and how do you propose that something be "verified" or even indicate a "process of verification" outside of normative prescriptions .....
When do you get a soul? & related questions.
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
I wasn't aware that you had an argument for consciousness being materially reducible outside of validity
Its quite simple.
One could also take your line of thought by arguing that dropping a brick on a light bulb diminishes the electric current (after all the light bulb is no longer glowing).
IOW correlation = causation is a joke.
Golly
First you have the claim to know how consciousness works within the paradigm of material reductionism and now you also bring in the universe too!
a fallacious argument (correlation = causation) can be ignored from the onset
Now might be a good time for you to propose how empiricism is capable of seeing what it is seeing with.
actually first of all they come with an alternative methodology, and its precisely this that you are adverse to
back to the ol correlation = causation
accounts are easy to come by
producing the goods is where the hurdles arise
lol
a counter to an assumption is a deflection
If you are looking for an end to thesis vs antithesis via logic and mental speculation you would probably be better off trying to lick honey off your elbows ......
When one starts with sound premises (such as destroying the material of a living body = end of life), a valid argument is also sound.
Unless you can indicate the invalidity of the argument, or where any of the premises are unsound?
It does diminish the electric current - to nil. It also causes the inert gases to escape, and most likely breaks the filiment. But then you'd probably claim that the lightbulb has a soul that breaks free from the material realm once the glass cracks, and it is this that stops the bulb working. Hey ho.
And you can prove that it is mere correlation, of course? That is what you are claiming, after all.
So, your evidence for it being non-material is... ?
Or is your entire claim one of lack of proof for = proof against, 'cos that's all you currently have.
There is no claim yet to know how consciousness works, only that there is no need yet to jump on board your god of the gaps.
You have evidence to the contrary?
I am making no claim that the evidence is proof of causation... only that it is evidence that rationally supports life being material. For it to be evidence of a non-material soul requires one to think irrationally.
A different methodology that requires one to believe it works for it to work, and provides irrational arguments and utilises a god of the gaps? Now why would I be adverse to something like that?
Provide evidence that your "alternative methodology" can do something... anything... that science can not.
Promoting your god of the gaps again, I see.
Or if not - feel free to show your wares?
Oh, that's right - you can't - they're "non-material".
Maybe you were conned into buying them, LG, but it's no reason to ply the same trade.
You didn't counter the assumptions - you merely ignored and tried to deflect the conversation away from the matter. Hey ho.
Deflecting the conversation does not equal countering the assumption.
Sure
..... the problem is however its the opening line under the heading "Nature of logic"
Which is this:
"The concept of logical form is central to logic; it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content. Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics."
??
I still don't see the problem.
The standard process is you make public the means you used and what resulted from them and then others review this and attempt to replicate it while looking for better alternative explanations. They publish their works and eventually a concensus is reached. If there are anomolies then research may continue until those are resolved or better explanations arise which account for more of the data.
One cannot even say "My leg is broken" without operating with normative descriptions of what "leg" and "broken" refers to.
It is not self-evident what "leg" and "broken" refers to - we have to learn these things, IOW, learn normative descriptions of terms.
I have never actually seen you say (and believe) that you don't know. You may say you don't know, but you sure act as someone who knows beyond doubt.
Possibly 'cos very few questions are actually asked of me such that I have to say it - and while I might not know such things as whether God exists, I can still know that 1 + 1 = 2.
And bear in mind that one can be confident that someone else is talking illogically or irrationally without actually knowing the truth oneself.
You are badly misusing the term normative:
1 : of, relating to, or determining norms or standards <normative tests>
2 : conforming to or based on norms <normative behavior> <normative judgments>
3 : prescribing norms <normative rules of ethics> <normative grammar>
norm
2: a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior
"That leg is broken." is a positive or factual statement which makes no normative claims about morals or ethics.
Thank you.
The misuse of terminology here is all too often the source of much confusion.
now try looking up "normative description" (sometimes also called "prescriptive description")
but it certainly makes normative claims about physiology
Last edited:
So do you think that it is a coincidence that the claims of physics are investigated by physicists (IOW for each and every claim of knowledge, there is a field of discipline, with accompanying normative/prescriptive descriptions, at its foundation)?
A consensus amongst who?
Do claims in physics require a consensus from janitors, hardware salesmen or even high school physics teachers?
and the anomalies are resolved precisely by who?
And the better descriptions are provided by who?
Persons who meet the normative descriptions of the discipline or persons who do not meet them?
