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

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by chance
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chance> What is absurd by having to have your parents, then grand parents, great grand parents etc bond, taken all the way back to primitive life? Why can’t that be right? This is the mechanism evolution predicts.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.

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

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

Not so, high probability does not exclude it happening. I think you are looking at the situation as if stating "what would be the probability of this event happening twice".

Low probability you mean I take it? Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chance> No, you can’t be born to different parents (in a materialistic world) you are a unique combination of DNA. Sperm and eggs are as individual as people are (my biology is a bit rusty in this area, but either sperm and egg are unique, or the uniqueness comes about during the fusion of egg or sperm, possibly both) (else all brothers and sisters would be identical and not just resemble their siblings).

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

Makes it even more fantastically low. Seems like the materialists have a problem.

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

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

No problem, you are a lotto winner of life, against the probability of a different selection, that all.

You need to exercise a great deal of suspicion that an event has occurred which only had an phenomenally small chance of occurring. How many Lotto winners do you know? I haven't been one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chance> Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right?

Yes someone has to win the Lotto, but it's an extremely small chance that it will be me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, yes I see the fallacy you and others are making.

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

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

Which is?

Well, I'll let you think it over first. A little bit of thinking should make an intelligent person realize how silly this position that you and others are advocating is.

Meanwhile, let's suppose some being was around 4.6 billion years ago when life was just beginning on Earth. What would the probability of me being born work out as?? Hell, what would be the probability of the human race eventually arising?? Or could I have been a non-human sentient being???

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
the chance of any individual raindrop hitting a particular spot on my driveway is incredibly, incredibly small.

Obviously, therefore, my drvieway never gets wet in the rain.

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

Another idiot who fails to understand :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
The chance for any single person to win the lottery is incredibly, incredibly low.

Obviously, therefore, no one can possibly explain why there was a winner last week, because using materialistic science, no one should ever win.

If in fact the chance of winning the lottery was phenomenally smaller than it is now, then no specific individual could, in effect, win.

Donks

21st July 2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If in fact the chance of winning the lottery was phenomenally smaller than it is now, then no specific individual could, in effect, win.

Is there a specific limit for this chance below which no specific individual could, in effect, win?

Taffer

21st July 2004, 09:29 PM

You are all forgetting genetic crossover during Meiosis. This extends the number of possible combinations into an almost infinite number.

The problem, Ian, is that you cannot look at something in the past and say "what was the probability that it happened" simply because it has happened, therefore the probability has to be 1.

Let me explain further, the 'probability' of the universe 'developing' from the big bang with the specific features and physical properties to enable life is increadibly increadibly small (in fact, this is one argument by creationists as to why it must have been designed), but of course, seeing as we are here, the probability means nothing. It has happened, therefore it was possible.

Also, to calculate a probability, you would need to know the other possible outcomes, and because you were born and all of the other possible outcomes were not, you cannot calculate the probability.

Howevever, if my life depended on it, I would have to say that the probability of any single person being born is 1/the population of the earth. That is to say, very very very very very very very very very very small. But it means nothing, because of the above arguments.

espritch

21st July 2004, 09:30 PM

Because the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.

You and 4 billion other equally unique people.

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Taffer
You are all forgetting genetic crossover during Meiosis. This extends the number of possible combinations into an almost infinite number.

The problem, Ian, is that you cannot look at something in the past and say "what was the probability that it happened" simply because it has happened, therefore the probability has to be 1.

No. I am not asking about the probability of a past event. You're wrong.

I'll explain tomorrow.

Also, to calculate a probability, you would need to know the other possible outcomes, and because you were born and all of the other possible outcomes were not, you cannot calculate the probability.

We can work it out. It's the figure of all possible combinations of all possible sperm and all possible eggs that could have come into being

Howevever, if my life depended on it, I would have to say that the probability of any single person being born is 1/the population of the earth. That is to say, very very very very very very very very very very small. But it means nothing, because of the above arguments.

Huh??? :eek: Don't be utterly absurd! It's not 1 over the actual number of people now alive. Nor is it 1 over the number of people who have ever lived. Rather it is 1 over the number of people that could have conceivably have lived.

Craven!

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by espritch
Because the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You and 4 billion other equally unique people.

Yes. The chances of any of us ever being born is in effect zero.

4 billion multiplied by a phenomenally small number, is still a phenomenally small number.

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Donks
Is there a specific limit for this chance below which no specific individual could, in effect, win?

No.

chance

21st July 2004, 10:13 PM

Interesting Ian
II> Because the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.
chance> Not so, high probability does not exclude it happening. I think you are looking at the situation as if stating "what would be the probability of this event happening twice".
II> Low probability you mean I take it? Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.
If this were true then nothing could ever happen as the probability of any event, is likely to be insignificant to all possible alternatives. Zero does not equal 0.000000001. Or look at it this way, calculate the odds of lightning striking the ground at a certain point, and you will get some very low number, but what are the odds of that same lighting bolt contacting the ground, a certainty, and yet they are the same event. This is the same as the Lotto argument – what are the odds of me winning against what are the odds of some individual winning (one is low the other a certainty [jack pot events not included]).

II> Makes it even more fantastically low. Seems like the materialists have a problem.
chance> No problem, you are a lotto winner of life, against the probability of a different selection, that all.
II> You need to exercise a great deal of suspicion that an event has occurred which only had an phenomenally small chance of occurring. How many Lotto winners do you know? I haven't been one.
No suspicion is required, it’s a certainty that the event will happen (i.e. there will be a lotto winner), but after the event, when reflecting that you have been selected, gives the impression of beating impossible odds.

chance> Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right?
II> Yes someone has to win the Lotto, but it's an extremely small chance that it will be me.
and me, join the club.

II> Ah, yes I see the fallacy you and others are making.
chance> Which is?
Well, I'll let you think it over first. A little bit of thinking should make an intelligent person realize how silly this position that you and others are advocating is.

Meanwhile, let's suppose some being was around 4.6 billion years ago when life was just beginning on Earth. What would the probability of me being born work out as?? Hell, what would be the probability of the human race eventually arising?? Or could I have been a non-human sentient being???
The probability of ‘you’ being born would be:
One to, Astronomically large number, to the power of, huge number, against. Conversely the probability of some thing being born would be certain. You can prove this yourself with a simple experiment. Take a dart, and through it at the dart board, calculate the odds of getting 20 (if your as crappy at darts as I am that will be one in 20, or worse), calculate the odds of striking the 20 zone exactly 3cm vertically down (that should be the diameter of the point, into the area of the dart board), yet in both these events the ‘principle’ event (dart striking the board) is 100% certain. (note hitting the wire doesn’t count, neither does totally missing the board, you may have another try).

Well Interesting Ian I certainly look forward to you explaining why you think it is a ‘silly position’, and I trust you will not repeat the, ‘the odds are too fantastically high’ that you have put forward so far, as this is a false way of looking at the numbers.

Taffer

21st July 2004, 10:15 PM

I could take offence, but I will give you the benifit of the doubt. I'm afraid, to me, it is you who does not understand. There is no way to predict the number of possible outcomes. Sperm and eggs are not simply a combination of random chromasomes. They are also combinations of your two chromosomes, which happens during (I believe) the metaphase 1 of Meiosis. The two chromosomes can swap genetic material anywhere along the chromosome. To know this, you would have to be able to map all of your chromosomes, in relation to your parents'. Ok, I guess if, given enough technology, it would be possible. But the notion is still flawed, because 'You' is not just a combination of genes. You are also a combination of events. To produce 'You' as you are now, took your entire life worth of events. It is not, at all, possible to say if another 'You' were produced, that they would have the exact same experiences.

Further more, as I said earlier, the chance of producing you is exactly 1. Even if you look at it from a past perspective, you would have to know the chance of all of the genetic material combining into your genome, and the probability of all of the experiences that you have been through during your life. The latter is the problem, as some events are random...one off chances. I doubt that anyone could ever discover the probability of all of these chances coming together, as, for example, the chance of you being hit by a car is about as equal as you being hit by a meteor, for all we know. If it were possible to calculate all of these probabilites, it STILL wouldn't tell us anything, because it is obvious that, no matter the probability, it still occured didn't it? You are here, I am here. Every person is unique, and thus we are all here. If you wanted to calculate the probability of you being born, it would equate to 1, because you were born.

Prester John

22nd July 2004, 12:46 AM

I had a similar thought along the lines of What are the chances of me being here in the year 2004, why not 20,004 or 204, why the UK etc. I've got a feeling its something to do with conciousness, and the probability is 1. Interesting thought tho'.

Art Vandelay

22nd July 2004, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Nasarius
Genetically? Yes.
Actually, identical twins don't necessarily have exactly the same genes.

Chance
I thinks it’s more complicated than that, else you could divide 30,000 into the world population of (3 billion I think) resulting in 10,000 identical people alive today.
If everyone has a name that's less than a hundred letters long, does that mean that there are 60 million people with the same name? 30,000 is the number of genes, not the number of different genetic states. Even if each gene has only two states, that's 2^3,000~=10^900, or googol^9. If the entire solar system were filled with water, the number of atoms wouldn't even come close to that number.

CFLarsen

22nd July 2004, 12:59 AM

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 7/22/04 at 7:19:15 GMT (7/22/04 at 3:19:15 AM EDT) is 6,381,878,026
Source (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw)

I'm a bit surprised so see so many wrong estimates of the world's population.

Beausoleil

22nd July 2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Low probability you mean I take it? Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.

You're confusing the probability of a specific event with the probability of some event.

If you play a hand of poker, you can always look at the cards and realise how unlikely it is that you should get those particular cards. But the probability that you will get some set of cards given that you are playing poker is high.

Finally, what makes your question poorly formed is the absence of a "given". Do you mean "given that my parents met, what are the chances that a baby would ensue" or do you mean "given that life started on Earth...". In the former case, one might be able to calculate the probability that an individual with your particular genetic information would be born, but the low probability would have no significance, just as the low probability of the particular cards you get at poker has no significance.

Lothian

22nd July 2004, 01:24 AM

Ian,

Your arguments are very similar to the hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy's assertion that there are no people in the universe. Your theory is flawed for similar reasons.

Thunderchief

22nd July 2004, 03:27 AM

Hi Ian

Makes it even more fantastically low. Seems like the materialists have a problem.

I can see no problem for materialists here, in fact I can not conceive of a way of twisting things even in the way you can, in to making this a problem for materialists! But I look forward to you providing the reason.

By the way I agree that the probability of you existing is 1, the probability of a predicted individual being born some time in the future is very very low, but not zero.

Simon.

MacGuffin

22nd July 2004, 03:57 AM

The avg number of sperm discharged in a single ejaculation is 135,000,000. Then there are all sorts of variables, how many times did your dad ejaculate over his life, how many kids did he have, how many women was he with? Probably more variables as well, but I think we would all agree the chances you popped out were quite small.

Share and Enjoy - Aaron

exarch

22nd July 2004, 04:42 AM

Well Ian, if I kicked you out of an airplane 6 miles up (I would be a JREF hero no doubt :D), what are the odds of you ending up in the driveway of Mrs. Franklin at 12 Garden street in Liverpool? well, once you're down there, the probability of that having happened is 1, although, at the moment my foot made contact with your sorry *ss, even the tiniest difference could have meant you ended up across town in the compost heap of Mr Wilkins at 63 Wilmont road.

Anyway, the odds of the end product of your parents having a go at it turning out to be you are indeed very small, but that doesn't mean they are 0.

Vitnir

22nd July 2004, 05:16 AM

I think it could even be argued that it is virtually impossible to calculate the probability that a newborn would have the genome it ended up with. When cells mature into sperm or egg cells there is a process called crossing-over where the chromosomes exchange genetic material between your own father and mother chromosome. So the end result, the sperm or egg cell is a mosaic of your own material, otherwise a couple could only have four different combinations which is obviously not true. As far as I know this mosaic or crossing-over is not determined, you dont know if its going to be 50-50 or 90-10 for one particular sperm or egg cell.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 05:57 AM

Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If someone could give me a probability of me having been born I would appreciate it. Are you asking: "Before I was born, what was the probability that I would be born?"
If so, the answer depends on at what time before you were born this question is being asked. (obviously, you couldn't have asked the question yourself. ;) )......

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Meanwhile, let's suppose some being was around 4.6 billion years ago when life was just beginning on Earth. What would the probability of me being born work out as?? Vanishingly small.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
it is 1 over the number of people that could have conceivably have lived. Yes. A vanishingly small number.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
.....the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.The astronomically large number of people, that "could conceivably have lived" but didn't, cannot ask that question.
Does that shine any light on your difficulty or do I still not understand your question.

BillyJoe

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:02 AM

Taffer
Howevever, if my life depended on it, I would have to say that the probability of any single person being born is 1/the population of the earth. That is to say, very very very very very very very very very very small. But it means nothing, because of the above arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II
Huh??? Don't be utterly absurd! It's not 1 over the actual number of people now alive. Nor is it 1 over the number of people who have ever lived. Rather it is 1 over the number of people that could have conceivably have lived.

Actually it is not conceivably have lived as in how it could conceivably have played out. Rather what we're talking about here is the total number of possible selves. Now . . .

Art Vandelay said:
30,000 is the number of genes, not the number of different genetic states. Even if each gene has only two states, that's 2^3,000~=10^900, or googol^9. If the entire solar system were filled with water, the number of atoms wouldn't even come close to that number.

But he was only assuming that a gene has only 2 states. How many states can a gene have??

Anyway, so the chance of me ever having been born is, at the very most, 1/googol^9 (assuming the correctness of Art Vandelay's reasoning).

Pretty small huh???

Indeed, if we take every human being that has ever lived - maybe about 100 billion or so - the probability that any one of them would ever live, either in the past or sometime in the future would be of a comparable small probability.

Yet here we all are. Thus materialism has a problem.

And I know what people are saying. I mean it is pretty damn obvious :rolleyes: Basically you are all saying I can only think about how unlikely I was born because I was actually born. Therefore necessarily the chance of me having been born is 1.

This is hopelessly flawed which I will explain in good time.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe

The astronomically large number of people, that "could conceivably have lived" but didn't, cannot ask that question.
Does that shine any light on your difficulty or do I still not understand your question.
[/B]

Just made the same point myself. And congratulations on being the only one to puit it in such a clear fashion (well apart from me. I didn't see your post until I had posted my post).

I think you understand my question, but your response is not satisfactory. I will explain why later on.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 06:12 AM

Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are identical twins exactly the same person then?"Persons" are fictions created by brains (I thought we'd settled that point a long time ago :) ) . Also remember the teleporter discussions (oops, no, let's not remember that. :D )

In any case, are identical things, the same thing? No.
Are identical universes, the same universe? No.
Are identical people within identical universes the same person? No.

And, no, identical twins (if there are such things) are not the same person.

IMO,
BillyJoe

Vitnir

22nd July 2004, 06:21 AM

Besides, if the identical twins were females they may or may not be identical since one of the X-chromosones are turned off for females, and since its random which one it is, its a 50% chance they wont be identical.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 06:25 AM

Ian,

Are you saying that materialism predicts something quite different from what we have just agreed has actually occurred?

BillyJoe

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe

"Persons" are fictions created by brains (I thought we'd settled that point a long time ago :) ) .

No, you have not argued that. You argued that consciousness is a fiction created by the brain.

I absolutely agree that the materialist has to say a person or self has to be a fiction i.e a materialist cannot believe in a self. What our argument was over was the notion that consciousness is just a fiction. The self can be a fiction but not consciousness. That's nonsensical.

Also remember the teleporter discussions (oops, no, let's not remember that. :D )

In any case, are identical things, the same thing?

Yes they are if you're talking about numerical identity. If a copy were made of me and created in an indistinguishable room to the original, then we would both in fact be one person, and we would perform actually the same actions so long as our environment were identical.

No.
Are identical universes, the same universe? No.
Are identical people within identical universes the same person? No.

And, no, identical twins (if there are such things) are not the same person.

They should be if they have the same genetic makeup.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Vitnir
Besides, if the identical twins were females they may or may not be identical since one of the X-chromosones are turned off for females, and since its random which one it is, its a 50% chance they wont be identical. Yeah but, besides that.
(f they were actually identical, they would still not be the same)

Goodnight,
BillyJoe
(By which I mean I'm going to bed)

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Ian,

Are you saying that materialism predicts something quite different from what we have just agreed has actually occurred?

BillyJoe

If materialism is correct, then I should not find myself in existence. And this is not considering all the other devastating attacks on materialism.

wollery

22nd July 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by exarch
Well Ian, if I kicked you out of an airplane 6 miles up (I would be a JREF hero no doubt :D), what are the odds of you ending up in the driveway of Mrs. Franklin at 12 Garden street in Liverpool? well, once you're down there, the probability of that having happened is 1, although, at the moment my foot made contact with your sorry *ss, even the tiniest difference could have meant you ended up across town in the compost heap of Mr Wilkins at 63 Wilmont road.Arr eh kidder, why d'you 'ave to boot 'im out over Liverpool? :mad:

And if you must, please try to avoid Mrs. Franklins place, she's a very nice old lady, but her heart's a bit weak and I don't think it would take the shock. ;)

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 06:46 AM

Ian,

You're keeping me up late.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, you have not argued that. You argued that consciousness is a fiction created by the brain. Hmmm.....don't remember that. All I remember saying is that consciousness is created by the brain. That consciousness is not something separate from the brain.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a copy were made of me and created in an indistinguishable room to the original, then we would both in fact be one person, and we would perform actually the same actions so long as our environment were identical. I would say that there would be two different but identical Ians. There would be two different but identical selves in two different but identical rooms.

But I think we're straying off-topic,

BillyJoe

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If materialism is correct, then I should not find myself in existence.I think we are all waiting to hear the reason......

22nd July 2004, 06:49 AM

I.I., normally I just ignore your non-sensical posts - however, I feel I must step in.

First, you are making a fundamental error regarding probability. It's a common error, though few are really aware of it.

Let me see if I can explain this - it's hard for me. Words are difficult.

Anyway -

A probability represents the concept that, out of a number of attempts X that a certain event will only occur Y times out of X. For instance, the simplest probability is that, when flipping a coin, there is a 1 in 2 chance that the coin will land heads-up. (Of course, this is not quite true - there is a very small chance of the coin landing on edge, which means the chance for heads or tails is something on the order of 0.998 in 2).

So, if you flip a coin once, it may come up heads, but there's a pretty even chance that it won't.

BUT - Once you start flipping coins repeatedly, the chance of the coin coming up heads becomes a statistical certainty. All you have to do is exceed the X factor by a sufficient degree, and inevitably, the coin will land heads.

Likewise, if we assume that the chance of a star forming is, say, 1 in 10^999, then all we have to have are the conditions prerequisite for star formation in 10^999+ areas - What the degree of excess is, I don't know, but if, say, the universe contained 10^2000 areas capable of forming stars, then stars will form.

With the Universe being as large as it is, the astronomically low chance of life forming on Earth becomes a certainty, as does any and all other probable events whose probability falls under the total event population of the Universe. In fact, the chance of you, in particular, being born is a certainty, given the astronomical numbers of sperm and eggs being randomly combined all over the world at any given time.

Of course, when determining the probability that you would be born, we have to add in factors such as environment, energy fluxuations, gravity, social conditions, etc. ad infinitum; yet even so, given a large enough possible system for generation of Ians, Ian must be formed.

Let's say, for example, that you wanted an oak tree, but the chance of a planted seed growing was 1 in 100. All you have to do to ensure an oak will grow is to plant slightly more than 100 seeds, and you WILL have an oak.

Of course, probability DOES suggest that, in spite of the odds, no oak will ever grow; but given the sheer number of probable events that never occur, that we are unaware of, those that do are by no means a materialistic mystery.

I hope that helps clear things up in someone's mind.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I.I., normally I just ignore your non-sensical posts - however, I feel I must step in.

First, you are making a fundamental error regarding probability. It's a common error, though few are really aware of it.

Let me see if I can explain this - it's hard for me. Words are difficult.

Anyway -

A probability represents the concept that, out of a number of attempts X that a certain event will only occur Y times out of X. For instance, the simplest probability is that, when flipping a coin, there is a 1 in 2 chance that the coin will land heads-up. (Of course, this is not quite true - there is a very small chance of the coin landing on edge, which means the chance for heads or tails is something on the order of 0.998 in 2).

So, if you flip a coin once, it may come up heads, but there's a pretty even chance that it won't.

BUT - Once you start flipping coins repeatedly, the chance of the coin coming up heads becomes a statistical certainty. All you have to do is exceed the X factor by a sufficient degree, and inevitably, the coin will land heads.

Likewise, if we assume that the chance of a star forming is, say, 1 in 10^999, then all we have to have are the conditions prerequisite for star formation in 10^999+ areas - What the degree of excess is, I don't know, but if, say, the universe contained 10^2000 areas capable of forming stars, then stars will form.

With the Universe being as large as it is, the astronomically low chance of life forming on Earth becomes a certainty, as does any and all other probable events whose probability falls under the total event population of the Universe. In fact, the chance of you, in particular, being born is a certainty, given the astronomical numbers of sperm and eggs being randomly combined all over the world at any given time.

Of course, when determining the probability that you would be born, we have to add in factors such as environment, energy fluxuations, gravity, social conditions, etc. ad infinitum; yet even so, given a large enough possible system for generation of Ians, Ian must be formed.

Let's say, for example, that you wanted an oak tree, but the chance of a planted seed growing was 1 in 100. All you have to do to ensure an oak will grow is to plant slightly more than 100 seeds, and you WILL have an oak.

Of course, probability DOES suggest that, in spite of the odds, no oak will ever grow; but given the sheer number of probable events that never occur, that we are unaware of, those that do are by no means a materialistic mystery.

I hope that helps clear things up in someone's mind.

Your post is as worthless as all the others arguing against me.

davidhorman

22nd July 2004, 06:59 AM

Yet here we all are. Thus materialism has a problem.

What's the problem?

If you have a couple trying to procreate, the probability that they'll produce a baby is pretty good. The probability that they'll produce a specific baby out of all the possible babies that they could create is tiny.

If you weren't here asking the question, a different you would (or could) be. No problem.

