Comments by Wosret

1051. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276851 by Wosret on November 2, 2008 at 3:59 pm

681. Comment #276846 by Steve Zara

I think claiming that it could not have turned out all of these different ways before we know is skipping a step

I never once claimed that Steve. I have said that I'm not confident that the assertion is correct, and that I don't know. I'm agnostic about it. I am saying that we should follow the data, and not get head of ourselves. Whether we are claiming one way or the other.

1052. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276847 by Wosret on November 2, 2008 at 3:57 pm

680. Comment #276845 by Bonzai

I don't see what is at odds with math working, and being able to describe the objective world with precision, and at the same time merely being an abstraction of the ways in which things within reality effect each other.

Why must math be intrinsic to the world before it can do this?

1053. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276843 by Wosret on November 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm

669. Comment #276832 by Steve Zara

No, we know it could have turned out different because we have other animals to compare it to, and fossils. We figure our how differently by studying other animals, and by mapping genes, and attempting to figure out which ones are responsible for what.

We didn't assume the conclusion (i.e. it could have turned out differently) before we first found out how it turned out the way that it did.

I'm not hand waving away how things are, and I wish you would stop saying that I am. I believe that I have said several times that I think that this needs to be explained. What I am saying, is that claiming it could have turned out all of these different ways before we even know how it turned out the way it is, is skipping a step.

Now, you are discussing with perhaps too many people right now, and I wouldn't want to divide your attention, so will let you focus on one thing out of time.

What you are discussing with Brian, I agree with you about.

1054. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276822 by Wosret on November 2, 2008 at 3:39 pm

656. Comment #276819 by Steve Zara

I don't know what you mean by that?

1055. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276812 by Wosret on November 2, 2008 at 3:31 pm

624. Comment #276776 by Steve Zara

That is a false analogy Steve. We know that it could have turned out different. That there are trillions of possible bodies, and what have you. We have observation, and evidence to confirm this. We don't know this about the universe. You are skipping an important step when you ask that question in my opinion.

1056. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276774 by Wosret on November 2, 2008 at 3:05 pm

594. Comment #276726 by Bonzai

I asked precisely what "space" was on an advanced physics forum about a week ago, and the answer I got was basically "we're still trying o figure that out".

1057. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #276760 by Wosret on November 2, 2008 at 2:49 pm

10200. Comment #276742 by Titania

I only wanted my account name changed, I didn't want to lose my history. That was not done on purpose, and then it was fixed by Josh.

I changed my name because I wanted consistency with everywhere else that I go, where I use the name "Wosret".

Wosret is a lesser known Egyptian goddness. Can also be spelled "Wasret", or "Wosyet", I just prefer "Wosret". It means "The Powerful".

I have used it as a moniker for years. It started out by researching for character names for a novel I was writing. It stock with me.

1058. Prepare for an ugly battle in Texas

Comment #276534 by Wosret on November 2, 2008 at 1:00 am

"Why won't you die?" - Vegeta.

1059. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #276527 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 11:53 pm

10197. Comment #276526 by lastgreekstanding

It reveals the good parts. That is still living up to its title.

1060. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #276523 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 10:53 pm

10195. Comment #276521 by lastgreekstanding

If you have a picture in mind I could prepare it for you, if you wanted. If you are having trouble.

1061. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #276519 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 10:24 pm

10193. Comment #276518 by lastgreekstanding

Why no avatar?

1062. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #276511 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 9:54 pm

10189. Comment #276508 by lastgreekstanding

In the forum area you go to your user control panel, profile tab, and it can be done through there.

1063. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #276510 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Yatta!

1064. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276506 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 9:31 pm

506. Comment #276504 by Bonzai

Sorry, can't continue anymore as my battery is about to die.

I knew it! No wonder you are always talking about sex-bots!! You are one!!

1065. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276499 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 9:13 pm

500. Comment #276494 by Brian English

I just want to get people to agree that MPhil was wrong when he said that it makes no sense to talk of non-spatiotemporal entities.

If the quantum field is an entity, (and I think that it is) and it exists, then MPhil is wrong.

1066. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276498 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 9:10 pm

492. Comment #276482 by Bonzai

Well, I think that math is real in a sense. I've heard hypotheses that suggest that a large chunk of our higher faculties evolved as a result of being able to throw rocks accurately.

This takes math. The unconscious number crunching that we do has got to be pretty impressive for just about every feat.

I see the abstract as a representation of what is real, and I think that there is perhaps some cross over. Where if a mathematical model has predictive power, then it must be true in at least some sense.

Perhaps there are levels of reality that can only ever be predicted by abstractions.

This raises epistemological questions about how far our trust should go with models that we cannot empirically verify. Those are questions for people that are far cleverer than I.

1067. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276490 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 9:00 pm

The forum admin that changed my name says that he doesn't know why my comments disappeared, and he has contacted Josh to see if they can be restored, and my name change retained.

Feel like a dick for causing trouble now. I should have just not bothered with it. I hope it can be fixed.

1068. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276480 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 8:49 pm

470. Comment #276477 by Bonzai

How does the chemical pattern in our brain give rise to a mathematical formalism called quantum mechanics which can be tested to remarkable accuracies in scenarios where we had not thought of before, and have no idea what they mean?

Very carefully, and with sufficient pahzazz.

1069. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276478 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 8:47 pm

I think that the word "laws" is somewhat misleading. The physical laws are more descriptive than prescriptive. They describe how the universe appears to behave, they don't prescribe how it behaves.

1070. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276470 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 8:35 pm

458. Comment #276465 by Bonzai

The representation is ours, but I think it corresponds to real pattern in the world, some kind of "logic", or logos. The relationship is a bit like a map and a landscape. I don't know.

Yes, that is what I think of it.

Can I keep on calling you Mitchell?

Of course you can.

It was the Fanusi thing that really made me want to change my name. If anyone wants to do research on what I've been up to, and saying around the web, they aren't going to find much by searching for "Mitchell Gilks", so I just wanted consistency with all of the places I frequent.

Though, this might change. When I PM'd the admin, I told him that I would take the old name back if I had to in order to salvage my post history. If I can't have it both ways.

I didn't think that changing the account name would result in anything other than a small explanation, and then things could move on.

1071. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276466 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 8:28 pm

457. Comment #276463 by Brian English

What do you mean by "concrete"?

1072. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276462 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 8:25 pm

452. Comment #276457 by Bonzai

I think that they are patterns in our brains that describe real physical patterns and phenomenological happenings.

1073. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276458 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 8:20 pm

450. Comment #276454 by Bonzai

I use Wosret everywhere else, and it is even my e-mail address. I wanted consistency. I had regretted using anything different for sometime. I guess when I signed up I didn't expect to hang around too often.

447. Comment #276451 by Frankus1122

I could do that. I think I'll respond to the Admin that changed my name and complain about it.

1074. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276455 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 8:18 pm

445. Comment #276449 by Brian English

I once did it to fool around, and pretend I was a theist once, but I didn't plan to keep the account. When I got found out the account was deleted.

When I go for obvious sock-puppets I used "kairai-sokkusu" which is "sock-puppet" in Japanese.

1075. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276450 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 8:14 pm

442. Comment #276446 by Frankus1122

I didn't delete all of my posts. I asked on the forum to have my account name changed. It was changed only like two minutes later, and all of my posts disappeared. I didn't know that would happen. I was not warned either.

1076. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276448 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 8:13 pm

440. Comment #276444 by Brian English

That's against the rules, and I didn't want to lose all of my comments...I have buyers regret now.

1077. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276443 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 8:09 pm

433. Comment #276436 by Bonzai

That's because I am. I got my account name changed. It cost me all of my previous comments though. I didn't know that would happen.

Nice to see that my excellence is easily recognized.

1078. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276434 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 7:56 pm

430. Comment #276431 by Bonzai

...or there might be some implications against some cherised ontological dogmas.

Don't'cha be messin' wit my ontological dogmas.

1079. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276428 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 7:49 pm

420. Comment #276420 by decius

I don't think that the concept of "qualia" is necessarily nonsense. I think that it depends on how you've defined it.

1080. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276417 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 7:43 pm

413. Comment #276411 by Brian English

Colours don't really exist. They are an artificial labeling of wavelengths of light by the brain. Wavelengths of light is what exists. I agree that we evolved both the physical ability to perceive different wavelengths of light, and cognitive shortcut to differentiate between them.

If I say: There exists a number x such that the number x is a prime number greater than 2. You would say x is nothing? Not something?

I would say that it is an abstraction of something, not something in and of itself. It is not an "object" it does not occupy the world. It is an object perhaps in the sense that it is a piece of information housed in brains, but then it is physical in that sense.

1081. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276407 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 7:33 pm

405. Comment #276399 by Brian English

Well, wavelengths of light as objectively different. We can pickup several different wavelengths along the visual spectrum (not even minutely close to all of them), unlike most mammals. It cost us our night-vision. It was likely beneficial because our ancestors were surviving on mostly fruits, roots, and nuts at the time.

Pigments in our eyes allow us to pick up the wavelengths, the colours are just labels we assign to them. Coloured blind individuals lack the pigments in their eyes to pick up the requisite wavelengths of light, but if their brain is fiddled with in the right area, they can be made to see the colours, though they won't be corresponding to wavelengths of light like they are suppose to.

There is a condition where some people have the number and colour recognition parts of their brains cross-wired, which causes them to see numbers as certain colours. This also can effect the coloured blind.

406. Comment #276400 by Brian English

Then I don't agree that numbers are "something".

1082. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276398 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 7:23 pm

401. Comment #276395 by Brian English

Define "something".

1083. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276397 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 7:21 pm

396. Comment #276390 by Brian English

Well, colours are a product of the mind. Like cents, sounds, and the sensation of touch. What we experience is different wavelengths of light. Seeing them as different colours is just how we recognize them. Just as we recognize different gases with odors, and objects with texture.

1084. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276393 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 7:18 pm

395. Comment #276389 by Brian English

I don't agree that it is "something". I think that it is an abstraction of "something", which I don't think is the same thing.

1085. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276387 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 7:13 pm

I once had someone argue a very strange idea of "essences" before to me. The idea that all concepts and ideas existed before their conceptualizations, and in the form of "their essence".

I could not quite grasp what they were saying. Seemed incoherent to me.

1086. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276382 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 7:10 pm

386. Comment #276379 by Brian English

Seems like you are suggesting some form of conceptual/physical dualism.

I think that this is a mistake. Concepts exist in the mind, and the mind is physical.

They are contingent on minds for their existence, so they require space and time in order to exist.

1087. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276347 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 6:35 pm

355. Comment #276341 by Brian English

Almost everything being said confuses me. Conversations like this is when not knowing anything makes it impossible to join in. I feel like the kid that no one picks for soccer.

1088. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276331 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 6:22 pm

342. Comment #276327 by Steve Zara

If you can't express a theory in a way that cannot be formally captured, you aren't doing it right.

Pffft! My theory is too awesome to be formalized. It contains three-sided circles with four sides.

1089. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #276300 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 5:31 pm

I had my name changed, and it appears to have cost me all of my previous comments on the site...lame. Didn't know that would happen.

Need to work back up to ten thousand now.

1090. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276208 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I could make good and thought provoking points too if I wanted...but I'm busy right now...

1091. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276189 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 2:31 pm

253. Comment #276183 by Steve Zara

Also, if his argument is true, then we should assume that the beliefs with the most utility that we harbor are the most likely to be false. This creates a whole lot of absurd problems.

He has to first assume that we actually do hold true beliefs, and without god we wouldn't, and thus if there is no god then we don't.

Wouldn't he then have to argue against his own argument in order to establish that we do hold true beliefs?

I'm confused...

1092. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276186 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 2:26 pm

253. Comment #276183 by Steve Zara

I find that hard to believe. The truth will cohere with the world to a far greater degree, making actions following it far less likely to stumble upon grave error because of a mistake.

I find it simply laughable to suggest that it would be easier to create a complex piece of machinery, like a computer based on false beliefs about the world than it would be based on true ones.

