Re: tautology

From: Jacques M. Mallah <>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:56:00 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 wrote:
> >> One way out for Jacques is to assume that humans are the only sentient
> >> creatures in the whole universe... actually the whole plenitude.
> > Why did you even write such bullshit and try to tar me with it?
> Jacques, what you call bullshit is just the logical extension of ASSA, and I
> am tarring your crackpot ideas, not you. If ASSA predicts that the
> probability of being Chinese is high because there are more Chinese, then it
> is also true that the probability of being non-chinese is higher because
> there are more non-Chinese. ASSA also predicts that the probability of being
> a sentient Centaurian is higher because there are more Centaurian, or maybe
> the reverse is true: there are more non-Centaurian, therefore we should be
> non-Centaurian. The predictive ability of ASSA is zero, zilch, nada.

        You just said the ASSA predicts stuff, yourself. I see only BS

> The Self Sampling process is one in which a frame of reference is being
> defined. This frame of reference is simply the condition of being the self.
> It also leads to the RSSA
> For this reason, I assert that the Absolute Self Sampling (ASS) Assumption is
> a contradiction in terms. It cannot be both Absolute and Self Sampling.

        I don't see your point but I gather you don't like the name
"ASSA". Fine. Neither do I. Let's call it the Copernican Anthropic
Principle (CAP).

> Jacques, you yourself admit to an element of relativity:
> >A piece of evidence is surprising if it would cause a big shift in
> > our Bayesian probability distribution. This is relative, of course.

        As in, depends on what you consider "big". You are being silly
to say this is an 'element' of the "relativity" of the RSSA. It is like
saying Issac Newton knew about General Relativity because he knew a
General has a mother.

In a message dated 99-09-15 16:34:52 EDT, Jacques Mallah writes:
<< BTW, while I'm posting I might as well ask, if you guys are so
 darn sure consciousness is continuous and that it somehow means it cannot
 end, how come you seem to have no problem with birth? It seems to me that
 your arguments would apply equally in that direction. How come you have
 no trouble picturing a boundary for it in the past? I'm sure you'll come
 up with some BS answer but this once again shows the foolishness of your
 position. >>

George Levy wrote
[a bunch of crap]

        Just as I predicted.

                         - - - - - - -
              Jacques Mallah (
       Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
            My URL:
Received on Thu Sep 16 1999 - 15:03:52 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST