What were the chances of me being born? [Archive] - Page 2

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 08:36 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christian
Ok, it is this simply, if you want to know the probability of a chain of events, YOU HAVE TO MULTIPLY each probability. So, the probability of the chain is the multiplication of the series of events.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the events are independent, then the probability of them all happening is equal to the product of the their probabilities.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, this is what Ian is saying, there is a point where the probability approaches zero (the limit is zero) that for all intent and purposes the probability is zero (even thought, by mathematical definition the probability for a series of events can never reach zero. People, this is one reason why math invented the concept of limits, infinity and all, remember)

So, yes if the probability is so infinitesimally small, even though it does not equal to zero, it is for our understanding zero.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, there is no point at which it "approaches zero". Sequences can approach zero; individual number cannot. Every number is either equal to zero, or else is not. Numbers do not move. Numbers do not change. No number can approach, retreat from, circle, promenade, or in any way change its relationship with another number. The distance between any number and any other number is constant. The only way a number can be “for all intent[s] and purposes” zero is if the number is zero. Let me guess: did you program the Pentium?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is Ian’s point. If I see a lottery winner win 6 or 7 times, and I’m sure there is no cheating going on, then by the laws of probability, I can safely say that something supernatural is going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you logically prove this assertion, or is it simply your opinion that it is “safe” to say that supernatural is going on?

He just said by the laws of probability we can assume the supernatural is going on. Either you agree with this or you do not agree. Which is it? If you do not agree than this entails that no matter how unlikely some event is you rule out the supernatural. If this is so then your opinion is of no merit whatsoever. In short you do not care how improbable materialism is, you'll believe in it anyway.

In short therefore, you are a tithead. But then of course it is quite clear that you are, in addition to the many other mental retards who have contributed to this thread.

If one’s intuition leads one to the conclusion that materialism is false, it’s rather conceited to then declare that materialism is false, since it ignores the possibility that one’s intuition may be faulty.

If no matter how unlikely the truth of materialism is, people still insist on its correctness, then one is a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 retard.

It should also be noted that I have only mentioned just one problem for materialism. There are many many others.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
[Originally posted by Interesting Ian
For Christ sake. I'm asking what was the probability of me being born. If that probability is sufficiently low, then we can discard it as being something that would have happened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there's your problem. You're making a common mistake about probability.

Content removed for breach of Forum guidelines.

Low-probability events cannot (usually) be discarded.

Oh yes they can retard.

The reason is that there are trillions and trillions of very low probability events that could happen, so it is not surprising that some of them do.

Non-sequitur scumbag.

As Terry Prachett once put it, "million to one events happen seven times a day in New York City".

Yup, another tithead who fails to understand the issues :rolleyes:

So, yes, the probability of YOU (specifically) being born is virtually nil. But the probability of SOMEONE being born to your parents was high.

I have no interest in anyone being born except me, spastic.

Content removed for breach of Forum guidelines.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by SGT
[B]So, you recognize you don't understand science and are not interested in it.

Science?? Since when has maths been a sub-branch of science?? It is a sub-branch of philosophy. Again you demonstrate you mind-numbing stupidity. What's it like to be a thick Content removed for violation of Rule 8.
??

People who do understand science keep saying you that the probability of you being born is one.

This strongly suggests they understand Content removed for violation of Rule 8.
all. Only a complete Content removed for violation of Rule 8.
mental retard would maintain this.

You insist that the chance, not the probability, is vanishingly small.

The terms are synonymous retard.

Since you recognize that you don't understand science,

ROTFLMFAO!!!

This is nonsensical. Why don't you bang your head against a Content removed for violation of Rule 8.
hard brick wall to see if by a miracle it might precipitate a modicum of intelligence??

FYI I have never had any difficulties in understanding any branch of science.

Crawl off and die scumbag.

you are certainly basing your reasoning in your knowledge of metaphysics.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Piss of cretin.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Your post gave the implication that this was what you were saying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you inferred that from my post, then say that you inferred that from my post. To oiutright say that I said it, when you merely interpreted me as saying it, is dishonest.

No it's not dishonest retard. Your post implies what I said. If it doesn't, then explain why it doesn't. But do not call me dishonest. Am I getting through to that thick skull of yours??

As is complaining about my tone while calling me an "********". As for explaining your fallacies, this post alone shows the futility of such.

Yup. you're a thick Content removed for violation of Rule 8.
who refuses to address my questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You misunderstand. Content removed for violation of Rule 8. "Art Vandelay" is now implying that people couldn't be born with certain genomes. I'm patiently awaiting his explanation as to why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet another complete distortion of my statements. I really don't see where you got this one.

This is necessarily so if my first interpretation was incorrect. But what can one expect from a tithead such as yourself? :rolleyes:

And I see that you have not figured out the difference between "googol" and google".

Google is a search engine, googol is a number. Where have I ever implied otherwise?

Skeptic

23rd July 2004, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by uruk
This whole thread reminds me of a girlfriend I once had. One day we were together and she started crying. Fearing for my life, I hesitantly asked her why she was crying. She said she was thinking about all the little events that had ocurred inorder for us to meet and come together and that if any one of those events had not happened we would probably not be together.
I was totaly flabergasted. she was crying about something that never happened, crying about a possibility that never occured.
What can you say to that?
Anyhoo, she later broke up with me about something I did in a dream that she had.
Strange person.

Isaac Asimov wrote a short story called "What If", where a newlywed couple meet a man with a magic mirror that shows them what would have occured if any of a zillion coincidences had not occured. Needless to say, it turns out that the husband would marry his ex-girlfriend instead in some of these scenarios, leading to all kinds of trouble...

RabbiSatan

23rd July 2004, 09:20 PM

Ignorant Ian once again demonstrates to us what a wonderful gift to civilization he is :rolleyes:

Skeptic

23rd July 2004, 09:26 PM

But this is not the same for people. From my 1st perspective there is one unique person who is different from all other people living, or who have ever lived, who will ever live, or could conceivably live, but as a matter of fact don't. That one person is me. And from your perspective that one person is you. Now out of a googleplex of possible people *I* only make up 1 unique person out of all these potential people. Therefore if that 1 unique person gets born, it is an incredibly extraordinary fact. You see??

So your point is that you're different than other people because you're self-aware and have a first-person perspective?

Er, but those other 6.3 billion are self-aware and have a first-person perspective, too (unless you argue they are really robots, I suppose.) So would the other googleplex (or whatever) of possible self-aware, first-person-perspective possible human beings that didn't get to be born.

So no, you are not any more different than other people who actually exist, or from the potential people who could have existed, than a particular hand of bridge is from all other bridge hands who were dealt, or from all other bridge hands who could have been dealt.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

II
But this is not the same for people. From my 1st perspective there is one unique person who is different from all other people living, or who have ever lived, who will ever live, or could conceivably live, but as a matter of fact don't. That one person is me. And from your perspective that one person is you. Now out of a googleplex of possible people *I* only make up 1 unique person out of all these potential people. Therefore if that 1 unique person gets born, it is an incredibly extraordinary fact. You see??

Skeptic
So your point is that you're different than other people because you're self-aware and have a first-person perspective?

Er, but those other 6.3 billion are self-aware and have a first-person perspective, too (unless you argue they are really robots, I suppose.) So would the other googleplex (or whatever) of possible self-aware, first-person-perspective possible human beings that didn't get to be born.

So no, you are not any more different than other people who actually exist, or from the potential people who could have existed, than a particular hand of bridge is from all other bridge hands who were dealt, or from all other bridge hands who could have been dealt.

NO NO NO NO NO! This is irrelevant. You're not seeing the point I'm getting at. You omitted the bit where I mention that anyone else will come to the same conclusion as me.

You don't understand.

{SIGHS}

Robin

23rd July 2004, 09:56 PM

From SGT:

Allow me to disagree with your textbook. Probability is a purely mathematical concept. By definition, Probability is a real number between zero and one.. Based on this definition and some postulates, a whole theory is developed that has no relationship to the real world.
What is empiric is the use of the results of probability theory to describe events in the real world.

I am sure that they would be glad to hear from you. It is a highly respected textbook and widely used in universities and the authors are highly qualified so you will excuse me if I take their word for it over you.

The probability of a tossed coin coming down heads is 0.5. How do we know this? Is it because there are two possibilities and only one will happen (mathematical)? Or is it because people have tossed enough coins to have observed a 0.5 probability (empirical)?

The text book argues the second, because it is not a given that one of two possible outcomes will give 0.5 probability. Try, for example, spinning a coin on a flat surface. This will give (depending on the coin) a different probability of heads.

(edit) there is no mathematical way of determining the probability of the spinning coin, it can only be done through observation(/edit)

Robin

23rd July 2004, 10:05 PM

From Interesting Ian:

This is basically the discussion I've been having with you lot. Does the analogy make it clear why your reasoning in incorrect?

Your loony specifies in advance which card will guarantee your survival, that is what makes it improbable. If you can show where you have been specified in advance then the analogy will hold and materialism will certainly have a problem.

CFLarsen

24th July 2004, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
NO NO NO NO NO! This is irrelevant. You're not seeing the point I'm getting at. You omitted the bit where I mention that anyone else will come to the same conclusion as me.

You don't understand.

{SIGHS}

But....if people don't come to the same conclusion as you....then what?

Taffer

24th July 2004, 01:42 AM

I.I, how about instead of cursing and calling people names, you actually post your evidence for your conclusions, all in one place, so they can be analysed? As someone who has followed this thread from it's start, I have yet to see any of this "proof" you talk about. However, I admit that I could have missed it, so why don't you post it all again so we can see.

24th July 2004, 02:06 AM

Ignorant Ian strikes again!

Listen carefully, dunderhead:

1) STOP CURSING. If you keep it up, you may get suspended, in which case you will have NO position from which to argue your point. If you cannot argue without cursing, then you concede your point automatically.

2) Mathematics is a science. Don't believe me? Why don't you take two minutes and do a little research for once in your life? Googled definitions of Mathematics (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Amathematics&btnG=Search&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off)
See the common feature of these definitions? Math is a SCIENCE, not a PHILOSOPHY.

(Use the same feature and look up Philosophy, and you can further see how Math doesn't fit into philosophy at all.)

3) Not only do you not understand English, as shown from your inability to understand the definition of IMPOSSIBLE, you now demonstrate you are completely ignorant of the concepts of science, math, philosophy, common terms in each branch, and of course, anything to do with reality. Your blatant ignorance is stunning, but made worse by continuing to curse, and claiming you 'can't be arsed' to look up or research anything. So your willful ignorance completely discredits any point you are trying to make.

Aside from the fact that the points you are trying to make are discredited in and of themselves.

Though, please, keep up the good work -you've done more to bolster belief in Materialism than any 100 materialists could!

4) The reason people disagree with you is not that they are dumb, thick, retarded, etc... it is that YOU ARE WRONG. There's no reason to be so perplexed that someone who is intelligent in other areas argues with you so vehemently about your failed metaphysic - just accept that IAN CAN BE WRONG.

Have you ever admitted to being wrong, even once? Somehow I don't think that's in your nature. I think you'd scream that you were right no matter HOW much evidence was presented against your view. If a team of doctors released information tonight saying that they definitely found the Self and how it might be transmitted successfully to others, you'd still maintain your ridiculous metaphysic and call them liars, retards, and other unsavory names.

You're about as intellectual as a hemorrhoid, or an inerrant-Bible thinker.

TO SUMMARIZE: You are ignorant, you are offensive, and most importantly, YOU ARE WRONG, Ian.

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Ignorant Ian strikes again!

Listen carefully, dunderhead:

1) STOP CURSING. If you keep it up, you may get suspended, in which case you will have NO position from which to argue your point. If you cannot argue without cursing, then you concede your point automatically.

2) Mathematics is a science. Don't believe me? Why don't you take two minutes and do a little research for once in your life? Googled definitions of Mathematics (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Amathematics&btnG=Search&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off)
See the common feature of these definitions? Math is a SCIENCE, not a PHILOSOPHY.

(Use the same feature and look up Philosophy, and you can further see how Math doesn't fit into philosophy at all.)

3) Not only do you not understand English, as shown from your inability to understand the definition of IMPOSSIBLE, you now demonstrate you are completely ignorant of the concepts of science, math, philosophy, common terms in each branch, and of course, anything to do with reality. Your blatant ignorance is stunning, but made worse by continuing to curse, and claiming you 'can't be arsed' to look up or research anything. So your willful ignorance completely discredits any point you are trying to make.

Aside from the fact that the points you are trying to make are discredited in and of themselves.

Though, please, keep up the good work -you've done more to bolster belief in Materialism than any 100 materialists could!

4) The reason people disagree with you is not that they are dumb, thick, retarded, etc... it is that YOU ARE WRONG. There's no reason to be so perplexed that someone who is intelligent in other areas argues with you so vehemently about your failed metaphysic - just accept that IAN CAN BE WRONG.

Have you ever admitted to being wrong, even once? Somehow I don't think that's in your nature. I think you'd scream that you were right no matter HOW much evidence was presented against your view. If a team of doctors released information tonight saying that they definitely found the Self and how it might be transmitted successfully to others, you'd still maintain your ridiculous metaphysic and call them liars, retards, and other unsavory names.

You're about as intellectual as a hemorrhoid, or an inerrant-Bible thinker.

TO SUMMARIZE: You are ignorant, you are offensive, and most importantly, YOU ARE WRONG, Ian.

I wouldn't classify maths as a science. It simply doesn't have the characteristics of a science. Of course it is certainly a very useful tool in science, but is not itself a science. Science concerns the world. It deals with the empirical. But maths (or math as the denizens of the usa refer to it) is really a type of logic and hence comes under philosophy.

Taffer

24th July 2004, 04:42 AM

I think, Interesting Ian, you just proved his point.

BillyJoe

24th July 2004, 04:48 AM

BPSCG,

Originally posted by BillyJoe:
The self can no more insinuate itself into another brain as could a brain insinuate itself into another brain. A self cannot even insinuate itself into an identical brain. It cannot actually move anywhere. A particular self is a product or creation of a particular brain.

Reply from BPSCG:
The word "self" is being thrown around pretty loosely around here and I'd like to know what you mean by "self", at least in this context, because its use seems to be getting pretty metaphysical. Definition, please. We do not need a definition of "self". We all know what we are talking about. The question is, what is a "self". And I tell you what, it is very difficult to talk about without tripping yourself up in your tangle of words

I think that the self is an illusion, which is not to say that it doesn't exist but rather that it is a different thing from what it seems to be.

Anyway have a go yourself because obviously I failed.

BillyJoe

BillyJoe

24th July 2004, 05:05 AM

Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The self is the *I*, the you. It is what you are. According to materialists it doesn't exist :eek: It's not that it doesn't exist but rather that it is different from it seems to be. In other words, an illusion. (But you don't like that word).

For a dualist, the self is something separate from the brain that somehow takes up residence in the brain and uses it for its own ends. For a materialist, the self is a product or creation of the brain and is therefore an inextricable part of the brain's function.

The intuitive version of the self is the dualist's version of the self, but materialists say that this is an illusion. It seems to be that but it is not.

BillyJoe

BillyJoe

24th July 2004, 05:35 AM

uruk,

Originally posted by uruk
This whole thread reminds me of a girlfriend I once had [who]started crying....thinking about all the little events that had ocurred inorder for us to meet and come together and that if any one of those events had not happened we would probably not be together.....she later broke up with me about something I did in a dream that she had.....Strange person. I don't believe this story, uruk. Which makes you a very strange person. :D

regards,
BillyJoe
(Hey, I mean it as a compliment :) )

SGT

24th July 2004, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Robin
From SGT:

I am sure that they would be glad to hear from you. It is a highly respected textbook and widely used in universities and the authors are highly qualified so you will excuse me if I take their word for it over you.

The probability of a tossed coin coming down heads is 0.5. How do we know this? Is it because there are two possibilities and only one will happen (mathematical)? Or is it because people have tossed enough coins to have observed a 0.5 probability (empirical)?

The text book argues the second, because it is not a given that one of two possible outcomes will give 0.5 probability. Try, for example, spinning a coin on a flat surface. This will give (depending on the coin) a different probability of heads.

(edit) there is no mathematical way of determining the probability of the spinning coin, it can only be done through observation(/edit)

Probability, as well as derivatives and integrals, are mathematical concepts.
We use probability theory to make studies of real world problems in the same way that we use derivatives to calculate velocities from displacements and integrals to do the inverse calculation. This does not make derivatives and integrals empirical.
The link I proposed before gives the definition of probability and the three axioms, that permit the developement of the theory.
A theory that is based in axioms is mathematical and not empirical.
Of course, Newton invented derivatives in order to solve physical problems, in the same way that probabilities were invented in order to solve real life problems, specially those involving the prediction of future outcomes of random processes.

24th July 2004, 06:27 AM

I wouldn't classify maths as a science. It simply doesn't have the characteristics of a science. Of course it is certainly a very useful tool in science, but is not itself a science. Science concerns the world. It deals with the empirical. But maths (or math as the denizens of the usa refer to it) is really a type of logic and hence comes under philosophy.

Who made you the expert? Oh, right, nobody, because you aren't the expert.

Google definitions of Mathematics:
a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

The science of patterns and order and the study of measurement, properties, and the relationships of quantities; using numbers and symbols.
www.iteawww.org/TAA/Glossary.htm

The science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative calculation ...[Britannica Online v 1.31, 1995]
www.mathematicallycorrect.com/glossary.htm

There's three definitions right off the top which define Math as a Science. Logic is not the sole property of philosophy; in fact, logic is a universal property, applicant both in science and philosophy, as is intuition. That math deals with logic, shows only that math is the science of logic, or rather, that math can be used as the language of logic. Math, like logic and intuition, is a tool; but it is a scientific tool.

If Math were a philosophy, it would have to be some form of belief; you wouldn't 'know' that 2+2=4; instead, you'd 'believe' it. You'd have no idea about the volume of a cylinder or the area of a triangle if math weren't a science; instead, you'd be considering differnent mathematician's views on these things.

But we know that basic Math principles are facts, and therefore science. Math deals with facts, while philosophy deals with theories. No philosophy anywhere that is suddenly proven remains a philosophy; it then becomes a science. If we hold the philosophical view that some men are driven to rape because of abuse from their mothers, and repeated scientific study shows this is absolutely true, then we no longer consider it a philosophy, but a fact or a science.

Math does have philosophical components; mainly dealing with high-end equations and very advanced concepts that I don't think anyone on this board has any right to discuss. But those maths that we are more familiar with are sciences, including probability.

Just because YOU wouldn't call it science doesn't make it so. Ian is NOT the be-all, end-all expert of everything - just a megalomaniacal lunatic.

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Taffer
I think, Interesting Ian, you just proved his point.

How does denying that maths is a science prove his point since he is alleging that maths is a science?

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Ian,

It's not that it doesn't exist but rather that it is different from it seems to be. In other words, an illusion. (But you don't like that word).

For a dualist, the self is something separate from the brain that somehow takes up residence in the brain and uses it for its own ends. For a materialist, the self is a product or creation of the brain and is therefore an inextricable part of the brain's function.

The intuitive version of the self is the dualist's version of the self, but materialists say that this is an illusion. It seems to be that but it is not.

BillyJoe

Remember I'm an idealist rather than a dualist. I don't think the self resides in the brain. The whole physical world only exists by virtue of being perceived.

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]Who made you the expert? Oh, right, nobody, because you aren't the expert.

Google definitions of Mathematics:

There's three definitions right off the top which define Math as a Science.

I don't care about a bald assertion that maths is a science. If you wish to maintain this then you need to supply arguments. A characteristic of science is that it deals with the way the world is. Mathematics is just a tool, so how can you declare it's a science? Arguments please rather than unsubstantiated assertions.

Logic is not the sole property of philosophy;

It comes under the broad head of philosophy. Not science.

in fact, logic is a universal property, applicant both in science and philosophy, as is intuition. That math deals with logic, shows only that math is the science of logic, or rather, that math can be used as the language of logic. Math, like logic and intuition, is a tool; but it is a scientific tool.

It's a tool used in science yes. But maths itself is not a science. Do you admit you're wrong yet?

If Math were a philosophy, it would have to be some form of belief; you wouldn't 'know' that 2+2=4; instead, you'd 'believe' it.

What rot.

You'd have no idea about the volume of a cylinder or the area of a triangle if math weren't a science; instead, you'd be considering differnent mathematician's views on these things.

But we know that basic Math principles are facts, and therefore science. Math deals with facts, while philosophy deals with theories. No philosophy anywhere that is suddenly proven remains a philosophy; it then becomes a science.

It's true that the word philosophy used to have a broader meaning. But this is of no relevance. Maths is a discpline in its own right. But if it has to come under a broader heading it would be philosophy, not science. To maintain it's a science suggests to me you fail to understand what science means.

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by SGT
Probability, as well as derivatives and integrals, are mathematical concepts.
We use probability theory to make studies of real world problems in the same way that we use derivatives to calculate velocities from displacements and integrals to do the inverse calculation. This does not make derivatives and integrals empirical.
The link I proposed before gives the definition of probability and the three axioms, that permit the developement of the theory.
A theory that is based in axioms is mathematical and not empirical.
Of course, Newton invented derivatives in order to solve physical problems, in the same way that probabilities were invented in order to solve real life problems, specially those involving the prediction of future outcomes of random processes.

The fact that maths can be used to accurately describe physical reality cannot be known a priori. That is the point. There could be a logically possible Universe where a flipped coin could land 75% of the time. Yes?

SGT

24th July 2004, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The fact that maths can be used to accurately describe physical reality cannot be known a priori. That is the point. There could be a logically possible Universe where a flipped coin could land 75% of the time. Yes?

Yes, there exists such an Universe: your chaotic brain!

24th July 2004, 07:31 AM

Ian, I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

It is a fact that Math is a Science. It is also a fact (fyi) that Philosophy is a Science.

Science tells us about the world we exist in. So does math.

So does philosophy.

Consider, for a moment, this definition of science: "Any domain of knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organized by general principals." Therefore, both math and philosophy fall under science. Although, some philosophies may not - any that cannot be systematically studied, perhaps.

No matter how you slice it, no matter what you reference, math is a science.

Now, let's look at this definition of philosophy: "a particular system of principles for the conduct of life; theory or analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe (including ethics, aesthetics, logic, epistemology, metaphysics)"

Now, by THIS definition, we see that math cannot be a philosophy; LOGIC can, but not Math. (And, no, math and logic are not interchangable) Once cannot use math to determine conduct of life; math is not an underlying principle of conduct, thought, knowledge, or the nature of the universe. Certain mathematical concepts MAY underlie bits of the universe, but this hardly constitutes a philosophy.

Another underlying principle to philosophy is, philosophy is not universal. No one philosophy is regarded as fact; people agree or disagree regularly with different philosophies; however, you can't disagree with math. No matter how many times you try it out, a squared plus b squared equals c squared.

Even if you don't wish to agree that math is a science, given your own limited definition of science (and considering your other failings in English, I'd have to take issue with your limited definition), at the very least, the best you could say is that it is a tool, seperate from science and philosophy. However, the world's experts disagree with you (just to go with an appeal to authority) as do the majority of people (appeal to popularity), mathematicians (ap. to auth.), and even philosophers (ap. to auth.). Astounding, then, that all these people could be so wrong! After all, Ian is NEVER wrong :rolleyes:

And when I do the research and show this research via link or via posted definitions, that is not a bald assertion - that is providing evidence. Math is DEFINED as a science. It is never defined as a philosophy. Look it up sometime - Oh, I forgot, you can't be 'arsed' to learn anything.

Maybe you ought to get off your 'arse' and learn something, then.

There could be a logically possible Universe where a flipped coin could land 75% of the time. Yes?

Assuming you mean, could land 'heads' 75% of the time, I'd say only on a 4-sided coin with three heads.

Or one whose tail is that much heavier.

However, I'm not qualified to declare the necessary change in variables that would allow for a universe where two equally probable events would come out unequally - but I will declare that the entire concept appears to be a logical paradox. APPEARS. I have to really think about this one.

For once, there's something to think about in Ian's post - and it was an off-handed comment!

SGT

24th July 2004, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Even if you don't wish to agree that math is a science, given your own limited definition of science (and considering your other failings in English, I'd have to take issue with your limited definition), at the very least, the best you could say is that it is a tool, seperate from science and philosophy. However, the world's experts disagree with you (just to go with an appeal to authority) as do the majority of people (appeal to popularity), mathematicians (ap. to auth.), and even philosophers (ap. to auth.). Astounding, then, that all these people could be so wrong! After all, Ian is NEVER wrong :rolleyes:

What do scientists, philosophers and 6.3 billion Earth inhabitants know? Those are only human beings, so no match to the Enlightened Ian.

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Robin

Your loony specifies in advance which card will guarantee your survival, that is what makes it improbable. If you can show where you have been specified in advance then the analogy will hold and materialism will certainly have a problem.

The loony doesn't need to specify anything or indeed even be there. Let the machine randomly decide which unique card out of each of the 10 decks will ensure my survival. And of course they don't all have to be the same card. If all revealed cards match the randomly selected ones then I would still find myself alive. I hold that this is an extremely surprising fact.

The counter argument is that if say the first card, when the first deck is cut, does not match, then I will never know about it because I will be instantly killed in the resultant explosion. The same for the other 9 cards. So therefore I can only possibly experience surviving and therefore should not at all be surprised when I find myself alive at the end. It's basically the anthropic principle.

This sort of argument can be used in other instances. For example one might dispute that the possession of nuclear weapons by the USA and the former USSR kept the peace. If there had of been a nuclear war we wouldn't be around to consider the fact. Therefore we could only possibly live in a world where there wasn't a nuclear war, and therefore we cannot use the fact that there wasn't a war to give evidence in support of the contention that mutually assured destruction (MAD) worked.

I think such an argument is clearly flawed. Yet everyone on this thread not only does not think it is flawed, but don't even understand what I'm talking about.

I find it this incredibly frustrating. I mean the fact they don't even understand there's a problem! :eek:

24th July 2004, 08:08 AM

Ian, it's really simple. No, it is. You are wrong.

If you approach a person with an idea, and they tell you that you're wrong, then it could go either way.

