|
Post by goz on Mar 27, 2018 4:39:04 GMT
dividavi It might be that God sends only non-believers to Heaven while He dispatches believers to the Hell that they wish on others. This. It would be ironic punishment if the only people who went to hell were those who lived happy in the belief that anyone who didn't share their dogma were going to burn in agony forever. And side note, I would not want to go to heaven if these types of people were there. Just unplug me from the matrix altogether rather than have to hang with them forever. LOL This should be called the Theory of the God Double Cross XX!
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 27, 2018 14:57:21 GMT
That's a good rebuttal. I'd make an additional point (that may have been alluded to in the article) - the Bayes formula is the product of 3 factors (with a multiplication and a division), so that if two or more probabilities have substantial uncertainty the resulting uncertainty will be greatly amplified. I do see where you were coming from with your coin flipping scenario. In your initial example there was no suggestion of prior knowledge about the coin, so I was assuming that one would assume it was a fair coin, hence my analysis bypassing the "prior knowledge". #3 is a particularly nice and terse observation As I said earlier, probability is all about modeling uncertainty, so the problem is really more about precise VS imprecise certainty & uncertainty rather than just uncertainty itself, but your point is taken. I'd never deny the GIGO axiom. Yeah, I was a bit sneaky with coin flip scenario as I intentionally left out the priors. I wanted to show that, once the evidence has convinced you, you've basically defined your priors regardless of whether you had beforehand. Also, considering our discussion started over the important of Occam and priors, that it really depended on the type of evidence whether the prior or the evidence was more important in determining how likely you thought a hypothesis was. One of the assumptions scientists make is that our universe functions as a "fair" coin. If it doesn't we're in deep shit (or at least in a more capricious universe that is more like how ancient humans, and even some modern humans*, imagined it). *resisting urge to tag certain board members
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 17:33:14 GMT
As I said earlier, probability is all about modeling uncertainty, so the problem is really more about precise VS imprecise certainty & uncertainty rather than just uncertainty itself, but your point is taken. I'd never deny the GIGO axiom. Yeah, I was a bit sneaky with coin flip scenario as I intentionally left out the priors. I wanted to show that, once the evidence has convinced you, you've basically defined your priors regardless of whether you had beforehand. Also, considering our discussion started over the important of Occam and priors, that it really depended on the type of evidence whether the prior or the evidence was more important in determining how likely you thought a hypothesis was. One of the assumptions scientists make is that our universe functions as a "fair" coin. If it doesn't we're in deep shit (or at least in a more capricious universe that is more like how ancient humans, and even some modern humans*, imagined it). *resisting urge to tag certain board members Well I guess that would depend on what the "fair" coin and "unfair" coin is an analogy of. If the "unfair" coin represents surprising or even astonishing results that force us to rethink our equations and the way the universe is, results that still leave us with no agreed upon interpretations because they don't seem to follow our basic sense of logic, then there has been the odd "unfair" coin. Classical Physics being the "fair" coin, where everything is nice, orderly, mechanical and predictable, and quantum physics being the "unfair" coin, where everything we know about classical physics kinda goes out the window, and all kinds of "weirdness" comes into play. Although personally, I'm at peace with QM, just like I would be at peace if every 1 in 100 coins in circulation was a "trick" coin. Even if you didn't know why there were "trick" coins, and the worlds greatest minds didn't know why there were either, all that they could say is that "there is", eventually you would just have to accept it and say "the world is what it is". Or maybe the analogy is better the other way around, because an unfair coin is actually predictable, it will always come up heads, like classical physics, where as the "fair" coin is probabilistic, like quantum physics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 18:02:17 GMT
That’s what I’m not clear on: WHY do you think Libet proved that there’s no body/soul dualism? Most (modern, anyway) dualists freely admit that the brain plays a major role in the operation of our mind, but also believe it’s possible for mind to be uncoupled with the brain in the form of spirit. Like you, I obviously don’t buy the claim, but I’m not sure why you think Libet disproved this. In fact, I can’t imagine how it would be falsifiable to begin with. This also means, to reiterate a point raised in an earlier post (possibly on another thread): If my complete memory was to be recorded in a computer, and if this computer became a sentient thing with my memories, then it still would not make the same decisions as I would. Because it wouldn't have my body. In other words: This computer would not be me, and not have the same personality. Well that's because you've seemingly changed the initial conditions. If you had a working quantum computer which ran a simulation, where it calculated and replicated everything in the universe perfectly, right down to every last atom and particle in your body, brain and everything else around you, then I don't see any reason why things wouldn't pan out in exactly the same way. If it didn't, then there is something wrong with the simulation. Or put it another way, if the universe went back in time, rewound the clock, maybe 1 year, 10 years, 50 years or 13.75bn years, and played it all back out again, I don't see any reason why it would pan out differently, as long as the conditions are identical. We have to clearly define what 'freewill' is though, if we are defining it as the ability to process information and make decisions, then of course we all have "freewill", but then so does your dog and so does your laptop. If you are defining it as something where the complexity of your thoughts and decisions allow you to somehow break the laws of physics, where your complexity somehow causes things like 'cause and effect' or the 2nd law of thermodynamics to break down, where you are somehow in a state that is above the laws of nature, then I don't see any basis for that right now. To believe anything else, is hubris.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 28, 2018 7:38:57 GMT
One of the assumptions scientists make is that our universe functions as a "fair" coin. If it doesn't we're in deep shit (or at least in a more capricious universe that is more like how ancient humans, and even some modern humans*, imagined it). *resisting urge to tag certain board members Well I guess that would depend on what the "fair" coin and "unfair" coin is an analogy of. If the "unfair" coin represents surprising or even astonishing results that force us to rethink our equations and the way the universe is, results that still leave us with no agreed upon interpretations because they don't seem to follow our basic sense of logic, then there has been the odd "unfair" coin. Classical Physics being the "fair" coin, where everything is nice, orderly, mechanical and predictable, and quantum physics being the "unfair" coin, where everything we know about classical physics kinda goes out the window, and all kinds of "weirdness" comes into play. Although personally, I'm at peace with QM, just like I would be at peace if every 1 in 100 coins in circulation was a "trick" coin. Even if you didn't know why there were "trick" coins, and the worlds greatest minds didn't know why there were either, all that they could say is that "there is", eventually you would just have to accept it and say "the world is what it is". Or maybe the analogy is better the other way around, because an unfair coin is actually predictable, it will always come up heads, like classical physics, where as the "fair" coin is probabilistic, like quantum physics. I think by "fair" cham just means "consistent," so that if we build accurate models one day they won't be randomly inaccurate tomorrow for no apparent reason. Even with the "randomness" of QM we're still using the same equations to model it almost 100 years later. As for my (and others') thoughts on QM you might be interested in THIS THREAD. I'm firmly in the Many-Worlds camp until there's evidence that favors one of the more complex interpretations, and it has the benefit of being as determistic, local and real as classical physics.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 29, 2018 12:46:09 GMT
tpfkar Stupid, but misunderstood by some moronic atheists Always funny to see this kind of thing from you. It's not my problem if a low ability individual can't keep up with the thoughts of an intellectual like me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 14:03:25 GMT
tpfkar Stupid, but misunderstood by some moronic atheists Always funny to see this kind of thing from you. It's not my problem if a low ability individual can't keep up with the thoughts of an intellectual like me. Whats funny is that he refuses to answer what we have misunderstood when i ask him. And i have asked him twice Clearly he don`t know or he would have answered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 2:50:34 GMT
I don't remember ever hearing of Pascal's Wager before I went nutty religious back in '12, and someone on the old board had to explain it to me. Normally I avoid the whole thing, but your post has reminded me that if you're right, nothing is hurt, because we all go nowhere when we die. However, if you're wrong, you're going to look like the world's biggest chump, and I find that funny. You'd laugh at somebody for basing their thinking in the available evidence, because they proved to be wrong when more evidence came to light? The phrase "small things amuse small minds" seems appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 30, 2018 4:04:28 GMT
I don't remember ever hearing of Pascal's Wager before I went nutty religious back in '12, and someone on the old board had to explain it to me. Normally I avoid the whole thing, but your post has reminded me that if you're right, nothing is hurt, because we all go nowhere when we die. However, if you're wrong, you're going to look like the world's biggest chump, and I find that funny. You'd laugh at somebody for basing their thinking in the available evidence, because they proved to be wrong when more evidence came to light? The phrase "small things amuse small minds" seems appropriate. Wow. Deja vu. I have been here before (several times). What evidence would you accept?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 30, 2018 7:11:52 GMT
You'd laugh at somebody for basing their thinking in the available evidence, because they proved to be wrong when more evidence came to light? The phrase "small things amuse small minds" seems appropriate. Wow. Deja vu. I have been here before (several times). What evidence would you accept? Personally, for one example, I'd take as evidence a repeat experiment like Elijah and the Priests of Baal.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 30, 2018 8:14:05 GMT
Wow. Deja vu. I have been here before (several times). What evidence would you accept? Personally, for one example, I'd take as evidence a repeat experiment like Elijah and the Priests of Baal. Good one!
