
The Ghost Not (1999) - Tomte
http://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r2/index.html
======
egypturnash
OH MAN RECIPROCALITY I haven't pondered that since, well, somewhere around
2000.

It sure does go to some _places_. Starts with considering dopamine feedback
loops in the human brain and ends up deep in ma[g|j]ic(k).

------
oliv__
In the gameshow contestant "problem", the sentence concludes like so:

 _> So the first choice the contestant made had a 1/3 chance of concealing the
car, but after the host had thrown a lemon away, the remaining door had a 2/3
chance of concealing the car._

Why doesn't the remaining door have a 1/2 chance of concealing the car?
Doesn't the act of revealing a lemon change the odds here? Now there are only
two unopened doors, one containing a car and the other a lemon.

Am I missing something here?

~~~
yorwba
It is 1/2 if the host just randomly opens one of the doors, irrespective of
the things behind them.

It is 2/3 if the host always opens one of the remaining doors with a lemon.

It is 0 if the host only opens a door with a lemon if he can't choose a door
with a car.

~~~
oliv__
In my mind, when you take out one lemon, you end up in a new situation with
two doors: one with a lemon, the other with a car.

I still can't see how having picked one of those two doors in a previous
setting changes the _current_ situation of two doors, one pick.

~~~
yorwba
The host's choice depends both on your choice and the things behind the doors.
Therefore he is revealing information about them.

Even if you didn't pick which doors the host must choose between; if he only
ever opens a door with a lemon, you should choose one of the doors he had a
chance to open but didn't.

~~~
oliv__
I get it. Framed this way, it makes more sense.

Thanks for bearing with me!

------
carapace
I don't know about this article, but if you want to know more about the
symbolic logic system "Laws of Form" then "the Markable Mark" website is a
good resource: [http://www.markability.net/](http://www.markability.net/)

------
Yetanfou
It is almost as if this article is generated by an algorithm, the way it reads
like 'artistic bullshit bingo'. Even if it is not of algorithmic origin it
would not be hard to generate a similar article which is.

~~~
jacinabox
I think the author has gone through a mistaken involution in his exposition of
his own alleged involution, which means that his "Ghost Not" is, ironically,
true and his proposed remedy a fallacy.

~~~
gt_
Involution? The low-res versions of these concepts are as old as recorded
thought. Maybe I don't grasp your assertion. What do you propose is the
mistake? And did the author propose a remedy, other than 'alchemy'?

~~~
jacinabox
By involution I meant that the author, is proposing a picture in which some
people (congenitally or by nature) tell the exact opposite of the truth, aka
lies, if you read the article closely. I was merely suggesting, that if
someone was going to point the finger, the finger could be pointing back at
them if you know what I mean.