But when you approach such a varied group of people with an idea, and they ALL tell you that you're wrong, and further, they show you EXPERT sources that say you're wrong, and even further, show you that you are PRONE to being wrong, and even FURTHER, that you are even wrong about your use of language...

Well, when you're faced with that - you're wrong.

In some ways, you remind me of an acquaintance I knew last year. He was very bothered by the fact that my wife and I share our home with another woman (which was done for mutual benefit financially, and with child care - get your minds out of the gutter). He was CERTAIN that the State of Ohio would charge us with polygamy under Common Law. He would rant and rave about the law, and about cases 'in courts right now!' where two men were being charged with sodomy because they lived together under Common Law for a year. Even when we pulled copies of the statutes and laws for him to read, he wouldn't believe us, claiming that we had 'made it up'.

Finally, we dragged him down TO THE COURTHOUSE where we had a clerk explain the law to him, and the fact that Ohio hasn't recognized Common Law marriages since '97. His first response? "You're lying. They put you up to this." It literally took showing him the law, IN THE BOOK, with the corraberation of a JUDGE, before he'd believe it - then he back-peddled and claimed he was told wrong by a lawyer a few years ago. (Yeah, probably back in '95)

You're a lot like him, Ian - you're so certain of your own correctness, that it baffles you that everyone else in the world can be so ignorant - rather than realizing that you made some mistakes, that your premises are wrong, or that you really don't know what you're talking about. It'd be one thing if, like the wise child in the Emperor's New Clothes, once you pointed out 'the truth' everyone suddenly realized you were right; it's another altogether when you're acting the boy who cried, 'wolf'. It's getting to the point where, even if you DO spout off something right, we're likely to try attacking it, out of habit, and knowledge of how ignorant you are.

Well... not that it's worth much, but please, Ian, try to consider the idea that you MIGHT BE WRONG.

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Ian, it's really simple. No, it is. You are wrong.

If you approach a person with an idea, and they tell you that you're wrong, then it could go either way.

But when you approach such a varied group of people with an idea, and they ALL tell you that you're wrong, and further, they show you EXPERT sources that say you're wrong, and even further, show you that you are PRONE to being wrong, and even FURTHER, that you are even wrong about your use of language...

Well, when you're faced with that - you're wrong.

In some ways, you remind me of an acquaintance I knew last year. He was very bothered by the fact that my wife and I share our home with another woman (which was done for mutual benefit financially, and with child care - get your minds out of the gutter). He was CERTAIN that the State of Ohio would charge us with polygamy under Common Law. He would rant and rave about the law, and about cases 'in courts right now!' where two men were being charged with sodomy because they lived together under Common Law for a year. Even when we pulled copies of the statutes and laws for him to read, he wouldn't believe us, claiming that we had 'made it up'.

Finally, we dragged him down TO THE COURTHOUSE where we had a clerk explain the law to him, and the fact that Ohio hasn't recognized Common Law marriages since '97. His first response? "You're lying. They put you up to this." It literally took showing him the law, IN THE BOOK, with the corraberation of a JUDGE, before he'd believe it - then he back-peddled and claimed he was told wrong by a lawyer a few years ago. (Yeah, probably back in '95)

You're a lot like him, Ian - you're so certain of your own correctness, that it baffles you that everyone else in the world can be so ignorant - rather than realizing that you made some mistakes, that your premises are wrong, or that you really don't know what you're talking about. It'd be one thing if, like the wise child in the Emperor's New Clothes, once you pointed out 'the truth' everyone suddenly realized you were right; it's another altogether when you're acting the boy who cried, 'wolf'. It's getting to the point where, even if you DO spout off something right, we're likely to try attacking it, out of habit, and knowledge of how ignorant you are.

Well... not that it's worth much, but please, Ian, try to consider the idea that you MIGHT BE WRONG.

It's a bit rich for people to assure me I'm wrong when they don't even understand the counter-argument.

Back in the 80's I made this argument regarding the cold war at 6th form college ( ie if there had of been a nuclear war we wouldn't be around to consider the fact. Therefore we could only possibly live in a world where there wasn't a nuclear war, and therefore we cannot use the fact that there wasn't a war to give evidence in support of the contention that mutually assured destruction (MAD) worked). These were 16 and 17 year olds. As I remember it they didn't even take me seriously. They just thought it was so clearly false and ludicrous they thought I was making kind of a joke. And yet you and everyone who has contributed to this thread, apart from "Christian", don't even understand their position!

Astounding!

Yet you assure me that I'm wrong.

Yeah right.

24th July 2004, 08:43 AM

Actually, I wasn't at all commenting on the MAD issue... I was discussion your inability to understand language, specifically that Math is a Science... and by extension other failures you've demonstrated as well.

As I understand it, the argument over MAD is a deeper one than merely whether or not there WAS a war - there are MANY factors in that discussion. I won't even pretend to understand them all - and frankly, MAD was a pretty crazy concept to begin with. I fully understand the point YOU are trying to make concerning MAD - and it's quite valid... but I fail to see how that relates to the fact that MATH is a SCIENCE...

I CAN see how it relates to your 'probability of being born' problem, except that when you spefically use the terms which you did, you're asking for an answer of '1'. The INTENT you asked under, now THAT'S different, of course - but as I fully explained, there's still nothing miraculous about it. You have to ask such a question with some given - i.e., given your parents had sex, the chances YOU would be born would be...... etc.

But I'll not re-hash the discussion.

Since this has gone on O so very long, what exactly IS the point you were trying to make with this post? Something to do with the extreme unlikelihood that YOU would be born? Except it was perfectly as likely you as anyone else.

No, I don't think using the argument, "But you WERE born, so it's a moot point" is valid. True, but not relevant to the argument.

At any rate, what I was SPECIFICALLY referring to was your misuse of Math vs. Science, and GENERALLY to your attitudes that claim, if the world disagrees with Ian, the world is wrong.

So, yeah, I think you're wrong on these points.

I make no particular stand on MAD so bringing up that non-sequiter (SP?) serves no purpose.

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]Ian, it's really simple. No, it is. You are wrong.

If you approach a person with an idea, and they tell you that you're wrong, then it could go either way.

But when you approach such a varied group of people with an idea, and they ALL tell you that you're wrong, and further, they show you EXPERT sources that say you're wrong, and even further, show you that you are PRONE to being wrong, and even FURTHER, that you are even wrong about your use of language...

Well, when you're faced with that - you're wrong.

I understand perfectly the oppositions argument. Indeed I understand it better than they do going by the attempts of people on here to explain it. On the other hand not one person understands my position. As an aside this is truly appalling as I believe an average 11 year old could understand.

So I understand their position perfectly, and they don't understand my position, yet I'm supposed to suppose I am wrong?

I'm actually surprised that I have no allies on this issue apart from Christian. I can't recall this ever happening before on this board. Certainly I'm always in a decided minority, but I've always had a few vocal supporters. Most interesting. I wasn't aware that the anthropic principle commanded such assent. Think I'll have a quick look at some web pages to see if it's reflected there.

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]Actually, I wasn't at all commenting on the MAD issue... I was discussion your inability to understand language, specifically that Math is a Science... and by extension other failures you've demonstrated as well.

Well that's just ridiculous. It's utterly absurd to call maths a science. I really cannot be bothered to discuss it further.

As I understand it, the argument over MAD is a deeper one than merely whether or not there WAS a war - there are MANY factors in that discussion.

It's exactly the same principle involved. I presume that you are able to understand that? If not you truly really are beyond all hope.

I won't even pretend to understand them all - and frankly, MAD was a pretty crazy concept to begin with. I fully understand the point YOU are trying to make concerning MAD - and it's quite valid... but I fail to see how that relates to the fact that MATH is a SCIENCE...

I don't care about your contention that maths is a science. Yes it's a science!! Does that make you happy?? Define it as a science if you like. Seems like me to be a covert attempt to give more prestige to science :rolleyes:

I CAN see how it relates to your 'probability of being born' problem, except that when you spefically use the terms which you did, you're asking for an answer of '1'.

What??

The INTENT you asked under, now THAT'S different, of course - but as I fully explained, there's still nothing miraculous about it. You have to ask such a question with some given - i.e., given your parents had sex, the chances YOU would be born would be...... etc.

But I'll not re-hash the discussion.

Look, it's quite simple. Does the fact that there was no nuclear war provide evidence that mutually assured destruction (MAD) had some influence in this fact? Yes or no. In order to be consistent you must say no; the same goes for everyone else who has participated on this thread apart from me and Christian.

24th July 2004, 09:03 AM

No, just that, for once, you're so wrong that NO ONE dares to stand with you.

And actually, we understand perfectly well what you're trying to say - and we understand that you are wrong.

Apparently, though, you DON'T understand us - you've admitted that, in specific cases - plus, your understanding is suspect anyway, since simple terms like 'impossible' and 'mathematics' are beyond your ken.

In fact, IIRC, you've already admitted to having very limited education of any sort - and that the majority of your opinions are formed in the vacuum of your mind (Not an insult here, I mean, without the presence of research or outside information). Thus, the ideas that you're putting forth are really old hat, and have been cast aside YEARS ago by men far more worthy than you or I.

Back to math, can you admit you were wrong about what Math is?

24th July 2004, 09:11 AM

Look, it's quite simple. Does the fact that there was no nuclear war provide evidence that mutually assured destruction (MAD) had some influence in this fact? Yes or no. In order to be consistent you must say no; the same goes for everyone else who has participated on this thread apart from me and Christian.

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused about the question here. Mutually assured destruction may have been a factor in the fact that there was no nuclear war; however, it was not a primary or even a prerequisite factor. A complete lack of nuclear arms would have prevented nuclear war just as well, in which case, MAD could not have been a factor; but the question appears to ask whether an (specific)effect proves that a (potential)cause exists...

The more I read it, the more I feel that, yes, the lack of extant nuclear war does indicate that MAD had some influence on the lack of extant nuclear war... That feels very circular to say, however, and I think is part of my problem in answering that. Perhaps better to say that MAD MIGHT have had some influence, etc. However, if nuclear war were to start tomorrow, we could say that either a) MAD had no influence, or b) The influence asserted by MAD was insufficient to counter the other factors of the war.

Of course, if we weren't here at all (as a result of the war), we couldn't make ANY statement.

Certainly, it doesn't assert that we'd have nuclear war if MAD didn't exist...

I'm getting side-tracked by this one. How does this relate to your problems with birth probabilities?

24th July 2004, 09:12 AM

Why, in order to be consistent, must I say No? How do these two things relate?

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, just that, for once, you're so wrong that NO ONE dares to stand with you.

Well, I'm afraid that the anthropic principle by no means commands universal assent. Indeed my opinion is that only desperate people cling to it. So, wrong indeed :rolleyes: The probability of me being born cannot conceivably be 1. Moreover, I have never heard any proponents of the anthropic principle suggest such a thing. It's just the rather silly people on this board.

It is very very clear that it cannot possibly be 1. I might have been aborted before birth; another sperm might have made the journey rather than mine; my parents might never have met etc etc etc.

Do you have any clue whatsoever, any notion whatsoever, how utterly stupid you and others are being??

And actually, we understand perfectly well what you're trying to say - and we understand that you are wrong.

If people understood what I was saying then they would realise they are wrong. Since they do not appear to realise this, they therefore do not understand me.

Apparently, though, you DON'T understand us - you've admitted that, in specific cases

I understand perfectly. It's just the same argument all the time. An argument which is simply not applicable. It is flat out wrong. I can very clearly see this. I know the argument is wrong. This is what makes it so incredibly frustrating and why I have to resort to insults. What can one do when people simply pigheadedly refuse to understand, and have the nerve to insist that I'm wrong.

I'm sorry, but I know I'm not.

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Why, in order to be consistent, must I say No? How do these two things relate?

Oh God! {bangs head against wall}

If you're unable to understand the most simply things imaginable, I really think this discussion is at an end don't you?

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 11:25 AM

Here is another example which illustates my point.

From here (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/weakanthropicprinciple.html)

In response to this objection, defenders of the argument from fine-tuning often make use of a story involving a firing-squad devised by John Leslie. You are to be executed by a firing-squad of a hundred trained marksmen, the story goes. You hear the command to open fire, and the sound of the guns, and then silence; you are not dead, you hear silence. All of the marksmen missed! Pondering, you realise that had the marksmen not missed you would not have been able to look back at the attempted execution, that only a failed execution would have allowed you to be here now, listening to the silence. However, you do not infer from this that the fact that the marksmen missed is unsurprising. You remain astonished that one hundred trained marksmen could all miss simultaneously.

Ummm . . not the people on here! LMAO!

People on here think it was a certainty that they all missed! LMAO!! I guess they must not have much fear of capital punishment :)

Number Six

24th July 2004, 11:28 AM

This is a waste of time. If you can explain your POV to us, Ian, then do so, if not then what's the point of this?

The probability of you being born depnds on when the question is asked. The probability of you being born given that you are the one asking the question is 1. If someone/something far back in time described the unique being that is you and asked what the probability was that such a being would be alive in 2004 then the answer would be small but nonzero. Those are obviously true but so what? Where does that lead us? Or do you deny even that?

If you spent 10% as much time trying to actually explaining what you mean instead of just swearing or giving sarcastic/roll your eyes-type of responses then you'd be much more successful at communicating your point, assuming you have one. This thread has gone on so long with such a small percentage of your posts containing content that patiently and clearly explains your view that I'm beginning to think that your purpose isn't to communicate your view at all but rather just to engage others in a pissing match.

Interesting Ian

24th July 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Number Six
[B]This is a waste of time. If you can explain your POV to us, Ian, then do so, if not then what's the point of this?

The probability of you being born depnds on when the question is asked. The probability of you being born given that you are the one asking the question is 1. If someone/something far back in time described the unique being that is you and asked what the probability was that such a being would be alive in 2004 then the answer would be small but nonzero. Those are obviously true but so what? Where does that lead us? Or do you deny even that?

If the probability was vanishingly small, and yet I exist, this strongly suggests that our notions regarding how we come into being are flawed. In other words it wasn't just happenstance that I am here.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th July 2004, 12:26 PM

Ian said:
It is very very clear that it cannot possibly be 1. I might have been aborted before birth; another sperm might have made the journey rather than mine; my parents might never have met etc etc etc.
Is there any chance at all that we're going to stop arguing about the various types of probability calculations concerning your existence?

Folks: Ian is asking about the a posteriori probability of his being born, where the total number of event occurences is something other than 1. In other words, in the formula:

a posteriori probability(A) = (number of times A occured) / (total number of occurences)

(number of times A occured) is the number of times Ian was born, and (total number of occurences) is something like the total number of human births. Depending on how you choose the denominator, the probability can range from small to vanishingly small.

Of course, Ian is the only one who thinks the probability means anything interesting, as if his specific genome was prespecified. So now it's time for him to try to explain why he thinks that, as Number Six and others have requested.

~~ Paul

Darat

24th July 2004, 01:23 PM

Interesting Ian has been suspended until 27th July for repeatedly violating Rule 8 and the Forum Guidelines in this thread.

scribble

24th July 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Darat
Interesting Ian has been suspended until 27th July for repeatedly violating Rule 8 and the Forum Guidelines in this thread.

I'm just curious -- I'm not pushing anything here... but how many repeated suspensions do you need before you finally get banned forever?

Number Six

24th July 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If the probability was vanishingly small, and yet I exist, this strongly suggests that our notions regarding how we come into being are flawed. In other words it wasn't just happenstance that I am here.

You are mixing up conditional probability and unconditional probability.

The conditional probability that you were born is 1.

The unconditional probability that you were born is small but not zero.

Remember that no matter how small Y = 1 / X is, X times Y still equals 1. Any event that occurs can be broken down into infinitely many small steps each having an extremely small probability of occurring. That doesn't make every event that occurs a miraculous one (unless you just want to redefine the word "miraculous.")

There are infinitely many possible states that the world can be in 1 second from now and yet when the world enters one of those states one second from now it will not be miraculous because the world _must_ be in one of those states one second from now. In other words, an event whose probability you call "vanishingly small" _must_ occur one second from now.

LucyR

24th July 2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by scribble
I'm just curious -- I'm not pushing anything here... but how many repeated suspensions do you need before you finally get banned forever?

Good question. I think people just turn a blind eye where Ian's concerned.

Rolfe

24th July 2004, 01:42 PM

Phew, now he's gone, I might surface.

I can't decide if it's as simple as it looks and Ian is completely out of his tree, or if he really has some esoteric concept in mind that he has repeatedly failed to communicate. The latter might be slightly suggested by the fact that he greeted every instance of the obvious explanation (regarding the improbability of any one hand of cards being dealt, and yet the inevitability that a hand of cards will undoubtedly be dealt), with the remark that this is irrelevant and we are missing the point.

And yet, when he tried to elaborate, we seem to get into the realms of the same improbable event occurring repeatedly. Yes, I'd agree that for the same person to be repeatedly spared in that postulated game of Russian roulette is vanishingly improbable - but there's no evidence that anything like that has ever happened. Ian keeps referring to the improbable happening repeatedly. In what way can that be seen as an analogy for anything relevant?

There's only one on Ian (thank God fasting). Even if he had an identical twin, there would be a sensible explanation for that. However, Ian's analogies seem to be trying to ask us to explain why he keeps happening! As if his exact genotype recurred repeatedly in unrelated families. Which so far as we know, it hasn't.

When you deal a hand of cards, you'll get a hand of cards, with whatever probability each one incurs. If you deal another, you'll get another event with the same probability. Yes, it only gets surprising if you deal the hand you specified in advance, or if you deal the exact same hand on two consecutive occasions. But how does Ian think his hand has been dealt more than once?

OK, I presume I'm not getting it, but since one or two people said they understood what the heck he was on about, maybe you could enlighten me.

Rolfe.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th July 2004, 02:24 PM

Number Six said:
You are mixing up conditional probability and unconditional probability.

The conditional probability that you were born is 1.

The unconditional probability that you were born is small but not zero.
You mean the condition probability as in P(Ian being born | Ian exists) ?

~~ Paul

JamesM

24th July 2004, 02:30 PM

I fear, Rolfe, that there isn't an estoeric point by II, but it just boils down to a lack of understanding of probability, and more specifically the difference between prior and posterior probabilities. This is illustrated perfectly by his analogy about the card-machine-wielding maniac, and where he quibbles with the idea of a probability being equal to 1.

The whole discussion reminds me of The Prosecutor's Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy), which anyone still reading may enjoy.

Rolfe

24th July 2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by JamesM
I fear, Rolfe, that there isn't an estoeric point by II, but it just boils down to a lack of understanding of probability, and more specifically the difference between prior and posterior probabilities. This is illustrated perfectly by his analogy about the card-maching-wieldng maniac, and where he quibbles with the idea of a probability being equal to 1.

The whole discussion reminds me of The Prosecutor's Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy), which anyone still reading may enjoy. Oh yes. The reason Sally Clark got banged up in jail. I wonder if Meadow was familiar with that fallacy at the time?

If it's that simple, and the explanation is that simple, why does Ian keep saying that the simple explanation is irrelevant?

No, maybe you don't want to answer that. I can feel my brain liquefying as I type. I'm off to start a new topic.

Rolfe.

JamesM

24th July 2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
If it's that simple, and the explanation is that simple, why does Ian keep saying that the simple explanation is irrelevant?
Because he doesn't have a grasp of the mathematics of probability, it really is as simple as that.

The ability to mathematically formalise probabilities, and especially conditional (and Bayesian) probability is tremendously useful in clearing up one's thinking. If you're unwilling to do it, you can tie yourself in knots.

Interpretations of probabilities can be quite slippery. In frequentist probability, what, for example, is the strictly correct interpretation of p-values in hypothesis testing? It is not, to my mind, terribly intuitive.

Rolfe

24th July 2004, 03:09 PM

I remember when I was about ten (and probably in trouble for something) wondering why was I me? And not somebody else? In all the long history of time and space?

I saw an article entitled "Why are you you?" posted on the cover of a children's educational weekly I read at the time, and turned to it eagerly, thinking that it might address this huge concept. It didn't. It was just a fairly ordinary explanation of genetics. I was disappointed.

I think I never stopped finding the question amazing, but concluded fairly quickly that the only sensible answer was "why not?" And so far as I could tell, so far as my experience went, there was no way to change. I have the memories of being inside this body and looking out of these eyes and getting the flak for the misdeeds of this personality right back to whatever age memory begins.

It's always something interesting to contemplate, but I can't see how it really goes beyond "well, fancy that!" Is this what's behind Ian's questions? But even so, I still can't see where the continual evoking of analogies where improbable events are repeated comes into the frame.

Rolfe.

Art Vandelay

24th July 2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No it's not dishonest retard. Your post implies what I said. If it doesn't, then explain why it doesn't. But do not call me dishonest.
What it implies is a matter of opinion, and as such cannot be proven either way. Which is why not specifying that what you said is your interpretation is dishonest, becuase implying and saying are not the same.

Yup. you're a thick Content removed for violation of Rule 8.
who refuses to address my questions.
There seems to be a strange belief among many people that everyone else is somehow obligated to explain how they are wrong, even when they have shown themselves to be completely disrespectful to previous attempts to do so. There is absolutely no reason why I should not be allowed to ask you to stop lying about what I said, without joining in the futile task of fighting your ignorance.

This is necessarily so if my first interpretation was incorrect.
And yet again you show why are not taken seriously: you assert something with absolutely no support, then you insult those that disagree with you. You seem to think that "It's really, really, obvious, and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" is somehow a valid argument. It's not. If you are so sure of what you're saying, why can't you present a valid argument, in which each statement logically follows from the previous?

Google is a search engine, googol is a number. Where have I ever implied otherwise?
You said "Someone said it's 1 in a google^10 or whatever." Now, what, exactly, is a search engine raised to the tenth power?

Art Vandelay

24th July 2004, 03:46 PM

Sorry if this seems like a nitpick, I think that the distinction between unconditional probability and conditional probability is not truly valid. When someone says that they are speaking about an unconditional probability, what they really mean is that the conditions are so obvious, and so clearly taken for granted, that they do not need to be stated. There is no such thing as an unconditional probability; every probability is calculated on the basis of the assumption that some other condition holds.

Badly Shaved Monkey

24th July 2004, 04:16 PM

Rolfe,

Like you I've read this thread with amused amazement or amazed amusement. As far as I can see, what has really been going on is that II starts from a position of "Ooh, isn't it weird I happen to be me", which as a pub bore conversation can lead on to the famous, "Why is being dead any worse than not being borne yet?" and "It's all so amazing, God must have wanted me to be here" It's an interesting topic, but he has then gone off into this mad attempt to back this vague argument up in terms of probabilities.

It may be that he does not understand the technicalities of probability calculations, but that is actually irrelevant. He has said the equivalent of;

"It is close enough to zero so that effectively it couldn't happen."

so many times in this thread, thereby claiming that some small number is actually identical with zero, that he has run himself into a logical contradiction before he even starts with the probability arguments. But he chooses to ignore this contradiction because it refutes his real contention, which is that by starting with the statement "Ooh, isn't it weird I happen to be me" you can disprove in a few simple logical steps the idea that chance brought II into the world .

The arguments about probabilities are a smokescreen that hides this basic contradiction.

Like all arguments that attempt to 'prove' the existence of God it is doomed from the outset. The irony is that most religious people don't see the project of 'proving' God's existence as being feasible any more than an atheist will spend much time trying to disprove it.

I've had this argument before with certain religious types who want to constrain their own version of God to bounds set by their own ignorance: "I can't understand how {insert real world process here} happens, Goddidit QED". I feel it gives us religious types a bad name.

Badly Shaved Monkey

24th July 2004, 04:18 PM

By the by, what is II's agenda with all of this? What does he want us all to learn from him? I've learnt something about impotent rage and the limitations of having only a narrow vocabulary of swear words, but not much else.

uruk

24th July 2004, 04:26 PM

Quote by II: If the probability was vanishingly small, and yet I exist, this strongly suggests that our notions regarding how we come into being are flawed. In other words it wasn't just happenstance that I am here.

I'm sure you all see the true point of I.Ian's astonishment at his birth despite all the factors which had to come together just so inorder for his birth to happen. That there is purpose or intelligent design to everything.
I also read his link about the weak anthropic principal. I'm no philosopher, mathmetician or physicist but it seems to me that "amazing" and "astonishing" probabilities and possibilities happen all the time. Everything that happens is by Ian's definition "astonishing". The probability that a rain drop lands on a certain spot or that it is your particular pattern of DNA that came together at conception, that the conditions are just right so that intelligent or self aware life developed, etc... At what point do these things stop being "amazing" and start being mundane? Why is it that some people find thier birth "amazing" and that a rain drop falls in a particular spot "mundane"? These events occur everyday.
Is it simply randomness? An inability to take in account all factors in a particular event?
I think that if you had the ability to comprehend and see all the factors which make up a particular event it would cease to become "amazing" and become "obvious". (that is not say that there is any meaning to it, but rather that it is just a series of events starting all the way back to an initial or recirculating state...Interesting but not amazing) Anyhoo, I may be out of my depth here. At least I'm willing to admit that.

don't believe this story, uruk. Which makes you a very strange person.

regards,
BillyJoe
(Hey, I mean it as a compliment )

I know it seems improbable that I had a girlfriend but I swear it's true.:D

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th July 2004, 05:16 PM

This seems to be the process Ian goes through:
[list=1]
I know my metaphysic is correct.
My metaphysic says that I am special.
Therefore probability must say that I am special.
Therefore anyone who claims that probability says no such thing must be an idiot.
[/list=1]

~~ Paul

24th July 2004, 06:02 PM

You know, the real shame was, I wasn't necessarily arguing against his viewpoint at first - only trying to explain that low probability events are assured in a large-enough sample (if there are 100 million firing squads, at least one will exist where all 100 marksmen miss). Initially, I just wanted him to see that 'impossible' is the same as 'ain't gonna happen ever', which is different from 'highly improbable'... Then I just wanted him to understand that Math is considered a Science, NOT a philosophy.

But the more he argues wrongly on mundane subjects such as definition of common words, the more his more in-depth subjects are invalidated.

Frankly, I do wish he were banned, finally, because it's outright painful watching him shatter his own credibility this way!

Number Six

24th July 2004, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
You mean the condition probability as in P(Ian being born | Ian exists) ?