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 30, 2018 11:36:48 GMT
Wow. Deja vu. I have been here before (several times). What evidence would you accept? Personally, for one example, I'd take as evidence a repeat experiment like Elijah and the Priests of Baal. I wouldn't. Any stage magician with a little knowledge in meteorology could provide this "evidence". Just like a stage magician could "prove" that a coin is a trick coin. I would know the evidence if I saw it.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 30, 2018 11:50:59 GMT
I wouldn't. Any stage magician with a little knowledge in meteorology could provide this "evidence". Just like a stage magician could "prove" that a coin is a trick coin. I would know the evidence if I saw it. Oh, you. I was thinking more like having the experiment set up by scientists and having the believers and/or prophet praying for their God to light it on fire. They could set it up to make sure no trickery was afoot. BTW, this was referenced in one of my favorite Lesswrong posts. Always laugh at the last punch line here:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 12:37:17 GMT
You'd laugh at somebody for basing their thinking in the available evidence, because they proved to be wrong when more evidence came to light? The phrase "small things amuse small minds" seems appropriate. Wow. Deja vu. I have been here before (several times). What evidence would you accept? Show me something that is clearly true and which can be verified by repeated observations, and that would be true if, and only if, god existed, and false if, and only if, god did not exist. For example, show me a religion in which intercessory prayer for those with major injuries - such as amputees, or revival of the long dead - clearly works, if and only if those praying belong to a particular religion and pray to a particular god, and in no other case. That isn't perfect, but it would do it for me. Or hell, just arrange a meeting with god where we can chat, like in those George Burns movies. That would do it, eventually.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 30, 2018 12:43:20 GMT
I wouldn't. Any stage magician with a little knowledge in meteorology could provide this "evidence". Just like a stage magician could "prove" that a coin is a trick coin. I would know the evidence if I saw it. Oh, you. I was thinking more like having the experiment set up by scientists and having the believers and/or prophet praying for their God to light it on fire. They could set it up to make sure no trickery was afoot. BTW, this was referenced in one of my favorite Lesswrong posts. Always laugh at the last punch line here: I don't see how your post contradicts anything I said. But as for evidence: I'd possibly accept evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a body/"soul" dualism, and that the "soul" can exist without a body. Since there have been dualists since the beginning of humanity, and the evidence for their claim could be described with the words "zip", "zilch", "nothing", "nada" or "null", I am going with absence of evidence being evidence of absence.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 30, 2018 13:19:12 GMT
Therein lies the trick... It wasn't really water... IT WAS GASOLINE!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 15:39:12 GMT
Let's see what Jesus had to say relating to the subject-
Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 30, 2018 17:43:38 GMT
Let's see what Jesus had to say relating to the subject- Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.That was written to believers, not nonbelievers.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 30, 2018 17:54:42 GMT
tpfkar Wow. Deja vu. I have been here before (several times). What evidence would you accept? Personally, for one example, I'd take as evidence a repeat experiment like Elijah and the Priests of Baal. What strikes me most about that story is the casual gruesome viciousness. Monster
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 30, 2018 22:36:10 GMT
I don't believe in an afterlife but i am sorry to break this to you. The Libet Experiment does not prove anyhting about it being an after life or not. It's good enough evidence for me. If you, or anyone else, has more convincing evidence in favor of an afterlife, feel free to share it. I'm not holding my breath, of course. In all those years afterlife has been discussed on IMDb or here, no one provided convincing evidence. A 23 minutes hallucination is less convincing than a scientific experiment. The Libet Experiment is so far off the mark even your fellow atheists can see how far off it is. The data does not even suggest there is no free will. The "consciousness" of a person is known to be complicated. Any decision can, and most do, involve weighing several reasons for and several reasons against some action. Some of the reasons might get less "notice" and result in a "feeling" one way the other. Making a decision based wholly are partly on a "feeling" is not however proof that there is no free will. It is not even evidence. The feeling can well be the individual's "own free" feeling, much like his "own free" choice. Furthermore when reasons do entirely fail to receive "conscious" examination they can at a later time be considered quite consciously and if necessary modified. The argument in the Libet experiment seems to be that the existence of a subconscious precludes free will, which is totally ridiculous. Another totally ridiculous notion of yours is that simply because you have seen no evidence then there is none. Ten people go separately into the forest. When they return they report. Five saw a bear, the other five did not see any bear. What is the probability there is a bear in the forest?
|
|