[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 79 KB, 874x684, 1481351934290.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9710543 No.9710543 [Reply] [Original]

Fucking normie pseuds...
Did u pass the pseud test? (No pausing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7mTPaO80RI

>> No.9710558

>>9710543
bump

>> No.9710593

>>9710543
I know none of you passed the test

>> No.9710602

>>9710543
Yeah I got the first one wrong. He makes a good point about social vs nonsocial situations and logic.

>> No.9710676

That was very easy you pleb

>> No.9710677

>>9710543
Hey I passed the test! My thought process was if D then 3. You don't need to flip over 3 because it doesn't say if 3 then D. The only correct derivative is if not 3 then not D. So if you flip over 7 and you get D that rule would be wrong. F has no relation the the statement so no need to flip it.

>> No.9710678

>>9710543
Why Would you need to check the back of D if the rule is already that a 3 will be on the other side? Seriously, that's fucking stupid.

>> No.9710706

>>9710678
because you are trying to check if the rule is true fucking faggot

>> No.9710710
File: 26 KB, 230x307, IMG_3339.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9710710

Ass?

>> No.9710718

>>9710706
Why would he say that was the rule if it wasn't actually the rule? What the fuck is the point of this stupid shit? And who is this retarded faggot?

>> No.9710729

steven pinker could turn over my "d" anyday

>> No.9710756

>>9710718
the question is what is the least number of cards you have to trun to verify the rule.

>> No.9710759

>>9710718
you just exploded cos you were shown how much of a brainlet pseud you are

>> No.9710762

>>9710756
The question is why you are so fucking retarded.

>> No.9710768

>>9710756
I don't have to turn over any cards. The rule is clearly stated.

>> No.9710771

>>9710756
you would have to turn over every card because every card has the potential to falsify the rule so they must all be ruled out in order to conclusively say the rule holds true
he said that the rule was:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7mTPaO80RI&t=79
"if a card has a d on one side, it has a 3 on the other"
therefore is there is no difference between the face up side and the face down side

>> No.9710775

>>9710543
I hate when people are enthusiastic about their own ignorance. His theory of confirmation bias is beyond stupid. Human reasoning is heuristic which is why we are often wrong. It is not a flaw in the human brain, it is the only way to reason. Anything else would be computational infeasible. This guy is a joke.

>> No.9710782

>>9710771
No. The implication only goes one way. Any card with a D has a 3 on the other side, but there can be other letters which also have 3 on the other side.

>> No.9710783
File: 320 KB, 1072x1440, 1499059038063.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9710783

>>9710771
>>9710768
>>9710762
>>9710678

How can you be so brainlet? holy shit

>> No.9710786

>>9710782
"if a card has a d on one side, it has a 3 on the other"
"one side" or "the other" are interchangeable because he hasn't defined "one side" to mean the face up side

>> No.9710792

>>9710783
Not a brainlet. He said it himself; "if it's a D on one side it's a 3 on the other" I don't need to flip a bunch of cards to confirm that's the rule. He clearly said it's the rule.

>> No.9710794

>>9710792
no he said that we don't know whether or not the rule holds true for the deck but he said it after explaining the rule instead of before hand because this guy is a hack that relies on semantic trickery to confuse people, this is as far removed from being a test of deductive logic as a math test written in a foreign language tests you math skills

>> No.9710799

>"""""""analytic""""""" philosophy

fucking pseuds

>> No.9710800

>>9710786
This is elementary.
Card 1: D-3
Card 2: F-3
Is that breaking the rule, that if the card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other? No.

>> No.9710804

>>9710794
You're probably right. I couldn't take him seriously from the start and wasn't actually paying very close attention.

>> No.9710809

>>9710800
it clearly does because "one side" and "the other side" are not defined, rather "the other side" is defined in reference to "the one side" and "the one side" is defined only in reference to "the other side"

this is comparable how you can define "evil" as the absence of "good" while defining "good" as being this substantial something, or else you can define "evil" as being a substantial something while "good" is simply the absence of evil, we have here two sets of more of less interchangeable definitions which are left up to the reader's imagination because terms haven't been clearly defined

>> No.9710810

>>9710543
>Steven Pinker

I win by not even watching the video. Fuck off.

>> No.9710815

>>9710809
Oh please. Go back to your novels.

>> No.9710816

>>9710775
>Human reasoning is heuristic which is why we are often wrong. It is not a flaw in the human brain, it is the only way to reason. Anything else would be computational infeasible.
The only clever human being in this thread.

>> No.9710817

>>9710815
no argument means i win by default

>> No.9710824

>>9710810
You lose by not renouncing violence and donating 90% of your income to starving African children and the other 10% to hormone replacement therapy.

>> No.9710828

>>9710824
utilitarianism is a false morality