Comments by "\/" (@joebazooks) on "TED-Ed" channel.

  1. Abel Lawliet yes, okay, i would agree that the word 'mind' represents cerebral activity; hence you can indeed imagine being brain-dead or not having a mind, although your imaginings would be entirely false, since imagining anything constitutes cerebral activity; in other words, doing so would be similar to imagining that one is not imagining.
    1
  2. ***** well, initially i wanted to contest your point that we cannot imagine that we do not have a mind. aside from that, yes, the word 'mind' has no basis in reality to the extent that the brain does not create a thing called 'mind'. instead, 'mind' is an abstract term that refers to not just the brain but the brain and its activity.
    1
  3. ***** speaking of children, how old are you? 12?
    1
  4. ***** dude, why are you so sensitive? do you get criticized a lot?
    1
  5. ***** the question wasn't rhetorical. i'm earnestly interested in knowing why you are so sensitive and offended by comments? to be honest, i've watched so many videos since watching this one that i can't even remember its content. however, i do know that the video wasn't interesting enough to cause me to ruminate over its content, which is probably one reason i have no recollection of watching it.
    1
  6. ***** you kind of lost me about half-way through your third paragraph. likewise, you said, "you think it's imminently important that the word 'mind' is not necessarily the initial product of the brain." however, i feel as if the word itself certainly is a product of--in addition to the lips, the vocal cords, et cetera--the brain, insofar as the word is basically a particular form of information that was deliberately chosen and or "produced" by the brain to serve a function that is similar to any given sign (a street sign, stop sign, etc.), that purpose being to refer to, point to or at, and or represent another more elaborate body of information (as opposed to a material body/object/thing), specifically 'cerebral activity' to keep it simple. further, because this particular word, 'mind', represents an activity, it is necessarily abstract, unlike a material object such as a tree that indefinitely possesses a definite form or at least a form that can be indefinitely perceived as definite. i guess what i'm trying to get at it is whether or not the word's utilization is practical, whether or not its functionality stretches beyond the exchange of hollow information, beyond the production of noise? does the word itself, 'mind', foster and facilitate practical progress in one way or another to warrant its continual, somewhat prevalent use? even, does its use hinder or prevent practical progress in one way or another? does the use of abstract words in general create more confusion and disagreement than understanding? does the cost outweigh the rewards?
    1
  7. ***** oops! i just realized that i had been mistaking you for the initial commenter this entire time. with that in mind, i didn't necessarily respond just to contest his point, but rather to hopefully start a discussion about the general topic of my initial response.
    1
  8. some of Plato's best works are basically analogies of his beliefs and nothing more?
    1
  9. Madra lol "if you are a deceiver, please raise your hand"
    1
  10. Madra will the real slim shady please stand up
    1
  11. Chase Jones well, there would still be a 25% chance you make it out alive by guessing correctly lol
    1
  12. this might not have anything at all to do with ownership... i think one plausible reason this phenomenon might happen is because the subjects are (in such a world) rightly cynical and thus suspect the researchers are deliberately trying to exchange something of lesser value for what they had already given them.
    1
  13. hell no. at least not on this planet. within this so-called civilization.
    1
  14. you replace it with a square over a semi-dotted, semi-solid lined circle. square peg, round hole.
    1
  15. i think objective reality may be the anomaly
    1
  16. Adam Thornton each of them isn't explicitly aware of the fact that they themselves have green eyes, so stating that "99 ppl have green eyes" would be considered New info
    1
  17. Adam Thornton you're wrong. if i'm on an island with 98 other individuals and know that each of them has green eyes. i therefore also know that each of them know that at least 97 other individuals have green eyes, which is why they have to wait exactly 3 days to leave safely...
    1
  18. Adam Thornton how does that help what?
    1
  19. surfe3 yes, you are correct. at first i was having troubles coming up with a sufficient yet logical explanation. but it doesn't take 99 or 100 days for everybody to be certain that indeed everybody has green eyes. it only takes a total of 3 days and 3 nights.
    1
  20. if i were 1 of the 99 individuals and noticed that all of the other 98 individuals had green eyes, i think i'd take my chances leaving before any observer were permitted access to the camp..............................................
