Comments
-
Probability Question
I get what you mean. We'll have to assign values to crucial probabilities arbitrarily. So if we had data we could derive more accurate probabilities from them? -
Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has FailedProgress is a subjective human concept of which the universe pays no heed — Lambert Strether
Yep, the universe doesn't care whether there's progress or not, but that doesn't mean there's none. -
Probability QuestionWhere there's uncertainty (we've been discussing that all along), there's (mathematical) probability. I thought that was the rule. You seem to disagree and I kinda get where you're coming from. It's not impossible, but it's hard to find a foolish mathematician (an oxymoron some would say). That said the subject we're discussing isn't a simple game of cards, dice, or coins.
-
Can God eat us?The truth, if true, is never old. For the old belongs in time whilst the truth, if true, is timeless. — TheMadMan
:up: So what you're saying is just an idea you had and nothing more. It just is! -
Probability Question
Now translate all that you said into where
A = the # of outcomes that satisfy the desired event.
B = the total # of possible outcomes. -
Can God eat us?
Nice! Is there any logic to this what appears to be a cycle of eating-secretion-eating-secreting-eating ... ad infinitum? It just is? -
Can God eat us?I did — TheMadMan
I'm sorry but I don't see it. Can you be more explicit? Gracias.
It is quite interesting that you brought the issue of materialism up - animals, that includes us, are material, and then there's God. There's animals, there's us, there's God. You see anything intriguing in there? -
Probability QuestionThere's a subjective component to probability. If I say there's a 20% chance of Trump winning the next elections what exactly do I mean?
-
Can God eat us?Can you complete the metaphor for me?
You might wanna look into the consequences of the point you made. -
Positive characteristics of FemalesWould an AI designed to protect mankind - if it comes down to choosing only one of two, a last man xor a last woman (imagine a spaceship has room for only one person) - choose the man or the woman?
-
Positive characteristics of FemalesThe first "positive characteristic of females" that comes to mind is they are not males. — 180 Proof
:rofl:
Does it still work if we flip it around? :chin: -
Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has FailedThe abject failure of Christianity to break into India — Art48
is due to one and only one reason - Doubting Thomas was the Christian missionary to Hindoostan. His skepticism disseminated faster and wider than his faith. The Second Coming is going to take place in India mes amies, in India. :grin: -
Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has Failed
Interesting! Loopy, definitely loopy, and I see you haven't completely solved the problem ... yet. Any progress on that front mon ami? -
Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has Failed"Life —> Consciousness" —> Extinction aka "matter". A sequence (e.g. Möbius loop) =/= "progress — 180 Proof
Bravo! Laozi, very Laozi. The (Möbius) loop, exactly! We return to where we started and begin again (the Sisyphusean carousel). What are the wider ramifications of this simple cyclical pattern? -
Does meaning persist over time?Mother, bark and spit are just three of 23 words that researchers believe date back 15,000 years, making them the oldest known words. — Seeker
-
MultialiusismThe Western mind has always been directed outwards, relatively that is. With this outer mindset, the West is now in charge of mamma nature - flattening mountains, creating islands, diverting rivers, draining lakes, irrigating deserts, etc.
-
Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has Failedthere's something rather disturbing about reductionism (read science). I see progress in the universe, from matter to life to consciosuness and this forward movement
— Agent Smith
Well, being free of the illusion of (evolutionary?) "progress" or the facile reduction of "science" to "reductionism", I'm not disturbed in the least by our human all too human, Faustian bargains. Apotheosis or extinction sooner than later? The prevailing entropy gradient of this cosmic neighborhood inspires me! Amor fati (aka "wu wei"), amigo. :fire: — 180 Proof
:up: I see you disagree that there's progress the way I described it: Matter Life Consciousness. Why? There clearly is a sequence here, oui monsieur? Going by numbers, the progression is absent, but in terms of who runs the show on planet earth, it's as plain as the nose on your face. Of course it ain't all sunshine and rainbows for conscious beings (it hurts), but some report euphoria (high on life). -
Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has FailedHow till that impede or reverse the progress of the universe? For that matter, how can a human activity interfere with the universe at all? — Vera Mont
:rofl: -
Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has FailedSo why blame "biochemists" for not being "mystics"? Science does what it's exceptionally good at and nothing more. Criticizing a hammer for not being a paint brush or a theorem for not being a sonnet profoundly misunderstands each of them. Sciences and arts are not 'mutually exclusive' practices or ways of being (Laozi). — 180 Proof
You're right, but there's something rather disturbing about reductionism (read science). I see progress in the universe, from matter to life to consciosuness and this forward movement is in danger of being impeded/reversed by science e.g. love is oxytocin. Very Laozi alright (we come full circle). -
Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has Failed
The realm of philosophers, poets, mystics as opposed to the world of biochemists, physiologists, neuroscientists. -
Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has FailedScience has succeeded in fulfilling our material wants, and provides intellectual stimulation of the kind some brains can't live without, but it does zip/nought for our spiritual needs unless ... science is religion (in disguise) [re Neil deGrasse Tyson's very new-agey Cosmic Perspective and The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters]
-
Probability Question
There's nothing wrong with the hypotheses. RogueAI is asking an interesting question. What are the chances that aliens have visited us given they will in the next 10 years. Basically, if we make contact, is it the first time for planet earth or is it not? Preliminary examination of the question shows that the two (contact in the next x years and past contact) are dependent events (check my posts where I explain why).
@Hanover then kindly pointed out I'm making an unfounded assumption assumptiom (aliens exist). I then tried to include that into the formula and you (resident mathematician) declare me analysis "probabble" :snicker:
What is the probability of this happening to a guy like me? :lol: -
Anyone follow Dr. Strange?:cool:
That's what I was getting at, but medicine, including neurosurgery, doesn't really require that much math. Peter Parker was a high schoolie but he is competent enough to comment and correct the work of Dr. Otto Octavius who was this close :ok: to a breakthrough in cold fusion. So yeah. -
Probability QuestionThis turns the whole conversation into probababble — jgill
Why?
E = aliens exist
V = aliens will visit us in the next 10 years
C = aliens have visited earth
-
MultialiusismThat formulation leaves out a critical component. Is one being deceived by design, or can one proceed in the confidence that it would be stupid to fool somebody who is pretty clueless to start with? — Paine
Therein lies the rub. -
Probability QuestionYou can't assume this! In order to assume it, you would have to know that aliens, in fact, exist, and will contact us at some point in the future — RogueAI
:chin: Then we have to factor that into our calculations:
What is the probability that aliens have contacted us in the past given that aliens exist & Aliens will contact us in the next 10 years? -
MultialiusismSolipsism founders on the existence of the image as image.
Narcissus falls in love with his image and does not see the pool. Nor does he see himself as he exists. — Paine
Double whammy!
Agent Smith
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum