Logical fallacy "Appeal to authority"

[lightgigantic]

LG, if the "soul" exists and is non-material, please can you explain how it interacts with the material realm.

in short, matter and spirit both find their cause in god.

In that sense, matter and spirit are sister energies (for want of a better term) as opposed to absolute diametric oppositions. Kind of like light and heat are related energies since they both find their source in fire.

This is a standard departure from dualism as it is commonly understood within western dialectics

Likewise, if your god is non-material, please can you explain exactly how you are able to observe it, or experience it?

why speak of god
even consciousness itself is not material
When you say hello to someone, what exactly are you addressing? Their eyebrows, the freckles on their nose, their big toe?

Basically, please explain how these non-material things you claim exist can cross over to have an impact in the material realm to enable you to have the observation or experience you claim.

E.g. if the soul is non-material - how exactly does it interact with the material part of our body?

through the agency of a third party that is the cause of both of them (matter and spirit)
IOW both matter and spirit work under the jurisdiction of god, who (unlike us) is not susceptible to being overwhelmed by material nature ... ie god doesn't fall into illusion.

Once again this is all just in brief.

I can provide more elaborate scriptural references if you want.

 

[lightgigantic]

Or one could say it's power makes it much greater than us.

yet it still remains something that we could control in principle ... mainly because it lacks consciousness.

Thats why I asked you to turn your attention to something that is greater to us in terms of consciousness.

For instance, just as a simple example, why is it that you cannot get direct audience with the USA president while his secretary of state can?

What empirical advantage does the secretary of state have that you lack?
(after all, you both have eyeballs that work and the ability to physically open a door .... what's stopping you?)

Sure you can, you measure the temperature of adamant tape measurements (people who are adamant about tape measuring - an architect? Engineer? Carpenter?)

Unless they are willing to utilize the right tools for the right task (ie use a thermometer) , all the tape measuring in the world won't help them

 

[Sarkus]

in short, matter and spirit both find their cause in god.

In that sense, matter and spirit are sister energies (for want of a better term) as opposed to absolute diametric oppositions. Kind of like light and heat are related energies since they both find their source in fire.

This is a standard departure from dualism as it is commonly understood within western dialectics

Firstly, light and heat are both material, as is fire... so I'm not sure of the accuracy of the analogy.

Secondly, by saying both matter and spirit find their cause in god is merely shifting the question back a stage and not actually answering it.

How does the non-material interact with the material?

Or are you suggesting that both the material and non-material found their initial cause in god, but now run independently of each other, unable to interact?

'Cos if you claim that the non-material interacts with the material, you need to explain HOW - not merely tell me where it happens.

why speak of god
even consciousness itself is not material
When you say hello to someone, what exactly are you addressing? Their eyebrows, the freckles on their nose, their big toe?

We've been through this before and I don't wish to go down this path again, at least not in this thread. Let's just say that we differ as to whether consciousness is material or not.

through the agency of a third party that is the cause of both of them (matter and spirit)
IOW both matter and spirit work under the jurisdiction of god, who (unlike us) is not susceptible to being overwhelmed by material nature ... ie god doesn't fall into illusion.

Again, just shifting the question rather than answering it.
HOW does the non-material interact with the material?

Once again this is all just in brief.

I can provide more elaborate scriptural references if you want.

Layman's terms is fine, thanks, otherwise I will probably just be appealing to your authority for a transalation.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
in short, matter and spirit both find their cause in god.

In that sense, matter and spirit are sister energies (for want of a better term) as opposed to absolute diametric oppositions. Kind of like light and heat are related energies since they both find their source in fire.

This is a standard departure from dualism as it is commonly understood within western dialectics
”
Firstly, light and heat are both material, as is fire... so I'm not sure of the accuracy of the analogy.

Analogy works by taking a known thing to indicate the nature of an unknown thing.

Since you don't appear to know anything other than matter, what other option do I have?

Secondly, by saying both matter and spirit find their cause in god is merely shifting the question back a stage and not actually answering it.

not really

You were asking how can two diametrically opposed things interact.
This is a problem of logic.

I answered by suggesting the involvement of a third party

(Don't make the mistake of thinking I am lodging a standard dualistic argument that is all to familiar to western philosophy .....

