Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why am I conscious?

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:01:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Imagine a line. This line is infinitely long in both directions. There is a special inch somewhere along that line that we'll highlight. It is in a random place. What are the odds, assuming that the line is divided up into inches, of me randomly selecting an inch of that line and getting the special one? Obviously, infinitely low (would it be effectively zero?).

I don't know what consciousness is, but I'm fairly certain that I am conscious. However, before I lived I was ostensibly never conscious, and after I die (according to materialism) I will no longer be conscious. Ever. So, again, the odds of me currently being in that conscious state are the same as the odds of selecting that special inch in the line I talked about above- infinitely small.

I know what you're thinking. The weak anthropic principle shows that I have to observe before I can make an observation. But this doesn't seem compatible with the idea that death is a possible state. In other words, I cannot cease to exist forever or the above problem applies to me.

What does this imply?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 3:14:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 12:01:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Imagine a line. This line is infinitely long in both directions. There is a special inch somewhere along that line that we'll highlight. It is in a random place. What are the odds, assuming that the line is divided up into inches, of me randomly selecting an inch of that line and getting the special one? Obviously, infinitely low (would it be effectively zero?).


I don't know what consciousness is, but I'm fairly certain that I am conscious. However, before I lived I was ostensibly never conscious, and after I die (according to materialism) I will no longer be conscious. Ever. So, again, the odds of me currently being in that conscious state are the same as the odds of selecting that special inch in the line I talked about above- infinitely small.

Hahah That's like walking into a waiting room at the dentist and thinking "out of all the people in the world, what are the odds that these 6 exact people would be in this room!". Widely improbable things happen all the time, it means NOTHING.


I know what you're thinking. The weak anthropic principle shows that I have to observe before I can make an observation. But this doesn't seem compatible with the idea that death is a possible state. In other words, I cannot cease to exist forever or the above problem applies to me.

What does this imply?

It implies nothing. Nothing happens when you die. Deal with it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 3:17:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 12:01:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Imagine a line. This line is infinitely long in both directions. There is a special inch somewhere along that line that we'll highlight. It is in a random place. What are the odds, assuming that the line is divided up into inches, of me randomly selecting an inch of that line and getting the special one? Obviously, infinitely low (would it be effectively zero?).

I don't know what consciousness is, but I'm fairly certain that I am conscious. However, before I lived I was ostensibly never conscious, and after I die (according to materialism) I will no longer be conscious. Ever. So, again, the odds of me currently being in that conscious state are the same as the odds of selecting that special inch in the line I talked about above- infinitely small.

I know what you're thinking. The weak anthropic principle shows that I have to observe before I can make an observation. But this doesn't seem compatible with the idea that death is a possible state. In other words, I cannot cease to exist forever or the above problem applies to me.

What does this imply?

I walked outside, out of all the possible flies and all the possible positions, what are the odds that the flies I saw flying around did so on that exact path, and those exact flies?! Omg it is so improbable, it just couldn't have happened! Out of all the girls in the world, what are the odds I met mine? You know what? Everything in life is improbable. I guess I must be dead...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 3:21:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just dropped my phone two seconds ago. Out of all the things I could have done two seconds ago, what are the odds that I would drop my phone? There are almost an infinite possibilities. I guess I didn't drop my phone because it was so widely improbable.
BornToDebate
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 4:27:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 3:22:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The reason you're conscious is because your parents f*cked. Was this supposed to be a serious thread?

That's the reason he was born. Not the reason that he is conscious.
dilfilly fung fing
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 7:27:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 12:01:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Imagine a line. This line is infinitely long in both directions. There is a special inch somewhere along that line that we'll highlight. It is in a random place. What are the odds, assuming that the line is divided up into inches, of me randomly selecting an inch of that line and getting the special one? Obviously, infinitely low (would it be effectively zero?).

I don't know what consciousness is, but I'm fairly certain that I am conscious. However, before I lived I was ostensibly never conscious, and after I die (according to materialism) I will no longer be conscious. Ever. So, again, the odds of me currently being in that conscious state are the same as the odds of selecting that special inch in the line I talked about above- infinitely small.

I know what you're thinking. The weak anthropic principle shows that I have to observe before I can make an observation. But this doesn't seem compatible with the idea that death is a possible state. In other words, I cannot cease to exist forever or the above problem applies to me.

