|
Author
|
Topic: Human Intelligence
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
Message 181 of 193 (86769)
02-16-2004 8:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 179 by Skeptick
02-16-2004 7:17 PM
|
|
(including both parts of eternity; the past that goes as far BACK as the future does forward). Maybe you hadn't heard, but there's no difference between infinity and half an infinity. An infinite future (with a finite past) is just as long as an infinite past and future together. Just so you know. Also, you don't need an infinite amount of time for improbable things to happen. Just sufficient time. If you're going to pervert mathematics, you might as well get your terms right.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 179 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 7:17 PM | | Skeptick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 186 by Skeptick, posted 02-17-2004 1:51 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 182 of 193 (86770)
02-16-2004 8:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 180 by Skeptick
02-16-2004 7:22 PM
|
|
Did you have any plans to get back on topic? Maybe you could enumerate human behaviors that are fundamentally different from animal behaviors. That was, after all, the topic of the thread. Also I wish you'd tell me more about this "superatom" you invented.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 180 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 7:22 PM | | Skeptick has not replied |
|
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5281 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: 11-17-2002
|
|
|
Message 183 of 193 (86833)
02-16-2004 11:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 175 by Skeptick
02-16-2004 6:25 PM
|
|
I have responded to this stupidity in Message 1. Sylas.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 175 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 6:25 PM | | Skeptick has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 184 of 193 (86845)
02-17-2004 12:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 179 by Skeptick
02-16-2004 7:17 PM
|
|
No, I don't know as a matter of fact.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 179 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 7:17 PM | | Skeptick has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 185 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2004 12:57 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 185 of 193 (86859)
02-17-2004 12:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 184 by NosyNed
02-17-2004 12:35 AM
|
|
Eh, don't bother, I think he's gone for good. I guess his computer turned back into a pumpkin or something. I never quite understood why he was on the clock...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 184 by NosyNed, posted 02-17-2004 12:35 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Skeptick
Inactive Member
|
Maybe you hadn't heard, but there's no difference between infinity and half an infinity. An infinite future (with a finite past) is just as long as an infinite past and future together. Just so you know.
"Luke, you are going to have to learn, that many of the truths to which we cling depend greatly on our own point of view." Sorry, I just had to quote that. Um, so you want to explain eternity to us now? From where you sit right now, does eternity go forward as far as it does back? (hint: yep). So, what's your point again? (please don't answer that. I was being facetious when I did the "half" eternity thing in response to Huxley's ridiculous notion. I quoted it in another thread that you saw (and responded to), so don't act like I have to explain this to you (humor isn't funny if you have to explain it).
Also, you don't need an infinite amount of time for improbable things to happen. Just sufficient time.
If you're going to pervert mathematics, you might as well get your terms right.
Really? The original simile of "an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters could, in an infinite amount of time, type all the works of Shakespeare" came from someone in YOUR camp, Thomas Huxley; Darwin's bulldog. Apparently he thought an infinite amount of time was sufficient (using your word)?
Even the devils believe; and they tremble....
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2004 8:19 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 187 of 193 (86870)
02-17-2004 2:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 186 by Skeptick
02-17-2004 1:51 AM
|
|
From where you sit right now, does eternity go forward as far as it does back? Does it have to? No. An eternity that goes both ways isn't longer than one that only extends into the future. They're both equally infinite.
came from someone in YOUR camp, Thomas Huxley; Darwin's bulldog. He obviously wasn't a mathematician, was he?
Apparently he thought an infinite amount of time was sufficient (using your word) If you've got an infinite number of monkeys, it doesn't take long at all - only as long as it takes a monkey to type as many letters as we're talking about. I'll let you figure out why. The less monkeys you have, the more time you need. But you never need infinite time. You just need sufficient time. An infinite amount of time is obviously sufficient (because at infinite time, everything that has a non-zero probability of occuring has occured), but not required.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 186 by Skeptick, posted 02-17-2004 1:51 AM | | Skeptick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 189 by Skeptick, posted 02-17-2004 2:58 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Skeptick
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 188 of 193 (86874)
02-17-2004 2:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by NosyNed
02-04-2004 7:17 PM
|
|
You wrote:
Pretty smart. Not the smartest here mind you, but pretty smart.
Ned, I was really trying to avoid this but, I must ask: Exactly, how did you measure this?
Even the devils believe; and they tremble....
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2004 7:17 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Skeptick
Inactive Member
|
He obviously wasn't a mathematician, was he?
Well, then slap him, I guess. He's in YOUR camp. Just quoting you guys. I can't help it if you don't like it. I quoted it because the notion of it is so absurd that a blind man could spot it from an infinite distance away.
Even the devils believe; and they tremble....
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2004 2:03 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2004 4:35 AM | | Skeptick has not replied |
|
Skeptick
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 190 of 193 (86890)
02-17-2004 4:08 AM
|
|
|
Something terrible has happened to Skeptick. His obit will be posted in the coffee house shortly, along with any available details.
Even the devils believe; and they tremble....
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 191 of 193 (86901)
02-17-2004 4:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by Skeptick
02-17-2004 2:58 AM
|
|
He's in YOUR camp. Well, he's also dead. And I don't understand what relevance you think it has that he's in my "camp." Science isn't based on authority. It doesn't matter who said what. Science is based on evidence. Why do you think we keep asking you for it?
I quoted it because the notion of it is so absurd that a blind man could spot it from an infinite distance away. I'll agree that the notion of an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters is rather silly. Of course, it's just an analogy to describe how probability and time are related. Maybe you've heard of analogies, where you are?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 189 by Skeptick, posted 02-17-2004 2:58 AM | | Skeptick has not replied |
|
Peter
Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: 02-05-2002
|
|
|
Message 192 of 193 (87462)
02-19-2004 10:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 179 by Skeptick
02-16-2004 7:17 PM
|
|
Why do you think one would need infinite time? ...and what ARE the 'laws of statistics'????
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 179 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 7:17 PM | | Skeptick has not replied |
|
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: 02-19-2004
|
|
|
Message 193 of 193 (87499)
02-19-2004 1:20 PM
|
|
|
Great discussion!
Hello all, I am very interesting in all the view points by the members here. Out of all the post I have read I am trying to sift to the "Jist" of what is being discussed. The Orgin of man, I have always thought was a slam dunk no brainer to anyone who has ever watched the discovery channel. The fossil record pretty much supports some claims by "evolutionist" that the orgin of man is a result of evolution. Why does that seem so absurd to some people? If it offends some one who takes a literal view of the Bible then blame God for putting the quest for knowlege into the minds of scientist. Faith is faith, science is science and never the two shall meet. I have always thought that people operate on beliefs and not facts. What I mean is I dont know for a "fact" that the sun will rise tommorrow but I have faith it will. I dont know for a "fact" that I evolved from some form of homid. But I also dont know for a fact that I was created by the accounts in Genesis. This is a matter of faith. I am just a man who wants to know, but also wants to believe. Just call me a de-nilhlist. My 2 cents.. 
|
™ Version 4.2