just read this...
from this
corkscrew corkscrew corkscrew...
re: I'd say that: no scientific evidence => it's not useful to accept existence.
If you can't make valid predictions of any sort about what X will do next, then it's not advantageous to consider X as a factor in your calculations - you'll do just as well on average if you simply ignore X and get on with your life.
This doesn't necessarily mean that X doesn't exist, but it does mean that belief in the existence of X is fairly daft - if nothing else, it's a waste of valuable brain resources, which aren't something that most people are overly blessed with to start with...
there is no evidence that you can see that I'm writing this, does that mean that there is no purpose for me writing this, or that I don't exist? nope
RE: X - you have to take "X" into consideration as whilst you may not be able to predict what "X" will do next, your results would not reflect the result which would happen with X present, which may well make a grave difference!
Nor does it mean that belief in X is daft... though it appears to be that you're stating you are of a higher intellect because you choose not to believe in the existance of X... correct me if I'm wrong?!
corkscrew corkscrew corkscrew...
re: I'd say that: no scientific evidence => it's not useful to accept existence.
If you can't make valid predictions of any sort about what X will do next, then it's not advantageous to consider X as a factor in your calculations - you'll do just as well on average if you simply ignore X and get on with your life.
This doesn't necessarily mean that X doesn't exist, but it does mean that belief in the existence of X is fairly daft - if nothing else, it's a waste of valuable brain resources, which aren't something that most people are overly blessed with to start with...
there is no evidence that you can see that I'm writing this, does that mean that there is no purpose for me writing this, or that I don't exist? nope
RE: X - you have to take "X" into consideration as whilst you may not be able to predict what "X" will do next, your results would not reflect the result which would happen with X present, which may well make a grave difference!
Nor does it mean that belief in X is daft... though it appears to be that you're stating you are of a higher intellect because you choose not to believe in the existance of X... correct me if I'm wrong?!
posted by mrjohnfernandez at 9:49 am
1 Comments:
there is no evidence that you can see that I'm writing this, does that mean that there is no purpose for me writing this, or that I don't exist? nope
Actually, you're arguing in my favour here. I have no direct evidence that your name is John Fernandez, or that you're a Christian, or even that you're human. For all I know, you could be a robot sent back in time to kill John Connor before... sorry, wrong storyline.
I accept that you're who you say you are because, as far as I can tell, it provides an accurate model for your behaviour. This acceptance is provisional - if you start quizzing me about any friends called "John" I may have, that acceptance might change :) But, for now, it's a useful position.
though it appears to be that you're stating you are of a higher intellect because you choose not to believe in the existance of X
Do you believe you're of higher intellect than those who choose to believe in the Tooth Fairy?
My position is that I'm by no means more intelligent than all theists everywhere - I know several who could wipe the floor with me as far as raw brainpower is concerned. I just believe that my understanding of the world in these areas is more scientifically useful than theirs.
Now, what I personally find really interesting is: how does one justify this formulation of "usefulness"? Are there circumstances in which another definition of "useful" could be more appropriate? See, for example, this post I guest-wrote for another blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home