David

richardm

22nd July 2004, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If materialism is correct, then I should not find myself in existence. And this is not considering all the other devastating attacks on materialism.

But... there are billions of combinations of genes that your parents could have produced that did, in fact turn out not to exist at this moment. Your particular combination just happens to have survived.

In a way, you're looking at the problem in the wrong way - you're saying "I'm here - it's almost impossible odds", which is true. But if that combination hadn't occurred, you simply wouldn't be here to discuss it, just like the billions of other combinations that aren't here. It's just a happy fluke, is all. You're here, so you can muse on the amazingness of it. But you just as easily might not be.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
In fact, the chance of you, in particular, being born is a certainty, given the astronomical numbers of sperm and eggs being randomly combined all over the world at any given time. :nope:

Rob Lister

22nd July 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
:nope:

What he said

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by davidhorman
If you weren't here asking the question, a different you would (or could) be. :confused: I'm not sure what this means.

22nd July 2004, 07:12 AM

Once again, rather than understanding what is being said, you simply choose to lump all arguments against you as worthless.

EDIT - removed personal slurs/attacks.

Apologies, Ian - it's just you make me so angry when you refuse to consider any facts presented, if they somehow invalidate your opinion. What I stated is pretty basic statistics and probability - I imagine it's relatively irrefutable. In fact, it would be enlightening if you would take the time and effort to explain WHY you feel it is worthless, rather than making an off-hand assertion that it is so.

However, as per your usual pattern, if something is stated that in some way undermines your opinions, you simply tune it out and hope it goes away. Alas, the world does not work in this fashion.

Seriously, if you have a dispute with what I posted, please illuminate this humble body, that we may all understand WHY you feel my post to be worthless.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Once again, rather than understanding what is being said, you simply choose to lump all arguments against you as worthless.

EDIT - removed personal slurs/attacks.No, you don't.....

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I.I., you are truly hopeless. What a pathetic, worthless waste of a sperm cell and an egg you've turned out to be!

Do us all a favor - don't assert the probability of your children onto our world, please... let your failed genetics die.
I caught it just in time. :D

And with that, I am truly going to bed. :)

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 07:38 AM

Billy Joe, you may officially lick my testes now... :D

Yes, I took the opportunity to speak inappropriately, and I retracted, albeit too slowly to prevent B.J. (interesting!) from sucking it up...

Again, apologies, Ian, and please, just explain WHY you think it's worthless.

Rob Lister

22nd July 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Apologies, Ian - it's just you make me so angry when you refuse to consider any facts presented,...

I know I'm probably wasting my time telling you this but I'm bored so I don't mind wasting time. Ian's intent is to make you mad. There really is nothing more to it. He understands the flaws in his argument. He understood them before he made them. Do yourself a favor and find some particular aspect of this thread that is worthy of discussion --- presumably with someone that is worthy of discussing it with --- and go from there.

Sorry if I butted in unnecessarily. The probability that you too were probably just having fun approaches 1.

Thunderchief

22nd July 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Your post is as worthless as all the others arguing against me.

Ahh, I see still using the same debating tactics then Ian. :(

Any chance you will enlighten us anytime soon?

I'm waiting to be impressed.

Simon.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed, if we take every human being that has ever lived - maybe about 100 billion or so - the probability that any one of them would ever live, either in the past or sometime in the future would be of a comparable small probability. (a+b^n)/n=x; donc Dieu existe. Répondez.

Rob Lister

22nd July 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
(a+b^n)/n=x; donc Dieu existe. Répondez.

This is off topic --- assuming that's possible for this topic --- but I've got to say that while I love your avatar, I cannot figure out what's on your lip. Is it a herpes sore you're covering with makeup?

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
This is off topic --- assuming that's possible for this topic --- but I've got to say that while I love your avatar, I cannot figure out what's on your lip. Is it a herpes sore you're covering with makeup? Smallpox scar. I'm much better now. :D

Robin

22nd July 2004, 08:24 AM

This question had me running for the text book. According to "Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Moore & McCabe, Freeman,

The idea of probability is empirical. That is, it is based on observation rather than theorizing. Probability describes what happens in very many trials, and we must actually observe many trials to pin down a probability

(my italics)

Like all maths probability is an idealisation of the real world. If the observation does not match the mathematical model then the model is wrong.

So I think that the original question is based on a misunderstanding of probability but it also misunderstanding of materialism.

Materialists deal with what is, not what should be.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 08:32 AM

Let me try to illustrate the difficulty by the use of an analogy.

Suppose I get kidnapped by a loony. He has 10 packs of cards. He allows me to examine them so I can check they are fair. Then, being a loony, he shuts me in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles all ten packs of cards so that the cards contained therein are randomly distributed. The loony says the machine will randomly select a card from each deck consecutively. If at any stage the card selected is not the Ace of Hearts the machine will instantaneously set off an explosion which will immediately kill me. In effect I would never know that the card selected was not the Ace of Hearts. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am in a position of certainty regarding the fact that everything is as it seems ie the decks of cards are fair, the machine does genuinely randomly select a card from each deck, etc. Obviously it is extraordinary unlikely that I will survive this.

So the machine is set in motion. Extraordinarily the first card selected is the Ace of Hearts! Of course this scarcely gives me much hope. There's 9 cards to go! But then the next card selected from the next deck is the Ace of Hearts. And it transpires that each and every one of the cards drawn is the Ace of Hearts. The loony then enters the room. Here is the ensuing conversation:

II: WOW!! :eek: That is absolutely extraordinary!!

Loony: What was?

II: Well, the fact I'm still alive you idiot!

Loony: Why shouldn't you be?

II: Because the chance of me still being alive is an extraordinary low one.

Loony: No, it is certain that you would still be alive (Scribble).

II. Huh?? :eek:

Loony: The probability of a past event is, by definition, 1. (chulbert)

II: Yes I know, but you're missing the point. Look, you surely must admit that the fact I'm alive is absolutely extraordinary.

Loony: Not at all. Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right? (chance)

II: Jesus! You really are Content removed for violation of Rule 8 stupid!! :mad:

Loony: Ah! Insults. This necessitates you have lost the argument.

II: {screams} You complete and total dumb Content removed for violation of Rule 8 !!

Loony: I kidnapped you in the first place because none of your arguments have any merit. I thought I'd do the world a favour and get rid of you by killing you. Thought I'd make it a bit entertaining by using this machine. Since it failed to kill you the first time, I'll just set it in motion again

II: {last despairing scream as the machine starts again} You complete moron!

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

But again the machine draws 10 Ace of Heart cards. Loony re-enters the room.

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

II. Wow!! Gosh!! It's happened again!! :eek:

Loony: From your perspective this is not at all surprising. You are a lotto winner of life, against the probability of a different selection, that all. (Chance)

II. You idiot!

Loony: Right, that's it!

{He starts the machine again. Again 10 Ace of Hearts are drawn. So he starts the machine again. He runs the machine a further 100 times, and each and every single time 10 Ace of Hearts are drawn, leaving II still alive. Loony re-enters the room}.

II. OK I'm still alive. Do you now agree something peculiar is going on? In effect this just can't happen.

Loony: Are you saying the chance is zero? If not it could happen, and the fact it has happened should not at all be surprising to you since if you had have been killed you wouldn't be here to think about it.

II: Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.

Loony: {In sarcastic tone} The chance of any individual raindrop hitting a particular spot on my driveway is incredibly, incredibly small.

Obviously, therefore, my drvieway never gets wet in the rain. (NoZed Avenger)

II You complete and total retard! :mad:

Loony: Right! That's it! I'm setting the machine off again! :mad:

II. No! Please please. Just use a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 gun!

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

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

Brian the Snail

22nd July 2004, 08:38 AM

Yes, that's very clear Ian.

You want someone to shoot you, right?

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
Yes, that's very clear Ian.

You want someone to shoot you, right? Ooh ooh! Me! Me! What are my chances?

Edited to add: Provided he doesn't keel over from a stroke brought on by too much alcohol and too little Atenolol.

Guy named John Derbyshire, whose understanding of math is a lot better than mine, and who writes a lot better than I do, wrote the following a while back. I think it's relevant to today's discussion:

Lots of people wanted to tell me that the sort of super-complex molecules found in living things could not possibly have arisen by random chance in a universe a mere 13.7 billion years old, as the probabilities concerned are so immense — 10 to the power of 40,000, according to one reader.

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning. In the first place, it is based ultimately on a common statistical fallacy — one so common that it has a name: "the fallacy of numerators without denominators." (The numerator is the top number in a fraction; the denominator is the bottom one.) Consider, for example, the New York State lottery. I believe the probability of any one ticket winning the lottery is around one in twelve million. And yet, most weeks, someone wins it. How? The answer, of course, is that twelve million is merely the numerator here. The denominator is the several million people who buy lottery tickets every week. Divide the numerator by the denominator, and you have a reasonable-sized number: 1, or 30, or 0.5, or something similar.

The probability of any particular thing happening is microscopically small. The probability that I flicked my eyes away from the screen to glance out of my study window just then, rather than a millisecond sooner or a millisecond later, is very tiny. However, in a busy universe, something must happen. In fact, untold trillions of things are happening all the time — that's the denominator. The physical universe is a far, far bigger assemblage than the population of New York State (it may in fact, for all we can prove to the contrary, be infinite!) so that extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely things are happening all the time.

A second problem arises from the term "random chance." In fact, even the most materialist of scientists does not believe that the universe is governed by random chance. There are organizing principles everywhere: subatomic particles organize themselves into atoms and molecules, interstellar gas organizes itself into stars and planets, and so on. Science consists of the search to understand how these organizing principles do their work. Why they are present is a very interesting question, but outside the scope of science. However, no thoughtful scientist, not even the most materialist atheist, thinks that the universe is the result of purely random processes.

A third problem is the one raised by the so-called "anthropic principle." However improbable you may think it was that human intelligence arose from inanimate matter, if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to discuss it! Possibly the Big Bang happened 10 to the power of 40,000 times before we showed up. Now that we have shown up, we can sit around and discuss the whole business. The other (10 to the power of 40,000, minus 1) occurrences of the universe were — as an atheist friend of mine likes to say about the Afterlife — very quiet.

richardm

22nd July 2004, 08:44 AM

I suspect that the problem is that some people are answering the question "What is the probability that I was born", rather than "What was the probability that I would be born".

It is, as you suggest, Ian, as though somebody won the lottery and asked "What were the chances of that?!", to be told "Guaranteed". In retrospect, that is the correct answer for now, but it isn't really in the spirit of what was being asked.

Hellbound

22nd July 2004, 08:47 AM

Ian,

I would suggest you learn what probability is first, then worry about this "argument" of yours.

Your example is highly flawed. A better example would be that the kidnapper, depending on what card was drawn, is going to cut off a differnt body part. Say each suit stands for a limb, and the higher the card the more of that limb will be removed.

Obviously, no matter what card shows up, you're going to have something cut off.

Trying to say "Wow, what are the odds of me having half my left arm, my right pinky, and my right leg to the knee removed? The chance of those cards is astronomically low!! That's amazing!" This is the analogy that would be identical to the argument you're making. It's a non-argument. It shows nothing wrong with materialism or science, it simply shows, yet again, that you have no grasp whatsoever of probability. But you refuse to let ignorance stop you from proclaiming yourself an expert.

You have a highly over-inflated opinion of yourself; your arguments are self-contradictory, you have little understanding of the points you bring up and less understanding of those positions you argue against, and, in a nutshell, are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Not that you'll read this, having me on ignore because you're afraid of the big bad spider, but oh well.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by davidhorman
What's the problem?

If you have a couple trying to procreate, the probability that they'll produce a baby is pretty good. The probability that they'll produce a specific baby out of all the possible babies that they could create is tiny.

If you weren't here asking the question, a different you would (or could) be. No problem.

David

Not a different me. I wouldn't be here. The point here is that the chance of me being alive is as near as damn it, zero. Yet I am alive.

Therefore materialism is refuted. I do not have this problem because I believe in reincarnation.

CFLarsen

22nd July 2004, 09:04 AM

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But the chance is not zero. Therefore materialism is not refuted. Right?

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

I don't want to get into any silly arguments with you at this stage. I have a lot of posts to catch up on in this thread.

Thunderchief

22nd July 2004, 09:06 AM

Hi Ian

Well I was impressed with how entertaining your analogy was, but not with what it attempted to demonstrate.

Allow me this analogy:

I have a box full of two pence coins; there are about 1000 coins in the box.

If I now throw the box of coins in the air and let them fall on the floor.

Now look at the pattern produced, would you say that this pattern was an amazing result? No of course not, some pattern had to be produced, it just happened to be this on from the millions that could have been.

The same with your life, if you had been predicted before hand then the result would have been stunning, but as you wasn't, than it's no problem.

I hope this helps.

Simon.

Hellbound

22nd July 2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't want to get into any silly arguments with you at this stage.

You did that with your opening post. A review of any introductory work on probability would have shown you this.

Of course, you're a supergenius and legend in your own mind, so you don't need to actually learn about a subject to know everything there is to know about it.

Brian the Snail

22nd July 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not a different me. I wouldn't be here. The point here is that the chance of me being alive is as near as damn it, zero. Yet I am alive.

Therefore materialism is refuted. I do not have this problem because I believe in reincarnation.

The number of positions and momenta available to a particular oxygen atom in a room is extremely large. This means that, at any given time, the probabilty that this atom will have a particular position and momentum is as near as damn it, zero. Yet, this particular atom does have this position and momentum.

Therefore atomism is refuted. I do not have this problem because I believe in fairies.

Lothian

22nd July 2004, 09:34 AM

Ian,

I will add to the analogies.

The national lottery has been running for some time now. When the 100’th jackpot winner was drawn there was a party for all 100 winners. Someone stood up and said “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners.” Every one agreed that all in all the odds were hugely astronomical, practically nil.

However one thing is 100% certain. There was going to be a party for the first 100 winners. While we didn’t know who was going to be invited there were going to be 100 guests.

We also know for certain that someone would at the party stand up and say “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners”;)

Benguin

22nd July 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Ian,

I will add to the analogies.

The national lottery has been running for some time now. When the 100’th jackpot winner was drawn there was a party for all 100 winners. Someone stood up and said “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners.” Every one agreed that all in all the odds were hugely astronomical, practically nil.

However one thing is 100% certain. There was going to be a party for the first 100 winners. While we didn’t know who was going to be invited there were going to be 100 guests.

We also know for certain that someone would at the party stand up and say “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners”;)

Much as they are incredibly lucky, Lottery players (winning or otherwise) are the last people I would seek statistical advice from !

;)

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by richardm
But... there are billions of combinations of genes that your parents could have produced that did, in fact turn out not to exist at this moment. Your particular combination just happens to have survived.

In a way, you're looking at the problem in the wrong way - you're saying "I'm here - it's almost impossible odds", which is true. But if that combination hadn't occurred, you simply wouldn't be here to discuss it, just like the billions of other combinations that aren't here. It's just a happy fluke, is all. You're here, so you can muse on the amazingness of it. But you just as easily might not be.

See my analogy above which demonstrates the ludicrous nature of this point.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I know I'm probably wasting my time telling you this but I'm bored so I don't mind wasting time. Ian's intent is to make you mad. There really is nothing more to it. He understands the flaws in his argument.

There are no flaws in my argument. I certainly understand what people think are the flaws. I'd have to be pretty thick not to. It just amazes me that people just keep continually reiterating the same point.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Therefore materialism is refuted.
Donc, Dieu existe.
I do not have this problem because I believe in reincarnation. Now, hold on just a second. You believe the chances of your being born were so infinitesimally small as to be effectively zero, but you do believe it's gonna happen again?

Me confused... :confused:

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 10:00 AM

Ah! An interesting post at last! :D

Originally posted by Robin
[This question had me running for the text book. According to "Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Moore & McCabe, Freeman,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of probability is empirical. That is, it is based on observation rather than theorizing. Probability describes what happens in very many trials, and we must actually observe many trials to pin down a probability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WOW!! :eek: Elsewhere I have argued exactly the same thing. I think it was in a newsgroup. I was arguing that probability was empirical. In particular I was talking about that in some logical possible Universe it might very well be the case that a tossed coin might land on heads 75% of the time.

Everybody disagreed with me on there as well. Nice to see someone actually agree with me! Moreover, a person one could scarcely accuse of never studying statistics (unlike me).

(my italics)

Like all maths probability is an idealisation of the real world. If the observation does not match the mathematical model then the model is wrong.

Doesn't follow in this instance. There is another premise that can be challenged; namely the thesis that we came into being sometime between conception and birth.

Also it is clear that in this Universe, that all other things being equal, there will be an equal probability for each outcome. In other words there is no more reason why I should have been born than for the other googolplex of other selves that could have been born.

So I think that the original question is based on a misunderstanding of probability but it also misunderstanding of materialism.

I'm afraid not.

CFLarsen

22nd July 2004, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It is close enough to zero so that effectively it couldn't happen.

Incredible. You actually think that 0.000000001 = 0.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't want to get into any silly arguments with you at this stage. I have a lot of posts to catch up on in this thread.

That's quite alright. Someone who believes this clearly has no connection with the real world.

22nd July 2004, 10:08 AM

Ian, set aside your ego for one second. The reason we are all reiterating the same point is, that point utterly refutes your concept. The fact that ANY probability exists shows that it can exist; therefore, that it DOES exist is perfectly logical. Just because something is improbable doesn't mean that it's impossible. THIS is the flaw in your reasoning, and so many of us are illustrating this fundamental flaw because YOUR REASONING IS DEAD WRONG.

That's it. Nothing malicious, nothing vile, nothing fallacious. You are equating improbable with impossible, and saying that it's AMAZING that improbable things happen at all. Yet, the fact is, improbable is merely a machination of the human mind, and if it can happen, it probably will happen.

There is a probability that was calculated some time ago, by some esteemed professors of statistics at Yale (I've not the hard data, forgive any errors I make), that there is a one in 18-trillion chance that a child will be born with the necessary genetic structure to resist the various influences that we call 'aging'. Unfortunately, their base premise was flawed (they assumed there was a genetic code directly responsible for deterioration), but the idea has some merit: we are certain of SOME of what causes aging, and a very rare number of people resist one or two aspects - some are unaffected by ionic influence, others resist bacterial infection, etc. Therefore, there is a probability that eventually, if enough people are born under the right circumstances, someone will one day be born immortal. It is even possible this has already happened, but the person died due to influences not related to aging, i.e. violent death, starvation, etc. That we have never observed such a person does not mean that such a person is impossible; yet if such a person were to appear, we would undoubtably (myself included) declare it 'supernatural', 'amazing' and 'impossible'. Years later, however, it'd be considered a highly improbably possibility, and eventually, no one would think twice about it.

If probability rules the universe, we can expect that the most probable events would happen most often, and the least probable less often, which is, of course, what we have already observed. If, however, the reverse would be true, if, say the universe was deliberately designed, we would observe numerous improbable events happening everywhere, i.e. life on numerous worlds, intelligent radio signals from all over, and 'anomalies' would be common phenomenae. Since this isn't so, then we know probability plays a major role in the Universe.

Please, open your mind to the probability that you can be wrong - because it's happened yet again. I really, honestly, am not trying to be cruel or argumentive; I am trying to get you to see you've made an all-too-common mistake.

As to your example, if that did, in fact, happen, it would be an amazing demonstration of improbability manifesting, but that's all it would be.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, however improbable, must be the truth." -Sherlock Holmes.

toddjh

22nd July 2004, 10:15 AM

If you need more proof of how even fantastically improbable events can occur, go to a gaming store and buy a hundred ten-sided dice (total cost, maybe $20). Go home and throw them all in the air. Record what number came up on each die. Congratulations, you've just made an event with a probability of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 01 occur. Easy, wasn't it? :)

Jeremy

drkitten

22nd July 2004, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let me try to illustrate the difficulty by the use of an analogy.

Suppose I get kidnapped by a loony. He has 10 packs of cards. He allows me to examine them so I can check they are fair. Then, being a loony, he shuts me in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles all ten packs of cards so that the cards contained therein are randomly distributed. The loony says the machine will randomly select a card from each deck consecutively. If at any stage the card selected is not the Ace of Hearts the machine will instantaneously set off an explosion which will immediately kill me. In effect I would never know that the card selected was not the Ace of Hearts. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am in a position of certainty regarding the fact that everything is as it seems ie the decks of cards are fair, the machine does genuinely randomly select a card from each deck, etc. Obviously it is extraordinary unlikely that I will survive this.

[snip]

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

No, but it does provide a good discussion point for why your reasoning is incorrect. You're conflating the notions of prior and posterior probabilities. The two cases that you describe are not analogous, because your lunatic has prespecified an event with an extremely small prior probability, while your apparently miraculous existence is miraculous only in light of the posterior probability that the person who exists is you.

Let's examine this nutcase a little bit further; suppose that, unknown to you, he has 51 other people in identical rooms hooked up to the same card-dealing machine. So if any card other than the Ace of Hearts is drawn, you will be killed.... but at the same time, if any card other than the Six of Clubs is drawn, Sharon (in the room next door) will be killed, and if any card other than the Queen of Diamonds is drawn, etc. You will justifiably be surprised if you survive the first card. The lunatic will not, because he expected fifty-one of the fifty-two experimental subjects to die.

For the second card, let's take you and fifty-one other survivors of a one-card experiment (which of course means he started out with about 2500 subjects) and again you survive. Surprising? Not to him. He expected one of the subjects to survive a second card. Carry this out far enough (you specified ten cards), which would require 52^10 original participants, and he will not be surprised that one person survived all ten.

(dialogue modified slightly)
II: WOW!! That is absolutely extraordinary!!

Loony: What was?

II: Well, the fact I'm still alive you idiot!

Loony: Why shouldn't you be?

II: Because the chance of me still being alive is an extraordinary low one.

Loony: No, it is certain that someone would still be alive. I'm just disappointed it was you. I was hoping for a cute redhead who could scream in terror in an appropriately dramatic way.

Similarly, it would truly be extraordinary if the next fifteen numbers on a roulette wheel would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. But the reason for that is that's a recognizable sequence, of which there are relatively few (and hence a lower prior probability.) If the next fifteen numbers were 18, 3, 6, 7, 21, 0, 5, 13, 24, 30, 1, 3, 23, 29, 34, that wouldn't be regarded as unusual at all, despite the fact that it's exactly as improbable as the ascending sequence. We recognize that if you spin a roulette wheel fifteen times, there will be some sequence that comes out of it, even though the probability of any given sequence is 1 in 38^15 (which is substantially lower than the odds of dealing ten straight aces of hearts). If, however, I made a prior specification of exactly that sequence.... and hit it, now that would be one for the JREF prize.

Basically, you're confusing two different notions of probability. Badly. It's not surprising you get confused conclusions.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by drkitten
For the second card, let's take you and fifty-one other survivors of a one-card experiment (which of course means he started out with about 2500 subjects) and again you survive. Surprising? Not to him. He expected one of the subjects to survive a second card. Carry this out far enough (you specified ten cards), which would require 52^10 original participants, and he will not be surprised that one person survived all ten. Saw thought experiment in this vein once. Toss a billion pennies into the air (a thousand million to y'all on the east side of the Atlantic - why is that?). When they all land, scoop up only the ones that land heads up and discard the rest (in your thought experiment, you're fabulously wealthy and can afford to do this). Throw the remaining coins in the air again, scoop up the ones that land heads and discard the rest. Do this 30 times. By now you're down to one or two pennies that have landed heads up thirty straight times.

Is it improbable that this should happen? Of course not.

But what are the chances that any one penny in particular should be the anointed one? Practically zero - one in a billion.

drkitten

22nd July 2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Saw thought experiment in this vein once. Toss a billion pennies into the air (a thousand million to y'all on the east side of the Atlantic - why is that?). When they all land, scoop up only the ones that land heads up and discard the rest (in your thought experiment, you're fabulously wealthy and can afford to do this).

I'm also apparently fabulously strong as well. Am I wealthy enough to hire someone to do the actual tossing of the pennies?

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 11:21 AM

OK, a lot of posts to go through. You're all making the same wholly irrellevant point still. If you're all still unable to understand after my analogy, I really don't know what else to say. I just throw up my arms in despair. And Dr Kitten, the situation regarding the Loony is exactly the same. Hopefully I'll get round to responding to your post tonight.

BTW Huntsman. I trust you're not addressing me with your posts?? You know I've got you on ignore because of that spider.

toddjh

22nd July 2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by drkitten
I'm also apparently fabulously strong as well. Am I wealthy enough to hire someone to do the actual tossing of the pennies?

What's wrong with being both fabulously wealthy and fabulously strong? Add fabulously good-looking, and you should be all set!

Jeremy

scribble

22nd July 2004, 11:33 AM

PEople, we've been through this crap with Ian before.

Remember, he's the one who argued .999 repeating does not equal 1. He's the one who argued that he could take an "arbitrarily long" but *NOT INFINITE IN LENGTH* string and find *ANY* substring in it.

He's the one who refuses to believe those are incorrect statements despite carrying on umpteen-page-long threads.

No, folks, I gave the only right answer at the beginning of this page. Explaining it to dunderhead won't help any. I was tempted to go into detail about why his question is both stupid and misguided, but he won't hear it -- he'll just make more ignorant claims and accuse us of being idiots and having lost an argument.

scribble

22nd July 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
But what are the chances that any one penny in particular should be the anointed one? Practically zero - one in a billion. [/B]

Heeey, that's a beautiful analogy.

Judging from the thread on finding random strings, though, I can almost promise you Ian won't get it.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by drkitten
I'm also apparently fabulously strong as well. Am I wealthy enough to hire someone to do the actual tossing of the pennies? Hey, it's your thought experiment. :D

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by scribble
PEople, we've been through this crap with Ian before. (...snip...)
Explaining it to dunderhead won't help any. I was tempted to go into detail about why his question is both stupid and misguided, but he won't hear it -- he'll just make more ignorant claims and accuse us of being idiots and having lost an argument. So why do y'all keep coming back? This is page three of this thread. Seems to me Ian has formidable trolling skills.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
[B]Ooh ooh! Me! Me! What are my chances?

Edited to add: Provided he doesn't keel over from a stroke brought on by too much alcohol and too little Atenolol.

Guy named John Derbyshire, whose understanding of math is a lot better than mine, and who writes a lot better than I do, wrote the following a while back. I think it's relevant to today's discussion:
[i]
Lots of people wanted to tell me that the sort of super-complex molecules found in living things could not possibly have arisen by random chance in a universe a mere 13.7 billion years old, as the probabilities concerned are so immense — 10 to the power of 40,000, according to one reader.

They're essentially right, although I would not say "could not possibly".

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning. In the first place, it is based ultimately on a common statistical fallacy — one so common that it has a name: "the fallacy of numerators without denominators." (The numerator is the top number in a fraction; the denominator is the bottom one.) Consider, for example, the New York State lottery. I believe the probability of any one ticket winning the lottery is around one in twelve million. And yet, most weeks, someone wins it. How? The answer, of course, is that twelve million is merely the numerator here.

Not according to how he just defined "numerator" it isn't. :rolleyes:

Anyway, as I have very patiently explained, all this is wholly irrelevant. Read my analogy above.

The denominator is the several million people who buy lottery tickets every week. Divide the numerator by the denominator, and you have a reasonable-sized number: 1, or 30, or 0.5, or something similar.

The probability of any particular thing happening is microscopically small. The probability that I flicked my eyes away from the screen to glance out of my study window just then, rather than a millisecond sooner or a millisecond later, is very tiny. However, in a busy universe, something must happen. In fact, untold trillions of things are happening all the time — that's the denominator. The physical universe is a far, far bigger assemblage than the population of New York State (it may in fact, for all we can prove to the contrary, be infinite!) so that extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely things are happening all the time.

Yes yes, and all this is wholly irrelevant both to my argument and to the point about super complex molecules or whatever.

A second problem arises from the term "random chance." In fact, even the most materialist of scientists does not believe that the universe is governed by random chance.

That's right, it is governed by physical laws. What the Content removed for violation of Rule 8 has this got to do with anything??

There are organizing principles everywhere: subatomic particles organize themselves into atoms and molecules, interstellar gas organizes itself into stars and planets, and so on.

And who is the organizer? Or does the organizing just happen by chance? If the latter this contradicts your contention that the Universe is governed by "random chance" (btw what would be non-random chance?)

Science consists of the search to understand how these organizing principles do their work. Why they are present is a very interesting question, but outside the scope of science. However, no thoughtful scientist, not even the most materialist atheist, thinks that the universe is the result of purely random processes.

A third problem is the one raised by the so-called "anthropic principle." However improbable you may think it was that human intelligence arose from inanimate matter, if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to discuss it!

Read my analogy to understand why this doesn't make it any the less implausible. The anthropic principle doesn't work.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by richardm
[B]I suspect that the problem is that some people are answering the question "What is the probability that I was born", rather than "What was the probability that I would be born".

The first question makes no sense. It's not even a question; it's just nonsense.

It is, as you suggest, Ian, as though somebody won the lottery and asked "What were the chances of that?!", to be told "Guaranteed". In retrospect, that is the correct answer for now, but it isn't really in the spirit of what was being asked.

It's nonsensical to say it was certain or guaranteed. The stupidity of people on here is utterly astounding.

Let's say I won the UK lottery every single week since it was first started in 1994. It is certain I would have won every single time?

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Thunderchief
Hi Ian

Well I was impressed with how entertaining your analogy was, but not with what it attempted to demonstrate.

Allow me this analogy:

I have a box full of two pence coins; there are about 1000 coins in the box.

If I now throw the box of coins in the air and let them fall on the floor.

Now look at the pattern produced, would you say that this pattern was an amazing result? No of course not, some pattern had to be produced, it just happened to be this on from the millions that could have been.

The same with your life, if you had been predicted before hand then the result would have been stunning, but as you wasn't, than it's no problem.

I hope this helps.

Simon.

No, you fail to understand. From your perspective an individual saying how astounding he is that he is alive will not impress. Your patterned coin example applies here. It is different for you to ask yourself how likely it is that you should find yourself existing. Here a particular specified pattern of coins applies.

My analogy was of course intentionally amusing.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's say I won the UK lottery every single week since it was first started in 1994. It is certain I would have won every single time? I'm assuming you meant to write "Is it certain I would have won every single time?"

It is now, now that it's happened. You do ask "IS it certain" (at least the way I rephrased what I thought was your intent), not "WAS it certain..."

I suppose you could go back to the moment of the Big Bang and argue that everything that has ever happened, anywhere, at any time, is the result of a chain of events, that nothing happens without there having been a prior cause/causes, and that whatever happens is in itself a cause (or at least a partial cause) of future events. As such, one could argue that your being born was not just probable, but certain.

Was it predictable? Aye, now there's the rub.

BTW, you never did explain why you believe the chances of your birth were so improbable as to be effectively, zero, yet you believe you'll be reincarnated.

Also, BTW, if you won the lottery every week, I'd say it was almost certainly rigged.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Lothian
Ian,

I will add to the analogies.

The national lottery has been running for some time now. When the 100’th jackpot winner was drawn there was a party for all 100 winners. Someone stood up and said “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners.” Every one agreed that all in all the odds were hugely astronomical, practically nil.

However one thing is 100% certain. There was going to be a party for the first 100 winners. While we didn’t know who was going to be invited there were going to be 100 guests.

We also know for certain that someone would at the party stand up and say “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners”;)

And this would only apply to my situation if we were talking about if I could have found myself existing in any number of other bodies should my parents not have met etc. Then it would be silly to say, isn't it astounding I am inhabiting this particular body!!?? :eek: LOL

As it is it is simply a false analogy.

I think I'm wasting my time here. Everyone is just making the same error.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG

BTW, you never did explain why you believe the chances of your birth were so improbable as to be effectively, zero, yet you believe you'll be reincarnated.

[/B]

I haven't got round to that post yet. Everyone's arguing against me, and no-one is on my side (as usual). Therefore it takes longer for me to respond.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And who is the organizer? Or does the organizing just happen by chance? If the latter this contradicts your contention that the Universe is governed by "random chance" (btw what would be non-random chance?)When did I ever say that? I don't believe there even is such a thing as randomness. And Derbyshire (the guy I was quoting) doesn't either. I think you might have misread.

Good linguistic point about "random chance" - it's a redundant phrase, like "foreign imports."

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not have this problem because I believe in reincarnation.

BPSCG
Now, hold on just a second. You believe the chances of your being born were so infinitesimally small as to be effectively zero, but you do believe it's gonna happen again?

Me confused... :confused:

The inherent unlikelihood of ever being born only applies when one supposes that we are a combination of our genetic inheritance and environmental experiences. Obviously I find such a supposition to be absurd. We are selves or souls which exist before we are born. It is not at all unlikely that we should be born in that scenario.

SGT

22nd July 2004, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Robin
This question had me running for the text book. According to "Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Moore & McCabe, Freeman,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of probability is empirical. That is, it is based on observation rather than theorizing. Probability describes what happens in very many trials, and we must actually observe many trials to pin down a probability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like all maths probability is an idealisation of the real world. If the observation does not match the mathematical model then the model is wrong.

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.
If the observation does not match the mathematical model then you are using the wrong model. The model is not wrong, it is only being misused.

I will not answer to Ian because it is a lost cause. I can add nothing to the examples other people used. They are all clear and well based, but I don't think Ian is able to understand them.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The inherent unlikelihood of ever being born only applies when one supposes that we are a combination of our genetic inheritance and environmental experiences. Obviously I find such a supposition to be absurd. We are selves or souls which exist before we are born. It is not at all unlikely that we should be born in that scenario. Okay, well now we're in an area where you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions. They may be true or they may be false, but there's no way to prove or disprove them. So as this has turned into a fruitless discussion, I guess here's where I bow out, and despite your having cursed me and denounced me as a moron, individually and en masse, I hope everything's going well with your blood pressure.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by SGT

I will not answer to Ian because it is a lost cause. I can add nothing to the examples other people used. They are all clear and well based, but I don't think Ian is able to understand them. [/B]

Yup, I'm a lost cause to clearly fallacious arguments.

It seems very clear that I understand other people, and indeed I did before starting the thread; but people don't understand what I'm getting at.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, well now we're in an area where you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions. They may be true or they may be false, but there's no way to prove or disprove them. So as this has turned into a fruitless discussion, I guess here's where I bow out, and despite your having cursed me and denounced me as a moron, individually and en masse, I hope everything's going well with your blood pressure.

We're not talking about my beliefs (for which there is a good deal of evidence btw). We are discussing the consequences of supposing that we are nothing but our genetic and environmental makeup.

22nd July 2004, 01:24 PM

So why don't you explain our 'fallacy', clearly and without resorting to analogy? Certainly, I will concede a 'fallacy' if you can demonstrate one. However, I don't see what's wrong with us being the result of genetics and environment. Certainly, no person has ever been born lacking these two credentials; people don't spontaneously form in the vacuum of space, and I'm fairly certain everyone had parents of some form.

If, however, you are UNABLE (rather than UNWILLING) to explain the 'fallacy', you might concede that the fallacy is your own?

Calculating the 'chances' that you would be born rather than some other person would require knowing the exact genetic makeup of your parents (only), the environment in which they conceived and lived during your gestation and birth, and certain psychological factors of those around your parents during this process. Altogether, we would be unable to come up with the proper probability, but such probability exists, nonetheless. That you were born is, by no means, a miracle or a holy event; simply the expected manifestation of probability - as are all events in the universe.

By which, I assert that anyone aware of the nature of probability should never be surprised that something happens, since, sooner or later, it had to happen.

Vitnir

22nd July 2004, 03:06 PM

Maybe the probability that Ian ever will make his claims about idealism understandable to mere mortals is reaching zero?
I wonder what he is doing here anyway, are there more PhD-philosophers here than on a dedicated philosophy forum or has he been chased away from them?
For some reason I come to think of Bishop Berkeley who got fed up with arguing against idealism and kicked a large stone and said "I refute it thus"

scribble

22nd July 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG
(...snip...)
[B]So why do y'all keep coming back? This is page three of this thread. Seems to me Ian has formidable trolling skills.

I've had fun in the past telling him how wrong he is. It's nice to have someone around who is an easy target, so I don't have to think much.

I'm only half-joking.

Taffer

22nd July 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...(for which there is a good deal of evidence btw)...

Care to enlighten us, oh Massiah?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think I'm wasting my time here. Everyone is just making the same error.

Care to enlighten us, oh Massiah?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's nonsensical to say it was certain or guaranteed. The stupidity of people on here is utterly astounding.

Care to enlighten us, oh Massiah?

Ad infinitum.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by drkitten
[Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let me try to illustrate the difficulty by the use of an analogy.

Suppose I get kidnapped by a loony. He has 10 packs of cards. He allows me to examine them so I can check they are fair. Then, being a loony, he shuts me in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles all ten packs of cards so that the cards contained therein are randomly distributed. The loony says the machine will randomly select a card from each deck consecutively. If at any stage the card selected is not the Ace of Hearts the machine will instantaneously set off an explosion which will immediately kill me. In effect I would never know that the card selected was not the Ace of Hearts. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am in a position of certainty regarding the fact that everything is as it seems ie the decks of cards are fair, the machine does genuinely randomly select a card from each deck, etc. Obviously it is extraordinary unlikely that I will survive this.

[snip]

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

No, but it does provide a good discussion point for why your reasoning is incorrect.

Well that's not a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 promising start now is it. OK, you don't understand either :rolleyes:

You're conflating the notions of prior and posterior probabilities. The two cases that you describe are not analogous, because your lunatic has prespecified an event with an extremely small prior probability, while your apparently miraculous existence is miraculous only in light of the posterior probability that the person who exists is you.

This fails to make it non-analogous. They are both exactly the same. In both cases we are asked to believe that the fact of my existence is a certainty.

Let's examine this nutcase a little bit further; suppose that, unknown to you, he has 51 other people in identical rooms hooked up to the same card-dealing machine. So if any card other than the Ace of Hearts is drawn, you will be killed.... but at the same time, if any card other than the Six of Clubs is drawn, Sharon (in the room next door) will be killed, and if any card other than the Queen of Diamonds is drawn, etc. You will justifiably be surprised if you survive the first card. The lunatic will not, because he expected fifty-one of the fifty-two experimental subjects to die.

He will expect one of us still to be alive on average. It might be me, or any of the others.

For the second card, let's take you and fifty-one other survivors of a one-card experiment (which of course means he started out with about 2500 subjects) and again you survive. Surprising?

Well, slightly surprising to me. 1 chance in 2500 can happen though.

Not to him.

True enough. I agree. Again, he would expect one of us on average to survive. But the person who survives might find it just slightly surprising.

He expected one of the subjects to survive a second card. Carry this out far enough (you specified ten cards), which would require 52^10 original participants, and he will not be surprised that one person survived all ten.

Again I'm in agreement. But for the individual concerned it will be extraordinarily surprising. So in the particular scenario where he kidnaps 10^52 people it will not be surprising to the loony/kidnapper.

This, however, does not have any implications for my argument whatsoever. It doesn't alter the fact that *I* should find it absolutely extraordinary that it is me that has survived. Moreover, although my kidnapper ought not to be surprised (in your massive kidnapping scenario), he is in no position to say that I ought not to interpret my survival as absolutely extraordinary. You see??

At least you're making a stab at an intelligent response though which I appreciate. Unfortunately it still fails.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(dialogue modified slightly)
II: WOW!! That is absolutely extraordinary!!

Loony: What was?

II: Well, the fact I'm still alive you idiot!

Loony: Why shouldn't you be?

II: Because the chance of me still being alive is an extraordinary low one.

Loony: No, it is certain that someone would still be alive. I'm just disappointed it was you. I was hoping for a cute redhead who could scream in terror in an appropriately dramatic way.

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

As I say, it is true that he ought not to be surprised. But from my perspective it is absolutely extraordinary.

And this is what we're talking about. It is vanishingly unlikely that I was born. Not so of course from your perspective because you do not experience being me. After all, if I hadn't of been born, another person could say the very same as me. And you're not in a position to distinguish me saying it, from him saying it, or anyone else saying it. You, like me, have to consider your own case. In other words it's vanishingly unlikely that you should ever be born. But only you can know this. I can't know it.

Don't know if I expressed myself adequately in that last paragraph :(

Your post is vastly better than anyone elses though, so I now regret my rudeness at the beginning. I hadn't read all of your argument.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by scribble
I've had fun in the past telling him how wrong he is. It's nice to have someone around who is an easy target, so I don't have to think much.

I'm only half-joking.

Yep, this dumContent removed for violation of Rule 8 likes to inform me how wrong I am about everything. This complete tithead who is incapable of understanding Content removed for violation of Rule 8 all. Piss of Scribble.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Taffer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...(for which there is a good deal of evidence btw)...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Care to enlighten us, oh Massiah?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think I'm wasting my time here. Everyone is just making the same error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Care to enlighten us, oh Massiah?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's nonsensical to say it was certain or guaranteed. The stupidity of people on here is utterly astounding.

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

Care to enlighten us, oh Massiah?

[/B]

No for all 3 questions.

Craven.

22nd July 2004, 04:48 PM

Then what you're saying is, that you, YOU YOURSELF, are amazed that you were born in spite of the probability manifesting thus?

In other words, you're not making any particular statement here, other than a particular statement of your personal opinions and feelings?

Oddly, I thought you were discussing how a very low probability somehow refutes materialism. SO far, I see nothing that supports your claim. Please, explain further.

22nd July 2004, 04:50 PM

Further, you still have not explained why my reasoning is meaningless.

And, you are now resorting to inappropriate cursing and insults.

Please, Ian, try hard to focus on the topic, and avoid unnecessary explicitives.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Then what you're saying is, that you, YOU YOURSELF, are amazed that you were born in spite of the probability manifesting thus?

In other words, you're not making any particular statement here, other than a particular statement of your personal opinions and feelings?

Oddly, I thought you were discussing how a very low probability somehow refutes materialism. SO far, I see nothing that supports your claim. Please, explain further.

What??

I'm not amazed at all because materialism is clearly false.

And this is nothing to do with personal feelings and opinions. Only I have access to my beingness, and only I can therefore be in a position to know the true probability.

You can't can you?? How do you distinguish me saying it's absolutely extraordinary that I find myself in existence, to anyone else who might say this?? So it cannot be surprising to you that I exist, and this is for the very reason which has been continually repeated in this thread.

Taffer

22nd July 2004, 05:13 PM

No for all 3 questions.

Craven.

This should be reason enough to ignore all you have to say. Firstly, you say that you will not explain yourself, but continue to make (an unsupported) claim that you are right and materialism is 'false' because of the very small probability that you exist. Secondly, you fall to name calling...again. Nice.

Ok, sure, there is a very small chance that you will have been born. So what? Things with a very small probability can, and do, happen. It proves nothing. It is nothing 'special', 'mysterious' or even 'woowoo' (if I may use the words of our lord Randi). There was an increadibly small chance that our sun would be formed, and that our planet would form in the 'habitation belt'. Big, smelly, freaken, wow. Probability, by definition, involves that which is random. If 100 monkeys are in a room with 100 typewriters, and they plonk away randomly, and given infinite time, they will write the entire works of shakespear, in order. Hell, they will write "This is a stupid argument" an infinite number of times. Randomness happens. Just because something has a very small probability of happening, doesn't mean it will never happen!

22nd July 2004, 05:15 PM

So why do you feel that materialism is clearly false?

Actually, you CANNOT know the true probability of your own birth, nor can anyone else - without the totality of conditions I mentioned previously.

In fact, you can find it 'amazing' or 'normal' or 'beneath notice' - but that is all irrelevant to anyone except yourself.

Your monistic point of view is not in keeping with the nature of your original question, nor of the opinions you have stated since then.

I've presented the reasons why even enormously low probabilities can and must manifest, yet you fail to even take a stab at refuting my claim. Further, several of us have offered you innumerable reasons why this is in no way even remotely refutitive of materialism, yet you refuse to answer our claims.