What does this imply?

nothing. There's first of all the absurdity of treating consciousness as a probability that maintains its meaning in absence. There is no "you" that shifts phase to conscious from not-conscious on logically impossible odds. Also, consciousness confers on necessary conditions for its existence. There's no probability involved when something exists by necessity, and if you transfer the probability to the existence of the necessary conditions, I'd refer you to multiverse theory.

And to apply my own explanation of it - your existence corresponds to a physical entity and is perceived so, by you, from the perspective of that being. When that being ceases to exist, you cease to exist (which, if you're following, should be a tautologous statement). Consciousness therefore does not arise from anything, but is a perspective of something - thereby bound by physics in a manner that does not permit you to speak of endless probabilities.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 8:27:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I haven't knocked you out yet.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 8:40:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This assumes everything is randomly generated. The odds of this happening are equal with the odds of everything else.

Take the arrangement of atoms in the universe. There are about 10^100 atoms, supposedly. I guess there are far more positions than that that they can occupy, so make that conservative; 10^101.

Now I'm not that good at Maths (I mean, I'm ok, but not really qualified) so maybe take this with a pinch of salt. I know there are at least 10^100 different arrangements, but I think factorial comes in here, so I think the number is 10^100! * 10^101, maybe. Someone call a mathematician.

So my point is, each Plank time ~ 10^-44 seconds, this could change, well, light could travel a Plank length. I don't know how much time is needed for an atom to move that far, but it has to be less than 10^-20 seconds.

All of this is ignoring the position of light, and the wavelengths, ionization, convection, half-lifes etc.

Every single plank time, there could be near infinite possibilities, so after one second, I'd say it's maybe at least;

1 in (10^100!*10^101)^10^44 chance that everything was in the position is was, at the time it was.

I mean, it's practically impossible for anything to be anywhere, right? Luckily, things don't seem to be randomly generated, there seem to be certain "laws" and "rules" which reality, or at least, our universe seems to consistently follow.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 11:54:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 4:27:04 AM, BornToDebate wrote:
At 7/28/2013 3:22:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The reason you're conscious is because your parents f*cked. Was this supposed to be a serious thread?

That's the reason he was born. Not the reason that he is conscious.

And being born does not lead to consciousness?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 1:47:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 8:40:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
This assumes everything is randomly generated. The odds of this happening are equal with the odds of everything else.

Take the arrangement of atoms in the universe. There are about 10^100 atoms, supposedly. I guess there are far more positions than that that they can occupy, so make that conservative; 10^101.

Now I'm not that good at Maths (I mean, I'm ok, but not really qualified) so maybe take this with a pinch of salt. I know there are at least 10^100 different arrangements, but I think factorial comes in here, so I think the number is 10^100! * 10^101, maybe. Someone call a mathematician.

So my point is, each Plank time ~ 10^-44 seconds, this could change, well, light could travel a Plank length. I don't know how much time is needed for an atom to move that far, but it has to be less than 10^-20 seconds.

All of this is ignoring the position of light, and the wavelengths, ionization, convection, half-lifes etc.

Every single plank time, there could be near infinite possibilities, so after one second, I'd say it's maybe at least;

1 in (10^100!*10^101)^10^44 chance that everything was in the position is was, at the time it was.

I mean, it's practically impossible for anything to be anywhere, right? Luckily, things don't seem to be randomly generated, there seem to be certain "laws" and "rules" which reality, or at least, our universe seems to consistently follow.

Incorrect: http://www.futilitycloset.com...
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 1:51:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 7:27:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:01:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Imagine a line. This line is infinitely long in both directions. There is a special inch somewhere along that line that we'll highlight. It is in a random place. What are the odds, assuming that the line is divided up into inches, of me randomly selecting an inch of that line and getting the special one? Obviously, infinitely low (would it be effectively zero?).

I don't know what consciousness is, but I'm fairly certain that I am conscious. However, before I lived I was ostensibly never conscious, and after I die (according to materialism) I will no longer be conscious. Ever. So, again, the odds of me currently being in that conscious state are the same as the odds of selecting that special inch in the line I talked about above- infinitely small.

I know what you're thinking. The weak anthropic principle shows that I have to observe before I can make an observation. But this doesn't seem compatible with the idea that death is a possible state. In other words, I cannot cease to exist forever or the above problem applies to me.

