding something up does is let you check a calculation for it being correct, not whether it's the appropriate calculation to do. — fdrake

The traditional use of pronouns is to identify sex, not gender. — Philosophim

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

def experiment(trials):
    headsProbability = 0.0
    for heads in range(trials + 1):
        headArrangements = np.math.factorial(trials)/np.math.factorial(trials-heads)/np.math.factorial(heads)
        headsRightAnswer = heads / (heads + (trials - heads)*2.0)
        headsProbability += headArrangements / np.power(2.0, trials) * headsRightAnswer
    return headsProbability

trials = [i+1 for i in range(50)]
results = [experiment(t) for t in trials]

plt.plot(trials, results, '-')
plt.ylabel("heads probability")
plt.xlabel("trials")
plt.show()

((This is, I don't know, maybe the third time I've argued with Michael about something and then concluded he was right all along.)) — Srap Tasmaner

In our version, the base rate of heads interviews is 1 in 3. Make it 1 in 1000. (That is, 999 awakenings on tails, not 2.) Isn't it obvious that if I'm a subject in such an experiment, I know it's far more likely I'm being asked for my credence because my coin came up tails? If I'm one of 1200 subjects, I know there are 600,000 interviews, only 600 of which were for heads, while 599,400 were for tails. Equally likely that this interview is for heads as for tails? Not by a long shot. — Srap Tasmaner

Let's say that I wanted to bet on a coin toss. I bet £100 that it will be tails. To increase the odds that it's tails, I ask you to put me to sleep, wake me up, put me back to sleep, wake me up, put me back to sleep, wake me up, and so on. Does that make any sense? — Michael

She can't. — L'éléphant

The probability that the coin will land heads and she will be woken on Monday is 1/2.
The probability that the coin will land tails and she will be woken on Monday is 1/2.
The probability that the coin will land tails and she will be woken on Tuesday is 1/2. — Michael

Bet on heads or tails. If tails, you get to repeat the same bet again, on the same toss — hypericin

This version looks a lot clearer to me, and the question at the end looks like a deception. 2 possible worlds, contain 3 possible identities. So other things (ie coins) being equal, I am more likely to be one of two than one of one. So P. (only child) is 1/3 notwithstanding P. (heads) is 1/2, because tails is twice as fruitful as heads. — unenlightened

since he gains no new relevant evidence if he wakes up during the experiment. — Michael

To emphasize this answer, imagine head: they wake her the once, but tails, they do it 100 times before the experiment ends. The coin flip odds are still 50/50, but the odds that on a random waking she sees tails is overwhelming. — noAxioms