PDA

View Full Version : The Fallacy of Composition

Pages : [1] 2

whitefork
24th October 2002, 03:49 PM
I think we need to collect these variants and critique them:

Geometric figures are made of points
Points have no dimension
Geometric figures have no dimension

Geometric figures are made of lines between points
Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures have one dimension

Atoms are lifeless
You are lifeless

Atoms are colorless
You are colorless

Things exist in space
The universe is made of things
The universe exists in space

Things exist in time
The universe is made of things
The universe exists in time

A thing exists if it interacts physically with other things
The universe is made of things
The universe interacts physically with other things

Fallacies of composition consist of three statements
This list consists of fallacies of composition
This list consists of three statements

NEXT!?

Franko
24th October 2002, 08:13 PM
Geometric figures are made of points
Points have no dimension
Geometric figures have no dimension

With a proper definition of “dimension” this syllogism is instantly FALSE.

Dimension = two or more points on a plane not occupying the same coordinates.

Geometric figures are made of lines between points
Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures have one dimension

Same as above, but now you also need a proper definition of “line”

Line = a ray between two points on a plane not occupying the same coordinates.

Atoms are lifeless
You are lifeless

Define lifeless.

Atoms are colorless
You are colorless

Atoms are not colorless. Atoms emit photons, and photons generate color for the atoms.

You didn’t define “Atoms”

Things exist in space
The universe is made of things
The universe exists in space

This one just doesn’t make any sense.

Things exist in time
The universe is made of things
The universe exists in time

That’s TRUE.

A thing exists if it interacts physically with other things
The universe is made of things
The universe interacts physically with other things

That’s TRUE.

Fallacies of composition consist of three statements
This list consists of fallacies of composition
This list consists of three statements

F = 3
L = F + F + …
L = 3 (???)

Whitefork … this isn’t the first time you have posted this stuff. I get the sense that you really really don’t want this syllogism to be TRUE:

Atoms obey the laws of Physics (A < P)
You are made of Atoms (Y = A)
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS (Y < P).

But not understanding how syllogism’s work, is not going to make this syllogism FALSE.

… and it doesn’t matter if you post a million faulty ones, that won’t magically change mine from TRUE to FALSE.

The Fool
24th October 2002, 08:24 PM
Franko is now peddling this dead horse on deism.org again (as "wraith") since his banning as "serpent". The people on that board are just as unimpressed with his "atoms obey" fallacy.

Franko seems to be restraining the potty mouth (as "wraith") on the deism board, he probably wants to last a little longer this time....

I don't regard this as a violation of my decision to stop putting coins in Franko to make him dance, I'm talking about him....not too him.

Checkmite
24th October 2002, 09:10 PM
Does anyone think I ought to be a participant on the Deism.org forum as well?

Franko
24th October 2002, 09:32 PM
Ohh -- you'd fit right in there jkorsi ... they'd love you over there ...

ImpyTimpy
24th October 2002, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Franko

Same as above, but now you also need a proper definition of “line”

Line = a ray between two points on a plane not occupying the same coordinates.

Now that's just pathetic. The original argument still holds because a geometric figure's points do not occupy the same coordinates:

Geometric figures are made of lines between points
Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures have one dimension

Atoms are not colorless. Atoms emit photons, and photons generate color for the atoms.

You didn’t define “Atoms”

Wrong again... Photons are excessive energy which is dumped by an electron moving from a higher to lower orbit. The photon itself has no colour, it has a frequency. Only certain frequencies are visible, which are produced by only a few atoms. Therefore rest of these photons (and therefore) atoms are LITERALLY colourless.......

<snipped the rest due to ad naseum>

Franko
24th October 2002, 10:20 PM
Geometric figures are made of lines between points
Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures have one dimension

Are all of you A-Theists Logically incapable or something? It is some sort of genetic defect – I’d swear …

Do lines between points (obviously implying multiple lines) have ONE DIMENSION?

[Define “atoms” …]Wrong again... Photons are excessive energy which is dumped by an electron moving from a higher to lower orbit. The photon itself has no colour, it has a frequency. Only certain frequencies are visible, which are produced by only a few atoms. Therefore rest of these photons (and therefore) atoms are LITERALLY colourless.......

Right … and do you “see” those particular atoms? The ones not emitting visible photons? Did you have a relevant point to make? … don’t tell me you are going to start stalking me now, too?

Upchurch
24th October 2002, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Wrong again... Photons are excessive energy which is dumped by an electron moving from a higher to lower orbit. The photon itself has no colour, it has a frequency. Only certain frequencies are visible, which are produced by only a few atoms. Therefore rest of these photons (and therefore) atoms are LITERALLY colourless.......
Actually, that's not entirely true. The frequencies below the visible spectrum are called infrared in color and those above are called ultraviolet. And the visual spectrum is different from species to species, just because we can't see every color is no reason to say that the color does not exist.

Please pardon the intrusion. I have no interest in being drawn back into the flame war, just wanted to correct that minor point.

Upchurch

Checkmite
24th October 2002, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Franko

Do lines between points (obviously implying multiple lines) have ONE DIMENSION?

Lines that are drawn between two points, or along a series of several points, have one dimension - Length. Remember, a line which changes direction - even slightly - somewhere along it's length is no longer a line, but is a curve or an angle, depending on the circumstances.

For example, a line that spans the distance between point A and point B is line AB. If it started at point A, and ends at point E while travelling through points B, C, and D, it is called line AE. If the line starts at A and curves toward point B, it becomes curve AB. A line which starts at point A, reaches point B and changes direction there, travelling then straight to point C is called angle ABC, and consists of two line segments, line segment AB and line segment BC.

ArmchairPhysicist
25th October 2002, 06:43 PM
Atoms obey the laws of Physics

This is simply not true. Atoms *define* the laws of physics. By observing atoms, we have found certain predictable characteristics about their existance. In a number of these observations, we have found certain consistancies in their activities. These consistancies have been defined as "Laws" because they have always held true in every observation made. Further experimenting has shown that in every possible scenario, these consistancies have always held true. Atoms do not "obey" these laws, the laws are observations of these atoms.

While it is a popular phrase, "Obeying the laws of physics" it is quite misleading. If you take any object, observe it, and declare what it is doing, you can say the object is now obeying your declaration. If fact, the object is simply doing what it is doing. You making a declaration regarding what the object will do will have no effect on what it does; it is not "obeying" your declaration, you are making a declaration based on what it does.

So, the syllogism is quite false.

Franko
25th October 2002, 07:12 PM
[Atoms obey the laws of physics …] This is simply not true. Atoms *define* the laws of physics. By observing atoms, we have found certain predictable characteristics about their existance. In a number of these observations, we have found certain consistancies in their activities. These consistancies have been defined as "Laws" because they have always held true in every observation made. Further experimenting has shown that in every possible scenario, these consistancies have always held true. Atoms do not "obey" these laws, the laws are observations of these atoms.

So if atoms are never observed NOT to obey the laws, how can you be claiming that you have EVIDENCE that Atoms do NOT OBEY the laws of physics??? You said: This is simply not true. How is it NOT True according to what you just said?

While it is a popular phrase, "Obeying the laws of physics" it is quite misleading. If you take any object, observe it, and declare what it is doing, you can say the object is now obeying your declaration. If fact, the object is simply doing what it is doing. You making a declaration regarding what the object will do will have no effect on what it does; it is not "obeying" your declaration, you are making a declaration based on what it does.

… And it does what it does, because it is OBEYING the Laws of Physics.

So, the syllogism is quite false.

… Only if your dreams come True.

Tricky
25th October 2002, 10:42 PM
Admittedly Franko's sillygism contains a fallacy of composition, but it is really not important. Even if you accept it as true it says nothing about any point he is trying to make.

For example, where is the logical proof that says "if you obey TLOP (or even PLOP) you have no free will"?

Where is the logical proof that says "If you obey TLOP/PLOP then souls are gravitons"?

How about "TLOP/PLOP say Hell exists".

No, the sillygism is really unimportant. In fact it is arguably close to being correct. What we haven't seen is any other statement of logic that supports his further assumptions. All we have seen is hypothetical and rhetorical questions. It seems odd that this "religion" which is supposedly based on logic, cannot create more one logical statement, and a flawed one at that.

Franko
26th October 2002, 12:34 AM
Admittedly Franko's sillygism [trixy expressing his objectivity] contains a fallacy of composition, but it is really not important. Even if you accept it as true it says nothing about any point he is trying to make.

Really? So when you drive (control) your Car, who is more conscious – you or the Car?

So when TLOP controls you, who is more conscious – You or TLOP?

For example, where is the logical proof that says "if you obey TLOP (or even PLOP) you have no free will"?

Where is the logical proof that says “If you obey TLOP you do have “free will””?

How can something control you utterly and yet you claim to have “freedom of action”? How does that make ANY sense? Can you even define “free will”? You actions are the result of deterministic chemical reactions and nothing more. Are you claiming that your mind somehow controls the forces of nature? The forces of nature control your mind.

Where is the logical proof that says "If you obey TLOP/PLOP then souls are gravitons"?

So something NOT proven TRUE is automatically FALSE in your mind?

Is something NOT proven FALSE similarly automatically TRUE in your mind?

If not, why not? Why the double standard? Or do you only apply these rules as suits you when they subjectively agree or disagree with your a priori fantasy beliefs?

How about "TLOP/PLOP say Hell exists".

If you have no evidence this is True, and no evidence that this is False, then it is an Unknown. Of course I am guessing that you can magically divine that it is FALSE somehow. If you ever care to explain how your “magical powers” actually work, let me know. I can always use a good laugh.

No, the sillygism is really unimportant.

Ohh, I bet you have been praying a lot lately that this were TRUE.

In fact it is arguably close to being correct. What we haven't seen is any other statement of logic that supports his further assumptions.

And what of your “further assumptions” why don’t they have to be proven?

Are Cars more conscious then their Drivers?

What makes you believe that You are more conscious the Tlop?

What is your evidence or reason for believing in “free will”?

If there is no evidence for “God”, and so you say NO GOD, then why is it that there is no evidence for “free will”, yet you claim FREE WILL EXIST? Why the double standard? Why do you believe that your religious dogma is so special? Why do you believe that your assertions do not have to be logical proven, only the religious beliefs of others? Is it because your religion is more True then the others? Don’t all religions claim that? Why should I believe your religious claims?

All we have seen is hypothetical and rhetorical questions. It seems odd that this "religion" which is supposedly based on logic, cannot create more one logical statement, and a flawed one at that.

Where exactly is the “flaw”? I didn’t see it in your post, just a lot of your typical mumbo-jumbo. That “flaw” you A-Theists keep talking about seems about as invisible as the Christian God.

You believe that there is evidence for “free will”, what is the evidence?

If you believe that things which control other things are less conscious (Tlop) then the things they control (You), can you please provide your evidence that your Car is more conscious then you are?

evildave
26th October 2002, 01:03 AM
If all of this is given all this as read, what makes you think your 'godess' has any free will of its own?

ArmchairPhysicist
26th October 2002, 01:12 AM
Admittedly Franko's sillygism contains a fallacy of composition, but it is really not important. Even if you accept it as true it says nothing about any point he is trying to make

Now that you mention it, what point is he trying to make?

ArmchairPhysicist
26th October 2002, 01:32 AM
Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as free will?

If that's your statement, would you define the term Free Will, and explain how it does not exist (according to that definition)?

wraith
26th October 2002, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by The Fool
Franko is now peddling this dead horse on deism.org again (as "wraith") since his banning as "serpent". The people on that board are just as unimpressed with his "atoms obey" fallacy.

Franko seems to be restraining the potty mouth (as "wraith") on the deism board, he probably wants to last a little longer this time....

I don't regard this as a violation of my decision to stop putting coins in Franko to make him dance, I'm talking about him....not too him.

hahaha
You really are a credit to your name...Ill give you that much

wraith
26th October 2002, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Whodini

Here is a recent exchange over there:

wraith wrote

----
atoms obey the TLOP
you obey TLOP
----

Some one else responded

----
NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! Are we at this argument again?
----

See Franko, everyone is tired of your ********.

Actually, that was I that posted that "********"

Though your attempt to sound cool was dearly noted lol

Tricky
26th October 2002, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Franko

Really? So when you drive (control) your Car, who is more conscious – you or the Car?

So when TLOP controls you, who is more conscious – You or TLOP?

I am more conscious than the car. By itself, the car has no conscious volition.

TLOP/PLOP do not control me in the sense of dictating my every move (and you have never given the logic/evidence that supports your claim that they do.)

Imagine there were a PLOT (Perfect laws of Traffic), which you could not disobey. It would be impossible to run a red light or make an illegal turn. The PLOT would still not decide for you whether to turn right, turn left or go straight at an intersection (provided you broke no laws in doing so). In the same way, the PLOP restrict what is possible, but do not control you. I don't see how that could be any clearer, Franko, that TLOP/PLOP do not prohibit free will.

I have answered your question and explained my answer. Please do not claim later that I have not done so. The possibility that you will not accept my answer and explanation does not mean they were never made.

Originally posted by Franko

How can something control you utterly and yet you claim to have “freedom of action”? How does that make ANY sense? Can you even define “free will”? You actions are the result of deterministic chemical reactions and nothing more. Are you claiming that your mind somehow controls the forces of nature? The forces of nature control your mind.
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. See the above example. Living within the "laws of nature" does not imply having each decision dictated by the same.

Originally posted by Franko
So something NOT proven TRUE is automatically FALSE in your mind?
Of course not, however, you have occasionally claimed exactly that. Recall once when I asked you for evidence, your reply was "The evidence is: There is no evidence against it". In fact, this is the basis of you strawman A-Theism. If you are now saying that taking the stance that God is not proven true is not the same as saying God is false, then you are finally accepting that your previous definitions of atheism were incorrect. This is a breakthrough of monumental proportions.

Originally posted by Franko

Is something NOT proven FALSE similarly automatically TRUE in your mind?
No. For the same reason as above. In my mind, there is nothing that is 100% true or 100% false. The proportion of belief I give to anything is based on evidence. That is why I regard Logical Deism as having about a .00001% possibility of truth. Show me some evidence (hint: rhetorical questions are not evidence) and those percentages may jump up.
Originally posted by Franko
If not, why not? Why the double standard? Or do you only apply these rules as suits you when they subjectively agree or disagree with your a priori fantasy beliefs?
You are the one that is claiming your fantasy beliefs are true because there is no evidence against them. As for my beliefs, you have never correctly represented a single one of them, so it is rather disingenious to call them fantasy.

Originally posted by Franko
If there is no evidence for “God”, and so you say NO GOD, then why is it that there is no evidence for “free will”, yet you claim FREE WILL EXIST? Why the double standard? Why do you believe that your religious dogma is so special? Why do you believe that your assertions do not have to be logical proven, only the religious beliefs of others? Is it because your religion is more True then the others? Don’t all religions claim that? Why should I believe your religious claims?

A) I don't say "NO GOD". That is your strawman.
B) I have a great deal of evidence for free will. Every decision I make is evidence of free will. You have presented not a single shred of evidence that this is anything other than free will.
BTW: Logic is not evidence. Here is a perfectly logical statement:

All Logical Deists are idiots
Franko is a Logical Deist
Franko is an idiot

This statement is perfectly logical. By your definition, that makes it at least evidence, if not proof.

Originally posted by Franko
Where exactly is the “flaw”? I didn’t see it in your post, just a lot of your typical mumbo-jumbo. That “flaw” you A-Theists keep talking about seems about as invisible as the Christian God.
Here is the flaw, Franko, one that you have steadfastly refused to address

Which of these statements is inconsistant with Logical Deism?
1) You cannot Choose

Originally posted by Franko

You believe that there is evidence for “free will”, what is the evidence?
Every decision I make is evidence. For example, I have decided to answer this post. I don't answer all of your posts. You have exercised your free will by refusing to answer my question about the flaw in Logical Deism. All these "choices" are evidence.

Show me your evidence that these choices are made by someone other than ourselves. Remember, logic and rhetorical questions are not evidence.

Originally posted by Franko
If you believe that things which control other things are less conscious (Tlop) then the things they control (You), can you please provide your evidence that your Car is more conscious then you are?
I think you meant "less" conscious. I think it unlikely that I would find evidence for your foolish contention.

But is a simple test that will give you evidence that you are more conscious than your car.

1) Drive to the gas station.

(I would love to see the evidence that your car can make such a conscious decision.)
**********
Just as an excercise, Franko. See if you can respond with statements rather than questions as I have done above, if your goddess will allow you to do so.

Franko
26th October 2002, 09:48 AM
Armchairquaterback

Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as free will?

If that's your statement, would you define the term Free Will, and explain how it does not exist (according to that definition)?

Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as God?

If that's your statement, would you define the term God, and explain how it does not exist(according to that definition)?

Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as afterlife?

If that's your statement, would you define the term afterlife, and explain how it does not exist (according to that definition)?

Franko
26th October 2002, 10:36 AM
Tricky,

I am more conscious than the car. By itself, the car has no conscious volition.

TLOP is more conscious than the YOU. By yourself, YOU have no conscious volition (you just obey TLOP)

TLOP/PLOP do not control me in the sense of dictating my every move (and you have never given the logic/evidence that supports your claim that they do.)

You are making the claim of “free will”; therefore the burden of proof falls on YOU to demonstrate its existence (just like the burden of proof is on a Christian to demonstrate his “God”).

… So any time you are ready to demonstrate your ability to NOT obey TLOP please let us all know (… and perhaps you should contact your buddy Randi and let him know you will be taking his million dollars).

Imagine there were a PLOT (Perfect laws of Traffic), which you could not disobey. It would be impossible to run a red light or make an illegal turn. The PLOT would still not decide for you whether to turn right, turn left or go straight at an intersection (provided you broke no laws in doing so). In the same way, the PLOP restrict what is possible, but do not control you. I don't see how that could be any clearer, Franko, that TLOP/PLOP do not prohibit free will.

Your example is rather unclear to say the least. I do not see the point you are getting at? What makes you believe you are not OBEYING TLOP? What is your empirical evidence that you can defy TLOP?

I have answered your question and explained my answer. Please do not claim later that I have not done so. The possibility that you will not accept my answer and explanation does not mean they were never made.

You are claiming that you do NOT obey the laws of Physics. Until you can PROVE this assertion; until you can demonstrate that it is TRUE, I will accept no answer or explanation you offer as EVIDENCE of your absurd wishful thinking.

You A-Theists need to learn, that claiming something is TRUE (Wishing it is True) does NOT actually make it TRUE in reality. Proving a claim TRUE actually requires an inescapable Logical argument, or some other form of empirical evidence.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. See the above example. Living within the "laws of nature" does not imply having each decision dictated by the same.

So the Moon “lives” within the “laws of nature”, does it also have “free will”. Are the Moons actions/motions also NOT dictated by the “laws of nature”? If not, then why do you have “free will”, but not rocks or the Moon? Do animals have “free will”, or is “free will” reserved for Human Beings? Do plants have “free will”? How about a Zygote? How about sperms – do individual sperms also have “free will”? What is your evidence for your claim? At what point in the evolutionary scale does “free will” emerge?

[ So something NOT proven TRUE is automatically FALSE in your mind …] Of course not, however, you have occasionally claimed exactly that. Recall once when I asked you for evidence, your reply was "The evidence is: There is no evidence against it". In fact, this is the basis of you strawman A-Theism. If you are now saying that taking the stance that God is not proven true is not the same as saying God is false, then you are finally accepting that your previous definitions of atheism were incorrect. This is a breakthrough of monumental proportions.

1) True
2) False
3) Unknown

The “default position” is always #3 – UNKNOWN. It is you, TP, Vicky D, and all the rest of the A-Theists who have consistently claimed that the “default position” is actually #2 – FALSE. If this is NOT the case, then why do you call your self A-Theist in the first place???

You have no evidence for God, You have no evidence against God, so your default position should be #3 – UNKNOWN, i.e. AGNOSTICISM. But instead of intellectual honesty you prefer intellectual deceit; you want to claim that NO evidence for “God” actually means God = FALSE.

So what is your evidence that there is NO GOD?

The fact of the matter is YOU HAVE NONE, and instead of being honest and claiming Agnosticism you want to pretend that you know more than you actually know and claim God = FALSE, i.e. A-Theism.

You might as well be claiming that when there is no evidence something is FALSE, that makes it automatically TRUE. Logically what you are claiming is NO different at all.

You are the one that is claiming your fantasy beliefs are true because there is no evidence against them. As for my beliefs, you have never correctly represented a single one of them, so it is rather disingenious to call them fantasy.

You labeled yourself as Atheist. I had nothing to do with it, so who is really being disingenuous?

… and if I have made a claim that something is either True or False then rest assured it is only because I have evidence that it is True or False.

