Jump to content
Avant Labs
liorrh

Judgement and Reward definitions

Recommended Posts

...so what are the meta, analytic definitions to Judgement and reward? I have worded it out like so:

 

note that I am not looking for experimental defintion of decision making like this score on that card game, or physiological definitions in any way, the defintion can't depend on anything of that form.

 

0a) Judgement is the act of making decisions, weather those are pertaining to thoughts, acute or long term decisions. Not deciding is also a decision.

 

0b) Reward stems from evolutionary reward but we are beyond: Survival being the first, Happiness through manifestation of values being second (reproduction, tangible social success, self confidence, health, or any other values healthily associated with pleasure, were healthily is to exclude success associated for instance with manslaughter). I am not distinguishing between personal and tribal reward (IE sacrificing self) for simplicity's sake.

 

0c) In the most basic sense, consistent lack of reward is depression.

 

0d) Poor judgement will be defined as action (including inaction) resulting in significantly less reward than other possible actions

 

1) Reinforcement delay The additional mental processing required to evaluate any delayed reward.

 

2) Reward magnitude perception is the evaluation of the reward in a relative or one dimensional scale (where point of reference is inaction), whether delayed or immediate, including risk assessment.

 

3) Impulsive behavior. This will be defined as intolerance for reinforcement delay. It does not mean the choices were not correct. It just means that no full evaluation is done.

 

4) Indecision Evolutionally and presently Rewards were present for the taker and inaction usually resulted in the reward being lost. Indecision is differentiated from cautious or protective or conservative decisions and will be defined as the maximum avoidance possible of new action while reducing old actions (IE going neither).

 

5) Incentive Salience is the want or the will for the reward. Note that it is unrelated to the Reward Magnitude perception

 

6) Hedonic Effect is the actual reward translated to positive feelings. IE/ relaxed, calm, confident, orgasmic, energetic etc. it is usually artificially divided to 3 groups:

(but thst is artificial -any better division?)

 

a ) Pure pleasure, power, excitement, invigorating

b ) Calming/sedating effects, revitalizing, relaxing, anti-nociceptive

c ) Warmth, nurturing, creativeness, anti-anxiety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting post, liorrh. Here's my conceptualization of "judgement".

 

Judgement: a mental faculty from which actions may "spring from"

 

Types of judgement: Rationality (concepts manipulated according to rules, "logic"), emotion (physiological primed-states)

 

Metajudgement: a mental faculty which navigates between both faculties, learning when and how to best use each. What society calls "maturity".

 

Metametajudgement: learns that the two are totally unbridgeable, that there is no metajudgemental faculty beyond the rational faculty, and that the emotional faculty always steers the ship, underpinning even the most "rational" decisions we think we make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...so what are the meta, analytic definitions to Judgement and reward? I have worded it out like so:

 

note that I am not looking for experimental defintion of decision making like this score on that card game, or physiological definitions in any way, the defintion can't depend on anything of that form.

 

 

 

Liorrh,

 

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not asking this to be rude or combative, but am simply curious: What are you trying to gain from this that wouldn't be gleaned from a philosophical dictionary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its cool.

 

I'm trying to gain ground work for work on how judgement and reward fucntion, succeed and falter. so when I started to look at the pathology of judgement I thought to myself that I'm not to sure what judgement meant as a symbol communicated and that I must define it strongly so that others can understand and relate.

 

I was not aware there is an artifact as such as phylosphical dictionary. doesn't this counteract the nature of the art of phylosophy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is that none of this has any meaning in the absence of a moral code from which its value might be derived. All definitions are by their nature normative. The veracity of a definition, qua logical proposition, can only be understood relative to its coherency within the moral system as such.

 

In the most basic sense, consistent lack of reward is depression.

 

Are you asserting !depression as your primary value, e.g. as the final end of moral living? How does hedonic effect play into what you are suggesting, and wrt depression?

 

0a) Judgement is the act of making decisions, weather those are pertaining to thoughts, acute or long term decisions. Not deciding is also a decision.

 

This is recursive grammar. Understand that this what you are suggesting can be a useful way of thinking at times, but only if you are aware of what you are doing. Otherwise it completely violates all logic. You're essentially saying that !a = a, which is nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see this is why I asked. I'm not well versed in formalities as I should. my phylosoplic thought prcoess was a skimming one.

 

The issue is that none of this has any meaning in the absence of a moral code from which its value might be derived. All definitions are by their nature normative. The veracity of a definition, qua logical proposition, can only be understood relative to its coherency within the moral system as such.

 

 

Moral code: I didn't uderstand how does this pertain to judgement.

 

Isn't Moral code just a parameter in your judgement process? it goes into the Reward magnitude perception.

 

So the reward magnitude perception as a function is something like

RMP(percieved option, Env())

Where env() is the innate cognitive environment includes the moral code

 

Are you asserting !depression as your primary value, e.g. as the final end of moral living? How does hedonic effect play into what you are suggesting, and wrt depression?

This is recursive grammar. Understand that this what you are suggesting can be a useful way of thinking at times, but only if you are aware of what you are doing. Otherwise it completely violates all logic. You're essentially saying that !a = a, which is nonsensical.

there is no final end, only betterment of current state.

where was I recursive?

 

Again, rewards are scaled innately.

so:

a scalaric function Translated_Reward(Reward, Env()) will use one's inherent current value scale to generate the value of that reward. the value is relative :wacko: because env() holds the current state, or the scalaric reward value of staying there. sorry to rertort to relativism(I'm not sure it is, I feel shamed for using the R word somehow :ph34r: )

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see this is why I asked. I'm not well versed in formalities as I should. my phylosoplic thought prcoess was a skimming one.

Moral code: I didn't uderstand how does this pertain to judgement.

 

Isn't Moral code just a parameter in your judgement process? it goes into the Reward magnitude perception.

 

So the reward magnitude perception as a function is something like

RMP(percieved option, Env())

Where env() is the innate cognitive environment includes the moral code

there is no final end, only betterment of current state.

where was I recursive?

 

Again, rewards are scaled innately.

so:

a scalaric function Translated_Reward(Reward, Env()) will use one's inherent current value scale to generate the value of that reward. the value is relative :wacko: because env() holds the current state, or the scalaric reward value of staying there. sorry to rertort to relativism(I'm not sure it is, I feel shamed for using the R word somehow :ph34r: )

 

Many things are contextually relativistic. People need to stop bandying about the term 'relativism' as an indictment for mortal sin without defining the notional framework being invoked. We've come to an impasse on these fora through which the concept of discursive comparatives and superlatives have been eliminated in favour of some bizarre, catch-all absolutist leveling. This applies to all thinking, whether empirical or transcendental. NOT a criticism of you, Liorrh, just a proviso against ambiguity and a caveat to clean up our thinking. Things ARE relational, and thus relative. As much as this may seem to be a 'given', thinking here quite poignantly indicates that cognizance and recognition of this fact has been forsaken. In other words, truth is meritocratic, so stop being such a bunch of Groucho-Marxist veridicofascists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its cool.

 

I'm trying to gain ground work for work on how judgement and reward fucntion, succeed and falter. so when I started to look at the pathology of judgement I thought to myself that I'm not to sure what judgement meant as a symbol communicated and that I must define it strongly so that others can understand and relate.

 

I was not aware there is an artifact as such as phylosphical dictionary. doesn't this counteract the nature of the art of phylosophy?

 

 

Gotcha. Section 8 addressed the why of the philosophical dictionary, here's an online one if you cant find a print version.

 

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to that dictionary Judgement is reduced to asserting whether something is true or false. in the context of choosing paths with greater reward to risk value, this deffinition is too atomic and insufficient.

and no deffinetion for reward.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many things are contextually relativistic. People need to stop bandying about the term 'relativism' as an indictment for mortal sin without defining the notional framework being invoked. We've come to an impasse on these fora through which the concept of discursive comparatives and superlatives have been eliminated in favour of some bizarre, catch-all absolutist leveling. This applies to all thinking, whether empirical or transcendental. NOT a criticism of you, Liorrh, just a proviso against ambiguity and a caveat to clean up our thinking. Things ARE relational, and thus relative. As much as this may seem to be a 'given', thinking here quite poignantly indicates that cognizance and recognition of this fact has been forsaken. In other words, truth is meritocratic, so stop being such a bunch of Groucho-Marxist veridicofascists.

 

You had me on contextual vs. pure relavitist until that last line.

 

Do please define what you mean by meritocratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had me on contextual vs. pure relavitist until that last line.

 

Do please define what you mean by meritocratic.

