Kelly wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> In fact I used that same argument with Russell >> Standish when he said that ants aren't conscious because if they were >> then we should expect to be experiencing life as ants and not humans. >> > > Did you win or lose that argument? > > I've heard that line of reasoning before also. Doesn't it also > conclude that we're living in the last days? If there are more > conscious beings in the future than in the present, then we should > expect to live there and not here, so there must not be more conscious > beings in the future? And also it predicts that there are no > significant number of (conscious) aliens? Because if there were, we > should expect to be one of them and not a human? > > Sounds like over-use of a good idea. In this case it ignores all > other available information to just focus only on one narrow > statistic. Why should we ignore everything else we know and only > credit this single argument from probability? Surely, after studying > ants and humans, the knowledge that we gain has to alter our initial > expectations, right? But that isn't taken into account here (at least > not in your one line description of the discussion...ha!). > > I think the problem with Russell's ant argument stems from trying to > use "a priori" reasoning in an "a posteriori" situation. There is > extra information available that he isn't taking into consideration. > > Probably the same applies to the Doomsday argument and aliens. There > is extra information available that isn't being taking into account by > SSA. Pure SSA type reasoning only applies when there is no extra > information available on which to base your conclusion, I think. > > > >> However, in your theory you explain that there are always "next >> moments" to be experienced, if you were to wager on your next >> experience would you guess that it will be random or ordered? If you >> say ordered, is that not a contradiction when the random experiences >> so greatly outnumber the ordered? >> > > I have no choice in the matter. Some of me are going to bet random. > Some of me are going to bet ordered. When you come to a fork in the > road, take it. > > Really and truely, I think the best rule of thumb is to bet the way > that leaves you looking LEAST FOOLISH if you're wrong. Usually > that'll be "ordered". > > > >> Perhaps in your theory "next" and "previous" OMs aren't really >> connected, only the illusion of such a connection? >> > > Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. > > > >> Would you say you belong to the ASSA or RSSA camp? >> Or perhaps something different entirely? >> > > I guess something different entirely. I'm saying that the only rule > is: "Everything happens. And sometimes, by sheer coincidence, it > makes sense."
An untestable theory. But that's OK since if it's true it's also useless. Brent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---