    1
  21. ironic how kiev was annexed by a leader name vladimir :)
    1
  22. ScottybugU2B obviously not, but the participants would still have to assume that the observer is speaking to each of them personally. but i think if you were stuck in a camp with 98 other people, and every other person had green eyes, chances are you've got green eyes too.......
    1
  23. Manolis Grifoman the clue is irrelevant nonetheless, especially since no new information can be gathered from it.
    1
  24. Manolis Grifoman yes, but there is no new information in the statement itself. the information is deduced, just like new information can be deduced from the actual clue. again, the clue is irrelevant. also, the thought experiment is just silly
    1
  25. Phil Hibbs That information, though eventually it can be induced from the statement that 'The person next to you has green eyes', is not intrinsic to that particular statement. In other words, the statement 'The person next to you has green eyes' in and of itself contains no new information. However, if one chooses to take action and think about it, one can obtain a novel insight.
    1
  26. Phil Hibbs The new information is not "derived solely from [the] statement". The new information arises when or, rather, if one chooses to take action and think about how that statement applies not just to themselves personally, but everybody else. Everybody already knows that the person next to them has green eyes and therefore the statement that "The person next to you has green eyes" contains no new information whatsoever.
    1
  27. Phil Hibbs Well, if the statement 'The person next to has green eyes' contains new information, you should be able to demonstrate that. What is new about that statement?
    1
  28. Phil Hibbs I understand that. But that information is not inherent in the statement itself. That information is induced by the act of thinking. Therefore, the statement does not contain any new information. If one of the prisoners did not choose to think (about it), s/he would be none the wiser...
    1
  29. Phil Hibbs I wouldn't say it's "extra" information, but it's certainly information that has been induced from other information, similar to how one can deduce that there might be a fire if one sees a cloud of smoke. Another example of inductive reasoning would be: Kelly owns a red car, a red bike, a red tennis racket, a red iPod, a red hat, and a lot of red clothing; With this information, one can induce that red is Kelly's favorite color--but this information is not inherent in the statement itself.
    1
  30. ***** That's untrue. You have to think about it. Hence, the only difference between one clue and the other—'The person next...' and 'At least 1...'—is the degree of immediacy at which new information is induced. It might be easier for you guys to understand this if we the change the clue slightly: 'The person beside the person who is beside you has green eyes.' Or even, 'The person beside the person who is beside the person next to you has green eyes'. It might also help to consider the actual clue—'At least 1...'—and change that slightly: 'At least 99 of you have green eyes'; with which each of them will necessarily induce the information that 'If anybody has brown eyes, it must be me'. What new information does the statement 'At least 99 of you have green eyes' have that the statement 'At least 1 of you has green eyes' does not? Nothing, yet the prisoners can leave a whole day or a whole ninety-nine days earlier. The only difference is the degree of immediacy at which new information is induced. '99' is just as arbitrary as '1' or '87' or '13' or '25', which in turn is also no different from any other clue that does not explicitly state that you have green eyes yourself. To further illustrate my point, consider the same problem but with only two prisoners on the island. The clue the prisoners are given is: 'The person next to you has green eyes'. Well, this clue can be interpreted in one of two ways: (1) The person next to you (plural) has green eyes; (2) The person next to you (singular) has green eyes. In order for the prisoners to actually know which interpretation is the correct interpretation, they first have to determine that there is nobody else beside the two prisoners—"Nobody else is around. It's only us two prisoners on this island, so then the clue must be interpreted as 'The person next to me has green eyes'." Only after they've first determined that, they are able to subsequently determine that, if the clue must be true, "I too have green eyes". In the beginning the only information that each of them are lacking is whether or not they themselves have green eyes. If we told 100 prisoners that 'The person next to you has green eyes', though they would leave almost immediately (or much more immediately than in some other cases), nobody would actually leave immediately upon hearing that statement because the statement does not contain the information 'You personally/All of you have green eyes', which would be new information. You also have to bear in mind that, even if they were standing in neat, orderly rows, there would be more than just 1 person standing next to you at all times...
    1
  31. ***** That's a terrible analogy because 1+2=3, whereas 'The person next to you has green eyes'≠'You personally/All of you have green eyes'. The latter piece of information--the new information--is arrived at eventually and neither immediately nor necessarily. As a reminder the two rules are: (1) You can only make one statement; (2) You cannot tell them any new information. A simple way to solve our disagreement is to explain which information inherent in the statement itself is new...
