Logical fallacy "Appeal to authority"

[Sarkus]

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

So you admit that the glove moves through physical contact with the hand? i.e. the hand moves and, due to direct physical contact, the glove moves?
Seems we're getting somewhere, at least.
Care to share the relevance, then, of the glove and hand to the question of material and non-material? Care to expand on the analogy to the question originally asked of you: HOW does the material interact with the non-material?

erm .... the question is how they interact.
Its sufficient to indicate that the glove moves because the hand moves.

We are indeed discussing the matter of HOW they interact, not WHY. I.e. the mechanism by which the movement of one (that the hand is capable of movement is the given) determines the movement of the other.
The glove moving merely because the hand moves (i.e. your explanation) is certainly not sufficient an answer, as it merely responds to a question of WHY, not HOW.

The question of HOW you do an action is very different to one of WHY you do it.

If you think the question requires that one explain how the hand moves, not even your post approaches that subject.

If you wish to ask HOW does the hand move, that is another question entirely which you can feel free to raise on another thread rather than derail this one any further. I would suggest the Biology section of this site.

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).

Your efforts to sidetrack the question in hand is noted and rejected.

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.

I'm sure he did. But unless you wish to make some point / argument, merely raising his name and the fact that he has discussed it appears to be nothing more than an appeal to authority. And thus irrelevant to the question in hand, so to speak.

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

Please support your assertion rather than just make the claim. To begin it might help to show where in my explanation I even began to mention WHAT a hand is or WHAT a glove is...?
Further, you have not provided counter to the rebuttal that you are providing an explanation of WHY and not HOW. Do you accept that this is what you were explaining, the WHY as opposed to the HOW that was asked?

HOW is a matter of mechanism, of logic, from the given assumptions that the hand moves, and the glove is seen to move. I have explained the mechanism. You have not. There is no confusion of logic or of truth in this regard.
The matter of truth is regarding the underlying assumptions: does the hand move? Yes. Does the glove move? Yes. Given these assumptions, HOW do they interact? If the logic is rational and the assumptions true then the argument is logically sound. No confusion.

Your argument is just one of "glove moves because the hand moves". There is no answer to HOW in your response, just WHY.

so for the uninformed there are unavoidable issues of authority?

Only if one wishes to take shortcuts and rely on faith to bridge the gap. The pupil who accepts the teaching without reference to anything other than the authority of the teacher does so on faith alone. And the more they rely on the authority, the more they rely on that faith.

sure you are not asking WHAT?

Quite sure, thanks.

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)

Your continued effort to sidetrack from the question is noted and rejected.

You have not yet answered HOW the material interacts with the non-material.
You have not yet even answered the question you yourself raised of HOW a glove interacts with a hand.

You continue in your efforts to sidetrack. Please desist from such tactics and answer the question posed to you: HOW does the material interact with the non-material

 

[lightgigantic]

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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
”
So you admit that the glove moves through physical contact with the hand? i.e. the hand moves and, due to direct physical contact, the glove moves?
Seems we're getting somewhere, at least.
Care to share the relevance, then, of the glove and hand to the question of material and non-material? Care to expand on the analogy to the question originally asked of you: HOW does the material interact with the non-material?

In short, much like the hand moves the glove, it is the soul that moves the body

“
erm .... the question is how they interact.
Its sufficient to indicate that the glove moves because the hand moves.
”
We are indeed discussing the matter of HOW they interact, not WHY. I.e. the mechanism by which the movement of one (that the hand is capable of movement is the given) determines the movement of the other.

hehe

the vienna circle lives strong, eh?

The glove moving merely because the hand moves (i.e. your explanation) is certainly not sufficient an answer, as it merely responds to a question of WHY, not HOW.

Actually, as plato so kindly points out, the question of why is something completely different.
It involves the reason, purpose or goal for something.

Boy, who would have thought gloves could be so complex, eh?

The question of HOW you do an action is very different to one of WHY you do it.

sure
its an issue the vienna circle is not famous for resolving ..

“
If you think the question requires that one explain how the hand moves, not even your post approaches that subject.
”
If you wish to ask HOW does the hand move, that is another question entirely which you can feel free to raise on another thread rather than derail this one any further. I would suggest the Biology section of this site.

I'm just pointing out your question is about how they interact, so it behooves you to stay focused

“
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).
”
Your efforts to sidetrack the question in hand is noted and rejected.

on the contrary, it could work out more relevant than you think ....

“
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.
”
I'm sure he did. But unless you wish to make some point / argument, merely raising his name and the fact that he has discussed it appears to be nothing more than an appeal to authority. And thus irrelevant to the question in hand, so to speak.

the point is that he has (quite concisely) resolved the issues that surround WHY questions and HOW questions.

I'm just bringing this to your attention for your edification.
“

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
”
Please support your assertion rather than just make the claim. To begin it might help to show where in my explanation I even began to mention WHAT a hand is or WHAT a glove is...?

issues of "structural density" seems like a needless foray into what.

Its a popular device of reductonists to bog down a topic with technical issues.

Further, you have not provided counter to the rebuttal that you are providing an explanation of WHY and not HOW.

just like you have vivid expectations of HOW, it appears you have similar drives with WHY

Once again, straight answers require straight questions

Do you accept that this is what you were explaining, the WHY as opposed to the HOW that was asked?

hehe

not at all

Questions of WHY are strongly related to issues of purpose (aka teleology)

HOW is a matter of mechanism, of logic, from the given assumptions that the hand moves, and the glove is seen to move. I have explained the mechanism. You have not. There is no confusion of logic or of truth in this regard.
The matter of truth is regarding the underlying assumptions: does the hand move? Yes. Does the glove move? Yes. Given these assumptions, HOW do they interact? If the logic is rational and the assumptions true then the argument is logically sound. No confusion.

On the contrary, all you have provided is a more elaborate technical explanation of HOW. This does not make your offering more valid ..... unless one is really asking a question of WHAT

Your argument is just one of "glove moves because the hand moves". There is no answer to HOW in your response, just WHY.

Actually an explanation of why a glove interacts with a hand might be something like because the weather is cold

“

so for the uninformed there are unavoidable issues of authority?
”
Only if one wishes to take shortcuts and rely on faith to bridge the gap.

so if one is constitutionally in the position of the uninformed (which means they can't get informed for whatever reason) , what other option do they have?

The pupil who accepts the teaching without reference to anything other than the authority of the teacher does so on faith alone. And the more they rely on the authority, the more they rely on that faith.

a pupil is not in a position of being uninformed

“
sure you are not asking WHAT?
”
Quite sure, thanks.

hehe

“
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)
”
Your continued effort to sidetrack from the question is noted and rejected.

You have not yet answered HOW the material interacts with the non-material.
You have not yet even answered the question you yourself raised of HOW a glove interacts with a hand.

hehe

only if you accept that bringing in issues of WHAT makes for a more valid HOW answer (all you have to do now is suggest that explanations of HOW automatically incorporate issues of WHY and you will get your vienna circle party hat in the mail)

You continue in your efforts to sidetrack. Please desist from such tactics and answer the question posed to you: HOW does the material interact with the non-material

HOW does a HOW answer that simply offers less WHAT information become a WHY answer?

(better consult your vienna circle handbook to answer that one chum!)

 

[Michael]

“
In short, much like the hand moves the glove, it is the soul that moves the body

LG, this is just silly.

The cerebral cortex initiates a command and that command travels through the pons passing into the cerebellum and back out and via the medulla to your muscles and thus your body moves.

There is absolutely not one shred of evidence there is something called soul. You just made that bullshit out of thin air.

On the contrary we well know how the BRAIN controls movement and where in the brain "LG" exists. AND that's really the big difference. We have a hell of a lot of evidence for LG existing in the cerebral cortex but no evidecne for LG's soul. We don't need to postulate this soul BS to explain anything about LG.

You just WANT to believe in a soul, for whatever reasons. But, the fact is, there isn't one.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, this is just silly.

The cerebral cortex initiates a command and that command travels through the pons passing into the cerebellum and back out and via the medulla to your muscles and thus your body moves.

and what establishes a cerebral cortex in a functional state?

There is absolutely not one shred of evidence there is something called soul. You just made that bullshit out of thin air.

