Logic doesn't require observation, but many previously made observations are taken into account when it is applied. Sometimes logic is used to prove that something people want to be true is true when in reality it doesn't prove a thing.
Usualy, if something isn't true, there is a logical way to explain it. You can prove and disprove things with logic. Just as with science. And with logic, and science aswell, you have people who don't understand how they work. And come to wrong conclusions.
But when logic dictates that X must be, then it must be. And no amount of science will ever change that fact. For instance. -- Thing X cannot build the thing that built Thing X. -- That fact will not ever change. So if someone tries to use science and they come to a different conclusion, then their method is wrong, without any need to investigate.
Logic is [should be] the first phase of verification for a claim. Unfortinatly, this is hardly the case.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
This seems to be true based on our experience (observations). Yet, by making this claim we assume that our observations are enough to make up rules on how this world works. We don't know if that claim is true, it just seems to be.
I didn't observe that. Its intuition. A thing cannot produce the very thing that made it.
Thing X cannot build the thing that built Thing X, This statement is true because a thing that does not exist, cannot do. So by implication, a thing that doesn't exist, cannot build the thing that gives it existance.
There was no observation required to come to this conclusion. Besides that, you cannot observe a thing that cannot be.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
You have never observed the opposite. If you claim that you can make up rules on how this world works just by intuition you are playing God or assuming your intuition is led by God. Sadly, we don't know if that's true.
I'll refrain from posting now.
The Creator gave everyone the logical utilities. A set of rules that people know about the world. When you throw them away, you are throwing away any form of a standard to judge the world around you.
This thread does have a habit of going off-topic.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
What you observe in the brain is its reaction to thought. Not the thought itself. Because those things you see, are not the same for every person, despite the fact that they are all told to think about the same thing.
What you observe in the brain is its production of a thought. (Reaction to thought? What the hell. The brain IS thought) Simply because we don't yet have the tools to understand the entire brain, and its network dynamics, doesn't mean they are not the same.
However, I might make a special case for you, because your brain might be located in a completely different location. This is evident, because you are clearly producing language from your rectal cavity.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Brain is not thought. Its an organ that deals with sensory organs.
When you look at an MRI or whatever tool, and observe the brain, the impulses you see are reactions to that creatures thoughts. They are not the thoughts themselves. Just like when you speak, its only a translation of your thoughts.
You have a person who loves beef, he thinks about a beef steak and you see a reaction to that thought taking place in the brain. Pleasure sections and imagery and smell sections all go off. As a reaction to that thought.
Also, DarkKobold, I realize you are a very simplistic person, unable to understand simplistic things. But you should not use name calling and insults to try to debate.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
I realize you are a very simplistic person,..... But you should not use name calling and insults to try to debate.
You are too much fun. Pot... kettle, black? This isn't a debate. A debate with an intellectual person would require arguments placed with some form of substantiation to the arguments being presented.
You are making bold statements of 'fact' without a shred of evidence to back your claims. It is impossible to argue with someone who doesn't have the slightest clue what they are talking about.
Your 'beef' example is laughable, seeing as there is plenty of evidenceyoudon'thavea clue.
Your beef recall is simply a hippocampal phenomenon which has been explored in both human experiments and animal models.
One of us is a scientist-in-training in the field in question, with mounds of prior research cited to support his claims, and the other is someone spouting off grandiose proclamations about the origin of thought and simply expecting the other party to accept them sans evidence.
There is no debate. You'd have to be able to form a coherent argument with evidence for me to remotely take you serious. I find you laughable.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
This is a debate, and you lost.
Btw, your "field" I pretty much write the whole thing off. As its merely speculation. And I don't make claims based on speculation. I gave you a logical explanation to your field. And you gave me appeal to authority fallacy. I am sure you think you have a point in there somewhere, you just lack the ability to articulate it, and to debate. You cannot use theories as evidence in a debate. Because theories are ideas that lack factal backing. And we are talking about facts.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
You can't have a debate in which one side simply discounts the other side's points out of hand. That's just a shouting match. A debate involves presentation of arguments, and their reasoned consideration by the other side, using logic and evidence derived from an accepted source (which could be, e.g., the Bible in a Christian religious debate, or Shakespeare in a literary debate, or Feynman's papers in a quantum mechanics debate).
