From: David Lucifer (david@lucifer.com)
Date: Fri Dec 05 2003 - 16:25:20 MST
[quote from: Ophis on 2003-12-05 at 15:45:28]
I wonder if we'd get a different result, were we to expand the definition of trust to be more inclusive and to express the definition in Bayesian terms. It seems to me that every action we take is based on some level of trust in achieving a particular result. From this perspective, trust simply refers to the amount of confidence that we have in a particular hypothesis.
Surely, we can't say that trust, according to this new definition, is irrational. Or is it still?
[Lucifer] Trust is only irrational if your confidence diverges from the Bayesian result. If applying Bayes theorem indicates that you should have 95% confidence in a future event occurring and you actually have 80% or 100% confidence or you think the event won't occur, then you are guilty of faith. The degree of faith you have is easily quantifiable as the difference between your confidence and what a perfect Bayesian machine with your experience would have.
---- This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29704> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 05 2003 - 16:28:22 MST