~~ Paul

Yes, when we say "conditional probability" it has to be "conditional" on something. I realized that as I was typing it but I had earlier basically said "The probability that you are born given that you are alive to ask the question is 1" and it didn't get through so I figured I'd just leave it at "conditional probability" this time to see if that worked better.

And yes, as someone else said, if you want to be very strict about it then we can't really say any probability is unconditional, although practically speaking we can.

I think what it boils down to is that saying "I was born and the probability of that is very small, therefore it's miraculous" is just a case of data mining. You get the data, and from it you find something that would have a really low probability of occurring if you had predicted it before you got the data, and then you say "It's got a really low probability, therefore it's amazing."

Since the precise state that the world is in at any given time has a low probability of occurring if looked from the perspective of an earlier point in time, anything and everything that ever exists can be thought of as amazing.

The fallacy is in pointing to the "amazing things" only after they've come into existence, at which time they're not only not amazing but they can't _not_ exist.

24th July 2004, 07:37 PM

Well said, Number Six. Numbers One through Five applaud your efforts.

Number Seven, however, is out buying Lotto tickets...

Taffer

24th July 2004, 09:39 PM

I wouldn't be so bad if he didn't use offensive language on a public forum.

Also, a couple of pages back I suggested that he post all his 'proof' that we are wrong and that he is right in the same post, so we can all see it and decide on the matter.

Strange, but I am unable to find said post.

BillyJoe

25th July 2004, 03:20 AM

Well, we are all a bit sensitive around here, aren't we. What, really, is the problem with a bit of cursing and swearing? Do we all come from the upper classes or something? Or perhaps we have aspirations? The timing was pretty poor as well because Ian was being fairly restrained.

And which little boy went crying up to big brother.
Geez, let go of the apron strings already, little fella!

BillyJoe.

BillyJoe

25th July 2004, 03:29 AM

I'M BACK!!!

JamesM,

That the link you supplied has nothing to do with the issue. If you don't understand, I'm right you're as idiotic as everyone else.

If you and others are so confident you are right, then you shouldn't mind standing in front of a firing squad. I'm being absolutely serious.

Ian.

Badly Shaved Monkey

25th July 2004, 04:16 AM

In spite of this thread having run to 8 pages, I think I am right in saying that in response to the question;

"What were the chances of me being born?"

no one has explicitly asked;

"When? To what point in time are you referring when you say "were""

which cuts right to the centre of the a priori and a posteriori problems and would make II define his terms properly.

BillyJoe

25th July 2004, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
no one has explicitly asked;

"When? To what point in time are you referring when you say "were""Well, it hasn't been asked but at least two posters have mentioned the importance of time as far as I can remember..

SGT

25th July 2004, 06:45 AM

As I understood it, in the middle of all the cursing, what Ian really thinks is:

Materialists believe that the self is formed by your genetic code and your experiences.
The unconditional probability that someone having exactly the necessary requirements to form Ian's self is vanishingly small, so materialism must be wrong.
According to his beliefs, the self is something totally independent of genetics and life experiences, so no matter who were his parents or his life experiences he would still be Ian.
The problem is that he has no idea of what probability is. As everyone tried to explain him, the conditional probability P(Ian's self being what it is|Ian's self is what it is) = 1, so there is nothing exceptional in the existence of his self.

wollery

25th July 2004, 07:41 AM

I don't think that Ians problem is in the probability, or even necesarily in his argument. He says that from the materialist point of view it's highly improbable that any particular genetic code should come about, and therefore virtually impossible that he should have been born. He then states that the fact that he was born shows that something has happened which was, for all intents and purposes, impossible. This, he suggests, is a problem for materialism.

I feel that Ians problem is that he is arguing this from the point of view of someone who is totally emotionally invested in idealism.

As a materialist I am amazed by the incredible improbability of my existence, but have no problem believing that it came about by material means - I do not believe my life to have any special meaning, nor do I believe that I will continue to exist after the death of my body.

This in a nutshell is Ians problem - he cannot bear the idea that he is not in some way special. It's there in his signature, he says that he knows that "there is an ultimate purpose to life and the Universe, and a life after death." He says he has always known it.

Given that, how could he possibly accept any argument other than those which say that materialism is wrong? Even if he has to make up those arguments and fudge the evidence. Even when people show him explicitly how and why he is wrong he can't accept it, his entire world would come crashing in around him.

He doesn't claim to be infallible because he's egotistical, he does so because he's desperate. That's also why he insults people when they counter his argument and screams that nobody understands what he's saying. We must be idiots, because he needs to be right in order to stay sane.

Badly Shaved Monkey

25th July 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by wollery
As a materialist I am amazed by the incredible improbability of my existence, but have no problem believing that it came about by material means

Beyond the anthropic principle, the argument from 'pure' probability also neglects the many mechanisms that may bias the chances: selection for life-friendly conditions all the way from cosmological origins to biological natural selection. Now, you can have a philosophical discussion about what the existence of such mechanisms "means" for human existence, but trying to prove some metaphysical point by naive arguments is doomed to failure, as we have seen.

davidhorman

25th July 2004, 12:46 PM

This all sounds a little bit like that argument that we're all about to die because it's more likely that you're alive during the last few years of mankind - it's "obviously" false, but difficult to see why - Stephen Baxter even used it seriously in one of his novels.

The counterargument in that case was: there is nothing special about you. Any argument made about you holds for everyone who's already existed.

Under Ian's logic, the National Lottery is fixed (what are the chances of 1, 5, 23, 36, 44 and 45 being drawn?!), every game of poker must be fixed (what are the chances of getting a 5, a 4, a Jack, a Queen, and an Ace?!).

:rolleyes:

David

chance

25th July 2004, 04:13 PM

So Interesting Ian is banned apparently. IMO his motives were nothing but Trollish. His apparent innocent question, quickly deteriorated into abuse. His own point of view was contradictory, and his explanation never amounted to anything more substantial than the false ‘argument from incredulity’.

scribble

25th July 2004, 04:30 PM

DangerousBeliefs

25th July 2004, 04:32 PM

Skeptic

25th July 2004, 07:21 PM

This in a nutshell is Ians problem - he cannot bear the idea that he is not in some way special. It's there in his signature, he says that he knows that "there is an ultimate purpose to life and the Universe, and a life after death." He says he has always known it.

Well, that knowledge and $1.90 will get you a coffee of the day at the local Starbuck's.

What we really are dealing with here seems to be a version of the anthropic principle: Ian confuses the undeniable fact "Ian exists, therefore, Ian was born" with "Ian exists, therefore, there had to be some deep, incredible reason why Ian HAD to be born".

That just isn't so. If Ian had not been born, he wouldn't be around asking why he was born. As Piet Hein puts it in "A Grook to Warn the Universe Against Megalomania":

The universe may
be as grand as they say;
but it wouldn't be missed
if it didn't exist.

Brian the Snail

26th July 2004, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I'M BACK!!!

JamesM,

That the link you supplied has nothing to do with the issue. If you don't understand, I'm right you're as idiotic as everyone else.

If you and others are so confident you are right, then you shouldn't mind standing in front of a firing squad. I'm being absolutely serious.

Ian.

I always suspected that BillyJoe was an II sockpuppet. Now there's proof!

By the way, Ian, you didn't call me an idiot, even though I disagreed with you back on page 2. I'm feeling left out. :(

Lothian

26th July 2004, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by chance
So Interesting Ian is banned apparently. IMO his motives were nothing but Trollish. His apparent innocent question, quickly deteriorated into abuse. His own point of view was contradictory, and his explanation never amounted to anything more substantial than the false ‘argument from incredulity’. As I recall Ian failed his basic maths exam that all 16 year olds take. He does not understand probability. He calls people [censored under rule 8] because he intellectually can not understand what they are saying.

We all have things our mind simply can’t comprehend. I continuously fail to understand and apply the rules of grammer (and speiling). I just can’t get my head round them.

Mind you I don’t go round telling the world that there should be an apostrophe in the’se.

BillyJoe

26th July 2004, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
I always suspected that BillyJoe was an II sockpuppet. Now there's proof!

By the way, Ian, you didn't call me an idiot, even though I disagreed with you back on page 2. I'm feeling left out. :( What do you mean you friggin' idiot? (so now I have....called you an idiot, that is..... are you happy?). You have obviously not understood a single word of any of my posts have you? Ian is an Idealist and I don't even have a metaphysic. You cretin! And he lives in England and I live in Australia. Do you know any geography, you moron? It's a waste of time even responding to you, pinhead.
Now piss off!

Either that or you forgot the smily. :D

BJ

BillyJoe

26th July 2004, 05:07 AM

BRIAN the SNAIL. :eek:

Brian the Snail

26th July 2004, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
BRIAN the SNAIL. :eek:

Yeah, what about it, you moron. My user name just happens to have the word "Ian" encoded in it. So what? Are the chances of that so close to zero as to be zero, eh?! Idiot.

And what's this about you not being a materialist? You're obviously as thick as s*** so you must be. Now go away.

(This is fun :D)

BPSCG

26th July 2004, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
I remember when I was about ten (and probably in trouble for something) wondering why was I me? And not somebody else? In all the long history of time and space?Yeah, I asked that same question three or four pages ago, thinking it might lie at the bottom of what II was getting at.

Got myself cursed at, IIRC. So I guess that's not it.

The Don

26th July 2004, 06:58 AM

Being a morose drunk I often find a correlation between alcoholic consumption and introspection. I wonder if this is at the root of II's questions ?

BPSCG

26th July 2004, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I understand perfectly the oppositions argument. Indeed I understand it better than they do going by the attempts of people on here to explain it. On the other hand not one person understands my position. As an aside this is truly appalling as I believe an average 11 year old could understand.Then maybe you should have an 11 year old explain it in such a way that we can all understand, since you're doing such a miserable job of it.

BillyJoe

26th July 2004, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
Yeah, what about it, you moron. My user name just happens to have the word "Ian" encoded in it. So what? Are the chances of that so close to zero as to be zero, eh?! Idiot. Idiot! It's there, not once, but twice!! (it's a backward Ian :D , but yeah) Now, what are the chances?

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
And what's this about you not being a materialist? There you go again. Who are you to tell me what I am or not. Aren't I capable of doing it myself. At least you can expect me to get it right. Yeah, piss on, you are wrong again.

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
You're obviously as thick as s*** so you must be. Now go away. If I was a liitle fella holding apron strings like you, I would go crying to big brother to protect me. Oh, please, big brother, suspend this nasty person who is hurting me with all these nasty words.

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
(This is fun :D) Now your getting it. :D
(Ian is only having a bit of fun. Yeah, guys, that's all it is. And ROTGL, you have had him suspended for....having....a....bit....of....fun

Now pissoff all of you,
BillyJoe.

(My bother in law is a bit of a joker. We all laugh. But there is always a bit of truth hidden in there somewhere. ;) )

BillyJoe

26th July 2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Yeah, I asked that same question three or four pages ago, thinking it might lie at the bottom of what II was getting at.

Got myself cursed at, IIRC. So I guess that's not it. What??? Guess who intelligently answered that question and got pissed all over on?

You got your pretty little feelings hurt and I got wet. Rollover, man, I'll those nasty words on any day!

BJ

BillyJoe

26th July 2004, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by The Don
Being a morose drunk I often find a correlation between alcoholic consumption and introspection. I wonder if this is at the root of II's questions ? I'm sure you wouldn't know a root if you stumbled over one sober.
So why don't you go join all those other morons sitting there at the bottom of my spittoon.

BJ
(Not that I need the practice. ;) )

26th July 2004, 07:21 AM

I'm amazed anyone is still posting in this topic. Ian was trounced thoroughly, and then suspended. Is there really so much more to be said?

... oops, I posted too. :D

Oh well...

Back on topic: The answer (to the topic title) is 1. If Ian can ever pass his math exams (which it's not surprising he didn't, considering he sees Math as a philosophy and not a science), maybe he'll finally learn a little bit about probability.

BPSCG

26th July 2004, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by chance
So Interesting Ian is banned apparently. IMO his motives were nothing but Trollish. His apparent innocent question, quickly deteriorated into abuse. His own point of view was contradictory, and his explanation never amounted to anything more substantial than the false ‘argument from incredulity’. No, I think you have it backwards. I think we are all trolling Ian.

When Theodore Roosevelt was president of New York's board of police commissioners back in the 1890's, a commissioner on the board (I think his name was Parker) delighted in taking up a contrary position to almost anything Roosevelt might propose. A newspaper reporter once asked this him why he did that, since he knew that there were occasions where he privately supported Roosevelt's view.

"Oh, I just like to watch the big bomb sputter and explode."

The whole anecdote can be found in Edmund Morris's The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt.

Ian, when you get back, you might want to consider the possibility that that's what's going on here.

BillyJoe

26th July 2004, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'm amazed anyone is still posting in this topic. Ian was trounced thoroughly, and then suspended. Is there really so much more to be said?

... oops, I posted too. :D You think that's FUNNY?

Hey, aren't you the little fella still holding mother's apron strings?
Yes.....There you are with your pants down for all to see how small that little boy really is. :D

Now that's funny.
Come on, it's damn funny!

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Back on topic: The answer (to the topic title) is 1. If Ian can ever pass his math exams (which it's not surprising he didn't, considering he sees Math as a philosophy and not a science), maybe he'll finally learn a little bit about probability. You would not know what "on topic" means, cretin.

Did you somehow miss those words "having been born". Yeah, you're not blind, that would be the least of your worries. No, you just don't understand do you, pinhead. And you accuse me of being wrong.

"having been born", "having been born".

Now pissoff and write it a hundred times on your forehead.
(Hint: write real small)

BJ

BillyJoe

26th July 2004, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
"Oh, I just like to watch the big bomb sputter and explode." Well, you're just lucky I'm off to bed.

BillyJoe

26th July 2004, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Ian, when you get back, you might want to consider the possibility that you might be wrong :D:D:D:D:D

Now, I'm definitely going to bed.

Ian.
(oops)

26th July 2004, 07:38 AM

Gentle Reader, observe the typical vitriolic, abusive commentary present. Unable to discuss logically or on-topic, the subject resorts to insults referring to immaturity and the reduced size of one's manhood.

(Case in point, I'd be pleased if Mr. Happy were an inch or two smaller...)

Further, notice how the subject missed the explanation that what was answered was the title question itself, which appears at the top of this page: "What were the chances of me being born?" - in which, 'having been born' does not appear. Further, notice how he resorts to repetition and further mindless insult.

The subject has proven himself beneath notice and unworthy of response. Any posts by this subject may be dismissed out-of-hand, and as he has continually insinuated he is Ian, we can further surmise that he lacks honor and reason.

His credibility being shot, any posts he chooses to make can only be viewed as trolling.

BillyJoe

26th July 2004, 07:44 AM

Yeah, go on, hit me while I'm soundly asleep in my bed. Can we expect any more of this cowardly gentleman of the upper class.

BPSCG

26th July 2004, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BPSCG
Ian, when you get back, you might want to consider the possibility that you might be wrong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I'm definitely going to bed.

Ian.
(oops) Please try to misquote me more accurately.

What I actually said was:

"I think we are all trolling Ian."

(...some immaterial stuff about TR deleted...)

"Ian, when you get back, you might want to consider the possibility that that's what's going on here."

26th July 2004, 08:03 AM

Now we see the subject demonstrate his inability to let a topic lay while he rests, and further, casting dubious shadows over others - insinuating that he is attacked while defenseless, although we can clearly observe he lied when he said he was going to bed - or, at the very least, feels called upon to lurk further.

Perhaps, his bed is close at hand to his computer? What luxury, to have a computer in bed with you!

OTOH, I sleep at my computer quite regularly - the chair is just waaaay too comfy!

BPSCG

26th July 2004, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Gentle Reader, observe the typical vitriolic, abusive commentary present. Unable to discuss logically or on-topic, the subject resorts to insults referring to immaturity and the reduced size of one's manhood.He said foreHEAD, not - oh, never mind...this is getting too infantile. :D

26th July 2004, 08:10 AM

:D lol!!!

Well, I'd like my forehead to be a bit smaller, too.

Though it is a nice parlour trick, adhering beer bottles to said forehead - as well as silverwear, playing cards, small books, cans, etc...

The trick of course, is a tiny amount of moisture, a smooth flat forehead, and just the right neck angle to allow something to 'stick' without giving away a definite tilt.

BPSCG

26th July 2004, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
:D:D:D:D:D

Now, I'm definitely going to bed.

Ian.
(oops) If you don't have food, I'm going back to bed. (http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20040718.html)

chance

26th July 2004, 02:56 PM

BPSCG No, I think you have it backwards. I think we are all trolling Ian. !! You think. That would be, answering a question, knowing II will take offence in being show he is an ….(must …..not…..lower…..oh bugger it) idiot. A form of reverse baiting eh?

OK, all you people, who’s been leading II on…..(foot tapping…….) come on, admit it, do you like to see him squirm, or are you’re here for an argument, ('chance' struggles not to slip into a Monty Python routine)?

NoZed Avenger

26th July 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by chance
BPSCG OK, all you people, who’s been leading II on…..(foot tapping…….) come on, admit it, do you like to see him squirm, or are you’re here for an argument, ('chance' struggles not to slip into a Monty Python routine)?

Oh, I'm sorry. But as shown by the posts above, this is abuse.

You ***********, ****swaddlling, ****-***ed ****op.

N/A

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by LucyR
Originally posted by scribble
I'm just curious -- I'm not pushing anything here... but how many repeated suspensions do you need before you finally get banned forever?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good question. I think people just turn a blind eye where Ian's concerned.

So you've turned against me. I guess I should read that "How to win friends and influence people" I've had on my bookshelf for the past few months.

In all seriousness though, if you and Scribble think I ought to be banned then go and start a thread in "Forum Management" and argue your case. I suspect they haven't banned me because they consider profanity in and of itself insufficient for a banning offence. But if you think I ought to be, then go for it!

My own opinion is that people are stupidly preoccupied with profanity. There are far far worse things in the world than expressing oneself in a forthright manner. It is utterly ludicrous for example that profanity is so curtailed on TV when not an eyelid is blinked at screening a James Bond film with the depiction of horrific violence :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Phew, now he's gone, I might surface.

I can't decide if it's as simple as it looks and Ian is completely out of his tree, or if he really has some esoteric concept in mind that he has repeatedly failed to communicate.

No esoteric concept. It is just fantastically unlikely that I should find myself alive given that I am simply a product of my genetic and environmental makeup.

The only defence against this is to appeal to the anthropic principle. But the anthropic principle does not say it is certain that one would be born. It simply points out that one would never know about it if one were not born, and therefore could only consider the situation if one were born. Thus being alive is not therefore surprising at all. It's the only situation we could find ourselves in. Again, I reiterate, this is not the same as certainty. Indeed that's a crass misinterpretation.

The anthropic principle initially appears to be compelling, but a little thought reveals it simply doesn't work.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th July 2004, 11:56 AM

Ian said:
The only defence against this is to appeal to the anthropic principle. But the anthropic principle does not say it is certain that one would be born. It simply points out that one would never know about it if one were not born, and therefore could only consider the situation if one were born. Thus being alive is not therefore surprising at all. It's the only situation we could find ourselves in. Again, I reiterate, this is not the same as certainty. Indeed that's a crass misinterpretation.
That is not the defense, Ian. The defense is that there was no prespecified human against which your probability is to be compared.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by JamesM
I fear, Rolfe, that there isn't an estoeric point by II, but it just boils down to a lack of understanding of probability,

Let's skip the clueless idiotic statements shall we? :rolleyes:

I repeat; the only defence one could mount is to appeal to the anthropic principle. It seems that no-one understands this. I can only shake my head in incredulity at the stupidity of you and most people on here.

and more specifically the difference between prior and posterior probabilities.

I wish people would make their mind up. It was a prior and a posterior probabilities before :rolleyes:

No, I have not heard of these as an expression. I assumed their meaning can be analysed in terms of their constituent words. However, people have denied these expressions mean what they straightforwardly seem to mean. They say posterior probability means the probability of something happening after it has already happened. How this could be less than 1, and what the hell it has to do with my original question is utterly beyond me. It just gives yet more evidence for yours and others mind-numbing stupidity.

It doesn't matter what you know about probability. I have never been educated in it. Yet I am absolutely certain I am right. As I say, you can only defend your position by appealing to the anthropic principle. Attempt to get that through to your incredibly thick skull.

I am not wrong about this question concerning probability, nor for that other one whereby I claimed it is certain to find any substring in an unspecified finite number.

The whole discussion reminds me of The Prosecutor's Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy), which anyone still reading may enjoy. [/B]

That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this question.

Get out of here, idiot.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
The only defence against this is to appeal to the anthropic principle. But the anthropic principle does not say it is certain that one would be born. It simply points out that one would never know about it if one were not born, and therefore could only consider the situation if one were born. Thus being alive is not therefore surprising at all. It's the only situation we could find ourselves in. Again, I reiterate, this is not the same as certainty. Indeed that's a crass misinterpretation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is not the defense, Ian.

Indeed it doesn't seem to be. Yet this is the only one available.

The defense is that there was no prespecified human against which your probability is to be compared.

I have no idea what this means.

My potential existence simply needed to be special.

Consider a game of bridge where one does not pre-specify a hand. All hands are equally likely. Yet if your hand entirely consisted of the 13 spades this would be highly surprising even though its probability is the same as any other hand.

NoZed Avenger

27th July 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's skip the clueless idiotic statements shall we?

I will leave this straight line for the amateurs.

[From Paul Angieost. . . Agnastopy. . . from Paul A.:]
__________________________________________________
The defense is that there was no prespecified human against which your probability is to be compared.
__________________________________________________

[from II:]
I have no idea what this means.

My potential existence simply needed to be special.

It means that your existence might be considered special if, 3 million years ago, someone sat up and predicted that you would, in fact, one day exist.

But unless you have evidence to the contrary, that did not happen.

So here it is in a nutshell: You . Aren't . Special .

The universe does not give one tup-penny d*mn whether it was you, some other person, or no one at all that came about. You are not a hand of 13 spades -- you are simply a random run of cards and your existence has no more meaning than anyone else.

Newsflash: The BBC is not waiting with bated breath for your next forum post. You cannot walk on water.

Your existence is not the one, crucial wing-nut barely holding the fabric of space-time together. Get over it.

N/A

(Now MY existence, on the other hand . . . )

27th July 2004, 12:28 PM

Welcome back, Ian. Please watch the profanity (so good so far) if, for no other reason, than there is no age restriction here, and no guarantee that parents are doing their responsibility and keeping an eye out. I certainly wouldn't want my children exposed to any more profanity than absolutely necessary - but they should be able to take part in skeptic discussions, if that's their interest. Therefore, in the interests of common decency, please stop using so much profanity.

If my kid turns on the telly, I expect there to be at least a minimum standard of conduct on kids' shows. I certainly am not going to let my little ones watch programming where profanity is certain. Likewise, I screen films very carefully to make sure they're appropriate for my kids. And while any parent would like to claim they do that on the Internet, it is nearly impossible to individually screen every piece of content, to ensure some self-righteous, undereducated moron isn't throwing profanity before your kids.

If this were a restricted forum, I wouldn't care so much - but it's fairly open to anyone, so I do care.

As to this concept - The only person who appears to be mind-numbingly stupid about the subject is you.

In fact, 'Surprise' shouldn't even be a factor in this discussion.

One of the things I notice that you are doing is looking at the probability of your birth based on conditions in the distant past. Although I cannot claim expertise in this area, it does seem likely to me, that you cannot compute a future possibility without pre-existing or pre-defined conditions. Certainly, you cannot chain together strings of probabilities, thereby reducing probability to near-zero levels, or else nothing could exist, period.

The only probability you could honestly analyze would be the probability that you would be born under those conditions which occured at the conception of your parents, and the subsequent conditions during pregnancy. You could, if you chose, then discuss the probability of your parents meeting in order to concieve, but it would have to be based on other factors, and at each stage, the predetermined factors have to be assumed to be certain (probability=1) before you can continue to analyze resultant probability.

This is why probability states that the probability for any pre-existing state is 1. This provides the foundation for determining the probability of the next 'step' or 'stage' at any given point.

IN other words, while the probability of life forming on any given world SEEMS negligible, the fact is it is not so negligible, being that you must predetermine the appropriate conditions.

If you simply say, "What's the probability of life forming on a planet", you are missing most of the intermediary conditions between 'a planet' and 'formation of Life.' You could discuss the relative probability of all the proper conditions forming, which would lead again to a stacking of probabilities that again approaches zero; but for each stage to exist, the prior stage must exist, thereby increasing the overall probability. The more appropriate question in this case is asking "what's the probability of life forming on a planet which meets all the necessary conditions of life?"

This is how probability really functions, if I recall correctly - it's not that it is somehow amazing that you got here, only that an amazing series of unlikely events formed conditions that made your being born likely enough to happen.

When you then examine the probability that you would be born given the condition of your parent's copulation and the subsequent prenatal stage, certainly the probability is far more likely, and as I've stated before, unlikely does NOT mean impossible. Neither does 'likely' mean 'certain' - even in the earlier discussion on this topic wherein I tried explaining that a large enough sample would guarantee a certain result.

In the case of 'Ian being born' I think there should be a form of probability in which there is an exhaustive quantity - that is, how does the probability stack considering it's a one-time throw of the dice? In the case of a person's birth, SOMEONE would have been born (assumption), and which individual that is would be irrelevant, in spite the fact each individual would have (we assume) an equally unlikely chance of being born. However, in the case of a certain individual, it would seem unlikely that one individual is born over all others.

However, this appears, to me, to be a human projection over a situation. I have a 20-sided die here, and if I toss it, there is only a 1-in-20 chance of any given side coming up. But some side MUST come up, so it is CERTAIN that some side will come up. Therefore, the chance of my rolling any given number (1-20) is 5%, yet it is certain that SOME number will be rolled.

This shows that rolling a 20 is not unlikely. Likewise, SOMEONE had to be born (assuming all fertility and prenatal issues were fine), so you being born was not unlikely. If, like a die, your identity could somehow be reset, as well as those of all the other egg-sperm combinations available, then for every X number of attempts you would be born 1/X times, where X is the total number of viable sperm-egg combinations possible.

