You're wrong, yes in all cases if you are being reasonable, those 2 
things are different, that non-stupid people do stupid things sometimes 
doesn't invalidate the validity of that premise.

I know, that's exactly what I implied.

And what Warp has to do with this thread? and when I called him stupid?

Post a reply to this message

I'm not saying aliens exist, so it's not an argument from ignorance, 
you're the one jumping to conclusions, the link I provided was for the 
economic conspiracy theories argument not aliens, I chained 2 different 
ideas, probably I should have made another paragraph.

In deed, but we don't know.

Well I think that Anthropic Principle is presumptuous to assume that 
we'll be the first, as humans has the habit to do so, there is not a 
philosophical but a mathematical probability of alien intelligent life, 
I don't remember what was called but the idea was take the number of 
galaxies and stars and planets around them and gave a really low 
probability by process of elimination gave you a number, it's formula, 
based on astrophysics observations, but this formula is old, so won't be 
in tune with the finding of Keppler (I think ) is the name of the 
satellite dedicated to find planets.

Post a reply to this message

I made 6 topics, that is hardly a flood, you're exaggerating. Maybe too 
much too soon for someone mostly unknown here, but I thought if anything 
they were important to spread and for others in turn.

You search discussion, I search for people to see what's wrong with the 
world so we can do something about it in the measure that our particular 
situations allow us to do.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> That's why I love this newsgroup. We have an amazing collection of
> logicians, mathematicians, computer scientists etc etc.
>
> John

For once, we agree.

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.09.2014 16:31, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> Well I think that Anthropic Principle is presumptuous to assume that
> we'll be the first, as humans has the habit to do so,

The anthropic principle doen't /assume/ that. The anthropic principle is 
a simple axiom on which theories can be built; and while it may 
superficially sound like a revival of the anthropocentric view of the 
world of old times, it is an entirely scientific thing, which is in no 
way presumptuous in itself.

But it is a fully valid question to ask, "Why are we the only life form 
in the galaxy to ever leave their home world that we know of for 
certain?" And, applying occam's razor (which is a method deep in the 
heart of science), we find that the most rational, scientific answers 
are: (A) Interstellar travel is not feasible, or (B) Interstellar travel 
has not been discovered yet, by /any/ species in our galaxy whatsoever.

> there is not a
> philosophical but a mathematical probability of alien intelligent life,

And I perfectly agree with you on this one. I just consider it moot for 
our life on planet Earth, because so far the evidence that they have 
come anywhere close to us is anecdotal at best.

> I don't remember what was called but the idea was take the number of
> galaxies and stars and planets around them and gave a really low
> probability by process of elimination gave you a number, it's formula,
> based on astrophysics observations, but this formula is old, so won't be
> in tune with the finding of Keppler (I think ) is the name of the
> satellite dedicated to find planets.

There is such a formula indeed, but no need to re-tune it: The formula 
delibaretly only names the coefficients to tune, not the values - 
because virtually all of them are entirely unknown. The number of 
habitable worlds is the first one we're /starting/ to get a grasp on.

(So far, we're only able to figure out to guesstimate how many planets 
lie in the habitable region of their respective system; there are plenty 
more factors to figure out - and in various cases even start to 
understand how they may or may not affect the habitability of a world - 
before we can really put a number to this coefficient: The planet's 
gravitation, presence of water, atmospheric conditions, stability of the 
orbit, axial tilt and stability thereof, presence of a magnetic field, 
et cetera.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.09.2014 15:16, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Well those other people don't use logic, don't they?

 From my point of view, they seem to be using more logic than you do.

You may have used logic /before/ posting those links, and may be willing 
to apply logic in a discussion about their content. But there's little 
evidence to me that you're open to using logic on your style of 
presenting that material.


But I guess from your point of view I'm currently ranting right now. (*)

Well, as I hinted at in my post to Stephen, you presumably haven't seen 
me in ranting mode yet. (And you also don't see me behind my keyboard, 
otherwise you'd notice that I'm perfectly calm, and have been so all 
throughout this discussion, with the exception of a few seconds after 
reading one particular of your posts; dunno which one it was.)


(* Brushing against someone emotions, aren't I? And look how this does 
not get me anywhere in trying to get my point across. The adresse just 
closes down entirely to rational arguments, even though claiming to be a 
very rational person, and maybe he is. But his emotional side gets in 
his (or, rather, my) way, and unfortunately he doesn't seem to be able 
(yet) or willing to rationally examine and/or express those emotions, to 
enable us (or, rather, me) to find a way to get my message around that 
emotional barrier.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.09.2014 15:11, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> I don't try in anyway to appear anything but rational, I don't know why
> people say I try to look intellectual and I use fancy words, I use the
> little English I know and words that are efficient for expressing
> ideas/meaning, if they seem intellectual well it's just expected since I
> used my intellect, what's wrong with that?
>
> "I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.
>
> Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?" You call this
> mature? for a 10 year old, yes, this is your level of discussion and so
> my answers.

Um... just to avoid potential confusion that might be arising out of a 
single word here: I'm pretty sure "behind" in this context is /not/ the 
euphemistic term for the lower end of the torso, but simply the back.

Then again, maybe you know that, and consider the quote to be immature 
for other reasons.

Or maybe I'm wrong; I'm no expert in Finnish use of English language ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 27/09/2014 16:38, clipka wrote:
> Am 27.09.2014 15:16, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
>> Well those other people don't use logic, don't they?
>
>  From my point of view, they seem to be using more logic than you do.
>
> You may have used logic /before/ posting those links, and may be willing
> to apply logic in a discussion about their content. But there's little
> evidence to me that you're open to using logic on your style of
> presenting that material.
>


My tuppence worth.
There is more to life than logic. Logic may say one thing but humanity 
or morals might say another.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I do wish you would include what you are replying to. It makes it 
difficult to keep track.

