Tulipslave said:

define smart.  scientists are now inclined to believe that octopi are more intelligent than humans.  mycelial networks also are ranking among the highest intellect species on earth.

---

According to what? Sorry, but that's just plain silly.

Morel Guy said:

Maybe he's judging nature as smart not as an individual.

---

laughingdog said:

Not just casinos, also insurance companies, use the mathematics of probability, to outfox, luck or randomness, and obtain a predictable result: profit, form what seems to be inscrutable.

Computerized stock trading is another example, of applying math, to what is too complex for humans to fathom.

---

DividedQuantum said:

Another example would be, for basketball fans, the final shot by Kawhi Leonard in the Eastern Conference Finals of the NBA this year. Long story short, his team won when his shot, which bounced up high, then all around the rim, finally teetered in as time expired. This had nothing to do with cause and effect, or connections, or divine providence, or anything.

It was luck.

---

DividedQuantum said:

Another example would be, for basketball fans, the final shot by Kawhi Leonard in the Eastern Conference Finals of the NBA this year. Long story short, his team won when his shot, which bounced up high, then all around the rim, finally teetered in as time expired. This had nothing to do with cause and effect, or connections, or divine providence, or anything.

It was luck.

---

PocketLady said:

DividedQuantum said:

Another example would be, for basketball fans, the final shot by Kawhi Leonard in the Eastern Conference Finals of the NBA this year. Long story short, his team won when his shot, which bounced up high, then all around the rim, finally teetered in as time expired. This had nothing to do with cause and effect, or connections, or divine providence, or anything.

It was luck.

---

Why must it be luck rather than cause and effect?

---

Quote:

This had nothing to do with cause and effect, or connections, or divine providence, or anything.

It was luck.

---

PocketLady said:

What I'm asking is why, in this particular example you gave, you believe it had to be luck?

Quote:

This had nothing to do with cause and effect, or connections, or divine providence, or anything.

It was luck.

---

---

DividedQuantum said:

PocketLady said:

What I'm asking is why, in this particular example you gave, you believe it had to be luck?

Quote:

This had nothing to do with cause and effect, or connections, or divine providence, or anything.

It was luck.

---

---

If you aim for a hoop with a basketball, and it doesn't go in cleanly but bounces all around randomly and then goes in, that's luck. I cannot imagine why you wouldn't see it that way.

---

DividedQuantum said:

If you aim for a hoop with a basketball, and it doesn't go in cleanly but bounces all around randomly and then goes in, that's luck. I cannot imagine why you wouldn't see it that way.

---

I'm sure there were plenty of Raptors fans who thought it was divine providence

Well, what if luck, and cause and effect are not mutually exclusive? Maybe they are actually the same thing viewed from a different perspective? If you take a snapshot of that moment, it looks like luck. But if you zoom out a little and look at the wider context, maybe from there it can be viewed as cause and effect. The issue is just whether we can see that context or not from our current vantage point.

PocketLady said:

The idea of cause and effect doesn't necessarily require a conscious intention on the part of the subject. Like I said, when we are dreaming, we have no idea that our subconscious minds are making up everything we see and experience around us. There is no conscious intention/action creating that dream and everything in it, but there is something much deeper causing it that we cannot perceive from that perspective. That is cause and effect.

Imagine that same shot being taken by someone in a dream, with the same result. Whilst they are in the dream, they would think, "Oh, I got lucky." But once that person wakes up, it would be easy for them to accept that there was some underlying cause to that experience, that the sub/unconscious aspects of the mind were somehow creating that particular dream experience the whole time (maybe for a particular purpose, if you are open to dreams having some meaning or purpose to them) and that cause and effect was indeed present, even though that person could not perceive that connection as the dream was happening.

What if our waking reality is like that too? How easy would it be to recognise it if it were?

---

Tulipslave said:

okay, i thought of another angle to view "luck" from.


let's say you're playing Texas Hold'em at a table with other people.  from here, everyone folds the current hand except for you and another player.  let's say you have a terrible hand, pre-flop, but for whatever reason decide to play it.  let's say A-A-K comes on the flop, and you're holding 2-7 offsuit, none of which match suit to the flop.  for whatever reason, you don't buy that the opponent has an ace or a king, but for shits-and-giggles, let's say they have a pair of nines, with three suited to the flop.  They make a bet to test the waters, but you are feeling ballsy.  You re-raise, going all-in, bluffing to steal the pot (a stupid thing to do here, but we're almost to the end).  Your opponent stops and thinks for a minute, decides it's not worth the risk to call, and folds.  With 99% chance of being beaten, you win the hand.

would it be fair to say you "got lucky" by the opponent folding and you winning?

probably so, as almost all factors were out of your control.

---