Brain in a vat

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by James R, Nov 22, 2016.

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    LOL! I just said they could both be satisfied (why else would I say one happens first?), you just completely failed to grasp the point...that they cannot obtain the exact same result. Obtuse or dishonest?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,360
    Once again, because you clearly seem to have a deficiency when it comes to comprehension (as well as maths): "Wow, can you honestly not see how those different sufficient conditions could both be satisfied at the same time?" You know, as in both being satisfied simultaneously.
    So I'll go with you being dishonest and obtuse.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    The crux of the problem here seems to be the logical type-token distinction. It seems that Sarkus, Baldeee, et.al. are arguing type-effects rather than token-effects.
    "Two persons having the same "type" of car need not mean that they share a "token", a single vehicle" - wiki
    People here seem to be arguing that two sufficient causes can have the same type, or class, of effect, while I have argued that two sufficient causes cannot have the same token, or object, as effect. Hence we've been talking past each other.
    I agree that multiple sufficient causes can, indeed, produce the exact same class of effect, e.g. test values, sports scores, etc.. But that's quite far from claiming that two sufficient causes can produce the same object.
    Can a sufficient type-cause produce a token-effect?
    Can s sufficient token-cause produce a type-effect?
    The statement, "smoking causes lung cancer" is a type-cause (smoking in general) producing a type-effect (the possibility for cancer).
    The statement, "the car hit the bike" is a token-cause (specific car) producing token-effect (specific bike falling over).
    Since I agree that it is rather trivial that two sufficient token-causes can produce the same type-effect (as these are concept instantiations), the relevant question is whether the mind is a type-effect or token-effect. If minds are only a class of thing, they must be fully interchangeable. If minds are specific things, how can one sufficient cause fail to obtain?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    LOL! So you expect to get credit for a class simultaneously for both 100% A's and 80% A's + placement?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    "Well, I'm passing you because you got 100% A's....but also because you got 80% A's and work-placement." LOL! If you truly think that sounds like a reasonable assumption to make,...well, I'll let others draw their own conclusions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Do you really think "satisfied at the same time" means "starting together"? Simultaneous events could just as well be those that did not start at the same time but are now occurring at the same time. Maybe you should have said, "achieved at the same time", if that's what you meant. Not that less ambiguous language would have made your argument any less ridiculous.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    The crux of the problem as I see it, seems to be as others in the past have tried to get the forum to wear. That is creating some philosophical bullshit with relation to the mystique of the mind as distinct from the brain, thereby inferring that same old boring "god of the gaps" routine again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,360
    Which came first, then, syne? You seem to be making a fuss about temporal order. So which cause gave rise to the effect? Please tell me.
    Thank you for highlighting your dishonesty, syne. You seem to have known that the language was ambiguous so you chose to go with only the meaning that you felt would score you points, rather than be bothered to consider the alternative meaning, which, if you had bothered, you would have recognised as the one intended. No more than is now expected, though.
    The example is what it is: multiple sufficient causes for a single event. Not sure why you had such difficulty with it.
     
  10. Baldeee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    875
    And you would be wrong in your assessment.

    And with that I will bid this line of discussion adieu.
     
  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Which came first between my hypothetical and your alternative? Why don't you finally get around to coming up with a real world example, and then we can actually examine temporal order in earnest. I notice you completely avoided justifying your assumption that you could get credit for a class simultaneously for both 100% A's and 80% A's + placement. Seemingly by trying to shift the burden for your own claim. You're just the average crank, whining "prove me wrong". It's sad.
    Yes, I'm sure you love imagining all sort of things to make you feel better about yourself. If you really think I would wait to tell you your language was ambiguous, you must think I'm playing so sort of strategic game or something. Projection?
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    He says with a bare assertion fallacy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    So I can only assume people are too embarrassed to even touch the possibility that their assertions were all about type-effects, like test values trivially being the same. Just for fun, I'll play devil's advocate and make a hypothetical argument on their behalf:

    We could easily say that the variable, filled in by a test, is a type-effect, as a variable is a class of thing that can be instantiated to many results. But the value of said variable is a token-effect, specific to each test. Hence the token-effects of two sufficient causes CAN be the exact same.
     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,360
    I'll take that as an admission that you can't think of how one could simultaneously satisfy both conditions. Well, I did give you a chance to think for yourself. So if the last thing to be marked was a paper worth 25% of the course, and up to the marking of that last paper you had A's for 75% but also had a work-placement.... Well, what do you know, on getting an A on that last one you would end up satisfying both the 100% A's and the 80%+placement at the same time. Go figure.
    I'm sure you'll come up with some hand-waving to dismiss it. "Oh, that's trivial", you'll no doubt say while trying to hide the fact that you didn't identify such a solution. And I'm sure you'll come up with some further bluster to hide your failure.
    You can be as sure as you like. It's rather irrelevant. What this did show was your deliberate dishonesty. Your subsequent blustering and attempt to dismiss it really doesn't do you any favours, either.
     
  15. Baldeee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    875
    Oh, for Pete's sake, get over yourself, Syne.
    I'm actually fairly sure, given your personality, that the only thing you can assume really is what you state above.
    Of course, it would have nothing to do with, oh, let's say your initial comment being at 11:59pm last night (UK time) and your subsequent statement of your assumption being at 5:15am (UK time).
    Yes, 5 hours during which most people in the UK would most likely be asleep, and most people in the US would likely either still be at work or enjoying their Friday night, those in Australia enjoying their weekend.
    I, myself, hit the sack immediately after my response at 1:11am.
    But no, because people don't rush to respond to you, you can "only assume people are too embarrassed".
    Get over yourself, Syne.
    If there is a reason people deliberately give up responding to you it is more than likely because they realise you are simply not worth the effort responding to.
    Your tone, your style, your personality annoy people, to the point that they give up caring whether what you say is actually correct or not.
    You seem to be content not on having civil discussion but on simply being the master of an empty room.
    Good luck with that.
     
    paddoboy and Sarkus like this.
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,360
    I'm sure in an otherwise empty room he might even be able to convince the occupants that he's always as correct as he asserts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Again, do you really think that goes down like, "Well, I'm passing you because you got 100% A's....but also because you got 80% A's and work-placement." In reality, what obtained was 100% A's + work-placement, as that is the final disposition of that class and what would go on your transcript. Or would you really opt for 80% + placement in lieu of the 100% you actually attained?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Really? Dismissing your wild assumptions about me doesn't do me any favors? So I guess you'd just let any old assumption about you slide as well, right? For example, I assume all this is just desperate projection from someone anxious to distract from the fact that he's given up on the vast majority of the arguments he has forwarded, continually making new ad hoc arguments in a vain attempt to win some sort of ill-conceived victory.
     
  18. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    LOL! It has to do with you saying, "And with that I will bid this line of discussion adieu."(Your 1:11am response.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What, you expect me to believe you were just about to change your mind? If so, then by all means, address the argument.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This just seems like another vain attempt to appear somehow superior...for just tone policing. You know, in lieu of rational argument.

    Hope you get to feeling better.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I think admitting, "Hence the token-effects of two sufficient causes CAN be the exact same" has scared some people. They've lost the ability to poison the well by insisting I'm just a chronic contrarian.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    The only "scaring" childish accusation as you put it, is the rejection of your unsupported, opinionated philosophical, god of the gaps rant/s.....
    With your contrarian remark, the evidence so far in two threads actually show that's exactly what you are, along with other baggage of course.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,360
    Yet more blatant dishonesty by you, Syne. That "admission" was nothing but an argument put forward by playing Devil's Advocate. It thus does not represent your view but that of the role you were playing. To now claim it as your own admission... pathetic and dishonest of you.
     
  22. Baldeee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    875
    So now you think of me alone as "people" (a plural word)?
    No, Syne, you are again being dishonest.
    You referenced people in general.
    Change my mind about what?
    As stated, you were wrong in your assumption: my comments were with regard token effects and not type effects.
    With that clarification, it is for you to revisit what has been said and provide argument to the contrary if that is your desire.
    I have no need to try to appear somehow superior.
    I am merely trying to have a civil discussion.
    Yet at every turn you show yourself incapable of such.
    Perhaps when you show you can then we can continue that line of discussion.
    But it will take quite something to convince me that you can.
    Not having to deal with your attitude... yep, that might indeed work.
    Let's see.
     
  23. Baldeee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    875
    [Channeling my inner-Syne]
    So I can only assume, given the 11 hours since he last responded, that Syne is too embarrassed to even touch on the possibility that his attitude and tone are unconducive to civil discussion.
    [/Channelling off]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page