If C is the conclusion of A leading to B, and if A and C are intrinsically motivated by the desire to make money out of psychological weakness found in B, then what?

There is little doubt in my mind that Coronovirus is being exploited mercilessly as a profit generating idea, based on fear, anxiety, and paranoia.

You invest in your stock options as much as you want.

I'm tired of this world.

Thanks for joining and promptly existing the discussion. Your contribution has been noted and catalogued. I will ask you later if you still think your island is the sane one, once consequences enter your personal sphere it should be easier to judge; hands on learning and all that. — boethius

I think most of this is self-inflicted. I observed the plunge in the stock market, and it prompted me towards the conclusion that people are rather not worth dealing with.

Beam me up Scotty!

I don't know what your position is. Anyway, thinking nowadays is becoming so hard to do that I just lay in bed and relax and hope I go to heaven with my small piece of sanity.

Collective insanity.

I've never seen so much fear and anxiety. Aspirin kills more people a day than this ever will.

What the fuck is this, the Spanish plague?

Well, think of it analogously towards such things where game theory is applied, such as warfare scenarios or nuclear warfare.

Does that help?

Let me be simple. If a player can't win a game, then what's the point of playing it?

I mean, everyone wants to start out as white when playing chess if there's money or financial reward for the simple fact of winning, correct?

This reply:


Assuming it is inconsequential if any player has a strategy that is infallible. And, if they do, then the game is no longer worth playing if no winning strategy can be entertained as a player with (n+1) move, with the player with the first move always winning.

Well, yes, as this applies to any deterministic game, correct?

Well, it is wrong, if it is implying that no deterministic game of perfect information can have a winning strategy for one of the players — Nagase

Perfect information seems to be irrelevant here. The point is that stochastically it would become deterministic after enough iterations of game playing, assuming that learning is possible.

Hello Nagase,

What are your thoughts about the first sentiment proposed in this thread, about games being unitary or zero-sum, after an exhaustive method of rote analysis of winning and counter-winning strategies?

A game theoretic scenario entails that both players have an equal chance at winning... But, once you introduce the notion of a developing and advancement, through numerous iterations, and thus, hyper-rational players, then in some sense any notions of winning in a deterministic game becomes obsolete.

Doesn't count. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a game if one had to memorize a certain causal chain in a deterministic tree to ensure victory at all times.

Does that make sense?

Winning strategies is something that can only exist for participants of a deterministic game where mistakes can be made. Once you have a super-rational player that is immune from making mistakes via forward and backward induction, along with no asymmetrical information problems, then winning becomes next to impossible.

Agree?

Are you trying to point out that natural advantageous positions exist? Yeah, sure. But, even in chess, where white get's the first move, or utilizes the strongest opening, being the Italian, it still is tantamount to having a player that is super-rational as black deciding that a stalemate is the only winning strategy.

This is basic game theory, 101. Should I go on?

I understand that the majority of news outlets are actually not broadcasting the fact that Bernie is ahead.

Something related to this is how juxtaposed is the issue of Bernie winning California over Biden having a Nationwide victory.

Anyway, your free to comment here, but, it seems your not following consistently the news, and simply entertaining a strong confirmation bias hereabouts.

Every newspaper I have read indicates that Sanders won California...big time. — Frank Apisa

I haven't seen his name mentioned much over at CNN, even MSNBC, or Fox. Have you?

That's not true — fishfry

Why not?

There are games for which one side or the other has a winning strategy. — fishfry

Oh, like chess? Have you played chess against a computer?

Why don't you test it out. Set a chess engine like Rybka, against Shredder, or Rybka vs Rybka, and see what happens?

Just so we're clear. I think, the world would be a happier place if Bernie doesn't get elected. So, the cat is out of the bag, the dice are loaded, other states that would never vote for Buh-nii in the general election, and got blasted as the true victors, and California got bumfucked over a mail-in ballot policy that is infinitely more fair than the vote rigging happening elsewhere.

Hope you're happy with your status quo.

Nihil-novi!

I don't see why you think this is bad for Californians somehow. — Pfhorrest

If you can't see why this is bad, then you don't need to vote at all.

Let's get the facts straight. Texas, and some other shithole states got tallied up the same night the votes were cast away. California got sidefucked and we're still counting our votes. Why are we Californians being treated as shit here?

I mean, I just googled "did bernie win california" to get those numbers above and the results are showing lots of big-name news agencies reporting an expected win for him there. — Pfhorrest

The fact that you *just* googled it is sufficient proof to my sentiment. Anyways the point seems to be that Biden won Super Tuesday and not Bernie, despite Bernie being ahead in delegate count, which hasn't yet been officially declared. I'm moving out of the US, ASAP after I get enough money.

Fuck this and other unrelated crap that's been floating up recently.

I don't follow what it is you're not buying. Who is saying all the votes have to be tallied up before what? I mean, eventually they do need to be tallied, but it's pretty clear what the final tally (for California) is going to look like already, and that prediction is being reported. What are you seeing to the contrary, and where? — Pfhorrest

Please don't try and cajole me into docilness. You can do that all you want.

When official elections are handled, and this is by no means any different, then if an opponent attains a majority of the vote (meaning a total of 50.(1)%), then he or she is officially declared the victor in that state where the voting was conducted. Is this really anything new to you?

And in regards to the news, not many major news outlets have even followed this line of logic, and declared Bernie as the official victor in the state of California.

I have never seen so much vitriol against Bernie, until he became a real contestant of Biden's spoon fed road to the US presidency.

And, I don't even care at this point if Bernie looses. It's guaranteed with how this primary vote has been handled from my perspective.

I mean, if I were to live in a fascist dictatorship, then at least it would be officially known, and not some farce dystopian reality that this is.

I don't buy into this mail in absentee "reason". All votes don't have to be tallied up, even if absentee votes constituted 51% of all total cast votes in the state of California.

Puh-leeze, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out...

I actually came it up by myself as incredible as that sounds. I reached out to some mathematician friends to do a 3D analysis if possible.

Would you be able to help out?

Yeah. I'm not quite sure if the point can be made with algorithms with infinite prior elasticity, manifesting in decisions that are strategically absolute, but I suppose the larger point that you sort of bring up is that despite however hard one might want to eliminate mistake making from human rationality, then mistakes will inevitably be made.

Kinda scary?

Game theory is pretty evil stuff in my opinion.

Given a sufficiently long enough interval to analyze all the potential iterations of a game, then a human being would become no different than a hyper-rational computer.

True or false?

If someone loses in chess its because they've made a mistake, no question about it. This doesn't disprove game theory; two game theory optimal actors would just be drawing against each other in the long run. — BitconnectCarlos

The larger truth here is that game theory, ought and should not be applied to reality, which indicates a disdain towards strategic outcomes derived from a rote logic of binary or higher order...

I'm crying inside.

A video, apropos:

Just so that were clear, I do have a mental illness. It is almost unbearable to think nowadays. I never imposed it on anyone to solve my issues and never would.

I have a doctor's visit on top of the existing medication I take for my schizophrenia. I hope to one day feel normal. Life has been so cruel to me. :(

There's no sense of superiority or blindness in saying that mental health issues should be addressed by mental health professionals, not by strangers on a philosophy forum. — Michael

I don't take you seriously, at all. Keep on trying manus.

Since, He is an anti-realist, nothing he says should be taken seriously. He can keep His false sense of superiority.

Oh, shawn, you're wallows. — god must be atheist

Yes, I used to be wallows. It is sad, yes? I feel sorry for Shawn being Wallows, and Wallows being Shawn.

I'm not your therapist.

I think that deep down, most if not all Americans desire to feel free from fear.

The natural follow up here, seems to be the lack of existing threat. In a nation that prioritizes the need for force and power over other issues, there's a perpetual need for the machine to face down any threat.

I believe, that what naturally follows here is that anxiety and fear get interchanged in a strange manner.

Would you agree with such a characterization?

Uhh, I'd advise you to invest in the company. I mean, 42 percent is really insane. Just make sure to kiss ass and maintain your position by claiming to have invested in the company already...