well that's nice going, but until you can explain why, you don't have anything other than a tenable argument (which can be refuted with other tenable arguments ... like "I don't think you know what you are talking about")
Logical fallacy "Appeal to authority"
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
I don't think that you are positing your question correctly. What does it mean when you say: WHY? That's not good science.
Drugs that block microtubule formation can also block memory formation and even erase long term memory. Either "self" is dependant on memory formation.
So, you see, we are ansering the WHY questions. One peace of the puzzel at a time.
We're also finding there's no place left for things like: aether, souls, nymphs, etc..
Drugs that block microtubule formation can also block memory formation and even erase long term memory. Either "self" is dependant on memory formation.
So, you see, we are ansering the WHY questions. One peace of the puzzel at a time.
We're also finding there's no place left for things like: aether, souls, nymphs, etc..
Sarkus
What do you need?
Neon signs?
A fire alarm?
:shrug:
hehe
feel free to explain how a HOW q magically transforms into a WHY q when it contains less WHAT information
or even better
feel free to explain how the use of the word "and" between two values doesn't indicate an inextricable connection between them both
Bonus points if you can do this without ad homming
car mechanics?
For instance I could just give a range of phrases after your posts like "logical fallacy", "bifurcation", "hegemonic discourse", "unframed supposition" etc (and occasionally the odd "that's because you are ignorant" just to liven it up a bit) . If a person can’t explain why they think something, they don’t have a coherent argument because they don’t even (i)begin(/i) to provide the prerequisites for one.
:shrug:
that's your values speaking again
erm ... Descartes has a very specific argument ... and I specifically mentioned that I was offering something different (even before you specifically addressed issues relevant to Descartes)
What do you need?
Neon signs?
A fire alarm?
So if I tell you "don't think this is Descartes argument" that's an invitation to think it is Descartes argument?
:shrug:
as long as you remain unable to clarify your use of words like "how" and "or", others would be inclined to think otherwise .....
hehe
feel free to explain how a HOW q magically transforms into a WHY q when it contains less WHAT information
or even better
feel free to explain how the use of the word "and" between two values doesn't indicate an inextricable connection between them both
Bonus points if you can do this without ad homming
Once again, you don't address the critical analysis of your words ... (the monologue ensues ...)
who/what else will they consult for an analysis of reward/risk?
car mechanics?
if you can't clarify your use of words (like "logical fallacy" ... or even "and" or "how") in such a way that is relevant to the discussion you have a monologue.
For instance I could just give a range of phrases after your posts like "logical fallacy", "bifurcation", "hegemonic discourse", "unframed supposition" etc (and occasionally the odd "that's because you are ignorant" just to liven it up a bit) . If a person can’t explain why they think something, they don’t have a coherent argument because they don’t even (i)begin(/i) to provide the prerequisites for one.
I guess you must be similarly disappointed in explanations of heat and light that culminate in "fire does it", too
:shrug:
when you posit scientific findings to an argument of reason/logic, you have a requirement for "why"
memory is essential to the conceived self, but not the self as context.
If a person says "I no longer have the memory of being 3 years old" that does not mean they did not exist when they were the 3 years old
you answered "why" by suggesting that the conceived self is contingent on issues of memory.
This is not fit the definition of the "self as context" (although it does fit the "conceived self")
feel free to try another one
If you're finding that it tends to indicate you are holding an overly reduced definition of the self as absolute
We we we we. Who is 'we'?
Talk about appealing to authority!
And by whom or what is the pineal regulated?
:shrug:
If you say so.
Logical fallacy
An example of such, to help clarify: "I am not ad homming, but you're a tool and as such your arguments are flawed". I.e. merely saying one thing and then either through action or inaction leading to the opposite...
Furthermore, if you are asked "what is 1 + 1?" how useful is "It is not 6" as an answer?
But no, you blame the driver for following your directions. If the directions were not followed correctly then surely it is up to you to at least try to correct them?
- "Okay, it's not 6, but how do I get from 1 + 1 to the answer?"
- "I've explained... and I've even said that it's not 6!"
- "But from your vague explanation all I seem to get back to is 6!"
- "But it's not 6! I told you that!"
- "So how do I get to the answer?"
- "I've told you!"
- "But from what you told me I keep getting to 6!"
- "But it's not 6!"
This merely summarises your pathetic method of deflecting questions that you can not seem to answer. You have been asked a question, so you begin to pick apart the use of language when the vague answers you do give are found wanting, language usage that any normal person has no issue with, but only those wanting to avoid answering questions attempt to question.
So if I say "I like the colour blue and milk" there must be an inextricable connection between blue and milk beyond the fact that I like both of them?
Likewise if I suggest that a person in a certain position would use X and Y then there is a connection beyond merely that person needing to use them?
So every time you get a headache you rush to your doctor to see what he suggests? What about if you get a splinter in your finger? Muscle spasm? What do you use in such instances rather than relying solely on the authority of the physician / doctor?
The good thing about logical fallacies is that they indeed are not relevant to the discussion - and thus I flag up the logical fallacies you commit and try to ignore them. If you wish me to explain precisely why they are logical fallacies then please tell me that that is what you wish. Somehow I thought you were well versed in them and would be able to identify them when spotted, such is your widespread usage of them and the fact that on numerous threads are they pointed out to you.
Further, if you feel you need such words as HOW or AND clarified then you are doing so purely to deflect the discussion from the answer that I am still waiting from you, but which I somehow feel I won't get.
I'm guessing you really don't see the irony of this, coming from you?
Actually, I'm happy with "fire does it" 'cos HOW fire does it can be explained when asked for details.
Please now explain how does the material interact with the non-material? I.e. the process of interaction. If, as you are suggesting, this occurs through the agency of God, please explain this process. Call it a HOW question, or WHAT or WHY - to be honest I couldn't care less what type of question your particular use of language would have you call it. If I am not satisfied with your answer, be it too vague, unsupported or incoherent, then I will point out the need for, and request, clarification.
Please also do not revert to "It's not X's argument" as an explanation, or even as an indication of where not to go. If you feel I am barking up the wrong tree then point out the CORRECT tree more accurately rather than merely shouting "It's not that one! It's not that one!". This will surely save a lot of effort on both sides.
Last edited:
Peer reviewed Scientific community.
As the observations are reproducible the likelihood of it representing reality is very high.
The Sun
And by whom or what is the Sun regulated?
The sun isn't regulated by anyone or anything.
?
The Sun is a primary? It is an entity that has always existed and that (directly or indirectly) controls all other entities?