    1
  32. ***** Foremost, I am going to modify my clue slightly: '[A] prisoner next to you has green eyes'. Secondly, it is a stretch of the imagination to claim "the [creator] of the [thought] experiment" agrees with you and not with me on this matter, but this is beside the point. Third of all, one of the conditions is not "the statement must refer to everyone", and this is also beside the point. Nonetheless, the original clue does indeed refer to everyone—'At least one of you (plural) has green eyes'—whereas the second clue does not refer to everyone—'A prisoner next to you (singular) has green eyes'. Fourth, I understand that you do not agree with my definition of new information. However, your definition of new information applies to the original clue, 'At least one of you has green eyes'. The original clue is "information or data that allows [the prisoners] to reach [the] correct conclusion [eventually]; The very content of the information [alone allows the prisoners] to logically derive [the correct conclusion]"; if this were not the case, the prisoners would have left either long before you showed up to give them the clue or not at all. 'All of you have green eyes' > I know immediately that I have green eyes. 'A prisoner next to you has green eyes' > I do not know immediately that I have green eyes. 'All of you have green eyes' ≠ 'A prisoner next to you has green eyes' Lastly, Remember that space, by definition, is three-dimensional and not linear, and therefore "[each prisoner] at the morning meeting must be [standing] next to [not only] someone", but more than one prisoner at a time. This is the crucial piece of information that you are neglecting. For instance, imagine a scenario with only three prisoners in a triangular formation: P1 is standing next to P2 and P3, whereas P2 is standing next to P1 and P3 and P3 is standing next to P1 and P2; if somebody told them 'A prisoner next to you has green eyes', it does not follow from this necessarily that P1 has green eyes because P1 is not standing next to only one prisoner, but standing next to P2 and P3; therefore, the prisoner with green eyes next to P2 might be P3 and not P1, and the prisoner with green eyes next to P3 might be P2 and not P1. Again, there is no new information in the statement 'A prisoner next to you has green eyes', none whatsoever. "The statement itself has not presented any [new] information. This information is already available to everyone. As a prisoner with 99 visible green-eyed mates, you know that literally everyone on the island has knowledge of at least one green eyed inmate" next to them.
    1
  33. Phil Hibbs It doesn't matter which article is used in the clue; the difference isn't that significant. The difference would be significant, however, if the initial clue was 'The prisonerS (plural) next to you haVE green eyes', but that wasn't the initial clue. You can keep coming up with excuses as to why I'm wrong without addressing the points that I've brought forth, which are notably still valid. That's your prerogative.
    1
  34. ***** As a reminder--the only two conditions, as explicitly stated in the video, are: (1) You can only make one statement; (2) You cannot tell them any new information. Yet, again, this is beside the point. Furthermore, I find it quite ironic and incredibly telling that you've dismissed all of the valid points that I've brought forth as wrong without even addressing them, while addressing the only point that was beside the point, which I'm not sure why you brought that up in the first place... LOL I suggest rereading my comment, or, if it still doesn't make sense, rereading your comment and then my response. As it is often the case on YT, you're misconstruing aspects of my comment; though I forgive you, for it has become beyond apparent that English is likely your second language. If you are incapable of basic comprehension--no shame in that--I bid you adieu
    1
  35. To make your life easier: (1) You have yet to address your faulty definition of new information, which also applies the original clue in the video; (2) You have yet to demonstrate how 'The prisoner next to you' contains new information; (3) You have yet to acknowledge the difference of immediacy between the original clue and the clue that I've put forth; (4) You've also put forth an entirely new claim: That the clue I've suggested somehow fails to instigate the realization that everybody has green eyes, when in fact you've already acknowledged that the clue certainly does allow the prisoners to determine that everybody has green eyes, which is why you believe the statement itself magically contains "new" information.
    1
  36. ***** ...
    1
  37. https://upw-prod-images.global.ssl.fastly.net/nugget/560966d834326200194f0200/attachments/31-6dd793207d5e1ea221046d1b3ffde233.gif?fit=max&ixjsv=1.0.24&w=740
    1
  38. Acu Semplectic they already know the person next to them sees green eyes. if there is a group of only 3 ppl and all of them have green eyes, then they know the other person sees at least 1 person with green eyes.
