Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DHA's Wager
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 200 (192312)
03-18-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Monk
03-18-2005 9:53 AM


Re: the forest on the hill
quote:
I'm curious, how would you distinguish a "religous person" from an atheist?
Hmm, there are a set of traits, most of them the kinds of arguments we are familiar with... apeals to authoerity, rejection of theory, etc. Smug self-satisfaction is also common, IME.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Monk, posted 03-18-2005 9:53 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Monk, posted 03-18-2005 12:56 PM contracycle has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 200 (192313)
03-18-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Parasomnium
03-18-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Impossible unicorn
quote:
Consider colour blindness: with the light that falls on their respective retinas having the same frequency, people who are colour blind experience a different colour than people who are not.
Granted - but nevertheless, if a fully sighted person looks at the thing, the real colour will be correctly observed. You cannot challenge a phenomenon by conducting a test with faulty apparatus. The frequency reflected by an object is constant, consistent, and independently verifiable. It can be said to have that colour.
Anyway, I don't know why you are now playing word-games about colour - we went through all this on sundry topics about qualia previously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Parasomnium, posted 03-18-2005 9:58 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Parasomnium, posted 03-18-2005 2:33 PM contracycle has replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 138 of 200 (192327)
03-18-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by contracycle
03-18-2005 11:15 AM


Trust
contracycle writes:
Hmm, there are a set of traits, most of them the kinds of arguments we are familiar with... apeals to authoerity, rejection of theory, etc. Smug self-satisfaction is also common, IME.
I see, then, according to the demographics located in the World Christian Database, 86% of the world’s population is religious. Or, approximately 8 out of 10 people in the world hold a belief in some form of God.
The demographics may be different where you live, but since you do not post your location, I used data for the entire world.
Based on this, the odds are that you have implicitly trusted religious people your entire life, whether you realize it or not. In fact, if you have ever needed the services of a hospital, or traveled on an airplane, or even ridden in a bus or taxi, then, at some point in time, you have most likely entrusted your very life to someone of the religious persuasion.
So in light of your previous statement:
contracycle writes:
This "wager" is exactly why I would not trust a religious person with anything important. It's apparently far to easy for them to rationalsie whatever is comfortable in the short term to be trustworthy, rather like a habitual alcoholic.
Your remarks are contrary to your own experiences and cannot be construed as anything but prejudicial.
Do you consider yourself a religious bigot?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by contracycle, posted 03-18-2005 11:15 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by contracycle, posted 03-21-2005 5:46 AM Monk has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 139 of 200 (192332)
03-18-2005 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by contracycle
03-18-2005 11:19 AM


Re: Impossible unicorn
contracycle writes:
I don't know why you are now playing word-games about colour - we went through all this on sundry topics about qualia previously.
Virtually every other topic has been debated ad nauseam as well. But that doesn't make it less fun. (Well, apart from the vomiting, of course.) Besides, you and I disagree about it and you keep coming back with arguments I think I can refute. If you want me to stop, I'll stop. In the meantime...
contracycle writes:
if a fully sighted person looks at the thing, the real colour will be correctly observed. You cannot challenge a phenomenon by conducting a test with faulty apparatus.
There is no such thing as "the real colour", just like there is no such thing as a "real" bitter taste.
Let me explain.
There is a substance called phenylthiocarbamide, or PTC, that tastes bitter to most people but is tasteless to a large minority. The difference is genetic in origin. Would you call the non-tasters, for the most part normal people, "faulty"? How about if we breed a population of mostly non-tasters with a minority of tasters, who is faulty then? More importantly, what is the "real" taste of PTC?
Back to colour.
contracycle writes:
The frequency reflected by an object is constant, consistent, and independently verifiable.
I think "constant" and "consistent" are debatable - though I won't challenge you on that now - but I'll grant you "independently verifiable". However, frequency, as I've made clear before, isn't the same as colour. You realise this, so that's why you say:
It can be said to have that colour {italics mine}
Colour, like taste, is a subjective experience, not a property of things. Supposing you could talk to an octopus, which has a brain and eyes that have developed along evolutionary paths very different from ours, do you think you would agree on the colour of things?
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 18-Mar-2005 08:42 PM

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by contracycle, posted 03-18-2005 11:19 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by contracycle, posted 03-21-2005 5:33 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 180 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2005 1:16 AM Parasomnium has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 140 of 200 (192356)
03-18-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Rrhain
03-18-2005 12:10 AM


Re: a tree on a sled, the forest is still at the top of the hill
Rrhain shotgun posts again and writes:
If the definition of what you are looking for requires the presence of a certain type of evidence under a given set of circumstances, then if you achieve those circumstances and find that the evidence is absent, you have proven that object you were dealing with does not exist.
Sorry, first this is evidence. A test has been set up with either result (Q) or result (T). Second, what it proves is that the concept that result (Q) would happen under those circumstances was invalid.
Nope. One sandpile plus one sandpile equals one sandpile.
In another example to your {A} + {A} = 2{A}, just try that with infinities.
Add one sandpile to another sandpile. Do you have two sandpiles or just one big sandpile?
These are examples of misdirection and attempted strawman arguments. A sandpile is not an object but a loose group of objects, and to assume that you have two such that can meet a condition of identity, where one {A} is equal to the other {A} in regards to the level concerned, as well as being identical to the final pile shows a disregard for the concept of equality as most people use it. You do not end up with a "pile" that is the equal of either starting "pile". If you make it one ton of sand plus one ton of sand, you will end up with two tons of sand no matter how you pile on the ground.
And an infinity of {objects} is not an {object} either, but a concept, just a bigger sandpile.
You know the argument and keep dodging around it (and I assume on purpose): You don't need to know what {A} is to judge the validity of the mathematical concept of 1 plus 1 is 2.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Rrhain, posted 03-18-2005 12:10 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2005 1:32 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 141 of 200 (192363)
03-18-2005 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by kongstad
03-18-2005 5:03 AM