The main uncertainty that faced Descartes and his contemporaries, however, was not where interaction took place, but how two things so different as thought and extension could interact at all.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

How does the non-material interact with the material?

once again, just like heat and light interact through the agency of a third party, namely the cause (fire).

Or are you suggesting that both the material and non-material found their initial cause in god, but now run independently of each other, unable to interact?

no more than heat and light are independent from fire (in one sense it is, since light has a different utility than fire .... but in another sense no, since the light is contingent on the fire .... technically this philosophy is called acintyabedabeda tattva - or inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference

'Cos if you claim that the non-material interacts with the material, you need to explain HOW - not merely tell me where it happens.

if you can't understand where it happens, how do you propose to understand how it happens?

for instance if you don't understand or accept a thing about fire, how on earth would you propose to understand how light and heat are contingent on it?

“
Once again this is all just in brief.

I can provide more elaborate scriptural references if you want.
”
Layman's terms is fine, thanks, otherwise I will probably just be appealing to your authority for a transalation.

Specific claims have a specific language.

If you want to stick to layman's terms, your pleading of "how" is futile ....

 

[Sarkus]

not really

You were asking how can two diametrically opposed things interact.
This is a problem of logic.

I answered by suggesting the involvement of a third party

Which is merely pushing the question back a stage without actually answering it.
If I look at a carton of milk and ask how it is produced, merely saying "well, you can buy it at the supermarket" doesn't answer the question.

(Don't make the mistake of thinking I am lodging a standard dualistic argument that is all to familiar to western philosophy .....

The main uncertainty that faced Descartes and his contemporaries, however, was not where interaction took place, but how two things so different as thought and extension could interact at all.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

I'm not making the mistake of assuming you are actually answering the question rather than sidestepping.
And to merely say "I don't lodge this argument..." says nothing to support the argument you do lodge. If you wish one to learn by exception then you're going to be here an eternity while we whittle away all the arguments you are not lodging. :shrug:

once again, just like heat and light interact through the agency of a third party, namely the cause (fire).

But telling me what it interacts through is NOT answering the question.

Q: How does a telephone work?
A: Well it works through handsets.

You see how the answer given really doesn't satisfy?

no more than heat and light are independent from fire (in one sense it is, since light has a different utility than fire .... but in another sense no, since the light is contingent on the fire ....

So you still haven't answered anything.

if you can't understand where it happens, how do you propose to understand how it happens?

Why should one understand the WHERE to understand the HOW?

Either the HOW is independent of WHERE, or else there are elements of the WHERE that form the HOW, in which case these should be included in the HOW as they would form a fundamental part of it.

So please feel free to include those elements that form part of the HOW and just answer the question.

Or is it "God can do anything therefore because both the material and non-material act through God, he can make the material interact with the non-material. QED!"
But I'm guessing you won't be so casual as to admit that this is what your claim boils down to.

for instance if you don't understand or accept a thing about fire, how on earth would you propose to understand how light and heat are contingent on it?

By explaining what light and heat are, and then detailing exactly HOW they are both created from the same process of oxidation of a combustible material. And then giving the name of that process as "fire".
I'd even demonstrate it to the person without them needing to have any qualifications.
Please do likewise with the question I asked.

Specific claims have a specific language.

If you want to stick to layman's terms, your pleading of "how" is futile ....

Specific claims do NOT have a specific language. That is just an excuse so you don't have to answer the question.
Specific language only comes into play as a shorthand between people who are able to communicate more efficiently through a shared understanding of the shorthand.


So I'll ask again...
Please explain HOW the material interacts with the non-material?

Thanks.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
not really

You were asking how can two diametrically opposed things interact.
This is a problem of logic.

I answered by suggesting the involvement of a third party
”
Which is merely pushing the question back a stage without actually answering it.
If I look at a carton of milk and ask how it is produced, merely saying "well, you can buy it at the supermarket" doesn't answer the question.

let's get this straight

what exactly is the problem you see with a world view that entertains the interaction of spirit and matter?

Why is it untenable?

In order for a description of "how" to be valid, what criteria does it have to meet?

“
if you can't understand where it happens, how do you propose to understand how it happens?
”
Why should one understand the WHERE to understand the HOW?

Either the HOW is independent of WHERE, or else there are elements of the WHERE that form the HOW, in which case these should be included in the HOW as they would form a fundamental part of it.

So please feel free to include those elements that form part of the HOW and just answer the question.

If I didn't understand the qualities of a milk production factory, moving into issues of how it is produced would certainly be problematic

Or is it "God can do anything therefore because both the material and non-material act through God, he can make the material interact with the non-material. QED!"
But I'm guessing you won't be so casual as to admit that this is what your claim boils down to.

on the contrary, you seem to be demanding that god be reduced to empirical analysis .... which is necessarily futile

“
for instance if you don't understand or accept a thing about fire, how on earth would you propose to understand how light and heat are contingent on it?
”
By explaining what light and heat are, and then detailing exactly HOW they are both created from the same process of oxidation of a combustible material. And then giving the name of that process as "fire".
I'd even demonstrate it to the person without them needing to have any qualifications.
Please do likewise with the question I asked.

on the contrary, the moment you start bringing in terms like "oxidization" etc you not only require qualifications but also a respect for how the technical aspects of fire are determined to be known

“
Specific claims have a specific language.

If you want to stick to layman's terms, your pleading of "how" is futile ....
”
Specific claims do NOT have a specific language.

erm ... they do

you just used the words oxidization and combustion for fire

That is just an excuse so you don't have to answer the question.
Specific language only comes into play as a shorthand between people who are able to communicate more efficiently through a shared understanding of the shorthand.

If I want to discredit you every time you mention something in reference to the microscopic, you would have a tough time

 

[Michael]

So I'll ask again...
Please explain HOW the material interacts with the non-material?

Thanks.

According to Descartes that would be the pineal gland. As it's an unpaired structure in the brain. Of course now we know it makes melatonin.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus

let's get this straight

what exactly is the problem you see with a world view that entertains the interaction of spirit and matter?

Why is it untenable?

In order for a description of "how" to be valid, what criteria does it have to meet?

I am after an understanding of HOW the non-material interacts with the material realm.
I have no issue with a world view that entertains the interaction of spirit and matter - but I need to understand how the two can interact before I am willing to accept it.
So far you have said where it happens (I think) but not HOW.
The HOW is important.

If I didn't understand the qualities of a milk production factory, moving into issues of how it is produced would certainly be problematic

Rubbish. You need to know nothing of the factory to know how milk is produced. Cows have been doing it long before factories were built.
You are seeking to avoid answering, LG.

on the contrary, you seem to be demanding that god be reduced to empirical analysis .... which is necessarily futile

Okay - let's get THIS straight, LG.
You claim the non-material exists.
Yet you can not provide ANY explanation of HOW it interacts with the material realm.
ANY interaction of something with a lump of matter WILL produce an effect on the material.
Any effect on the material can be measured.
You seem to suggest that there is an interaction and NO effect on the material.

Alternatively you are suggesting that both the material and non-material find their source in god and from that point on they do NOT interact.
In which case your non-material "consciousness" has no bearing on the physical motions our body goes through.

on the contrary, the moment you start bringing in terms like "oxidization" etc you not only require qualifications but also a respect for how the technical aspects of fire are determined to be known

And oxidisation can be explained in laymen's terms, as can the technical aspects of fire. As explained, shorthand is useful for efficient talking but not essential to communicate the ideas.
You appear incapable of such.
You therefore appear to limit yourself to discussions with those who already believe what you believe.

erm ... they do

you just used the words oxidization and combustion for fire

If I want to discredit you every time you mention something in reference to the microscopic, you would have a tough time

You try to discredit only because you do not seem to read, nor understand, the posts you respond to.

It is also clear you are unable to explain what I have asked to anyone who does not already believe what you believe.

You therefore appear to be little but a charlatan, spouting but not informing.
Q: "How does it work?"
A: "God does it."

:shrug:


I will ask again:
How does material interact with the non-material?

 

[lightgigantic]

I will ask again:
How does material interact with the non-material?

so if I was asking how does a glove appear to move while on someone's hand, HOW would you propose to explain it.

IOW how does the glove and the human body interact.

A stupid Q, I know, but perhaps this will once and for all clear up whether you are making an inquiry of truth or logic (rather than jumping boats mid discussion)

 

[swarm]

A stupid Q...

Why not just admit you haven't the least idea how they interact?

 

[Sarkus]

so if I was asking how does a glove appear to move while on someone's hand, HOW would you propose to explain it.

IOW how does the glove and the human body interact.

A stupid Q, I know, but perhaps this will once and for all clear up whether you are making an inquiry of truth or logic (rather than jumping boats mid discussion)

Until you have the decency to answer the question posed to you, LG, I will leave this to one side.

So again:
How does material interact with the non-material?

 

[lightgigantic]

Until you have the decency to answer the question posed to you, LG, I will leave this to one side.

kind of difficult because you appear to posing a question of logic and then wrangle about issues of truth/evidence .

That's why I am asking you to explain "how" in what I hope is a relatively simple subject.

Namely how does a glove interact with a hand.

Explaining this will help me explain your question. You appear to have clear expectations on a format for the answer, so why not communicate them?
:shrug:

 

[Sarkus]

I have no expectations other than an actual answer to the question: How does the material interact with the non-material.

So far you have given none, although you have made several efforts to avoid answering.
You have claimed they both find their cause in god - but at no point have you even accepted that they do interact, not have you denied that they interact, let alone explain the mechanism of any supposed interaction between one and the other.

You have pushed the origin / cause of each to another as-yet unsubstantiated assumption (god) but little else.


So I'll ask again: please answer the following: How does the material interact with the non-material?

 

[lightgigantic]

I have no expectations other than an actual answer to the question: How does the material interact with the non-material.

The format of the answer might be clear in your mind. I don't understand why you can't answer a simple question to communicate it ...
:shrug:

So far you have given none, although you have made several efforts to avoid answering.
You have claimed they both find their cause in god - but at no point have you even accepted that they do interact, not have you denied that they interact, let alone explain the mechanism of any supposed interaction between one and the other.

so suppose we were discussing how a glove interacts with a hand .... how would you answer that in such a way as to fulfill the general principles you outline above?

You have pushed the origin / cause of each to another as-yet unsubstantiated assumption (god) but little else.

hehe

issues of truth are one thing .... logic another

So I'll ask again: please answer the following: How does the material interact with the non-material?

If you don't have the capacity to answer/understand how a glove interacts with a hand, moving on to issues of how spirit and matter are understood to interact appear a little ambitious .....

 

[Sarkus]

We are not discussing the interaction of hand and glove. We are discussing the interaction of the material with the non-material.
So just please stop trying to avoid the question and please answer: How does the material interact with the non-material.

When/if you answer and I find any objection to it, or fail to understand some/all of it, I shall let you know. Likewise I shall raise an objection if I do understand your response but fail to see how it answers the question. e.g. merely telling me where the interaction takes place. This will then require clarification on your part.

If you start asking me questions to help explain, this will only confuse matters and provide you with too much with which you can derail from answering the question.


So please just answer the question: How does the material interact with the non-material?

 

[lightgigantic]

We are not discussing the interaction of hand and glove.

... but we are discussing exactly what you are looking for in an answer ...

We are discussing the interaction of the material with the non-material.
So just please stop trying to avoid the question and please answer: How does the material interact with the non-material.

bold type faces don't cut the mustard

If you are so full of doubt and uncertainty that you cannot bring yourself to discuss how a hand interacts with a glove, there is no use answering you.

When/if you answer and I find any objection to it, or fail to understand some/all of it, I shall let you know.

erm .... like you did earlier in the post, right?

Likewise I shall raise an objection if I do understand your response but fail to see how it answers the question. e.g. merely telling me where the interaction takes place. This will then require clarification on your part.

If you start asking me questions to help explain, this will only confuse matters and provide you with too much with which you can derail from answering the question.


So please just answer the question: How does the material interact with the non-material?

Well let me do you a favour.

This is how I would answer the question "How does a glove interact with a hand".

The hand is placed in the glove, and upon which, the glove is seen to act, move and have a form much like the hand upon which it is placed. Despite such similarity however, it is understood that the glove has no capacity to act or take form like the hand, independent of the hand. Rather, the glove functions merely as a covering.


Now that we have breached the controversial topic of hands and gloves, do you find any objections to the explanation of HOW they interact?

 

[Sarkus]

... but we are discussing exactly what you are looking for in an answer ...

That's the point though, LG. If I tell you what I am looking for you will cry foul that you can not answer it in that way. So I'd rather not go down that path right now but would prefer you to provide an answer in your own words and style.

bold type faces don't cut the mustard

Well, you seem to be avoiding the question so I thought it necessary to make the question I am asking a bit more obvious to you.

If you are so full of doubt and uncertainty that you cannot bring yourself to discuss how a hand interacts with a glove, there is no use answering you.

As said, I consider the hand/glove scenario to be irrelevant. Please have the decency to answer the question I asked. Alternatively you could provide an explanation as to why the hand/glove scenario is not irrelevant, which might even progress the discussion.

Well let me do you a favour.

This is how I would answer the question "How does a glove interact with a hand".

The hand is placed in the glove, and upon which, the glove is seen to act, move and have a form much like the hand upon which it is placed. Despite such similarity however, it is understood that the glove has no capacity to act or take form like the hand, independent of the hand. Rather, the glove functions merely as a covering.

Now that we have breached the controversial topic of hands and gloves, do you find any objections to the explanation of HOW they interact?

Yes.
It does not answer HOW they interact, but rather you have described merely what you are observing... even going as far to say "the glove is seen to act..." etc. But in none of it do you actually detail HOW. And you add an irrelevancy regarding a glove being unable to move independent of the hand.

HOW the two interact is through the application of forces by the hand on the glove which is balanced by the internal structural forces of the glove that keep the glove in place on the hand. If the structural forces of the glove are too strong then it becomes like putting your hand in a brick wall... i.e. you move your hands but the glove doesn't move.
If the structural forces are too weak then the forces applied by the hand will possibly break/tear the glove.

So please, answer me this: How does the material interact with the non-material?

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes.
It does not answer HOW they interact, but rather you have described merely what you are observing... even going as far to say "the glove is seen to act..." etc.

So, do you agree (as indicated) that in giving a HOW answer, there is no requirement for observation?

But in none of it do you actually detail HOW.

The hand is placed in the glove, and upon which, the glove is seen to act, move and have a form much like the hand upon which it is placed.

why is this not an actual detail of how?

And you add an irrelevancy regarding a glove being unable to move independent of the hand.

On the contrary, given your explanation of gloves one could conclude that gloves decide for themselves which hand wears them.

Actually my explanation of how is more concise and well defining than yours since the issue of density, etc is covered by the reference to form and movement


and also, in light of your comment regarding the use of layman's terms ....

Specific claims do NOT have a specific language. That is just an excuse so you don't have to answer the question.
Specific language only comes into play as a shorthand between people who are able to communicate more efficiently through a shared understanding of the shorthand.

..... do you think calling upon "structural density" is a layman term?
I mean suppose someone is purchasing gloves, would a customer commend the retailer on their fine choice of structural density in the gloves on display?

Or would an electrician's apprentice explain to their boss that they were having "structural density" issues with the safety gloves?

As far as I can determine, "structural density" is only a layman's term amongst physicists ....

 

[Sarkus]

So, do you agree (as indicated) that in giving a HOW answer, there is no requirement for observation?

An explanation of HOW requires no observation, although it does if one wishes to learn from first principles, i.e. without appealing to authority.
It also requires observation to validate the explanation. And until validated it is just a hypothesis / theory / idea.

The hand is placed in the glove, and upon which, the glove is seen to act, move and have a form much like the hand upon which it is placed.

why is this not an actual detail of how?

Simply because there is no description of HOW it acts. For example:
At no point is there mention of physical contact between hand and glove... surely a prerequisite for a glove, i.e. not falling off the hand?
Or do you often put your hand into a glove without there being physical, material contact?

As far as can be established from your description you have merely described the glove as a covering, but in no way explained HOW the glove moves. You may have provided a WHY (e.g. the glove moves because the hand moves, and the glove acts as a covering to the hand) - but not HOW.

Do you understand the difference between WHY and HOW?

Please can you now explain HOW, preferably to the question I asked earlier rather than this sidebar of glove and hand.

On the contrary, given your explanation of gloves one could conclude that gloves decide for themselves which hand wears them.

No, I clearly stated that the glove moves due to forces applied BY THE HAND. At no point is it mentioned that the glove acts alone, or is even capable of it.

Actually my explanation of how is more concise and well defining than yours since the issue of density, etc is covered by the reference to form and movement

If you honestly think that, LG, then you are deluded.
I have explained above why your explanation of HOW is flawed.

You are trying to provide an answer of HOW without actually answering it.

and also, in light of your comment regarding the use of layman's terms ....
...
..... do you think calling upon "structural density" is a layman term?
I mean suppose someone is purchasing gloves, would a customer commend the retailer on their fine choice of structural density in the gloves on display?

Or would an electrician's apprentice explain to their boss that they were having "structural density" issues with the safety gloves?

As far as I can determine, "structural density" is only a layman's term amongst physicists ....

If you read my previous comments on this matter more closely, rather than jump in to merely raise an objection, you would see that I state that such shorthand is useful between those who have an understanding of it. If one doesn't have an understanding then one merely needs to ask what the terms mean so that they can be explained further.

So now, please answer the question I have raised: HOW does the material interact with the non-material?
I am not asking WHY it might interact, but HOW.

Then again, given your apparent difficulty in being able to explain how even two material objects interact, I really doubt you have the capacity to explain, let alone even make a claim to understand, how material can interact with the non-material.

 

[lightgigantic]

An explanation of HOW requires no observation, although it does if one wishes to learn from first principles, i.e. without appealing to authority.
It also requires observation to validate the explanation. And until validated it is just a hypothesis / theory / idea.

so would you agree that learning from first principles approaches issues of qualification?

For instance is it possible for an archeologist to approach issues of first principles related to physics without meeting the demands that physics requires?

Simply because there is no description of HOW it acts. For example:
At no point is there mention of physical contact between hand and glove... surely a prerequisite for a glove, i.e. not falling off the hand?
Or do you often put your hand into a glove without there being physical, material contact?

Its unclear how one can place one's hand in a glove without physical contact ... even less so when it is explained that upon which, the glove maintains a form similar to the glove

As far as can be established from your description you have merely described the glove as a covering, but in no way explained HOW the glove moves. You may have provided a WHY (e.g. the glove moves because the hand moves, and the glove acts as a covering to the hand) - but not HOW.

erm .... the question is how they interact.
Its sufficient to indicate that the glove moves because the hand moves.
If you think the question requires that one explain how the hand moves, not even your post approaches that subject.

Do you understand the difference between WHY and HOW?

certainly
Its well known that die hard material reductionists (inspired by the vienna circle or something I guess) attempt to reduce the value of metaphysics by confusing the two (eg talking about optics and light to explain why the sky is blue for example).

Plato discusses this topic in detail.
Needless to say, you don't have to study philosophy to get a PhD in science ... which probably explains why so much dreadful philosophy comes from them when they take it upon themselves to discuss it.

Please can you now explain HOW, preferably to the question I asked earlier rather than this sidebar of glove and hand.[/QUOTE
hehe
we're almost there

No, I clearly stated that the glove moves due to forces applied BY THE HAND. At no point is it mentioned that the glove acts alone, or is even capable of it.

sorry, my bad

If you honestly think that, LG, then you are deluded.
I have explained above why your explanation of HOW is flawed.

You are trying to provide an answer of HOW without actually answering it.

I think your explanation of HOW is still caught up in a few issues of WHAT. IOW you are blurring the questions into issues of WHAT IS IT, as opposed to HOW IS IT ... ie asking a question of logic but really looking for an answer of truth

If you read my previous comments on this matter more closely, rather than jump in to merely raise an objection, you would see that I state that such shorthand is useful between those who have an understanding of it. If one doesn't have an understanding then one merely needs to ask what the terms mean so that they can be explained further.

so for the uninformed there are unavoidable issues of authority?

So now, please answer the question I have raised: HOW does the material interact with the non-material?
I am not asking WHY it might interact, but HOW.

sure you are not asking WHAT?

Then again, given your apparent difficulty in being able to explain how even two material objects interact, I really doubt you have the capacity to explain, let alone even make a claim to understand, how material can interact with the non-material.

Straight answers require straight questions (ie a HOW that is not interested in a WHAT, or a WHAT that is not interested in a HOW)