Actually it seems that you just borrowed something from south of the border to suggest that the cerebral cortex is evidenced as the independent initializer of what we commonly understand as "life"

On the contrary we well know how the BRAIN controls movement and where in the brain "LG" exists. AND that's really the big difference. We have a hell of a lot of evidence for LG existing in the cerebral cortex but no evidecne for LG's soul. We don't need to postulate this soul BS to explain anything about LG.


You just WANT to believe in a soul, for whatever reasons. But, the fact is, there isn't one.

you just want to believe that the conceived self is sufficient to meet the requirements for the self as context
:shrug:

 

[Michael]

LG, we know the areas in the cerebral cortex. We can measure them. That is where the self is located. So, there is no need to make up some "soul" entity as all of the evidence and by all i mean ALL of the evidence points to the cerebral cortex as being the seat of the mind.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind as there where the mind is - it's in the brain LG. It's really as simple as that.


As for the soul, well now, we have ZERO, ZILTCH, NONE, NADDA, good evidence. As a matter of fact, the evidence for a soul is equal to the evidence for a thetan body. NONE.


So, the real question is WHY postulate it? You know why. Because you don't want to die. You fear dieing so much that you would rather delude yourself into believing in a mythical thing rather than face life full on.

I often ask theists if they'd worship their Gods if they didn't get to live after they die, most pause before they lie and say ..ahh ohhh. of course.

 

[swarm]

I often ask theists if they'd worship their Gods if they didn't get to live after they die, most pause before they lie and say ..ahh ohhh. of course.

Traditional Judaism doesn't have life after death.

 

[Sarkus]

In short, much like the hand moves the glove, it is the soul that moves the body

So you are claiming that there is physical contact between the soul and the body??
Care to expand on this, given that you claim the soul is non-material and thus bereft of "physical"?
Where does this physical contact occur, or if not "physical", what is the mechanism? (Yes, in this instance I am indeed asking WHAT).

If not, please explain HOW they interact.

issues of "structural density" seems like a needless foray into what.

Please revisit my original explanation and point out exactly where I used the term "structural density". You may realise that I didn't, and it was only an oversight on my part that failed to point this out to you originally. Therefore please drop this effort to sidetrack.

Its a popular device of reductonists to bog down a topic with technical issues.

It is a popular device of those who claim existence of the non-material to not provide anything to support their argument, and to try to avoid technical issues that they have no response for. It is because you lack the ability to explain the mechanism of interaction that you claim others try and bog it down in technical issues.

Questions of WHY are strongly related to issues of purpose (aka teleology)

I am not after an answer to WHY. Please stop dragging this discussion down those paths.
The question asked is HOW.

On the contrary, all you have provided is a more elaborate technical explanation of HOW. This does not make your offering more valid ..... unless one is really asking a question of WHAT

Your "offering" didn't even start answering the question of HOW. Your entire explanation is "Hand moves therefore glove moves". This certainly explains what moves and why, but not HOW.

And if you still feel that your answer is as valid if somewhat less technical, then please provide an equally more elaborate explanation of HOW the material interacts with the non-material. You claim movement of one thing results in movement of the other - but you do not provide any explanation of HOW that occurs... i.e. the mechanism of interaction.

Actually an explanation of why a glove interacts with a hand might be something like because the weather is cold

We can get on to the matter of WHY in another thread. Please desist from sidetracking this one.

so if one is constitutionally in the position of the uninformed (which means they can't get informed for whatever reason) , what other option do they have?

They become reliant on faith and on logical fallacies to support their position.



You may have noted that in responding I have ignored many of your sidetracking efforts.

Let's please stick to the question raised, which you have thus far singularly failed to do:
HOW does the material interact with the non-material?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, we know the areas in the cerebral cortex. We can measure them. That is where the self is located. So, there is no need to make up some "soul" entity as all of the evidence and by all i mean ALL of the evidence points to the cerebral cortex as being the seat of the mind.

the cerebral cortex is far from completely mapped .... what to speak of determining what primarily establishes it in a functional or dysfunctional state (we don't have cerebral cortex transplants, nor do we have functional cerebral cortex's existing in a functional state independently)

If you want to discuss science, please refrain from including ideas from your star trek subscription

There is no doubt in anyone's mind as there where the mind is - it's in the brain LG. It's really as simple as that.

there is considerable discourse on the role the mind plays in relation to the self however ....

As for the soul, well now, we have ZERO, ZILTCH, NONE, NADDA, good evidence.

amongst empiricists, certainly

but then we also have zero evidence of a cerebral cortex functioning or establishing itself as an independent/primary cause, so its not clear what is floating your boat at the moment, ..... apart from fervent belief

As a matter of fact, the evidence for a soul is equal to the evidence for a thetan body. NONE.

... and in a surprise turn around, we once again return to the issues (aka - strawmen) you try to raise in the beginning ....

anyway, to reiterate,

Let me promblematize your whole authority argument more clearly

There are two doctors (A & B)

Doctor A is capable of giving good advice

Doctor B isn't

If one follows Doctor B's advice, does that make the claims of Doctor A less valid? (after all, they are both "appealing to authority)

So, the real question is WHY postulate it?

one easy point first off the mark is that the alternative is to accept your incoherent argument

You know why. Because you don't want to die. You fear dieing so much that you would rather delude yourself into believing in a mythical thing rather than face life full on.

so religion is a false concept because it entails ideas of eternal life?
Is that your checkmate?

BTW you might want to check your own delusional state


(I like the bit about "weak egos that grasp around for simplistic explanations")

I often ask theists if they'd worship their Gods if they didn't get to live after they die, most pause before they lie and say ..ahh ohhh. of course.

Its not surprising that you find the notion of being devoted to god bereft of desire for material amelioration an alien concept.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
In short, much like the hand moves the glove, it is the soul that moves the body
”
So you are claiming that there is physical contact between the soul and the body??

no
the connection happens through a third agency (god). Once again, I anticipate you will have a few difficulties in discussing this, so it might be easier to discuss something more familiar to you.

Like say, the "interaction" between heat and light finds its function through the agency of fire (IOW it's not that the heat causes the light, or the light causes the heat ... It is the fire that causes/controls both of them)

Care to expand on this, given that you claim the soul is non-material and thus bereft of "physical"?
Where does this physical contact occur, or if not "physical", what is the mechanism? (Yes, in this instance I am indeed asking WHAT)

.
you're barking up the wrong tree

Once again, I remind you that I am not posing Descartes argument.

If not, please explain HOW they interact.

through the agency of a third party that is the cause of both of them (as explained with heat and light in relation to fire)

“
Its a popular device of reductonists to bog down a topic with technical issues.
”
It is a popular device of those who claim existence of the non-material to not provide anything to support their argument, and to try to avoid technical issues that they have no response for. It is because you lack the ability to explain the mechanism of interaction that you claim others try and bog it down in technical issues.

Once again. straight answers require straight questions. IOW a HOW question dressed up as a WHAT question won't do the trick

“
Questions of WHY are strongly related to issues of purpose (aka teleology)
”
I am not after an answer to WHY. Please stop dragging this discussion down those paths.
The question asked is HOW.

I brought it up because you claim (quite audaciously) that I offered a WHY answer in relation to the glove and hand.

Clearly this is not the case and it tends to indicate you have a muddled understanding of what a HOW q entails.

“
On the contrary, all you have provided is a more elaborate technical explanation of HOW. This does not make your offering more valid ..... unless one is really asking a question of WHAT
”
Your "offering" didn't even start answering the question of HOW. Your entire explanation is "Hand moves therefore glove moves". This certainly explains what moves and why, but not HOW.

erm please explain HOW it is a WHY answer
Feel free to consult your Vienna circle handbook

And if you still feel that your answer is as valid if somewhat less technical, then please provide an equally more elaborate explanation of HOW the material interacts with the non-material.

well we can't get the horse before the cart

If you think you find a WHY answer in my offering about the glove and the hand it doesn't appear that you understand WHAT a HOW question entails ...

You claim movement of one thing results in movement of the other - but you do not provide any explanation of HOW that occurs... i.e. the mechanism of interaction.

Love it or loathe it, I offered an elementary answer of HOW.

If you disagree, please tell me how a less technical HOW answer magically transforms in a WHY answer?
“

Actually an explanation of why a glove interacts with a hand might be something like because the weather is cold
”
We can get on to the matter of WHY in another thread. Please desist from sidetracking this one.

Well if you want to drop the matter, why spend half of your post complaining that I didn't answer HOW?

“
so if one is constitutionally in the position of the uninformed (which means they can't get informed for whatever reason) , what other option do they have?
”
They become reliant on faith and on logical fallacies to support their position.

so you feel it is illogical for, say, a medically uninformed person to be obedient to the directions of a physician?

If not, why did you use the word in bold italics?

You may have noted that in responding I have ignored many of your sidetracking efforts.


Let's please stick to the question raised, which you have thus far singularly failed to do:
HOW does the material interact with the non-material?

As long as you as you feel obligated to use the word HOW in strange ways, you cannot even accept an answer to how a glove interacts with a hand ....

 

[Michael]

Traditional Judaism doesn't have life after death.

Is that true? No life? As in no form of an existence after you die? Wow, so what do they believe happens to the self after death?

 

[Michael]

LG,

Scientific evidence is overwhelming in that the self if in the brain tissue.

Just last week I was reading that objective fMRI measurements point to the basal ganglia, specifically the caudate nucleus (neostriatum), as the area the emotion love is generated. Now, THAT'S objective measurements LG. We're talking about using an fMRI. Not some hooky-pooky herb you're smoking over there as you positulate on the "Soul's existance"


So, given the evidence is pointing towards the neo-striatum as generating the emotion called LOVE (after a heavy dose of dopamine) would you say LOVE is part of the "Self"? We know were LOVE comes from - the gawd damn brain boy!

As you can see, we are going to dissect each and every emotion until we know how it all fits into an integrated whole.

- We know how you move.
- We know how you remember movements.
- We know how each part of the brain associates with different movements.

It's all Brain Baby, and we're unlocking all of it's secrets. There's no room in there for a soul LG. Sorry, but Descartes was wrong, the pineal regulated sleep cycles.

M

 

[Michael]

OH, and when "Prophets" pretend they get their message from God - they do that because the bullshit they have to say is just that, bullshit. So they use the God to lend credibility to their bullshit (mainly with the promise of an afterlife and maybe if you pick a real base God, you get to bone perpetual virgins in a mud hut heaven).

THAT my dear boy is called "Appealing to Authority" and it's a logical fallacy.

M

NOTE: The funny thing is, most people seem to be too stupid to realize that Xenu or Allah, even if they did exist (which they don't), would be just as full of bullshit as their so-called Prophets.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

Scientific evidence is overwhelming in that the self if in the brain tissue.

the conceived self or the self as context?
or do you find it more convenient not to discuss what words such as "self" entail?

Just last week I was reading that objective fMRI measurements point to the basal ganglia, specifically the caudate nucleus (neostriatum), as the area the emotion love is generated. Now, THAT'S objective measurements LG. We're talking about using an fMRI. Not some hooky-pooky herb you're smoking over there as you positulate on the "Soul's existance"

I guess the only issue we have to determine now is exactly what aspects of the self you are determining that this information encapsulates ....

So, given the evidence is pointing towards the neo-striatum as generating the emotion called LOVE (after a heavy dose of dopamine) would you say LOVE is part of the "Self"?

part of the conceived self, if you want to get precise

We know were LOVE comes from - the gawd damn brain boy!

Well if your wife ever wants to get a divorce from you, you now have a solution .....

As you can see, we are going to dissect each and every emotion until we know how it all fits into an integrated whole.

I guess the only question to be resolved now is who will be cast as the cute female alter ego to the brave, stalwart captain of the ship as they explore the final frontier .... (keep those dopamine fixes on hand)

- We know how you move.

not with independent will however.
Big difference between the movement of a new born baby and a cadaver hoked up to electrodes

- We know how you remember movements.

golly

- We know how each part of the brain associates with different movements.

so you can't fathom any further aspects to self than movement ...?

It's all Brain Baby, and we're unlocking all of it's secrets. There's no room in there for a soul LG. Sorry, but Descartes was wrong, the pineal regulated sleep cycles.

seriously, you haven't even offered a complete picture for what the conceived self offers ... what to speak of the self as context

I guess we will have to stay tuned for the next season of star trek to find the answers

OH, and when "Prophets" pretend they get their message from God - they do that because the bullshit they have to say is just that, bullshit.

You certainly have established your argument in philosophical terms eloquently as much as they are valid

So they use the God to lend credibility to their bullshit (mainly with the promise of an afterlife and maybe if you pick a real base God, you get to bone perpetual virgins in a mud hut heaven).

its not clear why one would have to go to heaven to do that

Its the common experience of hogs ....

THAT my dear boy is called "Appealing to Authority" and it's a logical fallacy.

get back to me when you have an argument that isn't rendered incoherent by a dopamine fixation

NOTE: The funny thing is, most people seem to be too stupid to realize that Xenu or Allah, even if they did exist (which they don't), would be just as full of bullshit as their so-called Prophets.

will the irony never end?

 

[swarm]

Is that true? No life? As in no form of an existence after you die? Wow, so what do they believe happens to the self after death?

You return to ashes and dust.

This is why children are so important in traditional Judaism. That is how you are survived.

Traditional Judaism is very different than xtianity. Satan is a position (tempter) not an arch enemy of god. Its actually mono theistic instead of having 3 or 4 gods and bad explanations of how, no really, its just one. There is no soul that survives the body. A messiah is just an average Joe who actually delivers the Jews instead of pretending to be a god and getting himself killed. And there are lots of messiahs. "Gehenna" is just an allusion to where bodies were burned for disposal.

Now bear in mind modern Judaism has been absorbing bad habits from xtianity over the millennia and you could get a lot more from a scholar on the subject, this is just stuff I've picked up over the years discussing the matter with Jews instead of xtians.

Remember, most of modern xtianity is actually ripped off Zoroastrianism from the crusades.

 

[Sarkus]

no
the connection happens through a third agency (god). Once again, I anticipate you will have a few difficulties in discussing this, so it might be easier to discuss something more familiar to you.

Like say, the "interaction" between heat and light finds its function through the agency of fire (IOW it's not that the heat causes the light, or the light causes the heat ... It is the fire that causes/controls both of them)

Okay - you have successfully shifted it from material interacting with non-material to one of material interacting with God, and non-material interacting with God.
And so your answer appears to be "God did it!"
Or are you going to expand on the interaction of material and non-material with "God"?

you're barking up the wrong tree

Once again, I remind you that I am not posing Descartes argument.

A: if you don't want me to bark up the wrong tree, try not to lead me there.
B: don't tell me the argument you're NOT posing, but instead try and actually pose your argument.


I have removed half your post concerning why's and how's due to obvious sidetracking efforts.

so you feel it is illogical for, say, a medically uninformed person to be obedient to the directions of a physician?

If not, why did you use the word in bold italics?

You have issues in the use of a single conjunction?? :shrug: Which side of the conjunction, exactly? The faith side or the logical fallacy side?

Anyhoo - to answer - if one relies purely on the authority of the physician, they are logically fallacious in their actions.
However, one rarely relies on such.

As long as you as you feel obligated to use the word HOW in strange ways, you cannot even accept an answer to how a glove interacts with a hand ....

Your efforts to avoid answering are continually noted and rejected.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
no
the connection happens through a third agency (god). Once again, I anticipate you will have a few difficulties in discussing this, so it might be easier to discuss something more familiar to you.

Like say, the "interaction" between heat and light finds its function through the agency of fire (IOW it's not that the heat causes the light, or the light causes the heat ... It is the fire that causes/controls both of them)
”
Okay - you have successfully shifted it from material interacting with non-material to one of material interacting with God, and non-material interacting with God.

huh?

You would describe heat or light as interacting with fire?

And so your answer appears to be "God did it!"

much like the issue of describing heat and light is that the fire did it

Or are you going to expand on the interaction of material and non-material with "God"?

erm ....probably not .... just as wouldn't be likely to discuss heat and light interacting with fire .....

“
you're barking up the wrong tree

Once again, I remind you that I am not posing Descartes argument.
”
A: if you don't want me to bark up the wrong tree, try not to lead me there.

Its hard not to when you are following your own misconceptions

B: don't tell me the argument you're NOT posing, but instead try and actually pose your argument.

I am telling you my argument .... the problem is that you are posing rebuttals to descartes argument

I have removed half your post concerning why's and how's due to obvious sidetracking efforts.

If you feel these bold assertions of confidence give you a license to use words like HOW WHAT and WHY in magical ways, you are deluded ....

“
so you feel it is illogical for, say, a medically uninformed person to be obedient to the directions of a physician?

If not, why did you use the word in bold italics?
”
You have issues in the use of a single conjunction??

sure

your usage suggests an inextricable connection between being uninformed and being illogical

Which side of the conjunction, exactly? The faith side or the logical fallacy side?

it doesn't matter because by use of the word "and" suggests an inextricable connection between both of them.

for instance, if I say "I am white and american" I am declaring both things .... similarly if I say "faithful and illogical" I am asserting both things.

A different value presents itself with the word "or"

comprendo?

Anyhoo - to answer - if one relies purely on the authority of the physician, they are logically fallacious in their actions.

why?
Would it be more logical to rely on a car mechanic?

However, one rarely relies on such.

Must be a lot of persons who recreationally study medicine in your neighborhood ...

“
As long as you as you feel obligated to use the word HOW in strange ways, you cannot even accept an answer to how a glove interacts with a hand ....
”
Your efforts to avoid answering are continually noted and rejected.

hehe

your inability to clarify and justify your statements speaks for itself

 

[Sarkus]

Well, LG, it finally comes down to you saying "God did it!".
Thanks.
Well worth the effort, I'm sure.

I am telling you my argument .... the problem is that you are posing rebuttals to descartes argument

If these, then, have been your best efforts at explaining your arguments then is it really any wonder that noone takes you seriously?
You deliberately revert to the vague in your explanations and then have the gall to complain when others take the wrong path.

your usage suggests an inextricable connection between being uninformed and being illogical.

It only suggests it to those that don't understand what they read: Nowhere have I said that there is a connection, inextricable or otherwise, between merely being uninformed and being illogical. The connection is there if the uninformed wishes to take a position (in an argument). The uninformed should take no position - THAT is the logical thing.
Please go back and reread what was written.

I grow tired of having to correct you every time you seemingly deliberately misinterpret my comments, or make claims of usage of words not made.
This is another example of you not understanding the language used, LG.

why?
Would it be more logical to rely on a car mechanic?

Logical fallacy on your part. Bifurcation. Look it up and stop using it, please.

Must be a lot of persons who recreationally study medicine in your neighborhood ...

Again, false-dilmma fallacy. Stop using it. Most people, even when uninformed, rely on other things instead - such as risk/reward analysis etc.

your inability to clarify and justify your statements speaks for itself

Given that you are the ones making the claim, it behooves you to justify your position and to counter my rebuttals.
Your endeavours so far have shown several things: that you do not always understand rather simple language structures; that you utilise logical fallacies rather too often for my taste (although whether deliberate or not I do not know) such that it truly grows wearisome; and that you also blatantly misquote.

I suggest if you wish to continue that you provide more explanation than what appears to be nothing more substantial than "God does it".
So far it has been an exercise in futility to eek anything more precise from you, and I can only conclude that you really have no answer to it and that you are merely being deliberately evasive.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Well, LG, it finally comes down to you saying "God did it!".

hehe
I guess atheists are always looking for an alternative, eh?

Thanks.
Well worth the effort, I'm sure.

nice of you to participate

“
I am telling you my argument .... the problem is that you are posing rebuttals to descartes argument
”
If these, then, have been your best efforts at explaining your arguments then is it really any wonder that noone takes you seriously?

and posing a rebuttal of descartes argument to a person who doesn't pose descartes argument warrants serious attention?

You deliberately revert to the vague

like gloves and fire?

in your explanations and then have the gall to complain when others take the wrong path.

I gave you plenty of advance warning I wasn't posing descartes argument, yet you still insisted on trying to meet me there
:shrug:

“
your usage suggests an inextricable connection between being uninformed and being illogical.
”
It only suggests it to those that don't understand what they read: Nowhere have I said that there is a connection, inextricable or otherwise, between merely being uninformed and being illogical. The connection is there if the uninformed wishes to take a position (in an argument). The uninformed should take no position - THAT is the logical thing.
Please go back and reread what was written.

I did

maybe you should have used the word "or" instead of "and"

(its ironic that you enter such a cerebral spin for the sake up on messing up on small words, eg - what, how, why, and, or etc)

I grow tired of having to correct you every time you seemingly deliberately misinterpret my comments, or make claims of usage of words not made.
This is another example of you not understanding the language used, LG.

Its telling that you never address the errors highlighted in your posts, but rather opt for some "high and mighty" condescension ....

“
why?
Would it be more logical to rely on a car mechanic?
”
Logical fallacy on your part. Bifurcation. Look it up and stop using it, please.

it was a prompt for you to clarify a WHY ..... given that you've had such a dreadful time with this of late, its not surprising why you let the opportunity go (oh but wait ... I feel another high and mighty monologue coming my way ...)

“
Must be a lot of persons who recreationally study medicine in your neighborhood ...
”
Again, false-dilmma fallacy. Stop using it. Most people, even when uninformed, rely on other things instead - such as risk/reward analysis etc.

you mean like rely on the medical opinion of some other medical professional .... and this radically changes the paradigm because?

“
your inability to clarify and justify your statements speaks for itself
”
Given that you are the ones making the claim, it behooves you to justify your position and to counter my rebuttals.

Kind of difficult when you pose rebuttals to the arguments of others and use language in a "magical" way ...

Your endeavours so far have shown several things: that you do not always understand rather simple language structures;

hehe

You can't even begin to discuss your use of language

that you utilise logical fallacies rather too often for my taste (although whether deliberate or not I do not know) such that it truly grows wearisome; and that you also blatantly misquote.

you simply tag "logical fallacy" to anything that violates your value system ...

I suggest if you wish to continue that you provide more explanation than what appears to be nothing more substantial than "God does it".

I suggest that if you want an explanation you have to ask straight questions

So far it has been an exercise in futility to eek anything more precise from you, and I can only conclude that you really have no answer to it and that you are merely being deliberately evasive.

As long as you ask a HOW question and moan about not getting a WHAT for an answer, you have sufficient means to remain a buffoon in any field of knowledge

 

[Michael]

the conceived self or the self as context?
or do you find it more convenient not to discuss what words such as "self" entail?

Why the: either/or?

I think the conceived self will be found in the GFAP microtubules of glia, specifically astrocytes.
I think the self in context will be found in the actin microtubules of neuronal growth cones.

See, simple,
Michael

 

[Sarkus]

I guess atheists are always looking for an alternative, eh?

I would have thought any intelligent person would be looking for a better understanding.

and posing a rebuttal of descartes argument to a person who doesn't pose descartes argument warrants serious attention?

With you one can only guess as to the argument you make, so vague are your responses. Next time, just stick to "God did it" from the start... it will save time.

I gave you plenty of advance warning I wasn't posing descartes argument, yet you still insisted on trying to meet me there

I follow where the lead road. If your navigation is so poor as to lead me where you don't want to go, who is at fault?

maybe you should have used the word "or" instead of "and"

I am sure if I had meant "or" I would have used it.

(its ironic that you enter such a cerebral spin for the sake up on messing up on small words, eg - what, how, why, and, or etc)

Yes, indeed, your inability to understand English is my fault. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Its telling that you never address the errors highlighted in your posts, but rather opt for some "high and mighty" condescension ....

Ah yes, the errors you highlight being misquotes and your failure to understand English. Hey ho.

you mean like rely on the medical opinion of some other medical professional .... and this radically changes the paradigm because?

Again, false dilemma fallacy.

you simply tag "logical fallacy" to anything that violates your value system ...

Surprisingly I tag it to anything that I spot to be a fallacy of logic - such as your bifurcation above. If you don't want me to tag and ignore any such arguments from you then I would suggest you stop using them.

I suggest that if you want an explanation you have to ask straight questions

The only explanation you are capable of, it seems, is "God did it." Impressive stuff. Thanks.