Originally posted by CadoAngelus
HAHAHAHAHAHA! this made me piss myself...Omiverseria/Nebaris/Whatever...you gave Nemesis the source of Urbandictionary and you flame him after he uses it and takes heed in your outburst earlier - about how it's not your job to read sources posted by him, though you'll find that most people don't want to spend days trying to explain high school education to people again - something tells me you enter arguments for the sake of the argument and perhaps to make yourself look like a fool in front of everyone? not to educate or otherwise help people understand your view point...
I figured somebody would pick up on this.
Neb, you've been 3rd party pwnt.
Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
Prove it (defaulting on "what science says" equates to an appeal to authority).If there were to be a causal relationship between thought and matter, then it's far more likely that what we wish to happen simply happens directly rather than through a number of processes to which we don't have any natural understanding of.
I win.
Your desperate attempts to label my arguments fallacious are growing more and more feeble. Incidentally, as none of the flaws you've cited have actually been valid (your accusation of equivocation would be more accurately levied at, ironically, you) you are guilty of a fallacy yourself (again, ironically). By accusing me of fallacious arguments you've actually been using an ad hominem fallacy. You've yet to articulate exactly how any of my points are invalid (because you can't).
Compounding the irony is that beyond your inadvertent use of ad hominem you have used another logical fallacy. This one is the argument from ignorance. Your assertion that "it's far more likely" for your assertion to be true fits the wikipedia example (cited above) almost exactly.
Moreover, we do have an incredible understanding of the mechanics of neurotransmission. We know how signals work and how it works.
Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
Also, even assuming that the movement of the body were caused by electrical signals transmitted through the nerves, what causes this to happen? And if your answer to that were another physical process, what causes that to happen? I think you'll find that at some point, material change would have had to occur without the original application of physical force. So even assuming the unproven science you're referencing, an original application of non physical force would have still been required to have the eventual result of moving the body.
You are now arguing first cause. As I see no reason to double as a biology teacher, I can't see why I should be a philosophy teacher.
For a place to start your investigation, determinism would disagree with you.
By accusing me of fallacious arguments you've actually been using an ad hominem fallacy.
How so?
1. I was addressing the argument specifically, and not the person presenting it.
2. I wasn't saying it to be insulting, but as a supplement to my explanation to act as a point of reference that might further enhance not only your understanding of the situation but that of anybody who might be reading this.
3. I didn't say anything along the lines of "your entire argument is wrong because you committed [named fallacies]," but only the aspects of your argument that the fallacy specifically applied.
So how was I committing an ad hominem fallacy exactly?
You've yet to articulate exactly how any of my points are invalid.
"Your counter argument assumes a definition of the word "telekinesis" THAT I WAS NOT EVEN USING!!! to establish that telekinesis (per your definition) is not required. By adjusting the definition that I was using and then assuming that definition when addressing the form of my argument you are not only committing a straw man fallacy but the rarely used fallacy of equivocation!"
^ Articulation of exactly how you've been committing mentioned fallacies. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
defaulting on "what science says" equates to an appeal to authority
This statement was made in advance of any such usage of the appeal to authority fallacy, and by definition the fallacy would apply in such a usage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument from personal incredulity fallacy involves simply believing something because it "seems" likely without actually having any real reason to believe such a thing. I was operating under a hidden premise because I didn't think that there was a necessity for it to actually be stated.
If there were to be a causal relationship between thought and matter, then it's far more likely that what we wish to happen simply happens directly rather than through a number of processes to which we don't have any natural understanding of.
The reasoning being that, under the assumption that our mind causes the material change that occurs in our body, and given that it is entirely intentional, it's far more probable that our mind carries out its intent in a manner that our mind actually understands such an intent would be carried out rather than through a series of processes to which it has no necessary understanding of. Our minds aren't naturally born with the immediate understanding of the biology behind our body, so given that humans are capable of movement before going on to gain such understanding, it's likely that our intentional control over our bodies is carried out in a manner that our mind can naturally understand. In simple terms: any action that intentionally causes a certain effect is more likely to be caused in a manner that is reflective of that intention, and the understanding of the mind behind that intention.
That isn't to say it's impossible that our minds' decisions to move our bodies can be executed in a manner that our minds cannot understand, but simply that it's unlikely. Such an element of randomness would be similar to that of there *not* being a causal relationship between our decisions and our actions.
You are now arguing first cause.
Which the definition never denied in the first place.
And again, I feel no real obligation as a debater to go out of my way to find out information that you are expected to be able to present in an accessible and relevant manner in the first place.
Neb, you're repeating yourself.
In order of your points:
Pointing out what you imagine to be fallacies without elaborating on where the logic breaks down is simply a smear tactic. You fail.
Where you do articulate the "fallacious" points you are wrong. Equivocation would be twisting a word to fit one's argument. How might this be done? One might start by ignoring idiomatic usage and even explicitly stated characteristics of the word. This sounds a hell of a lot more like you than it does me. You fail.
The next point is not repetition, but it is silly. You claim that the body most likely works in a way that it understands. Do you intend to ascribe understanding to manta rays when their hearts beat? Do you intend to classify as sentient plants that follow the sun's rays (as do sunflowers)?
Your assertion is made without regard, and in opposition to established medical fact. I have provided you with these facts. That you would rather pretend that you are right than expand your understanding of the universe illustrates most effectively the futility of speaking with you. You fail.
(For those keeping score at home, Nebaris gave me a big 'NO U,' a tactic that generally signals total mental shutdown. He repeated his erroneous assertions in the hope that repetition would establish validity. Unfortunately for him, it did not and does not. An interesting note is that he ended with another instance of equivocation, hoping to drag the argument anywhere but the usage and definition of the term 'telekinesis.' He even tried to invoke a bastardized form of the cosmological argument to somehow prove free will over determinism. This backfired when I pointed out that the motivations of an action do not change what the action itself is (what precipitates movement does not change what we call movement itself). Had I chosen to rebut the point, rather than the attack, the most expeditious avenue that I can see is to point out that the largest concession possible to the argument from First cause is mere Deism, the first domino. (Which of course does nothing to debunk the mechanical nature of immediate decisions.))
Spoiler:
I find it frustrating when arguments have to end for a reason other than the points (like idiocy) so I have endeavored to explain exactly where Neb failed. If there is any confusion left from his distortion of the language feel free to PM me and I'll do my best to clear things up.
The goal is to get back on topic now. Since the Mods have seemingly refused to ban him I suggest that we add him to ignore?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anyways, I don't see how you guys think that medical technology is anywhere near SW levels. Admittedly, I've not kept up with the latest crazy stuff in medicine (since I refuse to follow such a career) but surely our tech is still lightyears behind an industry capable of rebuilding a quadriplegic lava victim?
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Anyways, I don't see how you guys think that medical technology is anywhere near SW levels. Admittedly, I've not kept up with the latest crazy stuff in medicine (since I refuse to follow such a career) but surely our tech is still lightyears behind an industry capable of rebuilding a quadriplegic lava victim?
I think the closest we've come to anything like this is a mixture of: prosthetic limbs, miniaturized medical life support machines, breathing apparatus built into a helmet, and a catheter bag...
as for the rest of the technology:
- anyone who seriously argues the case for the creation of a lightsaber EVER has something wrong - or their heads are in the clouds...
- flying cars are beyond comprehension - as the amount of thrust and power needed to run something like it as far off the ground as they do in SW is ridiculous
- blasters are unlikely - though it has been proven that lasers with intent to harm someone are not such a fantasy
- lifts and turbo lifts are a grey area for me...you don't really see enough in the saga and i've only really read a handful of books that include the lifts and basically nothing explains or tries to explain how they work
- "hyperspace" as we know it is too resource draining to realistically consider it - i think scientists have worked out it would take the equivalent power of several thousand suns, the size of ours, to achieve such speeds and even then: it's been mentioned about inertia and how it's unknown about the effects of light travel on the human body, and i've mentioned the existence of tiny particles and rocks that are randomized but scattered throughout space, and the likelihood of fly straight through them while traveling light speed is highly likely
- AI of that level is impossible i think. I don't even like to refer to it as AI, I don't believe a machine could learn to be self aware in the way that we think...I refer to it as VI (Virtual Intelligence)...
- and i can't think of anything else right now lol...mental block
Nem, I consider myself a patient and generous individual, and usually I would consider providing you with some online tuition in the fields of logic and debating but I absolutely REFUSE to teach a student who's clearly not willing to learn.
You imply that I haven't managed to explain exactly how you've been committing the mentioned fallacies when the explanations are right there for everyone to see.
"Your counter argument assumes a definition of the word "telekinesis" THAT I WAS NOT EVEN USING!!! to establish that telekinesis (per your definition) is not required. By adjusting the definition that I was using and then assuming that definition when addressing the form of my argument you are not only committing a straw man fallacy but the rarely used fallacy of equivocation!"
In short, you were saying that my argument that "telekinesis would be required for the movement of our bodies if there were to be a causal relationship between thought and matter" was wrong by pointing out how that is not the case when using a definition of telekinesis that I was not using. This meets the fundamental nature of the fallacy of equivocation, as well as the straw man fallacy by attacking this argument of your own construction based on a distorted meaning of the word "telekinesis".
"(defaulting on "what science says" equates to an appeal to authority)"
"what science says" can be better termed as what scientific authorities say, which fully meets the definition of the appeal to authority fallacy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equivocation is not about using words incorrectly. Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are committing another straw man argument by neglecting to mention that my argument revolves around "decision" and then posting the heart beating example. We don't decide for our hearts to beat or for our body to function, it fortunately just does. When we make a movement, it is entirely intentional and decided.
My point was that the effect of any cause that has intent would more likely than not be realised in a manner that the mind behind the intent can understand. I fully intend to stand up and I perform this action willingly and consciously knowing that I can. If we were to assume that my decision is the original cause and me standing up is the final effect, it's simply more probable that my thought was used to directly carry out its intent in a manner that it understands, rather than in a manner that it doesn't understand that has the random (with respect to our intention) effect of carrying out our mind's wish. If you can't understand the logic behind that probability than I can't do anything further to help you. Logic at its very core cannot be explained, only understood
(I can prove this in a manner that I would go about proving the existence of an indivisible unit of time, space, or matter; involves [cause] ---> [cause X infinity] ---> [effect], and how [effect] can never be achieved with the presence of [cause X unfinity]).
([cause] can be substituted for [reason] and [effect] for [outcome])
(([reason] ---> [reason X infinity] ---> [outcome]))
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debating is about reaching an agreed truth. If you want your perception of the truth to be agreed upon, than you are fully obligated to present the evidence that explains your perception of the truth in an accessible and relevant manner.
edit - I succeed.
edit 2 - I didn't miss anything did I?
As for the validity of my usage of the word "telekinesis" I will again refer you to the urban dictionary and the internet which I think you'll find happen to agree with me on the matter.
Kidding of course, my usage has been more than verified by a valid source, whereby even assuming the processes that lead up to the body's movement and that all involve an application of physical force, an original application of non physical force would still be required.
Originally posted by CadoAngelus
I think the closest we've come to anything like this is a mixture of: prosthetic limbs, miniaturized medical life support machines, breathing apparatus built into a helmet, and a catheter bag...as for the rest of the technology:
- anyone who seriously argues the case for the creation of a lightsaber EVER has something wrong - or their heads are in the clouds...- flying cars are beyond comprehension - as the amount of thrust and power needed to run something like it as far off the ground as they do in SW is ridiculous
- blasters are unlikely - though it has been proven that lasers with intent to harm someone are not such a fantasy
- lifts and turbo lifts are a grey area for me...you don't really see enough in the saga and i've only really read a handful of books that include the lifts and basically nothing explains or tries to explain how they work
- "hyperspace" as we know it is too resource draining to realistically consider it - i think scientists have worked out it would take the equivalent power of several thousand suns, the size of ours, to achieve such speeds and even then: it's been mentioned about inertia and how it's unknown about the effects of light travel on the human body, and i've mentioned the existence of tiny particles and rocks that are randomized but scattered throughout space, and the likelihood of fly straight through them while traveling light speed is highly likely
- AI of that level is impossible i think. I don't even like to refer to it as AI, I don't believe a machine could learn to be self aware in the way that we think...I refer to it as VI (Virtual Intelligence)...
- and i can't think of anything else right now lol...mental block
So in other words:
We can't ever even come close to Star Wars, even though we're already close to it in many aspects.
We can't even invent blasters/a gun of that level, even though our guns are already very close to them in terms of power.
SW level AI is impossible, even though we've advanced extremely far in that area in just 50 or so years, so in billions/trillions/quadrillions of years we can't even invent a battle droid, whose "intelligence" is about the level of a wild animal.
Lifts are unlikely to ever be built, so in millions of years we can't even get a thing to lift off the ground like that.
Flying cars are "beyond comprehension (wtf?)" because obviously in billions of years we can't even invent cars that fly (and we can comprehend a billion years).
Whoever thinks that lightsabers are possible are crazy, so in billions of years (if we survive that long) we can't even invent a super powered glow stick.
🙄
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsallright
So in other words:We can't ever even come close to Star Wars, even though we're already close to it in many aspects.
We can't even invent blasters/a gun of that level, even though our guns are already very close to them in terms of power.correct
SW level AI is impossible, even though we've advanced extremely far in that area in just 50 or so years, so in billions/trillions/quadrillions of years we can't even invent a battle droid, whose "intelligence" is about the level of a wild animal.You got it.
Lifts are unlikely to ever be built, so in millions of years we can't even get a thing to lift off the ground like that.absolutely
Flying cars are "beyond comprehension (wtf?)" because obviously in billions of years we can't even invent cars that fly (and we can comprehend a billion years).possibly
Whoever thinks that lightsabers are possible are crazy, so in billions of years (if we survive that long) we can't even invent a super powered glow stick.Yes, very crazy.
🙄I believe that is everyone's reaction to your arguements.
People who say blasters are an impossability are wrong. Very wrong. The American Government has already developed a "laser cannon" that can take out missles. It is only a matter of time untill we have the technology to compress into a far smaller size. Of course, whether the gun is effective enough for its most likely absurdly high cost is a very diffrent subject.
[quote] We can't even invent blasters/a gun of that level, even though our guns are already very close to them in terms of power.[/quote]
[quote]
correct
The talk of a combat laser ignores the massive power requirements and (presently) bulky delivery method. Is it possible to advance lasers to a combat application? Possibly. Is it likely? No. Why not? Because lasers would not kill unless they hit a vital area. They would burn a hole through someone, relegating them to ceremonial executions, torture and construction applications.
SW level AI is impossible, even though we've advanced extremely far in that area in just 50 or so years, so in billions/trillions/quadrillions of years we can't even invent a battle droid, whose "intelligence" is about the level of a wild animal.[/quote]
[quote]
You got it.
Lifts are unlikely to ever be built, so in millions of years we can't even get a thing to lift off the ground like that.[/quote]
[quote]
absolutely
Flying cars are "beyond comprehension (wtf?)" because obviously in billions of years we can't even invent cars that fly (and we can comprehend a billion years).[/quote]
[quote]
possibly
Why do you think that this situation is unlikely? Why do you think humanity would attempt to develop flying cars? What technologies do you see today that could lead into such an invention?
If your point is merely that flying cars are physically possible then I refer you to the mechanics of thrust and gravity. Flying cars are dependent upon another magic-tech invention.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If you want to say that we could develop flying cars, given an unspecified number of prior advances of similarly vague and similarly science fiction-ey inventions, then yes. They are possible. But to suggest that we are anywhere close now or that they are a likely occurrence at all is simply false.
Whoever thinks that lightsabers are possible are crazy, so in billions of years (if we survive that long) we can't even invent a super powered glow stick.[/quote]
[quote]
Yes, very crazy.
A 'rolleyes smilie' is not a rebuttal to a position.
Spoiler:
Guys, plz dnt quote him, it makes it harder to ignore.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66The quintessential defense of an insecure little boy. Very succinct definition of him.
Honestly, I do need keep track of all that kinda stuff. I do know that we are no where near as advanced as SW technololgy. HWKA seems to be getting mad because people are not agreeing with him. He just calls everyone wrong, and instead of proving it he tries to make everyone seem like jokes.
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
So in other words:*We can't ever even come close to Star Wars*, even though we're already close to it in many aspects.
We can't even invent blasters/a gun of that level, even though our guns are already very close to them in terms of power.
SW level AI is impossible, even though we've advanced extremely far in that area in just 50 or so years, so in billions/trillions/quadrillions of years we can't even invent a battle droid, whose "intelligence" is about the level of a wild animal.
Lifts are unlikely to ever be built, so in millions of years we can't even get a thing to lift off the ground like that.
Flying cars are "beyond comprehension (wtf?)" because obviously in billions of years we can't even invent cars that fly (and we can comprehend a billion years).
Whoever thinks that lightsabers are possible are crazy, so in billions of years (if we survive that long) we can't even invent a super powered glow stick.
🙄