 

In this context, meritocratic means that, in terms of an evolutionary epistemology, truth is the answer that is the most robust within the network, and that has the highest level of fitness within the landscape. Truths, which are in a process of becoming-refined, have a higher attack threshold than falsities, and will not be subject to the same type of extinction avalanches that eliminate 'incorrect' nodes or hubs. The use of meritocratic was intended to be somewhat facetious and was referencing an argument against 'truth communism', hence the Groucho-Marxist terminus of the phrase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have no qualm with that. I might have used evolutionary instead of meritocratic, but I would have not been making a subtle joke in doing so ;)

 

BTW, I am starting to think you have a bigger joke you have been playing on me for awhile.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am nothing if not a frank and earnest young man, Caleb.

 

"A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal."

- Oscar Wilde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sometimes I ask myself, "if they were a hot piece of female ass, who would i fuck first?" out of you, Roy, and spook.

 

I think i would be a gentle, caring lover to you, Ras.

 

Roy, I would smack around.

 

I'd probably cuddle and talk science or math with spook.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that would be a very in joke...

 

I prefer being in the outer rectum though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of you are banned for off topic and for failing to have Dante to your fantasies.

 

Anyway Par that was fucking hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I ask myself, "if they were a hot piece of female ass, who would i fuck first?" out of you, Roy, and spook.

 

I think i would be a gentle, caring lover to you, Ras.

 

Roy, I would smack around.

 

I'd probably cuddle and talk science or math with spook.

 

 

Most.... Disturbing.... Post.... Ever.....

 

...and yes, I AM interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see this is why I asked. I'm not well versed in formalities as I should. my phylosoplic thought prcoess was a skimming one.

Moral code: I didn't uderstand how does this pertain to judgement.

 

Isn't Moral code just a parameter in your judgement process? it goes into the Reward magnitude perception.

 

So the reward magnitude perception as a function is something like

RMP(percieved option, Env())

Where env() is the innate cognitive environment includes the moral code

there is no final end, only betterment of current state.

 

You're working with an implicitly Kantian metaphysics. You're trying to "decode the matrix," to put it metaphorically, and program yourself to maximize coherency within said matrix with the foregone conclusion that to do so will maximize "reward." Arguing against that is WAY beyond the scope of this thread, but I'm in absolutely no sense willing to grant you those assumptions.

 

As for the second part, no, I would argue that the judgment process itself is the form of the moral code. The process of judging is an unfolding of the self.

 

where was I recursive?

 

Again, rewards are scaled innately.

so:

a scalaric function Translated_Reward(Reward, Env()) will use one's inherent current value scale to generate the value of that reward. the value is relative :wacko: because env() holds the current state, or the scalaric reward value of staying there. sorry to rertort to relativism(I'm not sure it is, I feel shamed for using the R word somehow :ph34r: )

 

You can look at it actively or retroactively. It would make sense to say that the decision set includes action or inaction, but it doesn't make sense to say that the decision set includes !decision unless the decision included in the set is defined as being of a subordinately qualified logical type. That's IF you're using the heuristic normatively, for guiding future behavior. If you're using it retroactively, then you aren't attributing situations in which you made no decision as being those in which you made the decision not to make a decision, but rather passing judgment upon them as being situations in which you ought to have made a decision but did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're working with an implicitly Kantian metaphysics. You're trying to "decode the matrix," to put it metaphorically, and program yourself to maximize coherency within said matrix with the foregone conclusion that to do so will maximize "reward." Arguing against that is WAY beyond the scope of this thread, but I'm in absolutely no sense willing to grant you those assumptions.

 

As for the second part, no, I would argue that the judgment process itself is the form of the moral code. The process of judging is an unfolding of the self.

You can look at it actively or retroactively. It would make sense to say that the decision set includes action or inaction, but it doesn't make sense to say that the decision set includes !decision unless the decision included in the set is defined as being of a subordinately qualified logical type. That's IF you're using the heuristic normatively, for guiding future behavior. If you're using it retroactively, then you aren't attributing situations in which you made no decision as being those in which you made the decision not to make a decision, but rather passing judgment upon them as being situations in which you ought to have made a decision but did not.

 

You ought to reexamine the concept of 'going under the radar for a while' :lol:. Inconspicuous you are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"should've decided" means I had the capacity to to do so. which is true. so I can use "indescision" as "shouldve decided"

 

I got you on not using !descision in the deffintion of judgement. I'll refrain from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×