Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 07:08 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 06:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How do you demonstrate in this example (or in the case of the dice) conclusive evidence of unintent to kill the person or roll 100 20's in a row?

I don't know, you tell me, when it comes to the dice example how would you demonstrate "conclusive evidence" of a fluke? You seemed to vouche for that example suggested by RocketSurgeon of a fluke.

So you tell me, and I'd tell you if I agree with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 07:09 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 07:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How do you demonstrate in this example (or in the case of the dice) conclusive evidence of unintent to kill the person or roll 100 20's in a row?

I don't know, you tell me, when it comes to the dice example how would you demonstrate conclusive evidence of a fluke? You seemed to vouche for that example suggested by RocketSurgeon of a fluke.

So you tell me, and I'd tell you if I agree with you.

You're the one who makes claims of unintent with respect to the cosmos you dimwited troll.

I am offering another example and Rocketsurgeon yet another for you to demonstrate how one shows unintent conclusively. So, go right ahead.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 07:21 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 07:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're the one who makes claims of unintent with respect to the cosmos you dimwited troll.

The irony of a troll calling me a troll.

You feed off of provoking animosity in others. You don't have any honest questions, you just want to find someway to piss me off, to have me stoop down to your level of mud slinging, and ad hominem attacks until you're satisfied. You really are the worst personality here. And you've started to reach the point where you've become unbearable.

Perhaps I've been feeding the troll for way too long? Thinking that I would perhaps at one point be able to kill him with kindness, but that now seems impossible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 07:24 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 07:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 07:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're the one who makes claims of unintent with respect to the cosmos you dimwited troll.

The irony of a troll calling me a troll.

You feed off of provoking animosity in others. You don't have any honest questions, you just want to find someway to piss me off, to have me stoop down to your level of mud slinging, and ad hominem attacks until you're satisfied. You really are the worst personality here. And you've starting to reach the point where you've become unbearable.

Perhaps I've been feeding the troll for way too long? Thinking that I would perhaps at one point be able to kill him with kindness, but that now seems impossible.

I've asked you a series of serious questions, and you can't deliver an answer but refuse to admit that and admit that your assumptions are bullshit.

Look, you're angry because you have been called out and had your bullshit exposed. Don't be mad at me, be mad at yourself for being such a dishonest dick. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 01:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The issue here isn't semantics, it is your bias and your dishonesty. But you can't even admit that the reason you use the language you do, is because of your religious bias.

If you're arguing about whether the term "unintentional" requires a conscious entity, as opposed to terms like "fluke" or "accident", then yes the argument is semantical.

If I was speaking of the universe as unintentional, it would be in a similar way that RocketSurgeon expressed it: "It is a fluke. It's clear that it's a fluke. This is the term used by men like Hawking and Krauss and Feynman and Einstein....We are a cosmic accident.”

If your argument is not that I can't use the term "unintentional" to express this, then what is it? Let's see if you can show some honesty for once, and actually answer that.

A better term would be "non-intentional". "Unintentional" has the connotation of being capable of being intentional.
It would be similar to the difference between "uninterested" and "disinterested".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-08-2015, 08:48 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 03:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 03:32 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Demonstrating that you don't understand probabilities Facepalm

If a random person showed us even a six sided dice, and rolled it a hundred times, rolling six each and every time. If we had a wager as to whether it was a weighted dice, or just a fluke, I'd bet on the weighted dice. The probability that I'd take your money is higher than the probability that you'd take mine.

The singular of "dice" is "die". Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-08-2015, 08:51 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 08:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Dawkins Weasel Program is perhaps another example, while the program was setup to demonstrate natural selection. The selection of "I AM A WEASEL" wasn't a fluke. The algorithm was setup to run and eventually produce this. The outcome was inevitable, intentional, no accident at all.

No, it is not an example of natural selection and Dawkins is quite clear on that.

It is an example to demonstrate the difference between cumulative change and all-at-once change.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
13-08-2015, 08:54 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 09:00 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 08:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 02:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you're arguing about whether the term "unintentional" requires a conscious entity, as opposed to terms like "fluke" or "accident", then yes the argument is semantical.

If I was speaking of the universe as unintentional, it would be in a similar way that RocketSurgeon expressed it: "It is a fluke. It's clear that it's a fluke. This is the term used by men like Hawking and Krauss and Feynman and Einstein....We are a cosmic accident.”

If your argument is not that I can't use the term "unintentional" to express this, then what is it? Let's see if you can show some honesty for once, and actually answer that.

A better term would be "non-intentional". "Unintentional" has the connotation of being capable of being intentional.
It would be similar to the difference between "uninterested" and "disinterested".

An even better idea is to not use words that don't add any value to the discussion. So even "non-intentional" doesn't add anything to the explanation. It is unnecessary but at least it isn't incorrect.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 09:04 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Poor ol' Tomasia. Guy's just a got a raging case of cosmic narcissism, that's all.

Statistics defy our incompetent human "intuition".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
13-08-2015, 09:06 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Should we jump to the conclusion that it was a fluke? That it was intentional?

Or would you suggest that we shouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other?

That is a false dichotomy. A third possibility is that the universe simply could be no other way.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: