Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:4502c52b$0$24173$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:DfidnVq43_0-zp_YnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > news:45022a61$0$24200$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > >> > >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:IuudnbeEf4NBgZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > > >> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message > >> > news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com... > >> >> > >> >> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >> >> >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does > > consciousness > >> >> >> dwell > >> >> >>> > > >> > > exclusively in the brain? > >> >> >>> > > >> > > No one knows for certain. > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > How does that turn into an argument? > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> It does > >> >> >> > >> >> >> [unsnip] > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the > >> >> >> argument > >> >> > > >> >> > 1. If it's not an argument. > >> >> > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > >> >> > 3. And it is not an argument. > >> >> > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > >> >> > >> >> It appears to be couched as a question. > >> > > >> > "No one knows for certain" is not a question, > >> > >> No. It's a statement. A stand-alone statement > > > > How do you figure it stands alone? > > Because it's a rebuttal that stands alone. No it is not a rebuttal any more than "Nobody knows for sure there is no God" is a rebuttal. Atheists are not the ones making the hypothesis [the 'might be' conjecture] in this case, it is the theists who are, and "There is no proof the hypothesis is false" is an integral part of the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be consciousness independent of the brain because there is no proof this hypothesis [this 'might be' theist conjecture] is false, logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains. Get it now? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 In article <2aOdnVgSFdD83pnYnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > Copi deals with a claim of necessity. > > The gullible might believe what you say The gullible might as easily believe what Septic says, or anyone else, but those than less gullible will believe the truth, that Septic lies about what consttitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Septic's fallacy is to to conflate uncertainty about the truth of an hypothesis with uncertainty in the statement of that hypothesis. If one hypothesizes that something MUST be true, that is a different hypothesis than if one hypothesizes that, as far as is known, something MIGHT be true. And the second form may be quite true, and even provable, when the first is not known to be true, and may eventually prove false. And any weakening of part (1) to less that "must be" will not produce an argumentum ad ignorantiam. http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59) Examples: i. Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist. ii. Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't. iii. Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false. Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3LUMg.52609$e9.14939@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > news:4mhoomF68mfeU1@individual.net... >> >> > I do not believe that prophets in the O.T. literately sat around >> >> > taking dictation from God. Rather they were moved by the spirit. >> >> > And they often got it wrong. The New Testament has no prophets. >> >> >> >> I'm afraid I'll have to correct you on that. >> >> Unless of course, you are claiming that Jesus Christ was not a >> >> prophet? >> >> >> > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they >> > believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more >> > than a prophet. >> >> >> According to the new testament, Jesus PROHESIED that the end of days >> would >> come, and PROHESIED his return in the Second Coming. >> The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as a prophet. >> Check your bible out if you don't believe me. >> > I have, in the O.T it identifies them as prophets, i.e. Isaiah the > prophet; > or > Daniel the Prophet; or Jeremy the prophet or the prophet Moses etc. > > But no such appellation is given for a N.T. personality. When peophets > are mentioned in the N.T. It is prophets from the past that is Old > Testament > prophets. > > But Maybe you are right. I considered these to be promises. If I told my > wife > when I leave I will be back at 5: 00. This is not exactly a prophesy. When > General Macarthur left the Philippines stated "I will return". I would > not think he considered this a prophesy. Maybe I'm wrong. Now you're just being plain silly. It's a bloody prophecy. I should know, I've seen a few. >> >> However, as he prohesied that the end of days and the Second Coming would >> occur within the lifetime of those around him, then that pretty much made >> him a really crap prophet, so I might concede your point. >> > No, I disagree with this, no where in the N.T. Is Christ referred to as a > prophet. Why do you assume one has to be referred to in a book as a prophet in order to be considered a prophet? > In fact in Matt. 16:14 in response to his question who do men > say that I am? He did not identify himself as a prophet, eventhough > he had ample opportunity to do so. Derrr, no... but he made prophetic observations. > He wasn't satisfied with these answers > He only accepted Peters response. that he was the Christ, the son of > the living God. There is no reason to think that Christ thought of himself > as a prophet. Ooookaaaaaay..... he was a person who didn't think of himself as a prophet, but nevertheless made prophesies anyway... which didn't actually happen the way he said they would, right? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3LUMg.52609$e9.14939@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > news:4mhoomF68mfeU1@individual.net... >> >> > I do not believe that prophets in the O.T. literately sat around >> >> > taking dictation from God. Rather they were moved by the spirit. >> >> > And they often got it wrong. The New Testament has no prophets. >> >> >> >> I'm afraid I'll have to correct you on that. >> >> Unless of course, you are claiming that Jesus Christ was not a >> >> prophet? >> >> >> > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they >> > believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more >> > than a prophet. >> >> >> According to the new testament, Jesus PROHESIED that the end of days >> would >> come, and PROHESIED his return in the Second Coming. >> The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as a prophet. >> Check your bible out if you don't believe me. >> > I have, in the O.T it identifies them as prophets, i.e. Isaiah the > prophet; > or > Daniel the Prophet; or Jeremy the prophet or the prophet Moses etc. > > But no such appellation is given for a N.T. personality. When peophets > are mentioned in the N.T. It is prophets from the past that is Old > Testament > prophets. > > But Maybe you are right. I considered these to be promises. If I told my > wife > when I leave I will be back at 5: 00. This is not exactly a prophesy. When > General Macarthur left the Philippines stated "I will return". I would > not think he considered this a prophesy. Maybe I'm wrong. Now you're just being plain silly. It's a bloody prophecy. I should know, I've seen a few. >> >> However, as he prohesied that the end of days and the Second Coming would >> occur within the lifetime of those around him, then that pretty much made >> him a really crap prophet, so I might concede your point. >> > No, I disagree with this, no where in the N.T. Is Christ referred to as a > prophet. Why do you assume one has to be referred to in a book as a prophet in order to be considered a prophet? > In fact in Matt. 16:14 in response to his question who do men > say that I am? He did not identify himself as a prophet, eventhough > he had ample opportunity to do so. Derrr, no... but he made prophetic observations. > He wasn't satisfied with these answers > He only accepted Peters response. that he was the Christ, the son of > the living God. There is no reason to think that Christ thought of himself > as a prophet. Ooookaaaaaay..... he was a person who didn't think of himself as a prophet, but nevertheless made prophesies anyway... which didn't actually happen the way he said they would, right? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 Virgil, if you want to discuss this, then don't try to evade the issue here. You say, "Copi deals with a claim of necessity." That is not true, and you know it, as indicated by the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ that Copi quotes, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' theist conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!" Now don't just snip this again, try to face up to your error like a man. Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message news:4mj6epF6fv71U1@individual.net... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:3LUMg.52609$e9.14939@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > > news:4mhoomF68mfeU1@individual.net... > >> >> > I do not believe that prophets in the O.T. literately sat around > >> >> > taking dictation from God. Rather they were moved by the spirit. > >> >> > And they often got it wrong. The New Testament has no prophets. > >> >> > >> >> I'm afraid I'll have to correct you on that. > >> >> Unless of course, you are claiming that Jesus Christ was not a > >> >> prophet? > >> >> > >> > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they > >> > believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more > >> > than a prophet. > >> >> > >> According to the new testament, Jesus PROHESIED that the end of days > >> would > >> come, and PROHESIED his return in the Second Coming. > >> The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as a prophet. > >> Check your bible out if you don't believe me. > >> > > I have, in the O.T it identifies them as prophets, i.e. Isaiah the > > prophet; > > or > > Daniel the Prophet; or Jeremy the prophet or the prophet Moses etc. > > > > But no such appellation is given for a N.T. personality. When peophets > > are mentioned in the N.T. It is prophets from the past that is Old > > Testament > > prophets. > > > > But Maybe you are right. I considered these to be promises. If I told my > > wife > > when I leave I will be back at 5: 00. This is not exactly a prophesy. When > > General Macarthur left the Philippines stated "I will return". I would > > not think he considered this a prophesy. Maybe I'm wrong. > > Now you're just being plain silly. > It's a bloody prophecy. > I should know, I've seen a few. > So you are saying that Macarthur prophesied and therefore was a prophet? > >> > >> However, as he prohesied that the end of days and the Second Coming would > >> occur within the lifetime of those around him, then that pretty much made > >> him a really crap prophet, so I might concede your point. > >> > > No, I disagree with this, no where in the N.T. Is Christ referred to as a > > prophet. > > Why do you assume one has to be referred to in a book as a prophet in order > to be considered a prophet? > Because it was always seemed to be the case. If I'm not mistaken the O.T. identified the men considered prophets at one time another as Moses (or whoever) the prophet. > > > In fact in Matt. 16:14 in response to his question who do men > > say that I am? He did not identify himself as a prophet, eventhough > > he had ample opportunity to do so. > > Derrr, no... but he made prophetic observations. > Here again he was much more. > > > He wasn't satisfied with these answers > > He only accepted Peters response. that he was the Christ, the son of > > the living God. There is no reason to think that Christ thought of himself > > as a prophet. > > Ooookaaaaaay..... he was a person who didn't think of himself as a prophet, > but nevertheless made prophesies anyway... which didn't actually happen the > way he said they would, right? > There is a verse which states, "God, who at different times and different manners spoke _in_ the _past_ to the fathers by the fathers has in these last days spoken to us by his son....". Not an exact quote. This to me strongly implies that O/T. type prophets are no longer needed. But I will locate the quote if necessary. Dan > > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 > "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way > that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" > > > Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:6uydnexH483O95nYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4502c52b$0$24173$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:DfidnVq43_0-zp_YnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:45022a61$0$24200$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:IuudnbeEf4NBgZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> > >> >> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >> >> >> >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does >> > consciousness >> >> >> >> dwell >> >> >> >>> > > >> > > exclusively in the brain? >> >> >> >>> > > >> > > No one knows for certain. >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > > How does that turn into an argument? >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> It does >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [unsnip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the >> >> >> >> argument >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 1. If it's not an argument. >> >> >> > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. >> >> >> > 3. And it is not an argument. >> >> >> > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. >> >> >> >> >> >> It appears to be couched as a question. >> >> > >> >> > "No one knows for certain" is not a question, >> >> >> >> No. It's a statement. A stand-alone statement >> > >> > How do you figure it stands alone? >> >> Because it's a rebuttal that stands alone. > > No it is not a rebuttal Of course it is. Anything that answers an opposing point of view is a rebuttal. Nevertheless a rebuttal is not an argument unless it contains all the elements of an argument. "No one knows for certain" does not contain all the elements of an argument. It therefore is not an argument. It therefore is not the argument from ignorance. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 In article <6uydnexH483O95nYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4502c52b$0$24173$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > >> > "No one knows for certain" is not a question, > > >> > > >> No. It's a statement. A stand-alone statement > > > > > > How do you figure it stands alone? > > > > Because it's a rebuttal that stands alone. > > No it is not a rebuttal any more than "Nobody knows for sure there is no > God" is a rebuttal. Both are rebuttals to lying claims by Septic that, respectively state : (1) Septic knows for certain that consciousness is entirely in the brain (2) Septic knows for sure that there is no God. Theists are not the ones making the hypothesis in this case, it is agnostics who are hypothesizing that there might or might not be any gods because neither the necessity not impossibility of gods has been proved. Similarly it is agnostics who are saying that consciousness may or may not lie entirely within the brain because it has neither been proved to lie entirely within the brain or not. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 In article <9didnSbYPZFs8ZnYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Virgil, if you want to discuss this, then don't try to evade the issue here. > You say, "Copi deals with a claim of necessity." That is not true Septic LIES! Copi quotes the astronomers as saying "the moon IS IN FACT a perfect sphere" Copis does not quote them as saying " the moon MIGHT BE a perfect sphere. Septic conflates the contents of statements with their truth. Which is, in its own way, Septic committing an argumentum ad ignorantiam. The content of the statement claimed in an argumentum ad ignorantiam must be an imperative, however tentative the truth of the statement may be. And "might be" is not sufficiently imperative. So that Septic is LYING! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!! Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-FF9ABB.17110910092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <6uydnexH483O95nYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4502c52b$0$24173$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> > > >> > >> > "No one knows for certain" is not a question, >> > >> >> > >> No. It's a statement. A stand-alone statement >> > > >> > > How do you figure it stands alone? >> > >> > Because it's a rebuttal that stands alone. >> >> No it is not a rebuttal any more than "Nobody knows for sure there is no >> God" is a rebuttal. > > Both are rebuttals to lying claims by Septic that, respectively state : > (1) Septic knows for certain that consciousness is entirely in the brain > (2) Septic knows for sure that there is no God. Speaking particularly with respect to the Mind/Body problem and the seat of consciousness and so on..... I think it's important again to remember the three rules of knowledge. In order to "know" something. 1. We have to believe it's true. 2. We have to have sufficient reason to believe it's true [meaning logical sufficiency]. 3. It has to be true. Obviously were there sufficient grounds to cover these three points, debates on consciousness would not still be raging in many fields concerning consciousness. The fact is no one does 'know for sure.' That's not an argument, it's simply a fact. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:45036d0a$0$24176$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:N8OdnbQAFqLP9Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > <SNIP!!> > > > > <unsnip> > > > > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate > > consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance > > I'm not trying to demonstrate anything ... Yes, I know, and that is a big problem, your side is not even trying to demonstrate proof of a god or of consciousness outside the brain, you all want it just taken for granted that there might be a god and there might be consciousness outside the human brain (a soul, so to speak) because, you argue _ad ignorantiam_, there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, and that is logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate, which it is your burden to do, consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture) is false ("No one knows for certain there is no consciousness outside the brain.") That is logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains: <quote> Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false! Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not prove false. </quote> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) [in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.] Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:GNGdnUJYmJNeKJnYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:45036d0a$0$24176$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:N8OdnbQAFqLP9Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >> > <SNIP!!> >> > >> > <unsnip> >> > >> > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to > demonstrate >> > consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance >> >> I'm not trying to demonstrate anything ... > > Yes, I know, and that is a big problem, A big problem for you. And if you KNOW this, as you say, then you should immediately stop trying to raise the specter of the argument from ignorance. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 In article <GNGdnUJYmJNeKJnYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:45036d0a$0$24176$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:N8OdnbQAFqLP9Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > > <SNIP!!> > > > > > > <unsnip> > > > > > > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to > demonstrate > > > consciousness outside the brain > > > > I'm not trying to demonstrate anything ... > > Yes, I know, and that is a big problem It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and being found out. The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient. Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable of supporting consciousness. Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 Virgil wrote: > > It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and being > found out. > > The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be > necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient. > > Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable of > supporting consciousness. No brain, no conciousness. damaged brain, no conciousness. There is no proof conciousness can even exist apart from a brain and much good evidence it cannot as people like Descartes, Malabranche and others found out from the bizarre paradoxes dualism creates. I have repeated reposted my omnigenesis essay here, and that removes all possibilities of souls or thus dualism and conciousness outside brains. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 I think by now the point has been made that I wanted to make when I started this thread. Unless you can specify the essence of the God you claim either exists or does not exist, all you are doing is engaging in constrsadiction or tautology, because until you do specify the essence of the God you claim either exists or does not exist, all you are referring to is a God that does not exist. Furthermore, as we have just seen in the posts to this thread, it is extremely difficult to specify the essence of God in rational terms. Even the God of the Bible changes faces many times during the course of history. And then there is the problem that in India, every person has their own God. You better bring your lunch if you plan on taking on 1 billion different Gods in one sitting. Your theism and your atheism both are fictions based on irrational fantasies fabricated by your imagination. The theist says "there is something more to reality that what we see" and the atheist says "but it is not what you claim it is". -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : > Copi quotes ... Copi quotes those theists of Galileo's time with an argument _ad ignorantiam_ of the same form as that of you and your friends, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' theist conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!" "Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis [this 'might be' conjecture] his critics could not prove false." (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) Now don't just snip this again, try to face up to your error like a man. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com... > Virgil wrote: > >> >> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and being >> found out. >> >> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be >> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient. >> >> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable of >> supporting consciousness. > > No brain, no conciousness. Correlation does not equal causation. Quote
Guest John Jones Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 DanWood wrote: > "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:piq0f2hmicdht1867n7mtuoaqhq2ldcje5@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:28:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee > > <calee@optonline.net> wrote: > > > > It turns out that "DanWood" is actually R.D. Heilman. He just sent me > > some slanderous email from the Heilman account at BellSouth, signed > > Dan Wood. > > > This is not true! I live in a up scale housing development where we have > a community recreation center with in door and outdoor swimming pools > tennis courts, a electronic game room and a couple of computers, > connected to the internet. Any member has access to these computers. > > Dan > > > > This explains a lot. Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > > "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message > news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com... >> Virgil wrote: >> >>> >>> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and being >>> found out. >>> >>> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be >>> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient. >>> >>> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable of >>> supporting consciousness. >> >> No brain, no conciousness. > > Correlation does not equal causation. As usual, being so honest and intellectually honest, you snip the rest. Dualism causes severe theological problems a that end up with people findin galll sort of problems and odd contradictions wit hteh dualist hyposthesis. Nobody knows of anything that is conscious that does not have a brain, and we know that there are a lot of ways to destroy conciousness with all sorts of differing kinds of damage to a brain. There is no viable theory for conciousness outside a brain. What you have here with you is argument from ignorance, because you are not familiar with the history of dualism. The idea that conciousness is a brain state is pretty well proven. its not mere 'correlation'. Thinking is what a brain does, what it evolved to do. Conciousness is a type of thought, it is what the brain evolved to do. It is how the brain channels information efficiently, how it focues attention in a way that organizes the information about the world an organism lives in and has to interact with. Other ideas, souls for example, are so poorly thought out that they cannot be said to be cohent much less true. And these ideas soon mire us down into theoretical nonsense that can't explain anything and can't deal with contradictions. Thus we have Descartes with his idiot ideas about pineal glands, and bizarre metaphysics like parallelism and occasionalism. Since the bible teaches that we will be bodily resurrected, the idea of a soul or some such being seat of our conciousness is pagan and alien to Christianity and Islam anyway. Soul to the bible meantthe living force of a person, it ended when you died, it did not get resurrected. To save dualism, conciousness not in a brain, you have to have a good reason to state such a thing can be and that is not possible. There is no evidence for such a thing and lots of evidence it is not so. There a LOT of hard evidnce for saying conciousness is a phenomenon based specifically on brain states of highly evolved brains. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gb7ej94cb31ad@corp.supernews.com... > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message >> news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com... >>> Virgil wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and being >>>> found out. >>>> >>>> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be >>>> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient. >>>> >>>> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable of >>>> supporting consciousness. >>> >>> No brain, no conciousness. >> >> Correlation does not equal causation. > > > As usual, being so honest and intellectually honest, you > snip the rest. Dualism causes severe theological problems 1. Dualism causes problems with or without god. 2. Dualism is not the only avenue down which the Mind/Body problem goes. Because you're ignorant of the actual debate, you as usual tend to see everything through the blinkers your religious bigotry has created. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : > >> Copi quotes ... > > Copi quotes ... Copi represents only one viewpoint toward the argumentum ad ignorantiam, and you don't even understand Copi. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : > > > >> Copi quotes ... > > > > Copi quotes ... > > Copi represents only one viewpoint ... It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron, it is a basic principle of valid argument that the argument _ad ignorantiam_ you are championing here is logical fallacy for which you theists are famous, as Copi explains in _Introduction to Logic_. Now why don't you and Virgil stop trying to change the subject, start accting like grown men, and admit you were mistaken, as you have been shown? Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote: >... your religious bigotry Atheism is not a religion, moron, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:450590cc$0$24186$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message > news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com... > > Virgil wrote: > > > >> > >> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and being > >> found out. > >> > >> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be > >> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient. > >> > >> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable of > >> supporting consciousness. > > > > No brain, no conciousness. > > Correlation does not equal causation. Are you still trying to argue from ignorance that there might be consciousness without a brain because there is no proof that hypothesis is false? Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:4504b95f$0$24208$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:GNGdnUJYmJNeKJnYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > news:45036d0a$0$24176$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > >> > >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:N8OdnbQAFqLP9Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > >> > <SNIP!!> > >> > > >> > <unsnip> > >> > > >> > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to > > demonstrate > >> > consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance > >> > >> I'm not trying to demonstrate anything ... > > > > Yes, I know, and that is a big problem, > > A big problem for you. No, a big problem for your side, since it is your side championing the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be consciousness without a brain because there is no proof the hypothesis is false, logical fallacy for which you theists are famous, as Copi explains in _Introduction to Logic_. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.