Sociopath Community

LOL you mean you've given up hoping for w/e it is you were hoping would come of this exchange.

This act on your part does not make the person you're giving up on objectively 'hopeless.'

And she calls me a narc lol

This thread got crazy, I'll probably read everything later. My basic thoughts on it are, yeah it sounds a lot like simulation theory. For me the difference between me being in a simulation and me being on some kind of random thermodynamic ride is pretty nil. Either way, I'm strapped into some sort of program and I just have to make the best of it.

My only issue with simulation theory is that it gets difficult to explain the subjective experience of consciousness. Either such a thing can actually be simulated, or I just have an inborn programming that makes me think that I do. The latter case seems unlikely.

 Yes, Tryp. That's what I said (more or less lol)

Xena said: 

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

 

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

lol ikr. That prolly includes a punnett square or smthg.

The average person doesn't care enough about whether or not angels or aliens made us, or whether or not we're just a brain in a vat, or a fart in some god's perfect trousers to pull out a punnett square and start doing math to tryta prove or disprove it.

Even if it were applied to demographics research or genetics, or smthg that's somewhat interesting, most of us on this forum are too lazy to bother.

 

@ Alice, this thread would be huge if you could demonstrate your probability theories using a hypothetical or an actual horse race. i.e. how to win money by betting on said horse race  ;D

And everybody's losing their shit about it... smh

AliceInWonderland said: 

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

Then continue to compare dissimilar statements. 

Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

No

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

 Yes

This is why I think University education is so useless........ People don't think for themselves.. Are you always parroting everything you learn from the internet or books, or do you occasionally apply your own thoughts too? Writing books makes you so much smarter, I recommend it. It requires thinking. I don't study maths and I never went to University, I was always like Captain Kirk or Will Hunting. Born smart. All those booksmart people who couldn't think for themselves hated me for it because everything was a walk in the park for me.

You need to learn to think for yourself.. You would be so much better off. if you only let me teach you instead of.... resisting so much.. This lesson is worth more than all your University lectures and books.

Where was I going with this rant...? Right.

Can you explain your incorrect belief that "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" logically implies that we were likely created by an intelligence, without just asking me to read an 80+ page article or a book? Why does "most planets have an atmosphere" not logically imply that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere? Why do you think the answer to these questions is in the elementary book on probability that you cited earlier?

Also you still haven't answered my other question.. if I prove you wrong will you send me your nudes? you need to promise me something for motivation... You're so snappy and unwilling to elaborate on incredibly simple concepts.. 

Tryptamine said: 

This thread got crazy, I'll probably read everything later.

It surely did, the conversation with major has been enjoyable for the most part though. 

I was hoping someone would fall into the dilemma aspect of the trilemma as it's the most interesting part of such syllogisms imo. 

My basic thoughts on it are, yeah it sounds a lot like simulation theory. For me the difference between me being in a simulation and me being on some kind of random thermodynamic ride is pretty nil. Either way, I'm strapped into some sort of program and I just have to make the best of it.

I agree. 

Given my position in this reality, regardless of what it so happens to be, I can only do so much. 

As you've put it we're all along for the ride no matter what. 

My only issue with simulation theory is that it gets difficult to explain the subjective experience of consciousness.

This is where I part with you because I think it's difficult to explain subjective experience generally in any reality.

Either such a thing can actually be simulated, or I just have an inborn programming that makes me think that I do. The latter case seems unlikely.

This seems to come down to if you think reality is fundamentally deterministic or probabilistic and as such so to is experience. Either way the question arises in a simulated reality or natural one. Stochastic programming is a very popular and productive approach to AI for instance and ofc the usual procedural program is very much deterministic.

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

Then continue to compare dissimilar statements. 

Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

No

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

 Yes

 

Can you explain your incorrect belief that "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" logically implies that we were likely created by an intelligence, without just asking me to read an 80+ page article or a book?

I already explained it, here's the repost:

AliceInWonderland said:

The reasoning goes like this:

Proposition 3 states the majority of all intelligences were created by other intelligences.

If nearly all intelligences are created by other intelligences it is less probable that you are an intelligence not created by another intelligence.

Since it's improbable that your an intelligence not created by another intelligence, it is probable that you are an intelligence created by another intelligence.

That is what "If the third proposition is the one that is true and almost all intelligences are created by other intelligences, then we are most probably created by an intelligence" is stating and notice I include probable to imply the probabilistic nature of the argument.

I'll add this only follows if P1 and P2 are false and P3 is true. 

Why does "most planets have an atmosphere" not logically imply that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

If we assume this is a stand alone statement with no prior knowledge nor the necessity of it then we can say the statement is true. 

If we are going to build an equivalency between this example and my own then we do assume prior knowledge and it just so happens that it's knowledge we do indeed have. 

Key Prior knowledge imo though I could be missing some so feel free to add: 

1. Any mass large enough to be called a planet very likely has an atmosphere (confirmed by observations) 
2. The only planet where we have observed the existence of life has an atmosphere. 

Now to your statement, "If most planets have an atmosphere, then we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere".

Let P = most planets have an atmosphere and Q = we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere

P|    Q    |If P then Q

T|    T     |    T

T|    F     |    F 

F|    T     |    T

F|     F    |    T   

From 1 we know P is true and from 2 we know Q is false - that is P=T, and Q=F.

Hence, If P then Q is false.

Why do you think the answer to these questions is in the elementary book on probability that you cited earlier?

You didn't seem to know how probability works so I thought maybe you'd want to brush up on it.

someone secret said: 

men arguing: point A is wrong because B, no B has X Y flaws, let me show you this article

women arguing: no ur dum embarrassing urself poo poo head REEEEEEEEEE *flings poop*

There's clearly no men on this forum then. 

Are you going to promise me nudes if I prove you wrong or not?

Major Major said: 

Are you going to promise me nudes if I prove you wrong or not?

 You won't get any nudes but I do promise to be appreciative of your proof. 

Tryptamine said: 

For me the difference between me being in a simulation and me being on some kind of random thermodynamic ride is pretty nil. Either way, I'm strapped into some sort of program and I just have to make the best of it.

Wouldn't it be nice to know though if The Architect is more like this...


...or like this? 

Either such a thing can actually be simulated, or I just have an inborn programming that makes me think that I do. The latter case seems unlikely.

Perhaps that "seeming" is the beauty of it's design. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Major Major said: 

Are you going to promise me nudes if I prove you wrong or not?

 You won't get any nudes but I do promise to be appreciative of your proof. 

Wow what a boring girl. So what will you give me? I don't care about your appreciation when I'm feeling lonely at home with only you animals to talk to.