[extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant

Jef Allbright jef at jefallbright.net
Thu Apr 5 12:53:48 UTC 2007

On 4/4/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I think I've strayed a bit from my original purpose, which was to try to
>>> persuade you that thought experiments in which extremely improbable
>>> things happen by chance should not be summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

>> Isn't this assertion the very antithesis of rationality?!

>  I was referring to certain philosophical arguments, such as John Searle's
> Chinese room, which is wrong for philosophical reasons, not because of the
> undoubted practical difficulties it would pose. Engineering and philosophy
> are not the same discipline.

I don't understand your reasoning here, since Searle's Chinese Room
doesn't involve "extremely improbable things."  It's wrong for quite
different reasons.

I do understand that there's a binary distinction between "slightly
possible" and "impossible", but that doesn't seem to apply here.

There may be little value in pursuing the source of this disconnect,
but if you wish to continue, you have my attention.

- Jef

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list