You on the other hand have said Time and Time again, that the default position is FALSE, and that if there is no evidence a thing is TRUE, it is automatically FALSE. This is what got you so upset before – when you had to go running to Randi, because I kept challenging you on this point, and demonstrating how ridiculous absurd it was to claim so.

I can see that now you want to pretend that you NEVER made this claim. If that is the case, then please provide your evidence which demonstrates the NON-EXISTENCE of God. If you cannot do this, then why claim NO GOD (God = False)? Why not be honest and call yourself AGNOSTIC?

Also Since you claim that you do not believe something unproven False is True, then please provide your empirical evidence which supports the existence of “free will”. If you believe in “free will” then you must have evidence for its existence. What is this evidence (other than you want it to be true)?

A) I don't say "NO GOD". That is your strawman.

So are you changing the label by which you call yourself?

Are you conceding to Agnosticism and admitting your belief in Atheism was flawed?

B) I have a great deal of evidence for free will. Every decision I make is evidence of free will. You have presented not a single shred of evidence that this is anything other than free will.

I have a great deal of evidence for God. Every instant I am alive is evidence of God. You have presented not a single shred of evidence that this is anything other than God.

Is that what you call Logic Trixy? I’d love to see you explain why your statement proves “free will”, and mine does not prove “God”, but I know you won’t even bother to address it. Intellectual honesty in these debates has NEVER been your hallmark.

BTW: Logic is not evidence. Here is a perfectly logical statement:

All Logical Deists are idiots
Franko is a Logical Deist
Franko is an idiot

This statement is perfectly logical. By your definition, that makes it at least evidence, if not proof.

Well it is definitely evidence of Something, Trixy, I personally won’t call it logic, but I will leave that for the reader to decide.

Here is the flaw, Franko, one that you have steadfastly refused to address

Which of these statements is inconsistant with Logical Deism?
1) You cannot Choose

I explained this in detail in a post the other day to Loki. I know that you read that post as well. Why do you want me to repost it yet again?

If statement #1 is true, and you cannot choose, then statement #2 must be false. So there you go Trixy your question doesn’t even make sense.

If you are claiming that you can defy the laws of physics simply provide your evidence for this belief. If you are claiming that there are no consequences for your actions, please provide your evidence for this belief.

The problem is your religious dogma (i.e. your belief in “free will”, and non-belief in “god”) have left you ill prepared to deal with reality the way reality actually is. You have come to believe that the universe conforms to you’re A-Theist Fantasies, and you seem unable to shatter those myths in the face of obvious errors.

[whats your evidence for “free will”? …] Every decision I make is evidence.

Ahhh … so testimonials constitute empirical evidence now? I guess the fact that a lot of people say John Edwards can talk to the dead makes that true also?

For example, I have decided to answer this post.

You didn’t decide. Chemicals reactions in your brain forced you to respond. Are you claiming that your consciousness somehow magically disobeyed the laws of physics to make this post?

So not answering my posts constitutes evidence of your consciousness disobeying the laws of physics?

You have exercised your free will by refusing to answer my question about the flaw in Logical Deism. All these "choices" are evidence.

1) I NEVER exercise “free will” because no such thing exist.
2) There are no flaws in Logical Deism, at least none that you are capable of perceiving.
3) You claiming “free will” no more proves “free will”, then a Christian claiming “god”, proves “god”. If this is incorrect, please explain why your claims are always True without evidence, but NOT a Christians claims?

Show me your evidence that these choices are made by someone other than ourselves. Remember, logic and rhetorical questions are not evidence.

Sure they are. SO long as they are TRUE:

Atoms obey the laws of Physics.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

You yourself admitted this was True Trixy. Are you claiming that it is untrue now? One way or the other … what is the evidence for all of your silly irrational claims? You are nothing more than a religious fanatic – admit it.

Franko:
If you believe that things which control other things are less conscious (Tlop) then the things they control (You), can you please provide your evidence that your Car is more conscious then you are?

Tricky:
I think you meant "less" conscious. I think it unlikely that I would find evidence for your foolish contention.

You are the one making the foolish contention.

You claim that there is no evidence for “God”. What is your standard of “evidence”?

TLOP controls you.

You are more conscious then your Car.
TLOP is more conscious then You.

Its that simple.

But is a simple test that will give you evidence that you are more conscious than your car.

1) Drive to the gas station.

(I would love to see the evidence that your car can make such a conscious decision.)

I am still waiting for you to prove “free will” so I can see evidence that YOU are capable of making a conscious decision …

evildave
26th October 2002, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Franko

Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as God?

If that's your statement, would you define the term God, and explain how it does not exist(according to that definition)?

Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as afterlife?

If that's your statement, would you define the term afterlife, and explain how it does not exist (according to that definition)?

Prove they do exist.

You know nobody can so much as prove Aquaman doesn't exist to the satisfaction of someone who pathologically asserts he does.

Oh, but we have no evidence but your WORD they do?

Gosh, and your WORD is valued so highly here, and yet nobody believes you?

Franko
26th October 2002, 02:17 PM
Evildaveybuoy,

[God, afterlife, etc. …] Prove they do exist.

Ohhh -- you first! How’s about you proving dat dere “free will” you A-Theists are always talking about. … and then you can prove that your consciousness is NOT algorithmic in nature, and instead it is a “magical” thing that does not obey any logical rules.

You know nobody can so much as prove Aquaman doesn't exist to the satisfaction of someone who pathologically asserts he does.

You know nobody can so much as prove “free will” doesn't exist to the satisfaction of someone who pathologically asserts it does.

Oh, but we have no evidence but your WORD they do?

Other than your WORD, why should I believe all your ridiculous claims? Such as:

1) People who do not believe in ultimate consequences for their actions are actually more moral (honest) individuals.
2) “free will” exist despite your inability to produce a shred of evidence, or even explain what the hell it is.
3) We cease to exist when we die – you might as well be claiming that the TRUTH is ultimately NOT Beneficial – what is your evidence for this claim?
4) There is no evidence for “God”. There is no evidence that TLOP is more conscious then you are -- You might as well be claiming there is no evidence You are more conscious then your Car when you are driving it.
5) Human consciousness is a random phenomena, it is NOT algorithmic or Logical in nature.

Etc., etc. …

Gosh, and your WORD is valued so highly here, and yet nobody believes you?

Is that using the A-Theists definition of “Nobody”? For someone claiming not to value my WORD, you certainly seem to follow me around a lot and hang on every one of them.

That’s called projecting Davey-Boy. Take a good long look in the mirror …

evildave
26th October 2002, 02:31 PM
I dunno, FRANko, but it seems that someone who believes his own private godess will make everything "all better" after they die is the one who is trying to escape consequences of their actions.

Your life didn't mean anything, nothing you did caused any harm, your mommy, er 'Godess' will make it all better for you.

26th October 2002, 02:40 PM
Maybe we should start Fallacy of the Week threads. Every week, a new fallacy will have a write up.

We'd run out after a year or so, but oh well.

Franko
26th October 2002, 02:45 PM
EDB,

I dunno, FRANko, but it seems that someone who believes his own private godess will make everything "all better" after they die is the one who is trying to escape consequences of their actions.

Yeah sure ... Whatever you say MR. Cease-to-exist.

Your life didn't mean anything, nothing you did caused any harm, your mommy, er 'Godess' will make it all better for you.

Enjoy your meaningless consequence free existence magic A-Theist-boy!!!

evildave
26th October 2002, 03:33 PM
Same to you, oh one who believes his imaginary friend is his puppet-master and keeper.

Franko
26th October 2002, 03:46 PM
Evildavey-boy,

Same to you, oh one who believes his imaginary friend is his puppet-master and keeper.

So you are actually claiming that you can Defy the Laws of Physics?!?!?!

HEY EVERYBODY EVILDAVE CAN DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!!

Why haven’t you applied for the Randi Prize? Is that why you are here? How exactly are you able to avoid the “puppet-master” and demonstrate “free willy”? Can you explain it to us, or like the Christian God, do you work in mysterious ways now Davey-buoy?

Come on … don’t be shy. You have nothing to fear from us mere TLOP obeying mortals. Explain how you do it? What is your evidence that you do NOT obey the Laws of Physics?

Why do you make so many claims and then NEVER back them up with anything but an assertion? Seriously Davey, if you are going to claim Randi’s prize, just be done with it already.

evildave
26th October 2002, 03:53 PM
Where did I say that?

Oh, I see the 'evildave' in your own private imaginary world must have.

Well, I'm sure you can imagine his answer well enough.

Franko
26th October 2002, 04:02 PM
Evildave,

Same to you, oh one who believes his imaginary friend is his puppet-master and keeper.

Translation:Same to you, oh one who believes that TLOP (imaginary according to Dave) is controlling your actions (puppet-master and keeper in davey’s terms).

Then Franko said …

So you are actually claiming that you can Defy the Laws of Physics?!?!?!

Then Davey (in his typical, clueless, “Who-Me?”) fashion retorted:

Where did I say that?

Oh, I see the 'evildave' in your own private imaginary world must have.

Well, I'm sure you can imagine his answer well enough.

… Davey-buoy – seriously … who do you think is dumb enough (other than other A-Theists) to be fooled by your obvious double-talk, lies and deceit? Not everyone is a stupid A-Theist Relgious Fanatic like yourself (Troll). You see, despite your misunderstanding that this forum is just a place of worship for the fanatical followers of the Cult of the "One True Religion" of A-Theism, in reality this forum is actually a place for Skeptics and “free thinkers”. No Skeptic is going to believe your bogus, contradiction riddled assertions just because you are asserting them – FatBoy!

Franko
26th October 2002, 04:03 PM
EDB ...

I await your next fluffy insult-filled, non responsive 3 line (or less) post.

ArmchairPhysicist
26th October 2002, 04:14 PM
Franko,
If that's your statement, would you define the term God, and explain how it does not exist(according to that definition)?

Nope, that's not my statement. My statement was
If that's your statement, would you define the term Free Will, and explain how it does not exist (according to that definition)?

I'm asking you for the definition of Free Will that you are using. It's a pretty straight-forward question. Further, I'm asking for your explaination as to why it doesn't exist.

So far, all I've seen is a bunch of comparisons between non-related objects, with no explaination for why they are being compared. Your explainations are unclear, so I'm asking for clarifications. I'm not asking for proof, just a solid statement and a clear explaination.

You know, something brief, with small words in short choppy sentances. Something an eighth-grader could clearly understand.

Franko
26th October 2002, 04:19 PM
Armchairguy,

I'm asking you for the definition of Free Will that you are using. It's a pretty straight-forward question. Further, I'm asking for your explaination as to why it doesn't exist.

That is EXACTLY the same as a Christian asking you to define his God for him, and then explain why it DOESN’T exist. Why is it that You A-Theists CANNOT resist a double standard?

So far, all I've seen is a bunch of comparisons between non-related objects, with no explaination for why they are being compared. Your explainations are unclear, so I'm asking for clarifications. I'm not asking for proof, just a solid statement and a clear explaination.

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You OBEY the laws of Physics.

How much clearer can I make it then that? If you are asserting that you have “free will”, then it sounds to me like you are saying your mind controls the laws of physics. Can you prove that?

If you cannot – you have no “free will”. At least … no more than the Moon, or a rock does.

evildave
26th October 2002, 04:33 PM
I'm sorry, I was concentrating on your "50", questions in the 'Direct Questions' topic.

Franko
26th October 2002, 04:39 PM
EDB ...

I await your next fluffy insult-filled, non responsive 3 line (or less) post.

Troll-buoy!

ArmchairPhysicist
26th October 2002, 04:51 PM
That is EXACTLY the same as a Christian asking you to define his God for him, and then explain why it DOESN’T exist. Why is it that You A-Theists CANNOT resist a double standard?

Okay, what the heck..

Free Will: The ability to act upon a desire.

TLOP will predict the results of that action, but will not stop me from acting upon them.

evildave
26th October 2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Franko
EDB ...

I await your next fluffy insult-filled, non responsive 3 line (or less) post.

Troll-buoy!

I'm sorry, I was concentrating on your "50", questions in the 'Direct Questions' topic.

Post it there to get an answer.

27th October 2002, 08:32 AM
Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You OBEY the laws of Physics.

How much clearer can I make it then that? If you are asserting that you have “free will”, then it sounds to me like you are saying your mind controls the laws of physics. Can you prove that?

Franko / Wraith/

Come on. This is high-school stuff. A basic logical fallacy. Let us take it step by step, though, since it still manages to elude you.

First, look up "fallacy of composition" on the inernet. There are many sites available that cover an abundance of fallacies. Read the many different examples there until you get it. Then come back to these posts.

Now, let's look at your syllogism. Let's reframe it at an intermediate hierarchical level:

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
Molecules obey the laws of physics.

Moleucles obey the laws of physics
Enzymes are molecules.
Enzymes obey the laws of physics.

Oops. Already a chink in the armor, eh? These enzyme molecules chelate. They assemble or disassemble other molecules. These are new properties. And, we've jumped at least two levels already, eh? We zipped right through chemistry and got into biochemistry. Maybe these new properties of chemicals, and more specifically ,biochemicals, have something to do with the divisions of science? I dunno. Could be.

Enzymes assemble / dissassemble other molecules by hooking themselves onto a section, flexing and grabbing the molecules to perform the operation.
You assemble / disassemble other molecules by hooking yourself onto a section, flexing and grabbing the molecules to perform the operation.

Assemble, disassemble away. Or, as you prefer, continue to dissemble.

Forgive him, posters, for he cannot rub two premises together to start a syllogism.

Cheers,

UserGoogol
27th October 2002, 03:29 PM
TLOP controls you.

You are more conscious then your Car.
TLOP is more conscious then You.

What the heck does the ability to control things have to do with conciousness?

The pulley controls the rock (which is attached to it.)
But, the pulley is not more concious than the rock. Both are pretty darn non-sentinent.

ImpyTimpy
27th October 2002, 03:58 PM
I have no problem with this (for the sake of argument):

Atoms obey the laws of physics,
Therefore I obey the laws of physics.

So:

There are many laws of physics,
I choose which laws of physics to obey,
Therefore I have free will.

Logically proven wouldn't you say :D

hammegk
27th October 2002, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by BillHoyt

Enzymes assemble / dissassemble other molecules by hooking themselves onto a section, flexing and grabbing the molecules to perform the operation.
You assemble / disassemble other molecules by hooking yourself onto a section, flexing and grabbing the molecules to perform the operation.

Good stuff alright. Which parts of TLOP did you say these assembling/disassembling molecules are not obeying?

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

There are many laws of physics,
I choose which laws of physics to obey,
Therefore I have free will.
Please climb a tall building and check to see if you can ignore gravity after you jump.

27th October 2002, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by hammegk

Good stuff alright. Which parts of TLOP did you say these assembling/disassembling molecules are not obeying?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where in my post I said that?

Cheers,

ImpyTimpy
27th October 2002, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by hammegk

<snip>
Please climb a tall building and check to see if you can ignore gravity after you jump.

I never said I can break a law of physics, I can choose which ones I will obey given specific circumstances. In the case of gravity, I can either choose to walk off a building and fall to my death or not (this way I am choosing whether or not I wish the law of gravity to act upon me in that specific instance).

whitefork
27th October 2002, 06:10 PM
What I was hoping to generate was a discussion on the nature of logical fallacies, not another discussion of Franko's syllogism, which I deliberately left out.

Carry on without me.

The Fool
27th October 2002, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by BillHoyt

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where in my post I said that?

Cheers,

He Can't, Diet Franko has been well trained in the use of the straw man.

wraith
27th October 2002, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

I never said I can break a law of physics, I can choose which ones I will obey given specific circumstances. In the case of gravity, I can either choose to walk off a building and fall to my death or not (this way I am choosing whether or not I wish the law of gravity to act upon me in that specific instance).

I see where youre coming from.

However, where is your evidence to support that your "choice" to walk of the building or not was not the result of TLOP.

Does the moon choose to orbit the earth? Your reply would probably by something like "thats different I perceive, I can make choices, I have free will and the moon doesnt"

Atoms obey TLOP
You obey TLOP

The bottom line is you either control TLOP or TLOP controls you. The difference between you and the moon in this regard is that you have the ability to observe. Does this mean that you control TLOP?

Since some are trying to "shut down" the syllogism by claiming that it commits the fallacy of composition, it shouldnt be too hard to demonstrate where it is flawed.

Ive read some of the arguments against, and I must say that you guys provide a good source of entertainment lol

:rolleyes:

Mossy
28th October 2002, 12:12 AM
Jesus this is old.

Do you think the atheists on this board just created the phrase "fallacy of composition"? No, it is a common, well-defined logical fallacy.

Point out the flaw? That IS the flaw - it is a composition fallacy.

Here, from this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html) website:

1. The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.

The flaw isn't with "atoms obey tlop" or "you are made of atoms" - it is with the composition itself.

You still won't accept that, will you? It is not an opinion, it is a fact that it is a composition fallacy.

-Ed

wraith
28th October 2002, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by Mossy
Jesus this is old.

Do you think the atheists on this board just created the phrase "fallacy of composition"? No, it is a common, well-defined logical fallacy.

Point out the flaw? That IS the flaw - it is a composition fallacy.

Here, from this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html) website:

The flaw isn't with "atoms obey tlop" or "you are made of atoms" - it is with the composition itself.

You still won't accept that, will you? It is not an opinion, it is a fact that it is a composition fallacy.

-Ed

We can move on once you have pin pointed where the error is.
You claim that it commits the fallacy of composition. So whats the flaw?

These parts a lite
This bike is made of those parts
The bike is lite

The bike may actually be heavy... depending on what you mean by lite and heavy of course, but for simplicity, this is a fallacy because the bike may be heavy.....

from this, you say that the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism is a fallacy of composition... so whats the error?

atoms dont obey TLOP?
atoms obey TLOP sometimes?
Im made of atoms that dont obey TLOP?

Titanpoint
28th October 2002, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by wraith

We can move on once you have pin pointed where the error is.
You claim that it commits the fallacy of composition. So whats the flaw?

These parts a lite
This bike is made of those parts
The bike is lite

The bike may actually be heavy... depending on what you mean by lite and heavy of course, but for simplicity, this is a fallacy because the bike may be heavy.....

from this, you say that the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism is a fallacy of composition... so whats the error?

atoms dont obey TLOP?
atoms obey TLOP sometimes?
Im made of atoms that dont obey TLOP?

The fallacy of composition is the supposition that the Laws of Physics are deterministic. They are not.

Since TLOP are not deterministic, atoms obey the laws of physics according to statistical probabilities described by the Schrodinger Wave Equation. In point of fact, the components of atoms show such a large probability function that no-one knows where they are or their motions precisely.

The logical proposition is false.

Get over it.

TP

Mossy
28th October 2002, 02:26 AM
I am going to assume that you really didn't understand my post and make one more effort:

Originally posted by wraith

We can move on once you have pin pointed where the error is.
You claim that it commits the fallacy of composition. So whats the flaw?

Did you read the links I posted? They very clearly explain what a composition fallacy is - that is the flaw.

I'm quoting it one more time, please notice the part in italics:

That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties.

That is the flaw. It is that simple.

These parts a lite
This bike is made of those parts
The bike is lite

The bike may actually be heavy... depending on what you mean by lite and heavy of course, but for simplicity, this is a fallacy because the bike may be heavy.....

No, Wraith, it isn't a fallacy because the conclusion is wrong - if that were true then there would be no need to point out logical fallacies. It is a composition fallacy. You can not infer that the bike is light, simply because it's parts are light. That is the exact same problem with your "Atoms obey" syllogism. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not your conclusion is right, the syllogism is flawed.

Again - we didn't invent this fallacy simply to be stubborn, it is a well defined fallacy.

Honestly, does that make sense now? If not, please read the links, show some integrity and acknowledge that the syllogism is flawed. Create a different syllogism without that flaw - it really isn't hard, Loki had a suggestion on this.

-Ed

wraith
28th October 2002, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by Titanpoint

The fallacy of composition is the supposition that the Laws of Physics are deterministic. They are not.

Since TLOP are not deterministic, atoms obey the laws of physics according to statistical probabilities described by the Schrodinger Wave Equation. In point of fact, the components of atoms show such a large probability function that no-one knows where they are or their motions precisely.

The logical proposition is false.

Get over it.

TP

So things happen just for the hell of it? :eek:
If you had more info, wouldnt the probability of being wrong decrease? What if you acquired more and more info, wouldnt the probability of something eventually be either true (100%) or false (0%) ?

How often do randomly jump of buildings?

btw, I am over it
hahaha

a_unique_person
28th October 2002, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by wraith

So things happen just for the hell of it? :eek:

What if you acquired more and more info, wouldnt the probability of something eventually be either true (100%) or false (0%) ?

No

How often do randomly jump of buildings?

btw, I am over it
hahaha

People do strange things. Some people attempt to suicide, are saved, and never try again.

wraith
28th October 2002, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Mossy

no :cool:

They very clearly explain what a composition fallacy is - that is the flaw.

I'm quoting it one more time, please notice the part in italics:

That is the flaw. It is that simple.

If thats the flaw then you should be able to pin point the actual error. The error that relates in the actual world. It commits the fallacy of composition. Then what can you draw from this? I dont obey TLOP? So I control TLOP?

You cant just go around saying "thats the fallacy of composition" and then not explain where it fails in real life situations.

Again, you say that it commits the fallacy of composition.
So there is an error somewhere. You say that the actual syllogism is the error.
If there is an error, tell us where it fails in the universe.

You believe that we dont obey TLOP yeah?
So does TLOP obey you?

No, Wraith, it isn't a fallacy because the conclusion is wrong - if that were true then there would be no need to point out logical fallacies. It is a composition fallacy. You can not infer that the bike is light, simply because it's parts are light. That is the exact same problem with your "Atoms obey" syllogism. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not your conclusion is right, the syllogism is flawed.

Again - we didn't invent this fallacy simply to be stubborn, it is a well defined fallacy.

Thanks for the update Mossy :rolleyes:

Honestly, does that make sense now?

negative on that

Ill do no such thing haha

Create a different syllogism without that flaw - it really isn't hard, Loki had a suggestion on this.

Enlighten me. Show me the light!

28th October 2002, 04:23 AM
What the h*** is wrong with these guys? Are they realyy that stupid or are they simply disingenuous trolls? Either way...

Cheers,

wraith
28th October 2002, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by a_common_person

great stuff here

No

OH!?!?!

People do strange things. Some people attempt to suicide, are saved, and never try again.

Are you saying that these people attempt suicide at random?

Mossy
28th October 2002, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by mossy

...show some integrity...

Originally posted by wraith

Ill do no such thing haha

I've shown you the error. I gave you the links so you could actually verify it for yourself, you wouldn't even have to take my word for it - you didn't bother with the self-education.

If you had any idea how moronic your last post was, I'd be embarrassed for you.

On the bright side: you are officially a member of the Willfully Ignorant Moron club.

Wear the honor with pride!

-Ed

MRC_Hans
28th October 2002, 04:29 AM
The bottom line is you either control TLOP or TLOP controls you.

Wont help to repeat that, it doesnt become true. Those are not mutually exclusive.

I am constrained by tlop. That is not the same as controlled.

We are acting in a rule-driven system. This makes our choices finite, but it doesnt preclude free will. I've posted to some length about this elsewhere, but apparantly the debate moved here? Well, I'm not letting you off, hehehe:

So lets examine some rule-driven systems.

One is the solar system. We know all parameters (OK, there are a few rogue astorids, but they wont matter in the big picture), and all the rules, and, sure enough, we are able to predict where all the larger bodies of the Solar system will be at any time during the next several centuries. -No sign of free will there.

Now lets look at another (and somewhat simpler) rule-driven system: The game of Chess. The rules are strict and well-defined, and the game can actually be defined mathematically, and there is a finite number of possible games (an astronomical number, to be sure, but finite). So given, say, the first 10 moves of a chess match, it should be no problem to predict the 11th? Anybody care to try?

Apparantly adding a biological intelligence to the equation makes it unpredictable. Because the human player can choose freely between possible next moves. The human player has FREE WILL, and can choose any move within the confinement of the rules for his next move. Additionally, he will probably limit himself to moves that are sensible, but thats another matter.

The main flaw about the argument about materialism precluding free will is that it assumes that the system is Algorithmic. It is not, it is rule-driven.

The difference between an algorithmic system and a rule-driven is as follows:

In an algorithmic system all stimuli and responses are predefined by the constructor. If the system encounters a situation not foreseen by the constructor, it can at best present a default response.

The rule-driven system has a database of rules. In each situation it examines its ruleset, determines which apply to the situation, and ends up with one or more possible actions that are within the given rules. Then it chooses an action, either by some evaluation process or by random. Advanced systems can establish new rules and modifiy existing by evaluating results of previous actions.

The human brain is provably a very advanced rule-driven computer. It might also have a soul, we dont know that.

Hans

wraith
28th October 2002, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Mossy

I've shown you the error. I gave you the links so you could actually verify it for yourself, you wouldn't even have to take my word for it - you didn't bother with the self-education.

If you had any idea how moronic your last post was, I'd be embarrassed for you.

On the bright side: you are officially a member of the Willfully Ignorant Moron club.

Wear the honor with pride!

-Ed

youre dodging skills are so finely tuned....been practicing I see
muhaha

MRC_Hans
28th October 2002, 05:09 AM
And then there is this:

*snip*
Which of these statements is inconsistant with Logical Deism?
1) You cannot Choose

*snip*
If statement #1 is true, and you cannot choose, then statement #2 must be false.
Franko:

As you have stated that humans have no more free wil than the moon, it follows from your own logic as stated above that:

"Your choices have consequences" is false. Now, be careful, because any credibility you have as a logical debatteur is at stake here, do dont dodge this question:

You have earlier stated that:

Every man is ultimately responsible for his actions.
and
Human behaviour is controlled by reward and punishment.

Everybody makes mistakes, but we now need to know which of your contradictory statements above you want to back away from:

1) Humans have no free will.

2) Humans are responsible for their actions.

Choose one and only one, please! You cannot sustain a discussion based on contradictory axioms.

Hans

wraith
28th October 2002, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Wont help to repeat that, it doesnt become true. Those are not mutually exclusive.

I am constrained by tlop. That is not the same as controlled.

Have you been in a situation where TLOP does not govern your moves? Whats an example?

Now lets look at another (and somewhat simpler) rule-driven system: The game of Chess. The rules are strict and well-defined, and the game can actually be defined mathematically, and there is a finite number of possible games (an astronomical number, to be sure, but finite). So given, say, the first 10 moves of a chess match, it should be no problem to predict the 11th? Anybody care to try?

If I had the complete info, of course. Id be able to predict your next move.

Apparantly adding a biological intelligence to the equation makes it unpredictable. Because the human player can choose freely between possible next moves. The human player has FREE WILL, and can choose any move within the confinement of the rules for his next move. Additionally, he will probably limit himself to moves that are sensible, but thats another matter.

Just because the player can "choose freely" between next possible moves doesnt mean that the next move it unpredictable. Like you said "he will probably limit himself to moves that are sensible." The player's next move is going to be based on his maximum perceived benefit. There can only be one. If I had the complete information, his next move can be predicted.

How often do you jump off buildings for no reason? How about committing suicide? Have you ever seen Bill Gates try and rob a little old lady?

The main flaw about the argument about materialism precluding free will is that it assumes that the system is Algorithmic. It is not, it is rule-driven.

The difference between an algorithmic system and a rule-driven is as follows:

In an algorithmic system all stimuli and responses are predefined by the constructor. If the system encounters a situation not foreseen by the constructor, it can at best present a default response.

The rule-driven system has a database of rules. In each situation it examines its ruleset, determines which apply to the situation, and ends up with one or more possible actions that are within the given rules. Then it chooses an action, either by some evaluation process or by random. Advanced systems can establish new rules and modifiy existing by evaluating results of previous actions.

Really, the "rule-driven system" comes down to the persons maximum perceived benefit. Which is no different to the "algorithmic system."

The human brain is provably a very advanced rule-driven computer. It might also have a soul, we dont know that.

No doubt that the brain is complex. Nevertheless, I believe that consciousness creates matter...

Franko
28th October 2002, 05:41 AM
A syllogism consist of 3 parts: a major premise (atoms obey the laws of physics), a minor premise (you are made of atoms), and the conclusion (you OBEY the laws of physics). Now for a syllogism to be a valid one (i.e. TRUE), it is NOT enough for the 2 premises to be correct. The 2 premises must be correct, AND the conclusion has to flow naturally (i.e. logically) from those premises.

Example #1:

Assuming the meaning of these terms (+, =) is known …

1) Major premise: 2 = * *
2) Minor premise: 4 = * * * *
3) Conclusion: 2 + 2 = 4

The major and minor premises are correct, and the conclusion flows naturally from those premises.

Example #2:

1) 2 = * *
2) 5 = * * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 5

Now in this example, we can see that both premises are valid (TRUE), but never-the-less the resultant conclusion is wrong (FALSE). The conclusion does NOT flow naturally from the two premises.

Example #3:

1) Major premise: Geometric figures are made of lines between points
2) Minor premise: Lines have one dimension
3) Conclusion: Geometric figures have one dimension

Now once again, this syllogism is flawed (FALSE), and the reason it is false is because premise #1 is false – it is ambiguously worded. Essentially premise #1 is claiming that Geometric figures equal lines. Reworded the error is more obvious:

1) All Geometric figures = Lines (G = L)
2) Lines have one dimension (L = 1)
3) Geometric figures have one dimension. (G = 1 [FALSE])

Now here’s my syllogism again …

1) Atoms obey the laws of physics (A < P: [TRUE])
2) You are made of Atoms (C = A: [TRUE])
3) You OBEY the laws of Physics (C < P: [TRUE])

Since none of the Religious Fanatics here can seem to find a flaw in either of the premises, and since ALL of the religious A-Theists with at least 2 functioning synapses have already conceded that the conclusion is TRUE and VALID, Then where is the *********** problem with the syllogism???

If you can’t find a flaw in either premise …

… and you can’t find a flaw in the conclusion …

Then that is what you call A VALID/TRUE SYLLOGISM!!!

… get over it A-Theists, your Fate is the same as the dodo birds – deal with it!

Franko
28th October 2002, 05:42 AM
btw -- Wraith ...

I forgot to congradulate you on your successful mission. I'll contact you later, behind you know who's back, as we say ...

:cool:

Mossy
28th October 2002, 06:18 AM
It's all there for you Franko, just scroll back up and read it. Follow a couple of those links, composition fallacy is explained in detail - with lots of examples to make it crystal clear. (by the way, you could also follow up on what consititutes a valid syllogism in the first place)

Unless you are planning on rewriting about 2400 years of history on the topic, it would be easier to just come up with a valid syllogism to make your point.

-Ed

hammegk
28th October 2002, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by The Fool

He Can't, Diet Franko has been well trained in the use of the straw man.

Truly humorous. Make a statement, then disclaim any connotation of that statement in the context of the discussion.

You may be so dense you prefer to think this thread is about fallacies of composition. Even if the composition is false, is the statement of conclusion necessarily false?

Elsewhere the syllogism has been dissected at length, and most of you know full well it is "shorthand" and can be logically presented.

Keep dissembling; it's your best stance. ;)

MRC_Hans
28th October 2002, 06:37 AM
Wraith:
Just because the player can "choose freely" between next possible moves doesnt mean that the next move it unpredictable. Like you said "he will probably limit himself to moves that are sensible." The player's next move is going to be based on his maximum perceived benefit. There can only be one. If I had the complete information, his next move can be predicted.

The point is: You DO have the complete information. You have all information about the present state of the game, and you have all information about the rules governing the next move. You can even calculate the ultimately best next move. But you STILL cannot predict which of the POSSIBLE moves the player will choose.

About the difference between algorithmic and rule-based systems. I just explained the difference. If you dont understand it, get somebody to explain it to you. Ask Franko, he's a programmer, he ought to know. Or you can ignore it, or deny it, I dont seriously care.

And Franko, I wrote:Everybody makes mistakes, but we now need to know which of your contradictory statements above you want to back away from:

1) Humans have no free will.

2) Humans are responsible for their actions.

Choose one and only one, please! You cannot sustain a discussion based on contradictory axioms.

I'm still waiting for your answer. You have to DECIDE which one you think is right and which one you think is wrong.

Hans

Franko
28th October 2002, 06:47 AM
Mr. Hand,

My sincere apologies for the actions of my Sock-puppet (Fool), but his only purpose is to constantly and repeatedly demonstrate the complete and utter fanaticism of the One True Faith of A-Theism, so I simply couldn’t resist having him reinforce his moniker.

Truly humorous. Make a statement, then disclaim any connotation of that statement in the context of the discussion.

axiom: A-Theists are unapologetic liars.

You may be so dense you prefer to think this thread is about fallacies of composition. Even if the composition is false, is the statement of conclusion necessarily false?

Well, to an A-Theist if something refutes A-Theism, then it does not constitute “empirical evidence”, “logic”, or “science”. Only things which support the dogma of A-Theism are rubber stamped with those terms.

Elsewhere the syllogism has been dissected at length, and most of you know full well it is "shorthand" and can be logically presented.

According to an A-Theists, it does NOT matter if both premises are CORRECT, and the conclusion is CORRECT; if the syllogism refutes the supreme dogma of A-Theism, then the syllogism must be claimed INCORRECT.

Keep dissembling; it's your best stance.

Be careful Mr. Hand, or I may have to use this sock-puppet to get that other A-Theist sock-puppy (Bill-Buoy) to call for you to be banned from the forum again!!! ;)

whitefork
28th October 2002, 06:55 AM
What exactly is the point of the argument? I don't see anyone disputing that we are constrained by or obey the laws of physics.

Is the point that the reason for that is a causal connection between our material composition and our behavior? (We obey the laws of physics BECAUSE we are made of atoms).

Syllogisms are not generally arguments from causation. In fact the argument is not technically a syllogism at all, the syllogistic from being (doing this from memory)

Three statements, three terms.
A major premise linking the major term and the middle term.
A minor premise linking the minor term and middle term.
A conclusion linking the major and minor terms.

the links are of the from ALL, NONE, SOME, and SOME NOT (A, E, I, O)
No more than one negative premise.
If there is a negative premise the conclusion must be negative.
The middle term must be distributed.
If a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in a premise.

A (all) distributes the subject
E (none) distributes the subject and predicate
I (some) distributes neither
O (some not) distributes the predicate.

Anyhow, none of the arguments posted at the start of this thread are syllogisms by these criteria.

So, who cares, anyway? I just needed to get that out.

chulbert
28th October 2002, 07:06 AM
Franko,

You've been utterly destroyed on the free will discussion. Why do you persist?

Moons don't have a will, which is somewhat of a prerequisite to a free will. Our futures cannot be known because of our self-referencing nature (freedom from fate). Nothing is controlling our minds telling us what to do (freedom from coersion).

Materialism is not at odds with free will.

This is a dead topic, philosophically speaking.

hammegk
28th October 2002, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
But you STILL cannot predict which of the POSSIBLE moves the player will choose.

Hans

The fact that *you*, or anyone else cannot predict something does not necessarily mean it is not completely deterministic.

And on your discourse of algorithmic & rule-based computing machines, do you deny that both can be replaced by a Turing machine?

Franko
28th October 2002, 07:29 AM
Chulbert,

You've been utterly destroyed on the free will discussion. Why do you persist?

Who do you think you are you kidding?

Moons don't have a will, which is somewhat of a prerequisite to a free will.

You have perception, that it NOT the same as a “will” (care to define that term?).

Your “will” consist of doing what the laws of physics command you to do – nothing more.

Our futures cannot be known because of our self-referencing nature

Computer programs are self-referencing (recursive/reiterative) are you also claiming that computer programs have “free will”?

(freedom from fate).

Question begging. Claiming it true doesn’t make it True!

Nothing is controlling our minds telling us what to do (freedom from coersion).

Really? Kindly Demonstrate your proof of this Assertion by defying the laws of physics.

Materialism is not at odds with free will.

Yes, I am very familiar with the dogma of A-Theism.

28th October 2002, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey the laws of Physics (A < P)
You are made of Atoms (Y = A)
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS (Y < P).

Please define "you". And clearly showing the differences with the definitions of "my", "I", "myself", "him", "he", etc...

By the way, there are a tautological claim I like more:

"An individual is an atom"

(just check the etimology!)

Also funny, but off topic: "A person is just a speaking device".

Yours,

Alejandro

Franko
28th October 2002, 08:06 AM

Do “you” mean “You” as in Alejandro? “You” as in “arivero”???

If “You” don’t know who (or what) Alejandro is, then I doubt very seriously that I will be able to explain it to you.

And clearly showing the differences with the definitions of "my", "I", "myself", "him", "he", etc...

“You” are You (also “I”) … Me and everybody are “him”, “he”, “She”, “them”, “us”, “we”, etc.

By the way, there are a tautological claim I like more:

"An individual is an atom"

(just check the etimology!)

Also funny, but off topic: "A person is just a speaking device".

… You’ve lost me here, I am unclear regarding your point.

28th October 2002, 08:15 AM
Well, I could n accept that "you" refers to "Alejandro". Then I understand your syllogism says that "Alejandro" is made of atoms. In any case, it is clear then that it does not deduce anything about Franko, Hans, WhiteFork and others.

Yours,

Alejandro
PS: the etimological jokes were just jokes, not a point in the thread. But check them!

Franko
28th October 2002, 09:44 AM
Well, I could n accept that "you" refers to "Alejandro". Then I understand your syllogism says that "Alejandro" is made of atoms. In any case, it is clear then that it does not deduce anything about Franko, Hans, WhiteFork and others.

Ohhh ... I never claimed that syllogism was a proof against Solipsism, just "free will". Of course, if Solipsism is True, then you would have Free will.

None of your figments would (they'd be algorithmic), but YOU would have Free Will.

28th October 2002, 09:49 AM
(A < P)
(Y = A)
(Y < P)

These are common abreviations for the following asserts:

The set of objects holding property A - is contained in - the set of objects holding property P.

The set of objects holding property Y - is equal to - the set of objects holding propery A.

The set of objects holding property Y -is contained in- the set of objects holding property P.

I'd suggest you everyone to review your "translations" and see if they really fit in this pattern.

28th October 2002, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by whitefork
What exactly is the point of the argument? I don't see anyone disputing that we are constrained by or obey the laws of physics.

whitefork,

The point is, these anti-JREF trolls:
a) don't understand basic logic and
b) wish to push this invalid syllogism well beyond your statement.

They wish to sell this idiot "proof" that science requires the lack of free will.

Sorry your thread's been hijacked. Clearly there are several (at least) on this forum who need to understand the fallcy of composition.

Cheers,

28th October 2002, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Franko
Be careful Mr. Hand, or I may have to use this sock-puppet to get that other A-Theist sock-puppy (Bill-Buoy) to call for you to be banned from the forum again!!! ;)

Back off on the libel, wranko, or I might just work to that end. Capiche?

whitefork
28th October 2002, 10:07 AM
Doesn't matter. Maybe I need to work up some new material.

Funny thing about the fallacy of compostion is that the usual examples are so lame.

I have an especial love for the classical syllogism, though

Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque, prioris:
Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco, secundae:
Tertia, Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton, Bocardo, Ferison, habet:
Quarta insuper addit Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison.

Anyone remember that one?

Franko
28th October 2002, 10:45 AM
Back off on the libel, wranko, or I might just work to that end. Capiche?

Oooooo ... I am just all a tremble Billy-Bitch.

Are you going run and tell Randi on me again?

hehehe ....

hammegk
28th October 2002, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by BillHoyt

Back off on the libel, wranko, or I might just work to that end. Capiche?

OOhhhh, nooooooo, Mr. Bill! *******. ;)

Franko
28th October 2002, 10:55 AM
Yeah Mr. Hand Billy-Bitches motto is if you can’t win an argument with logic and reason, and you can’t just shoot them or (better still) burn the heretic at the stake, go run and whine to Randi that they are making fun of your stupid, ridiculous, insane Religion.

Waaaaaaa :( …. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! :(

(sobbing) Don’t make fun of the One True Faith!!! … Waaaaaa!!!! …

MRC_Hans
28th October 2002, 11:19 AM
Franko, you are stalling. You have still not answered my question. Your basic premises are contradictory, which one is wrong? Come on man, you can still restore some credibility, state where you failed. Why do we have to wait?

And your free will argument is shot. YOU agreed that the purpose of your much-debated syllogism, was to show that in a rule-constrained system, free will cannot exist. I have proven you wrong. If God decided to play chess and to abide by the rules, he/she would not be deprived of free will within the constraints of the rules of the game.

Are you a man or a mouse?

Hans

Franko
28th October 2002, 11:23 AM
MRC,

I disagree, but since you refuse to provide any evidence for your ridiculous claim our discussion seems to be at an end.

hammegk
28th October 2002, 11:29 AM
quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
But you STILL cannot predict which of the POSSIBLE moves the player will choose.

hammegk:

The fact that *you*, or anyone else cannot predict something does not necessarily mean it is not completely deterministic.

And on your discourse of algorithmic & rule-based computing machines, do you deny that both can be replaced by a Turing machine?

MRC_Hans
28th October 2002, 11:57 AM
Franko:
MRC,

I disagree, but since you refuse to provide any evidence for your ridiculous claim our discussion seems to be at an end.

A assume this means that you cannot refute the evidence I just gave. You are shot down, but as I predicted, you still pretend to be flying. You are getting pathetic.

Hammekg
The fact that *you*, or anyone else cannot predict something does not necessarily mean it is not completely deterministic.

Obviously not, but I think you must provide at least some evidence. My point is that an unbreakable rule-set does not preclude free will. Can you challenge that?

Hans

Franko
28th October 2002, 12:27 PM
MRC_Handjob,

A assume this means that you cannot refute the evidence I just gave.

What evidence? this is all you said:

MRC: your free will argument is shot.

You making an unfounded and self-serving assertions is NOT evidence where I come from, but I am sure that is sufficient in your A-Theist never-never-land.

You are shot down …

Another unsupported claim – have you convinced yourself that I am just a figment of your imagination yet?

… but as I predicted, you still pretend to be flying. You are getting pathetic.

What’s pathetic is your insistence that you possess “free will” while utterly failing to provide ANY evidence for your claim. Do you think that ANYONE reading along is stupid enough to fall for your pathetic unsupported claims? Even John Edwards is about a million times more convincing than you.

What contradiction? Is it a secret?

If there is a contradiction mention it specifically. Other than idiot A-Theists who is fooled by such nonsense and religious fanaticism?

chulbert
28th October 2002, 12:49 PM
Franko,

Would you be so kind as to define 'free will' for me? While you're at it, explain why it cannot exist in your 'you obey tlop' view of the universe.

You're the one claiming we don't have free will. Your proof, so to speak, must be more than a logically flawed (not necessarily factually) syllogism.

Franko
28th October 2002, 12:55 PM
Chulbert,

Would you be so kind as to define “god” for my Christian and Hindu friends? While you're at it, explain why it cannot exist in your 'you do NOT obey tlop' view of the universe.

You're the one claiming we don't have God. Your proof, so to speak, must be more than a logically flawed (not necessarily factually) syllogism, or a simple asserting of the statement as FACT with nothing to back it up.

chulbert
28th October 2002, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by chulbert
Franko,

Would you be so kind as to define 'free will' for me? While you're at it, explain why it cannot exist in your 'you obey tlop' view of the universe.

You're the one claiming we don't have free will. Your proof, so to speak, must be more than a logically flawed (not necessarily factually) syllogism.

Originally posted by Franko
Chulbert,

Would you be so kind as to define “god” for my Christian and Hindu friends? While you're at it, explain why it cannot exist in your 'you do NOT obey tlop' view of the universe.

You're the one claiming we don't have God. Your proof, so to speak, must be more than a logically flawed (not necessarily factually) syllogism, or a simple asserting of the statement as FACT with nothing to back it up.

I didn't think you could. Thanks!

Franko
28th October 2002, 01:24 PM
chulbert,

So just for the record ...

I guess that is proof that your "free will" (A-Theist God) is more real then the Christian's God, or the Hindu Gods?

That is what you are claiming correct?

define my terms for me ... then prove the negative?

You A-Theists really aren't that bright.

The Fool
28th October 2002, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Chulbert,

You're the one claiming we don't have God.

Franko this Is the heart of the whole mess that passes for debate on this topic. Your basic desire is to attempt to reverse the onus of proof. Who's imaginary friend are we talking about here?. Last I knew It was your goddess, not anyone elses. You blatantly refuse to show any spine. You manufacture a straw deity (tlop) and try to nail it to your opponents. Its just fog and mirrors being used to disguise the fact that you have nothing to offer in support of the existance or YOUR goddess....... You are the proposer, you have the onus of proof.

Let it go Franko, you are free to believe anything you wish. If you claim you can prove your beliefs then bring it on.... I don't see how demanding others disprove the existance of your strawman deity (tlop) helps you support the existance of your goddess....

ImpyTimpy
28th October 2002, 03:50 PM
I have to admit, playing with Franko is quiet entertaining :)

hammegk
28th October 2002, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by The Fool

Franko ...... You are the proposer, you have the onus of proof.

Fool, try this thought. Are the majority of posters here materialists?

The strong atheists, and materialists, are also here in fair numbers. Franco basically offers a scenario of Goddess & Graviton (and filler of all god-of-gaps positions)in opposition to the materialists=atheists (MAs).

You seem to feel he must PROVE his hypothesis, with the MAs getting a free ride; basically "we are scientists, we are smart, and there are more of us than you so we are right".

The most logical (imo) debater for MAs is Stimpy, and he even agrees he leaves himself the out of agnosticism. Other MA views tend to become vitriolic diatribes more often than not.

Agreed, I'm another majority of one here, and as such suspect, but imo, MAs offer no more PROOF than does Franco. Hmmmmm?

28th October 2002, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
You seem to feel he must PROVE his hypothesis, with the MAs getting a free ride; basically "we are scientists, we are smart, and there are more of us than you so we are right".

The most logical (imo) debater for MAs is Stimpy, and he even agrees he leaves himself the out of agnosticism. Other MA views tend to become vitriolic diatribes more often than not.

Agreed, I'm another majority of one here, and as such suspect, but imo, MAs offer no more PROOF than does Franco. Hmmmmm?

Where is your proof there is no pink dragon in my garage? You have offered no more proof than I that one is there! Just because you are in the majority! No! No! No! It is you who must offer the proof there is no pink dragon in my garage. It is not I who must provide the pictures.

We'll continue when the audience laughter settles down. Meanwhile, this announcement from one of our sponsors.

Cheers,

28th October 2002, 04:47 PM
You two gentlemen in the back. Stimpy? Victor? Please stop giggling so we can continue with our program. And you, in the front, whitefork, please stop shuffling pages in your book on logical fallacies.

Cheers,

hammegk
28th October 2002, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by BillHoyt

Where is your proof there is no pink dragon in my garage?
Cheers,
I have none. IF you think you have one, perhaps you're drinking sterno again? Or perhaps you should be careful what you propose. Doesn't the current math imply if it is not prohibited, it MUST occur?

Does the IPU argument actually appeal to you? It would not surprise me if you feel this to be a good argument for materialism=atheism, rather than a feeble attempt at raw deception/misdirection.

Stimpy can giggle if he wishes. Victor will more likely swear. I promise to pay a bit more attention to whitefork; maybe he offers value-added.

The Fool
28th October 2002, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by hammegk

You seem to feel he must PROVE his hypothesis,?

well....yes, I do. If he says...."here's a hypothesis and its provable". Who else do you feel has the onus of proof of Franko's hypothesis?

My own Hypothesis is that I don't have any hypothesis on gods. I can't prove or disprove anything until a hypothesis exists. I don't care if Franko creates a strawman hypothesis (tlop) and rants that I cannot disprove it...... I don't care, I cannot disprove the pink unicorn either..... I refuse to play that game. The game is "hands up all those that can demonstrate the existance of a god" If you've got your hand in the air the onus is on you to put up or shut up. I have not got my hand in the air. Not even for the gods franko so kindly builds and tries to forcefeed me (tlop).

hammegk
28th October 2002, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by The Fool

Not even for the gods franko so kindly builds and tries to forcefeed me (tlop).

I must have missed the "force-feed" part. I will lose no sleep over what you Believe or Dis-Believe.

Do you think Franco cares? Could be I suppose ... but I'd say "unlikely" ... ;)

Dear Bill
I checked the last weeks' posts from whitefork. Is there something specific of his you could direct my attention to? Thanks in advance. hammy

The Fool
28th October 2002, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by hammegk

I must have missed the "force-feed" part. I will lose no sleep over what you Believe or Dis-Believe.

Do you think Franco cares? Could be I suppose ... but I'd say "unlikely" ... ;)

So now we have established that everyone cares nothing about what other people believe, who has their hand up to the "who can demonstrate the existence of a god" question?

I'm not raising my hand.
Are you putting your hand up Hammy? is Franko?

ImpyTimpy
28th October 2002, 06:11 PM
I don't see what the fuss is about. Franko wanted to prove that humans have no free will using faulty logic. Now it seems to me the followers of the original fallacy are trying to shift the burden of proof because it all got too hot for them?

Franko
28th October 2002, 08:03 PM
Billy-buoy,

Where is your proof there is no pink dragon in my garage? You have offered no more proof than I that one is there! Just because you are in the majority! No! No! No! It is you who must offer the proof there is no pink dragon in my garage. It is not I who must provide the pictures.

We'll continue when the audience laughter settles down. Meanwhile, this announcement from one of our sponsors.

Where is your proof there is “free will” in my garage? You have offered no more proof than I that one is there! Just because you are in the majority! No! No! No! It is you who must offer the proof there is “free will” in my garage. It is not I who must provide the pictures.

We'll continue when the audience laughter settles down. Meanwhile, this announcement from one of our sponsors … :rolleyes:

Franko
28th October 2002, 08:07 PM
So now we have established that everyone cares nothing about what other people believe, who has their hand up to the "who can demonstrate the existence of a god" question?

I'm not raising my hand.
Are you putting your hand up Hammy? is Franko?

Sure as hell isn’t me, Fool.

… unless you consider yourself “God”? … I mean, after all … we are all just figments of your imagination. That unified physics equation that “Hawking talks” (wink, wink) about? You already know it … its inside your subconscious mind – this very moment. It’s generating this “universe” all around you. I am not even real.

Franko
28th October 2002, 08:11 PM
Impydinky,

I don't see what the fuss is about. Franko wanted to prove that humans have no free will using faulty logic. Now it seems to me the followers of the original fallacy are trying to shift the burden of proof because it all got too hot for them?

Are you claiming “free will” exist – YES or NO?

It is a real simple question. If you are asserting “free will” exist, then it is NO different then asserting that “God”, or “an afterlife” exist. You claim it – you prove it. The burden is on YOU – not ME. You A-Theists don’t know squat about Logic.

… of course if you are NOT claiming the existence of “free will”, then lets talk about your Car …

ImpyTimpy
28th October 2002, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Impydinky,
Are you claiming “free will” exist – YES or NO?

I'm not claiming anything...

It is a real simple question. If you are asserting “free will” exist, then it is NO different then asserting that “God”, or “an afterlife” exist. You claim it – you prove it.

Once again, *I* am not claiming anything...

The burden is on YOU – not ME. You A-Theists don’t know squat about Logic.
… of course if you are NOT claiming the existence of “free will”, then lets talk about your Car …

:rolleyes: Franko, I am not claiming ANYTHING. I am not saying free-will exists, I am not saying free-will doesn't exist. I am asking you to prove free-will does not exist as that was your original statement. Further, I am asking you to:

a) Stop using straw arguments
b) Stop using faulty logic
c) Stop trying to evade questions. :D

Franko
28th October 2002, 09:12 PM
ImpotentWinky,

I'm not claiming anything...

Well, in that case I am just a figment of your imagination anyway … so … why don’t you run along and find some nice A-Theist to play with. I am here to have discussions with people capable of having opinions.

Once again, *I* am not claiming anything...

Yes, little boy … thank you for sharing … run along … the grown-ups are trying to Talk.

Franko, I am not claiming ANYTHING.

Great! Wonderful! So what else would you like to tell us you are NOT doing? Is there a point you would like to NOT make? If you are claiming a position, then for all I know you agree with my Non-position, so there is no point in further conversation between us at all.

Why do you follow me around so much and NOT say anything? Do you really believe that I or anyone else here cares about your non-opinions and non-positions? Thanks for Non-sharing. Is there anything else you would like to Non-say before you Non-go?

I am not saying free-will exists, I am not saying free-will doesn't exist.

I am asking you to prove free-will does not exist as that was your original statement.

I am not saying that free-will exists.

Further, I am asking you to:

a) Stop using straw arguments

I am Not claiming to use strawmans, I am NOT claiming to NOT use strawmans.

What are you NOT claiming?

b) Stop using faulty logic

Actually You and the A-Theists seem to have cornered that market completely.

c) Stop trying to evade questions

hehehe ... I laughed so hard when I read this. I think you are so dense you failed to see the complete and utter irony of it -- Mr. I-am-not-making-any-claims.

Me Evade??? When I am not busy responding to NON-persons like yourself, I don’t exist, I am just a figment of your subconscious imagination. I suggest you run along and enjoy this brief little life while you can. Sooner than you think, you will cease to exist A-Theist.

From now on, if you are tempted to respond to one of my posts, save yourself the trouble …

… as far as you are concerned … I am not making ANY claims. I don’t believe in Nothing, not even me … I don’t even exist …

ImpyTimpy
28th October 2002, 09:32 PM
Uhh.. You do realise how contradictory your own sentences are don't you? You said:

I am not making ANY claims.

and also

Non-position, so there is no point in further conversation between us at all.
Why do you follow me around so much and NOT say anything? Do you really believe that I or anyone else here cares about your non-opinions and non-positions? Thanks for Non-sharing. Is there anything else you would like to Non-say before you Non-go?
I am not saying that free-will exists.

Originally posted by Franko
ImpotentWinky,
Well, in that case I am just a figment of your imagination anyway … so … why don’t you run along and find some nice A-Theist to play with. I am here to have discussions with people capable of having opinions.
Yes, little boy … thank you for sharing … run along … the grown-ups are trying to Talk.
Great! Wonderful! So what else would you like to tell us you are NOT doing? Is there a point you would like to NOT make? If you are claiming a position, then for all I know you agree with my Non-position, so there is no point in further conversation between us at all.
Why do you follow me around so much and NOT say anything? Do you really believe that I or anyone else here cares about your non-opinions and non-positions? Thanks for Non-sharing. Is there anything else you would like to Non-say before you Non-go?
I am not saying that free-will exists.

I am Not claiming to use strawmans, I am NOT claiming to NOT use strawmans.

What are you NOT claiming?

Actually You and the A-Theists seem to have cornered that market completely.

hehehe ... I laughed so hard when I read this. I think you are so dense you failed to see the complete and utter irony of it -- Mr. I-am-not-making-any-claims.

Me Evade??? When I am not busy responding to NON-persons like yourself, I don’t exist, I am just a figment of your subconscious imagination. I suggest you run along and enjoy this brief little life while you can. Sooner than you think, you will cease to exist A-Theist.

From now on, if you are tempted to respond to one of my posts, save yourself the trouble …

… as far as you are concerned … I am not making ANY claims. I don’t believe in Nothing, not even me … I don’t even exist …

chulbert
28th October 2002, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Franko

Are you claiming “free will” exist – YES or NO?

I might claim one way or the other if I knew what your definition of free will is. I asked you earlier and you panicked, throwing an off-topic question back at me.

So tell me, what is free will? Answer this and I'll be more than happy to tell you whether or not I think your version of exists.

wraith
28th October 2002, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Franko
btw -- Wraith ...

I forgot to congradulate you on your successful mission. I'll contact you later, behind you know who's back, as we say ...

:cool:

:)

wraith
28th October 2002, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Wraith:

The point is: You DO have the complete information. You have all information about the present state of the game, and you have all information about the rules governing the next move. You can even calculate the ultimately best next move. But you STILL cannot predict which of the POSSIBLE moves the player will choose.

If I had the information that told me that your next move would be based on your maximum perceived benefit ie. the move that would give you the most advantageous position (assuming that youre trying to win the game), and I knew that you knew what that move was, I would know exactly what your move will be.

does 2 + 2 = 4 to you?

About the difference between algorithmic and rule-based systems. I just explained the difference. If you dont understand it, get somebody to explain it to you. Ask Franko, he's a programmer, he ought to know. Or you can ignore it, or deny it, I dont seriously care.

I understand what youre saying and I know where your error lies.

Franko is a hardcore Fatalist by the way

:)

MRC_Hans
29th October 2002, 12:01 AM
Franko:
What contradiction? Is it a secret?

If there is a contradiction mention it specifically. Other than idiot A-Theists who is fooled by such nonsense and religious fanaticism?

You have said that "Ultimately each man is responsible for his actions".

You have proved (using a generic computer language) that without free will there is no responsibility.

You have stated that you do not believe humans have free will.

At least one of those statements must be wrong. Which one?

And dont say you have not said those things, its on record.

Hans

MRC_Hans
29th October 2002, 12:13 AM
And Wraith:
If I had the information that told me that your next move would be based on your maximum perceived benefit ie. the move that would give you the most advantageous position (assuming that youre trying to win the game), and I knew that you knew what that move was, I would know exactly what your move will be.

No. You would know which move I would probably make, but you could not be shure. I might choose another, in order to throw my opponent off balance, in order to try something new, or for some quite irrational reason. The point is, the rule-driven system does not preclude free will.

I understand what youre saying and I know where your error lies. (on the difference between alorithmic and rule-driven)

Yawn! Then do enlighten me.

Hans

wraith
29th October 2002, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
No. You would know which move I would probably make, but you could not be shure.

hence me saying "if I had the complete information."

I might choose another, in order to throw my opponent off balance, in order to try something new

What would be the point of trying something new? Would this give you a more advantageous position? If your objective was to win the game, then all your moves would be based on what you perceive as the best move to make to win the game. If you wanted to try something new to put off balance your apponent but you know of an even better move, why would you do it? It's because you perceive more of benefit by putting your opponent off balance with a move that is less advantageous compared to a more mathematical optimal move. If I knew how you thought ie if I had your "maximum perceived benefit" program, Id be able to predict your every move.

[QUOTE][B]The point is, the rule-driven system does not preclude free will.[QUOTE][B]

The point is that the alorithmic and rule-driven systems are ultimately the same. You deny that your consciousness is ultimately an algorithm.

Again, does 2 + 2 = 4 to you?
Do you jump off buildings for no reason?
When was the last time you wore a bra? How about a mini skirt?

lol

MRC_Hans
29th October 2002, 02:30 AM
If I knew how you thought ie if I had your "maximum perceived benefit" program, Id be able to predict your every move.

Provided I had such a program. But you prove my point; to predict my chess move, you would need information outside the game. The rules of the game limit my choices but I still have choices.

The point is that the alorithmic and rule-driven systems are ultimately the same. So you dont understand them? Its OK, lots of people dont.

You deny that your consciousness is ultimately an algorithm. ??? Do YOU claim that it is? Thats really surprising! An algorithm can be run by a computer. So you are saying after all that matter makes consciousness??

Hans

wraith
29th October 2002, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Provided I had such a program. But you prove my point; to predict my chess move, you would need information outside the game.

How does it prove that you have free-will?

The rules of the game limit my choices but I still have choices.

So it was your choice to speak in english? In the same way, it was your choice to move the bishop?

You still havnt answered my question...when was the last time that you wore a bra?

:rolleyes:

Do YOU claim that it is? Thats really surprising! An algorithm can be run by a computer. So you are saying after all that matter makes consciousness??

You maximum perceived benefit is the algorithm....how does this imply that matter creates consciousness?

Have you ever done anything that doesnt benefit yourself?
Before you say "I can take a bullet to save a friend. That doesnt benefit me."

You would rather save your friend at the sacrifice of your life, rather than to see your friend die and you live. That was the perceived benefit.

You are bound to MPB

MRC_Hans
29th October 2002, 03:36 AM
How does it prove that you have free-will?
I havent said it did. I have said it proved that a rule system did not preclude free will.

You (in plural, thus including Franko) claimed that it couldnt exist withing a rule-driven system. That was the point in the "Atoms obey tlop --etc" syllogism, to prove that humans obey tlop, and you used that to assert that humans have no free will. I have provided proof to counter that assumption.

The existence of human free will is neither proved or disproved.

So it was your choice to speak in english? In the same way, it was your choice to move the bishop?
You still havnt answered my question...when was the last time that you wore a bra?

Yes it was my choice to speak English, otherwise you would understand even less. There are conditions we dont get to choose (the rules of the game), and sometimes we make wrong choises, even stupid choices.

What has that got to do with this discussion? Except perhaps to imply that we have free will. If God controlled our every move, would we ever do stupid things?

Nooo, Wraith, I really dont need to wear a bra.

Hans

MRC_Hans
29th October 2002, 03:50 AM
Oh yeah, and:
You maximum perceived benefit is the algorithm
Thats not an algorithm. I decide in each situation what I find beneficial, it needs not be logical or consistent. An algoritm is logical and consistent.

If, as you seem to claim, my decision is a logically derived response combining present stimuli and past information, then it is ultimately predictable, and then it is indeed an algoritm. And then it can be emulated perfectly by a computer (the computer needed may not be available just now), and then the computer would make consciousness. And a computer is matter.

So is that what you mean by your MPB algorithm? And to save posts, if thats NOT what you mean, then what is your reason for believing that we dont have free will?

You seem to have painted yourself into yet another corner.

Hans

Titanpoint
29th October 2002, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by wraith
[B]

So things happen just for the hell of it? :eek:

Yes.