1093. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276184 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 2:23 pm

251. Comment #276180 by Bonzai

If an otherwise intelligent atheist get tripped in a "debate" with such people, it is because he unwittingly plays their game.

I agree. You could just as easily drag me into a debate about mathematics and bullshit the fuck out of me and I wouldn't know it. All you would be doing is using a wellspring of esoteric terms, and formulas that I wouldn't understand.

Such people are merely professional sophists, and I don't think that it is possible to not conclude that they are consciously dishonest to use such tactics.

1094. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276181 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 2:14 pm

247. Comment #276173 by Steve Zara

For example, Plantinga puts forward an argument that naturalistic evolution is very unlikely to produce true beliefs, but we have true beliefs, therefore there is a designer.

I came across this argument sometime ago on the philosophy forum I used to go on, and I thought that I argued against it quite potently.

What I said is that I thought that we are far more likely to harbor false beliefs about things that do not effect our survival than we are about things that do.

For instance, practically everyone thought that the earth was flat, the sun went round it. Natural events were caused by gods, and spirits, the sky was a surface with jewels or lights in it, and a number of other completely wrong beliefs. None of these adversely effect one's survive. Harboring a belief that does adversely effect your survival is far less likely. You are unlikely to believe that you can beat a large predator in a wrestling match, to be able to jump from a large distance and survive, to be able to breath under water, and other such things.

This is what I would expect if evolution were true. Why do we hold true beliefs when it matters? Because harboring a false working belief is -- I think -- harder to manufacture, and had less utility than the truth.

Though, I think that in a lot of cases, we do hold working false beliefs, that have utility, but the truth would always hold greater utility.

1095. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #276175 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 1:54 pm

216. Comment #276126 by PERSON

We were not discussing anything, so I wouldn't be expecting a reply from you. In fact I don't even recall ever having a discussion with you. If we have, and I have forgotten, then I apologize.

1096. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #276171 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 1:51 pm

10180. Comment #276149 by JAMCAM87

"Liberals" are not the emotion-governed fools that you make them out to be.

Yeah! Some of us are emotionally governed GENIUSES!

I can also make cold and calculated decisions! For instance, I am eating a grapefruit right now. They are good for your kidneys, and I would like to avoid future kidney stones.

Of course I'm also drinking excessive amounts of coffee and diet pepsi, which causes them...but I have faith that the grapefruit will win.

1097. Surprise: Scientists for Obama

Comment #276155 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 12:33 pm

14. Comment #276151 by Bonzai

"Senator McCain is the genuine "real action hero"

He must feel so dirty afterwords. I can only imagine.

1098. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276150 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 12:16 pm

231. Comment #276109 by Oystein Elgaroy

1) No proper calculation of the properties of a universe with constants different from ours has ever been done. This is actually a huge task, involving everything from the large-scale properties of these alternative universes to calculating the properties of nuclei, atoms and molecules in them. And you have to vary all the constants.

And actually, some of the constants are not chosen optimally. Structure formation would have been easier in a universe without dark energy than it is in ours. If the Fine-Tuner wanted to optimize the probability of organic life arising somewhere, he should have gone for an Einstein-de Sitter universe istead of LambdaCDM.

2) We don't have a fundamental theory to tell us the prior probability distributions for the constants of nature. People tend to assume flat distributions, so that a priori all values are equally likely. But we don't know that.

I made these arguments (kind of), and I don't even know what I'm talking about. Yet another proof of my greatness!

1099. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #275955 by Wosret on November 1, 2008 at 12:10 am

10167. Comment #275954 by lastgreekstanding

They also go in parentheses, MG.

Don't think that they do.

Speaking about dick...

As if I'm going to go to a site that reminded you of dick. Thanks, but no thanks.

1100. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #275953 by Wosret on October 31, 2008 at 11:37 pm

I think you're missing a few "[sic]". It isn't just for spelling. It is also for phrasing, and punctuation. I'd say that you need like six more.

I think using them at all is a dick thing to do though (also kind of ironic when not used properly. They go in square brackets...). Not that I'm opposed to being a dick in every situation. I guess just since my spelling, grammar, and punctuation are nothing to brag about, I keep my mouth shut.