What does this imply?

nothing. There's first of all the absurdity of treating consciousness as a probability that maintains its meaning in absence. There is no "you" that shifts phase to conscious from not-conscious on logically impossible odds. Also, consciousness confers on necessary conditions for its existence. There's no probability involved when something exists by necessity, and if you transfer the probability to the existence of the necessary conditions, I'd refer you to multiverse theory.

And to apply my own explanation of it - your existence corresponds to a physical entity and is perceived so, by you, from the perspective of that being. When that being ceases to exist, you cease to exist (which, if you're following, should be a tautologous statement). Consciousness therefore does not arise from anything, but is a perspective of something - thereby bound by physics in a manner that does not permit you to speak of endless probabilities.

I don't see how your arguments are relevant (or maybe I just didn't understand them). I do think that nonexistence is a possible state and I'd like you to Google "Copernicus principle."
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 2:33:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 1:47:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 8:40:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
This assumes everything is randomly generated. The odds of this happening are equal with the odds of everything else.

Take the arrangement of atoms in the universe. There are about 10^100 atoms, supposedly. I guess there are far more positions than that that they can occupy, so make that conservative; 10^101.

Now I'm not that good at Maths (I mean, I'm ok, but not really qualified) so maybe take this with a pinch of salt. I know there are at least 10^100 different arrangements, but I think factorial comes in here, so I think the number is 10^100! * 10^101, maybe. Someone call a mathematician.

So my point is, each Plank time ~ 10^-44 seconds, this could change, well, light could travel a Plank length. I don't know how much time is needed for an atom to move that far, but it has to be less than 10^-20 seconds.

All of this is ignoring the position of light, and the wavelengths, ionization, convection, half-lifes etc.

Every single plank time, there could be near infinite possibilities, so after one second, I'd say it's maybe at least;

1 in (10^100!*10^101)^10^44 chance that everything was in the position is was, at the time it was.

I mean, it's practically impossible for anything to be anywhere, right? Luckily, things don't seem to be randomly generated, there seem to be certain "laws" and "rules" which reality, or at least, our universe seems to consistently follow.

Incorrect: http://www.futilitycloset.com...

You're incorrect? I am? Explain your link.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 2:43:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 1:51:02 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 7:27:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:01:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Imagine a line. This line is infinitely long in both directions. There is a special inch somewhere along that line that we'll highlight. It is in a random place. What are the odds, assuming that the line is divided up into inches, of me randomly selecting an inch of that line and getting the special one? Obviously, infinitely low (would it be effectively zero?).

I don't know what consciousness is, but I'm fairly certain that I am conscious. However, before I lived I was ostensibly never conscious, and after I die (according to materialism) I will no longer be conscious. Ever. So, again, the odds of me currently being in that conscious state are the same as the odds of selecting that special inch in the line I talked about above- infinitely small.

I know what you're thinking. The weak anthropic principle shows that I have to observe before I can make an observation. But this doesn't seem compatible with the idea that death is a possible state. In other words, I cannot cease to exist forever or the above problem applies to me.

What does this imply?

nothing. There's first of all the absurdity of treating consciousness as a probability that maintains its meaning in absence. There is no "you" that shifts phase to conscious from not-conscious on logically impossible odds. Also, consciousness confers on necessary conditions for its existence. There's no probability involved when something exists by necessity, and if you transfer the probability to the existence of the necessary conditions, I'd refer you to multiverse theory.

And to apply my own explanation of it - your existence corresponds to a physical entity and is perceived so, by you, from the perspective of that being. When that being ceases to exist, you cease to exist (which, if you're following, should be a tautologous statement). Consciousness therefore does not arise from anything, but is a perspective of something - thereby bound by physics in a manner that does not permit you to speak of endless probabilities.

I don't see how your arguments are relevant (or maybe I just didn't understand them). I do think that nonexistence is a possible state and I'd like you to Google "Copernicus principle."

Again, that's absurd. State describes existence - non-existence is the absence of any state. And my arguments are relevant. Your problem stems from your misapprehension of necessity and probability as well as your question-begging maintenance of identity in the face of non-existence. In short:

You are conscious because it is physically necessary that you and your material correspondents cause this consciousness. Therefore blind probability does not apply to your wake or your death.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 3:11:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 2:43:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 1:51:02 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 7:27:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:01:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Imagine a line. This line is infinitely long in both directions. There is a special inch somewhere along that line that we'll highlight. It is in a random place. What are the odds, assuming that the line is divided up into inches, of me randomly selecting an inch of that line and getting the special one? Obviously, infinitely low (would it be effectively zero?).

