The Fallacy of Composition

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Now let's get more specific about this emergent property, with a new syllogism:

Enzymes assemble / dissassemble other molecules by hooking themselves onto a section, flexing and grabbing the molecules to perform the operation.
You are made of enzymes
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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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
Youre made of atoms
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

[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 website:

Quote:

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.

Here, from Google see a whole bunch of examples.

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.

Can we please move on???

-Ed

[wraith]

Quote:

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 website:



Here, from Google see a whole bunch of examples.

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.

Can we please move on???

-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?

Quote:

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]

I am going to assume that you really didn't understand my post and make one more effort:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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?
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]

Quote:

Originally posted by wraith


So things happen just for the hell of it?

You hadn't noticed.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mossy
Did you read the links I posted?

no

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

(read reply above)

Quote:

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

Thanks for the update Mossy

Quote:

Honestly, does that make sense now?

negative on that

Quote:

If not, please read the links, show some integrity and acknowledge that the syllogism is flawed.

Ill do no such thing haha

Quote:

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

Enlighten me. Show me the light!

What the h*** is wrong with these guys? Are they realyy that stupid or are they simply disingenuous trolls? Either way...

Cheers,

[wraith]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_common_person


You hadn't noticed.

great stuff here

Quote:

No

OH!?!?!

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by mossy

...show some integrity...

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

And then there is this:

Quote:

*snip*
Which of these statements is inconsistant with Logical Deism?
1) You cannot Choose
2) Your choices have consequences.

*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]

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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."

Quote:

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]

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]

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 ...

[Mossy]

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]

Quote:

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]

Wraith:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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]

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.

Quote:

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

axiom: A-Theists are unapologetic liars.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

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]

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]

Quote:

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]

Chulbert,

Quote:

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

Who do you think you are you kidding?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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”?

Quote:

(freedom from fate).

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Materialism is not at odds with free will.

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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Please define "you".

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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]

Quote:

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.

(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.

Quote:

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,

Quote:

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]

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

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

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