Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As long as you continue to believe our reality is comprised of individual separate "things" the composition fallacy will make sense to you. I do not consider our reality to be comprised of separate "things." It is ONE entity and we are part of it looking at it from the inside. That corrupts our view and enables the various confusions like the composition fallacy.
You're still doing it wrong. Give me some good, verifiable reason to suppose that the universe it intelligent in the way that humans are intelligent and marmosets aren't and then maybe I'll listen. Not just a theory that could work. Even without dismissing logic so you can can pretend logical fallacies don't apply.
Look I know this means so much to you, just as my Gospel -Theory means so much to me. I understand, really.
But to me it's like someone who loves dragons. He is crazy about dragons. He really wants dragons to be real. So he works out a whole alien planetary ecosystem and a lot of science where dragons could have evolved. But that's not enough, He's got to take it to a forum and keep trying to persuade everyone on it, no matter what the subject, that this theory is true and they have to accept it. After a while it becomes very,very tedious. Even without regularly pissing on anyone who doesn't agree.
It confounds me why you play his game. His conclusion is not based on science, its based on how he perceived theist will use the information, not if its the best descriptor of reality. once you face that down he becomes quite predictable. Like a dog that gives you a head tilt when it get confused, Then messes on the floor.
You know Arach this actually is a good description
It confounds me why you play his game. His conclusion is not based on science, its based on how he perceived theist will use the information, not if its the best descriptor of reality. once you face that down he becomes quite predictable. Like a dog that gives you a head tilt when it get confused, Then messes on the floor.
Yes, Mystic was caught pretending LaPlace’s Rule of Succession is the silly composition fallacy. Bad Transponder, bad boy.
Yes, Mystic was caught pretending LaPlace’s Rule of Succession is the silly composition fallacy. Bad Transponder, bad boy.
I don't mind if Arach wants to put me down and Mystic likes any post that does so. People can look at our posts and see who is making the valid points, and who is just preaching.
I am talking about knowledge that we do have, not ifs and maybes.
It is astounding how such a superior mind is ignorant of LaPlace’s Rule of Succession and what the silly composition fallacy actually is.
Since I routinely taught Bayesian statistics as part of my Quantitative Methods courses, your erroneous conflating of Composition with probability succession should be embarrassing. The bulk of human speculation about reality has been done from the context of "separate things." That is driven by our perception of separate things, a distinction we had to learn from infancy because it is NOT how we initially perceived reality. That learning is an illusion promoted by an erroneous materialist view.
I doubt that he is really doing that. In the context of this idea that our consciousness must be part of a greater consciousness being a composition fallacy, which is valid, even if you call it 'silly' because it doesn't suit you, probability succession eg, just because all swans you know of are white, thus you assume -not unreasonably - that (so far as you know) - all swans are white. Then you find black swans and revise the science..is a different argument, at least in the context, because your theory appears to claim that what doesn't appear to be intelligently conscious actually must be, because it all is. And even if we came across some asteroids or dust clouds that were intelligent, we'd have some 'black swan', or to put it another what, more white ones, even though the looked a bit different, there fore the black one that we know about are actually white.
The effort to relate the composition -fallacy to probability succession does fall apart when you try to do it, so I doubt that Harry D is doing it.
Since I routinely taught Bayesian statistics as part of my Quantitative Methods courses, your erroneous conflating of Composition with probability succession should be embarrassing.
As I said, it is, for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The bulk of human speculation about reality has been done from the context of "separate things." That is driven by our perception of separate things, a distinction we had to learn from infancy because it is NOT how we initially perceived reality. That learning is an illusion promoted by an erroneous materialist view.
How can we play football when you keep moving the goal posts?
I doubt that he is really doing that. In the context of this idea that our consciousness must be part of a greater consciousness being a composition fallacy, which is valid, even if you call it 'silly' because it doesn't suit you, probability succession eg, just because all swans you know of are white, thus you assume -not unreasonably - that (so far as you know) - all swans are white. Then you find black swans and revise the science..is a different argument, at least in the context, because your theory appears to claim that what doesn't appear to be intelligently conscious actually must be, because it all is. And even if we came across some asteroids or dust clouds that were intelligent, we'd have some 'black swan', or to put it another what, more white ones, even though the looked a bit different, there fore the black one that we know about are actually white.
The effort to relate the composition -fallacy to probability succession does fall apart when you try to do it, so I doubt that Harry D is doing it.
Correct, nowhere am I saying because part of some thing is x then all of that thing is x. This is just another dishonest attempt by Mystic to pretend that I do not know what I am talking about; because the mathematics are against him. So he needs to misrepresent Laplace as a fallacy.
The result of Laplace's rule of succession is that if we have one universe but do not know if there are others, then the probability based on knowing there is one universe is 67% that there is a second. A figure we can use without estimating in Bayes theorem.
A similar case can be made with the 7 billion intelligent beings on this planet who certainly did not exist for no reason.
Yet Mystic has to misrepresent probability theory as the composition fallacy, which is ironic considering his post 107 ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
How do you know that the one universe is NOT intelligent since there are definitely parts of it where we can see intelligence? BTW, since we are talking about a unified ONE universe don't bring up the silly composition fallacy.
Yes, that reversal of Kiddy -level logic 'I don't need to prove that the universe is conscious -you need to prove that it isn't" is a head -slapper. The fact is that Mystic and all his erudition may dress up his Faith-based Beliefs in all the scientific and Philosophical Jargon he can load on it in hopes to bamboozle people into accepting it by making it sound sciencey and Impressive, but anyone who has troubled to discuss his views has seen through them quick enough because, clear away all the clutter of verbiage, and the underlying lack of real fact and the invalid reasoning becomes clear.
And it doesn't help his case that he is reduced to giving thumbs -ups to the grubby poo -flinging of Arach.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