evidence of absence is not absence of evidence either.
kongstad writes:
Besides cheap point with dinosaurs - but please replace dinosaurs with T. Rex in my original post
actually the Rex is in the raptor family, and this is the branch that birds most likely descended from (albeit from smaller relatives)...
but what we are dealing with here (in both your and Rrhains posts) are examples of null results of tests: observations. evidence.
when it comes to a creature like the T.Rex you can set up a test where you look in all the possible places (habitats) over continuous periods of time where such a creature could live, and when it is not observed in those places and times, then you can say that it was not existing in those times and places. The extent that you can cover the globe with such a study and come up empty, is not an absence of evidence however: all those observations and compilation of contiguous records are evidence.
compare this to the evidence for the absence of the ivory billed woodpecker ... which is listed as "probably extinct" in my birdbook, even though it has not been sighted for some 25 years. why? because not all the possible habitats have been eliminated by such a study as listed above.
in fact if you look at reports of likely extinction of species that have existed recently you usually see reference to "last sighted {on\at} ..." as a tacit understanding that extinction has not been verified beyond all doubt.
oh btw -- Parasomnium has your goat ...
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by kongstad, posted 03-18-2005 5:03 AM kongstad has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 142 of 200 (192364)
03-18-2005 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by contracycle
03-18-2005 6:29 AM


chartreuse. not sepia, that would clash with the pink.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by contracycle, posted 03-18-2005 6:29 AM contracycle has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 143 of 200 (192366)
03-18-2005 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by PecosGeorge
03-18-2005 7:36 AM


Re: Define time and again
to say nothing about how the various measurements of time are prone to errors due to real interactions with
{{{the fabric of space}}}

... or in more common terms, relativity.
{edited to fix lost text in brackets}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*18*2005 08:27 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by PecosGeorge, posted 03-18-2005 7:36 AM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by PecosGeorge, posted 03-19-2005 9:11 AM RAZD has replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 144 of 200 (192456)
03-19-2005 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by RAZD
03-18-2005 8:16 PM


Re: Define time and again
quote:
to say nothing about how the various measurements of time are prone to errors due to real interactions with
{{{the fabric of space}}}
... or in more common terms, relativity.
Einstein and relativity and sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minit. Sit on a hot stove for a minit, and ........your butt's on fire. LOL
Our containers are not perfect. Are they, then, just adequate, or not even that? And they will never be? Because of the fabric of space?
This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 03-19-2005 09:12 AM

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2005 8:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2005 10:20 AM PecosGeorge has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 145 of 200 (192472)
03-19-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by PecosGeorge
03-19-2005 9:11 AM


Re: Define time and again
was it really an hour? as long as the fabric is fuschia and chartreuse 'branes all is well.
no mo pic?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by PecosGeorge, posted 03-19-2005 9:11 AM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PecosGeorge, posted 03-19-2005 3:22 PM RAZD has replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 146 of 200 (192555)
03-19-2005 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by RAZD
03-19-2005 10:20 AM


Re: Define time and again
quote:
was it really an hour? as long as the fabric is fuschia and chartreuse 'branes all is well.
Onestone was onto/into sumpfin. Wunner ifn he'nt wored da enhanced wardrobe?
No!

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2005 10:20 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2005 5:30 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 147 of 200 (192573)
03-19-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PecosGeorge
03-19-2005 3:22 PM


Re: Define time and again
only if he wore the proper boots when the platforms went by the train.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PecosGeorge, posted 03-19-2005 3:22 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4307 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 148 of 200 (192947)
03-21-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Parasomnium
03-18-2005 6:49 AM


Re: Impossible unicorn
quote:
It has always eluded me how a unicorn can be invisible AND pink.
Of course, it eludes us, we are but mere mortals who cannot perceive the IPU in all of (insert correct pronoun) glory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Parasomnium, posted 03-18-2005 6:49 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Parasomnium, posted 03-21-2005 2:46 AM Trae has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 149 of 200 (192953)
03-21-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Trae
03-21-2005 2:19 AM


Re: Impossible unicorn
Trae writes:
quote:
It has always eluded me how a unicorn can be invisible AND pink.
Of course, it eludes us, we are but mere mortals who cannot perceive the IPU in all of (insert correct pronoun) glory.
I'm not sure if I'm interested so much in the correct pronoun. I think contemplating some appropriate adjectives would be more enlightening. One that springs to mind is 'illogical'.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Trae, posted 03-21-2005 2:19 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Trae, posted 03-22-2005 2:06 PM Parasomnium has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 200 (192988)
03-21-2005 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Parasomnium
03-18-2005 2:33 PM


Re: Impossible unicorn
quote:
I think "constant" and "consistent" are debatable - though I won't challenge you on that now - but I'll grant you "independently verifiable". However, frequency, as I've made clear before, isn't the same as colour. You realise this, so that's why you say:
I also do not care, as a plate of film will respond consistently to the frequency, and thus to the observer.
quote:
Colour, like taste, is a subjective experience, not a property of things. Supposing you could talk to an octopus, which has a brain and eyes that have developed along evolutionary paths very different from ours, do you think you would agree on the colour of things?
Yes. They and I will consistently be able to separate green from red. We will both agree that the green is green, and thus like grass, and that red is red, like blood.
That is why I said the issue of qualia was irrelevant. It does not matter what subjective experience the subject has - only that the respond correctly to the external phenomenon. It makes more sense to see colours for what they are - just frequencies.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-21-2005 05:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Parasomnium, posted 03-18-2005 2:33 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Parasomnium, posted 03-22-2005 7:17 AM contracycle has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024