Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Slowvehicle]

What lands is a person who was a bachelor but is now a married man. What lands is a coin that was two-headed but is now two-tailed.

Thank you for properly using the disjunction, "but", which I have taken the liberty to highlight.

As you say, Fud, neither is what it was, BUT is now "...something entirely else..."

The "bachelor" does not land; the "two-headed coin" cannot show "tails".

QED

You seem to have got this idea in your head that when a thing changes so that a new label is applied, the thing "ceases to exist", along with the label. I don't have to tell on how many levels how wrong that is.

You seem to be willing to ignore the fact that the label does not cause the change, BUT[/HILITE] reflects it. You, yourself, insist on a magically-changing coin, and yet, having savaged physics, you cavil at grammar. IF the "two-headed coin" were to be changed into a coin with something other than two heads, it could not honestly be called a "two-headed coin"

Neither of us are kids. We didn't cease to exist when we turned 18. The label "kid" simply no longer applied to us.

Exactly! the "kid" (your word) I was does not exist; that is, is not present; the old man I am shares continuity with that "kid" (your word) BUT[/HILITE] (pay attention, now, Fud) I am not a "kid" (your word). Calling me such is inaccurate, even dishonest--and the mere act of labeleing me such would not restore the vigor of my youth.

Really now.

Precisely.

A married man is not a bachelor; a "coin that can land showing a tail" is not a "two-headed coin"; the man I am is not the child I was.

You may actually be getting it, Fud.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Certain recent posts have convinced me that some individuals will simply never, ever admit error, not even tiny errors. I am happy to honestly argue legitimate points, but I don't see how continuing this discussion, at least as it is presently, would be any fun for me. I thank almost all of the participants for their knowledge and their persistence; I have learned a lot from them. Ultimately I may not be able to stay away, but I certainly feel as if I explained my views as best as I can.

Ta ever so for your contributions so far!

 

[Fudbucker]

Thank you for properly using the disjunction, "but", which I have taken the liberty to highlight.

As you say, Fud, neither is what it was, BUT is now "...something entirely else..."

The "bachelor" does not land; the "two-headed coin" cannot show "tails".

QED



You seem to be willing to ignore the fact that the label does not cause the change, BUT[/HILITE] reflects it. You, yourself, insist on a magically-changing coin, and yet, having savaged physics, you cavil at grammar. IF the "two-headed coin" were to be changed into a coin with something other than two heads, it could not honestly be called a "two-headed coin"


Exactly! the "kid" (your word) I was does not exist; that is, is not present; the old man I am shares continuity with that "kid" (your word) BUT[/HILITE] (pay attention, now, Fud) I am not a "kid" (your word). Calling me such is inaccurate, even dishonest--and the mere act of labeleing me such would not restore the vigor of my youth.



Precisely.

A married man is not a bachelor; a "coin that can land showing a tail" is not a "two-headed coin"; the man I am is not the child I was.

You may actually be getting it, Fud.

Truce, truce!!!

There are substantive issues still unresolved.

You will not change my mind, I won't change yours. You can make a new thread in philosophy forum. I will be happy to respond. Title it provocatively "Two headed coins can't land tails". I'll argue the "con" side.

I don't want people like Giordano leaving the thread.

 

[John Jones]

Train wreck coming.

 

[Fudbucker]

Fudbucker, you're starting to come-across as slightly unhinged. I mean that in the most constructive sense.

It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of that.

When it comes to science and philosophy, I push the boundaries to stimulate discussion. That doesn't mean I don't believe in my arguments.

Geniuses are never appreciated in their own time.

 

[The Moog]

...I push the boundaries to stimulate discussion...

You stimulate no discussion by ignoring everyone else's points.

Geniuses are never appreciated in their own time.

Yes, I am sure that Gene Ray has that quote hanging on his wall.

 

[Fudbucker]

You stimulate no discussion by ignoring everyone else's points.



Yes, I am sure that Gene Ray has that quote hanging on his wall.

I don't ignore posts. I spend a great, great deal of time responding to people. That is obvious if you read the thread.

 

[John Jones]

It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of that.