If you had more info, wouldnt the probability of being wrong decrease? What if you acquired more and more info, wouldnt the probability of something eventually be either true (100%) or false (0%) ?

No. At the level of the quantum, transitions occur for no reason at all. There is a point of scale at which perfect precision in terms of energy, time, position, momentum is impossible. This is what is meant by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

How often do randomly jump of buildings?

In the macroscopic world, the Heisenberg Uncertainty of position, momentum, energy, time is extremely small and can be ignored. At the level of the atom and smaller, the uncertainty is so large that it must be taken into account.

Atoms obey the laws of quantum uncertainty
You do not obey the laws of quantum uncertainty.

or

You obey the laws of macroscopic physics (Newtonian)
You are composed of atoms.
Atoms do not obey the laws of macroscopic physics

btw, I am over it
hahaha

Thus the fallacy of composition is to suppose that the behavior of the parts is the same as the behavior of the whole. Atoms obey different laws of physics compared to macroscopic objects, even though those macroscopic objects are composed of atoms.

Either way, Franko's logic syllogism is false.

TP

29th October 2002, 04:53 AM
For those who don't understand the pink unicorn in the garage question, here is the explanation. It comes from Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, and has been used before, as wranko knows. Hammy and wranko want to ignore it because they want to continue with this unfair / unequal demands conspiracy claim.

It is up to them to prove their assertions. That is basic to the rules of evidence. If your assertion is contrary to the currently available body of knowledge, you must offer the evidence.

If I say I have a pink unicorn in my garage it is not up to you to demonstrate it isn't there. It is up to me to demonstrate that it is. If you claim psi, you need to prove it. If you claim creationism, you need to prove it. If you claim you were abducted my martians, you need to prove it.

But they aren't interested in logic or rational debate. This is simply a twisted little game.

Cheers,

wraith
29th October 2002, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans

I havent said it did. I have said it proved that a rule system did not preclude free will.

You (in plural, thus including Franko) claimed that it couldnt exist withing a rule-driven system. That was the point in the "Atoms obey tlop --etc" syllogism, to prove that humans obey tlop, and you used that to assert that humans have no free will. I have provided proof to counter that assumption.

The existence of human free will is neither proved or disproved.

Do you control TLOP or does TLOP control you?
Ah thats right, youre only restricted by TLOP. You have free-will. So tell me, whats this mystery force that you speak of? The moon chooses to orbit the earth I guess?

Yes it was my choice to speak English, otherwise you would understand even less.

Ahh yes, as soon as you were born, you knew the alphabet. You knew how to pronounce words. You knew how to construct sentences. You CHOOSE to speak english. Care to speak yoruba or tamil?

There are conditions we dont get to choose (the rules of the game), and sometimes we make wrong choises, even stupid choices.

So youre saying that we obey TLOP?

If God controlled our every move, would we ever do stupid things?

Depends if youre a stupid person

:cool:

Nooo, Wraith, I really dont need to wear a bra.

That doesnt have anything to do with MPB does it?

:eek:

Thats not an algorithm. I decide in each situation what I find beneficial, it needs not be logical or consistent. An algoritm is logical and consistent.

That just takes the cake....Id go as far to say that it takes the whole bakery!

So when do you wear high heels? Did you put lip stick on when you went out? When was the last time that you took a dump while the toilet seat lid was still down?

If, as you seem to claim, my decision is a logically derived response combining present stimuli and past information, then it is ultimately predictable, and then it is indeed an algoritm. And then it can be emulated perfectly by a computer (the computer needed may not be available just now), and then the computer would make consciousness. And a computer is matter.

well, if you think that matter creates consciousness, then knock yourself out!!

So is that what you mean by your MPB algorithm?

How you interpret the info that youre given to yield the best perceived outcome is MPB.
Give me an example where you have made a decision where MPB is not present.

And to save posts, if thats NOT what you mean, then what is your reason for believing that we dont have free will?

read the last 10 or so posts

You seem to have painted yourself into yet another corner.

ROFL
dont think so
;)

wraith
29th October 2002, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Titanpoint

Yes.

no
haha

No. At the level of the quantum, transitions occur for no reason at all. There is a point of scale at which perfect precision in terms of energy, time, position, momentum is impossible. This is what is meant by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

In the macroscopic world, the Heisenberg Uncertainty of position, momentum, energy, time is extremely small and can be ignored. At the level of the atom and smaller, the uncertainty is so large that it must be taken into account.

Atoms obey the laws of quantum uncertainty
You do not obey the laws of quantum uncertainty.

or

You obey the laws of macroscopic physics (Newtonian)
You are composed of atoms.
Atoms do not obey the laws of macroscopic physics

Appears to be magic hey?
I bet that if you went back a couple of centuries and showed someone a TV, to them it would be magic.
I am aware of Heisenberg UP. That still doesnt mean that things happen just for kicks.
Even though it may not follow classic laws of physics, they are still based on laws.

Thus the fallacy of composition is to suppose that the behavior of the parts is the same as the behavior of the whole. Atoms obey different laws of physics compared to macroscopic objects, even though those macroscopic objects are composed of atoms.

Either way, Franko's logic syllogism is false.

TP

How so?
They are still laws. Care to break them?
Franko's syllogism stands true
muhaha

chulbert
29th October 2002, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by wraith

You maximum perceived benefit is the algorithm.

To me, this presumes your goal is to win. Perhaps you want to win, perhaps loose, or maybe you want to prolong the game as long as possible while your friend robs your opponent's house. Or maybe you want to see how the game turns out when you make moves as randomly as possible.

You are bound to MPB

If you want win, maybe.

LW
29th October 2002, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The difference between an algorithmic system and a rule-driven is as follows:

In an algorithmic system all stimuli and responses are predefined by the constructor. If the system encounters a situation not foreseen by the constructor, it can at best present a default response.

The rule-driven system has a database of rules. In each situation it examines its ruleset, determines which apply to the situation, and ends up with one or more possible actions that are within the given rules. Then it chooses an action, either by some evaluation process or by random. Advanced systems can establish new rules and modifiy existing by evaluating results of previous actions.

Umm. Did you notice that you just gave description of an algorithm that simulates a rule-driven system?

Also, if you allow adding and deleting rules from the database, you may simulate any algorithm using a rule-driven system.

There's no real difference, at least if you are not using the strict definition of an algorithm that requires it to always terminate with an answer.

Proof available by request. Supply the details of the rule-based formalism in the query.

hammegk
29th October 2002, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by chulbert

If you want win, maybe.
Why do you think life is a zero-sum situation?

MRC_Hans
29th October 2002, 06:52 AM
Do we have to start all over because your name is now Wraith?

Do you control TLOP or does TLOP control you?
Do the laws of the USA control me or do I control the laws of the USA? The answer is, neither.
Ah thats right, youre only restricted by TLOP. You have free-will. So tell me, whats this mystery force that you speak of? The moon chooses to orbit the earth I guess?
Thats right, bingo! You got it. I have free will within the confinements of tlop.

I dont speak of any mysterious force.

I have no reason to believe the Moon has free will, do you?

Ahh yes, as soon as you were born, you knew the alphabet. You knew how to pronounce words. You knew how to construct sentences. You CHOOSE to speak english.

No, I had to LEARN it. It is you that say we are programmed not I.

If God controlled our every move, would we ever do stupid things?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depends if youre a stupid person No, a stupid person can only do stupid things if he has free will. If a person totally controlled by God does stupid things, it must be God that makes him do it. If drive my car into your wall and makes a hole in it, who do you send the bill to?

1) My car?
2) Me?
3) Tlop?
4) God?

Nooo, Wraith, I really dont need to wear a bra.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesnt have anything to do with MPB does it?

So when do you wear high heels? Did you put lip stick on when you went out? When was the last time that you took a dump while the toilet seat lid was still down?
More of the bra type questions? I said: We dont always make logical decisions. Which part do you not understand?

well, if you think that matter creates consciousness, then knock yourself out!! Ehr, the point was that YOUR argument seemed to point to "matter makes consciousness". It would be more convincing if you were to try to explain how your assertion that our consciousness works according to an algorithm doesnt imply that it could be emulated by a computer.

But, if I knock myself out, I interact with my biological brain, disabling it temporarily. During which period I am unconscious. So disabling the brain (matter) disables consciousness.

Tell me, are these some kind of trick questions? You put up a number of arguments that seem to support my view, and when I'm sufficiently unaware, you're gonna swoop in with the killer argument? How devious! How elegant! I cant wait to se it :rolleyes:

read the last 10 or so posts

Thats my point. Your last 100 or so posts indicate that you are talking about a strict algorithm. Like for instance:

You are a program – you are an algorithm – nothing more. You are just doing what you were programmed to do! And my Goddess –she’s your programmer.

So I ask you: What makes this program so unique that it could not be executed on a sufficiently powerful computer?

Hans

chulbert
29th October 2002, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by hammegk

Why do you think life is a zero-sum situation?

We're talking about a game of chess. Let's try to stay on topic, m'kay?

MRC_Hans
29th October 2002, 07:02 AM
There's no real difference, at least if you are not using the strict definition of an algorithm that requires it to always terminate with an answer. And thats just the definition that Franko/Wraith seem to be using.

Otherwise I'd be glad to discuss software technology in an appropriate forum. But I dont think we will find ourselves to be in any serious disagreement.

Hans

hammegk
29th October 2002, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by chulbert

We're talking about a game of chess. Let's try to stay on topic, m'kay?
And here I thought the purpose of this forun was Religion & Philosophy. Silly me.

Are you sure you're in the right place?

Franko
29th October 2002, 08:20 AM
Titanpoint,

Either way, Franko's logic syllogism is false.

Unless you are prepared to violate the laws of Physics for us, I’ll take this as just more wishful thinking on your part …

Franko
29th October 2002, 08:22 AM
MRC_Hansjob,

Do we have to start all over because your name is now Wraith?

I love it when one of my sock-puppets accuses a Real Entity of being a sock-puppet.

... I just think it is the cutest thing ... :)

LW
29th October 2002, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
And thats just the definition that Franko/Wraith seem to be using.
Could be. I don't read Franko's posts often since they are so... well, Franko's posts.

Otherwise I'd be glad to discuss software technology in an appropriate forum. But I dont think we will find ourselves to be in any serious disagreement.

Quite possibly. I just have some Pavlovian reflexes about theory of computation. One of them is that all computational systems that are powerful enough are computationally equivalent.

I think that it might be better for your argument to use a little different terminology, and say that a brain is a reactive system, instead of a rule-driven system since a rule system may also be used to implement an algorithm in the strict sense. A reactive system is one that runs a event-response loop. It runs in a cycle where it gets an input and reacts to it in some way. This loop may then be implemented using whatever formalism.

MRC_Hans
29th October 2002, 12:30 PM
Quite. But I was not looking for higher logic here. I was just taking a last round on the floor with my old friend for old time's sake. I'm letting him go now, I've had all the fun there was to be had.

Hans

Furious
29th October 2002, 12:57 PM
Problem with Franko's syllogism:

Atoms obey TLOP. True statement and premise.

I am made of atoms. Also true statement and premise.

I obey TLOP. True statement, but not a logical conclusion from the previous two statements because it violates the fallacy of composition. A system does not have to have the same properties of its component parts, though it may.

I'm not arguing that we don't obey the laws of physics, everything in the known universe has to. But we don't obey the laws of physics because we are made of atoms, they just happen to obey the laws of physics too because they are in the same universe.

I'm ok with Franko arguing that the laws of physics creates a deterministic universe with no free will, since the available knowledge cannot easily tell us one way or the other.

We are not deterministic because we are composed of atoms, at least logically based on that syllogism. It is not a conclusion that can be reached using formal rules of logic on the two premises.

Any errors here? We could debate the language, but for arguments sake, assume the two premises are true.

The conclusion is correct as well, but it is not derived from the two premises using logic.

whitefork
29th October 2002, 01:03 PM
Let's see, there are X people who vote for "fallacy of composition" and Y people who vote for "argument is correct because all three statements are true".

Anyone keeping score?

29th October 2002, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by whitefork
Let's see, there are X people who vote for "fallacy of composition" and Y people who vote for "argument is correct because all three statements are true".

Anyone keeping score?
Hmmm. So, we're going to use an ad populem fallacy to determine the validity of the compositon falllacy?

Are you going for the irony here?

Cheers,

Franko
29th October 2002, 02:04 PM
Billybuoy (BillyHoyt),

Hmmm. So, we're going to use an ad populem fallacy to determine the validity of the compositon falllacy?

Are you going for the irony here?

1) Atoms obey the laws of Physics
2) You are made of atoms
3) (conclusion) YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

Who’s going for irony? Either explain which premise (#1 or #2) is wrong (FALSE) and provide your evidence for this claim, or kindly demonstrate that the conclusion is WRONG by violating (disobeying) the Laws of Physics for us!

You CANNOT claim that a syllogism is logically flawed when you admit that both premises and the conclusion are CORRECT!!! That is the definition of a TRUE syllogism. Are you A-Theists REALLY THIS RETARDED???

whitefork
29th October 2002, 02:07 PM
Squares have four sides
I have two arms
Therefore the deuterium nucleus has one neutron and one proton.

This is a valid argument?

(yeah, I was going for irony)

Franko
29th October 2002, 02:26 PM
Squares have four sides
I have two arms
Therefore the deuterium nucleus has one neutron and one proton.

Not a valid syllogism -- the conclusion does not flow naturally from the 2 premises.

What point is it that you are trying to make whitefork? That you are a fanatically loyal defender of the One True Faith of A-Theism? That given a choice between reason and Faith -- you choose Faith? (even if it is faith in pessimism?)

Are you going to Violate the Laws of Physics for us, or are you going to be a Man and concede the point?

My syllogism is correct!

Loki
29th October 2002, 02:27 PM
Franko,

You CANNOT claim that a syllogism is logically flawed when you admit that both premises and the conclusion are CORRECT.
You are wrong - a valid syllogism is one that has a 'form' that ensures the following (from : Aristotle Prior Analytics) (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/a8pra/prianal2.html)

It is possible for the premisses of the syllogism to be true, or to be false, or to be the one true, the other false. The conclusion is either true or false necessarily. From true premisses it is not possible to draw a false conclusion,...
In other words, a valid syllogism is one in which, if the two premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. You can prove this by generalising the syllogism into a mathematical form, and substituting different values for the terms. We've done this (repeatedly), and demonstrated that the conclusion is "true" for some terms, and "false" for others. This means the 'form' of the syllogism is logically flawed! There is no other outcome possible! Again, any particular instance of the syllogism may be TRUE, but the syllogism is logically flawed (in construction) if it is possible to substitute terms into it in such a way that the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.

Oh, and nice one Whitefork!

whitefork
29th October 2002, 02:35 PM
"Natural flow" is not a concept in formal logic, but I would be interested in your formalization of it Franko.

Can you state a clear set of criteria that would permit you or anyone to formally distinguish, to the satisfaction of everyone, what constitutes "natural flow"?

Merely because an argument sounds good, has true premisses and a true conclusion, and that conclusion appears to have a connection to the premisses, does not make an argument formally sound.

"Made of" is not a logical operation.

This is not a valid argument:

My house is made of wood. (nothing but wood. no nails)
Wood comes from trees.
My house comes from trees.

This is completely true, flows naturally, and no one will disagree with it.

But it is not a valid argument.

And for what it's worth, you argument is not a syllogism, at least not in the formal, Aristotlean sense. It does not follow the forms.

Furious
29th October 2002, 03:18 PM
I'm not saying either of the premises are wrong or the conclusion is wrong.

What I am saying is that the conclusion does not come from the premises logically, because it does not follow the rules of logic. It succumbs to the fallacy of composition.

Yes, we do obey the laws of physics. Yes, atoms do too. We don't obey the laws of physics because we are made of atoms, we obey the laws of physics because we are physical. The causality comes from existing in a physical universe where the laws of physics govern all (conscious or not), not because we are composed of atoms.

I believe someone earlier on this thread has a good example of how things composed of other things are not forced to have those properties:

All bicycle parts are lightweight.
All bicycles are made of bicycle parts.
All bicycles are lightweight.

This flows just fine, but the conclusion isn't correct. It is wrong because a bicycle isn't lightweight just because all its parts are.

Does that make sense?

wraith
29th October 2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by chulbert

To me, this presumes your goal is to win. Perhaps you want to win, perhaps loose, or maybe you want to prolong the game as long as possible while your friend robs your opponent's house. Or maybe you want to see how the game turns out when you make moves as randomly as possible.

Why would you want to lose? Just to spite me? lol Regardless of which, that is still pound to MPB. That goes for your reason to prolong the game or to make moves at random. You perceive a benefit by prolonging the game so that your friend can rob the house rather than to win quickly. Whereever you go, MPB is right with ya
muhaha

If you want win, maybe.

Even if you wanted to lose

wraith
29th October 2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Do we have to start all over because your name is now Wraith?

lol whatever gives you your kicks

Do the laws of the USA control me or do I control the laws of the USA? The answer is, neither.

haha
If you want to break the laws then do so. TLOP will be involved. If you want to make new laws then do so. TLOP will be involved.

The laws are made by people and those people obey TLOP.

Again, do you obey TLOP or not?
Try not to dodge the question this time
:rolleyes:

Thats right, bingo! You got it. I have free will within the confinements of tlop.

I dont speak of any mysterious force.

I have no reason to believe the Moon has free will, do you?

Well I havnt "got it" actually

The moon is made of atoms, so it obeys TLOP - you say that it doesnt have free-will
You are made of atoms, so you obey TLOP - you say that you have free-will
Whats this mysterious force that gives you free-will? TLOP obeys you right?

No, I had to LEARN it. It is you that say we are programmed not I.

Who taught you english? Your parents? Did you CHOOSE the language for your parents to speak? Did you CHOOSE your parents to teach you?

No, a stupid person can only do stupid things if he has free will. If a person totally controlled by God does stupid things, it must be God that makes him do it. If drive my car into your wall and makes a hole in it, who do you send the bill to?

1) My car?
2) Me?
3) Tlop?
4) God?

Ill send the bill to you if you dont mind haha
Take the analogy of the puppet show. You are the puppet, and TLOP is pulling your strings. What kind of character in the show are you? Maybe a stupid person?

Hans: Nooo, Wraith, I really dont need to wear a bra.

wraith: That doesnt have anything to do with MPB does it?

So I guess that youll have no problems wearing a bra next time you go out? If people made fun of you, would you still wear it?

More of the bra type questions? I said: We dont always make logical decisions.

ahh thats right, you run red lights at random
you wear mini skirts when you go out
you gave your boss a big wet one on the lips this morning

Ehr, the point was that YOUR argument seemed to point to "matter makes consciousness". It would be more convincing if you were to try to explain how your assertion that our consciousness works according to an algorithm doesnt imply that it could be emulated by a computer.

How?
I believe that consciousness creates matter...
It is you that has said that matter creates consciousness and that the algorithm can be simulated on the computer

But, if I knock myself out, I interact with my biological brain, disabling it temporarily. During which period I am unconscious. So disabling the brain (matter) disables consciousness.

Why is that? You dont obey TLOP. You control it right?

Tell me, are these some kind of trick questions? You put up a number of arguments that seem to support my view, and when I'm sufficiently unaware, you're gonna swoop in with the killer argument? How devious! How elegant! I cant wait to se it :rolleyes:

hahaa youre a classic

So I ask you: What makes this program so unique that it could not be executed on a sufficiently powerful computer?

It would be a bit hard for a computer to be conscious since consciousness creates matter haha
youre under the impression that matter creates consciousness......a big mistake

:eek:

29th October 2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Franko
You CANNOT claim that a syllogism is logically flawed when you admit that both premises and the conclusion are CORRECT!!! That is the definition of a TRUE syllogism. Are you A-Theists REALLY THIS RETARDED???
One of certainly is retarded. Syllogisms are neither true nor false. Premises are. Syllogisms are valid or invalid.

Do us a favor. Look it up. Shut your trap long enough to learn a little. Do yourself a favor as well. You are looking incredibly stupid with egg on your keyboard right now.

You have now demonstrated (again) that you know precious little about logic. Except for your whining, this argument is over. See you again in - oh - ten or twenty years, after you've got some lformal logic under your belt.

Jeers,

Franko
29th October 2002, 07:28 PM
Loki, (and/or Whitefork)

Why is it that you cannot seem to resist embarrassing yourself lately?

In other words, a valid syllogism is one in which, if the two premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. You can prove this by generalising the syllogism into a mathematical form, and substituting different values for the terms. We've done this (repeatedly), and demonstrated that the conclusion is "true" for some terms, and "false" for others. This means the 'form' of the syllogism is logically flawed! There is no other outcome possible! Again, any particular instance of the syllogism may be TRUE, but the syllogism is logically flawed (in construction) if it is possible to substitute terms into it in such a way that the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.

I am not sure what the hell you are talking about, and obviously neither are you or any of the other A-Theists. So do you or do you NOT agree that BOTH premises are correct?

Can you violate (or disobey) the Laws of Physics?

What other Evidence do you have for this “free will” which you cannot even consistently define?
--------------------------------------------------

… So what you and Whitefork are saying (in summary) is that BOTH premises, and the conclusion are correct. But the syllogism (or the conclusion – same difference) still has some “invisible” flaw which both You and Whitefork and all of the other evil little A-Theists understand completely, yet cannot articulate into words.

Such as – Geometric figures are NOT equal to points.

Such as – Geometric figures are NOT equal to lines.

Oh, and nice one Whitefork!

Yeah … you are both like two peas in a pod – True masters of talking without actually saying anything …

Franko
29th October 2002, 07:35 PM
Billybuoy,

One of certainly is retarded. Syllogisms are neither true nor false. Premises are. Syllogisms are valid or invalid.

Well, when I said the Syllogism was True, I meant that the Conclusion generated by the syllogism was True, but I should know better than to think that an A-Theist will be able to put 2 and 2 together.

Do us a favor. Look it up. Shut your trap long enough to learn a little.

Well since you are the one claiming to understand it so well why don’t YOU just explain it for us?

Where is this “invisible” flaw you A-Theists keep mumbling about? Why is it that NONE of you Religious fanatics can seem to explain it?

Do yourself a favor as well. You are looking incredibly stupid with egg on your keyboard right now.

Billyboy … I have never found you that perceptive. You certainly aren’t disappointing me …

You have now demonstrated (again) that you know precious little about logic.

Why didn’t you point out specifically what you are talking about here instead of asserting how much more you know? Why didn’t you demonstrate your superior grasp of Logic by clearly explaining the “invisible” flaw whereby BOTH premises are correct, and you CANNOT demonstrate the conclusion is flawed other than by whining about you opinions out loud?

Except for your whining, this argument is over. See you again in - oh - ten or twenty years, after you've got some lformal logic under your belt.

Please Great Goddess ten or twenty years away from this moron would be a great blessing … Please … Please … I beseech thee …

Jeers

Right back at ya – “Logic-Boy”!

ImpyTimpy
29th October 2002, 08:37 PM
Ok, maybe this approach will work...

Franko, nobody says we don't obey the laws of physics. Now prove logically that laws of physics negate the existence of free-will. This isn't logical:

You obey the laws of physics.
Therefore there is no free-will.

Franko
29th October 2002, 09:12 PM
ImpyTimpy,

… nobody says we don't obey the laws of physics. Now prove logically that laws of physics negate the existence of free-will.

Prove Logically that the laws of Physics negate the existence of God.

What kind of Logic do you call that? What happen to YOU CLAIM IT – YOU PROVE IT?

You are claiming the existence of “free will” – NOT I! I don’t even understand what you mean by that term? Everytime I ask one of you A-Theists, I either get evasion (vast majority), or a definition which is logically inconsistent and paradoxical. It is like you are claiming you can draw a 4-sided triangle, and instead of simply drawing it to prove you can draw a 4-sided triangle, you want me to somehow prove that you cannot.

This isn't logical:

You can say that again!!!

You obey the laws of physics.
Therefore there is no free-will.

Yeah neither is this …

You claim there is no evidence for God.
Therefore there is no evidence for God.

If you make the claim, then prove it. Otherwise you have an UNKNOWN. In other words, GOD = UNKNOWN, NOT GOD = FALSE. (that's Agnosticism for those of you hard of subtlety-hearing)

evildave
29th October 2002, 09:23 PM
Yeah neither is this …

You claim there is no evidence for God.
Therefore there is no evidence for God.

If you make the claim, then prove it. Otherwise you have an UNKNOWN. In other words, GOD = UNKNOWN, NOT GOD = FALSE. (that's Agnosticism for those of you hard of subtlety-hearing)

You want proof of "nothing"? Here it is: ""

Hey, you're the one who wants a god, you go turn over every rock in the universe (or 'multiverse', or however improbable you want to make the search by rationalizing why you haven't found one, yet) to get the evidence for it. We promise to look at it if you produce it. Shoot yourself and then come back from the dead, if you need to. We'll wait for you to drop us a line.

Put all this inexhaustible energy you seem to have posting nonsense and turn it to producing your god.

I promise not to make too much fun of the cardboard and glitter.

Franko
29th October 2002, 09:40 PM
Dave, I hope you realize that being really really overweight does NOT constitute a proof that one can Defy the Laws of Physics.

Franko
29th October 2002, 09:42 PM
Neither does having the bottom of your face simply merge with your shoulders (thus bypassing the need for a neck).

That does NOT constitute a valid demonstration of a "Majorly Breach" in the Laws of Physics.

ImpyTimpy
29th October 2002, 09:48 PM
Uhh.. Prove that obeying laws of physics negates free-will Franko...

And just to make it easier, free-will is the ability to make decisions under constraints of what can/can not be done (laws of physics as you put it).

Originally posted by Franko
ImpyTimpy,

snipped crazed rambling...

evildave
29th October 2002, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Dave, I hope you realize that being really really overweight does NOT constitute a proof that one can Defy the Laws of Physics.

Originally posted by Franko

Neither does having the bottom of your face simply merge with your shoulders (thus bypassing the need for a neck).

That does NOT constitute a valid demonstration of a "Majorly Breach" in the Laws of Physics.

HEY, it's more from the Franko like we expect to hear!

See, now the religious stereotype/strawman Franko is trying to establish is "lashing out" mindlessly again. He's trying to teach us that religious people "always blindly lash out" as soon as they don't like the direction a debate is headed.

ImpyTimpy
29th October 2002, 10:27 PM
One must question the sanity of a person, who when faced with facts starts to scream and become unstable. Furthermore, he lives in a self constructed fantasy land where he is the chosen one of a fictious Goddess, and is the only person who has realised that we have no will of our own, but are merely puppets of some grander design.

Originally posted by evildave

HEY, it's more from the Franko like we expect to hear!

See, now the religious stereotype/strawman Franko is trying to establish is "lashing out" mindlessly again. He's trying to teach us that religious people "always blindly lash out" as soon as they don't like the direction a debate is headed.

ArmchairPhysicist
29th October 2002, 10:48 PM
Atoms obey the laws of physics
You obey the laws of physics

Now, I disagree with the wording, mainly because the words "obey" and "laws" imply conscience decisions. That aside, we'll say that each of the three statements are true.

The Fallacy of Composition states what is true for the individual parts does not necessarily imply truth for the whole.

Atoms are colorless
You are colorless

This syllogism uses the same form as the first one, but the conclusion is false. Because the conclusion is false, this form can not be used at all because we have found both true and false conclusions using this form.

In other words, if it works sometimes, but doesn't work other times, the form is invalid. That is why the syllogism is invalid; it uses an invalid form. Since it uses an invalid form, it can not be accepted as a logical arguement.

Water is made of Hydrogen and Oxygen
Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature
Oxygen is a gas at room temperature
Water is a gas at room temperature

Another example of a false conclusion based on true statements. Yet again, the premiss assumes that the whole must share the characteristics of the individual parts. The conclusion is false. Again, if it works sometimes, but not all of the time, the form is invalid. This is the Falacy of composition

Syllogisms aside, there is still the question of Free Will. Franko has repeatedly dodged the question of "What is the definition of Free will that is being used" by saying the burden of proof is on the persons claiming its existance.

So, here it is (again), the theoretic definition of Free Will..

Free Will: The ability to act upon a personal desire.

wraith
30th October 2002, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist
Atoms are colorless
You are colorless

Water is made of Hydrogen and Oxygen
Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature
Oxygen is a gas at room temperature
Water is a gas at room temperature

In both cases, your syllogisms are describing a system. Just like the syllogism

atoms obey TLOP
you obey TLOP

The difference between this syllogism and the ones that you have suggested is that in your syllogisms, the systems that they describe do not represent the whole. You provide a lack of information. What happens when you draw a conclusion from a lack of information? The conclusion may be false. Your syllogisms desribe only part of the system and not the whole.

I am not colourless
Water is not a gas at room temperature

The "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism provides all the information. It describes the whole system.
Thats why the conclusion is true.

You say that the conclusion is false.
"You obey TLOP" is false.

So TLOP obeys you?

Q-Source
30th October 2002, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by wraith

In both cases, your syllogisms are describing a system. Just like the syllogism

atoms obey TLOP
you obey TLOP

The difference between this syllogism and the ones that you have suggested is that in your syllogisms, the systems that they describe do not represent the whole. You provide a lack of information. What happens when you draw a conclusion from a lack of information? The conclusion may be false. Your syllogisms desribe only part of the system and not the whole.

I am not colourless
Water is not a gas at room temperature

The "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism provides all the information. It describes the whole system.
Thats why the conclusion is true.

You say that the conclusion is false.
"You obey TLOP" is false.

So TLOP obeys you?

Wraith,

Could you please explain what you understand by TLOP?

What definition are you using?

Many thanks

Q-S

MRC_Hans
30th October 2002, 05:22 AM
The difference between this syllogism and the ones that you have suggested is that in your syllogisms, the systems that they describe do not represent the whole. You provide a lack of information. What happens when you draw a conclusion from a lack of information? The conclusion may be false. Your syllogisms desribe only part of the system and not the whole.

I suppose I should let A P answer himself, but in an open fight...

What you say there Wraith is exactly the opposite of the fact. The problem with your syllogism is that it attemts to make statements encompassing complex systems. Both atoms and humans "obey" tlop, but tlop do not apply to humans in the same way as to atoms. For your syllogism to be correct, we should be able to take EVERY SINGLE element of tlop and substitute "tlop" with it, e.g.:

atoms are matter
you are matter (=true)

atoms are the smallest parts of elements
you are the smallest part of elemets (=false)

etc.

Thus we can see that tlop must not affect humans in the same way as they affect atoms. Thus we cannot infer that anything general about humans from the observation of atoms.

For your syllogism to be logically coherent, TLOP in line 1 and TLOP in line 3 must be identical. But in this case it is false. The (subset of) TLOP in line 1 is not identical to (the subset of) TLOP in line 3.

Wether you like it or not, or wether you agree or not, you are not going to get your syllogism accepted, so get over it, move on to next argument. Define your next premise.

Oh, and: "You obey TLOP" is false.

So TLOP obeys you? Why do you keep saying this? It doesn't make sense, it is noise in this debate. It is, however, a typical example of the way you argue:

1) You make a statement.
2) Somebody refutes it.
3) You allege that he must then believe the oposite, and demand he proves that.

In other words, you claim that any statement you make must be true unless somebody can prove the opposite is true.

or

"Whatever I say is TRUE unless you can disprove it"

Hans

Titanpoint
30th October 2002, 06:52 AM
Wraith:

The Laws of Physics that apply to atoms do not apply to the macroscopic world. TRUE.

To say that atoms obey the laws of physics is to make the error that the laws of physics that apply to atoms are deterministic. They are not. Proveably and demonstrably not.

Quantum transitions happen for no reason at all. They are not deterministic but can be described by probability functions.

Since you can't past these simple concepts of 20th Century physics, there seems no point in debating you.

TP

hammegk
30th October 2002, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Titanpoint

Quantum transitions happen for no reason at all. They are not deterministic but can be described by probability functions.

So true if you can demonstrate the map IS the territory. You know, does reality control the math, or does math control the reality? :p

Furious
30th October 2002, 07:17 AM
Hmm, I seem to be ignored. Probably because of my newness here.

Aynway, the syllogism is not logically valid. One cannot get the conclusion from the two premises. We don't obey the laws of physics because we are made of atoms. The fact that we do obey the laws of physics has nothing to do with the atoms we are comprised of. To be composed of something does not mean the same as being that same thing.

We are made of atoms does not equal we are atoms.

That doesn't change the true or falsehood of the conclusion. It just means the previous two premises don't support it logically. There isn't a formal logical connection.

Yes, we do obey the laws of physics. We do so because we are physical. Nothing to do with our atoms.

Better syllogism is:

Everything physical obeys the laws of physics.
We are physical.
We obey the laws of physics.

Physical = exists in the known universe.

This can create a deterministic universe if everything is predictable (not necessarily by us!), yet doesn't commit a logical fallacy. Whether we are deterministic or not is not based on us being composed of atoms.

Titanpoint
30th October 2002, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by hammegk

So true if you can demonstrate the map IS the territory. You know, does reality control the math, or does math control the reality? :p

The map is a description of the territory, not the territory itself. Similarly the math is a description of reality, not reality itself. Reality does not control the math. The math describes our understanding of the way reality behaves.

TP

Franko
30th October 2002, 07:21 AM
Impotentwinky,

Uhh.. Prove that obeying laws of physics negates free-will Franko...

Uhh … I lack-o-belief in your “free willy”, Atheist – You Prove it if you believe in it.

And just to make it easier, free-will is the ability to make decisions under constraints of what can/can not be done (laws of physics as you put it).

When someone is telling you specifically what can and cannot be done in every single situation how does that constitute “FREE” will? That sounds exactly like my definition of NOT Free will.

… But I love it when you A-Theists explain how “Up” is really “Down”, and how “Black” is really “White”, so knock yourself out Impotent One.

Franko
30th October 2002, 07:27 AM
Impotentwinky,

One must question the sanity of a person, who when faced with facts starts to scream and become unstable.

You are talking about the A-Theists, when faced with the FACT that there is no “free will”?

… Because none of the A-Theists have posted a single piece of evidence, or made a single valid argument for the existence of their “free willy God”. Yet they all seem to be riled up, and posting a lot of insults, logical fallacies, and ad hominems …

Furthermore, he lives in a self constructed fantasy land where he is the chosen one of a fictious Goddess, and is the only person who has realised that we have no will of our own, but are merely puppets of some grander design.

Hey nitwit-Boy, If you can demonstrate your “free will” then please do so. Otherwise, YOU are the deluded one living in A-Theist fantasy-land. Just because you want to pretend that you have “free will” doesn’t mean intelligent and rational people are going to pretend along with your wishful thinking.

hammegk
30th October 2002, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Titanpoint

The map is a description of the territory, not the territory itself. Similarly the math is a description of reality, not reality itself. Reality does not control the math. The math describes our understanding of the way reality behaves.

Thank you. That's why your statement
Quantum transitions happen for no reason at all. They are not deterministic but can be described by probability functions.

makes no sense wrt "reality".

Franko
30th October 2002, 07:37 AM
Furious,

Aynway, the syllogism is not logically valid. One cannot get the conclusion from the two premises. We don't obey the laws of physics because we are made of atoms. The fact that we do obey the laws of physics has nothing to do with the atoms we are comprised of. To be composed of something does not mean the same as being that same thing.

First of all, you are misunderstanding the syllogism.

Second, if both premises are correct, and the conclusion is correct, then the syllogism is VALID – END OF STORY.

I love how A-Theists want to pretend that there are magical invisible flaws in syllogisms where even they concede they cannot find an error in either premise, or in the conclusion – But the syllogism is still flawed anyway.

We are made of atoms does not equal we are atoms.

Who ever said that?

Atoms are a function of TLOP, and YOU are merely a function of Atoms. Ergo, YOU are merely a function of TLOP.

That doesn't change the true or falsehood of the conclusion. It just means the previous two premises don't support it logically. There isn't a formal logical connection.

If you say so.

Yes, we do obey the laws of physics. We do so because we are physical. Nothing to do with our atoms.

Our being “physical” has nothing to do with atoms?

… and you A-Theists are accusing Me of NOT understanding Logic? Do any of you actually read what you type before posting it?

30th October 2002, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Furious
Hmm, I seem to be ignored. Probably because of my newness here.

Aynway, the syllogism is not logically valid. One cannot get the conclusion from the two premises. We don't obey the laws of physics because we are made of atoms. The fact that we do obey the laws of physics has nothing to do with the atoms we are comprised of. To be composed of something does not mean the same as being that same thing.

We are made of atoms does not equal we are atoms.

That doesn't change the true or falsehood of the conclusion. It just means the previous two premises don't support it logically. There isn't a formal logical connection.

Yes, we do obey the laws of physics. We do so because we are physical. Nothing to do with our atoms.

Better syllogism is:

Everything physical obeys the laws of physics.
We are physical.
We obey the laws of physics.

Physical = exists in the known universe.

This can create a deterministic universe if everything is predictable (not necessarily by us!), yet doesn't commit a logical fallacy. Whether we are deterministic or not is not based on us being composed of atoms.

Furious,

Your improved syllogism addresses one of the problems with the original. By doing so, it lays bare the second problem: equivocation on "obey."

But you're barking at squirrels here.

Cheers,

Titanpoint
30th October 2002, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by hammegk

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Titanpoint

The map is a description of the territory, not the territory itself. Similarly the math is a description of reality, not reality itself. Reality does not control the math. The math describes our understanding of the way reality behaves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you. That's why your statement

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum transitions happen for no reason at all. They are not deterministic but can be described by probability functions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

makes no sense wrt "reality".

Nope "reality" doesn't necessarily have a deterministic cause. Quantum transitions can be described by math in terms of probability functions, but they are not probability functions. This is the central mystery of the quantum world. At the level of the very small, things happen for no reason at all. Really.

TP

Franko
30th October 2002, 08:21 AM
Billyhoyt,

Your improved syllogism addresses one of the problems with the original. By doing so, it lays bare the second problem: equivocation on "obey."

So when are you going to give us the “free will” demonstration Religious Fanatic?

When are you going to disobey the Laws of Physics for us and win the Randi Prize?

If you are claiming that the Laws of Physics do NOT control you, then why do you refuse to prove it? What happen to your “Superior” Religion?

I thought you A-Theists followed the One True Faith? Why has your “free willy God” abandoned you?

Franko
30th October 2002, 08:26 AM
Titanpoint,

At the level of the very small, things happen for no reason at all. Really.

What’s the difference between the claim you are making here, and simply saying that it is magical?

You are claiming that fundamentally the Universe is Supernatural.

If things really "happen for no reason at all", then why are you so predictable?

Is this another one of those things that is soooo complicated you don't understand it, yet you do understand it?

Maybe we should just take your word for it?

That is what you really want isn't it? You want us all to take your word, on Faith?

... you don't instill much Faith though ...

whitefork
30th October 2002, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Franko
Furious,

First of all, you are misunderstanding the syllogism.

Second, if both premises are correct, and the conclusion is correct, then the syllogism is VALID – END OF STORY.

Franko, I for one am trying to help you out here. If you ever go to a forum where there are academic philosophy types, they will rip you apart for your argument. What you say above is simply wrong.

You live in Baltimore. Please visit someone in the Philosophy Department at Johns Hopkins (grad student will do), show them your argument, and ask them if it's valid.

If they say it's OK, I will take back everything I've said. I'm not arguing with your premisses or your conclusion, I'm saying that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premisses, and I know that I'm right here.

But don't believe me. Get the opinion of someone who is in a position to know.

This is a valid argument:

The paper in my hand is blank.
The paper in my hand has writing on it.
Therefore, I am the emperor of China.

Valid, but not sound, argument. I can prove it.

Titanpoint
30th October 2002, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Franko
Titanpoint,

What’s the difference between the claim you are making here, and simply saying that it is magical?

Magic implies some contact with a source of energy which responds to ritualised request. Quantum transitions are none of those things.

Just because you don't understand how something works does not make it magic. It just makes you ignorant.

You are claiming that fundamentally the Universe is Supernatural.

Nope. On the scale of the quantum, transitions happen without prior cause. The transitions are perfectly natural. They simply lack an internal cause to make those transitions happen in a deterministic way.

If things really "happen for no reason at all", then why are you so predictable?

Because I am not a quantum. The laws of physics which apply to the world of the quantum do NOT apply to my behavior, even though ultimately I am composed of quantum particles making transitions.

Is this another one of those things that is soooo complicated you don't understand it, yet you do understand it?

Whether its simple or complicated to understand has no bearing on what it is. My understanding has no impact on what the Universe is any more than your lack of understanding has.

Maybe we should just take your word for it?

That is what you really want isn't it? You want us all to take your word, on Faith?

... you don't instill much Faith though ...

Wrong. I inspire no (blind) faith at all. There is no belief system. The understanding of the behaviour of the Universe from the smallest scale to the largest requires no prior acceptance of anything apart from naturalism and empiricism.

The world of the quantum, the atom, the Earth, the Solar System and the galaxies are available for investigation without any prior acceptance without empirical support. There is no religious belief required.

Oh, and since you can't resist it, whether you have a lack-o-belief or not in any part of the above is irrelevant to me, the skeptics, the atheists and the Universe at large.

hehehehehehehehehehehehe.

