(5) It seems highly unlikely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance. — Noah Te Stroete

Argument from incredulity.

Perhaps you find this arguement compelling. — Noah Te Stroete

No, I don't find fallacious arguments compelling.

Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster — Devans99

Blessed be His divine Noodly Appendages. Ramen.

French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand. — SethRy

Ha, that's funny. That poor excuse of an argument could be used for practically anything, so it falls flat on it's face.

It's clear to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if you were only willing to believe, then it would be clear to you, too. And anyone who doesn't believe as I do just doesn't understand, given the vagueness of the evidence.

Now what that argues is that — there is more to comprehensive reality than what meets the eye. — SethRy

And all it does is make the proponent of the argument look like they haven't thought things through reasonably.

Seem to me you do not know what a category error is. Sugar is dangerous? Maybe sugar should be banned? Every thing is dangerous. Shall we ban everything? Or the reverse, everything is dangerous, so everything is ok? These are all implicated by your form of argument.
— tim wood

That is exactly what your argument looks like to me. That was the point. — ZhouBoTong

Yeah, that's pretty funny. You asked him whether all sugar should be banned because his bad argument could lead to that conclusion, and then his response is to try to turn that on you, as though it was an implication of your argument instead of his.

MIndless if done mindlessly. Not mindless if done not mindlessly. It appears you might be on the mindless side. Are you? — tim wood

Maybe, but I'm having fun.

It cannot do this without some variety of order, similar to the way a computer is nonfunctional without software.

If the source of how computers interact cooperatively with each other were asked, it would be insufficient to identify the hardware alone. For one thing, it couldn’t account for the variety of protocols that various computer networks may use. — praxis

Are you a dualist, then? Physical and mental? I'm not sure where I stand on that, but explanations in terms of the physical can explain quite a bit. It seems uncharitable to call them inadequate. I'm both amazed and fascinated by how much we've already discovered.

Answer: of course it doesn't necessarily, and even if it does to some extent, the community isn't everything. It is pretty mindless to just assume that the right thing to do is to just submit to the status quo, as reflected in the community.

The community says, "Drugs are bad, mmmkay", and the individual is just supposed to respond, "Oh, alright then".

From a reductionist position (which science is generally inclined toward) it is perfectly non-shocking to view emotions as redundant if we’re looking at events as part of causal chain without applying emotional weight to them - again the mainstay of the scientific endeavor; to distance the gathering of data from emotional interpretations). — I like sushi

That's very different to how I interpreted the statement. To state that emotions are redundant is to suggest that they have no function, serve no purpose, are of no use or benefit. And this was in the context of evolution. That seems obviously wrong on scientific grounds. Think fight or flight, social hierarchies, building relationships, dominance, courtship, survival, and so on.

Sometimes I wonder whether people here are reading the same thing that I'm reading. Here is what I was responding to:

"But then I am forced to consider why evolution would develop such a redundant mechanism as emotion to begin with".

That is a shocking thing to say.

Let's just look at some information on the amygdala, which is part of the limbic system in our brain:

Amygdala

The amygdalas are two almond-shaped masses of neurons on either side of the thalamus at the lower end of the hippocampus. When it is stimulated electrically, animals respond with aggression. And if the amygdala is removed, animals get very tame and no longer respond to things that would have caused rage before. But there is more to it than just anger: When removed, animals also become indifferent to stimuli that would have otherwise have caused fear and even sexual responses.

But then I am forced to consider why evolution would develop such a redundant mechanism as emotion to begin with. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's pretty shocking to call emotion redundant.

I haven't read that, or any other scientific studies on the matter, and I'm largely ignorant of science, but it must be inadequate.

Apparently that's what passes for good philosophy these days. Take note, people.

Your pity is misplaced: He is His Own Champion, a Legend in His Own Mind. — Janus

:wink: :point:

What you quote is my interpretation of S’s illustrious analogy and not something I would say, in case that isn’t clear. — praxis

Have you tried a more charitable interpretation? That might help. Or maybe just reading what I said?

You're not claiming that people's lives do not have a mental component, presumably. So how is this evidence of moral significance being extramental? — Terrapin Station

Talking past each other again?

You could offer evidence otherwise if you want to argue that. Offer evidence that the judgment whether any behavior is moral (or alternately the conceptual application of some behavior having to do with morality rather than something else) can occur outside of brains. I'll look at the evidence in question if you want to suggest something. — Terrapin Station

This is where I predict he'll say something about communities, seemingly oblivious to the fact that communities are made up of people with brains, meaning that his proposed explanation is only getting further away from the source, not closer to it.

No, they're laughing because you are either naked or your clothes are transparent!
:rofl: — Janus

What lovely green eyes you have.

Aren't there a number of people participating in threads here? — Terrapin Station

There are a number of people participating in threads here. One of those people is sharing magnificent thoughts. And then there's a group which crowds together to pooh-pooh them because they're jealous. :smirk:

Re S's question re the analogy, I'd have to read back through a number of posts. In longer threads like this, where people are posting a lot of long replies, I don't read most of what people are writing--on purpose, because I think that it's problematic that we type so much and gloss over so many issues so quickly. — Terrapin Station

I reckon you would've got it. Or at least come closer to getting it than other attempts. I doubt you would've responded with some irrelevant nonsense consisting of associating cars with nature and flying with nurture.

What I find amusing is that I made the point in plain language right before I first gave the analogy, yet somehow you still managed to miss it and go on about something else entirely. Your entire objection can be summed in that way: cars are rubbish because they don't fly, and my explanation is inadequate because it doesn't explain your unreasonable expectations of it.

My intention wasn't to kill anyone's buzz. It's just that I had that quote in mind during our whole back and fourth. I feel guilty about it. The last thing you want to do is annoy the owner of this site. — Purple Pond

The last thing you want to do, you mean. Anyway, stop it now. You're just encouraging me to respond with more inappropriate humour. I can't help myself. It's the crack cocaine to my Whitney Houston.

Would you like to take a stab at the point I was making with my analogy? Something tells me that you'll fare better than certain others.

There are two possibilities:

1) You don't understand what you're trying to convey well enough to communicate it succinctly.
2) You're unwilling to communicate your point for some reason, perhaps out of mischievousness or embarrassment of its inadequacy.
3) I'm too dumb to comprehend your magnificent thoughts. — praxis

Two possibilities and an actuality.

Kids tend not to be as quick-witted. And it's a dead thread in any case. But, if you insist, Buzz Killington. I'll find some other way to amuse myself for a while.

Apparently not good in finding abbreviation, as not good in philosophy ,,,, wondering what else can you be good at??? anyways....moving forward..... :) — RBS

Well, I'm good in bed. Or so my mother says.

Until recently, I thought that I was good at punctuation, but it turns out that I wasn't using enough punctuation marks. You, on the other hand, seem to have nailed it. Where did you learn how to do that? Was that something you picked up during your time at the Royal Bank of Scotland?

In my professional opinion, I think it would've been a better ending if, instead of saying to herself, "Justice!", she said to herself, "Horseradish!".

Anyway, what made you decide to name yourself after the Royal Bank of Scotland?

dude why would you do that to poor S.... — RBS

It's mere-s. Get it right.

I see I'm fighting a losing rap battle. You're really good at being brap brap brap to other people. I'm not.

And I'm American. — Purple Pond

You realise we're in public, right?

You misspelt "poser".

Well, at least you tried.

I really admire your sense of humor. I really do. Not everyone can talk about bashing people in the head with a case, and laugh about it. You really have a skill there. — Purple Pond

Thanks. I really believe you. I really do. I think it might have something to with the fact that I'm British. Or the fact that I'm a serial killer.

By the way, I apologize to anyone who had to read that arrogant-sounding reveal. — Baden

Accepterly apologed. You should be more modest, like me.

It was said in a moment of high irritation. — Baden

Yeah. You should be more coolheaded, like me.

Anyway, it's obvious my mental gym is better equipped than S's but @fdrake has us both well covered, methinks. — Baden

Methinks "methinks" sounds like you're trying too hard to sound like an intelekuwal.

I see I'm fighting a losing battle. You're really good at being nasty to other people. I'm not. — Purple Pond

Sheesh. I'm glad you have a sense of humour about these things instead of taking it personally. I bet you'd be real fun to be around at a stand-up comedy gig. If it makes you feel any better, I'll raise the two to a three, because now I feel sorry for you.

Not throwing gay people of buildings is better. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes. Yes, it is. And the West doesn't do this, or at least nothing like the extent to which that sort of thing happens in other places. So the West is better in this respect than those other places.

It is possible to make an overall assessment based on things like that, and to reasonably reach the conclusion that the West is significantly better than these other places with a horribly homophobic culture, and a greater rate of hate crime against gay people, and that sort of thing.

It's appalling that this schmuck is trying to draw a false equivalence, and seems to think that he's being fair or honourable in doing so. It's actually ignorant and disgraceful.

This doesn't make The West better than everyone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

[Mod deletion applied]

Please try to stick to claim that was being disputed.

Nonsense. You can't even simultaneously hold a case and walk with it. — Purple Pond

Nonsense. I just did all of that whilst eating a three course meal, performing a cartwheel, and banging your mum.

As it happens, I have a degree (Zoology)...And with regard to your earlier complaints about me correcting your language, I have a degree in that too and have taught at universities up to Master's level in the field. -- Baden

I rest my case. — Purple Pond

I pick up your case. Walk over to you with it in my hand. And swing it as hard as I can, aiming for the back of your head. I then let out a warrior cry as the impact of the blow fractures your skull, and you collapse to the floor in a pool of blood.

The main point is we think in stereo whereas S and co are stuck in boring mono-mentalicity. — Baden

I think I just interpreted the opening post more dohaggertertially than you two. I think the original poster meant thinking the sentences in an auditory manner, not a visual manner, for example.

It's relevant to the point I was making. Don't tell me you're from England when you have dog shit in your yard. If you're going to have the dialectical point of view of arguing on the position of the West superiority, make sure you cover the issues in your neck of the woods. — Anaxagoras

I haven't denied any of the "dog shit" in my "yard". Stop trying to spin your own narrative and try to be reasonable. Pointing to particular extreme cases doesn't support your original claim. I am more than capable of bringing up such domestic crimes myself, but I haven't done so because it wouldn't change anything, logically. You are missing the point, and you are being unreasonably defensive.

What was my original claim? — Anaxagoras

You must be trolling. I quoted it in that same reply.

Again, your [you're!] English [comma!] so obviously your bias is showing. I'm of a minority class [comma!] and obviously I see the position differently than you do [full stop!] I think we need to address that. — Anaxagoras

Ah. Yes. Obviously.

I'm the one who's biased.

Because I happen to be English.

:eyes:

Ah [comma!] another fallacy [comma!] because I brought up something that happens in YOUR your country? — Anaxagoras

Yes, a fallacy of irrelevance, because bringing up something that happens in my country doesn't address the point.

I just applied the principle of flabberty and assumed that he meant to pick an example along those lines which is actually impossible. The difficulty can be increased with two statements of greater dissimilarity in wording, and greater length.

You guys should apply the principle of dohaggerty.