When it comes to science and philosophy, I push the boundaries to stimulate discussion. That doesn't mean I don't believe in my arguments.

Geniuses are never appreciated in their own time.

Neither are idiots. Funny how that works.

You told me just yesterday that you would no longer reply to me. I noticed your explosive posting rate just several days ago.

Have your medications changed?

 

[The Moog]

I don't ignore posts. I spend a great, great deal of time responding to people. That is obvious if you read the thread.

I have read the thread completely and you have spent a great deal of time ignoring peoples posts.

 

[AdMan]

Take my marbles and go home? Really? Have I not bent over backwards trying to explain this in many different ways? Do you think I have an infinite amount of time to talk about some logically possible/impossible scenario?

I have explained why you are wrong, and given plenty of examples that show the flaw in your reasoning: Two-headed coins can "land" tails in the same way a bachelor can "land" as a married man (which you've already admitted can happen). The married man is still the same person. The coin is still the same coin. Both were changed during a time interval in the scenario.

Just joining this thread, but is this a serious argument? It's quite silly. A bachelor becoming a married man is somehow equivalent to a two-headed coin suddenly getting a tail side?

 

[The Norseman]

Here's my last attempt to convince you. After this, we'll agree to disagree:

What you're getting hung up on (missing actually) is that coin-tossing is a time-based process. That means any scenario involving coin tosses can be divided up into segments of time. So that:

At T1, X is a two-headed coin.
At T2, X is flipped
At T3 X is changed into a two-tailed coin
At T4, X lands on the table, tails

From the above it follows that a two-headed coin can land tails.

Consider: X is a bachelor. Therefore, X is an unmarried man. It logically follows, right? However, X isn't engaged in a time based process.

Now consider: Can a bachelor BECOME a married man? Sure, DURING the marriage the bachelor changes into a married man. That doesn't mean he was never a bachelor. It takes the same form as the coin:

At T1, X is a bachelor At T2, X gets married At T3, X is not a bachelor.
Therefore, it's logically possible for a bachelor to become a non-bachelor.

Instead of the word "land", use the word "become":

Can a two-headed coin become a two-tailed coin? Yes. Therefore, a two-headed coin can land tails, since it can become a two-tailed coin before it lands.

And that's as far as I'll go with it.

But I am right.

At T1, X is a two-headed coin
At T2, X gets changed
At T3, X is not a two-headed coin.

I didn't assign any prior probabilities when I did my calculation.

Then you're doing it wrong.

A prior probability is what you assign to a hypothesis before you evaluate the evidence. I have not assigned a prior probability to either alien life or ESP.

You don't seem to understand Baye's Theorem then.

 

[Fudbucker]

At T1, X is a two-headed coin
At T2, X gets changed
At T3, X is not a two-headed coin.




Then you're doing it wrong.



You don't seem to understand Baye's Theorem then.

No.

"In Bayesian statistical inference, a prior probability distribution, often called simply the prior, of an uncertain quantity p is the probability distribution that would express one's uncertainty about p before some evidence is taken into account."

 

[Slowvehicle]

I wondered if you would go down this road. It's a strange one for materialists to take. You've blundered (either knowingly or unknowingly) into the Ship of Theseus problem. Namely, how much change does a thing have to go through before it's not the same thing anymore.

Seriously? Is dishonesty all you have left?

Read your own words, Fud.

What is, in fact, a "two-headed coin"? Unless you are arguing from an antinomian stance (that is, that words have no real meanings), a "two-headed coin" is, in fact, a coin with two faces that show "heads". Now pay attention,because this is where you founder.

If a coin has less than "two heads"; that is, if a coin has a "tails" face, or TWO "tails" faces, it is not, by definition, a "two-headed coin". If the label, "two-headed coin" means anything at all, it must refer to a "coin-with-two-heads"--coins with less than two heads need not apply as they do not qualify, by definition.

If you, by your eldridtch magicks, change a "coin-with-two-heads" into "...something entirely else..." (your words); it is no longer what it was. If it no longer has two "head"-faces, it is no longer a "two-headed coin". (if your legerdemain, for instance, could change a 2€ coin into a 100¥ coin, after the change, it would no longer be European currency, by definition. It would have been changed, as you say, into "...something entirely other..."; no longer what it was.)

A "bachelor" is not the same thing as a "married man"; it is, in your words, "...something entirely other...",if you intend to be taken as using words in any way correctly, or accurately.

Slow, you are a particular person. Would you say you're essentially the same person you were five minutes ago? Many, many atoms have migrated into and out of your body in that time. Does your identity change with each changing particle, or are you still essentially you?

I wonder if you realize how weak your attempt to torture an analogy makes your argument seem?

In 5 minutes? Not enough "change" to notice; certainly not as much change as (for instance) no longer having two heads, or no longer being single.

5 years ago? I was (measurably, and recordedly) 10-15 IQ points smarter, with better concentration, more patience, and better linguistic facility (sever cerebral trauma will do that). I would not disagree that I am not the same person I was, and that that person no longer exists.

30 years ago? I was white-knuckling heteronormativity, fideonormativity, and socionormativity. i am (thankfully) no longer that person.

45 years ago? Although "the child is the father of the man", the child I was no longer exists; I am not that child.

As distinct, and as irreversible, as those changes have been, none of them are as definitive as a "coin-with-two-heads" being changed into a "coin-with-at-least-one-tail-to-land-showing".

In case you missed it,
"coin-with-two-heads" =/= "coin-with-one-tails" =/= coin-with-two-tails"

You are claiming that the bachelor (who doesn't even undergo a physical change when he gets married) "ceases to exist". If you were to tell him that he doesn't exist anymore, you would have quite an argument on your hands!

No, but if I were to tell him he was, in fact, no longer a bachelor, he would agree with me (absent a commitment to antinomianism). he could, in fact, face certain legal penalties for claiming to be a bachelor (although married); in fact, he no longer fits the definition of "bachelor", and is, in fact (do pay attention) NOT a "bachelor".

"Did you see a bachelor come though here?"
"No, but I did see a married man."

Or maybe you believe that a thing ceases to exist if one tiny change is made.

How "tiny" is a change that sunders a thing from its definition?

A "coin-with-at-least-one-tails-to land-showing" is not the same as a "coin-with-two heads". Do you really want to claim that ias a "tiny" change?

Tell you what: take your "two-headed coin" (by your argument, a "tiny change") to the bank; try to use it to pay a legal debt. Let the Treasury Dept. explain to you how "tiny" that change is...

Is that what you believe? If the two-headed coin changes so that one side is now tails, is there now a brand new coin?

By definition, yes. If the coin was a "two-headed coin", and now has some-number-other-than-two-heads, it is not (barring a specious commitment to antinomianism) a "two headed coin", but "...something entirely other..." (your words).

If a coin has two tails, or one tail, it is not, by definition, a "two-headed coin", but "...something entirely other..."

If a coin has multiple holographic programmable faces, it is not a "two-headed coin", but "...something entirely other..."

Are you dishonest enough to claim otherwise?

Are you a completely different person with each breath you take? You could take that position, of course, but it is a very strange one.

Is a coin-with-other-than-two-heads a "two-headed coin"? You could take that position, of course, but it would be a very strange one; nor would it be a defensible one.

<snip of gratuitous (and off-point) Platoism>

 

[Slowvehicle]

Truce, truce!!!

There are substantive issues still unresolved.

You will not change my mind, I won't change yours. You can make a new thread in philosophy forum. I will be happy to respond. Title it provocatively "Two headed coins can't land tails". I'll argue the "con" side.

I don't want people like Giordano leaving the thread.

Pax Non!

You cannot simply waive (or hand-wave away) the fundamental flaw in your "argument". I know your mind is made up; I make a living teaching science to obdurate high-school students.

You may quit the argument at any time; that does not, however, alter the fact that a "coin-with-two-heads" is not the same thing as a "coin-with-some-number-other-than-two-heads".

It is, after all, your argument (remember the "deck-with-no-ace-of-spades" within which you claimed there was a non-zero probability of finding an ace of spades? Try THAT one in Vegas,...), Fud.

Present a valid argument, and Giordano will return; he's tough. He's put up with worse than your errors.

As for me, I will continue to point out that a "bachelor" is not a "married man"; a "silk purse" is not a "sow's ear"; and a "coin-with-two-heads" is not a "coin-with-some-number-other-other-than-two" as long as you continue to promulgate the error.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No.

"In Bayesian statistical inference, a prior probability distribution, often called simply the prior, of an uncertain quantity p is the probability distribution that would express one's uncertainty about p before some evidence is taken into account."

Fud, you seem to have ignored, or overlooked, or "failed-to-respond-to" this bit:

At T1, X is a two-headed coin
At T2, X gets changed
At T3, X is not a two-headed coin.

 

[This is The End]

It IS possible there's a heard of T-Rex's in Brazil. It's a logically coherent inductive claim. All such claims are possible.

You are wrong on the second sentence. It is not a logically coherent claim.

Perhaps I should have said "a heard of thousands of T-Rex's" is still alive in the jungle in Brazil.

 

[Fudbucker]

Pax Non!

You cannot simply waive (or hand-wave away) the fundamental flaw in your "argument". I know your mind is made up; I make a living teaching science to obdurate high-school students.

You may quit the argument at any time; that does not, however, alter the fact that a "coin-with-two-heads" is not the same thing as a "coin-with-some-number-other-than-two-heads".

It is, after all, your argument (remember the "deck-with-no-ace-of-spades" within which you claimed there was a non-zero probability of finding an ace of spades? Try THAT one in Vegas,...), Fud.

Present a valid argument, and Giordano will return; he's tough. He's put up with worse than your errors.

As for me, I will continue to point out that a "bachelor" is not a "married man"; a "silk purse" is not a "sow's ear"; and a "coin-with-two-heads" is not a "coin-with-some-number-other-other-than-two" as long as you continue to promulgate the error.

Actually, you're on record claiming bachelors "cease to exist" when they get married, but if you want to water it down, it's no skin off my nose.

Nobody is "tough" on these forums. There used to be people, like Sol Invictus, who would occasionally chime in. Now we're down to people like "John Jones" and "Tsig".

See the fine-tuning thread if you want to see what the Science Forum has become.

I thought this thread might result in interesting discussion. Apparently, the people who are capable of it have left (with a few exceptions, you and Aridas, Giordano... but that's too much separating of the wheat from the chaff, for my tastes).

I'll stick to politics.

/thread.

 

[tsig]

I wondered if you would go down this road. It's a strange one for materialists to take. You've blundered (either knowingly or unknowingly) into the Ship of Theseus problem. Namely, how much change does a thing have to go through before it's not the same thing anymore.

Slow, you are a particular person. Would you say you're essentially the same person you were five minutes ago? Many, many atoms have migrated into and out of your body in that time. Does your identity change with each changing particle, or are you still essentially you?

You are claiming that the bachelor (who doesn't even undergo a physical change when he gets married) "ceases to exist". If you were to tell him that he doesn't exist anymore, you would have quite an argument on your hands!

Or maybe you believe that a thing ceases to exist if one tiny change is made. Is that what you believe? If the two-headed coin changes so that one side is now tails, is there now a brand new coin? Are you a completely different person with each breath you take? You could take that position, of course, but it is a very strange one.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-time/

I doubt he's turned into a chicken.

 

[Fudbucker]

It IS possible there's a heard of T-Rex's in Brazil. It's a logically coherent inductive claim. All such claims are possible.

You are wrong on the second sentence. It is not a logically coherent claim.

Perhaps I should have said "a heard of thousands of T-Rex's" is still alive in the jungle in Brazil.

This is a more appropriate thread to sign off on.

Wrong!

Thank you, good night!

 

[tsig]

Just joining this thread, but is this a serious argument? It's quite silly. A bachelor becoming a married man is somehow equivalent to a two-headed coin suddenly getting a tail side?

Well we started off with "If advanced alien life can exist then so can ESP" so there was really no up direction here.