>From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
>To: fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden (Fritz Griffith)
>CC: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>Subject: Re: Heed Clarification on MW
>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:01:41 +1100 (EST)
>
>Fritz Griffith wrote:
>
> >
> > I would imagine that we could theoretically learn every variable that
> > affects our decisions, but our brains are so complex that I would
>imagine
> > that there would be a lot more variables than we could ever expect. I
>would
> > also imagine that our brain is a very chaotic system, so that a hardly
> > significant difference of initial states would result in a totally
>different
> > outcome. But if we were to learn every variable that controlled our
> > decisions, and monitor those variables perfectly, then we should be able
>to
> > give probabilities to our decisions.
> >
> > This leads to an interesting problem, though: if we knew the probability
>of
> > our decisions, we should be able to act against those probabilities, and
> > make a decision that is very unlikely. We could effectively choose to
>be in
> > either a low measure world or a high measure world.
> >
>
>Precisely. This is why 3rd person predictions (which are based on well
>defined probabilities) are of little help in predicting what you will
>actually experience in the 1st person.
>
>A little anecdote. When I was a child, I was able to influence the way
>cards and dice fell in games to give me an edge in a game. More
>recently, I used the same technique to ensure I had a healthy child
>(check out his photos on the Web if you're interested). Now these
>statements are 1st person experiences, and definitely unprovable
>(scientifically uncummunicable in Bruno's terms). This is an instance
>of chosing lower probability outcomes, however the lower probabilities
>are certainly no less than a couple of orders of magnitude lower than
>the most probable outcome. I'm sure anyone can do this in the right
>frame of mind (child's suspension of disbelief perhaps?) To do real
>magic require many many orders of magnitude difference in
>probabilities (say 10 orders - that's the sort of difference often
>used in SSA like arguments) - that would surely require a wizard of
>great power :)
So you were actually able to control the probability of outcomes? What's
the secret? I'd like to know how you did it. :)
There could very well be a way to 'control' things with your mind (or
however you did it), but I'm sure there would be a scientific explanation,
and this mind control is a variable that we don't know about yet. So
'willing' something to occur would be taken into account when determining
the probabilities of the outcome.
Logically, 3rd person predictions SHOULD reflect what we actually experience
in 1st person.
>
> Cheers
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dr. Russell Standish Director
>High Performance Computing Support Unit,
>University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
>Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
>Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
>Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Tue Dec 14 1999 - 19:20:14 PST