Sarkus
As the example of crushing a lightbulb with a brick illustrates, the premises aren't sound
Its not even accepted as valid in standard channels of empiricism
If you accept the glow of a lightbulb as the cause for determining electric current you might be in for a rude shock if you lick the wires (aka correlation = causation). No need to bring in souls or anything like that.
If you want to understand how something is proven not to merely be an aspect of correlation, google "data point".
Once again, this is simply good ol fashioned empiricism
:shrug:
Its about your argument that "correlation = causation" is acceptable
You are bluntly claiming to know what the universe does (and doesn't) require to work.
“
Kind of explains why the rational explanations of forensic scientists are distinct from the rational explanations of taxi drivers ... particularly in court cases examining the validity of evidence
why else?
Provide evidence that your "alternative methodology" can do something... anything... that science can not.
:shrug:
and there you have it.
As the example of crushing a lightbulb with a brick illustrates, the premises aren't sound
In short, correlation = causation is a joke.
Its not even accepted as valid in standard channels of empiricism
try licking the exposed wires and tell us your experience
Its quite elementary.
If you accept the glow of a lightbulb as the cause for determining electric current you might be in for a rude shock if you lick the wires (aka correlation = causation). No need to bring in souls or anything like that.
all I have to prove is that you are using items of correlation.
If you want to understand how something is proven not to merely be an aspect of correlation, google "data point".
Once again, this is simply good ol fashioned empiricism
:shrug:
At the moment its not so much about my argument.
Its about your argument that "correlation = causation" is acceptable
reread your post
You are bluntly claiming to know what the universe does (and doesn't) require to work.
“
if you want to go beyond an argument of correlation you better start getting those data points rolling in!
feel free to indicate a methodology that doesn't have the initial requirement of belief
In case you haven't noticed, issues of rationality/irrationality are tied to experience.
Kind of explains why the rational explanations of forensic scientists are distinct from the rational explanations of taxi drivers ... particularly in court cases examining the validity of evidence
because of your values
why else?
Provide evidence that your "alternative methodology" can do something... anything... that science can not.
when ever you are ready to apply yourself, let me know
Essentially even you are "non - material". Its the nature of consciousness (Oh that's right, correlation = causation is a sound argument so I guess you have proven me wrong)
On the contrary, you already appear to have been sold out
My point is that countering or deflecting an assumption doesn't resolve an issue (as sci so generously illustrates).
:shrug:
Please identify where I have ever stated that it is acceptable.
You're currently chasing a red-herring, deliberately or otherwise.
Why do you insist on inserting false dilemmas into other peoples' arguments where none such exist?
I am merely saying that our current understanding of the universe can be modelled without the need for a "soul", or for anything else that is non-material.
Science: it uses assumptions, not beliefs.
Can you name something that is not is tied to experience?
Any issues come from interpretation of those experiences - and generally in the application (or not) of such as Occam's Razor.
By the time one reaches maturity one would hope they have sufficient experience to be able to recognise the rational from the irrational. It is why "magic" is not accepted as reality over mere slight of hand.
"Believe it is God, and it will be!".
You're not even beyond begging the question with this one, LG.
Inasmuch as consequences follow action, I guess so
Gold stars?
Your old principal I guess
:shrug:
Sarkus
It's your argument buddy : Given that the universe works rather well without the need for a soul
:shrug:
(but if you want to talk of things that don't exist, please go on about how you know the universe works ....)
Although it seems that you are trying to esteem "rationality" to such a status
And of course, if a person insists that their non-experience of a thing is the final last word on the subject, they are simply being stubborn.
Where you correlate consciousness to the body that it (temporarily) appears in ... much like correlating electric flow to a glowing electric bulb
It's your argument buddy : Given that the universe works rather well without the need for a soul
:shrug:
(but if you want to talk of things that don't exist, please go on about how you know the universe works ....)
As anyone who has come within 10ft of a history of influential models in science can tell you, the universe can be modeled in any one of a million ways
:bravo:
Of course not.
Although it seems that you are trying to esteem "rationality" to such a status
If a person has an experience that religion is practically the same as slight as hand they set themselves up for one sort of rational conclusion. If a person had opposite experiences, it would be irrational for them to be in agreement with them.
And of course, if a person insists that their non-experience of a thing is the final last word on the subject, they are simply being stubborn.
errrr.... okay ..... but once again, whenever you are ready to apply yourself, let me know
Just pointing out that your statement "the universe can function perfectly okay without a soul" is basically saying "the universe can function perfectly okay without consciousness" - good luck on trying to prove that one
The observation rate (which stands at 100%) of consciousness being inextricable to life.