TP

Franko
30th October 2002, 08:54 AM
Titanpoint,

Magic implies some contact with a source of energy which responds to ritualised request. Quantum transitions are none of those things.

No Magic implies beyond logical comprehension (beyond the ability of science to understand) – and that is exactly what you are claiming.

Just because you don't understand how something works does not make it magic. It just makes you ignorant.

Actually it makes you ignorant. You are the one making the claim – not me.

Nope. On the scale of the quantum, transitions happen without prior cause. The transitions are perfectly natural. They simply lack an internal cause to make those transitions happen in a deterministic way.

So you are claiming that even though you don’t understand it; actually you DO understand it.

Good … then explain it to us.

[if things are fundamentally random, then why aren’t you? …] Because I am not a quantum. The laws of physics which apply to the world of the quantum do NOT apply to my behavior, even though ultimately I am composed of quantum particles making transitions.

So explain that? Otherwise, this sounds an awful lot just like a special plead.

Explain why special pleads are acceptable from your Religion, but not from other religions? Why the blatant double standard?

Whether its simple or complicated to understand has no bearing on what it is. My understanding has no impact on what the Universe is any more than your lack of understanding has.

So in other words, the LAWS of Physics are real LAWS regardless of whether you personally comprehend them or not?

[should we just take your word for it? …]Wrong. I inspire no (blind) faith at all. There is no belief system. The behaviour of the Universe from the smallest scale to the largest requires no prior acceptance of anything apart from naturalism and empiricism.

That’s not what you just said.

The world of the quantum, the atom, the Earth, the Solar System and the galaxies are available for investigation without any prior acceptance without empirical support. There is no religious belief required.

How do you know that you aren’t making all that stuff up in your head? Maybe there is no Earth, Solar System, or galaxies – maybe there is only you, and you just imagine it all. Where is your empirical evidence which conclusively refutes this?

Even this Einstein character that you have imagined says that the “Matter” isn’t real. If the Einstein figment is wrong, then please explain exactly how and why he is wrong?

Oh, and since you can't resist it, whether you have a lack-o-belief or not in any part of the above is irrelevant to me, the skeptics, the atheists and the Universe at large.

A-Theists aren't Skeptics – quite the opposite. There is only one A-Theist, and he is just a Religious fanatic. Deep down he knows that nothing is real but himself, and that in reality He is God.

But anytime you want to demonstrate your "free willy" powers, defy the Laws of Physics and actually PROVE me wrong ... you just let us know ...

Until then you are just another religious fanatic with a load of unsupported, and unfounded assertions

30th October 2002, 09:08 AM
Wow, this page is almost a perfect description of - um - somebody here. what do you think? (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html)

So far, I have:
1
2
3
4
6
9
12
18
22
26
36
40

Anybody else?

Cheers,

whitefork
30th October 2002, 09:10 AM
BINGO!

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:11 AM
#1) Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis).

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Exactly Billyboy, so defy Occams Razor for us and prove the existrence of "free willy"!!!

30th October 2002, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by whitefork
BINGO!

He only has a few more to turn in a completely covered card, eh?

Cheers,

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:14 AM
More wisdom (double standards) from Billyboy …

#2) Always favor the conspiracy angle over the boring angle. Mundane explanations (like saying that Roswell was a balloon) are for dullards and government drones. If you want to sleep with that curvaceous new-age chick, don't tell her you think astrology is bogus! (Non woo-woos may benefit from that advice temporarily).

i.e. “free willy” is actually a Christian (Theist) idea. The A-Theists are not responsible.

(Yeah, that explains why Christians Pray and A-Theists don’t. Prayer is entirely consistent with “free willy” … :rolleyes: )

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:17 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

#3) Don't accept mainstream science unless it's something you've believed in for years (like gravity).

Atoms obey the laws of physics. (bullyboy: not really)
You are made of atoms. (bullyboy: not technically)
You Obey the laws of Physics. (bullyboy: sorry I cannot accept mainstream science over the religious dogma of A-Theism. Ergo, the syllogism is flawed, and I STILL have “free willy” despite the utter lack of scientific evidence for it)

30th October 2002, 09:19 AM
Did I mention #26?

Cheers,

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:22 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

#4) Try to answer as few direct questions as possible. Always obfuscate and try to sound learned. Mimic Richard Hoagland's style and you'll go far.

So when are you going to demonstrate “free willy”?

When are you going to prove that you can disobey TLOP?

What is your logically consistent definition of “free will”?

What is your specific evidence for “free will”?

Why are the logical fallacies of your Religion NOT logical fallacies (according to you?)?

What specifically is the “flaw” in the syllogism?

How can both premises AND the conclusion be correct, but the syllogism STILL be flawed?

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:24 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

#5) Use "what if" scenarios to change the subject whenever possible. If you linger on one topic too long you may be asked to provide annoying things like "proof." Don't let that happen! Consult a creationist if you need practice with subject-changing.

So when are you going to demonstrate “free willy”?

When are you going to prove that you can disobey TLOP?

What is your logically consistent definition of “free will”?

What is your specific evidence for “free will”?

Why are the logical fallacies of your Religion NOT logical fallacies (according to you?)?

What specifically is the “flaw” in the syllogism?

How can both premises AND the conclusion be correct, but the syllogism STILL be flawed?

GREAT STUFF BILLYBOY. TO BAD YOU APPLY NONE OF IT TO YOUR OWN RIDICULOUS RELGIOUS BELIEFS.

... YOU ARE SUCH A HYPOCRITE!!!

30th October 2002, 09:26 AM
Did I mention 26? Meanwhile, I am collecting howlers.

Cheers,

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:26 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

#6) If you're cornered and asked for proof of something, always tell the person that they "can't disprove" your claims. Many of them will just walk away shaking their heads, which of course means they agree with you. A side-to-side head shake could be the same as a vertical nod. Anything is possible, after all.

Impywnky (and other A-Theist) …

Uhh.. Prove that obeying laws of physics negates free-will Franko...

whitefork
30th October 2002, 09:28 AM
Franko - you say

Second, if both premises are correct, and the conclusion is correct, then the syllogism is VALID – END OF STORY.

This web site (http://www.lawrence.edu/fac/boardmaw/Gen_Val.html) says

A particular invalid argument may happen to have true premises together with a true conclusion: nevertheless, it is invalid because its premises' being true do not guarantee the truth of its conclusion; a second argument could be constructed which shares the formal structure of the first and which has true premises and a false conclusion. And so it is possible for that sort of argument (i.e., for an argument belonging to the class of arguments sharing the formal structure of that—invalid—argument) to have true premises and a false conclusion. On the other hand, while a valid argument can happen to have a false conclusion, nevertheless, if its premises are true, then it is not possible for the conclusion of this sort of argument (i.e., an argument belonging to the class of arguments sharing the formal structure of this—valid— argument) to be false.

Or, if you like, please give the mode and figure of your syllogism as found on this site. These are all the valid forms. Is yours there?
http://www.math.fau.edu/schonbek/mfla/mfla1f01syl.html

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:29 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

#7) Memorize all the sci-babble terms used in the Star Trek series. They are very useful if you get cornered by a skeptic, and you need to come up with some sort of "scientific" explanation. e.g., Inertial Dampers.

Titanpointy:

Just because you don't understand how something works does not make it magic. It just makes you ignorant.

Nope. On the scale of the quantum, transitions happen without prior cause. The transitions are perfectly natural. They simply lack an internal cause to make those transitions happen in a deterministic way.

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:31 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

#8) When all else fails, start asking hypothetical questions that have nothing to do with the actual debate. If your opponent chooses to ignore your pointless questions and remains on topic, repeat your meaningless question(s) over and over. This will make any Believers in the audience think that your opponent is evading the issue.

So BOTH premises are correct … and the conclusion is correct … But the Syllogism STILL has an invisible “flaw”? And not just an “invisible flaw”, but and invisible flaw that no A-Theist can apparently articulate into words … :rolleyes:

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:34 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

#9) Accuse your opponent of being a liar, or try some other tactic that will (hopefully) make him angry. If he responds in kind to your endless taunts, change the subject to his anger, and accuse him of name calling. If he accuses you of provoking him, then you have changed the subject of the debate. If he stays on topic, keep the heat up. The Believers in the audience will forgive the worst verbal attacks you use, but they will think even the mildest replies he makes to you are personal attacks that undermine his argument.

Ohh .. coming from the In this Thread we express sorrow at [INSERT NON-A-THEIST NAME HERE] Being run off the forum by Religious Fantics …, this is just too much …

30th October 2002, 09:34 AM
And as he flames out, all we see is the back of his s***brown jersey and the burning number: 26...

Jeers,

whitefork
30th October 2002, 09:35 AM
It's not a syllogism. If you believe it is please provide the schema from the website I gave above.

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:38 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

BILLYBOY HAVE YOU ACTUALLY EVEN READ THESE NUMERIC POINTS? OBVIOUSLY YOU MUST FEEL THAT THEY DON’T APPLY TO YOUR OWN BELIEFS, ONLY THE BELIEFS OF OTHER RELIGIOUS FANATICS ???

#10) Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means. For a more impressive effect, use it with the name of your favorite superstition - "quantum dowsing" sure sounds mighty serious.

Titanpoint:

Magic implies some contact with a source of energy which responds to ritualised request. Quantum transitions are none of those things.

Nope. On the scale of the quantum, transitions happen without prior cause.

Because I am not a quantum. The laws of physics which apply to the world of the quantum do NOT apply to my behavior, even though ultimately I am composed of quantum particles making transitions.

The world of the quantum, the atom, the Earth, the Solar System and the galaxies are available for investigation without any prior acceptance without empirical support.

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:39 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

#10) Two more words: Paradigm shift.

No comment.

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:41 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

#12) Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby. Other woo-woos love the concept of "open-mindedness" and will take you into their inner circle without question. They have no tolerance for those "mean old nasty" types who demand evidence for everything.

So what is you evidence for your “free willy God”?

I have no tolerance for people who make unsubstantiated claims and expect me to believe them because they are followers of the One True Faith.

Franko
30th October 2002, 09:42 AM
More Billyboy A-Theist “wisdom” …

#13) Drink heavily while posting.

Well this explains a LOT about you and your post now Billyboy. Suddenly I feel as if I understand you and your “Logic” much better.

30th October 2002, 09:45 AM
Laughingstock.
http://www.plauder-smilies.com/jump.gif
Jeers,

Titanpoint
30th October 2002, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Franko
Titanpoint,

No Magic implies beyond logical comprehension (beyond the ability of science to understand) – and that is [b]exactly what you are claiming.

But the world of the quantum is not beyond the ability of science to comprehend, although it certainly appears to be beyond yours.

Actually it makes you ignorant. You are the one making the claim – not me.

of what? It is YOU WHO CLAIM THAT QUANTUM EVENTS ARE LIKE MAGIC. I said that quantum transitions are natural, and they are.

So you are claiming that even though you don’t understand it; actually you DO understand it.

No. I claim that the behavior of the Universe requires no prior belief in dogma, sacred texts, books of law, nor any belief in a deity.

Good … then explain it to us.

So explain that? Otherwise, this sounds an awful lot just like a special plead.

Special pleading would encompass why your useless syllogism proves that I have no free will. You've made special plead after special plead to prove what? That you prefer ignorance, pathetic insults and non sequitur arguments to justify your paranoid hatred of anyone who doesn't believe whatever it is you believe.

Explain why special pleads are acceptable from your Religion, but not from other religions? Why the blatant double standard?

I have no religion. Whether you think I don't is irrelevant to me.

So in other words, the LAWS of Physics are real LAWS regardless of whether you personally comprehend them or not?

The laws of physics are description of the Universe around us. They do not in themselves exist except as conceptual construction we use to understand phenomena.

How do you know that you aren’t making all that stuff up in your head? Maybe there is no Earth, Solar System, or galaxies – maybe there is only you, and you just imagine it all. Where is your empirical evidence which conclusively refutes this?

Because I'm not making the claim that it doesn't exist, *******. YOU ARE. You prove that it doesn't exist.

Even this Einstein character that you have imagined says that the “Matter” isn’t real. If the Einstein figment is wrong, then please explain exactly how and why he is wrong?

If Einstein did not exist, how can he have said anything?

A-Theists aren't Skeptics – quite the opposite. There is only one A-Theist, and he is just a Religious fanatic. Deep down he knows that nothing is real but himself, and that in reality He is God.

Claim after claim after claim. Prove it.

But anytime you want to demonstrate your "free willy" powers, defy the Laws of Physics and actually PROVE me wrong ... you just let us know ...

What has free will got to do with it? If I could defy the laws of physics, then the laws of physics would have to change. The laws of physics don't constrain my actions, they describe them.

Until then you are just another religious fanatic with a load of unsupported, and unfounded assertions

No. That would be you. I have a lack-o-belief in you ability to construct a logical argument. So far you are unable to break the law of "Franko's Claims of not making Claims"

he he he he he. What a ****in pussy.

TP

Doubt
30th October 2002, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Titanpoint

No. That would be you. I have a lack-o-belief in you ability to construct a logical argument. So far you are unable to break the law of "Franko's Claims of not making Claims"

he he he he he. What a ****in pussy.

TP

TP,

You get credit for responding to the mother of all strawmen posts.

In the end, Franko is afraid. The irrational source of his fear can be found in my sig.

I may post more of his contradictions later this week.

Franko
30th October 2002, 10:10 AM
Diet-Resonedout,

You get credit for responding to the mother of all strawmen posts.

hehehe …

In the end, Franko is afraid. The irrational source of his fear can be found in my sig.

Someones projecting again … (either that or claiming A-Theist magic mindreading powers AGAIN)

I may post more of his contradictions later this week.

Why don’t you just Disobey the Laws of Physics for us all and shut me up for Good?

whitefork
30th October 2002, 10:11 AM
Why don't you stop disobeying the laws of logic?

And have you looked up "validity" yet?

hammegk
30th October 2002, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Titanpoint

Nope "reality" doesn't necessarily have a deterministic cause. Quantum transitions can be described by math in terms of probability functions, but they are not probability functions. This is the central mystery of the quantum world. At the level of the very small, things happen for no reason at all. Really.

TP

At least so far as current human understanding can predict. I know, you "have faith" your statement is correct, and for all I care actually believe it.

I'm with Einstein. Thanks anyway.

Franko
30th October 2002, 10:14 AM
whitefork,

I really don't care how long you and the A-Theists want to continue to claim that you possess “free will” while refusing to define it, demonstrate it, or even explain how it can possibly be.

It is making you A-Theists look ridiculously foolish -- not me.

If you believe the opposite is True … go right along believing that.

whitefork
30th October 2002, 10:28 AM
I'm not an atheist, I'm not talking about free will, atoms or the laws of physics.

Your argument is invalid. It's not a syllogism.

Give it up.

Franko
30th October 2002, 10:31 AM

Atoms obey the laws of Physics.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Your argument is invalid. It's not a syllogism.

Then kindly point out the specific “flaw”

Which premise is FALSE?

Or, alternately demonstrate that the conclusion is FALSE.

Or … be a MAN and concede.

Otherwise – shut up already! We all understand that you believe there is an "invisible" flaw that you are unable to articulate.

Go NOT articulate some where else. I am NOT going to take you on your word just because YOU are convinced that you are God.

chulbert
30th October 2002, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Franko
What specifically is the “flaw” in the syllogism?

By definition, a syllogism has exactly three propositions in total and precisely three terms, each used twice.

Atoms obey the laws of physics
You obey the laws of physics

While it does indeed have three propositions it has FOUR terms: "atoms", "obey the laws of physics", "made of atoms", and "you".

If you wish to reword your mantra into proper form, we'll be more than happy to evaluate it.

whitefork
30th October 2002, 10:45 AM
Franko, I supplied a web site giving all valid forms of syllogism. Yours is not there.

You do not have a syllogism.

Find me one person who knows what a syllogism is and agrees that your argument is a syllogism.

One.

I'd prefer a philosophy grad student. I used to be one. You are simply wrong.

"Whitehead" is good. I always liked good old Alfred North. Thanks for the compliment.

30th October 2002, 10:54 AM
Oh, OK, frankenfart, you WIN! Yep, you win! That's it folks, frankenfart's right. The test of a syllogism's validity is the truth-value of its conclusion. Stop the laughing in back.
http://www.plauder-smilies.com/jump.gif
Yep yooooooooou win, bucko! I'll send you your prize in the mail. Just write your address in the space provided below:

City:_ State:_

Be sure to fit it all in.

Stop that incessant laughing back there!

Boy, does he know logic or what? http://64.205.137.34/softcraftlab/GIFS-JPGS/monkey%20shaking%20head%20no.gif
Behave yourself, Darwin! Don't make more of a monkey out of him than he's made himself.

That's right -- you win.

Cheers,

hammegk
30th October 2002, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by whitefork
...You are simply wrong.

Some people have agreed that the Franco "syllogism" may be logically flawed, but is shorthand for various more correct statements.

TLOP control all subatomic interactions
subatomic interactions control all atomic behavior
atomic behavior controls all molecular behavior
molecule behavior controls all physical chemistry(non-life).

What comes next to arrive at life, which seems to provide "something else"; at the most simple level that which appears to be self-directed behavior?

Doesn't a materialist have to fill in that gap with some proposal?

Hmm, ok. How do get from phychem to Biochem?

Let's make a list & discover where life/conscious vs unconsciousness happens.

Humans
Other Animals
Plants
Multicellular plant or animal
Monocellulars - living per se, or components in "higher lifeforms" above
Viruses
Prions
Atoms - biochem
Atoms - physical chemistry
Electrons
Photons
Other sub-atomics
Energy Fields

Care to comment?

Franko
30th October 2002, 11:02 AM
Whitefork,

Franko, I supplied a web site giving all valid forms of syllogism. Yours is not there.

So you understand the “flaw” so well that you cannot explain it? I have to go and read what someone smarter than you wrote and figure out your imaginary invisible “flaw” all on my own without the assistance of your withering Logic?

Hey whitefork … you are all wrong about there being NO GOD. Read the Bible … study on it … meditate and pray … and eventually you will see the invisible flaw in your A-Theism.

You do not have a syllogism.

Atoms obey the laws of physics
You OBEY the laws of Physics.

Use you “magic” A-Theists powers and make it go away.

Find me one person who knows what a syllogism is and agrees that your argument is a syllogism.

You mean other than the Wraith, Mr. Hand, or Stimpson?

But the number of people is irrelevant. Not unless you want to concede that A-Theism is FALSE because most people don’t believe in it?

One.

If the syllogism is flawed – as YOU claim – then kindly demonstrate the “flaw”. Why are you unable to? Which premise is wrong? How is the conclusion FALSE?

Can you demonstrate “free will”?

Can you define “free will” in logically consistent terms?

NO, YOU CANNOT!!!

Yet you still refuse to concede. Keep going whitefork, I’m certain the A-Theists NON-GOD is very proud of you.

I'd prefer a philosophy grad student. I used to be one. You are simply wrong.

Whitefork, sooner or later you are going to be forced to recognize that you are NOT the entity who decides what is TRUE or FALSE by your decree.

If you have uncovered an error, state it. Otherwise keep your wishful thinking, delusions and fantasies about invisible “flaws” to yourself. No one cares about your religious nonsense, especially religious nonsense with NOTHING to back it up but your insane words and special pleading.

whitefork
30th October 2002, 11:04 AM
Franko has been unwilling to accept any emendations to his argument, Hammegk. Perhaps he will be amenable to yours.

Franko
30th October 2002, 11:05 AM
Atoms are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of Atoms.
YOU are a function of Atoms, which are a function of TLOP.

Ergo, there is no “free will”.

hammegk
30th October 2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by whitefork
Franko has been unwilling to accept any emendations to his argument, Hammegk. Perhaps he will be amenable to yours.

Or perhaps you will just take a shot at the form I supplied?

I wonder, do you live your life by syllogism? They do work nicely if the axioms underlying the system are correct. :)

chulbert
30th October 2002, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Franko
Atoms are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of Atoms.
YOU are a function of Atoms, which are a function of TLOP.

Ergo, there is no “free will”.

Bzzzt. You still have four terms: atoms, a function of TLOP, function of atoms, and you.

30th October 2002, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Franko
Atoms are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of Atoms.
YOU are a function of Atoms, which are a function of TLOP.
Can repetitive shouting make it so?http://64.205.137.34/softcraftlab/GIFS-JPGS/monkey%20shaking%20head%20no.gif
Quiet, Darwin.

Jeers,

whitefork
30th October 2002, 11:13 AM
Franko, why do you persist in labelling me an atheist or materialist?

The validity of your argument is the question.

You have a mistaken definition of validity.

Your argument does not obey the laws of logic.

"is made of" is not a logical operator.

The conclusion does not follow from the premisses.

If it did, all arguments of the form

A has property X
B has property X

would be valid.

They are not. This argument form IS the simplest form of the Fallacy of Composition. It is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow logically from the premisses.

Logic is a matter of form. Your argument is in violation of the formal rules. The truth of its components is not relevant to its validity.

I suspect you know this, though.

whitefork
30th October 2002, 11:16 AM
Hammengk, I do not live my life by syllogism, but I make my living by using the rules of validity. Franko does too, but he seems to be ignoring them in his persistence in defending his argument.

That dog simply will not hunt.

Franko, do you like Mr. Hand's argument?

Franko
30th October 2002, 11:16 AM
Billyboy,

Can repetitive shouting make it so?

So repetitive shouting is your “evidence” for “free willy”?

I certainly haven’t seen any other “evidence” …

chulbert
30th October 2002, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by hammegk

Some people have agreed that the Franco "syllogism" may be logically flawed, but is shorthand for various more correct statements.

TLOP control all subatomic interactions
subatomic interactions control all atomic behavior
atomic behavior controls all molecular behavior
molecule behavior controls all physical chemistry(non-life).

What comes next to arrive at life, which seems to provide "something else"; at the most simple level that which appears to be self-directed behavior?

Doesn't a materialist have to fill in that gap with some proposal?

Hmm, ok. How do get from phychem to Biochem?

Let's make a list & discover where life/conscious vs unconsciousness happens.

Humans
Other Animals
Plants
Multicellular plant or animal
Monocellulars - living per se, or components in "higher lifeforms" above
Viruses
Prions
Atoms - biochem
Atoms - physical chemistry
Electrons
Photons
Other sub-atomics
Energy Fields

Care to comment?

You're doing the same thing Franko is. Consider your first two propositions:

- TLOP control all subatomic interactions
- subatomic interactions control all atomic behavior

You have four terms here: the laws of physics, subatomic interactions, subatomic interactions control, and atomic behavior.

There is nothing you can logically conclude from those two propositions.

30th October 2002, 11:18 AM
A E I O U still can't rub two premises together and start a conclusion, can you, frankenfruit?

raspberries,

Franko
30th October 2002, 11:18 AM

it certainly isn't my problem that your religious fanaticism prevents you from comprehending logic. Here is the syllogism worded differently -- just for you. Please indicate the source of "free will" ...

Atoms are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of Atoms.
YOU are a function of Atoms, which are a function of TLOP.

Ergo, there is no “free will”.

whitefork
30th October 2002, 11:19 AM
BillHoyt, I recognize A E I O but where'd that U come from?

Franko
30th October 2002, 11:20 AM
BullyHoyt,

A E I O U still can't rub two premises together and start a conclusion, can you, frankenfruit?

raspberries,

Can you explain your argument more clearly?

I do NOT see how this proves you have “free will”?

Can you start by defining “free will” in logically consistent terms?

… or are you limited to simply reciting the dogma of A-Theism ad naseum?

30th October 2002, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by whitefork
BillHoyt, I recognize A E I O but where'd that U come from?

Was just my segue into an assertion about frankenfruit.:D

Franko
30th October 2002, 11:22 AM
BullyHoyt,

Can you explain your argument more clearly?

I do NOT see how this proves you have “free will”?

Can you start by defining “free will” in logically consistent terms?

… or are you limited to simply reciting the dogma of A-Theism ad naseum?

evildave
30th October 2002, 11:24 AM
Can you define “free will” in logically consistent terms?

NO, YOU CANNOT!!!

Don't pop a blood vessel.

There are enormous classes of things you can't 'define in logically consistent terms'.

As a few examples:

Can you define “RED” in logically consistent terms?

Can you define “PATHETIC” in logically consistent terms?

Can you define “ANTISOCIAL” in logically consistent terms?

Can you define “LOSER” in logically consistent terms, in relation to "life"?

(These are rhetorical questions. I know you have a problem identifying them; even when they're your own.)

Yet, sometimes we just have to make assumptions about things, and plow ahead, anyway.

So if I say, "Franko is turning red. He is a pathetic, antisocial loser." it just has to be assumed that people have internal representative models for what 'red', 'pathetic', 'antisocial', and 'loser' are, which are adequate to convey the meaning. If you're lost, we can TRY to explain these words to you here, but I doubt we would make much headway. You have so many 'special' definitions for things. (Note: 'special', as in the P.C. sense.)

I'll assume 'free will' means I can decide what I have for lunch today. Japanese. Probably a sashimi lunch. They have this really good citrus flavored soy sauce that just turns super-yummy with the wasabe in it.

30th October 2002, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Franko
I do NOT see how this proves you have “free will”?
I have not made any such assertion. I have merely spanked you severely for having no clue about logic. Now, your memory seems to be failing you as well. Pity.

Jeers,

whitefork
30th October 2002, 11:24 AM
Franko, now you must state the nature of the function.

Please present your work in the form of statement in predicate logic.

If I say F(a) = 17, you have no way of knowing whether that is true unless you know what F does.

chulbert
30th October 2002, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Franko
Can you start by defining “free will” in logically consistent terms?

Great Caesar's Ghost! I have to stand in awe at the size of Franko's balls! He has the audacity to insist on a definition of free will when he himself will not give one when asked. I bow.

Q-Source
30th October 2002, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Franko
Atoms are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of Atoms.
YOU are a function of Atoms, which are a function of TLOP.

Ergo, there is no “free will”.

If we assume for a moment that the syllogism is true, then
you prove that there is no Free Will.

O.k. then, what's next?

Why do you jump from there to claim first:

that TLOP (the Universe) must be conscious?, and second,
that TLOP must be God?.

I know that this has been raised many times, but I notice that you spend a lot of time trying to defend your syllogism and then you "forget" about that implications that come later. They seem to be even more relevant and questionable than the syllogism.

Q-S

Franko
30th October 2002, 12:25 PM
Chulbert,

Great Caesar's Ghost! I have to stand in awe at the size of Franko's balls! He has the audacity to insist on a definition of free will when he himself will not give one when asked. I bow.

Great Caesar's Ghost! I have to stand in awe at the hypocrisy of these A-Theists! They have the audacity to insist on a definition of God when they themselves will not give one when asked.

Yet still they insist there is NO GOD?

How can they believe in NO GOD when they will not even define GOD?

Franko
30th October 2002, 12:29 PM
Q-Source,

How many times do I have to type the SAME response before you answer?

If we assume for a moment that the syllogism is true, then
you prove that there is no Free Will.

O.k. then, what's next?

Why do you jump from there to claim first:

that TLOP (the Universe) must be conscious?, and second,
that TLOP must be God?.

TLOP controls YOU.
YOU control a CAR.

Why do You (Q-Source) claim that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, but in the next breath claim that TLOP is less conscious then YOU?

I know that this has been raised many times, but I notice that you spend a lot of time trying to defend your syllogism and then you "forget" about that implications that come later. They seem to be even more relevant and questionable than the syllogism.

I have asked you –personally – this TLOP – YOU – CAR question 4 times now. Every time I ask, you vanish for a day or two without responding. Then you reappear, asking the EXACT same question again.

I can only assume that you will continue to follow this pattern …

chulbert
30th October 2002, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Chulbert,

Great Caesar's Ghost! I have to stand in awe at the hypocrisy of these A-Theists! They have the audacity to insist on a definition of God when they themselves will not give one when asked.

Yet still they insist there is NO GOD?

How can they believe in NO GOD when they will not even define GOD?

Oh, bless you, Franko. I'm getting all misty-eyed. Thanks for the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I retort, it really takes me back to 1st grade.

Ah, nostalgia.

Franko
30th October 2002, 12:40 PM
chulbert,

Oh, bless you, Franko. I'm getting all misty-eyed. Thanks for the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I retort, it really takes me back to 1st grade.

Being an A-Theists is a lot like being in 1st grade.

Hard to tell the difference between fantasy and reality ...

chulbert
30th October 2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Franko
chulbert,
Being an A-Theists is a lot like being in 1st grade.

Hard to tell the difference between fantasy and reality ...

Can I assume that since you haven't responded to my specific point about the precise error in your sillygism that I win?

I win, I win, I win. Woooooo.

hammegk
30th October 2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by chulbert

- TLOP control all subatomic interactions
- subatomic interactions control all atomic behavior

You have four terms here: the laws of physics, subatomic interactions, subatomic interactions control, and atomic behavior.

There is nothing you can logically conclude from those two propositions.

Er, yes it isn't a syllogism. Now, what is incorrect with the statements. If you feel added steps would make it clearer, would you add them?

Franko
30th October 2002, 01:04 PM
Chulbert,

Can I assume that since you haven't responded to my specific point about the precise error in your sillygism that I win?

I win, I win, I win. Woooooo.

Like I said … A-Theism is a lot like being a first grader. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and “free willy” all existed in reality.

Sure Chulbert … if you can’t handle reality – you and all the A-Theists have won. You have conclusively demonstrated your magical ability to disobey the laws of physics. Enjoy your “free willy” while it last, because sooner than you think you are all going to cease to exist …

… unless you are wrong, in which case you will NOT cease to exist, but instead be condemned to an Eternity in the utter isolation of the Abyss. … but I wouldn’t let that get in the way of your “happy” delusions in the Here and Now …

chulbert
30th October 2002, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by hammegk

Er, yes it isn't a syllogism. Now, what is incorrect with the statements. If you feel added steps would make it clearer, would you add them?

My point was that at some point you have to draw a conclusion, you have to deduce the result. Any two adjacent propositions must be able to stand alone and be meaningful and valid.

1 and 2 result in a conclusion, which combined with 3 yield an answer to be combined with 4, so on and so forth.

This topic is "The Fallacy of Composition." If you would like to discuss the factual nature of free will, the laws of physics, and how they constrain (or not) us, just start another topic and I'll hop right in.

chulbert
30th October 2002, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Chulbert,
Sure Chulbert … if you can’t handle reality – you and all the A-Theists have won. You have conclusively demonstrated your magical ability to disobey the laws of physics. Enjoy your “free willy” while it last, because sooner than you think you are all going to cease to exist …

When did I ever claim the ability to violate the laws of physics? Links to posts will suffice as evidence.

Please don't confuse being logically incorrect with being factually incorrect, because while I have claimed the former about you I have never claimed the latter.

hammegk
30th October 2002, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by chulbert

This topic is "The Fallacy of Composition." If you would like to discuss the factual nature of free will, the laws of physics, and how they constrain (or not) us, just start another topic and I'll hop right in.

LOL. This *is* another topic on "the factual nature of free will, the laws of physics, and how they constrain (or not) us". There are already several other threads with the same topic ongoing.

If a thread could have been hi-jacked it has been.
:confused:

Franko
30th October 2002, 01:17 PM
Chulbert,

When did I ever claim the ability to violate the laws of physics? Links to posts will suffice as evidence.

So you have actually been agreeing with me all this Time chulbert?

Why didn’t you just say so?

(I can always tell when an A-Theist realizes that his ass has been kicked when he starts giving me this “who me? -- I don’t believe anything” routine. It is so hysterical from my perspective. I mean, what the hell is chulbert posting in here for if he hasn’t taken a side in this debate? Did everyone reading along just imagine his posts?)

Please don't confuse being logically incorrect with being factually incorrect, because while I have claimed the former about you I have never claimed the latter.

So do you believe in “free willy” or not A-Theist?

If you are claiming that there is none, you certainly have an obtuse way of making that point.

chulbert
30th October 2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Chulbert,
So you have actually been agreeing with me all this Time chulbert?

Why didn’t you just say so?

I agree with your conclusion - we are all constrained by the laws of physics. I do not agree with the "logic" you used to get there.

(I can always tell when an A-Theist realizes that his ass has been kicked when he starts giving me this “who me? -- I don’t believe anything” routine. It is so hysterical from my perspective. I mean, what the hell is chulbert posting in here for if he hasn’t taken a side in this debate? Did everyone reading along just imagine his posts?)

My ass kicked? I'm still waiting for you to respond to my points about the logical invalidity of your sillygism.

So do you believe in “free willy” or not A-Theist?

I do.

Franko
30th October 2002, 01:25 PM
Chulbert,

I agree with your conclusion - we are all constrained by the laws of physics. I do not agree with the "logic" you used to get there.

So what is your logic for arriving at the conclusion that the “free willy God” of the A-Theists exist?

I see no evidence for your “free willy God”? I lack-o-belief – convince me.

chulbert
30th October 2002, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Chulbert,

So what is your logic for arriving at the conclusion that the “free willy God” of the A-Theists exist?

I see no evidence for your “free willy God”? I lack-o-belief – convince me.

I define free will as freedom from coercion and freedom from fate. Further, in the context of free will, I define coercion as being controlled by the willful force of another source, aka mind control. Fate is knowing the future and being unable to change it.

To invalidate my hypothesis of free will, one need only produce or demonstrate something that violates one of its two premises: freedom of coercion and fate.

Oh, and please do not attempt to show my definition is logically incoherent by using your sillygism. I hereby declare that tactic out-of-bounds, being that it is itself logically inconsistent.

whitefork
30th October 2002, 02:43 PM
Enough already with the free will, god, and laws of physics.

Let's see a formal statement of the principle of "natural flow" that makes the argument valid.

We will need a new principle of inference to do so.

Let us try "if the terms in the conclusion are present in the premisses, and the conclusion ****** given the premisses, and the premisses and conclusion are true, then the argument is sound (soundness entails validity)".

Or, show the Venn diagram that symbolizes the validity of the argument. That's just three circles. Think of Ballentine Ale.

Once we've nailed down this rule of inference, we can submit it to Mind for peer-review. I know they will be interested.

Franko
30th October 2002, 02:57 PM
Chulbert,

I define free will as freedom from coercion and freedom from fate.

What is coercion?

Were you coerced into learning English?

Were you coerced into not pooping in your pants when you were a toddler, or was that a “free will” choice on your part?

“freedom from Fate”? Don’t kid yourself. You OBEY the Laws of Physics – unless you have empirical evidence to the contrary?

Further, in the context of free will, I define coercion as being controlled by the willful force of another source, aka mind control. Fate is knowing the future and being unable to change it.

so when you were young your parents and other adults didn’t “control your mind”? If TLOP is conscious (and you have NO evidence which says it is NOT), then your mind is constantly controlled. As for your comment regarding Fate, this forum has plenty of examples of A-Theists who know they will cease to exist, yet they are powerless to stop it.

To invalidate my hypothesis of free will, one need only produce or demonstrate something that violates one of its two premises: freedom of coercion and fate.

So did you get to pick who your parents were?

Did you get to pick what your primary language would be?

Did you use “free will” to decide where and when you would be born? How you would dress? What school you would go to? What you would learn? What occupations were available to you? Could you have “free willy” decided to be a chariot maker for your occupation? How many chariot makers do you know?

Is the Moon free of Coercion? Does this mean that the Moon also has “free will”?

Oh, and please do not attempt to show my definition is logically incoherent by using your sillygism. I hereby declare that tactic out-of-bounds, being that it is itself logically inconsistent.

Well if you were GOD you would be able to make such declarations. Are you also claiming to be GOD? It really wouldn’t surprise me A-Theist.

I’ll tell you what, if you really want to prove that your are NOT controlled by the Laws of Physics, why don’t you just DISOBEY them for us?

evildave
30th October 2002, 03:33 PM
Gravity is a description of an immutable property of the universe.

All objects are drawn towards other objects by gravity.

Rockets fly up into space.

Why are rockets different from rocks and water? They're made of exactly the same kinds of matter.

People fall like other objects, too.

Why do they fly in machines, like rockets?

Perhaps structuring matter in certain ways can cause it to behave in NEW ways?

Well, "duh". :p

Why are certain constraints seen to be some means of "denying" free will?

If there were no "constraints" or "rules" at all (these merely being tidy labels artificially applied to describe the phenomena we have noticed in the universe), there would be nothing at all.

No you, no me, no world, no gods, not even "nothing", because a frame of reference to discern "nothing" from "something" would not exist.

So, being 'constrained' (as a description to the activity of certain phenomena, relative to us) is a necessary property of existence.

Does this mean I have to eat at McDonald's? No. The food is garbage. YUCK!

I choose from one of several acceptable restaraunts to eat at.

Does this mean some IRON HAND OF FATE caused me not to eat at McDonald's?

It seems that anything I CHOOSE to do is evidence that I have free will.

But any EVIDENCE will be incomplete, and subject to interpretation. (i.e. SUBJECTIVE.)

As a philosophy and way of life, FREE WILL seems to be superior. It's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. If they didn't believe men were free to choose, they'd have probably given us some ****** theocracy where everyone "accepts their fate". So to be a fatalist is to be UN-AMERICAN!

(Wave flag, key patriotic fanfare.)

Franko
30th October 2002, 05:55 PM
Evildave,

… Goddess give me Strength …

Does this mean some IRON HAND OF FATE caused me not to eat at McDonald's?

Chemical reaction in your brain wholly and completely determined and set into motion from the instant of the Big Bang by the initial state and the Laws of Physics have lead to a chain of events which irrevocably cause you to eat where you eat. You just observe it.

It seems that anything I CHOOSE to do is evidence that I have free will.

Christian: It seems that anything I CHOOSE to do is evidence that there is a God.

But any EVIDENCE will be incomplete, and subject to interpretation. (i.e. SUBJECTIVE.)

2 + 2 = 4

As a philosophy and way of life, FREE WILL seems to be superior.

Ahh yes … the wishful thinking doctrine of Fantasy belief. You are a classic case.

It's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

If they didn't believe men were free to choose, they'd have probably given us some ****** theocracy where everyone "accepts their fate". So to be a fatalist is to be UN-AMERICAN!

So Solipsism is TRUE; Ergo you now believe YOU speak for ALL AMERICANS?

Hmmm … I wonder about that creepy eye above the pyramid on the back of our currency? I’d swear She is giving you a real dirty look …

I command you to quickly and fluffly respond sock-puppet Dave ...

ArmchairPhysicist
30th October 2002, 06:33 PM
Chemical reaction in your brain wholly and completely determined and set into motion from the instant of the Big Bang by the initial state and the Laws of Physics have lead to a chain of events which irrevocably cause you to eat where you eat. You just observe it.

Let me make sure I understand your claim.. You're saying that TLOP can be used to show that on this very night, I will have dinner at McDonalds (Or wherever, we won't know until after I eat). Very specifically, on this night, that is the specific course of action that I will take.

You're not saying that TLOP will show a likelyhood of me eating at McDonalds at some point in time, but that it will occur at a specific time and date, and that date has already been determined (along with every other occurance, beginning with the Bang)?

ImpyTimpy
30th October 2002, 06:44 PM
I used to think the same way when I was about 14. I was just getting interested in physics at that time. The problem you have here is just what CAUSED the big bang in the first place? There can NOT be any random events happening (in order for this theory to work), therefore something must've caused the big bang, and whatever caused that must've caused THAT (and so on and on).

Originally posted by Franko

-snip-
Chemical reaction in your brain wholly and completely determined and set into motion from the instant of the Big Bang by the initial state and the Laws of Physics have lead to a chain of events which irrevocably cause you to eat where you eat. You just observe it.
-snip-

Franko
30th October 2002, 08:05 PM
Armchairdude …

Let me make sure I understand your claim.. You're saying that TLOP can be used to show that on this very night, I will have dinner at McDonalds (Or wherever, we won't know until after I eat). Very specifically, on this night, that is the specific course of action that I will take.

As opposed to …?

… Magic? What are you saying makes it happen?

Is your mind magically making it happen? Is that why you believe you have “free will”? Magic mind powers?

You're not saying that TLOP will show a likelyhood of me eating at McDonalds at some point in time, but that it will occur at a specific time and date, and that date has already been determined (along with every other occurance, beginning with the Bang)?

… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event… cause and event …

Franko
30th October 2002, 08:12 PM
Impotentguy …

I used to think the same way when I was about 14. I was just getting interested in physics at that time. The problem you have here is just what CAUSED the big bang in the first place?

… And the magical A-Theists answer to that very same question is … (crickets cirping …) …? …???

Listen, Godel explained the Big Bang, relative ages ago but as soon as you Religious fruitcakes (A-Theists) heard he was a Deist – you gave him the bums rush. (imagine that!)

There can NOT be any random events happening (in order for this theory to work), therefore something must've caused the big bang, and whatever caused that must've caused THAT (and so on and on).

Yeah Godel claims the sequence goes backwards in Time Infinitely. I personally believe there was an Origin – a starting point. Either way … there absolutely no need for randomness … just T i m e …

wraith
30th October 2002, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Q-Source

Wraith,

Could you please explain what you understand by TLOP?

What definition are you using?

Many thanks

Q-S

the way in which the forces of nature behave