THIS is the fact of probability - we're not trying to divine the chances that something MIGHT happen - we're determining the number of times something WILL happen versus the total number of times (or a given number) in which the pre-existing state arises.

In other words, the probability of you being born being, let's say, 1 in 200 million, means that, (if it were possible) out of 200 million identical conceptions, you WILL be born once. Of course, we see this as personally miraculous, yet it's a simple fact; it seems even more miraculous, because all of the other 199,999,999 contenders got flushed down the drain... meaning no chance to continue bearing out the probability. Nonetheless, it was CERTAIN (or nearly certain, pre-existing conditions aside) that someone would be born; it just happened to be you.

When you toss the die, it is CERTAIN some side will land; it just happens to be a 20.

Really, does it get any simpler than that?

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]Welcome back, Ian. Please watch the profanity (so good so far) if, for no other reason, than there is no age restriction here, and no guarantee that parents are doing their responsibility and keeping an eye out.

Yeah heaven forbid! Perfectly ok when they get exposed to a continuous diet of TV programmes depicting gratuitous violence. But the flood gates are going to be opened should they read a swear word!! :eek: What would happen to them then???

BTW, are you deliberately trying to push my buttons? I hope so, otherwise it doesn't say a great deal for your intelligence. But there again, you and most others have embarrassed yourself more than enough in that department already.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
I will leave this straight line for the amateurs.

It means that your existence might be considered special if, 3 million years ago, someone sat up and predicted that you would, in fact, one day exist.

But unless you have evidence to the contrary, that did not happen.

Remember, not objectively special. Rather special from the perspective of the person who was born.

The fact that before the cards are dealt in a game of bridge, one does not predict that one will receive all the 13 spades in ones hand, doesn't negate that it would be a surprising fact should that transpire.

So here it is in a nutshell: You . Aren't . Special .

I am special; from my perspective. You are special from your perspective. . .in general anyone is special from their own perspective.

The universe does not give one tup-penny d*mn whether it was you, some other person, or no one at all that came about. You are not a hand of 13 spades -- you are simply a random run of cards and your existence has no more meaning than anyone else.

But I am a hand of 13 spades. Very much so. If those 13 spades had not been dealt I would never have existed. So therefore that makes me those 13 spades.

27th July 2004, 01:00 PM

Taking a gratuitous appeal to popularity, I'd say it was you showing your ignorance on this board. Popular opinion here seems to be that you don't understand even the basics, and this belief is bolstered by your self-proclaimed lack of education. You yourself admit that on most subjects, various posters show excellent intelligence, yet suddenly 'become stupid' (paraphrased) when faced with your posts. Doesn't this suggest that the inconsistant factor isn't their intelligence, but yours?

And, actually, I wasn't seeking to 'push buttons' - only to explain what should be plainly obvious to you by now. Your understanding of probability, chance, etc. is nearly nil, and your own personal metaphysic is so interfering with your thought processes as to blind you to simple truth.

Let us assume, for a moment, you are right, and it is impossible that you would be born - this being the apparent conclusion of your premise, given materialism to be true. Since you are born, this means either a) the given cannot be true, or b) your process of logic is in error, or c) both a) and b). If we assume case a) then we must claim that each person would be exactly who they are, regardless of the precise genetic and environmental factors involved. But what does this mean for the person suffering from genetic flaws? Specifically, those with mental aberations that are genetic in nature? There is a specific gene sequence that has now been targetted as a dominant factor in aggresive behavior and lack of morality/guilt. The occurance of this sequence can be traced through heredity, and a pattern of aggressive/guiltless behavior can be established in those who carry this sequence. If we accept your premise, then only those souls suitable for a lack of guilt and extreme aggression would graft themselfs (or transmit through, whatever) this individual, unless we remove such concepts as aggression and guilt from the soul itself. But without aggression, guilt, fear, joy, love, etc - all the emotional and mental states of the self - what is left? An empty, lifeless self. How can you be who you are, without the emotional and mental state in which you exist? If we agree with this metaphysic, then all true selves are identical things, and no individuals exist whatsoever.

Continuing this line of thought, since no spirit individuals exist (i.e. all spirits are clones) then the differentiating factors emerge through the mind-state and emotional-state - both of which are directly the result of genetics and environment. This means while self-Ian and self-Waco (stripped, of course, of even names) are the same, the differentiation between Ian and Waco emerge from genetics and environment.

This leads us to believe that materialism or immaterialism, or whatever metaphysic we use, still does not have a determining factor in whether or not the individual person exists. Since your specific question is, "What was the probability that I would be born", you are referring to an individual I - that is, a being determined by genetic and environmental factors.

Since eliminating situation a) also eliminates c), then situation b) logically should apply.

-- And my kids don't watch television - Neither do the adults, save once in a rare while. If parents spent more time teaching kids that profanity is inappropriate, maybe the world would be a nicer place to live.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Welcome back, Ian. Please watch the profanity (so good so far) if, for no other reason, than there is no age restriction here, and no guarantee that parents are doing their responsibility and keeping an eye out. I certainly wouldn't want my children exposed to any more profanity than absolutely necessary - but they should be able to take part in skeptic discussions, if that's their interest. Therefore, in the interests of common decency, please stop using so much profanity.

One things for sure, I won't refrain because of "common decency". I think it's much more decent to be an ethical person quite frankly.

If my kid turns on the telly, I expect there to be at least a minimum standard of conduct on kids' shows. I certainly am not going to let my little ones watch programming where profanity is certain. Likewise, I screen films very carefully to make sure they're appropriate for my kids.

Yeah, a kill joy. The only times I ever got any pleasure out of watching horror films was when I was a kid when it was possible to be frightened of them. But quite often my mother wouldn't let me. Shame on you. You're a kill joy as well as a complete and total idiot.

And while any parent would like to claim they do that on the Internet, it is nearly impossible to individually screen every piece of content, to ensure some self-righteous, undereducated moron isn't throwing profanity before your kids.

Sorry, I can't help the fact you have kids. Might I suggest if it is so undesirable for them to see profanity, then you should not have procreated. It's not my problem you have kids. It's your problem. Not that there's anything remotely wrong with letting kids see profanity. What a very very sad person you are.

And when I was at school kids used to swear all the time. In fact I was bullied for being the only one who didn't do so.

If this were a restricted forum, I wouldn't care so much - but it's fairly open to anyone, so I do care.

Then go and argue the case for me to be banned.

Go on, do so!

Rolfe

27th July 2004, 01:04 PM

When I was at school, and we used to play Whist at lunch time, I once had a hand with all the diamonds except the King.

Diamonds were trump, too.

Rolfe.

Number Six

27th July 2004, 01:06 PM

Any hand of 13 cards chosen from a deck is equally likely. It's humans that come to conclusions like "Hey, they're all spades, that is special."

This discussion isn't advancing any. It's the same as before. Ian won't accept our explanations no matter how clearly or often we say it nor will he give his own explanation. What's the point?

27th July 2004, 01:06 PM

But I am a hand of 13 spades. Very much so. If those 13 spades had not been dealt I would never have existed. So therefore that makes me those 13 spades.

Those 13 spades are no more and no less than a hand consisting of 6 spades, 4 hearts, a diamond, and two clubs.. equally as likely and equally as surprising. Yet, the symbolic meaning of those 13 spades is special to the one holding the cards. If you were playing a game where the goal was to get as many hearts as possible, you'd probably have a losing hand. If it were 4-way-war, you'd be sitting on some rough ground too. It's all interpretation, and using cards as an example doesn't really fit the bill, since it's the interpretation that makes 13 spades surprising.

On the other hand, if you possess a unique combination of genetic factors and environmental resouces to position you to do something truly amazing, we might wonder at the chances of such a thing happening; for example, if you were one of the vary rare people with a strongly acidic natural ph (I am one, it's hard to medicate) and there was a situation calling for someone to leap into a vat of acid to save lives, property, etc. I'd call that surprising and amazing. Not miraculous, but certainly surprising. But on average, it's not all that amazing.

scribble

27th July 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Number Six
This discussion isn't advancing any. It's the same as before. Ian won't accept our explanations no matter how clearly or often we say it nor will he give his own explanation. What's the point?

Congratulations. You've learned the only lesson Ian has to teach.

27th July 2004, 01:12 PM

Ian, I would much rather a person better themselves and make life better for all, than remove a person from the environment. If someone is a thief, I'd rather see the thief reformed, than removed from society. You, however, seem to have a general lack of ethics, in which you feel it is right to 'piss people off' (as you admitted) by cursing, rather than merely logically examine points and move along nicely.

Since there are an abundance of situations in which swearing is inappropriate, and can lead to unfortunate consequences, I would rather my children be in the habit of socially appropriate language. After all, what chance they will, say, get a good job, if they curse during the interview? Besides, it's a common fact that, in most acceptible situations, the person who swears is taken less seriously than the person who doesn't. After all, you and I both are trying to make a point - yet you were suspended for cursing. How much progress might you have made, if instead you had refrained from profanity?

Yes, profanity is everywhere - so are drugs, weapons, and disease. Would you accept those as well? I wonder.

No, I will not argue that you be banned, any more than I will put you on ignore. But others may feel more severe about it and have you banned - I won't speak for them. Instead, I'll simply keep stubbornly insisting that you don't swear, as it is counter-productive to enlightened debate.

scribble

27th July 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Instead, I'll simply keep stubbornly insisting that you don't swear, as it is counter-productive to enlightened debate.

Here's a challenge for you -- no, you don't have to face it publically. Just think of it as a mental challenge.

Quick, think of three behaviors you've seen from Ian that are "productive" to "enlightened debate."

Okay. If you lost, I'll give you double or nothing to come up with one post by Ian that supports his ideas. Any of them - not just what's in this thread.

At what point does one's signal to noise ratio become so bad that any further contribution from them can only detract from meaningful debate?

27th July 2004, 01:27 PM

Well - only one I can immediately think of.

Ian challenges us to think logically and reasonably in the argument of his posts. By spouting his pseudologic, he forces each of us to examine more closely the entailing thoughts, and causes us to focus more clearly on the actual issues behind the logic employed.

For example, before this discussion began, I was slightly less aware of the nature of probability, the factors involved in successful reproduction, etc. He has sharpened my logic and knowledge.

In a way, it's like having an annoying neighborhood klepto who will walk off with anything not secured. He may appear to contribute nothing to the neighborhood. but he causes everyone to tighten their security and get in the habit of not leaving things lying around.

Further, he arms us for future discussion against those rare individuals whose thinking is like, or similar to, his own.

Finally, he's good for a laugh.

There, does that count as three things? :D

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
When I was at school, and we used to play Whist at lunch time, I once had a hand with all the diamonds except the King.

Diamonds were trump, too.

Rolfe.

Must mean I'm wrong about everything then. :rolleyes:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th July 2004, 01:29 PM

Ian said:
I am special; from my perspective. You are special from your perspective. . .in general anyone is special from their own perspective.
No, objectively, I am not special, even from my own perspective. I may proclaim myself special, but I may also proclaim myself green. Self-proclamations are not special, either.

Sorry, no specialness here. Just dumb luck.

Ain't that special?

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Number Six
Any hand of 13 cards chosen from a deck is equally likely.

Indeed, but that doesn't matter because we're not comparing an all spade hand with any other hand; rather we're comparing the spade hand with all other possible hands. We're talking about getting the all spades hand rather than any other hand not any other one hand.

27th July 2004, 01:34 PM

Define 'special'.

If we say 'unique' then it is clearly the result of genetics combined with environment. Every person on earth will be unique because environment is ever dynamic. The same genes may pop up again and again throughout the ages, yet the people they form are vastly different due to environmental factors.

It is entirely possible, as we move through the ages, that we will observe more obvious physical similarities between people from one age to another. After all, Hollywood has done a great job of coming up with actors who strongly resemble actual people. Impersonators make a pretty good living off of the fortuitous occasion of being born looking just like someone else.

There is even some concern in the field of forensics and criminal science that such 'unique factors' like DNA, fingerprints, etc. may be less useful as the database expands, since the patterns involved have only a finite, albeit vast, set of possible combinations. Of course, we're talking a set consisting of trillions of combinations, but over the course of time, trillions of files may be logged... in which case, repetition may occur.

27th July 2004, 01:38 PM

Indeed, but that doesn't matter because we're not comparing an all spade hand with any other hand; rather we're comparing the spade hand with all other possible hands. We're talking about getting the all spades hand rather than any other hand not any other one hand.

Clarify. On the surface, this appears meaningless.

(I know nothing of Bridge...) But assuming you are dealt 13 cards from a deck - each card has a 1 in 52 chance (no jokers) of being dealt to you. IF four hands are dealt, each card is CERTAIN to be dealt. The hand you got, regardless of which hand it is, is equally as likely as any other hand. The chance you would be dealt that hand versus all other possible hands is the same as any other hand versus all other possilbe hands. The chance that you would be dealt any hand at all is certain.

So, obviously, I don't understand what you're getting at. Clarify.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Clarify. On the surface, this appears meaningless.

(I know nothing of Bridge...) But assuming you are dealt 13 cards from a deck - each card has a 1 in 52 chance (no jokers) of being dealt to you. IF four hands are dealt, each card is CERTAIN to be dealt. The hand you got, regardless of which hand it is, is equally as likely as any other hand. The chance you would be dealt that hand versus all other possible hands is the same as any other hand versus all other possilbe hands. The chance that you would be dealt any hand at all is certain.

Yes all this is correct.

So, obviously, I don't understand what you're getting at. Clarify.

{shrugs} It would seem so unless you're just having me on.

Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? (even though you might well profoundly disagree)?

Number Six

27th July 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed, but that doesn't matter because we're not comparing an all spade hand with any other hand; rather we're comparing the spade hand with all other possible hands. We're talking about getting the all spades hand rather than any other hand not any other one hand.

I don't get it. If you randomly deal 13 cards out of a deck of 52 the chances for any 13 card hand are the same (with the a priori chance of each being very small).

The a priori chance of any particular one of them being dealt is small.

The a priori chance that one of them is dealt is 1. (Or maybe we can say it's 0.9999999....maybe the dealer will have a heart attack before he gets a chance to deal.)

Number Six

27th July 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes all this is correct.

{shrugs} It would seem so unless you're just having me on.

Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? (even though you might well profoundly disagree)?

I don't. Please patiently explain it to me. I am willing to listen and try to understand what you're trying to say (but note that that doesn't mean I'll agree with you...if you explain it and I don't agree with it, I'll say so).

scribble

27th July 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes all this is correct.

Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? (even though you might well profoundly disagree)?

You're trying to draw a distinction between saying "If I deal all the cards, I'm going to get a hand, and it could be this one as well as any other" and "I wonder what the chances of me getting THIS particular hand on a given deal are?"

The problem is the latter isn't analogous to your birth. Your parents conceived a child. That someone was going to be born was inevitable.

I might even argue from there that the person who was born WASN'T YOU in any recognizable sense -- not mentally, physically, or any other -ly.

That is, if arguing with you weren't pointless.

It's like flipping a coin. If you flip a coin five times and get four heads and a tail, you wouldn't think anything much of it. If you said first, "I'm going to flip this coin five times and get four heads and a tail," then did, that might be something.

But the latter circumstance is in no way relevant to anyone's birth.

27th July 2004, 01:48 PM

Please, Ian, try to illustrate your point further. The card-hand example seems to make no particular point. I am trying to understand what you are getting at, but so far it seems to be poorly communicated between us.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I suspect they haven't banned me because they consider profanity in and of itself insufficient for a banning offence. But if you think I ought to be, then go for it!

OK, an annoyed moderator has emailed me and informed me that I'm wrong about this.

Hmmm . . first time I've ever been wrong about anything :p

27th July 2004, 02:23 PM

Glad you included the tongue-smiley, otherwise I'd have to think you were serious. :D

BPSCG

27th July 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? (even though you might well profoundly disagree)? No. We're all stupid, as you've so helpfully and repeatedly informed us all. Where's that eleven-year-old that you said could understand what you were talking about? Maybe he could explain it all to us, since you're doing such a lousy job.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Number Six
I don't get it. If you randomly deal 13 cards out of a deck of 52 the chances for any 13 card hand are the same (with the a priori chance of each being very small).

The a priori chance of any particular one of them being dealt is small.

The a priori chance that one of them is dealt is 1. (Or maybe we can say it's 0.9999999....maybe the dealer will have a heart attack before he gets a chance to deal.)

Yes, obviously everyone is agreed on this.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 02:39 PM

We're not making much progress here. Let's go back to this execution example. I'll just repeat it:

You are to be executed by a firing-squad of a hundred trained marksmen. You hear the command to open fire, and the sound of the guns, and then silence; you are not dead, you hear silence. All of the marksmen missed! Pondering, you realise that had the marksmen not missed you would not have been able to look back at the attempted execution, that only a failed execution would have allowed you to be here now, listening to the silence. However, you do not infer from this that the fact that the marksmen missed is unsurprising. You remain astonished that one hundred trained marksmen could all miss simultaneously.

Now do you agree that he is justified in being astonished??

If yes then we're getting there! :D It's basically the same argument for being born.

If you disagree then . . .:( . . . then this whole debate is going to be a tortuous one :(

Rolfe

27th July 2004, 02:39 PM

Why does Ian think he's an all-spade hand?

Rolfe.

scribble

27th July 2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Why does Ian think he's an all-spade hand?

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "A hand? He ain't more than a card!"

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Why does Ian think he's an all-spade hand?

Rolfe.

Rolfe, getting all the spades is analogically akin to not getting shot in the execution example.

You see?

Number Six

27th July 2004, 02:52 PM

In the "getting shot" example you're deciding beforehand what's amazing and what's not amazing.

In the "being born" example you're deciding after the fact what's amazing and what's not amazing, which is data mining.

wollery

27th July 2004, 02:54 PM

I get that being dealt an all spades hand in bridge is stunningly surprising, that not being shot by a firing squad of crack marksmen is incredible, and that the fact that I was born and not another child of my parents' is astounding.

But I'm afraid that I still don't see how it makes me special, and I really don't see how it refutes materialism.

chance

27th July 2004, 03:08 PM

Interesting Ian Would you be any less special if you considered yourself the equivalent of 12 Spades and one heart as opposed to 13 Spades, re your dealt hand of cards analogy?II> If those 13 spades had not been dealt I would never have existed. So therefore that makes me those 13 spades.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Number Six
In the "getting shot" example you're deciding beforehand what's amazing and what's not amazing.

In the "being born" example you're deciding after the fact what's amazing and what's not amazing, which is data mining.

Let's stick to answering the question. You agree then that he is right to be astonished?

Good.

So you just think it's dissimilar to being born . . . .hmmm.

Well, first of all I wouldn't decide beforehand that it would be amazing if everyone missed. I mean I would just presume that at least one or two would hit me.

Both events are surprising future events. Just before getting shot I could think to myself, how amazing it will be if everyone missed.

At the beginning of life on Earth, again it would be amazing if the precise genetic makeup constituting me would eventually be born. Because instead of me, any one of the other googolplex of people could have been born in my place. But that did not transpire. Instead I came into being, and it's an extremely astonishing fact that it should be me.

Remember that from my subjective perspective I am extremely special. If anyone else had of been born in my place I (presumably) would never have existed at all.

And, as an aside, that really blows the mind, just imagining the vast probability is that I would have never been born. If materialism is true just imagine how incredibly fortunate you are (assuming life is better than never having existed).

PS It's not data mining anymore than getting dealt a royal flush in Poker is deemed to be data mining when we judge it to have been amazing that I should have got dealt such a hand.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by wollery
I get that being dealt an all spades hand in bridge is stunningly surprising, that not being shot by a firing squad of crack marksmen is incredible, and that the fact that I was born and not another child of my parents' is astounding.

But I'm afraid that I still don't see how it makes me special, and I really don't see how it refutes materialism.

Well, it doesn't seem to me that anyone else agrees with you on it being astounding that they as individuals were born (apart from me of course).

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by chance
Interesting Ian Would you be any less special if you considered yourself the equivalent of 12 Spades and one heart as opposed to 13 Spades, re your dealt hand of cards analogy?

Ummm . .I don't think you're understanding this bridge hand thing too well. Just consider the execution and answer my question above.

Rolfe

27th July 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Rolfe, getting all the spades is analogically akin to not getting shot in the execution example.

You see? No. That would mean that you think everybody else in the world is dead.

Do you think I'm an all-spade hand too?

Rolfe.

Number Six

27th July 2004, 03:49 PM

Ian, by the standard you're using absolutely anything that could ever happen would be an amazing event. If that's the way you want it then fine, but you're simply defining everything as being amazing at that point. For me, if everything that happens is considered amazing then the impact of "amazing" is lessened quite a bit.

I agree that the guy in the "getting shot" example is right to be amazed he didn't get shot but I don't think that's analagous to the "being born" example.

From a point of view far back in time, any reality that could exist today is amazing (and yet one of those realities _had_ to happen). You're just taking the state of things today and you're saying it's amazing but instead of pointing to a rock or a tree or a planet to show that it's amazing, you're pointing to yourself.

Since one of those realities _had_ to occur, whichever one did occur could be considered amazing by whoever/whatever is a part of that reality and is thus around to ponder the point.

Consider the lottery example again. Say there are 10 million tickets and 10 million people each have 1 of them and a winner is randonmly drawn. Whoever wins will feel like a lucky, chosen person and yet one of those people _had_ to end up a winner. If someone won such a lottery would you consider it an amazing event?

Now instead of 10 million, make it 1 googlplex. And instead of a single person winning the lotterly, consider a single reality that exists today. One of the googlplex of realities _had_ to occur.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Rolfe, getting all the spades is analogically akin to not getting shot in the execution example.

You see?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. That would mean that you think everybody else in the world is dead.

Huh?? :eek:

In each case something unusual has occurred. It is true that any other one hand in bridge is just as probable as getting the all spade hand, but getting all spades is special in a way that getting 4 hearts and 3 each of the other suits isn't.

Same for being born. I have just as much probability of being born than any other potential human being. But I'm special in a way that no other human being is special. How am I special? Special in the sense that I wouldn't exist at all if I hadn't been born, where as whether you or anyone else gets born, doesn't alter the fact that I was born. That makes me special from my subjective perspective.

Do you think I'm an all-spade hand too?

You ought to think you are. I cannot judge you as special because why are you any more special than anyone else on the planet? Or indeed any other potential person??

But you ought to judge you are special, because if you had not been born, you would never have had any experiences, not ever. If on the other hand I had never been born, then from your perspective you wouldn't really care.

You see?

Rolfe

27th July 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You see? I'm afraid I do.

:hb:

Rolfe.

Valmorian

27th July 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
At the beginning of life on Earth, again it would be amazing if the precise genetic makeup constituting me would eventually be born. Because instead of me, any one of the other googolplex of people could have been born in my place. But that did not transpire. Instead I came into being, and it's an extremely astonishing fact that it should be me.

Why? Suppose it wasn't you, suppose it was one of the googolplex other potential people that could have been born instead. Would it be astonishing to them?

Does that make it astonishing?

Remember that from my subjective perspective I am extremely special. If anyone else had of been born in my place I (presumably) would never have existed at all.

Well, if any of those others had been born, the situation would be the same to them, hm?

And, as an aside, that really blows the mind, just imagining the vast probability is that I would have never been born. If materialism is true just imagine how incredibly fortunate you are (assuming life is better than never having existed).

That's a pretty big assumption there, first off. Secondly, everyone is going to consider themselves subjectively special, and those "people" who were never born aren't around to consider their own luck, so it's kind of moot.

Badly Shaved Monkey

27th July 2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And, as an aside, that really blows the mind, just imagining the vast probability is that I would have never been born.

I think a lot of us are ruefully reflecting on that large probability, but we'll get over it.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Number Six
Ian, by the standard you're using absolutely anything that could ever happen would be an amazing event.

No, not at all.

If that's the way you want it then fine, but you're simply defining everything as being amazing at that point. For me, if everything that happens is considered amazing then the impact of "amazing" is lessened quite a bit.

I agree that the guy in the "getting shot" example is right to be amazed he didn't get shot but I don't think that's analagous to the "being born" example.

I'm utterly perplexed. It's an exact analogy. But still, the good news is we're narrowing down substantially where our disagreement must lie.

From a point of view far back in time, any reality that could exist today is amazing (and yet one of those realities _had_ to happen). You're just taking the state of things today and you're saying it's amazing but instead of pointing to a rock or a tree or a planet to show that it's amazing, you're pointing to yourself.

Yes that's right. A rock, or a tree, or indeed anyone else is not special to me. Only my existence is special to me. Only your existence is special to you. Only Rolfe's existence is special to her. Only . . .well you get the picture!

Since one of those realities _had_ to occur, whichever one did occur could be considered amazing by whoever/whatever is a part of that reality and is thus around to ponder the point.

I agree absolutely, but I still say you're missing the point, and misunderstanding in the exact same way as most other people seem to be doing.

If I had never been born, and someone else, let's say X, had of been born in place of me (ie another one of my father's sperm had made that journey), then X might well be saying exactly the same as me ie "Wow!, I'm alive! That's truly astounding given the astronomical odds!"

So I understand that. Do you believe me?

The mistake you're making is looking at it from a objective (non-subjective) perspective. I don't care that X would have thought the same train of thoughts if he had come into existence. The point is *I* came into existence . . not X, Y or Z, or a googolplex of other potential people. And, to repeat, I am special in the way X isn't special from my subjective perspective, yes? Because if X instead of me had of been born I would never have come into existence.

But me having come into existence isn't extraordinary from your perspective. Indeed no more extraordinary than if X or Y or Z had of been born in my place. No, what is extraordinary for you is that you came into existence.

Consider the lottery example again. Say there are 10 million tickets and 10 million people each have 1 of them and a winner is randonmly drawn. Whoever wins will feel like a lucky, chosen person and yet one of those people _had_ to end up a winner. If someone won such a lottery would you consider it an amazing event?

No

Now instead of 10 million, make it 1 googlplex. And instead of a single person winning the lotterly, consider a single reality that exists today. One of the googlplex of realities _had_ to occur. [/B]

Yes.

But this isn't the point. See my above explanation in this very post.

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
I'm afraid I do.

:hb:

Rolfe.

