<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
darren shawn greer wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>>
Even after finding no hypercubical golden dragons there, I reserve the
possibility that they may have only gone out for lunch while I was
visiting.<<br>
<br>
I'm a newcomer to this list, but I had to ask this question: how long
are you willing to wait before drawing a conclusion, based on belief in
the absence of phyisical evidence, that the HGD either don't exist, or
take extremely long lunches? Even if they do come back, logic could
dictate to you that they are a hallucination or simulated by an
advanced species that live on Alpha Centuri and like playing with the
minds of humans who have the gall to visit Titan. Logic is great stuff,
but eventually we must close off our logical processess with
conclusions and shut out the endless possibilities that human logic
offers. As some writer said once, keep too open a mind and nothing will
stay in it.<br>
<br>
If I'm intruding in the conversation, I apologize.<br>
<br>
Darren<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div align="center"><b><font style="font-size: 16pt;" size="4"><font
color="#ff0000" face="Comic Sans MS"><span id="ecxecxecxecxbtAsinTitle">Per
Ardua Ad Astra</span></font></font></b></div>
<div align="center"><b><font style="font-size: 16pt;" size="4"><font
face="Comic Sans MS"><span></span></font><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font
style="font-size: 12pt;" size="3">For more info on author </font><font
color="#ff0000">Darren Greer</font><font size="3"> </font></font></font></b><b><font
style="font-size: 16pt;"><font face="Comic Sans MS" size="3">visit </font></font></b></div>
<div align="center"><b><font style="font-size: 16pt;"><font
style="font-size: 16pt;" face="Comic Sans MS" size="4"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://darrenshawngreer.blogspot.com/">http://darrenshawngreer.blogspot.com</a></font></font></b></div>
<div align="center"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4245645008_1d9f941297.jpg"
height="338" width="500"></div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:27:56 -0400<br>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:msd001@gmail.com">msd001@gmail.com</a><br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Belief in maths (was mind body dualism)<br>
> <br>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Ben Zaiboc
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bbenzai@yahoo.com"><bbenzai@yahoo.com></a> wrote:<br>
> > If I can assume that by 'pure maths', you mean logic, you
seem to be saying that people who have absolute certainty (I'm making
another assumption that this means "think that it's overwhelmingly
likely") that there is no such thing as either a soul or psi, have come
to this conclusion by logical reasoning, rather than, say, lack of
evidence to the contrary.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Lack of evidence is a perfectly fine reason to not think something is
so. If it also has logical inconsistency problems and/or has no
explanatory theory that is sufficiently sound then that is more reason
to disbelief it. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl"
type="cite">> <br>
> I originally meant statistics and probability. I have to include<br>
> logic because pure math is a broad category. I have a difficult
time<br>
> understanding absolute certainty no matter how it is reached.</blockquote>
<br>
Everyone gets hung up over "absolute". If I step off a cliff on earth
with no invisible means of support am I absolutely certain I will
fall? You bet! Or so sure of the very high probability I would not
waste a millisecond considering alternatives.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl"
type="cite"> You can<br>
> asymptotically approach certainty by way of reasoned arguments and<br>
> scientific methods. I feel that even if you have seen a coin flip<br>
> result in heads 99 times in a row, you cannot state with absolute<br>
> certainty that the 100th toss will also be heads.</blockquote>
<br>
I would say with fairly high certainty that the coin or the toss is
rigged. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl"
type="cite"> (at least until you<br>
> have shown both sides of the coin to be heads) In the case of the
no<br>
> soul or no psi argument, nobody is able to verify the other side of<br>
> the coin.</blockquote>
Nope. Asserting that X exist is not the same at all as flipping what
is supposed to be a two-sided fair coin. False analogy.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl"
type="cite"> So we can observe many runs of the same result, but I
don't<br>
> rule out the possibility that there may may eventually be an<br>
> unexpected result.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Poor logic if reasoning from the above analogy.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl"
type="cite">> <br>
> ><br>
> > Don't forget that 'no soul' and 'no psi' are the null
hypotheses. Anyone who claims that either of these things exists needs
to provide evidence or a convincing logical argument. Anyone who
doesn't, doesn't. No logic (or maths) needed.<br>
> ><br>
</blockquote>
Yep.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl"
type="cite">> <br>
> Agreed. Claiming that either or both are Bullshit by lack of<br>
> existential evidence looks to me like a matter of personal belief
(ie:<br>
> faith) No logic needed.<br>
> <br>
</blockquote>
It has nothing at all to do with personal belief or faith. It is
simple reasoning that there is not sufficient reason to believe these
things are the case. So not believing them is the only rational
course for now. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl"
type="cite">> > Or are you the type of person who, when told
that there are no hypercubical golden dragons living underground on the
far side of Titan, says "Ah, but you can't prove that, can you?!?!"<br>
> <br>
> No. I am the type of person who stores that statement relative to
how<br>
> much I trust your ability to make truthful statements. I remain<br>
> skeptical until I go underground on the far side of Titan. Even
after<br>
> finding no hypercubical golden dragons there, I reserve the<br>
> possibility that they may have only gone out for lunch while I was<br>
> visiting.<br>
> <br>
</blockquote>
What, you wait till you can take a physical trip yourself rather than
claim maker to provide evidence? In the meantime you do not believe
this, right? Is this a matter of mere faith or of applied rationality?<br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>