[MD] Probability

[Platt Holden]

> [Case]
> No, I have said repeatedly, is it True beyond a reasonable doubt that
> there is no Absolute Truth. This is not an Absolute Statement. It is a
> statement of probability that allows for the possibility that an
> Absolute Truth could come knocking on the door. One more time only
> slowly here: It is true by the standards of truth set by courts of law
> and the scientific community that nothing is absolutely true. But both
> allow for the possibility of error or falsifiability.  

Ah. Now it comes out plainly for all to see. Case's standards of truth 
are the courts and the scientific community. Since THEY say nothing is 
absolutely true, therefore nothing is absolutely true. This is called 
TRUTH BY AUTHORITY. One might as well cite the Church as an authority 
on truth, as indeed millions on this planet do.  

I don't know about what Pirsig thinks about the courts, but he said 
this about science: "Intellectuals . . . know what they're talking and 
writing about, because what they say isn't culturally relative. What 
they say is absolute. This is because intellectuals follow science, 
which is objective." ( Lila, 22) 

Once again we see the contradiction. Objective science is absolutely 
certain that nothing is absolutely certain.   

> [Platt]
> I have given dozens of examples of absolute truths that you yourself
> have asserted, like "Absolute Truth is impossible to determine." 
> 
> [Case]
> You said at one point that birth and death are absolute truth. It was
> explained to you several times that you may believe that you were born
> but there are alternative explanations that call the absolute truth of
> this statement into question and which you can not refute. You say you
> were born and I say, you may just be a brain in a vat programmed to
> believe certain things. All of your input is regulated so that the
> appearance of the world is indistinguishable from the way the world
> appears according to the world view you now operate under. Nothing
> observable or testable would change in your perception if you were just
> a brain in a vat. Saying that this is fictional is not a refutation of
> the argument. I say you are wrong I say that the world is 20 mins old
> and everything you know is a memory implanted by clever demons. What
> proof can you offer that your view is correct?

Are you really claiming that you are a brain in a vat? Are you 
seriously suggesting your memory was implanted by clever demons? Your 
asking for proof in this context is like me asking what proof do you 
have that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Really Case, have you 
abandoned reason and experience completely?

> [Platt]
> How do you are know "this is happening" now if, as you have stated, you
> are not certain you are conscious?
> 
> [Case]
> I don't. I explained at length that NOW is at once the moment of
> absolute certainty and at the same time in principle inaccessible to us.

How do you know with certainty that NOW is the moment of absolute 
certainty if the NOW is inaccessible to us? 

> I said that we as organisms have evolved a nervous system that records
> and constructs a representation of the physical world.

You seem to be absolutely certain about that. Don't you see that you 
keep making statements of certainty, then deny there is any certainty?

>This
> reconstruction allows us to escape from the sequential nature of time
> and space. It gives us random access to the past and allows us to
> speculate about the future. That is it makes us conscious.
> 
> Consciousness is the estimation of probabilities and operating on the
> basis of those estimates.

Well, I'm glad you are certain that you are conscious. That's 
something, anyway.

> [Platt]
> Do you not understand logical self-contradiction?
> 
> [Case]
> Yes but you do not understand Gödel. And to anticipate your response: I
> have explained the significance of this at least three times to you.
> Perhaps you should do a bit of homework. 

Are you saying that because logic cannot prove it's own validity that  
logic is something we should pay no attention to? Maybe we should 
ignore all mathematics for the same reason. C'mon Case. Do you really 
want us to ignore self-contradictory statements? How about you doing a 
little homework in Logic 101. 
 
> [Platt]
> What do you mean "of substance?"
> 
> [Case]
> Asked a challenging question.

Lots of challenging questions asked, most avoided. 

> Made a cogent observation.

Lots of cogent observations made, most ignored.

> Suggested an alternative view point.

Lots of alternates suggested, most overlooked.

> Shown the slightest appreciation for the issues at hand...

Appreciation is a two way street. Haven't seen much toward
this side. But, as I've learned, that's to be expected.