You cannot use theories as evidence in a debate. Because theories are ideas that lack factal backing. And we are talking about facts.
Using what you say here, we cannot know anything. Things happen, and there is no use trying to speculate why they happen, because after all, we can never do better than a theory that might one day be disproven. Why do things fall? Who knows! We can theorize that there's something called "gravity" which attracts objects together, but after all, that's just a theory, never mind the amazing predictive power it gives us. We've used our theory of gravity to detect the existence of planets by the way their influence the motion of their stars, and then later seen those planets directly.
In short, facts are useless except in that they inform theories. You cannot, in fact, make an argument from facts without in the process creating a theory. Your theory in this case is that science is bunk; I'm not certain what facts you're operating from though you appear to be very certain of them. It's a pretty nihilistic theory, though, especially given the astounding improvements in quality of life that science has enabled for you.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Derekan you are pretty much wrong about most of that what you just stated. You are ignoring absolutes. [or you simply don't acknowledge they exist in the first place.] But I don't feel like arguing about it.
@moozooh
I don't know why I try. Some people are set in their beliefs and won't change, which, isn't a bad thing, unless your beliefs are wrong of course.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
No shit. I was being ironic. [because I am the one he should have been refering to]
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
Derekan you are pretty much wrong about most of that what you just stated. You are ignoring absolutes. [or you simply don't acknowledge they exist in the first place.] But I don't feel like arguing about it.
As I said, this isn't a debate; it's a shouting match. :)
I'm done.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
LOL, invisible argument! I lost to an invisible argument in this 'debate' decided by an invisible 3rd party moderator. I'll assume that this invisible 3rd party MUST be Chuck Norris. Thus, I quoth Ben Stiller, in saying "F'ing Chuck Norris."
Derakon wrote:
You can't have a debate in which one side simply discounts the other side's points out of hand. That's just a shouting match.
There was never a chance for a debate, as I said in my previous post. You need a rational person to bother with rational debate. I present an argument, and he randomly declares himself the victor. The pure 'monty-python-esque' absurdity of that made my day brighter.
moozooh wrote:
I don't know why you guys even bother trying.
It's sort of a cathartic break from work. I've got a paper to write, excuse me, mere speculation to perform.
"Hey guys! Lets play a game! Guess what, I win, you lose! Game over!"
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
DarkKobold, as said before, no need for Ad Hominem. We all, all of us. Agree and know that you are a simplistic person. You don't have to push it anymore by claiming I made no arguement, based on your inability to see the logic behind arguements higher than your ability to understand them.
Though, I forgive you, most people cannot grasp logic, so most people will tend to agree with you. That is the unfortinate thing about humanity, and one of the signs that humanity is devolving. Any linquist could tell you that.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
DarkKobold, as said before, no need for Ad Hominem. (Translation: No personal attacks)
FOLLOWED CLOSELY BY
sixofour wrote:
Agree and know that you are a simplistic person.
A PERSONAL ATTACK.
Also, all of us? Pretty much every response since my first has been... either you, or people disagreeing with you. Where are these people agreeing with you that I'm a simpleton? Oh, sorry, the voices in your head. That's the ticket.
Your logic is definitively on a plane of its own. I will 110% agree with you there. I can't argue with your logic. There is uh... nothing to argue with. I bow to your complete ability to say nothing substantive in many, many posts.
You continue to be good for a laugh.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Lol I'm not sorry, but you are an idiot. You come in here, say you are a leading scientist in what ever, you don't even post an opposing view to anything I said. And you claim I am pulling things out of thin air?
I posted a statement.
You walked in and said "I am a scientist"
I said "so"..
You said "so you come in posting a view backed by nothing, you are stupid, the fact that I am a scientist negates anything you say, even though I don't know what you are saying"...
Oh the irony in this. Derakon said it best. There is no debate here.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
Lol I'm not sorry, but you are an idiot. You come in here, say you are a leading scientist in what ever, you don't even post an opposing view to anything I said.
Didja see the links? The multiple links? Cllllleaaarrry not.
/jimsfriend: LOL.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
You posted links to stuff that isn't even relevent. I told you I don't accept speculation. No one in their right minds accepts random speculation from unknown websites wirtten by unknown people. If a few links is your best defence, then you have a pathetic defence.
If you really knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't even have to refer to some outside source, this isn't wikipedia. Citation doesn't win debates.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
