[ExI] Probability is in the mind.

[Lee Corbin]

Terry writes

> [Lee wrote]  [BTW why do people often omit attribution
> when no clear clues exist as to the original writer?]
> 
>> "One ultimate purpose of philosophy, and I argue the
>>  most important one, is [to] be prescriptive. Philosophy
>>  most vitally---for me and for many others---should
>>  instruct us about what actions to take and what
>>  decisions to make."
> ______________
> 
> The problem of philosophy in general is its subjective nature 
> prescribing some treatment {a thought/idea} to view objective 
> reality/truth.

Subjective?  How so?  The Epicureans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism
said, for instance 

      He [Epicurus] argued that when eating, one should not eat
      too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later...,
      Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction
      with the sexual partner...

There is really nothing subjective about that on my usage of
terms, despite appearance at first glance. Either someone
is dissatisfied or they are not (sadly, even here I have to quickly
add, in order to ward off misguided criticism, that it's a continuum,
of course). 

      ...an anonymous Epicurean summed up Epicurus' philosophy on happiness in four
      simple lines:

       Don't fear god,
       Don't worry about death;
       What is good is easy to get, and
       What is terrible is easy to endure.

Whereas the Stoics said... (etc.). 

> What is truth? Asking that question is already a mistake.

Well, you never, never, never heard me ask any such foolish
thing.

>>  and Ultimately, again, I want to know what actions I should
>>  take and what I can expect the different outcomes to be like."
> _____________
> 
> Probability connotes random chance.

Where the hell did that come from?  To keep such things from
appearing as complete non-sequiturs, could you supply a
little context, or an hint as to how that applies to this?
Oh!  Very sorry.  I now see that the subject line has to
do with probability.  But nothing I said had to do with
probability, did it?

(My own view BTW is that of an "objective Bayesian", along
with E. T. Jaynes, who speaks quite objectively of one robot
having certain information that requires it to calculate one
probability while another robot has different information
and must calculate another. Again, Jaynes quite skillfully
described it all, you see, as much as he could in objective
terms, side-stepping horrid quagmires of qualia, and futile
talk of  "subjectivity", 99% of which leads nowhere and
is very distracting.)

> Scientific theories are put to test {an objective process}.
> How do you test if the mind is a behavior of  the brain?

Recall that the Germans don't even have a word for "mind".
So are they just lost souls in examining these questions?
No, it just means that we cannot---must not---put too
much weight on any particular word. Your last sentence
"How do you test if the mind is a behavior of the brain?"
really ought to have been followed by one sentence
starting "That is, ..." which used different terms to try to
say the same thing (the acid test of whether one is thinking
clearly, and possibly even a second follow-up sentence
starting "In other words..."

As it is, I have very, very little idea what you are asking.

> This is when the observer is the observed.

Sounds very profound, but until I know what you mean
I have to remain non-committal.

Lee

P.S.  Terry, sorry to be taking out on you a lot
of criticism that could and should be directed at
about 62.7% of the posts on this and related threads.