On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:27:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com 
> <javascript:>>wrote:
>  
>
>> >> unlike psi it would be easily repeatable, if one person who claimed to 
>>> have a sense of humor laughed and said that was a very good joke it is 
>>> statistically very likely (although not certain) that another person who 
>>> also claimed to have a sense of humor would make the same noise, 
>>
>>
>> > Why? Do all people who have a good sense of humor laugh at the same 
>> jokes? 
>>
>
> Pretty much, certainly the probability of hearing the sound of laughter is 
> much higher than you'd expect from pure randomness, otherwise it would be 
> impossible for professional comedians to make a living. There are 
> professional  fortune tellers but they make their living by fooling the 
> stupid not mother nature. If psi is a real phenomenon I don't understand 
> why state lotteries nevertheless consistently manage make money.  
>

What's the difference between people who laugh at comedians and people who 
are counseled by psychics? There are more astrologers than astronomers, 
maybe that means that some people just have sensitivities that others lack? 
I would think it would be strange if there wasn't such variation. Some 
people are stronger in logic, some engineering, some poetry or painting, 
why wouldn't some people have a more developed intuition about people and 
their lives? Personally I don't trust others to counsel me in general, and 
even less so any random professional psychic, but I don't doubt that 
psychics have helped and hurt people as much as other kinds of therapists 
(who I would also avoid in general).
 

>
>  >> a hard problem theory doesn't have to actually do anything, but a easy 
>>> problem theory most certainly does. Any hard problem theory will work just 
>>> fine, any at all, 
>>>
>>
>> > For example?
>>
>
> Only one thing in the universe can produce consciousness, the left big toe 
> on a size 12 foot. This theory is perfectly consistent with everything I 
> have ever observed about consciousness. By the way, I happen to ware size 
> 12 shoes and still have 10 toes.
>

That's not a hard problem theory, that's an easy problem theory. It doesn't 
explain why there is consciousness in the first place. It doesn't matter 
whether consciousness appears in brain tissue for no reason or your big toe 
for no reason. They both come from the same stem cell anyhow, and there's 
really nothing very special about neurons.
 

>
> > Building 100ft sculptures of people's cats out of toothpicks would be 
>> devilishly hard
>
>
> Yes.
>  
>
>> > and profitable too.
>>
>
> No.
>


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/italy-rich-cat-tommaso_n_1143022.html

I think you might find enough clients in the $500,000 - $1,000,000 range to 
pay the rent. I guess it depends on the price of toothpicks.



>  > Why does that matter?
>>
>
> Beats the hell out of me.
>
> > I don't see a contest between the easy and hard problem 
>>
>
> If you have 2 problems to solve you don't see the value of solving the 
> easy one first and then using the wisdom gained from that solution to solve 
> the harder problem? 
>

Why would every person on Earth have to work on one first and not the 
other? Should we stop all space exploration until after we cure cancer?
 

>
> > Everything seems to boil down to some variation of 'My assumptions are 
>> justified because winners win with winning assumptions, and winning always 
>> wins... and don't forget the winning.'
>>
>
> Very well put.
>

; )
 

>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iEiUCbDjr7IJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to