    1
  39. Andrew Tat it's not new information. all of them already know somebody next to each of them has green eyes...
    1
  40. Andrew Tat they're well aware of that already. none of them are blind...
    1
  41. Andrew Tat first of all, you're interpreting "...next (to you)..." as to the prisoner's left and right. a person next to you can be standing anywhere in your proximity, to your left, to your right, in front of you, behind you, et cetera. second, prisoner C can simply look to his left and actually see with his very own eyes that a prisoner or the prisoner standing next to prisoner B has green eyes. again, he is not blind.
    1
  42. Andrew Tat no, because EVERY prisoner can SEE with their own EYES that a prisoner standing next to prisoner B has green eyes. they would EVENTUALLY be able to work it out, if this message is first true, and then if it applies to everybody on a personal level as opposed to everybody on a collective basis. i mean, you seem to be of the mindset that it would allow them to figure it out instantaneously... furthermore, i would pose the same question to you, how does telling the prisoners that "At least one of you has green eyes" change anything?
    1
  43. Andrew Tat lol, it's prolly because you yourself are male and you're "putting yourself in their shoes" ;)
    1
  44. u dont need to check all 4 potential pathways, since if you check 3 and none of them are the exit, the 4th must be the exit, so u send 3/9 down 3 seperate pathways.
    1
  45. Nadia Qutob it's not even because you're licking two frogs that the order doesn't matter. it's that the difference in sequence doesn't represent two different outcomes, thus MF and FM are the exact same outcome.
    1
  46. David Williams You're wrong because it does NOT matter which frog is male and which frog is female. F M and M F are only valid possibilities in conjunction with one another when a specific sequence/order/position is necessary, since then and only then would they represent different outcomes. The fact that 1/2 or even 1/3 frogs is male does not effect the probability whatsoever of a 2nd frog more likely being female. What you're trying to falsely claim as the truth is tantamount to claiming "When I flip a coin Tails is more likely to come up since I just flipped the coin and Heads was face up". This is virtually the gambler's fallacy in a nutshell.
    1
  47. David Williams So you have 2 frogs... FrogA and FrogB. You know one of them is male. However, not only must one of them be female, but FrogB must be female in order to survive. If this were the case, then necessarily the sequence/order/position in relation to sex would matter, and [ F (FrogA) M (FrogB) ] and [ M (FrogA) F (FrogB) ] can be considered in conjunction with one another as unique possibilities because they represent two different outcomes. They otherwise do not represent two meaningfully different outcomes and therefore should not be considered as such, as meaningful. It's pretty fucking straight-forward shit man... We shouldn't even be discussing this, though; We are unable to determine whether or not the sex of one frog effects the sex of another frog, even though we know 50% of the population is male whereas the other 50% is female, since the quantity of individuals from which the sample was taken is unknown. If the entire population was only 4 frogs, then all of a sudden with 1 male exposed, the chance that the next frog is female becomes 66.%. This is the only situation in which the chance of the next frog being female is 66.6%
    1
  48. David Williams No, you're just making shit up now. We already know that 1/2 frogs is male. This can be expressed as FM or MF, but the reality of whether it's FM or MF does not change the outcome. Again, it does not matter which frog is male or which frog is female and therefore the distinction between the actualities of FM and MF is meaningless.
    1
  49. It might help you to think of it in the following sequence: Condition for survival: Two 6s. (1). You roll the die and your chance of getting a 6 is 1/6. (2) The second die is automatically a 6. Nonetheless, you can reverse the sequence and the reversal of sequence is inconsequential. (1) The first die is automatically 6. (2) You roll the die and your chance of getting a 6 is 1/6.
    1
  50. David Williams Below is a grid to help you understand the true probabilities. I'm simplifying this thought experiment for the sake of your understanding. 66% likely sample/scenario: MMF (from MMFF, which is more likely since M is already exposed and therefore F was more likely to be removed when forming the set from an equally distributed pool) 100% M M _ 50% M _ _ 0% F _ _ F M _ F M M 33% likely sample/scenario: FFM (from MMFF, which is less likely because we already know 1/3 or one member of the set is M) 100% M _ _ M F _ 50% F _ _ 0% F F _ F F M
    1