I don't know what consciousness is, but I'm fairly certain that I am conscious. However, before I lived I was ostensibly never conscious, and after I die (according to materialism) I will no longer be conscious. Ever. So, again, the odds of me currently being in that conscious state are the same as the odds of selecting that special inch in the line I talked about above- infinitely small.

I know what you're thinking. The weak anthropic principle shows that I have to observe before I can make an observation. But this doesn't seem compatible with the idea that death is a possible state. In other words, I cannot cease to exist forever or the above problem applies to me.

What does this imply?

nothing. There's first of all the absurdity of treating consciousness as a probability that maintains its meaning in absence. There is no "you" that shifts phase to conscious from not-conscious on logically impossible odds. Also, consciousness confers on necessary conditions for its existence. There's no probability involved when something exists by necessity, and if you transfer the probability to the existence of the necessary conditions, I'd refer you to multiverse theory.

And to apply my own explanation of it - your existence corresponds to a physical entity and is perceived so, by you, from the perspective of that being. When that being ceases to exist, you cease to exist (which, if you're following, should be a tautologous statement). Consciousness therefore does not arise from anything, but is a perspective of something - thereby bound by physics in a manner that does not permit you to speak of endless probabilities.

I don't see how your arguments are relevant (or maybe I just didn't understand them). I do think that nonexistence is a possible state and I'd like you to Google "Copernicus principle."

Again, that's absurd. State describes existence - non-existence is the absence of any state. And my arguments are relevant. Your problem stems from your misapprehension of necessity and probability as well as your question-begging maintenance of identity in the face of non-existence. In short:

You are conscious because it is physically necessary that you and your material correspondents cause this consciousness. Therefore blind probability does not apply to your wake or your death.

Bingo.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 3:27:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 12:01:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Imagine a line. This line is infinitely long in both directions. There is a special inch somewhere along that line that we'll highlight. It is in a random place. What are the odds, assuming that the line is divided up into inches, of me randomly selecting an inch of that line and getting the special one? Obviously, infinitely low (would it be effectively zero?).

Yes, the odds would theoretically be zero percent.

I don't know what consciousness is, but I'm fairly certain that I am conscious. However, before I lived I was ostensibly never conscious, and after I die (according to materialism) I will no longer be conscious. Ever. So, again, the odds of me currently being in that conscious state are the same as the odds of selecting that special inch in the line I talked about above- infinitely small.

That would be true only if (a) time actually stretches infinitely in the past and infinitely in the future, and (b) you acquiring consciousness was a purely random, probabilistic outcome. And I don't believe either of these are the case.

I know what you're thinking. The weak anthropic principle shows that I have to observe before I can make an observation. But this doesn't seem compatible with the idea that death is a possible state. In other words, I cannot cease to exist forever or the above problem applies to me.

What does this imply?

I think it implies that you fear death.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 3:52:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 2:33:04 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/28/2013 1:47:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 8:40:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
This assumes everything is randomly generated. The odds of this happening are equal with the odds of everything else.

Take the arrangement of atoms in the universe. There are about 10^100 atoms, supposedly. I guess there are far more positions than that that they can occupy, so make that conservative; 10^101.

Now I'm not that good at Maths (I mean, I'm ok, but not really qualified) so maybe take this with a pinch of salt. I know there are at least 10^100 different arrangements, but I think factorial comes in here, so I think the number is 10^100! * 10^101, maybe. Someone call a mathematician.

So my point is, each Plank time ~ 10^-44 seconds, this could change, well, light could travel a Plank length. I don't know how much time is needed for an atom to move that far, but it has to be less than 10^-20 seconds.

All of this is ignoring the position of light, and the wavelengths, ionization, convection, half-lifes etc.

Every single plank time, there could be near infinite possibilities, so after one second, I'd say it's maybe at least;

1 in (10^100!*10^101)^10^44 chance that everything was in the position is was, at the time it was.

I mean, it's practically impossible for anything to be anywhere, right? Luckily, things don't seem to be randomly generated, there seem to be certain "laws" and "rules" which reality, or at least, our universe seems to consistently follow.

Incorrect: http://www.futilitycloset.com...

You're incorrect? I am? Explain your link.

