And they coordinate all these complex behaviors without a single brain among them.
They have no brain. And they don't even know it!
Right, what's a little sweater sniffing between sworn enemies?
Riley ,'Sleeper'
Natter .38 Special
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
billytea - Aug 23, 2005 5:43:40 pm PDT #722 of 10002
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
Cashmere - Aug 23, 2005 5:45:49 pm PDT #723 of 10002
Now tagless for your comfort.
They have no brain. And they don't even know it!
Just like the president!
tommyrot - Aug 23, 2005 5:51:33 pm PDT #724 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Poor warrior anemones. I wonder if other anemones offer them support... like, say, enemy anemone amenities.
eta: Of course, other sea creatures might steal them, resulting in enemy anemone amenities for manatees.
Or if the manetees provide them: enemy anemone manatees amenities.
Trudy Booth - Aug 23, 2005 6:02:46 pm PDT #725 of 10002
Greece's financial crisis threatens to take down all of Western civilization - a civilization they themselves founded. A rather tragic irony - which is something they also invented. - Jon Stewart
enemy anemone manatees amenities
that's insanity
billytea - Aug 23, 2005 6:05:36 pm PDT #726 of 10002
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
And, if there was only the one type of amenity, it would be enemy anemone manatee amenity monotony.
tommyrot - Aug 23, 2005 6:08:26 pm PDT #727 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Unless you weren't sure. Then it'd be enemy anemone manatee amenity monotony, apparantly.
Bob Bob - Aug 23, 2005 6:10:13 pm PDT #728 of 10002
The Bayesian approach is very powerful if you can put in some prior probabilities, collect some data, and then revise the probability estimates based on the fit of your model to the data. After several iterations you can arrive at an efficient and accurate answer. But if there are no data-based iterations? If you start and end the process with your own assumptions, which are of unknown quality? I just don’t understand what has been accomplished.
That's a great point to make about Swinburne, although I think he has a lot more going for him than "assumptions ... of unknown quality". He gives all sorts of philosophical arguments for the quality of his assumptions. They're assumptions that don't exactly have empirical data going for them or against them. Still, his project--trying to prove the existence of God using all of the universe as the data to be explained (e.g., what is the probability of there being a universe given an all-loving, all-powerful God)--must look quite weird from a scientist's point of view.
Theodosia - Aug 23, 2005 6:18:48 pm PDT #729 of 10002
'we all walk this earth feeling we are frauds. The trick is to be grateful and hope the caper doesn't end any time soon"
A friend of mine's slogan used to be "No brain, no pain," which covers quite a lot of Massachusetts drivers.
I go away for a few hours, and philosophy breaks out!
tommyrot - Aug 23, 2005 6:19:57 pm PDT #730 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
I'm a little rusty with my probability, but does the probability of there being a universe given an all-loving, all-powerful God have anything to do with the probability of an all-loving, all-powerful God given the existence of the universe?
Rick - Aug 23, 2005 6:25:11 pm PDT #731 of 10002
Still, his project--trying to prove the existence of God using all of the universe as the data to be explained (e.g., what is the probability of there being a universe given an all-loving, all-powerful God)--must look quite weird from a scientist's point of view.
Yes, it's a BIG project in a way that most science is not. Most scientists have to accept that their career will be spent in a sort of professional myopia-always focused on the next little step. I think it was Goethe who said that "the scientist must live as though he is going to be 300 years old." By contrast philosopy and mathematics are BIG and can focus on the horizon.