:confused: So why are you banging your head?

Interesting Ian

27th July 2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
At the beginning of life on Earth, again it would be amazing if the precise genetic makeup constituting me would eventually be born. Because instead of me, any one of the other googolplex of people could have been born in my place. But that did not transpire. Instead I came into being, and it's an extremely astonishing fact that it should be me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? Suppose it wasn't you, suppose it was one of the googolplex other potential people that could have been born instead. Would it be astonishing to them?

Does that make it astonishing?

It would be astonishing to them, but no it wouldn't be astonishing from an objective perspective.

And the same for the actual 60 Billion or so people who have lived. Some 60 billion people out of a googolplex had to be born, so why not the ones that actually were??

You see, I understand my opponents argument! ;)

But the point is if any one of a googolplex of other people had of been born in your place, then you could not think to yourself "Gosh I am alive!!". And let's face it, it is astonishingly unlikely that it would transpire that you could say that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that from my subjective perspective I am extremely special. If anyone else had of been born in my place I (presumably) would never have existed at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if any of those others had been born, the situation would be the same to them, hm?

Yes, but you need to acknowledge that yourself is special in a way that no other person is. Any other self can think "WOW I'm alive", but that's meaningless to you. You need you to say that. And the vast probability is that would never have transpired if we consider the situation 2 billion years ago.

Number Six

27th July 2004, 05:17 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Number Six
Ian, by the standard you're using absolutely anything that could ever happen would be an amazing event.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, not at all.

N6: I don't get it. How could a rock being in place X (for example) not be an amazing event but your birth be amazing event? It seems to me that the a priori probability of either is the same or roughly so at least. The chain of contingency is quite long for either one from the perspective of four billion years ago.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that's the way you want it then fine, but you're simply defining everything as being amazing at that point. For me, if everything that happens is considered amazing then the impact of "amazing" is lessened quite a bit.

I agree that the guy in the "getting shot" example is right to be amazed he didn't get shot but I don't think that's analagous to the "being born" example.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm utterly perplexed. It's an exact analogy. But still, the good news is we're narrowing down substantially where our disagreement must lie.

N6: I don't think it's an exact analogy at all. In the "being born" example you're waiting until after the event happens to say "Look, it's amazing." But the same could be done to _any_ event that has already occurred, be it your birth or something else. In the "getting shot" example you're acknowledging the probability beforehand (even if you don't consciously do so, the simple fact that you expect to die when they shoot is an implicit acknowledgement).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a point of view far back in time, any reality that could exist today is amazing (and yet one of those realities _had_ to happen). You're just taking the state of things today and you're saying it's amazing but instead of pointing to a rock or a tree or a planet to show that it's amazing, you're pointing to yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes that's right. A rock, or a tree, or indeed anyone else is not special to me. Only my existence is special to me. Only your existence is special to you. Only Rolfe's existence is special to her. Only . . .well you get the picture!

N6: Well here it seems to me that you're saying "I'm special because I think I'm special and whether I'm special is a subjective thing that is completely up to me." Sure, everyone can decide what is special to him or her but so what? I don't see how that pertains to the improbability of an event.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since one of those realities _had_ to occur, whichever one did occur could be considered amazing by whoever/whatever is a part of that reality and is thus around to ponder the point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree absolutely, but I still say you're missing the point, and misunderstanding in the exact same way as most other people seem to be doing.

If I had never been born, and someone else, let's say X, had of been born in place of me (ie another one of my father's sperm had made that journey), then X might well be saying exactly the same as me ie "Wow!, I'm alive! That's truly astounding given the astronomical odds!"

So I understand that. Do you believe me?

The mistake you're making is looking at it from a objective (non-subjective) perspective. I don't care that X would have thought the same train of thoughts if he had come into existence. The point is *I* came into existence . . not X, Y or Z, or a googolplex of other potential people. And, to repeat, I am special in the way X isn't special from my subjective perspective, yes? Because if X instead of me had of been born I would never have come into existence.

But me having come into existence isn't extraordinary from your perspective. Indeed no more extraordinary than if X or Y or Z had of been born in my place. No, what is extraordinary for you is that you came into existence.

N6: Well here it seems to me that you're saying "I'm special because I think I'm special and whether I'm special is a subjective thing that is completely up to me." Sure, everyone can decide what is special to him or her but so what? I don't see how that pertains to the improbability of an event.

Anyone can decide what s/he thinks it special or amazing or mundane or whatever. But just because someone has a subjective opinion about something doesn't mean their opinion coincides with reality.

How about this...you think it's extraordinary that you were born, but do you think it's extraordinary that I was born? Your last paragraph implies not. If not, then it's amazing that you were born from your perspective but it's not amazing that you were born from anyone elses perspective. So the probability is small to you and not small to others. What can it mean when the same event has different probabilities? That doesn't make sense.

It just changes to the question to "Is there an objective truth or instead are there billions of subjective truths?" But that is a whole other question. Simply asking the question to others about what the chances are of you being born implies there is some objective truth that we can find to answer the question. If subjective truth rules instead then what's the point of even asking anyone other than yourself?

lifegazer

27th July 2004, 05:19 PM

I hate to be a bore, but can anybody here define who/what they
are before they proceed to discuss the event of "being born"?
Thought not. This discussion is null & void.

chance

27th July 2004, 08:17 PM

interesting Ian Ummm . .I don't think you're understanding this bridge hand thing too well. Just consider the execution and answer my question above. But I do understand what avoiding the question is, or was it just to hard for you?

The interesting Ian execution question You are to be executed by a firing-squad of a hundred trained marksmen. You hear the command to open fire, and the sound of the guns, and then silence; you are not dead, you hear silence. All of the marksmen missed! Pondering, you realise that had the marksmen not missed you would not have been able to look back at the attempted execution, that only a failed execution would have allowed you to be here now, listening to the silence. However, you do not infer from this that the fact that the marksmen missed is unsurprising. You remain astonished that one hundred trained marksmen could all miss simultaneously. This analogy is very poor as it not an accurate reflection of the opening post, or any area of probability where there is by definition a chance of an event happening. For you analogy to work you must allow for the possibility of the marksmen to miss their target in the first place, and then to put it in context with the OP perform the execution many times. Then, (assuming you don’t run out of prisoners), statistically it will be possible for all marksmen to miss simultaneously. The lucky person to have that statistical anomaly will off course be astonished, but not for long, as the odds of him being twice lucky are even more remote (yet not incalculable). How this astonishment is a problem for materialism, is yet to be revealed. To prove you wrong , try amending your own argument by reducing the number of marksmen (99, 98, 97, 96 etc), then asking yourself, at what number of remaining marksmen will I no longer be astonished.

You have still to provide any argument other than an ‘argument from incredulity’.

28th July 2004, 12:33 AM

IN fact, he seems to be trying to argue a subjective emotional response as a logical and rational consequence of a certain and specific event. This is, of course, a meaningless argument to anyone other than the subject involved; ergo, on an objective level, whether or not he finds it incredible is moot.

The simple fact that one person finds himself in one emotional state says absolutely nothing about the Universe. In fact, for my own part, I find it absolutely mundane that I was born. My parents procreated in the usual way and I was conceived. Anyone could have been conceived in my place, based on which of the millions of sperm managed to reach the egg first. But they weren't, and I was. Does this change anything at all? Certainly not - not at all.

Ian starts by asking an objective question with the premise of materialism=true, then tries shifting the argument to materialism=false and subjective concepts. IN other words, he has derailed his own thread, essentially.

The marksman example is exceedingly poor, in that this is not an issue of pure chance. Each marksman has a degree of skill, and depending on the degree of that skill, the probability of their missing becomes extremely low, possibly even none. Consider, the average execution of this type is done at close range, with each marksman being allowed time to aim. If we assume modern arms, modern marksman training, and modern execution styles, then the probability of all marksmen involved missing their target would be astronomically low - not because of probability or chains of events, but because of training, skill, etc. In other words, some exceptional, exterior event would have to influence the execution in order for the marksmen to miss. In fact, remove any possible exterior influences, and the marksmen would have to hit - albeit, even then, a faint chance exists that the various bullets would somehow deflect off of one another to avoid the body... but altogether, this makes the chance of the marksmen missing their target approximately equal to the chance of a person named Oliver Al-Araf Finkelstein getting hit in the left earlobe at 2:15 am (GMT) on a Monday morning by a tiny bit of stellar matter from the implosion of the third star to ever implode. (In other words, insanely, astronomically low).

Yet, with reproduction, the chance of some particular sperm successfully reaching the egg and fertilizing it is much, much higher. So much higher, in fact, that there is almost no comparison.

However, you've illustrated exactly your failing with probability where you have mentioned, at least twice now that I notice, the probability of you being born, GIVEN AN ANCIENT START POINT. This is the fatal flaw.

ANY situation currently existing does so at an astronomically low probability if you stack probables from such an ancient point. IN fact, I'd venture a guess to say it is impossible to determine any probabilities from such a distant previous state.

If your marksmen analogy were to work, you would have to add, "Given the situation at the time the first missile weapon was invented" to even be remotely similar. However, you instead once again try relating apples to fire engines, which is of course inappropriate.

I've asked you to explain your card example more clearly, and instead you leapt to an even more shoddy analogy. Now, can we return to cards, or are you about to come up with an even wilder comparison?

Badly Shaved Monkey

28th July 2004, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Number Six
Anyone can decide what s/he thinks it special or amazing or mundane or whatever. But just because someone has a subjective opinion about something doesn't mean their opinion coincides with reality.

Conversely, we all have an equal right to think we are amazing and that evens up the amazingness. The mistake still lies in aplying a subjective measure of 'amazement' to arbitrary outcome of a probabilistic process, given the opening assumption that we are all here to discuss that outcome.

Badly Shaved Monkey

28th July 2004, 12:42 AM

Question: Why should pubs not be allowed to open 24 hours a day?

Answer: It gives you an opportunity to get away from the beery bloke who has had you pinned in the corner for 4 hours with his theory of the universe. Tomorrow is another pub!

Prester John

28th July 2004, 01:05 AM

A bit early in the morning to be thinking about a drink BSM :D

Re Thread

Ian is a lottery winner asking why me?

Lothian

28th July 2004, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Prester John

Re Thread

Ian is a lottery winner asking why me? More specifically I think Ian is a lottery winner saying "it can't be me."

Interesting Ian

28th July 2004, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Number Six
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Number Six
Ian, by the standard you're using absolutely anything that could ever happen would be an amazing event.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, not at all.

N6: I don't get it. How could a rock being in place X (for example) not be an amazing event but your birth be amazing event?

Because rock A being at X is no more special than rock B being at Y and so on. But I keep repeating myself and people just aren't listening.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that's the way you want it then fine, but you're simply defining everything as being amazing at that point. For me, if everything that happens is considered amazing then the impact of "amazing" is lessened quite a bit.

I agree that the guy in the "getting shot" example is right to be amazed he didn't get shot but I don't think that's analagous to the "being born" example.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm utterly perplexed. It's an exact analogy. But still, the good news is we're narrowing down substantially where our disagreement must lie.

N6: I don't think it's an exact analogy at all.

So we've located the problem. My contention is that it is in fact an exact analogy.

In the "being born" example you're waiting until after the event happens to say "Look, it's amazing."

We're doing that also for the execution analogy. There is no difference whatsoever.

But the same could be done to _any_ event that has already occurred, be it your birth or something else.

Not any event. Being executed would not be amazing. Getting a "standard" hand dealt in bridge wouldn't be amazing. Only a vanishing small number of events is amazing. You've admitted it for the case of surviving the execution.

Where is the distinction???

In the "getting shot" example you're acknowledging the probability beforehand (even if you don't consciously do so, the simple fact that you expect to die when they shoot is an implicit acknowledgement).

The fact that before your birth you cannot think "Gosh it will be amazing if I were born!" is simply because you do not exist. But this cannot possibly have any repercussions on the surprising nature of the event should you be born! Or at least it could only be of relevance should you be appealing to the anthropic principle (which people have denied). Otherwise it's just not a relevant factor, and it is extremely clear why it isn't.

If you like imagine everyone - that is all possible potential people- existing in some non-empirical reality realm before birth so they could think this. I'm just trying here to get you to understand the irrelevancy of this objection you have raised.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a point of view far back in time, any reality that could exist today is amazing (and yet one of those realities _had_ to happen). You're just taking the state of things today and you're saying it's amazing but instead of pointing to a rock or a tree or a planet to show that it's amazing, you're pointing to yourself.

I've addressed this point - indeed the only point that people have come up with - ad nauseum. If you don't understand yet, then you never will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes that's right. A rock, or a tree, or indeed anyone else is not special to me. Only my existence is special to me. Only your existence is special to you. Only Rolfe's existence is special to her. Only . . .well you get the picture!

N6: Well here it seems to me that you're saying "I'm special because I think I'm special

I'm special because I do not experience being anyone or anything else, apart from myself. Obviously we are all special in that context.

and whether I'm special is a subjective thing that is completely up to me." Sure, everyone can decide what is special to him or her but so what? I don't see how that pertains to the improbability of an event.

I know you don't. What can I do about that?? I simply refer you back to the execution analogy. If a million of you were shot, and you were the only surviver, would that be similar to the birth example?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since one of those realities _had_ to occur, whichever one did occur could be considered amazing by whoever/whatever is a part of that reality and is thus around to ponder the point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeating same point which has already been refuted a zillion times.

I agree absolutely, but I still say you're missing the point, and misunderstanding in the exact same way as most other people seem to be doing.

If I had never been born, and someone else, let's say X, had of been born in place of me (ie another one of my father's sperm had made that journey), then X might well be saying exactly the same as me ie "Wow!, I'm alive! That's truly astounding given the astronomical odds!"

So I understand that. Do you believe me?

The mistake you're making is looking at it from a objective (non-subjective) perspective. I don't care that X would have thought the same train of thoughts if he had come into existence. The point is *I* came into existence . . not X, Y or Z, or a googolplex of other potential people. And, to repeat, I am special in the way X isn't special from my subjective perspective, yes? Because if X instead of me had of been born I would never have come into existence.

But me having come into existence isn't extraordinary from your perspective. Indeed no more extraordinary than if X or Y or Z had of been born in my place. No, what is extraordinary for you is that you came into existence.

N6: Well here it seems to me that you're saying "I'm special because I think I'm special

Not because I think it, rather by definition.

and whether I'm special is a subjective thing that is completely up to me." Sure, everyone can decide what is special to him or her but so what? I don't see how that pertains to the improbability of an event.

If you are special out of the googolplex of other potential people, yet you get born, then that is an incredibly surprising fact. It's simple. And, from your perspective you are special.

Anyone can decide what s/he thinks it special or amazing or mundane or whatever.

It's not something you decide. You are special by definition.

But just because someone has a subjective opinion about something doesn't mean their opinion coincides with reality.

It is the reality that you are special from your perspective. This is called consciousness. It is what distinguishes us from philosophical zombies (ie mindless automatons).

How about this...you think it's extraordinary that you were born, but do you think it's extraordinary that I was born?

It is extraordinary you were born, but this is the same for X, Y and Z too who could have been born in your place. But I cannot distinguish between you being born, or X being born, or Y being born, or Z being born. I'm sick of repeating myself. You are just what happenstance throws up. You cannot say for yourself that you are just what happenstance threw up, because from your perspective you are uniquely special.

Your last paragraph implies not. If not, then it's amazing that you were born from your perspective but it's not amazing that you were born from anyone elses perspective. So the probability is small to you and not small to others. What can it mean when the same event has different probabilities? That doesn't make sense.

Of course it does. In the consideration of our own case we are in possession of more "information" or knowledge than a consideration purely from the 3rd person perspective.

It just changes to the question to "Is there an objective truth or instead are there billions of subjective truths?"

It is an objective truth that we all have a subjective perspective. There is a point of view, a sense of self for each of the people who have come into being. It is legitimate for them to find it a very surprising that that they as individuals should have come into being.

But that is a whole other question. Simply asking the question to others about what the chances are of you being born implies there is some objective truth that we can find to answer the question. If subjective truth rules instead then what's the point of even asking anyone other than yourself?

There is an objective answer. Just like there is for getting 13 spades, or indeed any other hand in bridge. I was wondering what the probability was. Then I intended to argue that this probability, bing so incredibly small, would not expect to be realised given the likely length of time the human race will be around ie around 100,000 years.

BillyJoe

28th July 2004, 05:45 AM

There are a billion lottery tickets and a billion lottery ticket buyers who buy one ticket each. One is chosen at random. The person who wins is absolutely astonished to be the winner. The other 999,999,999 are not surprised at all. They knew someone was going to win.

Subjectively, it is absolutely astonishing.
Objectively, it is not surprising at all.

Therefore materialism is false.

Interesting Ian

28th July 2004, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by chance
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ummm . .I don't think you're understanding this bridge hand thing too well. Just consider the execution and answer my question above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I do understand what avoiding the question is, or was it just to hard for you?

The question is unanswerable. It doesn't make sense in the context I was using the bridge hand analogy. As I say, you are confused.

The interesting Ian execution question
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are to be executed by a firing-squad of a hundred trained marksmen. You hear the command to open fire, and the sound of the guns, and then silence; you are not dead, you hear silence. All of the marksmen missed! Pondering, you realise that had the marksmen not missed you would not have been able to look back at the attempted execution, that only a failed execution would have allowed you to be here now, listening to the silence. However, you do not infer from this that the fact that the marksmen missed is unsurprising. You remain astonished that one hundred trained marksmen could all miss simultaneously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This analogy is very poor as it not an accurate reflection of the opening post, or any area of probability where there is by definition a chance of an event happening.

I'm sorry, but the analogy is exact. How I'm going to be able to make you and everyone else understand that I have no idea.

For you analogy to work you must allow for the possibility of the marksmen to miss their target in the first place, and then to put it in context with the OP perform the execution many times. Then, (assuming you don’t run out of prisoners), statistically it will be possible for all marksmen to miss simultaneously. The lucky person to have that statistical anomaly will off course be astonished, but not for long, as the odds of him being twice lucky are even more remote (yet not incalculable). How this astonishment is a problem for materialism, is yet to be revealed. To prove you wrong , try amending your own argument by reducing the number of marksmen (99, 98, 97, 96 etc), then asking yourself, at what number of remaining marksmen will I no longer be astonished.

You don't need to carry out the execution on a different individual many times. Let's make it simpler. You'd be better off imagining a billion being shot simultaneously and you being the only survivor. Now this is exactly the same as the original example, ok?? It must be the same as the original analogy because you are simply putting people where all the bullets were actually fired so that lots of people get killed.

You have still to provide any argument other than an ‘argument from incredulity’.

It's simple mathematics. 1 chance in a googolplex that you would be born. Human race lasts 100,000 years. You have been born. Does not compute.

Interesting Ian

28th July 2004, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]IN fact, he seems to be trying to argue a subjective emotional response as a logical and rational consequence of a certain and specific event. This is, of course, a meaningless argument to anyone other than the subject involved; ergo, on an objective level, whether or not he finds it incredible is moot.

Ummm . .no . .this is cold hard facts about probability.

The simple fact that one person finds himself in one emotional state says absolutely nothing about the Universe. In fact, for my own part, I find it absolutely mundane that I was born. My parents procreated in the usual way and I was conceived. Anyone could have been conceived in my place, based on which of the millions of sperm managed to reach the egg first. But they weren't, and I was. Does this change anything at all? Certainly not - not at all.

Ian starts by asking an objective question with the premise of materialism=true, then tries shifting the argument to materialism=false and subjective concepts. IN other words, he has derailed his own thread, essentially.

Well, if you're arguing that no conscious experiences exist I suppose you're right. But I'm taking it as an axiom that there are.

The marksman example is exceedingly poor, in that this is not an issue of pure chance. Each marksman has a degree of skill, and depending on the degree of that skill, the probability of their missing becomes extremely low, possibly even none. Consider, the average execution of this type is done at close range, with each marksman being allowed time to aim. If we assume modern arms, modern marksman training, and modern execution styles, then the probability of all marksmen involved missing their target would be astronomically low - not because of probability or chains of events, but because of training, skill, etc. In other words, some exceptional, exterior event would have to influence the execution in order for the marksmen to miss. In fact, remove any possible exterior influences, and the marksmen would have to hit - albeit, even then, a faint chance exists that the various bullets would somehow deflect off of one another to avoid the body... but altogether, this makes the chance of the marksmen missing their target approximately equal to the chance of a person named Oliver Al-Araf Finkelstein getting hit in the left earlobe at 2:15 am (GMT) on a Monday morning by a tiny bit of stellar matter from the implosion of the third star to ever implode. (In other words, insanely, astronomically low).

{sighs} Yeah, like my birth. And you just systematically misunderstand everything.

Yet, with reproduction, the chance of some particular sperm successfully reaching the egg and fertilizing it is much, much higher. So much higher, in fact, that there is almost no comparison.

I believe there's trillions of sperm produced by an individual during his life. And his parents had to meet; and they had to be born etc etc etc.

However, you've illustrated exactly your failing with probability where you have mentioned, at least twice now that I notice, the probability of you being born, GIVEN AN ANCIENT START POINT. This is the fatal flaw.

ANY situation currently existing does so at an astronomically low probability if you stack probables from such an ancient point. IN fact, I'd venture a guess to say it is impossible to determine any probabilities from such a distant previous state.

Again you make the same point as everyone else which has already been refuted countless times.

Interesting Ian

28th July 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
There are a billion lottery tickets and a billion lottery ticket buyers who buy one ticket each. One is chosen at random. The person who wins is absolutely astonished to be the winner. The other 999,999,999 are not surprised at all. They knew someone was going to win.

Subjectively, it is absolutely astonishing.
Objectively, it is not surprising at all.

Therefore materialism is false. [/B]

You're just making the same mistake as everyone else, albeit in a more succinct way.

The person who does win is entirely justified in being amazed that she is the winner. There was, after all, only one chance in a billion of her winning.

Your point that any one of the billion would have been equally astonished should they have won is an irrelevancy. I can see and understand the logical fallacy clearly, but I guess I'm not communicating very well why it's a logical fallacy.

Let's put it this way. Suppose your entire life had been one extraordinary sequence of mishaps. You're the unluckiest person to have ever lived! Surely there must be more to this than happenstance! But you reason that the laws of probability suggest that on average one person will be as unlucky as this out of the 60 billion people or so who have ever existed.

Thus if you were not this person who was the unlucky one, then maybe person 8483958383 (who had ever lived) would be, and he would be thinking exactly the same thing as you are now! Or it could be that it happens/happened to person 34929561008 and then he would be thinking the same thing. So basically you think to yourself that we can be basically sure that ONE random person will be thinking "Gosh I'm so unlucky, it can't be happenstance, something mysterious is going on!". But you reason that it's totally explicable by the laws of probability that this one arbitrary person should be so unlucky; therefore nothing strange about it. It happens to be you . .but ok . . it had to be someone so why not yourself!

The mistake here is that *you* are special compared to anyone else. If you adopt this attitude, then no matter what happens to you in your life, it can never be remotely surprising!.

But this of course is utterly absurd. It's a mistake saying "well it could have happened to anyone, and for anyone else I wouldn't feel surprised". This would entail that you should be no more surprised that you win the lottery than for any arbitrary stranger who wins the lottery. You see the error here??

Prester John

28th July 2004, 07:19 AM

Ok, heres my take:

I understand what Ian is saying, ie there chance of an individual being born is so mind boggilingly small that it will not happen in the time period the human race has existed, therefore materialism is wrong.

Its not sufficient to reply with we are here thus Ians logic is wrong.

I think part of Ians error is getting population statistics mixed up with individuals. Population statistics can tell you nothing about an individual.
Given a succesful conception and birth the chance of an individual being born is 1. I hope that is self evident. There is only 1 egg, but millions of sperm (say for this example 1 million). The chance for any single sperm you were to pick out is 1 in 1 million. All of the sperm will make a unique individual, but only one will fuse with the egg to actually make an individual. The other 999,999 potential individuals are lost. We end up with 1 individual who is aware and can ask, why me? Ians misinterpreation is to take the 1 in 1 million for any particular sprem and say that because the winner only had a 1 in 1 million chance of winning something else is happening. Its not. You just never get to see the other 999,999 non winners! There were 1 million goes at the 1 in 1 million chance. (and the 1 in 1 million is based on sperm numbers not other factors).

Now if we go back a generation and look at the chances of the above individual being born (Mr X), whats the chances? Assuming no replication of sperms, 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 = 1x10^12., no chance! Theres not even that many sperms produced. Lets see however, there are only 2 million sperm produced, but in 2 lots of 1 million. So the correct dad is born, 1 in 1 million, with 999,999 potential people lost. However the lost potential people also produce lost potential sperms, these number 999999x1000000, and are added to the 999999 failures of the dads (all the potential peoples sperms are failures). We then get 999999999999 failed sperms (including 999999000000 that were never actually made) and 1 succesful one.

The chance of a particular individual is 1 in 1000000000000, but the chance there will be an individual is 1. We just can't predict which 1.

It all adds up.

hoping that makes sense!
PJ

PS The math is none too realistic but that is irrelevant IMHO.

Valmorian

28th July 2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It would be astonishing to them, but no it wouldn't be astonishing from an objective perspective.

To that I say, so what if it's astonishing to them? Lots of things astonish people subjectively when they are not at all astonishing in an objective sense.

But the point is if any one of a googolplex of other people had of been born in your place, then you could not think to yourself "Gosh I am alive!!". And let's face it, it is astonishingly unlikely that it would transpire that you could say that.

So what? I am no more special than anyone else, objectively. What difference does it make who is doing the wondering?

Yes, but you need to acknowledge that yourself is special in a way that no other person is. Any other self can think "WOW I'm alive", but that's meaningless to you. You need you to say that. And the vast probability is that would never have transpired if we consider the situation 2 billion years ago.

Whether something is special to me subjectively has no bearing WHATSOEVER on how special it really is. You don't seem to understand that.

28th July 2004, 09:31 AM

Let's face it - there can be no middle ground here. Ian obviously is making statements we find fundamentally flawed, and we are making statements he finds fundamentally flawed. I've already pointed out that you can only analyze birth probability based on the pre-existing conditions at time of conception, i.e. total number of sperm created in that ejaculation, environmental factors, health and viability of sperm, etc.

It's like saying that Ford Automotive makes 1,000,000 cars, what's the chance that this one Taurus would have been made? With the precise features of sky blue paint, tan interior, and a scratch on the hood? Astronomical, right? Of course not. You can only analyze the pre-existing conditions that led to THIS car being wherever it was to get that scratch, etc. You can't go back to Ford himself and try to predict this one car existing.

Until Ian can admit the flaw in his reasoning, he'll never see how the rest of the situation works. Likewise with us.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th July 2004, 10:05 AM

I guess one persons' :j1: is another person's :slp:.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

28th July 2004, 10:26 AM

It's funny. Educated people mock the stupid and uneducated by saying something like "hey! I saw this car number plate N456 CHL. The chances of seeing that particular number plate must be astronomical!! :eek:". But then they make themselves look even bigger fools by then misapplying this sort of reasoning.

Most interesting . . .

BillHoyt

28th July 2004, 10:52 AM

Number Six

28th July 2004, 11:14 AM

N6: I don't get it. How could a rock being in place X (for example) not be an amazing event but your birth be amazing event?

Ian:Because rock A being at X is no more special than rock B being at Y and so on. But I keep repeating myself and people just aren't listening.

N6: Why is it no more special? The probability of it is just as small as the probability of your birth. If it can't be special because it doesn't have consciousness then this whole discussion has nothing to do with probability and instead has to do with consciousness.

N6: In the "being born" example you're waiting until after the event happens to say "Look, it's amazing."

Ian: We're doing that also for the execution analogy. There is no difference whatsoever.

N6: It is different. The fact that you can be surprised in the "getting shot" example after the sharpshooters miss means that you assigned a small probability to that outcome beforehand. But you certainly didn't assign a probability to your being born before you were born.

N6: But the same could be done to _any_ event that has already occurred, be it your birth or something else.

Ian: Not any event. Being executed would not be amazing. Getting a "standard" hand dealt in bridge wouldn't be amazing. Only a vanishing small number of events is amazing. You've admitted it for the case of surviving the execution.

Where is the distinction???

N6: Being executed _would_ be amazing because you've defined things such that it's amazing that you (and anything else) is even here to begin with! If it's amazing you're here then anything that happens to you is even more amazing.

Of course, if you wanted you could say "_Given_ that I'm in the chair waiting for them to shoot, it's not amazing that I'm executed," but that is a _conditional_ probability.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th July 2004, 12:44 PM

Ian said:
It's funny. Educated people mock the stupid and uneducated by saying something like "hey! I saw this car number plate N456 CHL. The chances of seeing that particular number plate must be astronomical!! ". But then they make themselves look even bigger fools by then misapplying this sort of reasoning.
But Feynmann wasn't saying anything about education. He was pointing out that people's grasp of probability isn't very good, because probability is often unintuitive.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

28th July 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
But Feynmann wasn't saying anything about education. He was pointing out that people's grasp of probability isn't very good, because probability is often unintuitive.

~~ Paul

The people on here are just as bad . .nay . .worse than the people whom Feynman was criticising.

Interesting Ian

28th July 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Prester John
Ok, heres my take:

I understand what Ian is saying, ie there chance of an individual being born is so mind boggilingly small that it will not happen in the time period the human race has existed, therefore materialism is wrong.

Its not sufficient to reply with we are here thus Ians logic is wrong.

I think part of Ians error is getting population statistics mixed up with individuals. Population statistics can tell you nothing about an individual.
Given a succesful conception and birth the chance of an individual being born is 1. I hope that is self evident. There is only 1 egg, but millions of sperm (say for this example 1 million).

Isn't it many billions with each ejaculation? Not important though I agree.

The chance for any single sperm you were to pick out is 1 in 1 million. All of the sperm will make a unique individual, but only one will fuse with the egg to actually make an individual. The other 999,999 potential individuals are lost. We end up with 1 individual who is aware and can ask, why me? Ians misinterpreation is to take the 1 in 1 million for any particular sprem and say that because the winner only had a 1 in 1 million chance of winning something else is happening. Its not. You just never get to see the other 999,999 non winners! There were 1 million goes at the 1 in 1 million chance. (and the 1 in 1 million is based on sperm numbers not other factors).

It seems here that you are simply appealing to the anthropic principle. Only those who actually come into existence can marvel at their existence. So therefore it should not be surprising to find ourselves in existence. I believe I have refuted this through both the loony example and the execution example.

But most people on here are not appealing to the anthropic principle anyway. It's more along the lines of what BillyJoe says above. Here is his post and my response refuting it.

BillyJoe
There are a billion lottery tickets and a billion lottery ticket buyers who buy one ticket each. One is chosen at random. The person who wins is absolutely astonished to be the winner. The other 999,999,999 are not surprised at all. They knew someone was going to win.

Subjectively, it is absolutely astonishing.
Objectively, it is not surprising at all.

Therefore materialism is false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II
You're just making the same mistake as everyone else, albeit in a more succinct way.

The person who does win is entirely justified in being amazed that she is the winner. There was, after all, only one chance in a billion of her winning.

Your point that any one of the billion would have been equally astonished should they have won is an irrelevancy. I can see and understand the logical fallacy clearly, but I guess I'm not communicating very well why it's a logical fallacy.

Let's put it this way. Suppose your entire life had been one extraordinary sequence of mishaps. You're the unluckiest person to have ever lived! Surely there must be more to this than happenstance! But you reason that the laws of probability suggest that on average one person will be as unlucky as this out of the 60 billion people or so who have ever existed.

Thus if you were not this person who was the unlucky one, then maybe person 8483958383 (who had ever lived) would be, and he would be thinking exactly the same thing as you are now! Or it could be that it happens/happened to person 34929561008 and then he would be thinking the same thing. So basically you think to yourself that we can be basically sure that ONE random person will be thinking "Gosh I'm so unlucky, it can't be happenstance, something mysterious is going on!". But you reason that it's totally explicable by the laws of probability that this one arbitrary person should be so unlucky; therefore nothing strange about it. It happens to be you . .but ok . . it had to be someone so why not yourself!

The mistake here is that *you* are special compared to anyone else. If you adopt this attitude, then no matter what happens to you in your life, it can never be remotely surprising!.

But this of course is utterly absurd. It's a mistake saying "well it could have happened to anyone, and for anyone else I wouldn't feel surprised". This would entail that you should be no more surprised that you win the lottery than for any arbitrary stranger who wins the lottery. You see the error here??
[/b]

Number Six

28th July 2004, 01:18 PM

Somebody has to be the unluckiest person. It's not unusual because it _has_ to occur. Somebody has to be the 2nd unluckiest and the 3rd unluckiest, etc. The probabilitiy of being the 1st unluckiest is the same as the probability of being the 34392823st unluckiest. But only the people at the extremes, with either really good luck or really bad luck, even notice. They're data mining...they are waiting until the events occur and then saying "Wow, those amazing events occurred."

Luck is only one of an infinite number of factors we could point to. And on each of these factors, every person has a rank, from 1 to N where N is the total number of people. And it's no more "unusual" to be ranked 40298324th than it is to be ranked 1st. Everyone _has_ to go in exactly one slot, and each slot is _EQUALLY LIKELY_. It is our minds that attaches significance to the extreme slots.

chance

28th July 2004, 02:52 PM

Interesting Ian chance> But I do understand what avoiding the question is, or was it just to hard for you? The question is unanswerable. It doesn't make sense in the context I was using the bridge hand analogy. As I say, you are confused. Evasion Noted.

In reply to my accusation of a poor analogy (execution) I'm sorry, but the analogy is exact. No it is not, the 10 deck of cards you previously put forwards is much better, the execution must have an calculable element of the marksmen missing there target for it to be appropriate.

And II> How I'm going to be able to make you and everyone else understand that I have no idea. A Freudian slip? :) But seriously, use an argument that does not rely on incredulity.

You don't need to carry out the execution on a different individual many times. Let's make it simpler. You'd be better off imagining a billion being shot simultaneously and you being the only survivor. Now this is exactly the same as the original example, ok?? It must be the same as the original analogy because you are simply putting people where all the bullets were actually fired so that lots of people get killed. Yes, this is a much better analogy with the element of a miss included.
Now there is a small, but calculable, chance that someone will survive. That survivor will be astonished that he was the lucky one (as would any of the others had the been the lucky one).

The probability of being astonished is inversely proportional to the individual being selected against improbable odds (I just made that up, good eh).

II> It's simple mathematics. 1 chance in a googolplex that you would be born. Human race lasts 100,000 years. You have been born. Does not compute. Does to compute, there just very big numbers. Again I notice that you have failed to attempt my chanalge where I can prove you wrong. i.e. To prove you wrong , try amending your own argument by reducing the number of marksmen (99, 98, 97, 96 etc), then asking yourself, at what number of remaining marksmen will I no longer be astonished. When, In your opinion ‘will it compute’?

from another post II> Let's put it this way. Suppose your entire life had been one extraordinary sequence of mishaps. You're the unluckiest person to have ever lived! Surely there must be more to this than happenstance! But you reason that the laws of probability suggest that on average one person will be as unlucky as this out of the 60 billion people or so who have ever existed. Ah yes the ‘inverse forest Gump’™ (IFG™), is the IFG™ any less unique than the second unluckiest person in the world? Or the third, forth, fifth,……..3 billion 451million 8thousand two hundred an twelfth unluckiest person in the world. Do you get it yet. Blast just saw that Number six beat me to it.

Correa Neto

30th July 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...snip...Materialism. If you duplicated a person, and instantaneously destroyed the other person, what would happen is that the original person would experience no break in consciousness but would instantaneously find himself experiencing out of the other body. Yes?

Otherwise materialism is false.

Nonsense.

You can test your idea (unless you have something against experiments with animals).

Make two clones of a frog. Keep them in two identical boxes feeding them with the same food at the same time for a fixed time period. Add electrodes to clone no.1 of them to get a record of its neural activities.

Chop the leg of the clone no. 2. Check records of clone 1. Kill clone no. 2. Check records of clone no. 1.

$100 that nothing will show up on clone no. 1's records. Supporters of telepathy among twins should do this test.

Threfore, materialism is real.

Oh, don't want to test with animals? Make a similar test with two identical computers. Oh, sure, computers do not have souls...

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th July 2004, 10:15 AM

Ian said:
Materialism. If you duplicated a person, and instantaneously destroyed the other person, what would happen is that the original person would experience no break in consciousness but would instantaneously find himself experiencing out of the other body. Yes?
Yes, but not because there is any shared self or mind between the two people. This could be tested by making the duplicate, poking the original with a stick, then destroying the original. The duplicate would have no memory of the poke. Therefore there is not one "you" experiencing out of both bodies.

I think the problem is that you are thinking of the self/mind/consciousness as a separate entity from the brain function of the person. This may be true in your metaphysic, but not in materialism.

Edited to add: A thousand pardons for not reading Correa's post before I posted.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

30th July 2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by wollery
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Throw a die (dice?). The probability of it landing on a 6 is 1/6. The sum probability of all other positions is (1/6th of a chance landing on a 1) + (1/6th of a chance landing on a 2) + (1/6th of a chance landing on a 3) + (1/6th of a chance landing on a 4) + (1/6th of a chance landing on a 5) = 5/6

Note that 5/6 is a greater probability than 1/6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's the probability of throwing a 5? Or a 6? Exactly the same as throwing a 1!

Going back to the unluckiest person in the world example, suppose that there are 6,000,000,000 who ever existed. Each can be ranked as to how much luck they experienced in their life.
The person who came in at 6,000,000,000th is the unluckiest, their chance of holding that spot were 6,000,000,000 to 1.
What about the person who holds position 4,572,397,175? The probability that they would hold that position were 6,000,000,000 to 1.
My friend Joe Bloggs is ranked at number 3,000,000,000, he is the most averagely lucky person who ever existed. What were his chances of being perfectly averagely lucky? You guessed it 6,000,000,000 to 1!

Each person holds a unique position that is just as unlikely as any other person holding any other unique position.

Yes indeed. So what? Let's stay focussed shall we?

If I throw a die, and I desperately need a 6. and that 6 transpires, then I am lucky. It makes no difference the fact that there is also a 1/6th of a chance of me getting a 1, or a 2, or a 3, or a 4, or a 5. I am looking for a 6, and you have to calculate the probability according to the chance of getting a 6 compared to not getting a 6. And the chance of not getting a 6 is 5/6.

Interesting Ian

30th July 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...snip...Materialism. If you duplicated a person, and instantaneously destroyed the other person, what would happen is that the original person would experience no break in consciousness but would instantaneously find himself experiencing out of the other body. Yes?

Otherwise materialism is false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correa
Nonsense.

You can test your idea (unless you have something against experiments with animals).

Make two clones of a frog. Keep them in two identical boxes feeding them with the same food at the same time for a fixed time period. Add electrodes to clone no.1 of them to get a record of its neural activities.

Chop the leg of the clone no. 2. Check records of clone 1. Kill clone no. 2. Check records of clone no. 1.

$100 that nothing will show up on clone no. 1's records. Supporters of telepathy among twins should do this test.

Threfore, materialism is real.

Are you daft??

Please explain how on earth you imagine this proves materialism. Moreover, please inform people what on earth your post has to do with what I said.

Interesting Ian

30th July 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
Materialism. If you duplicated a person, and instantaneously destroyed the other person, what would happen is that the original person would experience no break in consciousness but would instantaneously find himself experiencing out of the other body. Yes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes,

OK, then you disagree with the Taffer and Correa Neto. Why don't you have an argument with them?

but not because there is any shared self or mind between the two people. This could be tested by making the duplicate, poking the original with a stick, then destroying the original. The duplicate would have no memory of the poke. Therefore there is not one "you" experiencing out of both bodies.

Sorry, not allowed. I said the original gets destroyed as soon as the duplicate comes into being.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th July 2004, 02:50 PM

Ian said:
Sorry, not allowed. I said the original gets destroyed as soon as the duplicate comes into being.
Why would you stop us from running a second experiment to see if the two people share a common mind? What is the point other than to render the original experiment inconclusive?

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

30th July 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Taffer
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No.

If it's not just the patterns and functions of the brain, then what else is required to constitute the self?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARG!!!

There is nothing else! But, the 'self' is just a bloody illusion created by the functions of the brain.

A bloody illusion? That's funny. So there exist only experiences. But these experiences are not had by anyone . . . . hmmmm. In which case how is it that experiences are grouped together so that, as we would normally say, some experiences are experienced by one person, other experiences are exprienced by another person? But there are no persons, there's just experiences. So why do "I" not experience what "you're" experiencing?? Why are "your" past experiences, not part of my memories?

Do you have any idea whatsoever what you're talking about???

No I thought not.

If we were to create a computer that was just as complicated as our brain is, and had all the same functions, then it would be concious, it would have a sense of 'self', indeed it would evolve, reason, learn, have emotions etc.

Then please supply your evidence/reasoning suggesting this.

Or do you have no idea what you are talking about???

Our brain is just a very very very very very complicated computer, with our sense of 'self' simply being a by product of the 'programming'. There really is no such thing as 'self'. Two identical brains would behave the same, but would not be the same. They would not have the same sense of self because one brain is indipendant of the other.

They must have the same sense of self if the brains are physically identical. Otherwise this is a direct denial of materialism.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th July 2004, 03:03 PM

Ian said:
They must have the same sense of self if the brains are physically identical. Otherwise this is a direct denial of materialism.
They do have the same sense of self. They just don't have the same self.

~~ Paul

Correa Neto

30th July 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are you daft??

Please explain how on earth you imagine this proves materialism. Moreover, please inform people what on earth your post has to do with what I said.

Please explain why on Earth you imagine that

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you duplicated a person, and instantaneously destroyed the other person, what would happen is that the original person would experience no break in consciousness but would instantaneously find himself experiencing out of the other body. Yes?

Otherwise materialism is false.

Can you understand the concept behind the proposed experiments regarding the frog clones? Or the analogies using computers, cars, etc.? And the implications to your statement? If you are, you'll see that it clearly demontrates how weak your whole argument is.

Or you are having difficulties in understanding what "individual entities" mean?

And in understanding that there is nothing linking the identical but individual entities in these cases. And therefore no effect is felt. So you don't have a point.

Or you don't want to understand it because it shows that your argument is failed?

Or you are mentally handicapped?

Taffer

30th July 2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A bloody illusion? That's funny. So there exist only experiences. But these experiences are not had by anyone . . . . hmmmm. In which case how is it that experiences are grouped together so that, as we would normally say, some experiences are experienced by one person, other experiences are exprienced by another person? But there are no persons, there's just experiences. So why do "I" not experience what "you're" experiencing?? Why are "your" past experiences, not part of my memories?
You do not understand what I am talking about here. Your sense of 'self' is a byproduct of the way your mind works. It is, in effect, and illusion. This is because there is no such things as 'self'. There is no magical soul in your brain that you can point to and say "this is your sense of self".

Do you have any idea whatsoever what you're talking about???

No I thought not.
Actually, I think I understand perfectly what I am talking about, and it is indeed you that is the one that does not understand. This is backed up by the number of people who understand what I am talking about, and indeed are arguing with you the same point.

Then please supply your evidence/reasoning suggesting this.

Or do you have no idea what you are talking about???

It is called Biology. The brain works through various chemicals and electrical signals. These are, in effect, a large number of boolean gates (true, false). Is a synaps firing? True = 1. False = 0. Is there Ca in a specific region? True = 1. False = 0. It is the same way a computer works (although much more complicated then a computer, as to be more accurate a synaps firing is one kind of true and false and different chemicals are different 'true or false' clauses).

They must have the same sense of self if the brains are physically identical. Otherwise this is a direct denial of materialism.
As has been said before by people much smarter then me, they have the same sense of self, but not the same self.

If you were to take a frog, clone it and at the same time kill the original what would happen? The cloned frog would have the same sense of self. It would have the same memories, the same emotions, the same way of talking etc etc etc. However, the first frog is not alive. His 'sense of self' died when he was killed. Basically, if you were the first frog, you would experience being cloned, and then die.
The cloned frog would come into being, and would for all the world seem like the first frog (it's brain is exactly the same), and it would remember being the first frog (it's memories are exactly the same), but it would not be the first frog. Although it has memories of everything the first frog did, and to it it's sense of self continued from the first frogs, it's actual 'self' would have come into being at the time it was created.

In effect, this is something that could not be tested, as the cloned frog would swear it was the first frog. However, if you had not killed the first frog, the first frog would swear that it was the original frog, and the cloned frog would swear that it was the original frog.

BillyJoe

30th July 2004, 07:52 PM

Taffer,

Originally posted by Taffer
As has been said before by people much smarter than me, they have the same sense of self, but not the same self.

If you were to take a frog, clone it and at the same time kill the original what would happen? The cloned frog would have the same sense of self. It would have the same memories, the same emotions, the same way of talking etc etc etc. However, the first frog is not alive. His 'sense of self' died when he was killed. Basically, if you were the first frog, you would experience being cloned, and then die.
The cloned frog would come into being, and would for all the world seem like the first frog (it's brain is exactly the same), and it would remember being the first frog (it's memories are exactly the same), but it would not be the first frog. Although it has memories of everything the first frog did, and to it it's sense of self continued from the first frogs, it's actual 'self' would have come into being at the time it was created.

In effect, this is something that could not be tested, as the cloned frog would swear it was the first frog. However, if you had not killed the first frog, the first frog would swear that it was the original frog, and the cloned frog would swear that it was the original frog. Very well done.
But there are two glaring errors:

1) As has been said before by people much smarter than me. :nope:

2) The cloned frog would have....the same way of talking. :D

regards,
BillyJoe.
(Forgive me the spelling correction. :( )

Taffer

30th July 2004, 08:01 PM

Thanks BillyJoe.

1) As has been said before by people much smarter than me.

Well, I found it helps to be a little modest now and then ;).

2) The cloned frog would have....the same way of talking.

In 'Frogish', of course. :D

Badly Shaved Monkey

30th July 2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Taffer
The cloned frog would come into being, and would for all the world seem like the first frog (it's brain is exactly the same), and it would remember being the first frog (it's memories are exactly the same), but it would not be the first frog. Although it has memories of everything the first frog did, and to it it's sense of self continued from the first frogs, it's actual 'self' would have come into being at the time it was created.

I assume you are meaning, for the purposes of illustration, the use of a science fiction cloning machine that makes the cloned frog springs into existence fully formed.

In real cloning you are just starting with a single cell and no past memories (which always seems to me to add a note of "Who cares?" to philosophies that involve reincarnation: if I can't remember my "past life" it has no practical impact or meaning).

Taffer

30th July 2004, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I assume you are meaning, for the purposes of illustration, the use of a science fiction cloning machine that makes the cloned frog springs into existence fully formed.

In real cloning you are just starting with a single cell and no past memories (which always seems to me to add a note of "Who cares?" to philosophies that involve reincarnation: if I can't remember my "past life" it has no practical impact or meaning).

Of course. I am talking about the yet to be discovered "Cloneamatic 2000", which creates an exact duplicate of the frog in under 2 minutes! ;)

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 01:13 AM

This is hopeless. No-one even understands what materialism means. :rolleyes:

BTW, you all might want to try this quiz:

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/identity.htm

At least it might get you all thinking about what you actually believe.

Taffer

31st July 2004, 01:41 AM

Well, I'm fairly sure we do, Interesting Ian. But just in case we don't, why don't you explain it to us?

Taffer

31st July 2004, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[snip]
BTW, you all might want to try this quiz:

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/identity.htm

At least it might get you all thinking about what you actually believe.

Interesting experiment. Although I'm not sure what you were wanting me to get out of it. I took the test, and survived according to one theory of identity (which happens to be the theory that I believe in, oddly enough), so I'm not sure how relevent it was.

31st July 2004, 02:09 AM

Clearly, he is mentally handicapped. He thinks mathematics isn't a science, and can back it up with his own irrefutable opinion.:rolleyes:

The 'self' is a direct product of an individual brain. The 'self' is wholly dependent on genetics + experiences.

If you somehow perfectly duplicate a brain, it will still be an individual brain, that will begin producing a duplicate self. However, the two selves are not connected in any way, therefore, one cannot sense what the other is sensing.

The 'sense of self' which you laud so highly is directly constructed upon amalgamated sensory experience from point of first awareness. Genetics creates the necessary sensory, thought processing, and memory storage systems, which cause slight biases (or strong, depending on the individual) in sensory input, thought processing, and memories. Once these systems are sufficiently ready for use, sensory input is gathered and processed. The totality of sensory experience is obviously biased by the environment from which this experience is culled. The self is entirely constructed of sensory experience, thought processes, and memory. There is no apparent apparatus for transmitting or receiving 'brain waves' or any other such woo nonsense, nor is there any evidence sufficient to counter evidence that thoughts originate within the brain, often in response to sensory input.

But just as we can have two identical computers running identical software that are NOT the same, so we can also hypotheically have two identical brains running identical selves that are NOT the same. Just as the two computers can each be made to think they are the SAME computer, so hypothetically can two selves be made to think they are the SAME self. In neither case, can one sense through or think for the other. At best, parallel thought processes can be observed, that one might take for a psychic phenomenon; however, it is simply more likely that near-identical genetic composition (as is the case with twins) and similar common experiences leads two near-identical brains to make similar decisions.

The very fact that you cannot sense through another person, the very fact that no one has ever been proven to 'jump bodies', the very fact that there is no valid scientific evidence for OBE or NDE claims, the very fact that brain damage and surgery often leads to fundamental changes in a person's nature, the very fact that chemical stimuli can alter a person's thinking, behavior, emotions, and memories, all are excellent evidence that the brain generates the self, ergo, materialism is not false. Probability and statistics, and the personal, subjective sense of surprise and wonder, in no way tell us anything for or against materialism.

You like to use the radio as an analogy for the human brain. I've tried to explain, that's a miserable analogy. Why? Because the brain doesn't receive some source signal and turn it into sound in an unbiased fashion; it receives sensory inputs, PROCESSES THEM EACH IN ITS OWN FASHION, then makes outputs as it deems necessary. Plus, no two brains receives the same signals; if they did, they would by necessity be co-occupying the same space-time; whereas all radios tuned to a specific frequency will receive the same program.

And before you start spouting insults, Ian, I challenge you, refute this post point-by-point, logically and reasonably, or don't say anything at all. For if you do your usual, which is to insult me by claiming I'm spouting 'arrant' nonsense, you will be demonstrating to everyone here that you are, in fact, mentally challenged, ignorant, and cowardly.

Time to demonstrate your ethics. Will you show honor, and either refute this material logically and systematically, or concede defeat; or will you behave according to your history, and sling poo from under the shelter of your slimy rock?

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Taffer
Interesting experiment. Although I'm not sure what you were wanting me to get out of it. I took the test, and survived according to one theory of identity (which happens to be the theory that I believe in, oddly enough), so I'm not sure how relevent it was.

If you're a materialist, it makes no sense to say you wouldn't take the teletransporter. If no-one understands this then I despair. I truly do.

Rolfe

31st July 2004, 02:27 AM

It's a lovely day Ian. Go out and get a tan.

Rolfe.

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
It's a lovely day Ian. Go out and get a tan.

Rolfe.

The sun ain't shining. Besides, either if it were, I got sunburnt the other day when going for a run. And I don't believe in getting a tan anyway.

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Clearly, he is mentally handicapped. He thinks mathematics isn't a science, and can back it up with his own irrefutable opinion.:rolleyes:

You have failed to argue that it is a science. All you've done is provide loads of links where it is simply declared to be a science. Needless to say I'm not impressed.

The 'self' is a direct product of an individual brain. The 'self' is wholly dependent on genetics + experiences.

If you somehow perfectly duplicate a brain, it will still be an individual brain, that will begin producing a duplicate self. However, the two selves are not connected in any way, therefore, one cannot sense what the other is sensing.

Before addressing that issue, let's start from the basics. Would you or would you not be perfectly happy using a teletransporter?

Rob Lister

31st July 2004, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You have failed to argue that it is a science. All you've done is provide loads of links where it is simply declared to be a science. Needless to say I'm not impressed.

Before addressing that issue, let's start from the basics. Would you or would you not be perfectly happy using a teletransporter?

Just so you know -- truth is sometimes best -- I think you are a troll and a dang good one at that. Still, I took your test and I feel grateful to you for posting it. My choices were:

You chose:
Round 1: Take me to the teletransporter!
Round 2: I'll take the silicon!
Round 3: Freeze me!

For the obvious (to me) reasons. Only '1961 out of 12475 people chose the same path' so I must conclude that the other 10,000 or so people are illogical. You really should start a thread on this test. It was pretty cool.

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister

Before addressing that issue, let's start from the basics. Would you or would you not be perfectly happy using a teletransporter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just so you know -- truth is sometimes best -- I think you are a troll and a dang good one at that.

I'm not sure what you mean. I like disagreeing with people, and generally winding them up by saying controversial things. On the other hand I genuinely believe what I say.

Still, I took your test and I feel grateful to you for posting it. My choices were:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You chose:
Round 1: Take me to the teletransporter!
Round 2: I'll take the silicon!
Round 3: Freeze me!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent! Yes that's consistent with materialism.

I got:

1: It's the spaceship for me!
2: It's the silicon for me!
3: Let my body die!

For the obvious (to me) reasons. Only '1961 out of 12475 people chose the same path' so I must conclude that the other 10,000 or so people are illogical.

448 out of 12475 people. Says I am being inconsistent. This is false.

You really should start a thread on this test. It was pretty cool.]

Be better if you started it. About a quarter of people on here have me on ignore.

There was a thread started on this quiz about 2 years ago. It's been lost now though. Be interesting to start another thread.

Taffer

31st July 2004, 03:57 AM

Ian, I honestly think you don't know what Materialism is.

I took:

1) The space ship
2) Let the virus go to work
3) Freeze me

This is exactly what Materialism tells us we should choose.

I will explain.

1) As our sense of self is just a byproduct of the way the brain works, if we were to destroy my brain, I would no longer be. When an exact duplicate is created, it would act like me, it would think like me, it would have my memories etc, but it would not be me. I cannot stress this enough. I wouldn't wake up on mars. I would be dead. It is a duplicate me, but not me.

2) It says that a large part of your brain would need to be replaced. Lets go one step further, for sake of example, and say you are replacing your entire brain. When the replacement is being done, or rather at the time that your brain is being replaced, your own brain functions would stop. This is the same, in effect, as destroying your brain. You would die. You, as you are now, would no longer be. When your brain is 'fired' up again, in the new improvements, the new person would be just like you (same behaviour, memory, personality etc), but it would not actually be you. It would have the same sense of self, but it would not have the same self. For others, there would be no difference. But I would never do this to myself, as I would die as a part of it. Now there is a way around this. If you were to replace the brain slowly, only replacing synapses that are no fireing, or are not being used at the time, then you could slowly replace your brain with a different one. But you could not just take your brain and kill it, and then start up another one that was the same. As we were told to take the questions at face value, I chose to have the virus go to work, as it did not say that the replacement would be slowly, only replacing synapses that weren't being used etc.

3) This is exactly the same question, in effect, as the other two. If your mind dies, you (as in your 'self') dies too, regardless of any 'soul' or anything. Thus, risk the freezing instead of dieing.

BillyJoe

31st July 2004, 05:35 AM

Taffer,

Perhaps I spoke too soon a page back. :D

I think you need to rethink your answers to those questions. The Materialist view of identity is a difficult one to grasp. You were well on the way with your post on the other page but I'm afraid you blew it with your last post. :(

It is very easy to slip into the more intutiive Dualists notion of self and identity. Even when you are trying not to. Unfortunately you have done just that. You answers are not those of a Materialist. You are nearly there but you still have a little way to go. With a little more thought I'm sure you will get there. :)

regards,
BillyJoe.

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Taffer,

Perhaps I spoke too soon a page back. :D

I think you need to rethink your answers to those questions. The Materialist view of identity is a difficult one to grasp. You were well on the way with your post on the other page but I'm afraid you blew it with your last post. :(

It is very easy to slip into the more intutiive Dualists notion of self and identity. Even when you are trying not to. Unfortunately you have done just that. You answers are not those of a Materialist. You are nearly there but you still have a little way to go. With a little more thought I'm sure you will get there. :)

regards,
BillyJoe.

Ummm . .I don't agree that he's "nearly there". He's miles away! LOL

BillyJoe

31st July 2004, 06:11 AM

Yeah well, everyone can do with a bit of encouragement now and again. :)

Correa Neto

31st July 2004, 06:24 AM

The problem I see with the interpretations of this test's results is centered on the word continuity. The copy will not be me. Here's where the test potentially crumbles.

When they say at the supposedly materialistic approach (transporter-silicon-freeze)
From the Staying Alive Test at Philosophers.co
...snip...all that is required for the continued existence of the self is psychological continuity...snip...

For a really materialistic person, what was made at step no. 1 -if choosen the beam me up option- was just a copy of the self. What is constructed at Mars is not the original self.

Later they say
From the Staying Alive Test at Philosophers.co
...snip...In the teletransporter case, for example, was it really you that travelled to Mars or is it more correct to say that a clone or copy of you was made on Mars, while you were destroyed?...snip...

Look at the first part of the sentence. A materialistic person (and most of the forum's members and most of non-materialistic persons I know) would say that of course a copy was made. And the copy is not you. Its a copy. Its a new entity. That's what IIan just fails to conceive or refuses to understand. In his mind, it has to be the same self. If not, his arguments collapse. As for the second part, the "you were destroyed" line is false to non-materilistic persons, since they belive in life after death. Accepting it would make the way they see the world collapse.

So, back on track, perhaps a materialistic person would consider choosing the spaceship... Would he/she really? It depends on his/hers approach.

Try facing the test using a raw reductio ad absurdum survival and materialistic approach- you must somehow improve some sort of survival, even if its not really the original you, but maybe even just your DNA. Ain't that why we care do much about our children? A hope that somehow we continue through them?
Here's what I got-

Beam me up Scotty- Easy. 100% chances that another "me" will be around to spread my DNA on Mars. The time between "deconstruction" of the Original Me and "contruction" of Mr. Copy will be just a void within my replica's memory. Nothing. No tunnel with bright light ahead, no NDE, no OBE, nothing.

Getting some spare parts- Survival instinct. Easy one. I (I mean my replica, Mr. Copy, thinking and reacting just like I would) will not be the same person, but Mr. Copy V.2.0. And the time between copying Mr. Copy's "software" to Mr. Copy V.2.0's "hardware" will be a blank in Mr. Copy V.2.0's memory banks if Mr. Copy's brain is deactivated during the process. If not, Mr. Copy V.2.0 will have the memories of the time of the transfer but will not be Mr. Copy or the original "me". He's a copy, OK, but a version of me is still around, and that's what's important to my point of view -somehow survive.

Third question- That's 100% of chances of surviving - at the loss of memories but with great chances of getting a new healthy body (fully functional brain included). And not inconsistent with question no.2, since the virus would turn you into a mentally handicapped person. And the result may be called Mr. Copy V.2.0 Mk.II, and will be new person.

Note that at the end of the test, the Original Me reincarnated (Original Me Mk. II) since I died and will threfore reincarnate, Mr Copy Mk II will be around also, since Mr. Copy died from the virus and therefore reincarnated later and Mr. Copy V.2.0 Mk.II, a fully-artificial version of the Original Me. And all of these are individual separate specimens.

That's what I got when I made the test centered on survival. I became an amoeba-like thing... But since many types of me are around, I won.

I wonder how non-materialistic people would react to this proliferation of souls...

But, if I were to follow a non-materialist approach... That's the result-

From the Staying Alive Test at Philosophers.co
...snip... After all, the body is ultimately dispensable. Second, the soul seems rather an empty self. It is a self that needs no thoughts, beliefs or memories to exist. It is rather a kind of immaterial home for thoughts, emotions, beliefs and so on. Do you really think the self is such a thing?...snip...

Is that what IIan thinks? What a hollow thing...

A nitpick note on Taffer's experiments with the frogs- You would clone the body, not the frog's memories. To make the experiment work, you would either need to make two clones of a frog and give them the very same life (that would be different from the original) and then perform the experiment. Or use an improved version of BSM's Cloneamatic 2000, the Clon-O-tronic 3000 (soo at a shop near you) that also copies the original's memories to the clone.

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 07:25 AM

From the Staying Alive Test at Philosophers.co
...snip... After all, the body is ultimately dispensable. Second, the soul seems rather an empty self. It is a self that needs no thoughts, beliefs or memories to exist. It is rather a kind of immaterial home for thoughts, emotions, beliefs and so on. Do you really think the self is such a thing?...snip...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that what IIan thinks? What a hollow thing...

What the vast majority of the human race thinks. You're advocating experiences without an experiencer. In which case what is to differentiate "my" experiences from "yours"??

There is such nonsense being posted in this thread that I really can't be bothered to address them. You and Taffer and a couple of others need to get a clue what materialism means.

31st July 2004, 08:22 AM

Before addressing that issue, let's start from the basics. Would you or would you not be perfectly happy using a teletransporter?

What is absolutely essential to understand that this so-called 'teletransporter' is nothing of the sort. It's a simple matter-pattern analyzer, attached to a transmitter, that sends a signal carrying data about your pattern to a receiver, that assembles raw matter into a clone, a duplicate of you. It in no way transmits 'you' - it could, in fact, with little modification, created a million duplicate 'yous' - none of which would be you, because your environment is taken from you when your body is destroyed.

Therefore, from a purely materialistic approach, since there is no way to transmit a continuity between original and clone, of course I would not want my body destroyed.

Suppose, for example, that the 'clone' is made, but by some amazing error, the original is never un-made. Then there would be two 'yous' - nearly identical, but now experiencing two different environments. Therefore, the 'self' that was cloned becomes an all-new self, while your self remains the same.

Since the entire test supposes there to be a materialistic component to the soul (question #3), and since discovery of said 'soul' and its properties was unknown in question #1, then it is also entirely possible that this 'soul' is destroyed as well during the 'dematerialization' process... meaning, those who took the transporter still 'died' while a new 'soul' was generated on Mars. So, in retrospect, the teletransporter would be inconsistant with a materialist point of view.

For example, if a computer were completely disassembled here, and the raw data of how it was built and the electromagnetic patterns stored within it were similarly described to a remote location, where a new computer were assembled to perfectly resemble the original, have you 'teletransported' the computer? Certainly not. Whether you are successful in cloning it or not, it will never be the same computer. The raw material of the original is still at point A, just completely disassembled; likewise, the raw material of the person is still on Earth - and if some bit of matter were unavailable on Mars, no clone could be created.

Moving on to question two, this becomes not so much as a question of materialism, but one of survival. Since they didn't specify that the ENTIRE brain had to be replaced, the obvious option is to obtain what replacement parts were necessary to continue to survive. Even if the entire brain were replaced, so long as it was a slow, systematic transition, it may be materialistically acceptable to say that because the 'self' underwent a gradual transition and maintains a definite continuity from start to finish, it is still the same 'self'. But this is a debatable point - surely, replacing the entire brain means destroying the original self. So this is one grey area worth debating.

Someone check my biology for me, but isn't the brain the one part of the body that is not systematically replaced? Or do brain cells get replaced over time as well? I do know that, over (I think) a seven-year period, the entire body is replaced - but if brain cells are never replaced, this further strengthens materialism, doesn't it? If, however, they are replaced, it certainly doesn't falsify materialism; rather, it suggests a start-to-finish continuity requirement for the 'self' - consistent with materialism, but adding a need for a temporal component to materialism as well.

(In the Teletransporter question, no such continuity exists, because the 'self' that started simply ceases to exist, while the 'self' that is made on Mars has a definitive start point on Mars, with 'false memories' implanted.)

Certainly, question two becomes a purely quality-of-life issue, in this case.

As to question three, I feel it is as faulty as question one, given the premise of a materially detectable 'soul'. It fails to address whether the soul in question one was destroyed during teletransportation. It also fails to offer the third, materialistically consistant choice - to be frozen in hopes of a cure, then thawed just prior to soul-death if no cure was found. Nonetheless, the choice brings to the question how much of a gambler someone is. Many would choose to be frozen rather than die, in the chance of being the lucky lotto winner; and, yes, they may lose their immortal soul to do so; but we've been risking our immortal souls since the dawn of time, so that's nothing new.

Now - will Ian stop dancing around the refutation of his theory, or will we play some new games?

Atlas

31st July 2004, 09:05 AM

I'm glad that this thread topic has evolved. Although I can't see the connection to the chances of being born, the materialist philosophy, as it applies to human consciousness is, as Ian accuses, something that I really don't understand.

Sure is fascinating though. I'll never watch Spock step into the transporter the same way again. It's strange too. I always looked on the transporter as a pretty cool invention. I never saw it as a suicide machine. Could a person voluntarily step into the transporter with the thought that, "Yah, I'll be dead but the manufactured entity at the other end won't know that and will actually believe he is continuing to be me, so it doesn't matter that I'm dead."

I chose the spaceship to Mars, the silicon and the freeze. I'm trying to grok the fullness of my choices. That's an appropriate comment if I'm talking about travel to Mars, isn't it?

What's doubly strange is that I have always imagined that if brain transplants could be done the recipient would retain his "self" identity from the former owner of the brain. Say, if an Austrian's brain were put into my body, "I" would go away but my body would have an Austrian identity. I would speak Austrian, though with imperfect enunciation. My mouth muscles would not have trained themselves to pronounce certain Austrian word sounds and so would form the words badly until my brain retrained them. Similarly, if it were Schwartznegger's brain that was transplanted, my body would not be able to benchpress 300 pounds until it was "pumped" up.

What makes it doubly strange is that, even though I believed that about transplants, I never thought that way about atom by atom reconstructions of a brain. For me, the atom by atom reconstruction of a brain, that was then implanted, would be a blank slate. It would have no experiences, hence no knowledge or language inherent simply because of it's physical construction.

The whole idea is wild. In this way too. We're not talking only about brains. We're talking life itself. Atomic reconstructions of living entites implies the reconstruction will possess life. I never thought of materialism that way. I always thought a reconstruction would still need some frankensteinian jolt. I must've seen Spock and the Captain step into the transporter thousands of times without realizing that they are atomic reconstructions without a frankensteinian jolt, probably because the high pitched "whirring" sound made it seem somewhat electrical. Hmmm.

Anyway, I've never gotten this deep into an Interesting Ian thread. Do you guys always save the good stuff til the end? Or are we only in the middle?

What other non-intuitive weirdities does materialism imply?

31st July 2004, 09:09 AM

Actually, the Trek transporter takes a little woo out of the process by actually sending the matter itself, converted into energy, in a focused beam, where it is techno-magically re-assembled into the original form... or, if there's a failure, into some other form.

It's still woo, but at least all the original matter is sent in the process.

This is how they can 'beam down' to places with no transporters.

Unlike the Mars Beam, that atomizes you, then instructs a distant module to make a new you.

Atlas

31st July 2004, 09:21 AM

Ahhhh, of course!!! No wonder the concepts slipped by me.:D

Skeptic

31st July 2004, 10:25 AM

(Sigh)

OK, let's take this from the top...

Let's consider winning the jackpot in the lottery.

1). This is certainly special from the point of view of the winner.

2). The probability of this happening to the winner is very small.

3). Every week (or whenever), somebody wins the jackpot, so it is a special, very small probability event, which happens repeatedly.

But nevertheless, this amazing fact doesn't require some sort of special explanation. It doesn't mean the winner was helped by a guardian angel, or was rewarded for being a righteous person. There simply IS no "deeper" explanation for this particular person winning than "dumb luck".

Same with your birth. It's special from your point of view; its probability is very low; these sort of things nevertheless happen all the time. There simply IS no "deeper" explanation for you in particular being born other than "dumb luck".

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
(Sigh)

OK, let's take this from the top...

Let's consider winning the jackpot in the lottery.

1). This is certainly special from the point of view of the winner.

2). The probability of this happening to the winner is very small.

3). Every week (or whenever), somebody wins the jackpot, so it is a special, very small probability event, which happens repeatedly.

But nevertheless, this amazing fact doesn't require some sort of special explanation. It doesn't mean the winner was helped by a guardian angel, or was rewarded for being a righteous person. There simply IS no "deeper" explanation for this particular person winning than "dumb luck".

Same with your birth. It's special from your point of view; its probability is very low; these sort of things nevertheless happen all the time. There simply IS no "deeper" explanation for you in particular being born other than "dumb luck".

I fail to see what you've said here which has not already been said about 50 times already.

31st July 2004, 10:48 AM

I fail to see what you've said here which has not already been said about 50 times already.

Ian's right, Skeptic - we've been battering at this dead horse for umpteen pages now, and he still doesn't get it.

BillyJoe

31st July 2004, 11:48 AM

Correa Neto,

Originally posted by Correa Neto
So, back on track, perhaps a materialistic person would consider choosing the spaceship... Would he/she really? It depends on his/hers approach.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
....you must somehow improve some sort of survival, even if its not really the original you, but maybe even just your DNA. Ain't that why we care do much about our children? A hope that somehow we continue through them?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Beam me up Scotty- Easy. 100% chances that another "me" will be around to spread my DNA on Mars.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Getting some spare parts- ....my replica, Mr. Copy, thinking and reacting just like I would will not be the same person, but Mr. Copy V.2.0. He's a copy, OK, but a version of me is still around, and that's what's important to my point of view -somehow survive.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Third question- That's 100% of chances of surviving - at the loss of memories but with great chances of getting a new healthy body (fully functional brain included). And not inconsistent with question no.2, since the virus would turn you into a mentally handicapped person. And the result may be called Mr. Copy V.2.0 Mk.II, and will be new person.Unfortunately, all these statements, unless I have misinterpreted them (and I don't think I could have misinterpreted all five statements), indicate that your understanding of Materialism has not yet encompased the problem of self and identity.

regards,
BillyJoe

Rolfe

31st July 2004, 11:53 AM

Am I wrong in suspecting that the quiz was unfair? The concept of the soul wasn't introduced until the last question. If I'd been told that the reconstituted me on the distant planet would have lost that soul, I'd have chosen differently. Ditto with whether the soul would be retained in the bionic brain. I think if you're going to make that a discriminator you have to say definitely whether or not the soul is preserved at every step of the game.

Unless I'm missing something.

Rolfe.

BillyJoe

31st July 2004, 12:01 PM

zaayrdragon,

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[the teleporter......could, in fact, with little modification, create a million duplicate 'yous' - none of which would be you.....

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Therefore, from a purely materialistic approach, since there is no way to transmit a continuity between original and clone, of course I would not want my body destroyed.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Suppose, for example, that the 'clone' is made, but by some amazing error, the original is never un-made. Then there would be two 'yous' - nearly identical, but now experiencing two different environments. Therefore, the 'self' that was cloned becomes an all-new self, while your self remains the same.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Even if the entire brain were replaced, so long as it was a slow, systematic transition, it may be materialistically acceptable to say that because the 'self' underwent a gradual transition and maintains a definite continuity from start to finish, it is still the same 'self'. But this is a debatable point - surely, replacing the entire brain means destroying the original self.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Many would choose to be frozen rather than die, in the chance of being the lucky lotto winner; and, yes, they may lose their immortal soul to do so; but we've been risking our immortal souls since the dawn of time, so that's nothing new. None of this is consistent with Materialism. In particular there is no soul. You probably have even mre work to do than Taffer, sorry.

regards,
BillyJoe

BillyJoe

31st July 2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
I always looked on the transporter as a pretty cool invention. I never saw it as a suicide machine. Could a person voluntarily step into the transporter with the thought that, "Yah, I'll be dead but the manufactured entity at the other end won't know that and will actually believe he is continuing to be me, so it doesn't matter that I'm dead." .....I chose the spaceship to Mars... And another one bites the dust. :(

This is really sad,
BillyJoe

BillyJoe

31st July 2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Am I wrong in suspecting that the quiz was unfair? The concept of the soul wasn't introduced until the last question. If I'd been told that the reconstituted me on the distant planet would have lost that soul, I'd have chosen differently. Ditto with whether the soul would be retained in the bionic brain. I think if you're going to make that a discriminator you have to say definitely whether or not the soul is preserved at every step of the game. :cry:

Rolfe

31st July 2004, 12:37 PM

Like it or not, Jerry, we're talking about consistency of belief system, not whether you happen to agree with the belief system or not. If you choose to believe in the concept of the soul introduced at the last question, you are entitiled to be able to enquire as to whether this soul is preserved in the other examples too.

I think.

Rolfe.

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Ian's right, Skeptic

The inevitability of it :)

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
[B]Am I wrong in suspecting that the quiz was unfair? The concept of the soul wasn't introduced until the last question.
If I'd been told that the reconstituted me on the distant planet would have lost that soul, I'd have chosen differently.

Huh?? Think you've been watching too many horror films. :eek:

A substance dualist is likely to believe any reconstituted self would be a corpse. I, as a subjective idealist, also believe this.

However, neither the dualists nor I am obliged to believe this. What might happen is that the soul would start to operate through the reconstituted body. So if this reconstituted self would definitely be alive, then I would be happy to take the transporter. It's just that I think most probably just a corpse would be created.

What I would definitely reject is the idea that there could be 2 selves ie if we didn't kill off the original so there was 2 copies of me. Materialists have to accept there could be 2 selves and thereby have to face the logical conundrums thereby created. I don't.

BillyJoe

31st July 2004, 01:41 PM

Who the hell is Jerry?

Correa Neto

31st July 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Correa Neto,

Unfortunately, all these statements, unless I have misinterpreted them (and I don't think I could have misinterpreted all five statements), indicate that your understanding of Materialism has not yet encompased the problem of self and identity.

regards,
BillyJoe

It may be.

But it may be also due to the particular contions upon this particular run of the test was performed (I want to survive somehow at any costs). Or to poor contruction of sentences by my part -english is not my native language and I find much easier to express myself in english when it comes to technical issues.

I think the very first part of the test where its sould (pun intended) lies. The rest are just variations over the theme.

Remember the poor guy/gal has:

-50% chances of dying during the space travel
-100% succes on teleporting, what includes destruction of his/hers body and construction of a new body 100% identical to the original out of new matter (original glyph) with three minutes of "inexistance".

Considering that there is no other option than to go to Mars, the selection of the"transport" way will depend on:

(i) if the traveller believes or not in continuation of counscience after death;
(ii) how strong are his/hers convictions regarding the above;
(iii) if he/she considers him/herself lucky...

If the answer to (i) is no, and to (iii) is no, the traveller will consider that he/she will go to oblivion anyway... Therefore, the transport is a viable solution. The one involving the minor damage risk, if the person thinks that what he considers as being his mind is created by his body and the memories, experiences, tought, etc. stored at his brain. A copy of this self should survive if the body is completely replicated (lets not enter on the "breath of life" issue), but the template will be destroyed. The template goes to oblivion, but the copy, from his/hers point of view, will "see" no discontinuty other than 3 blank minutes.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What the vast majority of the human race thinks.

What's the relevance of this? If the vast majority of human race thinks the smell of a fart is good you and I are supposed to agree? Or you think that the majority is always correct?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There is such nonsense being posted in this thread that I really can't be bothered to address them.

Not to mention your prolific contribution to all this nonsense...

BillyJoe

31st July 2004, 02:30 PM

Taffer, Correa, Zaayrdragon and Rolfe,

Consider the following definitions:

OriginalTaffer: The original body/brain/*Taffer*
DuplicateTaffer: The duplicate body/brain/*Taffer*
*Taffer*: The self produced by the functioning of the identical brains in the identical bodies of OriginalTaffer and DuplicateTaffer. Ther are two *Taffer*s, identical but not the same. Not to be confused with....
Taffer: The body/brain/*Taffer* that is both OriginalTaffer and DuplicateTaffer. There are two Taffers, identical but not the same.

Scenario A: The duplicator produces a DuplicateTaffer whilst retaining, without alteration, OriginalTaffer.

We therefore have two Taffers, OriginalTaffer and DuplicateTaffer. They are, as we all agree, identical but not the same. Each Taffer has a body including a brain which produces a self which we will call *Taffer*. There are therefore two *Taffer*s. They are identical but not the same as we all agree. Being identical, they both feel exactly as if they are OriginalTaffer. We can even create a situation where they will never be able to tell the difference (for example, if we produce the DuplicateTaffer right next to the OriginalTaffer). If they are identical what right have we to say that one is preferred as *you*. They are both *you*. Analogy: There are two identical red cars. Both are *red*. Neither is redder than the other. Similarly, OriginalTaffer is no more *Taffer* than DuplicateTaffer. It won't be the same *Taffer* looking through both eyes - because they are identical not the same - but the identical *Taffer*s looking through identical eyes, feeling exactly as if they are *you*. They feel exactly as if they are *you* because they are *you*.

Scenario B: The duplicator produces a DuplicateTaffer whilst killing OriginalTaffer.

If you argree with the above, *you* should be happy to continue as the *Taffer* produced by the brain in DuplicateTaffer. It is identical to the *Taffer* produced by the brain in OriginalTaffer. *Taffer*, in other words *you* will never be able to tell the difference. Of course we could set this up so the the *Taffer* does know that he is the *Taffer* produced by the brain in DuplicateTaffer. But that does not make any difference. *Taffer* still exists. *You* still exist.

regards,
BillyJoe.

PS: If you do not agree with the above, if you insist that *you* are only the self in OriginalTaffer, you are really a dualist. You say that you do not believe in a self independent/separate from the brain but your words suggest that you actually believe the opposite. Believe it or not!

Correa Neto

31st July 2004, 03:29 PM

Thanks, that was a nice explanation, and I'm OK with that. That's what I think explained on a much better way.

Now, considering that the self is dependent from the body, and what makes us "us" is an interplay between our experiences, brain patterns, hormonal ballance, etc., I guess it would be correct to say that both Taffers would start to differentiate as soon as they are subjected to different experiences, right? They would even continue to feel as being the only single Taffer, and none could be labelled "the Taffer", but they would be different, because their experiences became different after a certain point.

If the Original Taffer gets a cold, Duplicate Taffer will not feel it's effects, correct?

But according to IIan, if Original Taffer dies, Duplicate Taffer would experience what Original Taffer feels during the process. And this seems unlikely to me.

31st July 2004, 03:49 PM

Jerry - er, I mean, BJ -

I get it perfectly well, it's you that doesn't understand.

The moment I am destroyed, I am destroyed. It is irrelevant whether or not a clone of me is made that believes itself to be me.

This is what YOU do not understand - and it is completely consistant with materialism - that the ME which is right here, trapped in this physical body and produced by this exact combinations of genetics and experiences, will, in fact, cease to exist entirely. End of story. No more conscious awareness at all.

Somewhere in the galaxy, Me2 awakens, and has all the necessary physical, mental, and memorial aspects of Me (you assume), but my consciousness stopped the moment I was destroyed on Earth. This new consciousness might be identical in every way, but it would be just that - identical in every way.

HOWEVER - (And, no, this isn't part of the philosophical game, but bear with me) Me2 is, in fact, NOT identical to ME, and in several fundamental ways. For one, others are aware that Me2 was constructed from spare matter on Mars, and had no existence prior to that construction. Unless we assume that, in some way, contact with those who know is severed utterly, Me2 may eventually learn the truth. But all thoughts of truth aside, Me2 already KNOWS, from the start, that he is not the same as Me.

Why, you ask?

It's easy. You were explained, before the process began, that you would be destroyed and a new You would be made on Mars. This is your knowledge, and as such passed on to the new You on Mars. So right from the offset, a difference is formed, and Me2 is no longer identical to Me. Me has ceased any conscious awareness at all, and Me2 is aware that the original Me died on Earth, and that it is a manufactured duplicate.

This is crucial to the understanding of why a dedicated materialist could NOT accept teletransportation - because there is NO transfer of matter from Me to Me2, nor of energy, nor of any materialistic existent component that makes up Me. Me was destroyed; Me's ashes remained on Earth.

Otherwise, identical twins would share the same experiences, yes? They would sense and feel and think using either body simultaneously, yes? Well, they don't. This alone should illustrate the fallacy of your thinking.

The only way someone would take the teletransporter is if they honestly believed their Spirit would somehow transfer between Me and Me2 - something that does not exist in the Materialist standpoint.

No matter how much you deny it, the fact that no material component is ever shared between Me and Me2 differentiates them into two completely separate entities. You are confusing issues here greatly.

As I said, though, the entire test is poorly structured from start to finish. It assumes a materialist soul (otherwise, it could never be detected) exists, but makes no explanation of what becomes of the soul of the poor, deceased fella in the Earth tele-trans. Fundamental design flaw.

Anyway, BJ, I suggest YOU don't understand as much as you think you do.

Interesting Ian

31st July 2004, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Who the hell is Jerry?

As in "Tom and Jerry" I think LOL

Taffer

31st July 2004, 05:05 PM

zaayrdragon, this is exactly what I was trying to say, but I admit you said it better.

Moving on to question two, this becomes not so much as a question of materialism, but one of survival. Since they didn't specify that the ENTIRE brain had to be replaced, the obvious option is to obtain what replacement parts were necessary to continue to survive. Even if the entire brain were replaced, so long as it was a slow, systematic transition, it may be materialistically acceptable to say that because the 'self' underwent a gradual transition and maintains a definite continuity from start to finish, it is still the same 'self'. But this is a debatable point - surely, replacing the entire brain means destroying the original self. So this is one grey area worth debating.

Indeed it is, and both answers seem to be acceptible from a materialistic point of view. I think it is perfectly acceptible if the brain is slowly replaced, over a long period of time, to another one. However, it doesn't suggest this (and we are told to take it a face value), thus I chose to let the virus go to work (this is because I was assuming that the 'replacement process' would be fast and not take into account working synapses etc). Why? Because, from a materialistic point of view, my sense of self is created by my working brain. If the virus goes to work, my brain is still functioning, only in a different way. However, there was no loss of continuity between the 'pre-virus' brain and the 'post-virus' brain, thus my sense of self would remain. I would go to sleep, as it were, and wake up with different memories, thoughts, emotions etc. I would seem to be a different person, however if I were experiencing it, I would still be alive, as it were. I would still be me, but with different memories, thoughts, emotions etc.
However, you could choose to take the implants, if you are assuming that they are done slowly as so to not disrupt the brain functions at all. It's simply a matter of interpretation, so I believe the question isn't very well worded.
At the end of the test I was told that I chose the 'correct' answers from a particular point of view, thus I assume that my choice was the 'correct' one from a materalistic point of view (as the others were materalistic). zaayrdragon, what were you told at the end of the test? If you were 'correct' also, we have a problem (in the sense that we could both argue that both answers were materalistic), but if you were told that you were not, then it's all good. It is indeed an interesting thought, isn't it?

Taffer

31st July 2004, 05:25 PM

Please excuse the double post, but I feel this is better on it's own.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Taffer, Correa, Zaayrdragon and Rolfe,

Consider the following definitions:

OriginalTaffer: The original body/brain/*Taffer*
DuplicateTaffer: The duplicate body/brain/*Taffer*
*Taffer*: The self produced by the functioning of the identical brains in the identical bodies of OriginalTaffer and DuplicateTaffer. Ther are two *Taffer*s, identical but not the same. Not to be confused with....
Taffer: The body/brain/*Taffer* that is both OriginalTaffer and DuplicateTaffer. There are two Taffers, identical but not the same.

Scenario A: The duplicator produces a DuplicateTaffer whilst retaining, without alteration, OriginalTaffer.

We therefore have two Taffers, OriginalTaffer and DuplicateTaffer. They are, as we all agree, identical but not the same. Each Taffer has a body including a brain which produces a self which we will call *Taffer*. There are therefore two *Taffer*s. They are identical but not the same as we all agree. Being identical, they both feel exactly as if they are OriginalTaffer. We can even create a situation where they will never be able to tell the difference (for example, if we produce the DuplicateTaffer right next to the OriginalTaffer). If they are identical what right have we to say that one is preferred as *you*. They are both *you*. Analogy: There are two identical red cars. Both are *red*. Neither is redder than the other. Similarly, OriginalTaffer is no more *Taffer* than DuplicateTaffer. It won't be the same *Taffer* looking through both eyes - because they are identical not the same - but the identical *Taffer*s looking through identical eyes, feeling exactly as if they are *you*. They feel exactly as if they are *you* because they are *you*.

Scenario B: The duplicator produces a DuplicateTaffer whilst killing OriginalTaffer.

If you argree with the above, *you* should be happy to continue as the *Taffer* produced by the brain in DuplicateTaffer. It is identical to the *Taffer* produced by the brain in OriginalTaffer. *Taffer*, in other words *you* will never be able to tell the difference. Of course we could set this up so the the *Taffer* does know that he is the *Taffer* produced by the brain in DuplicateTaffer. But that does not make any difference. *Taffer* still exists. *You* still exist.

regards,
BillyJoe.

PS: If you do not agree with the above, if you insist that *you* are only the self in OriginalTaffer, you are really a dualist. You say that you do not believe in a self independent/separate from the brain but your words suggest that you actually believe the opposite. Believe it or not!

Let me try my hand at explaining this, shall I?

The variables are (Hah!):
X = My physical body, brain, etc.
X2 = My cloned body, exact in every detail.
Y = My personality, emotions, memories, wishes/dreams etc.
Z = My sense of self, as experienced by me (my conciousness, self awareness etc).
Z2 = My clones sense of self, as experienced by him (his conciousness, self awareness etc). Note that this is not mine. It is the same as mine (as in, he experiences his sense of self in the way that I would, but it is not mine).

Ok, so I step onto the transporter plate, and yell "beam me up Scotty", or "Energize" or whatever (depending on what era of Star Trek you are using ;)). My body is 'copied', that information is sent to mars, and then it is 'pasted' into the clone machine that spits out another me. So far we have X, which is now destroyed, and X2, which has just been made on mars.

X would have a Y personality, and would have a Z sense of self. However, X is now dead, so we have to look at X2. X2 would have a Y personality (becase this is created by the physical properties of the brain in question), but would have a Z2 sense of self. Why? Because Z, my sense of self, was destroyed when my brain was destroyed. Z2 would appear the same to Z, because again it is a product of the functions of the brain, which are the same in X and X2, but it is not the same. This is the crux of it. We are told to judge each question based on survival, and although X2 would survive, with Y personality, it would Z2 sense of self, which is not mine. Therefore I would take the shuttle, because there is a chance that Z will survive, and thus *I* would survive.

Maybe I should use different terms. Assume, for the moment, that your 'sense of self' is found to be an actual thing. The moment your brain starts up, an 'energy spot' is created in your brain. This 'energy spot' is your self awareness, your sense of self. It is your self. However, it is created, as a byproduct, by the processes that make up your brain. Maybe your brain cells excrete a chemical which forms this 'energy spot'. If, for any reason, your brain stops running, this 'energy spot' will die. If you stop you copy yourself on the transporter, then destroy X (while you are creating X2 on mars), this 'energy spot' in X will die. Thus you will die.
However, when you 'start up' the brain in X2, this 'energy spot' will be created again, and it will, for all the world, look like the 'energy spot' in X. BUT. As there was a break in the continuity of your brain, this 'energy spot' is a duplicate that is not the same as the 'energy spot' in X. Thus your sense of self, or your energy spot, or whatever, will have died, and all Z2 is is a duplicate of Z. To everyone but you, and possible X2, they will not be able to tell the difference. Even if you were to examine the 'energy spot', it would seem the same. But from your point of view, you will have died. You will no longer be. You will be an ex parrot!

31st July 2004, 05:35 PM

zaayrdragon, what were you told at the end of the test? If you were 'correct' also, we have a problem (in the sense that we could both argue that both answers were materalistic), but if you were told that you were not, then it's all good. It is indeed an interesting thought, isn't it?

Yep - I was told it was correct from some point of view - I suspect it tells everyone they were correct. It told me that my answer to the first question was odd given the point of view though - that I should have taken the teletrans. I wonder - does the person who wrote that understand the test? The question clearly shows that your brain and body would be destroyed. Thus - no more 'you'.

You don't have to get past that to see the obvious choice is spaceship.

Taffer

31st July 2004, 05:39 PM

Interesting. What was your reasoning for choosing the implants in your brain instead of letting the virus go to work?

31st July 2004, 05:47 PM

Functional practicality. Though I concede that the 'self' would be impaired/changed, a portion of it would maintain continuity. Better a functioning pseudo-self than a slowly degrading true-self.

Same reason I would gladly opt for bionic body parts. Better to have something that works that isn't really mine, than something that doesn't work that is mine.

Plus, knowing technology, I presume that, given enough time, parts would be advanced enough to replace the functions of the bits they replaced, allowing the same form of thought processing, sensory experience, etc. to occur - thus, eventual restoration of the 'self' I knew. This was borne out when I made the choice - it said I survived, and further they later made perfect biological replacements that matched my own missing tissues - thus restoring the 'self'.

(edited, because I have no idea what 'though processing' is.)

(edited again, because the next bit just occured to me: )

If the virus runs its course, large portions of your brain will be destroyed. Assuming you survive, you are now a semi-functional (if at all) person, not the same 'self' as before the virus, and highly impaired. If you opt for implants, you are now a fully functional (assuming the technology was up to the task) person, not the same 'self' as before the virus, but not at all impaired.

The choice here is one of survival (and quality of life). Easy.

Taffer

31st July 2004, 06:01 PM

Yep, fair enough. Your logic is not flawed.

Again I think it comes down to enterpretation. I did not think that the virus destroyed parts of your brain, but rather 'rewired' it so it's memories, and general thought processes were different, but left your main functions untouched (like how to move your arm, etc). Again, I will say that if one were assuming the process was done slowly, or carefully enough, then I would be happy to replace parts, or even my whole, brain with another. However, it did not say that that was the case.

EDIT: According to the test, you follow what is known as "psychological reductionism". This states that for continued being, all that must be preserved is psychological continuity. I believe this in part, but I think that your physchological state is again a side effect of the brains processes. If you could replace the brain without disrupting this process, then that is all fine and dandy, but if you could not, your 'being' would die just a surely as if you had taken the transporter.

31st July 2004, 06:11 PM

Odd - I misread the question. I worked under the assumption that it destroyed parts of the brain.

Upon re-reading the question, assuming it still left you fully functional albeit different in mental attributes, I believe I would let it run its course... if for no other reason than I value varied experiences. But only if it left memory (experiential, not learning) in tact.

Now I want to retake the test... Be Right Back!

31st July 2004, 06:13 PM

Well - I'm right on one thing: once again, I'm correct.

But - upon careful reading - it does say that it messes with your memories. So while a new personae might be fun, I feel it would be worthless without memory to compare it to. I'd still choose the silicon, I think.

Atlas

31st July 2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Scenario A: The duplicator produces a DuplicateTaffer whilst retaining, without alteration, OriginalTaffer.

PS: If you do not agree with the above, if you insist that *you* are only the self in OriginalTaffer, you are really a dualist. You say that you do not believe in a self independent/separate from the brain but your words suggest that you actually believe the opposite. Believe it or not! [/B]I have thoughts along the same line as Zaayrdragon, but I'd rather not assume an Original and Duplicate Taffer as much as an Original and Duplicate BillyJoe.

Lets say the next morning after being beamed to Mars the Duplicator Police show up at your door just full of apologies over the fact of the big screwup. That is, during the transfer you weren't properly killed. Would you mind coming down to the disposal center - it's against the law for plebes to exist as duplicates which everybody knows. Again very sorry, if it's any consolation the transfer agent in charge of your beaming has been sacked. Would you mind terribly hurrying it up, don't bother shaving and getting dressed, the disintegrator will take care of everything.

Are you a bad materialist if you express reluctance at their invitation?

Is suicide with a 3 minute delay before your Mars duplicate awakens different than suicide the morning after?

I do believe that if the truth of the machine were kept secret most people would opt for the instananeous travel option, thinking it was really them that appeared at the destination. However, if truth in advertising prevailed, and the process was described as the destruction of EarthYou for a copy of MarsYou, sales would drop off precipitously.

The Teleporter company executives would all be up for murder once the facts of the process became known, even if the duplicates flew back as character witnesses.

Wha'd'ya think BillyJoe. Would a clerical error and a night's sleep change your mind about getting out of the way so your copied consciousness could have the universe all to itself.

(Another one bites the dust, indeed.)

31st July 2004, 06:15 PM

Ugh - triple-posting instead of editing.

Well, it seems if you take the first choice in each question, you fail. So, no, it doesn't always claim you're right. So much for assumptions!

1a,2a,3a - fail
1a,2a,3b - succeed
1a,2b,3a - fail
1a,2b,3b - fail
1b,2a,3a - succeed
1b,2a,3b - succeed
1b,2b,3a - succeed
1b,2b,3b - succeed

Very odd test...

It seems to me they make the mistake of considering a psychological continuity in 1a - Surely, for the being that undergoes destruction, no psychological continuity is possible? It may SEEM to be to the clone, but as I stated before, since you are aware of what the process entails, the clone will always know that it is the duplicate of another, now deceased, person on Earth. So a choice for 1b is not just a choice for bodily continuity, but psychological continuity as well. 1a appears to be a choice solely for soul-continuity... in which case I feel that any combination with 1a and 3b ought to result in a fail as well.

Taffer

31st July 2004, 06:26 PM

BillyJoe

31st July 2004, 06:28 PM

Correa Neto

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Thanks, that was a nice explanation, and I'm OK with that. That's what I think explained on a much better way.

Now, considering that the self is dependent from the body, and what makes us "us" is an interplay between our experiences, brain patterns, hormonal ballance, etc., I guess it would be correct to say that both Taffers would start to differentiate as soon as they are subjected to different experiences, right? They would even continue to feel as being the only single Taffer, and none could be labelled "the Taffer", but they would be different, because their experiences became different after a certain point.

If the Original Taffer gets a cold, Duplicate Taffer will not feel it's effects, correct? From this post it seems you understand *identity* from the point of view of Materialism. From your previous two post you don't. So I don't know what more to say.

I wonder what Taffer, Atlas and Zaayrdragon think of this post of yours. I think all three would deny you. :cool:

BillyJoe

BillyJoe

Taffer

31st July 2004, 06:31 PM

Nope, I don't disagree with him at all. I disagree with your interpretation of the matters, but what he has in his post (namely that X wouldn't feel cold if X2 was cold, and that they are different beings) I agree with.

31st July 2004, 06:34 PM

zaayrdragon, if you decided to let the virus run it's course and it changed your memories, you wouldn't remember that it had...so what is the problem? You would simply wake up one day thinking that, instead of being zaayrdragon, you are now Harry Spudnik the toilet cleaner door-to-door salesman. You wouldn't remember that you had other memories that you had lost, so personally I don't see the problem. If there is a chance that you will die, or you could decided to forget the whole thing, to others it might seem bad that you have a new personality, but to you it won't...you won't notice a thing! Further more, *you* (as apposed to you) will still exist, so it's really a win-win situation.

No, for the same reason the teletrans is a losing prospect.

For Harry Spudnik, there's no problem - but for zaayrdragon, there's a huge problem. Once zaayrdragon loses any awareness of being zaayrdragon, he's not zaayrdragon any more. Harry Spudnik now resides in what was arguably zaayrdragon's body. Since an objective reality exists, Harry Spudnik's false memories would be constantly shown incorrect when compared with reality. So just as it's not okay for zaayrdragon(earth) to cease to exist in favor of zaayrdragon (mars), it's also not okay for zaayrdragon to cease to exist in favor of Harry Spudnik.

Does that make any sense, Taff?

31st July 2004, 06:37 PM

Actually, BJ, that's dead on the mark. If X and X2 are identical but separate entities at T, then at T+1 they begin to have different experiences.

By T+10,000 (let's say, Oh, days) X and X2 would be significantly different.

However, both would call themselves the same being, but clearly neither would be so.

So I agree with him, BJ. Just not with you.

Taffer

31st July 2004, 06:42 PM

Of course, as I said earlier your logic is not flawed. I just disagree with it, that's all ;).

It is true that zaayrdragon would cease to be, and Harry Spudnik is not is zaayrdragon's body. BUT if you are talking about survival, zaayrdragon's conciousness would not cease to be. It would simply become that of Harry. If you look at it from your point of view, you would go to sleep as zaayrdragon, and wake up as Harry. Sure, in a sense you are dead. However, you would continue to live, and experience the world. Do you see? You may think you are Harry, with a wife Matilda, but you are still alive to know that. If, assuming the replacement process is flawed, or that it isn't done carefully enough, then it is possible that your brain functions will stop being during the process. Once they start again, it is too late as you are already dead. The 'new' being (who still thinks he is zaayrdragon) will not know any difference, but *you* (in the sense of zaayrdragon before the operation) no longer exists. All that exists is a copy, just the same as the marszaayrdragon compared to the earchzaayrdragon.

31st July 2004, 06:46 PM

We're sad to say that you've caught the virus. Medics can get around the virus by replacing pieces of the brain with advanced forms of silicon chip. In your case, they would have to do this to almost all of your brain. But trials show that you can be sure that the result will be the total preservation of your memories, personality, plans, beliefs and so on, and a person as able to carry on living a normal life as is, well, normal.

This mentions no 'flaws' in the process, nor any risks of failure. Sure, it could happen - but that's a risk of any brain surgery, yes? And, most likely, you would just die. Period.

So the choice is, die as zaayrdragon or live as zaayrdragon. You might continue existance as Harry slave of Matilda, but zaayrdragon would be dead, and with no continuous experiential memories, there is nothing for Harry to build upon.

It is identical, to me, to the teletrans problem.

Taffer

31st July 2004, 06:52 PM

Hmm...yes I see. After reading that again, I'd almost be willing to throw my hat in and admit defeat (almost ;)). My problem with this is that it is not saying if the physical process will remain intact with complete continuity and no disruption what-so-ever. If that were the case, then I'd choose the Silicon any day. However, as it does not say that, I am forced to choose the only option that will assure the continuation of my brain processes (and thus, me...as in Y, in my example above).

EDIT: I hope you are not taking this discussion personally, zaayrdragon. I am enjoying this greatly, and I am enjoying this chance to discuss such abstract things with highly intelligent individuals. I mean no offence at all by disagreeing with you, and in no way am I suggesting that you are "stupid", "ignorant" or "uneducated". Thought I'd say that just in case. :)

31st July 2004, 06:59 PM

In which case - I'd almost say you're seeking a physical kind of survival. So why not the teletrans, then? Assuming that they instead falsely advertised it as a 'safe matter-to-energy transmission system'.

Indeed, if the question had made claim that the system is a simple 'transporter' of the Trek kind, I'd probably choose that instead, since the whole of you (matter and energy) is actually shot through space. But they were quite clear on that subject.

Like in question 3, though, I'd still rather risk a failed procedure and disruption of continuity on the chance of continuing my own experience/awareness, than concede defeat and take a new experience/awareness, allowing my old one to die. In 3, the same question arises - take a chance on continued bodily/psychological existence, or concede defeat and accept a soul continuance.

EDIT - Not at all, Taff. I'm amused as well - it's kept me from booting up the Sims for quite a while now. Just annoying to bounce between two threads to do it! :D

Taffer

31st July 2004, 07:03 PM

Just annoying to bounce between two threads to do it!

I agree, let's shift this over to the other thread, as it is more relevant there eh?

EDIT: Arg, I can't spell :(

31st July 2004, 07:10 PM

Agreed.

Bye, Ian... :D Have a nice day!

BillyJoe

31st July 2004, 07:26 PM

zaayrdragon,

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I get it perfectly well, it's you that doesn't understand. Hey, I'm trying to help you! :)

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
The moment I am destroyed, I am destroyed. It is irrelevant whether or not a clone of me is made that believes itself to be me.I think this is called Substance Dualism. Whatever, it is not Materialism

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
This is what YOU do not understand - and it is completely consistant with materialism - that the ME which is right here, trapped in this physical body and produced by this exact combinations of genetics and experiences, will, in fact, cease to exist entirely. End of story. No more conscious awareness at all. Nearly correct. But this bit sounds like Dualism to me...."trapped in this physical body".
Would you like to rephrase that? Dualists talk about a soul or spirit "trapped in a physical body", or at least residing there, but for a Materialist there is no soul or spirit or self "trapped in a physical body". The self is an intrinsic part of the brain's function.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Somewhere in the galaxy, Me2 awakens, and has all the necessary physical, mental, and memorial aspects of Me (you assume), but my consciousness stopped the moment I was destroyed on Earth. This new consciousness might be identical in every way, but it would be just that - identical in every way. Dualism again. :(
*You* are a product of a brain. Two identical brains with identical functioning means two identical selves. Both those selves are *you*.
Zaayrdragon, don't try to refute this for a moment, just see if you can see that this is correct (because it is). It will make of you a better Materialist. ;)

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
HOWEVER - Me2 is, in fact, NOT identical to ME, and in several fundamental ways. For one, others are aware that Me2 was constructed from spare matter on Mars, and had no existence prior to that construction. At the time of the duplication, the original and the duplicate were identical. That is part of the game, not something to be denied. It is a given for the purposes of this thought experiment.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
It's easy. You were explained, before the process began, that you would be destroyed and a new You would be made on Mars. This is your knowledge, and as such passed on to the new You on Mars. So right from the offset, a difference is formed, and Me2 is no longer identical to Me. Me has ceased any conscious awareness at all, and Me2 is aware that the original Me died on Earth, and that it is a manufactured duplicate. Then consider the case where the original is not destroyed and the original and the duplicate find themselves next to each other with no way of telling each other apart. Your explanation doesn't help at all in this scenario so it cannot be correct.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
This is crucial to the understanding of why a dedicated materialist could NOT accept teletransportation - because there is NO transfer of matter from Me to Me2, nor of energy, nor of any materialistic existent component that makes up Me. Me was destroyed; Me's ashes remained on Earth. The self is like a program (software) running in the brain. That program however is an integral part of the brain and you cannot simply pull it out like you can with a computer and run it in another brain. However if you duplicate the brain and the brain state, you duplicate the self. It does not depend on a transfer of the same molecules that made up the originally brain. How on Earth could you think so.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Otherwise, identical twins would share the same experiences, yes? No. They do not share the same space so they cannot possibly share the same experiences. If their selves were identical at one point, they would immediately, from that point on, diverge as their experiences diverged.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
They would sense and feel and think using either body simultaneously, yes? No. I agree this is not correct. We have already agreed that the selves are identical but not the same.....

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, they don't. This alone should illustrate the fallacy of your thinking. My view of materialism does not suggest this either. Moreover I have already explicitly explained this.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
The only way someone would take the teletransporter is if they honestly believed their Spirit would somehow transfer between Me and Me2 - something that does not exist in the Materialist standpoint. Nothing is being transferred. The self is being duplicated. *You* are present in both the original (if it survives) and the duplicate. It is a tricky point, zaayrdragon, but believe me when I tell you this, it is your view that implies the existence of a spirit or soul (as in your "trapped inside the physiczal body"). Materialism says that the self is merely the function of the brain and therefore, if there are two identical brains with two identical brain functions, there are two identical *you*s with no way of telling which is which (if you construct the experimant appropriately).

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No matter how much you deny it, the fact that no material component is ever shared between Me and Me2 differentiates them into two completely separate entities. You are confusing issues here greatly. The actual molecules do not matter (I should mention that there is a quantum mechanical objection to this but that is not concerning us here). How could it make any difference if you used the original molecules or if you used fresh molecules (neglecting quantum mechanical affects)?

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
As I said, though, the entire test is poorly structured from start to finish. It assumes a materialist soul (otherwise, it could never be detected) exists, but makes no explanation of what becomes of the soul of the poor, deceased fella in the Earth tele-trans. Fundamental design flaw. I just ignored this bit and went ahead and answered it assuming there was no soul. After all they pop it in on us at the end.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Anyway, BJ, I suggest YOU don't understand as much as you think you do. I understand more than you think. I have had an education on this board that I am very grateful for. I hope the same happens for you.

regards,
BillyJoe

PS: Could I suggest that for just for kicks you assume -just for the sake of an experiment - that you are wrong, absolutely wrong and that I am absolutely correct about what Materialism says about the problem of *identity*. This might allow you to get past you old prejudices and see the other point of view which, I have to tell you, is the correct view. Why not give it a go? What have you got to lose?