You are. Did you read?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 3:53:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 2:43:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 1:51:02 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 7:27:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:01:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Imagine a line. This line is infinitely long in both directions. There is a special inch somewhere along that line that we'll highlight. It is in a random place. What are the odds, assuming that the line is divided up into inches, of me randomly selecting an inch of that line and getting the special one? Obviously, infinitely low (would it be effectively zero?).

I don't know what consciousness is, but I'm fairly certain that I am conscious. However, before I lived I was ostensibly never conscious, and after I die (according to materialism) I will no longer be conscious. Ever. So, again, the odds of me currently being in that conscious state are the same as the odds of selecting that special inch in the line I talked about above- infinitely small.

I know what you're thinking. The weak anthropic principle shows that I have to observe before I can make an observation. But this doesn't seem compatible with the idea that death is a possible state. In other words, I cannot cease to exist forever or the above problem applies to me.

What does this imply?

nothing. There's first of all the absurdity of treating consciousness as a probability that maintains its meaning in absence. There is no "you" that shifts phase to conscious from not-conscious on logically impossible odds. Also, consciousness confers on necessary conditions for its existence. There's no probability involved when something exists by necessity, and if you transfer the probability to the existence of the necessary conditions, I'd refer you to multiverse theory.

And to apply my own explanation of it - your existence corresponds to a physical entity and is perceived so, by you, from the perspective of that being. When that being ceases to exist, you cease to exist (which, if you're following, should be a tautologous statement). Consciousness therefore does not arise from anything, but is a perspective of something - thereby bound by physics in a manner that does not permit you to speak of endless probabilities.

I don't see how your arguments are relevant (or maybe I just didn't understand them). I do think that nonexistence is a possible state and I'd like you to Google "Copernicus principle."

Again, that's absurd. State describes existence - non-existence is the absence of any state. And my arguments are relevant. Your problem stems from your misapprehension of necessity and probability as well as your question-begging maintenance of identity in the face of non-existence. In short:

I don't think so, but I don't know how to convey a response. It's intuitive for me. Sorry.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 3:59:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 3:52:49 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 2:33:04 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/28/2013 1:47:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 8:40:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
This assumes everything is randomly generated. The odds of this happening are equal with the odds of everything else.

Take the arrangement of atoms in the universe. There are about 10^100 atoms, supposedly. I guess there are far more positions than that that they can occupy, so make that conservative; 10^101.

Now I'm not that good at Maths (I mean, I'm ok, but not really qualified) so maybe take this with a pinch of salt. I know there are at least 10^100 different arrangements, but I think factorial comes in here, so I think the number is 10^100! * 10^101, maybe. Someone call a mathematician.

So my point is, each Plank time ~ 10^-44 seconds, this could change, well, light could travel a Plank length. I don't know how much time is needed for an atom to move that far, but it has to be less than 10^-20 seconds.

All of this is ignoring the position of light, and the wavelengths, ionization, convection, half-lifes etc.

Every single plank time, there could be near infinite possibilities, so after one second, I'd say it's maybe at least;

1 in (10^100!*10^101)^10^44 chance that everything was in the position is was, at the time it was.

I mean, it's practically impossible for anything to be anywhere, right? Luckily, things don't seem to be randomly generated, there seem to be certain "laws" and "rules" which reality, or at least, our universe seems to consistently follow.

Incorrect: http://www.futilitycloset.com...

You're incorrect? I am? Explain your link.

You are. Did you read?

I don't see how any of the information presented in that link could disprove what he said.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 4:02:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 3:53:51 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 2:43:34 PM, 000ike wrote:

Again, that's absurd. State describes existence - non-existence is the absence of any state. And my arguments are relevant. Your problem stems from your misapprehension of necessity and probability as well as your question-begging maintenance of identity in the face of non-existence. In short:

I don't think so, but I don't know how to convey a response. It's intuitive for me. Sorry.

nonsense. If you had any coherent idea of what it is you're trying to say, you'd be able to articulate it. The OP is founded on lack of understanding/ignorance in multiple respects. You can amend the logic (for instance, so there's contextualized probability (which would probably destroy your infinite improbability problem)) or you could internalize the whole thing and pretend that if it stays in your head somehow it will seem more cogent.

Your choice.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 4:07:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 3:52:49 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 2:33:04 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/28/2013 1:47:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 8:40:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
This assumes everything is randomly generated. The odds of this happening are equal with the odds of everything else.

Take the arrangement of atoms in the universe. There are about 10^100 atoms, supposedly. I guess there are far more positions than that that they can occupy, so make that conservative; 10^101.

Now I'm not that good at Maths (I mean, I'm ok, but not really qualified) so maybe take this with a pinch of salt. I know there are at least 10^100 different arrangements, but I think factorial comes in here, so I think the number is 10^100! * 10^101, maybe. Someone call a mathematician.

So my point is, each Plank time ~ 10^-44 seconds, this could change, well, light could travel a Plank length. I don't know how much time is needed for an atom to move that far, but it has to be less than 10^-20 seconds.

All of this is ignoring the position of light, and the wavelengths, ionization, convection, half-lifes etc.

Every single plank time, there could be near infinite possibilities, so after one second, I'd say it's maybe at least;

1 in (10^100!*10^101)^10^44 chance that everything was in the position is was, at the time it was.

I mean, it's practically impossible for anything to be anywhere, right? Luckily, things don't seem to be randomly generated, there seem to be certain "laws" and "rules" which reality, or at least, our universe seems to consistently follow.

Incorrect: http://www.futilitycloset.com...

You're incorrect? I am? Explain your link.

You are. Did you read?

Article from link reposted:

"Princeton astrophysicist J. Richard Gott was visiting the Berlin Wall in 1969 when a curious thought occurred to him. His visit occurred at a random moment in the wall"s existence. So it seemed reasonable to assume that there was a 50 percent chance that he was observing it in the middle two quarters of its lifetime. "If I was at the beginning of this interval, then one-quarter of the wall"s life had passed and three-quarters remained," he wrote later in New Scientist. "On the other hand, if I was at the end of of this interval, then three-quarters had passed and only one-quarter lay in the future. In this way I reckoned that there was a 50 per cent chance the wall would last from 1/3 to 3 times as long as it had already."

At the time, the wall was 8 years old, so Gott concluded that there was a 50 percent chance that it would last more than 2-2/3 years but fewer than 24. The 24 years would have elapsed in 1993. The wall came down in 1989.

Encouraged, Gott applied the same principle to estimate the lifetime of the human race. In an article published in Nature in 1993, he argued that there was a 95 percent chance that our species would survive for between 5,100 and 7.8 million years.

When and whether the method is valid is still a matter of debate among physicists and philosophers. But it"s worth noting that on the day Gott"s paper was published, he used it to predict the longevities of 44 plays and musicals on and off Broadway. His accuracy rate was more than 90 percent."


Could you explain how this disproves what he said?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 8:42:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 4:02:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 3:53:51 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 2:43:34 PM, 000ike wrote:

Again, that's absurd. State describes existence - non-existence is the absence of any state. And my arguments are relevant. Your problem stems from your misapprehension of necessity and probability as well as your question-begging maintenance of identity in the face of non-existence. In short:

I don't think so, but I don't know how to convey a response. It's intuitive for me. Sorry.

nonsense. If you had any coherent idea of what it is you're trying to say, you'd be able to articulate it. The OP is founded on lack of understanding/ignorance in multiple respects. You can amend the logic (for instance, so there's contextualized probability (which would probably destroy your infinite improbability problem)) or you could internalize the whole thing and pretend that if it stays in your head somehow it will seem more cogent.

Your choice.

"Nonsense?" Well then, you, my friend, can go fuck yourself. I don't need your permission to think anything.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 8:43:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 4:07:05 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/28/2013 3:52:49 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 2:33:04 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/28/2013 1:47:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 8:40:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
This assumes everything is randomly generated. The odds of this happening are equal with the odds of everything else.

Take the arrangement of atoms in the universe. There are about 10^100 atoms, supposedly. I guess there are far more positions than that that they can occupy, so make that conservative; 10^101.

Now I'm not that good at Maths (I mean, I'm ok, but not really qualified) so maybe take this with a pinch of salt. I know there are at least 10^100 different arrangements, but I think factorial comes in here, so I think the number is 10^100! * 10^101, maybe. Someone call a mathematician.

So my point is, each Plank time ~ 10^-44 seconds, this could change, well, light could travel a Plank length. I don't know how much time is needed for an atom to move that far, but it has to be less than 10^-20 seconds.

All of this is ignoring the position of light, and the wavelengths, ionization, convection, half-lifes etc.

Every single plank time, there could be near infinite possibilities, so after one second, I'd say it's maybe at least;

1 in (10^100!*10^101)^10^44 chance that everything was in the position is was, at the time it was.