On 27/09/2014 14:23, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You're wrong, yes in all cases if you are being reasonable, those 2
> things are different, that non-stupid people do stupid things sometimes
> doesn't invalidate the validity of that premise.
>
> I know, that's exactly what I implied.
>

I am glad that you do.

> And what Warp has to do with this thread? and when I called him stupid?


No idea now. I've lost track.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27/09/2014 15:44, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I made 6 topics, that is hardly a flood, you're exaggerating. Maybe too
> much too soon for someone mostly unknown here, but I thought if anything
> they were important to spread and for others in turn.
>
> You search discussion, I search for people to see what's wrong with the
> world so we can do something about it in the measure that our particular
> situations allow us to do.

I would say logically you have come to the wrong place.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 28/09/2014 01:19, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/09/2014 16:38, clipka wrote:
>> Am 27.09.2014 15:16, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
>>> Well those other people don't use logic, don't they?
>>
>>  From my point of view, they seem to be using more logic than you do.
>>
>> You may have used logic /before/ posting those links, and may be willing
>> to apply logic in a discussion about their content. But there's little
>> evidence to me that you're open to using logic on your style of
>> presenting that material.
>>
> 
> 
> My tuppence worth.
> There is more to life than logic. Logic may say one thing but humanity
> or morals might say another.
> 

According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
that you should and could play all your assets.

Yet, it's probably not the wisest move in your life. So, yes, there is
more than logic.

(Even the half-Vulcan in the movies of star-treck seems to get a bit of
it... )

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Um... just to avoid potential confusion that might be arising out of a 
> single word here: I'm pretty sure "behind" in this context is /not/ the 
> euphemistic term for the lower end of the torso, but simply the back.

> Then again, maybe you know that, and consider the quote to be immature 
> for other reasons.

> Or maybe I'm wrong; I'm no expert in Finnish use of English language ;-)

Nah, it was an euphemism for what Englishmen use the fancier word "arse".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Le_Forgeron:

> According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
> that you should and could play all your assets.

Actually, no. While there is one short-sighted train of thoughts that, 
based on logic, would come to the conclusion that this is the case, 
there are other trains of thought that lead to a different conclusion.

Still, a healthy dose of prejudice (aka common sense) does comes in 
handy to notice that there's /something/ wrong with that short-sighted 
train of thoughts, and that you should indeed examine others.

(Also, for some nitpicking, the St. Petersburg paradox isn't about how 
much you /should/ pay for a ticket, but only how much you /could/ pay 
for one. Obviously, no matter what train of thoughts you follow, the 
amount you /should/ pay is no more than whatever the lottery decides to 
offer a ticket for.)

Post a reply to this message

On 28/09/2014 07:45, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
> that you should and could play all your assets.
>

I had not heard of  that paradox.

Good job I don't gamble.

> Yet, it's probably not the wisest move in your life. So, yes, there is
> more than logic.
>

I can see people gambling their lives for those stakes. But not money.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 01:40:29 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and
> stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best
> intentions when I came here to discuss, after a long while, and to
> inform you of interesting things, and I get that attitude, at the very
> least he's being stupid IMO, but yeah, is bad for the spirit of
> conversation to actually go so negative on someone I think, rather than
> just pointing out,
> and by spirit I mean the feelings and mood.

Given the minimalist content in your postings, I wonder how you think he 
was to know what your intention was at all.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:00:13 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> If it wasn't serious, for sure wasn't indicated in anyway, and your
> fault is that that you thought I would understand it somehow even when
> you probably don't know where I'm from, and for my writing you should
> have deducted I'm not from UK/USA and not taken that ambiguous joke
> ahead.

I'm confused.

You posted several posts with no context, but expected us to extract your 
intentions from the minimal information provided.

Yet Stephen made a really clear statement about *if* you had said what 
you said to Doctor John to him, yet you failed to completely understand 
his intention was not to threaten, but to simply demonstrate that what 
you said was unacceptable.

His intent was surely clearer than yours was with your first posts.

Maybe take some time to think about that for a minute.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

> But it is a fully valid question to ask, "Why are we the only life form
> in the galaxy to ever leave their home world that we know of for
> certain?" And, applying occam's razor (which is a method deep in the
> heart of science), we find that the most rational, scientific answers
> are: (A) Interstellar travel is not feasible, or (B) Interstellar travel
> has not been discovered yet, by /any/ species in our galaxy whatsoever.

Isn't there a big assumption there that we would be able to 
notice/detect any interstellar travel anywhere in the galaxy? Or are you 
assuming that any species able to do interstellar travel would, for some 
reason, visit our solar system?

Post a reply to this message

> According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
> that you should and could play all your assets.

Only if you fail to take into account the (extremely likely) 
consequences of not winning very much in your logic.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/09/2014 08:15, scott wrote:
>> But it is a fully valid question to ask, "Why are we the only life form
>> in the galaxy to ever leave their home world that we know of for
>> certain?" And, applying occam's razor (which is a method deep in the
>> heart of science), we find that the most rational, scientific answers
>> are: (A) Interstellar travel is not feasible, or (B) Interstellar travel
>> has not been discovered yet, by /any/ species in our galaxy whatsoever.
>
> Isn't there a big assumption there that we would be able to
> notice/detect any interstellar travel anywhere in the galaxy? Or are you
> assuming that any species able to do interstellar travel would, for some
> reason, visit our solar system?
>

I think that the crux of the matter is

>>  that we know of for certain?


With that clause we are on a hiding to nothing. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message