Yet you insist that you find the occurance of your birth 'absolutely amazing' as if that were proof of your monistic point of view... which it isn't. It only shows you are CHOOSING to be daft and ignorant. I think you know full well the truth, but in attempting to convince others of your self-oriented view of the world, are being deliberately dense about it. Since we all know you exist (by which I mean, some person posting as Interesting Ian) then all else falls under simple material truth - including the fact that the factors of your genetics and environment, your history and experience, all prove to cause you to take a fallacious and erronious point of view, and further cause you to attempt to argue this point with people fully capable of catching you in your fallacies and refuting them. In fact, I suspect, based on other prior postings, that you will fully reject everything I have to say and instead choose to embrace your ignorance. Further, I suspect you will refuse to even begin considering the discussion concerning probability in the Universe, or the nature of statistics and probability, and that if you SHOULD do so, it would largely be deliberate in order to refute my ability to make such intuitive leaps.

No, as things stand now, we cannot 'get inside your head' and know your thoughts, feelings, and experiences - though you could choose to open these to us through the tool of communication. However, there is a high probability that, in the future, we will be able to do just that.

However, just because we cannot know 'what Ian thinks' (save for what you tell us) doesn't mean we can't reasonably assume there to be nothing amazing about your being born against astronomically low probability.

Of course, we disagree on one of the fundamental facts of reality - whether or not there ARE facts or reality. Since you assert that reality cannot be known, there is no possibility of meaningful communication. Likewise, unless you start admitting that facts are really facts, any 'meeting of minds' will be nearly impossible.

However, going back to your original post:

I mean assuming materialism is true. Did my parents need to be born and to form a sexual relationship? But that of course is absurd because each of them would need to have had their parents to have been born and to have met up; and the same going back to when first life appeared on Earth! So that can't be right. So could I have been born to different parents??

Why do you feel that the regression to the first life on earth can't be right? What, exactly, do you mean by this? It is exactly what DID happen - life formed on earth as a result of specific chaotic processes as a result of manifestation of very low probability, leading to a chain of results that brought on the birth of you, me, James Randi, and everything else on Earth. Where is the difficulty there? In fact, this is EXACTLY right.

So, what is the problem?

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Taffer
This should be reason enough to ignore all you have to say. Firstly, you say that you will not explain yourself, but continue to make (an unsupported) claim that you are right and materialism is 'false' because of the very small probability that you exist. Secondly, you fall to name calling...again. Nice.

This thread is not about examining my beliefs. That is for another thread.

And as for the name calling; basically it's not. The only context in which I have heard the word "Taffer" is in the thief series of computer games. In the first level in the first game the main character continually gets called craven by the guards.

Ok, sure, there is a very small chance that you will have been born. So what? Things with a very small probability can, and do, happen. It proves nothing. It is nothing 'special', 'mysterious' or even 'woowoo' (if I may use the words of our lord Randi). There was an increadibly small chance that our sun would be formed, and that our planet would form in the 'habitation belt'. Big, smelly, freaken, wow. Probability, by definition, involves that which is random. If 100 monkeys are in a room with 100 typewriters, and they plonk away randomly, and given infinite time, they will write the entire works of shakespear, in order. Hell, they will write "This is a stupid argument" an infinite number of times. Randomness happens. Just because something has a very small probability of happening, doesn't mean it will never happen!

{sighs}

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
So why do you feel that materialism is clearly false?

Actually, you CANNOT know the true probability of your own birth, nor can anyone else - without the totality of conditions I mentioned previously.

This is why I was asking. Someone said it's 1 in a google^10 or whatever. All I know is that it's extraordinary unlikely.

I've presented the reasons why even enormously low probabilities can and must manifest,

Must manifest?? Why the Content removed for violation of Rule 8 must they manifest??

yet you fail to even take a stab at refuting my claim.

What claim?? Look, I've addressed most peoples' posts in this thread. Maybe I've missed one or two. But it's damn difficult if one has about 20 people arguing against you and no one on your side!

So what claim are you making which I have not already comprehensively refuted??

Further, several of us have offered you innumerable reasons why this is in no way even remotely refutitive of materialism, yet you refuse to answer our claims.

I have refuted materialism, because if there is only a chance of 1 over a googleplex that I should be born if materialism is true, and I have been born, then materialism can't be true.

Art Vandelay

22nd July 2004, 06:54 PM

Vitner
Besides, if the identical twins were females they may or may not be identical since one of the X-chromosones are turned off for females, and since its random which one it is, its a 50% chance they wont be identical.
Cite?

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
A probability represents the concept that, out of a number of attempts X that a certain event will only occur Y times out of X. For instance, the simplest probability is that, when flipping a coin, there is a 1 in 2 chance that the coin will land heads-up. (Of course, this is not quite true - there is a very small chance of the coin landing on edge, which means the chance for heads or tails is something on the order of 0.998 in 2).Plus there's the fact that tails is slightly more likely...

[quiote]BUT - Once you start flipping coins repeatedly, the chance of the coin coming up heads becomes a statistical certainty. All you have to do is exceed the X factor by a sufficient degree, and inevitably, the coin will land heads.[/quote]
There is no number of flips which guarantees a heads. Everything is either a certainty or not. The term "statistical certainty" is misleading.

Likewise, if we assume that the chance of a star forming is, say, 1 in 10^999, then all we have to have are the conditions prerequisite for star formation in 10^999+ areas - What the degree of excess is, I don't know, but if, say, the universe contained 10^2000 areas capable of forming stars, then stars will form.
In such a case, the probability of no star forming is about 14%. Low, but not neglible. For large n and m, if the probability of something happening in a single trial is 1/n, then the probability of it not happening after m trials is about e^(-m/n).

Let's say, for example, that you wanted an oak tree, but the chance of a planted seed growing was 1 in 100. All you have to do to ensure an oak will grow is to plant slightly more than 100 seeds, and you WILL have an oak.
You will never be able to ensure that one will grow. And even if you were willing to settle for, say, a 5% chance of none growing, you would need a bit more than "slightly more than 100 seeds". In fact, you'd need nearly three hundred.

BPSCG
The answer, of course, is that twelve million is merely the numerator here. The denominator is the several million people who buy lottery tickets every week.
Huh? Seems to me that it should be the other way around.

Saw thought experiment in this vein once. Toss a billion pennies into the air (a thousand million to y'all on the east side of the Atlantic - why is that?). When they all land, scoop up only the ones that land heads up and discard the rest (in your thought experiment, you're fabulously wealthy and can afford to do this). Throw the remaining coins in the air again, scoop up the ones that land heads and discard the rest. Do this 30 times. By now you're down to one or two pennies that have landed heads up thirty straight times.
This can also be used as a bar bet. Go to the bank and get a hundred quarters. Then say to someone "I bet you a hundred bucks that I can perform 5 coin tosses, and have a quarter come up heads each time".

There's also a variant that can be used as a spam trick: get a 10 million email addresses. Send half of them an email telling them that team A will win this week's game, and tell the rest that team B will win. Next week, pull out the addresses that received a correct prediction, and send another prediction to them. After a few months, there will (presumably) be ten guys saying "Wow! This guy's predicted every single game! The odds must be a million to one!" Then offer to sell them next week's lotto numbers.

Good linguistic point about "random chance" - it's a redundant phrase, like "foreign imports."
Well, actually some imports are domestic. For instance, Scotland imports Scotch.

scribble
He's the one who argued that he could take an "arbitrarily long" but *NOT INFINITE IN LENGTH* string and find *ANY* substring in it.
So was it that he picks a particular string, then you choose a string for him to find in it, or do you pick a string, and then he picks a string that contains it? If the former, was he willing to tell you what the string was?

Art Vandelay

22nd July 2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This is why I was asking. Someone said it's 1 in a google^10 or whatever. All I know is that it's extraordinary unlikely.
If you are talking about me, that is NOT what I said. I have avoided addressing you because you do not seem to be seriously listening to what people say, but while I do not expect to disabuse you of your fallacious notions, I do not think that it is too much to ask that you not misrepresent my statements to make them seem to support your point of view. I said that given certain assumptions, the number of possible different genomes is googol^9. If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I did NOT say anything about the probability of your birth, NOR did I say anything about Google or any other search engines.

22nd July 2004, 07:10 PM

have refuted materialism, because if there is only a chance of 1 over a googleplex that I should be born if materialism is true, and I have been born, then materialism can't be true.

See, this is failed logic. It doesn't even make sense.

If materialism is true, the chance that you are born is one over a googleplex. You have been born, thus materialism is false?

This isn't a proper statement - it's a paradox, or something. It's senseless.

Rather, if materialism is true and there is a one over googleplex chance of being born, and you are born, you are still born under the one-over-googleplex chance. The probability of your birth does in no way refute materialism. In fact, this illogical thinking might point to the problem as a whole.

'If philosophy A is true and there is a chance 1 in X that event B will occur, and event B occurs, then philosophy A is false' is what your statement reads, removing the terminologies. Actually, analyzing the statement logically, the occurance of event B in no way bears on the truth of philosophy A - whether it happens or not. Instead, the more logical (or proper) statement would read, 'If philosophy A is true and event B is impossible, and event B occurs, then philosophy A is false." However, highly improbable is different from impossible. Highly improbable can happen; impossible cannot.

Must manifest?? Why the f*ck must they manifest??

Ignoring your use of language for the moment, improbable events must manifest GIVEN A SUFFICIENT SAMPLE OF RELATIVE CONDITIONS. If there is a one-in-X chance of event A occuring under a set of conditions C, then event A must occur if conditions C exist in X or higher quantities. (The last bit is a little unclear, because I'm not sure of the specific overrun required to force an improbable event to occur).

Even if the chance of you, Ian, being conceived and born were one in a googleplex, that is in comparison to the googleplex times googleplex number of potential combinations under any given set of conditions.

Of course, part of the probability would be better defined if a better starting point were offered, i.e. 'Given that my parents copulated during my mother's fertility cycle, what chance that I would be created?' In which case the probability rises to 1 out of however many sperm your father supplied (and presumably adjusted by other factors, such as number of eggs released by your mother, as rarely more than one can drop, and slews of environmental and genetic conditions of which we can only be vaguely aware). This greatly lowers the probability (raises?) from one in a googleplex to merely one in several billion. Further add in factors such as removing the number of sperm containing genetic deficiencies, the exact genetic combinations that would be rejected by the host body (mother), etc. and the probability further increases. It is entirely possible that you could carefully examine any number of such factors, and eventually reduce the probability to something on the order of one in a million or one in a few hundred thousand - or even lower, if you knew even more.

Moving backwards, however, to, say, your grandparents, then the probability drops tremendously (raises? I get so confused with these words) - perhaps increasing the probability to one over several million googleplex. Again, however, each factor you take into account adjusts the probability another several orders of magnitude.

Nonetheless, at each stage, you are comparing a very small probability with an ENORMOUS sample population, thereby ensuring that, sooner or later, you would have to be born, given the conditins that did occur. Of course, instead of conceiving, your father might have used a condom, and thus blew your chances of being born; in which case, since your sperm was thus wasted, you may NEVER have been born. This, too, must be factored into the equation.

No one said it was an EASY equation, but there it is.

In the case of the procreation of a particular individual, the term 'must' should probably be thrown out entirely... but in the case of any particular 'type of event', 'must' is fully implied. Given all factors, SOMEONE must be born. But the 'must' may not apply to you. However, you are merely an example of the EVENT - So, in essence, you MUST be born (as a non-specific individual) but might NOT be born (as a specific individual).

When I use 'must' I refer not to any individual specific occurance of a low-probability event, only to the event in general. Stars MUST form, but there's no guarantee that Beta Hydri would form. Life MUST appear, but no guarantee that life would appear on Earth.

As to the claim you chose to ignore, it was the one you responded to with "Your post is as worthless as all the others arguing against me." However, you fail to either address the post as a seperate entity, or to address WHY you feel it to be worthless.

Allow me the vanity to re-post what I wrote before:

First, you are making a fundamental error regarding probability. It's a common error, though few are really aware of it. Let me see if I can explain this - it's hard for me. Words are difficult. Anyway - A probability represents the concept that, out of a number of attempts X that a certain event will only occur Y times out of X. For instance, the simplest probability is that, when flipping a coin, there is a 1 in 2 chance that the coin will land heads-up. (Of course, this is not quite true - there is a very small chance of the coin landing on edge, which means the chance for heads or tails is something on the order of 0.998 in 2). So, if you flip a coin once, it may come up heads, but there's a pretty even chance that it won't. BUT - Once you start flipping coins repeatedly, the chance of the coin coming up heads becomes a statistical certainty. All you have to do is exceed the X factor by a sufficient degree, and inevitably, the coin will land heads. Likewise, if we assume that the chance of a star forming is, say, 1 in 10^999, then all we have to have are the conditions prerequisite for star formation in 10^999+ areas - What the degree of excess is, I don't know, but if, say, the universe contained 10^2000 areas capable of forming stars, then stars will form. With the Universe being as large as it is, the astronomically low chance of life forming on Earth becomes a certainty, as does any and all other probable events whose probability falls under the total event population of the Universe. In fact, the chance of you, in particular, being born is a certainty, given the astronomical numbers of sperm and eggs being randomly combined all over the world at any given time. Of course, when determining the probability that you would be born, we have to add in factors such as environment, energy fluxuations, gravity, social conditions, etc. ad infinitum; yet even so, given a large enough possible system for generation of Ians, Ian must be formed. Let's say, for example, that you wanted an oak tree, but the chance of a planted seed growing was 1 in 100. All you have to do to ensure an oak will grow is to plant slightly more than 100 seeds, and you WILL have an oak. Of course, probability DOES suggest that, in spite of the odds, no oak will ever grow; but given the sheer number of probable events that never occur, that we are unaware of, those that do are by no means a materialistic mystery.

yuck - I think that all runs on...

Anyway, that's the meat of my view.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
He's the one who argued that he could take an "arbitrarily long" but *NOT INFINITE IN LENGTH* string and find *ANY* substring in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So was it that he picks a particular string, then you choose a string for him to find in it, or do you pick a string, and then he picks a string that contains it? If the former, was he willing to tell you what the string was?

The latter.

chance

22nd July 2004, 07:24 PM

Nothing quite like a pre-emptive strike. I previously stated Well Interesting Ian I certainly look forward to you explaining why you think it is a ‘silly position’, and I trust you will not repeat the, ‘the odds are too fantastically high’ that you have put forward so far, as this is a false way of looking at the numbers. Yet predictably you espouse the exact same drivel, how predictable was that? To save you calculating that for your self I’ll give you the answer now, it is one (1). On with the show.

Interesting Ian Let me try to illustrate the difficulty by the use of an analogy.

Suppose I get kidnapped by a loony. He has 10 packs of cards. He allows me to examine them so I can check they are fair. Then, being a loony, he shuts me in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles all ten packs of cards so that the cards contained therein are randomly distributed. The loony says the machine will randomly select a card from each deck consecutively. If at any stage the card selected is not the Ace of Hearts the machine will instantaneously set off an explosion which will immediately kill me. In effect I would never know that the card selected was not the Ace of Hearts. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am in a position of certainty regarding the fact that everything is as it seems ie the decks of cards are fair, the machine does genuinely randomly select a card from each deck, etc. Obviously it is extraordinary unlikely that I will survive this.

So the machine is set in motion. Extraordinarily the first card selected is the Ace of Hearts! Of course this scarcely gives me much hope. There's 9 cards to go! But then the next card selected from the next deck is the Ace of Hearts. And it transpires that each and every one of the cards drawn is the Ace of Hearts. The loony then enters the room. Here is the ensuing conversation:

II: WOW!! That is absolutely extraordinary!!

Loony: What was?

II: Well, the fact I'm still alive you idiot!

Loony: Why shouldn't you be?

II: Because the chance of me still being alive is an extraordinary low one.

Loony: No, it is certain that you would still be alive (Scribble).

II. Huh??

Loony: The probability of a past event is, by definition, 1. (chulbert)

II: Yes I know, but you're missing the point. Look, you surely must admit that the fact I'm alive is absolutely extraordinary.

Loony: Not at all. Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right? (chance)

II: Jesus! You really are Content removed for violation of Rule 8 stupid!!

Loony: Ah! Insults. This necessitates you have lost the argument.

II: {screams} You complete and total dumbContent removed for violation of Rule 8!!

Loony: I kidnapped you in the first place because none of your arguments have any merit. I thought I'd do the world a favour and get rid of you by killing you. Thought I'd make it a bit entertaining by using this machine. Since it failed to kill you the first time, I'll just set it in motion again

II: {last despairing scream as the machine starts again} You complete moron!

But again the machine draws 10 Ace of Heart cards. Loony re-enters the room.

II. Wow!! Gosh!! It's happened again!!

Loony: From your perspective this is not at all surprising. You are a lotto winner of life, against the probability of a different selection, that all. (Chance)

II. You idiot!

Loony: Right, that's it!

{He starts the machine again. Again 10 Ace of Hearts are drawn. So he starts the machine again. He runs the machine a further 100 times, and each and every single time 10 Ace of Hearts are drawn, leaving II still alive. Loony re-enters the room}.

II. OK I'm still alive. Do you now agree something peculiar is going on? In effect this just can't happen.

Loony: Are you saying the chance is zero? If not it could happen, and the fact it has happened should not at all be surprising to you since if you had have been killed you wouldn't be here to think about it.

II: Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.

Loony: {In sarcastic tone} The chance of any individual raindrop hitting a particular spot on my driveway is incredibly, incredibly small.

Obviously, therefore, my drvieway never gets wet in the rain. (NoZed Avenger)

II You complete and total retard!

Loony: Right! That's it! I'm setting the machine off again!

II. No! Please please. Just use a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 gun!

This is basically the discussion I've been having with you lot. Does the analogy make it clear why your reasoning in incorrect? Nothing new here, moving on to the next point

II> The point here is that the chance of me being alive is as near as damn it, zero. Yet I am alive.

Therefore materialism is refuted. I do not have this problem because I believe in reincarnation. seems you have stated this before, II continues

It is close enough to zero so that effectively it couldn't happen. bzzzzz back to school you go, do not collect $200.

To summarise all the above, in II speak – “I can’t believe it’s not butter!” or, in a rational example you believe that 0.00000000000001 = 0 Your fallacy is easily refuted by asking you to demonstrate at which point it will it equal 1, choose from the selection below.

0.0000000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.000000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.00000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.0000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.00000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.0000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.00001 = is it 1 yet?
0.0001 = is it 1 yet?
0.001 = is it 1 yet?
0.01 = is it 1 yet?
0.1 = is it 1 yet?
1 = is it 1 yet? (hint – I think you should pick this one II)

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This is why I was asking. Someone said it's 1 in a google^10 or whatever. All I know is that it's extraordinary unlikely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are talking about me, that is NOT what I said.

Your post gave the implication that this was what you were saying.

And don't take that tone with me. It tends to Content removed for violation of Rule 8 me off. Do you understand moonbeam??

I have avoided addressing you because you do not seem to be seriously listening to what people say,

I do not listen to people continually saying 2 + 2 = 4 and other mind-numbingly obvious things. Yeah sure. What the f*ck is the point?? Please enlighten me?? :rolleyes:

but while I do not expect to disabuse you of your fallacious notions,

Content removed for violation of Rule 8 What fallacious notions might these be?? Answer the question. Or are you just talking out of your Content removed for violation of Rule 8. Ummm . .let me guesss :rolleyes:

I do not think that it is too much to ask that you not misrepresent my statements to make them seem to support your point of view.

If I have misinterpreted you, then learn to speak in English. Is your claim that it is more likely than this that a particular individual is born?? And what were all the other calculations about then??

I said that given certain assumptions, the number of possible different genomes is googol^9. If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I did NOT say anything about the probability of your birth, NOR did I say anything about Google or any other search engines.

Right, so certain differing genomes are naturally impossible??

And I'm well aware you never mentioned any search engines. What the Content removed for violation of Rule 8 is your problem???

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by chance
Nothing quite like a pre-emptive strike. I previously stated

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Interesting Ian I certainly look forward to you explaining why you think it is a ‘silly position’, and I trust you will not repeat the, ‘the odds are too fantastically high’ that you have put forward so far, as this is a false way of looking at the numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet predictably you espouse the exact same drivel,

I can scarcely help the fact that you and everyone else on here are seriously lacking in intelligence. Read my arguments and make at least some attempt to understand.

how predictable was that? To save you calculating that for your self I’ll give you the answer now, it is one (1). On with the show.

The chance of me being born is 1??? :eek: I really am sick to death of stupid stupid people on this board.

Interesting Ian
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me try to illustrate the difficulty by the use of an analogy.

Suppose I get kidnapped by a loony. He has 10 packs of cards. He allows me to examine them so I can check they are fair. Then, being a loony, he shuts me in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles all ten packs of cards so that the cards contained therein are randomly distributed. The loony says the machine will randomly select a card from each deck consecutively. If at any stage the card selected is not the Ace of Hearts the machine will instantaneously set off an explosion which will immediately kill me. In effect I would never know that the card selected was not the Ace of Hearts. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am in a position of certainty regarding the fact that everything is as it seems ie the decks of cards are fair, the machine does genuinely randomly select a card from each deck, etc. Obviously it is extraordinary unlikely that I will survive this.

So the machine is set in motion. Extraordinarily the first card selected is the Ace of Hearts! Of course this scarcely gives me much hope. There's 9 cards to go! But then the next card selected from the next deck is the Ace of Hearts. And it transpires that each and every one of the cards drawn is the Ace of Hearts. The loony then enters the room. Here is the ensuing conversation:

II: WOW!! That is absolutely extraordinary!!

Loony: What was?

II: Well, the fact I'm still alive you idiot!

Loony: Why shouldn't you be?

II: Because the chance of me still being alive is an extraordinary low one.

Loony: No, it is certain that you would still be alive (Scribble).

II. Huh??

Loony: The probability of a past event is, by definition, 1. (chulbert)

II: Yes I know, but you're missing the point. Look, you surely must admit that the fact I'm alive is absolutely extraordinary.

Loony: Not at all. Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right? (chance)

II: Jesus! You really are Content removed for violation of Rule 8 stupid!!

Loony: Ah! Insults. This necessitates you have lost the argument.

II: {screams} You complete and total dumbContent removed for violation of Rule 8!!

Loony: I kidnapped you in the first place because none of your arguments have any merit. I thought I'd do the world a favour and get rid of you by killing you. Thought I'd make it a bit entertaining by using this machine. Since it failed to kill you the first time, I'll just set it in motion again

II: {last despairing scream as the machine starts again} You complete moron!

But again the machine draws 10 Ace of Heart cards. Loony re-enters the room.

II. Wow!! Gosh!! It's happened again!!

Loony: From your perspective this is not at all surprising. You are a lotto winner of life, against the probability of a different selection, that all. (Chance)

II. You idiot!

Loony: Right, that's it!

{He starts the machine again. Again 10 Ace of Hearts are drawn. So he starts the machine again. He runs the machine a further 100 times, and each and every single time 10 Ace of Hearts are drawn, leaving II still alive. Loony re-enters the room}.

II. OK I'm still alive. Do you now agree something peculiar is going on? In effect this just can't happen.

Loony: Are you saying the chance is zero? If not it could happen, and the fact it has happened should not at all be surprising to you since if you had have been killed you wouldn't be here to think about it.

II: Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.

Loony: {In sarcastic tone} The chance of any individual raindrop hitting a particular spot on my driveway is incredibly, incredibly small.

Obviously, therefore, my drvieway never gets wet in the rain. (NoZed Avenger)

II You complete and total retard!

Loony: Right! That's it! I'm setting the machine off again!

II. No! Please please. Just use a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 gun!

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

Nothing new here, moving on to the next point

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II> The point here is that the chance of me being alive is as near as damn it, zero. Yet I am alive.

Therefore materialism is refuted. I do not have this problem because I believe in reincarnation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

seems you have stated this before, II continues

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is close enough to zero so that effectively it couldn't happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bzzzzz back to school you go, do not collect $200.

{loud sigh}

I'm sorry, what exactly are you disagreeing with???

To summarise all the above, in II speak – “I can’t believe it’s not butter!” or, in a rational example you believe that 0.00000000000001 = 0

NOpe, I do not believe that.

Your fallacy is easily refuted by asking you to demonstrate at which point it will it equal 1, choose from the selection below.

0.0000000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.000000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.00000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.0000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.00000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.0000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.00001 = is it 1 yet?
0.0001 = is it 1 yet?
0.001 = is it 1 yet?
0.01 = is it 1 yet?
0.1 = is it 1 yet?
1 = is it 1 yet? (hint – I think you should pick this one II)

What the hell are you drivelling on about??? :eek:

22nd July 2004, 07:41 PM

What he's effectively saying, Ian, is that you continue to demonstrate the logical fallacy of associating a low probability with an impossibility. You've repeated that several times - that when a probability approaches zero, it effectively becomes zero. However, this is demonstrably not true - improbable does NOT mean impossible, and this is the stick in the eye of your theory.

Right, so certain differing genomes are naturally impossible??

google^9 is NOT impossible, Ian. That's the logical error you are practicing. Please, try to understand.

And watch your language.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd July 2004, 07:45 PM

Getting excited about the chances that you were born is like getting excited about seeing the license plate 147-R-SGH in the parking lot.

Before I get started, I must tell you of a most amazing
thing. While I walked into this lecture hall, I saw a car
with the license plate 147-R-SGH! There are billions
of cars on the planet, so imagine the odds against me
seeing that particular car! ---Richard Feynman

Would you be just as excited if you were different?

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
What he's effectively saying, Ian, is that you continue to demonstrate the logical fallacy of associating a low probability with an impossibility.

I have done no such thing. You are a liar. I said effectively it can't happen. This does not have the same meaning as impossible. If something is of a sufficiently low probability, it just ain't gonna happen, not ever.

You've repeated that several times - that when a probability approaches zero, it effectively becomes zero. However, this is demonstrably not true - improbable does NOT mean impossible, and this is the stick in the eye of your theory.

See above.

google^9 is NOT impossible, Ian. That's the logical error you are practicing. Please, try to understand.

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.

And watch your language.

No I f*cking won't. I don't like materialists, and I certainly don't like the thick ********* found on this board. Put me on ignore.

Various posts have been reported. Please refrain from swearing, Ian.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]Getting excited about the chances that you were born is like getting excited about seeing the license plate 147-R-SGH in the parking lot.

:rolleyes: Yeah, it's exactly the same!

22nd July 2004, 07:58 PM

If you don't like materialists, why don't you leave, Mr. I'm-So-Weak-I-Have-To-Cuss-To-Be-Big?

I have done no such thing. You are a liar. I said effectively it can't happen. This does not have the same meaning as impossible. If something is of a sufficiently low probability, it just ain't gonna happen, not ever.

Definitions of Impossible (http://www.google.com/search?q=define:impossible&sourceid=opera&num=100&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)

Now we can add English to your other failings in education, apparently. "It just ain't gonna happen" means impossible, you dolt.

Now, who's lying?

Are you really so vastly ignorant as to not understand the meaning of impossible?

chance

22nd July 2004, 08:03 PM

Interesting Ian
II> I can scarcely help the fact that you and everyone else on here are seriously lacking in intelligence. Read my arguments and make at least some attempt to understand. I understand that yon know diddley squat about most things.

II> The chance of me being born is 1??? I really am sick to death of stupid stupid people on this board. Your on this board.

II> I'm sorry, what exactly are you disagreeing with??? Read my argument below and make at least some attempt to understand.

To summarise, in II speak – “I can’t believe it’s not butter!” or, in a rational example you believe that 0.00000000000001 = 0 II> NOpe, I do not believe that Yes you do! unless your total post is a troll post, is it. If this is not a troll post you are, in fact, stating some event/number, e.g. 0.00000000000001 = 0

Your fallacy is easily refuted by asking you to demonstrate at which point it will it equal 1, choose from the selection below.

0.0000000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.000000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.00000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.0000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.000000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.00000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.0000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.000001 = is it 1 yet?
0.00001 = is it 1 yet?
0.0001 = is it 1 yet?
0.001 = is it 1 yet?
0.01 = is it 1 yet?
0.1 = is it 1 yet?
1 = is it 1 yet? (hint – I think you should pick this one II)

I’ll explain in more detail, at which point (use the one above, or your own 10 pack of cards example) does some event your original post of “the chance of me still being alive is an extraordinary low one” not become extraordinarily low to guarantee or better odds of you being here, go ahead pick a number.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 08:13 PM

I'm not going to speak to the pricks any longer in this thread. It is quite clear that nothing is being achieved and I'm tired of the lies about what position I actually hold.

Get it in your heads that I do not claim it is impossible that a specified individual be born. Just extraordinarily unlikely. So unlikely in fact that we can have absolute confidence that it would never happen. That is not the same as impossible :rolleyes:

22nd July 2004, 08:15 PM

In other words, when faced with facts and irrefutable logic, Ian runs, as per usual.

Well, folks, let this stand as a prime example of logical fallacy, mathematical ignorance, and a complete failure to understand the English language. Oh, yes, and remember: when all else fails, CURSE.

Bye-bye, Ian. (Though somehow I doubt he'll REALLY drop this thread entirely)

chance

22nd July 2004, 08:20 PM

Interesting Iantakes bat and ball and goes home with - I'm not going to speak to the pricks any longer in this thread. It is quite clear that nothing is being achieved and I'm tired of the lies about what position I actually hold.

Get it in your heads that I do not claim it is impossible that a specified individual be born. Just extraordinarily unlikely. So unlikely in fact that we can have absolute confidence that it would never happen. That is not the same as impossible Har Har We win you loose.

22nd July 2004, 08:25 PM

Actually, I'd say we lose - for the simple reason we couldn't get through to him the truth. Any truth, for that matter.

Of course, that being said, that means we entered into what was a losing battle from the start - since he sees no logic other than his own, no reason other than his own, and no facts other than his own. He enters into these debates with the CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE that he possesses the ultimate knowledge, and cannot and WILL not listen to anything that debates his ultimate knowledge. (He cannot even acknowledge that his command of English is completely lacking)

IT saddens me whenever a Woo runs - I'd much rather see, JUST ONCE, some Woo stop and consider our points logically - JUST ONCE see them admit when they've made a logical blunder or committed an intellectual fallacy. Alas, the very nature of the Woo denies them the ability to do this.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd July 2004, 08:33 PM

I still want to know if Ian would be just as amazed at his own improbability if he were a different person.

Also, come to think of it, I'd like to know how this purported problem is fixed in some other metaphysic.

~~ Paul

Mercutio

22nd July 2004, 08:41 PM

What is the probability I am not Interesting Ian? What is the probability that none of us (aside from II himself) are Interesting Ian?

And, to be fair, please don't assume we already know I am not (or you are not, or whoever), because then of course p = 1. I am actually serious about this one...It seems to me that, given all the innumerable accidents that had to go my way to make me, or had to go his way to make him, there must be some a priori probability that I would have been him. (A posteriori I am not him, p =1) Is it impossible (p=0.0repeating) that I could have been born Ian?

I mean, if he won the Ian lottery, and I lost it, surely there must be a way to calculate the probability that my losing ticket had just before the drawing...

22nd July 2004, 08:45 PM

Well, in the Lottery example, your losing ticket would have had the same probability as his winning ticket.

On the other hand, the fact that you are not him notwithstanding, the probability that you would have been born him would be 0.

Simply, you cannot be him; you are either you, or he is he.

Ugh - Mongo tired - need sleep. :s2:

Dancing David

22nd July 2004, 08:59 PM

Given the fact that millions of sperm are produced and only a certain amount are able to pass the rigorous chances of passage through the female body and then there is only a certain probability that they will find the egg.

The chances of predicting a certain conception are a bizzillion to one.

Given the fact that primordial life was not a single event the arising of life is not improbable.

Asking what are the chances that you would be born, hmm isn't that determinism?

scribble

22nd July 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
I mean, if he won the Ian lottery, and I lost it, surely there must be a way to calculate the probability that my losing ticket had just before the drawing...

No sir, you won that drawing.

chulbert

22nd July 2004, 09:15 PM

I think what Ian is trying to say is roughly the following:

Imagine a set, E, of all conceivable events in the universe. It is comprised of two elements: the subset, E_will, all events that will happen and the subset, E_won't, all events that won't happen. Further, E_won't is comprised of two elements: the subset, E_can't, of all events that "can't" happen (their probability is "too low") and the subset, E_naught, of impossible events (probability of 0).

The event of his birth is an element of the E_can't.

He's wrong, but I think this is what he's trying to say.

chance

22nd July 2004, 10:08 PM

chulbert Imagine a set, E, of all conceivable events in the universe. It is comprised of two elements: the subset, E_will 'snip' HOLD it right there! He could be, but IMO I think Interesting Ian is trying to say: - “Doooby doooby dha, dibby dah dha dribbly. Dribbly dribbly do dar. Doobly dar D dar! Dwibbly dwibbly plop ……………………, fibbly dwibly dwibly? Dooby, dooby day doh”.

Don’t worry it’s a ‘South Park’ thing.

Taffer

22nd July 2004, 10:37 PM

Well, he got one thing right. I have indeed named myself after the 'Thief: The Dark Project" game.

*Clap clap*

Christian

23rd July 2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

What he's effectively saying, Ian, is that you continue to demonstrate the logical fallacy of associating a low probability with an impossibility. You've repeated that several times - that when a probability approaches zero, it effectively becomes zero. However, this is demonstrably not true - improbable does NOT mean impossible, and this is the stick in the eye of your theory.

google^9 is NOT impossible, Ian. That's the logical error you are practicing. Please, try to understand.

And watch your language.

I will try to explain what Ian has been trying to say. He made a very important point about the same person winning the lottery consecutively. And this is the key to his argument.

What he has failed to explain (I think) is how probabilities are calculated. This is the key.

Yes zaayrdragon, you explanation of why events that are highly improbable become certainties in huge systems is correct. But, you are missing Ian's point.

Let me explain.

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.

Ok. Let’s go back to the lottery winner. What is the probability that he win the first time?

1 in 12 million (let’s assume). Now, pay close attention, THIS IS THE KEY. What is the probability that he win two times in a row, it is 1 in 144 million. And the chances this same person wins 3 times in a row? It is 1 in 21 billion. (approx.) And so on.

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.

Now, this is why we will never see the same lottery winner win 6 or 7 times in a row because it is probabilistically impossible (although mathematically possible).

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.

uruk

23rd July 2004, 12:45 AM

I'm sorry I missed this thread.
I vote this statement to be the most ignorant made yet:I have done no such thing. You are a liar. I said effectively it can't happen. This does not have the same meaning as impossible. If something is of a sufficiently low probability, it just ain't gonna happen, not ever.

Typical I.I. stuff.

What was that statement made by Murry Gell-man?
something about all things that are possible will happen...or something like that. anybody know?

Oleron

23rd July 2004, 01:50 AM

Christian,

I can see what you are trying to say and it makes some sense in the context in which you have placed it.

But could the probablities be viewed from another standpoint?
What I mean is that, of course you are right that the chances of a person winning the lottery is extremely small but someone has to win. (I know that in some lottery designs it is possible for no-one to win but I'm ignoring that possibility for the time being).

So probablity that our person, lets call him Bert, will win is very small but the probablity that someone will win is 1.

Going back to Ian's question of being born.

Lets say that the chances of the sperm that contains the code for Ian (the Ian sperm) actually winning out over all the other millions of sperm is very small. But, because the biochemical conditions are right, fertilisation is certain to occur. So the chances of a sperm fertilising an egg is 1, but the chances of the Ian sperm being the one to do it is very small.

So anyway, the egg goes on to develop with Ians code, creating the perfect specimen of manhood that is Ian.
Ian then says that it is a paranormal event that he is who he is. I think not. It is absolutely IRRELEVANT that he is who he is - he had to be somebody.

If the Ian sperm had tripped over a fallopian tube or something and not done the fertilisation, some other sperm would have and we might be talking to, I don't know, Sylvia?

Jaggy Bunnet

23rd July 2004, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

Well, actually some imports are domestic. For instance, Scotland imports Scotch.

[extreme nitpick]Nope, sorry. Scotch must be produced in Scotland. We may import whiskey, or even whisky, but to be Scotch it must be produced in Scotland

http://whisky.com/history.html
[/extreme nitpick]

Soapy Sam

23rd July 2004, 02:31 AM

If Ian believes in transmigration of souls, he may well be unsurprised that "the essential Ian " would be born. Indeed he would expect it to happen again and again. Possibly he even allows multiple copies of souls, to explain the ever increasing population. This would strengthen his argument by lowering the odds against still further.

Why then, if rebirth is so predictable, is he amazed that he has been born?

I clearly recall pondering the same issue on a long bus journey once. It was two months after my fourteenth birthday,just after the first Apollo landing. I rejected it as amusing nonsense then. I still do.

I must respond to the previous post- No TRUE SCOTSMAN imports whisky. (Except possibly Bushmills).

Jaggy Bunnet

23rd July 2004, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I must respond to the previous post- No TRUE SCOTSMAN imports whisky. (Except possibly Bushmills).

Bushmills is whiskey, not whisky.

http://www.bushmills.com/Bushmills%20vs%20Scotch.asp

SGT

23rd July 2004, 05:53 AM

Let me understand: II is the person that says that 0.999... with an infinite number of nines is not one, but thinks that 0.0000000001 = 0?

Since he does not understand the difference between a priori and a posteriori probabilities and is too lazy to read an elementary text in the subject, I will not address this point.

All I wish to know is why he thinks that reincarnation changes the probability that he has his present genetic code and all his life experiences.

Does he think that his other incarnation, Ianothep, who lived in Egypt 3000 years ago, had the same DNA and had the same experiences? Did Ianothep participate in a papyrus forum where he discussed this same nonsense?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 05:57 AM

Christian said:
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)
Yes, this is all well and good, but the problem is with the probability calculations in the first place. It is uninteresting that Ian's genetic makeup is only 1 possibility out of a jillion, just as it is uninteresting that a randomly-selected license plate in a parking lot is only 1 possibility out of a billion. When nature enumerates billions of humans, billions of genetic makeups are going to arise. Those billions aren't any more exciting than the remaining .999 jillion that did not arise.

As Oleron said, Ian had to be somebody.

~~ Paul

23rd July 2004, 06:10 AM

Ah, then in addition to the fallacy of assuming highly improbable to mean impossible, he is also committing the fallacy of examining probability from the wrong point in time.

I'd venture to say it is meaningless to go back 10 million years and try to pin down the probability of Ian being born. However, I think you can easily examine the conditions at the time of his conception and come up with a much more tangible probability of his conception. Likewise, if you look at the probability of a lottery winner repeating his good fortune 10 times in a row, then no, it isn't very likely (but it IS still possible). But if you look at 10 seperate instances of the lottery, his chances to win remain completely equal.

What this goes to show is that probability is a human tool used to attempt to understand the nature of chaos in the universe, not that it is a factual determining system in the universe.

Let me further explain.

For any coin (let's say, of equal balance and with a rounded edge), the chance of coming up heads on a flip is exactly 1 in 2. That is, either it will come up heads, or it will come up tails. If you have 10 million coins, EACH COIN has the exact same chance of coming up heads.

However, if we start examining the probability that they will ALL come up heads, we start getting an infinitessimally small probability. This is perfectly reasonable, since we know 1 in 2 will be heads, so we can predict that 5 million out of 10 million will come up heads (give or take a few hundred). But we have no reason to assume that they will ALL come up heads - though it COULD happen - because the probability is so low. However, this does NOT preclude the possibility of ANY single coin coming up heads.

Ian's conception, examined from the point of conception, ensured a reasonable probability of birth for SOME child. Even if it was only a 1 in a million chance that HIS sperm would be the one to survive, this is by no means astronomically low. However, Ian is postulating that, for him to be here, there had to be a chain of probable events occuring back to the beginning of life (which there was), rendering the probability to be nearly zero. This is another fallacy, clearly, as each event-state has to be examined individually.

It is fallacious to examine the probability of any chain of events, rather than the singular event itself... especially if you cannot take into account all available factors (which you can't). For one thing, the chain depends upon previous probability manifestations occuring, something you cannot know until the manifestation occurs; for another, each probability is influenced by factors occuring around it which were not manifest at the beginning of the chain.

I could not right now, for example, consider the probability of a descendent named Torgy Smoog being conceived in the 29th century in the city of Luna Del Sol to Harpy Smoog and Trag Dithheig (Jr)... All I could do is make a wild attempt at a prediction, something akin to psi, which of course is nonsense. But I can predict the probability of conceiving a child with my wife given the proper set of conditions, and I would know that child would be SOMEONE. That's really as far as you can properly take probability.

BPSCG

23rd July 2004, 06:14 AM

Is he gone...? :eek:
Originally posted by Christian
1 in 12 million (let’s assume). Now, pay close attention, THIS IS THE KEY. What is the probability that he win two times in a row, it is 1 in 144 million. And the chances this same person wins 3 times in a row? It is 1 in 21 billion. (approx.) And so on.Yeah, but the probability of my having been born (note the past tense) is ONE.

The thing about probability is that it's an attempt to quantify predictions of future events based on imperfect knowledge.

I predict that a plague of fruit flies will descend on II's head next Wednesday at 6:04:57 pm.

Now, we might all estimate (and that's all we can do) the probability of that happening as being pretty low. But if it does indeed happen, we can look back on the causal chain of events that led up to it and see that it had a probability of 1, because:

1) there was a swarm of fruit flies in II's front yard that had been attracted by something falling off the the trash collector's truck (and take that chain of causality back to the Big Bang if you want) and;
2) II had gone off his medication and decided he needed to rub banana puree in his hair (take that causality chain back, too), and;
3) II heard a bunch of motorcycles raor by his house with sirens wailing and lights flashing and decided to go out and see what the hubub was about, and;
4) II tripped over the trash that the fruit flies were enjoying.

Do we think such a scenario is unlikely in the extreme? Of course. But once it happens, do we acknowledge that the chain of events was inevitable? Yes, we do.

Was II's birth unlikely? No. It was certain. we know that because it happened. But was the birth of this unique person (not to be confused with AUP), with all his combinations of individual characteristics and behaviors predictable? Of course not. A hundred years before he was born, what odds would you have gotten (or given) that that particular person would exist in July, 2004? Pretty slim.

Now my question is (and I think it's only slightly tangential to this discussion), why is the consciousness that is aware of the world through the senses of my body associated with my body and not someone else's? How come I'm me, and I'm not you?

BPSCG

23rd July 2004, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Ah, then in addition to the fallacy of assuming highly improbable to mean impossible, he is also committing the fallacy of examining probability from the wrong point in time.Looks like we were writing the same point at the same time. What are the chances of THAT?

richardm

23rd July 2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The first question makes no sense. It's not even a question; it's just nonsense.

It's nonsensical to say it was certain or guaranteed. The stupidity of people on here is utterly astounding.

Well, that's the last time I try to offer support to Interesting Ian - assuming that his language and attitude doesn't get him banned.

Edited to add: Although if he recognises a suggestion that tries to support his own views as "Nonsense" and "stupidity", then perhaps he's more self-aware than I thought.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Taffer
Well, he got one thing right. I have indeed named myself after the 'Thief: The Dark Project" game.

*Clap clap*

{shrugs} I'm always right about everything.

You can't hide forever! Craven!!

An Infinite Ocean

23rd July 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Get it in your heads that I do not claim it is impossible that a specified individual be born. Just extraordinarily unlikely. So unlikely in fact that we can have absolute confidence that it would never happen. That is not the same as impossible :rolleyes:
In what way is it extraordinarily unlikely, though?

I've followed the thread, but I still don't really see the problem that this causes for materialists. The chances of you specifically being born were small perhaps, but on the other hand, the chances of someone being born were astronomically high. Maybe I'm just one of the thick *********, but I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 06:41 AM

I know I said that I wouldn't contribute to this thread again, but there really is a load of cr@p being told.

Originally posted by SGT
Let me understand: [B]II is the person that says that 0.999... with an infinite number of nines is not one, but thinks that 0.0000000001 = 0?

You've got it the wrong way round. The argument that 0.999 recurring exactly equals 1 was a crucial element in my argument, which others were arguing against!! Now people are lying and saying I was arguing for the precise opposite of what I did??

What the Content removed for violation of Rule 8??

And I'm also not arguing that a very small probability is a zero probability. Just that it would never happen given the reasonable maximum lifetime of the human race.

Idiots.

Since he does not understand the difference between a priori and a posteriori probabilities and is too lazy to read an elementary text in the subject, I will not address this point.

All probabilities are a posteriori. One could have a metaphysically possible Universe where a flipped coin lands heads 75% of the time. Not that Dr Kitten's post had anything to do with this so I don't know why he was using these terms.

All I wish to know is why he thinks that reincarnation changes the probability that he has his present genetic code and all his life experiences.

It might not. What's this got to do with anything?? Remember my genetic code and my experiences have got nothing to do with the self. They do not constitute the self in any shape or form.

Does he think that his other incarnation, Ianothep, who lived in Egypt 3000 years ago, had the same DNA and had the same experiences? Did Ianothep participate in a papyrus forum where he discussed this same nonsense?

No. Are ya daft??

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

All probabilities are a posteriori. One could have a metaphysically possible Universe where a flipped coin lands heads 75% of the time. Not that Dr Kitten's post had anything to do with this so I don't know why he was using these terms.

Yep, I understand his (her?) post apart from the first paragraph which is nonsensical. By a posteriori s/he seems to be referring to the probability of an event after it has occurred rather than referring to the notion that probabilities are determined by experience. But talking about the probability of an event after it has occurred simply is nonsensical. Once something has happened it's happened.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 06:54 AM

Ian said:
And I'm also not arguing that a very small probability is a zero probability. Just that it would never happen given the reasonable maximum lifetime of the human race.
But even if the a priori probability of a particular genome is zero, it doesn't matter. Human beings are going to be born, and each is going to have a genome with probability 1. There is no reason to be impressed with the genome you got.

Consider a bucket full of all the integers. You reach in and pick one out. What is the a priori probability that you picked the one you did? 0. But you still got it.

Now, if your next door neighbor happened to be born with the identical genome to you, that would be amazing.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I still want to know if Ian would be just as amazed at his own improbability if he were a different person.

Also, come to think of it, I'd like to know how this purported problem is fixed in some other metaphysic.

~~ Paul

Any of us ought to be amazed that s/he exists.

It's fixed in some other metaphysic if that other metaphysic doesn't hold the self is a product of their genetic and environmental makeup. I hold that the self has nothing to do with ones genetic and environmental makeup.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
But even if the a priori probability of a particular genome is zero, it doesn't matter. Human beings are going to be born, and each is going to have a genome with probability 1. There is no reason to be impressed with the genome you got.

Huh??? The genome is me isn't it? Sorry, I don't know anything about biology.

Consider a bucket full of all the integers. You reach in and pick one out. What is the a priori probability that you picked the one you did? 0. But you still got it.

~~ Paul

Yes, and what chance is it that number is that one special one out of all possible integers?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 06:59 AM

Ian said:
It's fixed in some other metaphysic if that other metaphysic doesn't hold the self is a product of their genetic and environmental makeup. I hold that the self has nothing to do with ones genetic and environmental makeup.
How is it fixed? The other metaphysic must have some mechanism for determining what sort of self one has.

And even if the other metaphysic fixes the issue of self, you should still be saying that it is impossible that your physical body (sans self) came into being.

And even if we ignore that, how do you explain the amazing event that your physical brain, determined by your genome, correlates neurologically with your self?

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Given the fact that millions of sperm are produced and only a certain amount are able to pass the rigorous chances of passage through the female body and then there is only a certain probability that they will find the egg.

The chances of predicting a certain conception are a bizzillion to one.

Given the fact that primordial life was not a single event the arising of life is not improbable.

Asking what are the chances that you would be born, hmm isn't that determinism?

No, it has nothing to do with determinism.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 07:03 AM

Ian said:
Yes, and what chance is it that number is that one special one out of all possible integers?
There is no special one, except in your own mind. No matter what genome you got, you would be saying that it is special, because you view yourself as special.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that you are unique with a very high probability. There is hardly any chance at all that your next door neighbor would have your identical genome. But so what? There is a zero chance that two cars in a parking lot would have the same license number, but that is not interesting.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
How is it fixed? The other metaphysic must have some mechanism for determining what sort of self one has.

Not in my belief system. I hold that the self is eternal. It never came into being.

And even if the other metaphysic fixes the issue of self, you should still be saying that it is impossible that your physical body (sans self) came into being.

It's impossible that my physical body came into being?? :eek:

And even if we ignore that, how do you explain the amazing event that your physical brain, determined by your genome, correlates neurologically with your self?

~~ Paul [/B]

It's a 2 way process. The self modifies brain states, and brain states modify mind states. So obviously with each mental event there will be a brain event.

SGT

23rd July 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yep, I understand his (her?) post apart from the first paragraph which is nonsensical. By a posteriori s/he seems to be referring to the probability of an event after it has occurred rather than referring to the notion that probabilities are determined by experience. But talking about the probability of an event after it has occurred simply is nonsensical. Once something has happened it's happened.

That is exactly what everyone here is trying to explain to you, since the beginning of this thread. The fact that you are posting in this forum shows that you are born. So the probability that you are born is one. There is nothing metaphysical in it.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by uruk
I'm sorry I missed this thread.
I vote this statement to be the most ignorant made yet:

Typical I.I. stuff.

What was that statement made by Murry Gell-man?
something about all things that are possible will happen...or something like that. anybody know?

Yeah well, he's wrong isn't he. There are many many things that will never happen. Indeed only a vanishingly small percentage of possible things will ever happen.

Don't take any notice of physicists, they talk out of their ar*eholes.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by SGT
That is exactly what everyone here is trying to explain to you, since the beginning of this thread. The fact that you are posting in this forum shows that you are born. So the probability that you are born is one. There is nothing metaphysical in it.

Are you real?

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Oleron
Christian,

I can see what you are trying to say and it makes some sense in the context in which you have placed it.

But could the probablities be viewed from another standpoint?
What I mean is that, of course you are right that the chances of a person winning the lottery is extremely small but someone has to win. (I know that in some lottery designs it is possible for no-one to win but I'm ignoring that possibility for the time being).

So probablity that our person, lets call him Bert, will win is very small but the probablity that someone will win is 1.

Going back to Ian's question of being born.

Lets say that the chances of the sperm that contains the code for Ian (the Ian sperm) actually winning out over all the other millions of sperm is very small. But, because the biochemical conditions are right, fertilisation is certain to occur. So the chances of a sperm fertilising an egg is 1, but the chances of the Ian sperm being the one to do it is very small.

So anyway, the egg goes on to develop with Ians code, creating the perfect specimen of manhood that is Ian.
Ian then says that it is a paranormal event that he is who he is. I think not. It is absolutely IRRELEVANT that he is who he is - he had to be somebody.

Under materialism I am my genetic code. It simply is meaningless to say I could be someone else. If another sperm won out, then I wouldn't be here, but rather someone else. Yes?

Of course under my belief system that other sperm would still be me. But you can't hold that.

If the Ian sperm had tripped over a fallopian tube or something and not done the fertilisation, some other sperm would have and we might be talking to, I don't know, Sylvia?

Yes, under materialism it wouldn't be me? Yes? So the fact that it was actually that one sperm that made it rather than any of the trillions of others was necessary for me to have ever existed. Yes?

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
[B]If Ian believes in transmigration of souls, he may well be unsurprised that "the essential Ian " would be born. Indeed he would expect it to happen again and again. Possibly he even allows multiple copies of souls, to explain the ever increasing population. This would strengthen his argument by lowering the odds against still further.

Why then, if rebirth is so predictable, is he amazed that he has been born?

I am *NOT* amazed. I'm saying that materialists ought to be astounded that they exist.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Yes, this is all well and good, but the problem is with the probability calculations in the first place. It is uninteresting that Ian's genetic makeup is only 1 possibility out of a jillion, just as it is uninteresting that a randomly-selected license plate in a parking lot is only 1 possibility out of a billion. When nature enumerates billions of humans, billions of genetic makeups are going to arise. Those billions aren't any more exciting than the remaining .999 jillion that did not arise.

As Oleron said, Ian had to be somebody.

~~ Paul

This is sheer nonsense. Why must I be someone?? Why is it not possible that I was never born?? Only a very small percentage of possible genomes will ever come into existence. Therefore the vast majority of possible people will never come into existence.

SGT

23rd July 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not in my belief system. I hold that the self is eternal. It never came into being.

I always thought that the self should improve with successive reincarnations. If you are so dumb in the present incarnation I wonder what were your previous selves.

It's impossible that my physical body came into being?? :eek:

Of course it is not impossible, since you exist. It is you that claimed about the tiny probability of you being born. Everyone else is saying you that this probability is one.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Is he gone...? :eek:
Yeah, but the probability of my having been born (note the past tense) is ONE.

You're just being an unbelievable idiot! How the hell can it be one??? Suppose the sperm that turned out to be you was ejaculated during a wank? Or suppose your parents had never met. Please don't be so unbelievably stupid. I really can't be bothered with such nonsense.

The thing about probability is that it's an attempt to quantify predictions of future events based on imperfect knowledge.

I predict that a plague of fruit flies will descend on II's head next Wednesday at 6:04:57 pm.

Now, we might all estimate (and that's all we can do) the probability of that happening as being pretty low. But if it does indeed happen, we can look back on the causal chain of events that led up to it and see that it had a probability of 1, because:

1) there was a swarm of fruit flies in II's front yard that had been attracted by something falling off the the trash collector's truck (and take that chain of causality back to the Big Bang if you want) and;
2) II had gone off his medication and decided he needed to rub banana puree in his hair (take that causality chain back, too), and;
3) II heard a bunch of motorcycles raor by his house with sirens wailing and lights flashing and decided to go out and see what the hubub was about, and;
4) II tripped over the trash that the fruit flies were enjoying.

Do we think such a scenario is unlikely in the extreme? Of course. But once it happens, do we acknowledge that the chain of events was inevitable? Yes, we do.

No, you're assuming determinism. We know that determinism is false.

Was II's birth unlikely? No. It was certain. we know that because it happened.

Is throwing 3 sixes on 3 dice unlikely? NO, because I just threw them and it happened! :eek: :rolleyes:

Why the hell am I continuing to contribute to this thread??

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 07:37 AM

Ian said:
Not in my belief system. I hold that the self is eternal. It never came into being.
Whew! That's handy.

It's impossible that my physical body came into being??
Yes, according to the same logic you have been using throughout this thread. Just because you remove your self into another realm does not solve your purported problem of why your body happens to be the way it is.

It's a 2 way process. The self modifies brain states, and brain states modify mind states. So obviously with each mental event there will be a brain event.
Yes, but you had to be born with a brain that could correlate with your eternal self, and that brain is dependent on your genome.

Of course under my belief system that other sperm would still be me. But you can't hold that.
But your body wouldn't work with your eternal self then, unless your eternal self is more or less infinitely pliable, in which case "eternal self" seems like a misnomer. The tail is wagging the dog.

This is sheer nonsense. Why must I be someone?? Why is it not possible that I was never born?? Only a very small percentage of possible genomes will ever come into existence. Therefore the vast majority of possible people will never come into existence.
True, but that is a different question. You were not asking why you were born, but why you have the genome you do.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by SGT
It's impossible that my physical body came into being??

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

Of course it is not impossible, since you exist.

I think he was saying that it's impossible for my physical body to come into existence assuming the correctness of my metaphysic.

It is you that claimed about the tiny probability of you being born. Everyone else is saying you that this probability is one. [/B]

This is just completely confused. The discussion was about my metaphysic, and my physical body, not my self. Please do try and keep up.

And anyone who holds that it was certain that I would be born, and who are materialists, are just unbelievably stupid. Suppose your parents had never met??

Think man for Christ's sake!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 07:43 AM

Ian said:
I am *NOT* amazed. I'm saying that materialists ought to be astounded that they exist.
Why? Just because the a priori probability of any given genome is so low? I would only be astounded if I thought there was anything special about my genome relative to any other, but I do not.

You, however, do, for some reason that I cannot fathom.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
Not in my belief system. I hold that the self is eternal. It never came into being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whew! That's handy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's impossible that my physical body came into being??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, according to the same logic you have been using throughout this thread. Just because you remove your self into another realm does not solve your purported problem of why your body happens to be the way it is.

Well, I have to be born with some body. It might as well be this one as any other. But we can't say, well I had to be born with some self. This is a confusion, because *I am* my self (by definition). This is eseentially the mistake everyone is making.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 07:49 AM

Ian said:
And anyone who holds that it was certain that I would be born, and who are materialists, are just unbelievably stupid. Suppose your parents had never met?
Come on. This is just a confusion between a priori and a posteriori probabilities.

The a priori probability of a given genome arising is vanishingly small.

The a priori probability of some genome arising varies depending on how far back you go, but it you talk about two people having successful sex, then it is 1.

Thus, the a posteriori probability of Ian's genome existing is 1.

In the context of materialism, Ian appears to be amazed that his genome exists. He need not be, because it was not specified a priori.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 07:53 AM

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a 2 way process. The self modifies brain states, and brain states modify mind states. So obviously with each mental event there will be a brain event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agnostopoulos
Yes, but you had to be born with a brain that could correlate with your eternal self, and that brain is dependent on your genome.

Yes . .umm . .so what's the problem? BTW I presume that any brain could in principle corrleate with my self if my self were "filtered" through it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course under my belief system that other sperm would still be me. But you can't hold that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But your body wouldn't work with your eternal self then, unless your eternal self is more or less infinitely pliable, in which case "eternal self" seems like a misnomer. The tail is wagging the dog.

Huh?? Are you saying that my self couldn't operate through a different body? You know I don't believe that.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 07:54 AM

Ian said:
Well, I have to be born with some body. It might as well be this one as any other. But we can't say, well I had to be born with some self. This is a confusion, because *I am* my self (by definition). This is eseentially the mistake everyone is making.
It is only you making this a confusion. My self is my body/brain, so I might as well be me as any other.

Even in your metaphysic, you could simply say that each self arises when a person is born, or perhaps is carried over during reincarnation. You could say that the characteristics of that self were determined in any old way you care to devise. You could then be amazed that any a priori given self should exist. So what?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 07:58 AM

Ian said:
Huh?? Are you saying that my self couldn't operate through a different body? You know I don't believe that.
Then the tail is wagging the dog. If your self can adapt to any given genome, there is nothing eternally constant about it.

But let's say we don't care about that. You have begged the question by postulating that a set of selves exist eternally, never having come into existence. Fair enough. That does solve the problem you think exists with materialism. The only issue, then, is that it's not a problem for materialism, because materialism does not hold that my genome was specified a priori.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
And anyone who holds that it was certain that I would be born, and who are materialists, are just unbelievably stupid. Suppose your parents had never met?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on. This is just a confusion between a priori and a posteriori probabilities.

Well I suppose some progress is being made because you are definitely using the sense of a priori and a posteriori probabilities differently from me. I'm supposing that a priori probability means working out the probability of something prior to any experience of said events or of similar events; a posteriori probability means working out the probability of some
future event based on previous acquaintance of similar events and the probabilities thereby observed. I have no idea what you and others mean by a priori and a posteriori probabilities.

The a priori probability of a given genome arising is vanishingly small.

I think you mean by a priori probability what I believe to be a posteriori probability. But this is simply a reflection of my belief that all probability is a posteriori. There is no such thing as a priori probability (my definition).

The a priori probability of some genome arising varies depending on how far back you go, but it you talk about two people having successful sex, then it is 1.

Thus, the a posteriori probability of Ian's genome existing is 1.

I have no idea what could be meant by your use of the phrase "a posteriori probability" being 1. How can you talk about the probability of a past event?? How could it be less than 1?? And what the hell has any of this got to do with my original question?? I was asking the probability as understood in the normal standard sense. I do not understand this notion of probability that you and others are talking about. Again I ask you how you can talk about the probability of an event that has already happened, and what the hell it has to do with my original question???

In the context of materialism, Ian appears to be amazed that his genome exists. He need not be, because it was not specified a priori.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

BPSCG

23rd July 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're just being an unbelievable idiot!Wipe the spittle off your mouth; you really need to get a grip on yourself.

One thing I've learned from hanging around the forums here is that there are a hell of a lot of people here who are very intelligent, educated, and articulate. I like to think I do pretty well in all three of those categories, but I know there are a great many people here who can beat me in any of them, and probably quite a few who can beat me in all of them. I'd be surprised if you could find as well-educated and intelligent a group anywhere outside a Mensa forum.

If you can't make these people understand what you're talking about, believe me when I tell you it's not because they are stupid, and cursing them is not going to make them see the error of their ways ("Now I understand! He called me a #&*!#%^!! and the scales have fallen from my eyes! Hallelujah!"). They are not understanding you because 1) you are not explaining things clearly enough, or 2) your arguments are untenable.

Every now and then I see something in what you're writing that I'd like to latch on to and ask if perhaps this is what you're talking about (the eternal-ness of the self, for example; if you're saying that there is only one, universal, eternal mind, and that your corporeal body is somehow a temporary physical attribute of the universe that includes that mind, you're in good company - read up on Spinoza sometime - though Spinoza was a pure determinist, which would obviously infuriate you).

But I have no interest in discussing ideas with someone who's clutching angrily at my lapels screaming imprecations into my face.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
Well, I have to be born with some body. It might as well be this one as any other. But we can't say, well I had to be born with some self. This is a confusion, because *I am* my self (by definition). This is eseentially the mistake everyone is making.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is only you making this a confusion.

I'm not making that confusion at all. You're got to be kidding! It's a confusion that an average 5 year old should be able to avoid. Not the dumbContent removed for violation of Rule 8 on this thread it would seem though :rolleyes:

My self is my body/brain, so I might as well be me as any other.

What does this mean?? I and me both are the self. So you're saying I might as well be I as not being I. But this is simply nonsensical!

Ian, you're making it difficult for me to argue against your suspension. Please chill.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 08:16 AM

Ian said:
Well I suppose some progress is being made because you are definitely using the sense of a priori and a posteriori probabilities differently from me. I'm supposing that a priori probability means working out the probability of something prior to any experience of said events or of similar events; a posteriori probability means working out the probability of some
future event based on previous acquaintance of similar events and the probabilities thereby observed. I have no idea what you and others mean by a priori and a posteriori probabilities.
I have no idea whether I'm using official probability terms or not. However, a posteriori means "related to observed facts," so I think it's fair to use the term to discuss the probabiliity of an event that has occured. That probability is 1.

I have no idea what this sentence means.
The sentence was:
In the context of materialism, Ian appears to be amazed that his genome exists. He need not be, because it was not specified a priori.
If someone had specified your genome before you were born (a priori) and requested a couple of parents to have said child, then your existence would be pretty amazing. Your probability of existing, relative to the specification, would be vanishingly small. But this is not what happened. There was no a priori specification of your genome. There is nothing special about it.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
Huh?? Are you saying that my self couldn't operate through a different body? You know I don't believe that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then the tail is wagging the dog. If your self can adapt to any given genome, there is nothing eternally constant about it.

Huh??? Love to hear you justify that one! :eek:

But let's say we don't care about that. You have begged the question by postulating that a set of selves exist eternally, never having come into existence. Fair enough.

I've begged what question?? This is what I believe :eek:

That does solve the problem you think exists with materialism. The only issue, then, is that it's not a problem for materialism, because materialism does not hold that my genome was specified a priori.

I don't understand what you're talking about. What does genome specified a priori mean? What would it mean to be specified a posteriori?? I have no idea how you're using the terms a priori and a posteriori. I'm beginning to suspect no one on here understands these terms apart from me.

Michael Redman

23rd July 2004, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm beginning to suspect no one on here understands these terms apart from me. This should be an opportune moment to consider Occam's Razor.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 08:28 AM

Ian said:
Huh??? Love to hear you justify that one!
Sounds to me like my physical body is the master, forcing my self to adapt to it. Seems like the tail wagging the dog. But, as I said, let's forget about that. Perhaps you think the self intervenes in the process of genome formation and directs things a certain way.

I've begged what question?? This is what I believe.
You've begged the question of how the characteristics of your self are selected, by postulating that there is a big collection of pre-existing selves whose characteristics are acausal. That's fine, I can live with that.

I don't understand what you're talking about. What does genome specified a priori mean? What would it mean to be specified a posteriori?? I have no idea how you're using the terms a priori and a posteriori. I'm beginning to suspect no one on here understands these terms apart from me.
See my previous post.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Wipe the spittle off your mouth; you really need to get a grip on yourself.

One thing I've learned from hanging around the forums here is that there are a hell of a lot of people here who are very intelligent, educated, and articulate.

Now you really are truly taking the piss. I've made approximately 9600 posts on here in 2 years 3 months. The stupidity of the majority of people on here is truly astounding! :eek:

I like to think I do pretty well in all three of those categories, but I know there are a great many people here who can beat me in any of them, and probably quite a few who can beat me in all of them. I'd be surprised if you could find as well-educated and intelligent a group anywhere outside a Mensa forum.

Ummm yeah. Witness there contention that the probability of a person being born is 1 :rolleyes: One merely has to suppose that that person's parents had never met to realise it cannot possibly be 1. :rolleyes:

If you can't make these people understand what you're talking about, believe me when I tell you it's not because they are stupid,

They are either stupid or deliberately being obstreperous. I do not believe that by any stretch of the imagination they could be deemed to be intelligent. The one reservation I would have is that a lot of them appear to be much more intelligent than the average person outside the subjects which I normally discuss on here. I confess I find that perplexing. The poster called Amateur Scientist for example. His stupidity is unbelievable when it comes to discussing metaphysics, but in other subjects he is extremely intelligent. Perplexing indeed. And I am constantly aware of the danger of thinking that people are intelligent or stupid depending on whether I agree with them. I endeavour to avoid that trap.

and cursing them is not going to make them see the error of their ways

Yeah, but it might piss them off. That's all I can hope to achieve.

("Now I understand! He called me a #&*!#%^!! and the scales have fallen from my eyes! Hallelujah!"). They are not understanding you because 1) you are not explaining things clearly enough, or 2) your arguments are untenable.

I agree my explanations might be far from perfect. This is due to past experience. When I explain things slowly and carefully, these dumbContent removed for violation of Rule 8 still fail to understand, I just cannot be ar*ed with it any longer.

But I have no interest in discussing ideas with someone who's clutching angrily at my lapels screaming imprecations into my face.

Then put me on ignore, or at least stop addressing me.

In fact stop reading my posts!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 08:40 AM

Ian, I agree that the terms a priori and a posteriori are confusing when related to probability. I think you are arguing that an a priori probability is one calculated without any experience in the domain, while an a posteriori probability is calculated after some experience.

I'll stop using the terms in favor of other ways of speaking.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[Ian said:
Huh??? Love to hear you justify that one!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds to me like my physical body is the master, forcing my self to adapt to it.

Forcing my self to adapt to it?? You mean it has some influence in determining mind states? So what? How does this entail I couldn't operate through a different body? Sure, if my self operated through a 21 year old woman's body, my mind states would tend to be characteristically unlike they are now, but it would still be me. What on earth is the difficulty here??

Seems like the tail wagging the dog. But, as I said, let's forget about that. Perhaps you think the self intervenes in the process of genome formation and directs things a certain way.

I have no idea. That's something which it would a priori be difficult to judge. It would need to be investigated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've begged what question?? This is what I believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've begged the question of how the characteristics of your self are selected, by postulating that there is a big collection of pre-existing selves whose characteristics are acausal. That's fine, I can live with that.

The characteristics of my self have not been selected, or if you like I select them myself. We all determine what we are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand what you're talking about. What does genome specified a priori mean? What would it mean to be specified a posteriori?? I have no idea how you're using the terms a priori and a posteriori. I'm beginning to suspect no one on here understands these terms apart from me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See my previous post.

Ummm . .I can't recall you explaining and I believe I've addressed your previous posts.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian, I agree that the terms a priori and a posteriori are confusing when related to probability. I think you are arguing that an a priori probability is one calculated without any experience in the doman, while an a posteriori probability is calculated after some experience.

I'll stop using the terms in favor of other ways of speaking.

~~ Paul

Good. Yes, a priori meaning basically working something out prior to any experience. A posteriori using experience as a guidance to working something out. I have no idea how the people on here are using these terms though. I guess I should ask Dr Kitten since he introduced them in the novel usage in which people are employing them on here.

SGT

23rd July 2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian, I agree that the terms a priori and a posteriori are confusing when related to probability. I think you are arguing that an a priori probability is one calculated without any experience in the doman, while an a posteriori probability is calculated after some experience.

I'll stop using the terms in favor of other ways of speaking.

~~ Paul

There is not confusing about a priori and a posteriori probabilities. These expressions are well defined. See http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~bmb/Courses/PSY207/Notes/Probability.pdf for the definitions.
The fact that II is unable to understand the definitions does not make them ambiguous, it only makes him a moron.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by An Infinite Ocean
[B]In what way is it extraordinarily unlikely, though?

My parents would need to have met up. Their parents would need to have met up etc etc . .right back to the beginning of life on earth. Then a particular sperm has to fertilise a particular egg. If you don't think that's unlikely then there's nothing I can say.

I've followed the thread, but I still don't really see the problem that this causes for materialists. The chances of you specifically being born were small perhaps, but on the other hand, the chances of someone being born were astronomically high. Maybe I'm just one of the thick *********, but I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make.

Yes, but why is that someone you, and not any of the other googleplex (or whatever) of other potential people??

Number Six

23rd July 2004, 09:12 AM

The probability of any event happening that has already happened is 1.

OTOH, we can look at any event that has already happened and say "Suppose it was 1000 years before that event happened and you wanted to know the probability that it would happen. It would be small."

Yes, of course. The probabilitiy of any specific event is small but the probability that _some_ event will happen that we can later point to and say "What is the probability that that would have happened?" is large. SOMETHING _has_ to happen.

Given (for example) that it was 100 years ago and Ian's parents hadn't yet been born, the probability of him being able to ask the question is very small. But the probability that someone would be able to ask the question is large.

Suppose you are going to be dealt five hands of poker. This would only take a couple minutes so it's not a way in the future thing. Afterwards you are asked "What are the chances you would have been dealt the five hands that you were just dealt (given that you were going to play the five hands I mean).

Well the answer is approximately 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So should we conclude that an incredibly amazing event had just occurred? No. Something _had_ to happen. And whatever it was we could have pointed to and said "Amazing." But instead it's just data mining.

Number Six

23rd July 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My parents would need to have met up. Their parents would need to have met up etc etc . .right back to the beginning of life on earth. Then a particular sperm has to fertilise a particular egg. If you don't think that's unlikely then there's nothing I can say.

Yes, but why is that someone you, and not any of the other googleplex (or whatever) of other potential people??

The question of why it was him that was born instead of someone else is an interesting question but a different one from the "What are the chances you'd be born?" question. Someone was going to be born so that's not amazing. Why is was him...well, you could say because of Events A and B and C, etc. You could list them. But you could do that for no matter who was born so the events themselves aren't miraculous since the probability of them occurring is high.

Consider a one time sex deal that will end up in pregnancy. After the birth we could point at the child and say "What were the odds, given that the folks were going to have sex, that this kid would result? It's one in several million...think of all the other sperm it could have been instead." But you could say the exact same thing about ANY baby that resulted. It's not amazing, it's inievitable.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by SGT
There is not confusing about a priori and a posteriori probabilities.

There is in the way people have been employing them.

These expressions are well defined.

Are you saying they have a differing meaning than that suggested by the constituent words??

See http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~bmb/Courses/PSY207/Notes/Probability.pdf for the definitions.

Can't get it. Not that I can be arsed to read a link anyway. If people are using a combination of words which have a differing meaning suggested by the constituent words, then they should specify that they are/. I am not a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 mind reading. O Content removed for violation of Rule 8 K????

The fact that II is unable to understand the definitions

Hey! How the Content removed for violation of Rule 8 would you know I understand the definitions or not since I have never come across any such definitions. Are you out of your Content removed for violation of Rule 8 mental retarded skull???

does not make them ambiguous, it only makes him a moron.

Piss off scumbag.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Number Six
[B]The probability of any event happening that has already happened is 1.

No, it's nonsensical to talk about probability in that context.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Number Six
The probability of any event happening that has already happened is 1.

OTOH, we can look at any event that has already happened and say "Suppose it was 1000 years before that event happened and you wanted to know the probability that it would happen. It would be small."

Yes, of course. The probabilitiy of any specific event is small but the probability that _some_ event will happen that we can later point to and say "What is the probability that that would have happened?" is large. SOMETHING _has_ to happen.

Given (for example) that it was 100 years ago and Ian's parents hadn't yet been born, the probability of him being able to ask the question is very small. But the probability that someone would be able to ask the question is large.

Suppose you are going to be dealt five hands of poker. This would only take a couple minutes so it's not a way in the future thing. Afterwards you are asked "What are the chances you would have been dealt the five hands that you were just dealt (given that you were going to play the five hands I mean).

Well the answer is approximately 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So should we conclude that an incredibly amazing event had just occurred? No. Something _had_ to happen. And whatever it was we could have pointed to and said "Amazing." But instead it's just data mining.

Excuse me?? What have you said which has not already been said by about 20 different people on here already?? And which I've already explained is wholly irrelevant about 20 different times??

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Number Six
The question of why it was him that was born instead of someone else is an interesting question but a different one from the "What are the chances you'd be born?" question.

No it isn't.

Someone was going to be born so that's not amazing. Why is was him...well, you could say because of Events A and B and C, etc. You could list them. But you could do that for no matter who was born so the events themselves aren't miraculous since the probability of them occurring is high.

Introducing determinism is irrelevant and just serves to confuse. Even if determinism is true - which it isn't - it doesn't get to the nitty gritty.

Consider a one time sex deal that will end up in pregnancy. After the birth we could point at the child and say "What were the odds, given that the folks were going to have sex, that this kid would result? It's one in several million...think of all the other sperm it could have been instead." But you could say the exact same thing about ANY baby that resulted. It's not amazing, it's inievitable.

Again I have addressed this time after time after time in this thread. You're missing the point like everyone else.

BillyJoe

23rd July 2004, 09:34 AM

BPSCG,

Originally posted by BPSCG
Now my question is (and I think it's only slightly tangential to this discussion), why is the consciousness that is aware of the world through the senses of my body associated with my body and not someone else's? How come I'm me, and I'm not you?
It's because *you* are an illusion produced by a particular brain (the one ensconced inside that particular cranium attached to that particular body sitting in front of that particular monitor displaying this thread of the JREF forum.)
That particular brain does not belong to you, *you* are a property of that particular brain. *you* can't help but be there.

If that particular brain was duplicated to produce two identical brains, which one are you? Well, the question does not apply. In fact there are two identical (but not the same) brains which produce two identical (but not the same) selves. That is all.

Both selves would (feel themselves to) be *you*. Which is not to say, of course, that you would (feel yourself to) be in both brains simultaneously. If the original brain was destroyed in the duplication process, (the self we are referring to as) *you*, would have continuity in the duplicate brain. Just like if there was no duplication, (the self we are referring to as) *you* would have continuity in the original brain. If both brains survived, (the self we are referring to as) *you*, would have continuity in both brains.
Think about it, it makes perfect sense. You just have to stop thinking about you as occupying a brain rather than a brain producing *you*.

And, of course *you* cannot be *Ian* (for example) because *Ian* is a property of another brain entirely.

BillyJoe

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 09:38 AM

Ian said:
Forcing my self to adapt to it?? You mean it has some influence in determining mind states? So what? How does this entail I couldn't operate through a different body? Sure, if my self operated through a 21 year old woman's body, my mind states would tend to be characteristically unlike they are now, but it would still be me. What on earth is the difficulty here??
I agree that you could operate through a different body, but this requires your self to be flexible. Given that, I'm not sure what it is about your self that is constant. Why would it still be you if it adapted to a different body?

Ummm . .I can't recall you explaining and I believe I've addressed your previous posts.
Here is my explanation:

If someone had specified your genome before you were born (a priori) and requested a couple of parents to have said child, then your existence would be pretty amazing. Your probability of existing, relative to the specification, would be vanishingly small. But this is not what happened. There was no a priori specification of your genome. There is nothing special about it.

SGT said:
There is not confusing about a priori and a posteriori probabilities. These expressions are well defined. See http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~bmb/Co...Probability.pdf for the definitions.
Thanks for those definitions, SGT. Given the definition of a posteriori probability, the question of whether Ian's existence has probability 1 or not depends on how we define "Total Number Occurences."

Ian said:
My parents would need to have met up. Their parents would need to have met up etc etc . .right back to the beginning of life on earth. Then a particular sperm has to fertilise a particular egg. If you don't think that's unlikely then there's nothing I can say.
You are using the wrong tense, Ian. Your parents did meet up, and so did their parents. The only interesting thing is if someone had specified, before any of this occured, that this precise sequence of events should happen.

You can get a measure of your uniqueness by calculating the total number of potential people that could have been born, but that is not the same thing.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by richardm
Well, that's the last time I try to offer support to Interesting Ian - assuming that his language and attitude doesn't get him banned.

Don't know what your problem is. You're one of the few people on here who I really like. But I'll still argue against people whether I like them or not. {shrugs} Please yourself

Michael Redman

23rd July 2004, 09:44 AM

OK, Ian, we have the above example of an extremely improbably set of card hands which nevertheless has been dealt. We have concluded that the occurance of that particular series of card hands is not significant.

You have your own extremely improbably set of circumstances leading to your birth. You don't agree that the occurance of that particular series of events is insignificant, and claim the analogy of the card hands is not valid.

Can you explain what you're getting at? Why aren't you just another improbable deal of the cards? What is it about you that makes the materialistic explanation unsatisfactory for you, but fine for the cards? I think this is the thing no one is getting. I certainly am not.

Lothian

23rd July 2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think I'm wasting my time here. Everyone is just making the same error. Ian,

the chances of you being right and everyone else being wrong creates what I am going to call the II paradox.

Assume you are right. The odds of you being right and everyone else wrong is so small that you would argue it is zero, impossible, Therefore you can’t be right. QED.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
[B]BPSCG,

It's because *you* are an illusion produced by a particular brain (the one ensconced inside that particular cranium attached to that particular body sitting in front of that particular monitor displaying this thread of the JREF forum.)
That particular brain does not belong to you, *you* are a property of that particular brain. *you* can't help but be there.

Yes excellent. Nice to have someone intelligent to contribute to this discussion. Of course I don't agree with you, but I agree this is what the materialist must hold :) The *I* is an illusion. But if you say consciousness is an illusion, I would say that even a materialist cannot hold this. The materialist holds there are conscious states, and the "I" which has these conscious states is umm . .a fabrication.

CFLarsen

23rd July 2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Assume you are right. The odds of you being right and everyone else wrong is so small that you would argue it is zero, impossible, Therefore you can’t be right. QED.

Hehehehe......

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Ian,

the chances of you being right and everyone else being wrong creates what I am going to call the II paradox.

Assume you are right. The odds of you being right and everyone else wrong is so small that you would argue it is zero, impossible, Therefore you can’t be right. QED.

Ah, the popularity logical fallacy.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 09:58 AM

Ian said:
Yes excellent. Nice to have someone intelligent to contribute to this discussion. Of course I don't agree with you, but I agree this is what the materialist must hold The *I* is an illusion. But if you say consciousness is an illusion, I would say that even a materialist cannot hold this. The materialist holds there are conscious states, and the "I" which has these conscious states is umm . .a fabrication.
Yes, and the problem with that is what?

I suspect there could be a type of brain damage that would disassociate individual conscious experiences from the overall feeling of me-ness. For example, there is a type of brain damage that disrupts inner speech. Perhaps these people, though experiencing specific conscious events, lose their feeling of self to some degree.

~~ Paul

richardm

23rd July 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Don't know what your problem is. You're one of the few people on here who I really like. But I'll still argue against people whether I like them or not. {shrugs} Please yourself

Well, thanks. But I was a bit miffed at having my head bitten off :(

SGT

23rd July 2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There is in the way people have been employing them.

Are you saying they have a differing meaning than that suggested by the constituent words??

Scientific terminology is very well defined. If you don't like the way Science defines its terms you should not use them. Probability is a scientific discipline. You used it first. So you must use the terms of probability with the meaning they were defined by the theory.

Can't get it. Not that I can be arsed to read a link anyway. If people are using a combination of words which have a differing meaning suggested by the constituent words, then they should specify that they are/. I am not a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 mind reading. O Content removed for violation of Rule 8 K????

Hey! How the Content removed for violation of Rule 8 would you know I understand the definitions or not since I have never come across any such definitions. Are you out of your Content removed for violation of Rule 8 mental retarded skull???

Piss off scumbag.

The link I proposed is from part of a course in statistics from the University at Buffalo. I thought you were too lazy to search for a text in probability theory, but you are too lazy even to read something that is proposed to you. Read the definitions instead of saying you never came across them.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
OK, Ian, we have the above example of an extremely improbably set of card hands which nevertheless has been dealt. We have concluded that the occurance of that particular series of card hands is not significant.

You have your own extremely improbably set of circumstances leading to your birth. You don't agree that the occurance of that particular series of events is insignificant, and claim the analogy of the card hands is not valid.

Can you explain what you're getting at? Why aren't you just another improbable deal of the cards? What is it about you that makes the materialistic explanation unsatisfactory for you, but fine for the cards? I think this is the thing no one is getting. I certainly am not.

No-one disputes that some particular 6.3 billion people have to be born. And of course this particular 6.3 billion people out of all possible people (maybe a googleplex of them) is no more surprising that if it were any other mix of 6.3 billion people.

Moreover, whoever gets born can always think "gosh, I exist! Aren't I incredibly lucky. The overwhelming probability is that I would never have come into existence!"

So I think we're all in agreement that from the third person perspective it is not surprising that any individual is born, anymore than a random hand of bridge is (even though the probability of that hand is astoundingly low ie a low a priori probability).

The difference between hands of bridge and being born is that no one hand of bridge is special in a qualitatively differing way from all other hands of bridge. Yes of course there are cr@p hands of bridge (like 9 high), or excellent hands of bridge ( 26 points and a 8 suiter!). But no one hand of bridge is qualitatively different in kind. As we might say, "a bridge hand is just a bridge hand is just a bridge hand"!

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??

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by richardm
Well, thanks. But I was a bit miffed at having my head bitten off :(

It's more like swearing in a pub conversation. You know, to convey increduality rather than aggression.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 10:12 AM

Ian said:
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??
Nope, not at all. But if you could make us see, we might get somewhere. Forget about materialism. Explain how this is interesting in your metaphysic.

~~ Paul

BillyJoe

23rd July 2004, 10:14 AM

Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
....But if you say consciousness is an illusion, I would say that even a materialist cannot hold this. The materialist holds there are conscious states, and the "I" which has these conscious states is umm . .a fabrication. Fabrication is not the same as illusion. The illusion (of consciousness, of self) is that there is an entity occupying the brain; a conscious self occupying and using the brain. In fact, according to materialism, this is an illusion, consciousnes and self are produced by the brain; are a property of the brain. 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.

BillyJoe

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
[B]Ian,

Fabrication is not the same as illusion.

I'm using it in the same sense as "illusion", but I'm unhappy about using that word "illusion".

The illusion (of consciousness, of self)

Consciousness does not mean the same as self.

BPSCG

23rd July 2004, 10:33 AM

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.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.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by SGT
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There is in the way people have been employing them.

Are you saying they have a differing meaning than that suggested by the constituent words??

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

Scientific terminology is very well defined. If you don't like the way Science defines its terms you should not use them.

I'm not. Why should I think that a posteriri probability means anything different apart from the meaning conveyed by its constituent words?? One presumes a string of words means what is conveyed by the individual words constiting that string, unless one is informed otherwise.

Moreover, it is highly inadvisable that scientists and mathematicians hijack the meanings of common words or strings of words. I still feel pissed off that homosexuals have hijacked the word "gay" to describe their own sexual orientation.

Lastly I did not use them first. Someone else used them. Obviously I assumed they were using standard English. Thus a priori probability would refer to working out probabilities prior to experience, and a posteriori probability would mean working out probabilities post experience. In this sense my contention would be that all probability is a posteriori.

Probability is a scientific discipline. You used it first. So you must use the terms of probability with the meaning they were defined by the theory.

Fine, perhaps if I used the word "chance" instead, that would be more appropriate? I tend to treat the terms probability and chance as synonyms.

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

Can't get it. Not that I can be arsed to read a link anyway. If people are using a combination of words which have a differing meaning suggested by the constituent words, then they should specify that they are/. I am not a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 mind reading. O Content removed for violation of Rule 8 K????

Hey! How the Content removed for violation of Rule 8 would you know I understand the definitions or not since I have never come across any such definitions. Are you out of your Content removed for violation of Rule 8 mental retarded skull???

Piss off scumbag.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The link I proposed is from part of a course in statistics from the University at Buffalo. I thought you were too lazy to search for a text in probability theory, but you are too lazy even to read something that is proposed to you.

Why should I read it when I have zero interest??

Read the definitions instead of saying you never came across them.

Can't get the link anyway, it's my Content removed for violation of Rule 8 isp.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by 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.

The self is the *I*, the you. It is what you are. According to materialists it doesn't exist :eek:

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Yes, and the problem with that is what?

I suspect there could be a type of brain damage that would disassociate individual conscious experiences from the overall feeling of me-ness. For example, there is a type of brain damage that disrupts inner speech. Perhaps these people, though experiencing specific conscious events, lose their feeling of self to some degree.

~~ Paul

Well I doubt it.

Michael Redman

23rd July 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
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?? I may glimpse a shadow, but I don't see the object.

I believe you are saying that a person's self awareness, or identity, or soul, or self, or whatever, makes us unique in a way that a series of bridge hands is not unique. And, the existance of that uniqueness can not be explained as the result of probability the way a string of improabaly card hands can be explained. Am I getting anywhere here?

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[Ian said:
Forcing my self to adapt to it?? You mean it has some influence in determining mind states? So what? How does this entail I couldn't operate through a different body? Sure, if my self operated through a 21 year old woman's body, my mind states would tend to be characteristically unlike they are now, but it would still be me. What on earth is the difficulty here??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that you could operate through a different body, but this requires your self to be flexible. Given that, I'm not sure what it is about your self that is constant. Why would it still be you if it adapted to a different body?

There seems to be a confusion here. It seems to me you're identifying the self with mind states. I know this is what the materialist has to hold, but you do know that I don't, don't you? If my self operated through a 21 year old woman, I would have differing mind states, but the same self.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ummm . .I can't recall you explaining and I believe I've addressed your previous posts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my explanation:

If someone had specified your genome before you were born (a priori) and requested a couple of parents to have said child, then your existence would be pretty amazing. Your probability of existing, relative to the specification, would be vanishingly small. But this is not what happened. There was no a priori specification of your genome. There is nothing special about it.

Well, you've read my refutation of this.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian said:
My parents would need to have met up. Their parents would need to have met up etc etc . .right back to the beginning of life on earth. Then a particular sperm has to fertilise a particular egg. If you don't think that's unlikely then there's nothing I can say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are using the wrong tense, Ian. Your parents did meet up, and so did their parents.

Yes, and this was extraordinarily fortuitous for my coming into existence (assuming materialism). It might easily not have occurred. Saying "ah yes but it did occur" is neither here nor there. We're reflecting on why it did occur.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 10:53 AM

Ian said:
I'm not. Why should I think that a posteriri probability means anything different apart from the meaning conveyed by its constituent words?? One presumes a string of words means what is conveyed by the individual words constiting that string, unless one is informed otherwise.

Moreover, it is highly inadvisable that scientists and mathematicians hijack the meanings of common words or strings of words. I still feel pissed off that homosexuals have hijacked the word "gay" to describe their own sexual orientation.
Cripe-a-doodles. The terms probably mean what you think they ought to mean:

a priori probability(A) = (number of outcomes classifiable as A) / (total number of possible outcomes)

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

The self is the *I*, the you. It is what you are. According to materialists it doesn't exist.
This is not a useful definition, since it is essentially self-referential.

There seems to be a confusion here. It seems to me you're identifying the self with mind states. I know this is what the materialist has to hold, but you do know that I don't, don't you? If my self operated through a 21 year old woman, I would have differing mind states, but the same self.
Can't be that simple, since you said that the brain affects the self.

~~ Paul

Mercutio

23rd July 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I am *NOT* amazed. I'm saying that materialists ought to be astounded that they exist.

"So remember you feeling very small and insecure and how amazingly unlikely was your birth. Just hope that theres intelligent life somewhere out in space. 'Cause there's bugger all down her on Earth!" Monty Python, The Galaxy Song

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I may glimpse a shadow, but I don't see the object.

I believe you are saying that a person's self awareness, or identity, or soul, or self, or whatever, makes us unique in a way that a series of bridge hands is not unique. And, the existance of that uniqueness can not be explained as the result of probability the way a string of improabaly card hands can be explained. Am I getting anywhere here?

I think so. There is something like it to be me. Certain physical processes are identical or give rise to a stream of consciousness which I regard as "me". Any other physical processes would not be "me" but someone else. That someone else could also marvel at the fact he has come into existence. But *I* would not have existed. It would be someone else existing.

So the fact that *I* find myself existing is absolutely extraordinary. Of course, if another sperm had made the journey instead of mine, then this son of my parents would be saying the same thing.

But this just means that from the 3rd person perspective it is not extraordinary (because you cannot distinguish me saying "Wow I'm alive" to that other peson saying this, should he have come into being rather than me).

But from my perspective it is extraordinary. It's not really a relevance to say I could only say "Wow I'm alive" by virtue of the fact I'm alive. Refer back to my kidnapping example.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 11:00 AM

Ian said:
Well I doubt it [that the sense of self can disappear].
Here you go:

http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2003/10/29/ecfme29.xml&sSheet=/connected/2003/10/29/ixconn.html

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
I'm not. Why should I think that a posteriri probability means anything different apart from the meaning conveyed by its constituent words?? One presumes a string of words means what is conveyed by the individual words constiting that string, unless one is informed otherwise.

Moreover, it is highly inadvisable that scientists and mathematicians hijack the meanings of common words or strings of words. I still feel pissed off that homosexuals have hijacked the word "gay" to describe their own sexual orientation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cripe-a-doodles. The terms probably mean what you think they ought to mean:

a priori probability(A) = (number of outcomes classifiable as A) / (total number of possible outcomes)

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

Huh?? This is just ridiculous. Why the Content removed for violation of Rule 8 don't mathematicians make up their own words for their definitions??? No wonder there is so much confusion here!

You can be sure that when I say something like a posteriori probability, I'm referring to probabilities based on experience (as opposed to a priori). I refuse to alter my language just because ars*hole mathematicians decide to hijack the meanings of words. They can piss right off.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The self is the *I*, the you. It is what you are. According to materialists it doesn't exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not a useful definition, since it is essentially self-referential.

Can't help that. There is no other way to define it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be a confusion here. It seems to me you're identifying the self with mind states. I know this is what the materialist has to hold, but you do know that I don't, don't you? If my self operated through a 21 year old woman, I would have differing mind states, but the same self.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't be that simple, since you said that the brain affects the self.

Huh?? Where did I state this?? The brain affects mind states, not the self.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 11:22 AM

Ian said:
Huh?? This is just ridiculous. Why the f*ck don't mathematicians make up their own words for their definitions??? No wonder there is so much confusion here!

You can be sure that when I say something like a posteriori probability, I'm referring to probabilities based on experience (as opposed to a priori). I refuse to alter my language just because ars*hole mathematicians decide to hijack the meanings of words. They can piss right off.
What term would you suggest mathematicians use, then, for a posteriori probability?

The idea of an experience-free a priori probability is kind of odd, don't you think? How would I go about estimating the probability of something of which I have no experience?

Huh?? Where did I state this?? The brain affects mind states, not the self.
So I presume that the mind does not affect the self in turn? What is their relationship, then?

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Here you go:

http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2003/10/29/ecfme29.xml&sSheet=/connected/2003/10/29/ixconn.html

~~ Paul

From the article

Other forms of neurological disorder have an opposite effect, leaving memory more or less intact, but distorting the person, in essence. Driving home from work one night, Jeff was hit head-on by a car. I remember him on the ward, furiously wrenching his neck. "Get this head off me," he kept saying. "Get it off, it's the wrong one." The image haunts me. It contains a desolate truth. It was the wrong head.

The original housed the steady dispositions of a loving husband and father, the knowledge and skills of an educated man. His damaged brain is now a place where thoughts and urges roam untethered, provoking dark turns of mood and, sometimes, spiteful outpourings of abuse. "I tell myself it's not really Jeff," his wife says, but she stands by him out of the dutiful conviction that, at some level, it is really Jeff.

Descartes believed that our capacity for self-awareness was due to the possession of an immaterial soul. I have long since rejected this myth. (Are we to imagine a mutilation of Jeff's soul as well as his brain - and, if not, what does the pristine soul make of Jeff's disturbed behaviour?).

The guy's an idiot. There aren't 2 selves to each self. There isn't a soul self and a mind self. There is just one self, but a self which can feel differently depending on ones brain states.

I find it harder to shake off "the myth of the self", an inner "I" monitoring the screens of perception, orchestrating thoughts and actions. But neuroscience reveals that the mental processes underlying our sense of self - feelings, thoughts, memories - are scattered through different zones of the brain.

How can mental states have any location?? Ummm . .so neuroscience can reveal the impossible can it?? I rather think not.

There is no special point of convergence, no inner sanctum of the ego. And neurological case studies reveal "the self" to be multifaceted and fragile.

He'a a materialist. Materialist don't believe in a self. Certainly the notion of a self is outside the scope of science. He's talking about the sense of self, not the self (and of course the sense of self indisputably exists).

To paraphrase the science writer John McCrone, we are all just a stumble or a burst blood vessel away from being someone else.

WOW!! :eek: What a complete moron! In fact both of them :eek:

23rd July 2004, 11:33 AM

What were the chances of me being born? I mean assuming materialism is true.

A-HA!

So, initially, you want us to assume materialism is true. Therefore, according to our arguments, there is no problem that any given 'self' must exist, because self is the product of a particular brain constructed under a certain genetic code and influenced by environmental factors.

However, once the argument gets in-depth, you switch gears and take your metaphysics stance, which is that the self exists and the body/mind is only the channelling device used for self.

Though, even so, there's nothing amazing about you being you.

So by first telling us to assume materialism, and then arguing from your own metaphysic, you have in fact switched the playing field from croquette to rugby without warning.

Further, you attack the proper usage of the terms 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' yet yourself use phrases, such as 'pissed off' and 'ar$ed' in a slang context. This shows a hypocritical philosophy - that it's OK for you to misuse language, but not OK for others to use language in a sense you don't understand.

Now, I do follow that, according to your metaphysic, the 'self' which is you came to inhabit the body you are in now, and could have just as easily inhabited any of millions of bodies worldwide. Why did it choose to inhabit this body, in particular? Who knows. Perhaps for the sole purpose of being able to argue metaphysics against skeptics.

The biggest problem I have with the metaphysic you are espousing is really one of numbers. How many souls are there, do you believe? Do souls transmigrate between species? Could you have once been a duck, or an octopus, or even a rock?

Is the number of souls eternally fixed, or is there a means of creating new souls? If the number is fixed, have they been merely waiting for a time when there was a large enough population, or have they been patiently waiting for their turn up at bat?

What would happen if the total population reached the total number of souls?

Why does the soul contain no method of recollection, and no temporal sense? (By 'soul' I mean 'self', btw) Why is the sum total of recollection limited to the experiences of the body/brain itself?

Can the self leave one body and enter another, without death occuring? Or by usurping control from another soul?

Without knowing a great deal more about your metaphysic, I'm afraid I'm at a loss to even begin to discuss this with you. However, in regard to your original question, assuming materialism is true, there is nothing at all amazing that you were born. In fact, your metaphysic and materialism can AGREE that there is nothing special in your birth, since probabilities are the same either way. The only point they disagree on is that you seem to think the self is somehow immaterial.

Yet you can sense your 'self', and are able to communicate that sense to others; therefore, we all know you can sense your 'self', which is in keeping with our own sense of 'self'. Thus, 'self' appears to be quite material. It is, in fact, the sum total product of your sensory experiences and memory of prior sensory experiences, influenced by your genetics and the environment in which you exist. Change any one factor, and you become a different 'self'. Yes, it would still be 'you', provided you still started with the same sperm and egg cell; however, if any other sperm had reached your egg, you would be someone else entirely.

Another few questions regarding your metaphysic - at what point does the 'self' enter the body? How much actual influence does your sensory experience have on the 'self'?

Please, try answering my questions - I am REALLY grasping to try to understand your metaphysic here.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What term would you suggest mathematicians use, then, for a posteriori probability?

The idea of an experience-free a priori probability is kind of odd, don't you think? How would I go about estimating the probability of something of which I have no experience?

Imagine you just spontaneously sprang into being. You have no acquaintance with the world whatsoever. After a short while, after discovering that objects fall, you are presented with a coin. Now you have no experience of tossed coins. Tossed coins might land heads 75% of the time for all you know. But because it is perfectly symmetrical along the relevant axis, you might reason there is no reason for it to have a preference for either side. Therefore you might reason it will land on heads or tails equal numbers of times.

So I presume that the mind does not affect the self in turn? What is their relationship, then?

~~ Paul [/B]

The mind is just the limited self. The brain closes off certain possible experiences. It constrains the self to only experience this empirical reality.

23rd July 2004, 11:43 AM

BTW, Ian, you are most definitely a liar.

And I am constantly aware of the danger of thinking that people are intelligent or stupid depending on whether I agree with them. I endeavour to avoid that trap.

The fact is, not only do you constantly insult all of us as stupid, you also insult various authorities and factual documents as stupid, simply because they don't agree with you.

THe fact is, you are mind-numbingly stupid. By which I mean, you possess this idea that you want to put forth, but when you are shown time and time again why it must be wrong, you instead decide everyone else is stupid. You can't even be bothered to learn the proper terminologies to discuss what you want to discuss, nor do you EVER ONCE admit you might be wrong about anything. Then you curse to deliberately try to piss people off, and to top it all off, every few dozen posts, you outright lie.

If what we were discussing were all a matter of opinions, then you'd have a right to claim a popular appeal fallacy; but the fact is, you have been PROVEN WRONG on SO many occasions by pure, undoctored FACTS, that it's clear (at least to most of us) who is in the wrong here.

I just knew you wouldn't avoid this thread - you're to stupid to stay away.

Michael Redman

23rd July 2004, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But from my perspective it is extraordinary. It's not really a relevance to say I could only say "Wow I'm alive" by virtue of the fact I'm alive. Refer back to my kidnapping example. Sorry, but I'm not going to go back through 5+ pages and look for that example. I missed it before, and I'll have to do without.

I get that from the outside materialistic, or 3rd party POV, my existing despite the probability against is inconsequential. I also get that to me, the chances of me not existing were so formidable as to lead me to reason that I’m special, and my existence indicates the universe may have intended to make me possible. Or so it would appear from my point of view.

There's still something you're getting at that I don't really see. Are you saying something like: from a non-materialistic, or 3rd party POV, the against-the-odds existence of one's self does, in fact, give one evidence that one is not simply a random occurrence? That this is a valid argument, if one rejects the materialistic we’re-all-just-bridge-hands premise? That seems circular to me, but I recognize that that's not neessarily what you're getting at.

Number Six

23rd July 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No-one disputes that some particular 6.3 billion people have to be born. And of course this particular 6.3 billion people out of all possible people (maybe a googleplex of them) is no more surprising that if it were any other mix of 6.3 billion people.

Moreover, whoever gets born can always think "gosh, I exist! Aren't I incredibly lucky. The overwhelming probability is that I would never have come into existence!"

So I think we're all in agreement that from the third person perspective it is not surprising that any individual is born, anymore than a random hand of bridge is (even though the probability of that hand is astoundingly low ie a low a priori probability).

The difference between hands of bridge and being born is that no one hand of bridge is special in a qualitatively differing way from all other hands of bridge. Yes of course there are cr@p hands of bridge (like 9 high), or excellent hands of bridge ( 26 points and a 8 suiter!). But no one hand of bridge is qualitatively different in kind. As we might say, "a bridge hand is just a bridge hand is just a bridge hand"!

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??

All you need is a really big deck of cards and it's the same as for people. Instead of a deck having 52 cards picture a deck having 52 googleplex of cards.

Ian, seriously I think you should consider that you simply aren't familiar with some of the terms you're using. I mean, you know what they mean to you but when others tell you something different you act as if they're crazy because their definition differs from yours.

The probability of any event given that that event has already occurred is 1. This is literally taught in Statistics 101 and yet you discard it as some ridiculous esoteric claim instead of simple common sense that is formalized by P{A | A} = 1.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Sorry, but I'm not going to go back through 5+ pages and look for that example. I missed it before, and I'll have to do without.

I'll just paste it in then.

Let me try to illustrate the difficulty by the use of an analogy.

Suppose I get kidnapped by a loony. He has 10 packs of cards. He allows me to examine them so I can check they are fair. Then, being a loony, he shuts me in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles all ten packs of cards so that the cards contained therein are randomly distributed. The loony says the machine will randomly select a card from each deck consecutively. If at any stage the card selected is not the Ace of Hearts the machine will instantaneously set off an explosion which will immediately kill me. In effect I would never know that the card selected was not the Ace of Hearts. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am in a position of certainty regarding the fact that everything is as it seems ie the decks of cards are fair, the machine does genuinely randomly select a card from each deck, etc. Obviously it is extraordinary unlikely that I will survive this.

So the machine is set in motion. Extraordinarily the first card selected is the Ace of Hearts! Of course this scarcely gives me much hope. There's 9 cards to go! But then the next card selected from the next deck is the Ace of Hearts. And it transpires that each and every one of the cards drawn is the Ace of Hearts. The loony then enters the room. Here is the ensuing conversation:

II: WOW!! :eek: That is absolutely extraordinary!!

Loony: What was?

II: Well, the fact I'm still alive you idiot!

Loony: Why shouldn't you be?

II: Because the chance of me still being alive is an extraordinary low one.

Loony: No, it is certain that you would still be alive (Scribble).

II. Huh?? :eek:

Loony: The probability of a past event is, by definition, 1. (chulbert)

II: Yes I know, but you're missing the point. Look, you surely must admit that the fact I'm alive is absolutely extraordinary.

Loony: Not at all. Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right? (chance)

II: Jesus! You really are Content removed for violation of Rule 8 stupid!! :mad:

Loony: Ah! Insults. This necessitates you have lost the argument.

II: {screams} You complete and total dumbContent removed for violation of Rule 8!!

Loony: I kidnapped you in the first place because none of your arguments have any merit. I thought I'd do the world a favour and get rid of you by killing you. Thought I'd make it a bit entertaining by using this machine. Since it failed to kill you the first time, I'll just set it in motion again

II: {last despairing scream as the machine starts again} You complete moron!

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

But again the machine draws 10 Ace of Heart cards. Loony re-enters the room.

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

II. Wow!! Gosh!! It's happened again!! :eek:

Loony: From your perspective this is not at all surprising. You are a lotto winner of life, against the probability of a different selection, that all. (Chance)

II. You idiot!

Loony: Right, that's it!

{He starts the machine again. Again 10 Ace of Hearts are drawn. So he starts the machine again. He runs the machine a further 100 times, and each and every single time 10 Ace of Hearts are drawn, leaving II still alive. Loony re-enters the room}.

II. OK I'm still alive. Do you now agree something peculiar is going on? In effect this just can't happen.

Loony: Are you saying the chance is zero? If not it could happen, and the fact it has happened should not at all be surprising to you since if you had have been killed you wouldn't be here to think about it.

II: Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.

Loony: {In sarcastic tone} The chance of any individual raindrop hitting a particular spot on my driveway is incredibly, incredibly small.

Obviously, therefore, my drvieway never gets wet in the rain. (NoZed Avenger)

II You complete and total retard! :mad:

Loony: Right! That's it! I'm setting the machine off again! :mad:

II. No! Please please. Just use a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 gun!

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

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

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Number Six
[B]All you need is a really big deck of cards and it's the same as for people. Instead of a deck having 52 cards picture a deck having 52 googleplex of cards.

I've explained umpteen times why this is fallacious reasoning.

Ian, seriously I think you should consider that you simply aren't familiar with some of the terms you're using.

Please name any term that I have used which I do not know the meaning of.

I mean, you know what they mean to you but when others tell you something different you act as if they're crazy because their definition differs from yours.

If people use a phrase such as "I just ate a ham sandwich", should I suppose they mean something entirely different from a literal interpretation of the words? I think not.

The probability of any event given that that event has already occurred is 1. This is literally taught in Statistics 101 and yet you discard it as some ridiculous esoteric claim instead of simple common sense that is formalized by P{A | A} = 1.

If they get taught that I would argue with the teacher/lecturer, and maybe walk out of the room. I've done it before.

Number Six

23rd July 2004, 12:33 PM

The chances of him drawing the Ace of Hearts 10 straight times in those 10 draws is about 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000.

Now, suppose he did what you described with you and also with 100,000,000,000,000,000 other people. Would it be surprising if somebody was still alive at the end? No. And whichever person is alive at the end would be able to say "Wow, I'm alive, that's miraculous." But it wouldn't be miraculous at all.

Only the people that are alive get to say "What are the chances that I'm alive?" because the people that aren't alive can't ask questions.

If you look from the perspective of 4 billion years ago, infinitely many people _could_ be alive today. But although infinitely many could come into being, it's impossible for more than a tiny percentage of them to come into being. But then again, it's a virtual certainty that _some_ small percentage of them _would_ come into being. And of course, any of them that _did_ end up coming into being could ask "What were the chances?" whereas none of those that _didn't_ come into being could ask the question.

SGT

23rd July 2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? This is just ridiculous. Why the f*ck don't mathematicians make up their own words for their definitions??? No wonder there is so much confusion here!

Why do you think mathematicians should invent their own words, while idiots can use words like self in a way totally different from their original meaning?
You should make your own word to design the entity you refer to as self, instead of confusing us.

Number Six

23rd July 2004, 12:37 PM

Okay Ian, please link to me one of your responses of the umpteen times you've explained why it's fallacious reasoning. I don't want to read through the entire 200 posts and even if I did what I thought was your explanation of it might not be what you had in mind so it'd be easier if you just directed me to it.

scribble

23rd July 2004, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Number Six
But then again, it's a virtual certainty that _some_ small percentage of them _would_ come into being. And of course, any of them that _did_ end up coming into being could ask "What were the chances?" whereas none of those that _didn't_ come into being could ask the question.

Thus the second post in this thread, which gave the closest thing possible to a correct answer to an inherently flawed question.

You've done a good job of explaining it! I didn't bother because I know such things are lost on the intended audience.

Michael Redman

23rd July 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by 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? No, but it makes it clear why you think it is, or why the two sides are not in agreement. I'm not going to judge the arguments here. I don't have time to continue this now. Thank you for your explanation. I think I understand your position, at least a bit.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd July 2004, 12:58 PM

Ian said:
Imagine you just spontaneously sprang into being. You have no acquaintance with the world whatsoever. After a short while, after discovering that objects fall, you are presented with a coin. Now you have no experience of tossed coins. Tossed coins might land heads 75% of the time for all you know. But because it is perfectly symmetrical along the relevant axis, you might reason there is no reason for it to have a preference for either side. Therefore you might reason it will land on heads or tails equal numbers of times.
And I guess mathematicians would use the term a priori probability in this case. I think your objection is to the term a posteriori probability.

The mind is just the limited self. The brain closes off certain possible experiences. It constrains the self to only experience this empirical reality.
So the brain does influence the self, via the mind. Apparently it can influence it all the way to experiencing virtually no self whatsoever. Why does the self put itself in this boat? Seems odd to me.

~~ Paul

Number Six

23rd July 2004, 02:33 PM

Ian, I've read the first three pages of the thread and so far I'm not seeing any of the explanations that you're referring to. Maybe it's in pages 4 or 5 instead or maybe you simply think that "The chances are so small that it's amaizng" is an explanation. It's not. No matter how small you make Y = 1 / X to be, X*Y is still 1. It doesn't matter _how_ improbable it is that YOU are here (if looked at from the perspective from a billion years ago) because it is quite probable that SOMEONE will be here that can ask the questions.

You think it's amazing that it is YOU (a unique individual out of any infintely many possible unique individuals) that is here, but it is only amazing that it is YOU if one looks at it _before the fact_, whereas we are all looking at it _after the fact_, at which time it HAD to be SOMEBODY that is here.

I don't know how many ways we can say this. It's just not getting through. If you meant something other than this then point it out to me but I don't see it on the first three pages.

And you mention materialism now and then...this has nothing to do with materialism. It is a just math problem. You are combining your wish to disprove materialism with your misunderstanding of math and statistics to try to bring materialsim into it even though it doesn't belong.

Art Vandelay

23rd July 2004, 06:30 PM

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

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

Jaggy Bunnet[extreme nitpick]Nope, sorry. Scotch must be produced in Scotland. We may import whiskey, or even whisky, but to be Scotch it must be produced in Scotland

http://whisky.com/history.html
[/extreme nitpick]
Exactly. So any Scotch imported into Scotland would be a domestic import.

Interesting Ian

23rd July 2004, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Number Six
The chances of him drawing the Ace of Hearts 10 straight times in those 10 draws is about 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000.

Now, suppose he did what you described with you and also with 100,000,000,000,000,000 other people. Would it be surprising if somebody was still alive at the end? No. And whichever person is alive at the end would be able to say "Wow, I'm alive, that's miraculous." But it wouldn't be miraculous at all.

Only the people that are alive get to say "What are the chances that I'm alive?" because the people that aren't alive can't ask questions.

If you look from the perspective of 4 billion years ago, infinitely many people _could_ be alive today. But although infinitely many could come into being, it's impossible for more than a tiny percentage of them to come into being. But then again, it's a virtual certainty that _some_ small percentage of them _would_ come into being. And of course, any of them that _did_ end up coming into being could ask "What were the chances?" whereas none of those that _didn't_ come into being could ask the question.

WOW! Yes; how silly of me.

Edited to add: Farts contemptuously (just in case people don't appreciate sarcasm).

Art Vandelay

23rd July 2004, 07:02 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.

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?

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? 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.