I mean, it's practically impossible for anything to be anywhere, right? Luckily, things don't seem to be randomly generated, there seem to be certain "laws" and "rules" which reality, or at least, our universe seems to consistently follow.

Incorrect: http://www.futilitycloset.com...

You're incorrect? I am? Explain your link.

You are. Did you read?

Article from link reposted:

"Princeton astrophysicist J. Richard Gott was visiting the Berlin Wall in 1969 when a curious thought occurred to him. His visit occurred at a random moment in the wall"s existence. So it seemed reasonable to assume that there was a 50 percent chance that he was observing it in the middle two quarters of its lifetime. "If I was at the beginning of this interval, then one-quarter of the wall"s life had passed and three-quarters remained," he wrote later in New Scientist. "On the other hand, if I was at the end of of this interval, then three-quarters had passed and only one-quarter lay in the future. In this way I reckoned that there was a 50 per cent chance the wall would last from 1/3 to 3 times as long as it had already."

At the time, the wall was 8 years old, so Gott concluded that there was a 50 percent chance that it would last more than 2-2/3 years but fewer than 24. The 24 years would have elapsed in 1993. The wall came down in 1989.

Encouraged, Gott applied the same principle to estimate the lifetime of the human race. In an article published in Nature in 1993, he argued that there was a 95 percent chance that our species would survive for between 5,100 and 7.8 million years.

When and whether the method is valid is still a matter of debate among physicists and philosophers. But it"s worth noting that on the day Gott"s paper was published, he used it to predict the longevities of 44 plays and musicals on and off Broadway. His accuracy rate was more than 90 percent."


Could you explain how this disproves what he said?

We as observers are estimating from a position of ignorance. He's committing the same fallacy that makes people dismiss the Doomsday Argument.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 8:52:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 8:42:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 4:02:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 3:53:51 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 2:43:34 PM, 000ike wrote:

Again, that's absurd. State describes existence - non-existence is the absence of any state. And my arguments are relevant. Your problem stems from your misapprehension of necessity and probability as well as your question-begging maintenance of identity in the face of non-existence. In short:

I don't think so, but I don't know how to convey a response. It's intuitive for me. Sorry.

nonsense. If you had any coherent idea of what it is you're trying to say, you'd be able to articulate it. The OP is founded on lack of understanding/ignorance in multiple respects. You can amend the logic (for instance, so there's contextualized probability (which would probably destroy your infinite improbability problem)) or you could internalize the whole thing and pretend that if it stays in your head somehow it will seem more cogent.

Your choice.

"Nonsense?" Well then, you, my friend, can go fuck yourself. I don't need your permission to think anything.

lol you're a very hostile fellow aren't you. Anyway, my point stands. The OP is rooted in some pretty obvious fallacies of thought. If you don't want to defend or even concede your argument, that's fine. Just don't try to justify your flaking by claiming to understand something you can't articulate.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 11:51:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 8:52:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 8:42:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 4:02:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 3:53:51 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 2:43:34 PM, 000ike wrote:

Again, that's absurd. State describes existence - non-existence is the absence of any state. And my arguments are relevant. Your problem stems from your misapprehension of necessity and probability as well as your question-begging maintenance of identity in the face of non-existence. In short:

I don't think so, but I don't know how to convey a response. It's intuitive for me. Sorry.

nonsense. If you had any coherent idea of what it is you're trying to say, you'd be able to articulate it. The OP is founded on lack of understanding/ignorance in multiple respects. You can amend the logic (for instance, so there's contextualized probability (which would probably destroy your infinite improbability problem)) or you could internalize the whole thing and pretend that if it stays in your head somehow it will seem more cogent.

Your choice.

"Nonsense?" Well then, you, my friend, can go fuck yourself. I don't need your permission to think anything.

lol you're a very hostile fellow aren't you. Anyway, my point stands. The OP is rooted in some pretty obvious fallacies of thought. If you don't want to defend or even concede your argument, that's fine. Just don't try to justify your flaking by claiming to understand something you can't articulate.

Can this count as trolling?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:01:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 11:51:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 8:52:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 8:42:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 4:02:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2013 3:53:51 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 2:43:34 PM, 000ike wrote:

Again, that's absurd. State describes existence - non-existence is the absence of any state. And my arguments are relevant. Your problem stems from your misapprehension of necessity and probability as well as your question-begging maintenance of identity in the face of non-existence. In short:

I don't think so, but I don't know how to convey a response. It's intuitive for me. Sorry.

nonsense. If you had any coherent idea of what it is you're trying to say, you'd be able to articulate it. The OP is founded on lack of understanding/ignorance in multiple respects. You can amend the logic (for instance, so there's contextualized probability (which would probably destroy your infinite improbability problem)) or you could internalize the whole thing and pretend that if it stays in your head somehow it will seem more cogent.

Your choice.

"Nonsense?" Well then, you, my friend, can go fuck yourself. I don't need your permission to think anything.

lol you're a very hostile fellow aren't you. Anyway, my point stands. The OP is rooted in some pretty obvious fallacies of thought. If you don't want to defend or even concede your argument, that's fine. Just don't try to justify your flaking by claiming to understand something you can't articulate.

Can this count as trolling?

No. I think we are all wondering if you were trolling by making this thread to be honest.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 5:49:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At present only Eitan_Zohar understands this argument, by applying the Copernican Principle to it's own logic there is a 95% chance that only twenty of the seven billion people in the world will ever figure out what the hell you are talking about.

Consequently, there is less than a one in three hundred and fifty million chance I will figure out what you are talking so thinking about it is a waste of time and I should ignore it.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Graylord
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 7:33:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only true answer to this question is: We do not know.

We might know exactly how one day, but we do not know yet.

In the meantime all we know is that as far as we can tell, consciousness is an emergent property of a brain. And we have no evidence of a consciousness without a brain.
All evidence so far (the fact that anything we can recognize externally as a consciousness ceases) suggests that minds stop being minds once the brain dies.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 8:43:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 7:33:35 PM, Graylord wrote:
The only true answer to this question is: We do not know.

We might know exactly how one day, but we do not know yet.

In the meantime all we know is that as far as we can tell, consciousness is an emergent property of a brain. And we have no evidence of a consciousness without a brain.

All evidence so far (the fact that anything we can recognize externally as a consciousness ceases) suggests that minds stop being minds once the brain dies.

We have no real evidence of a consciousness outside of our own, we only presume that other beings are conscious and it is not the case that as far as we can tell consciousness is an emergent property of a brain, we have plenty of inductive evidence of a consciousness without a brain.

If you remove philosophical and metaphysical considerations and the preconceived notion that a brain is required for consciousness, which is to say approach the subject strictly scientifically, you need to define consciousness physiologically as involving the ability to perceive sensory stimuli and respond by purposeful movement or by a behavioral change. A wide range of creatures without brains demonstrate rudimentary forms of consciousness and examining those capabilities in an evolutionary context makes it very hard to draw arbitrary lines, especially at "brain".

Bacteria are extraordinarily perceptive to their surroundings and can respond to changes in ways that indicate some degree of sentience that logically necessitates a broadening of the way we think about consciousness. Bacteria have been observed to communicate with each other and collectively collaborate to engage in sophisticated behavioral responses to their environment. Primitive invertebrates like the annelid worm appear to show maze learning, classical conditioning, and habituation. A wide range of creatures without brains show purposeful behavior indicating that they are sensate beings that not only "feel" things in their environment, but also "intelligently" respond to sensory inputs. Bacteria have complex signaling systems and genes that regulate cell shape, growth and development; they detect traces of nutrients in the surroundings to move towards the gradient and they move away from toxins. They communicate with each other to coordinate responses such as sporulation when faced with adverse conditions and produce toxins as a host defense mechanism in a sophisticated process of symbiosis that optimizes their chances of successful colonization.

In an evolutionary context prokaryotes developed into eukaryotes through symbiotic assimilation to become independent "selves", and then colonies of eukaryotes developed into metazoans through symbiotic assimilation to become independent "selves", we observe this tendency at work in social insects building hives and mounds and we see it in human beings building societies and civilizations.

Over the large-scale dimensions that are required by the study of evolution we can unmistakably apprehend a tendency for life to assemble into self-organizing wholes that exhibit the coherent behavior and underlying principles of consciousness that in the earliest stages of the development of life are not associated with possession of a brain. The evolutionary record demonstrates a continual rise in degrees of sentience that culminated in brains and conscious human beings, but it does nothing to support the presumption of a cause and effect between brain and consciousness.

The evidence contradicts the unfounded presumption that consciousness is an emergent property of brains, the evidence indicates that consciousness, like brains, is an emergent property of life..
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater