(February 12, 2020 at 8:11 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(February 12, 2020 at 7:43 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Nowt wrong with using Wikipedia as a source, at least not in a general way. Of course, it’s always wise to double check a Wiki article, which is what the ‘References’ section is for.

Boru

Correct! Nothing wrong with Wikipedia, (mostly) but to just post two links with not even a quote or an explanation as to why said links were chosen is how one commits the argumentum ad wikipedium fallacy. I'm sure Mister Agenda will follow up soon with what was intended.

---

Mister Agenda is my favorite super-hero on this forum.

I should think that reading the articles would solve that issue.

Boru

(February 12, 2020 at 8:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 12, 2020 at 8:11 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Correct! Nothing wrong with Wikipedia, (mostly) but to just post two links with not even a quote or an explanation as to why said links were chosen is how one commits the argumentum ad wikipedium fallacy. I'm sure Mister Agenda will follow up soon with what was intended.

---

Mister Agenda is my favorite super-hero on this forum.

I should think that reading the articles would solve that issue.

Boru

Oh ok well then https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum...ctionarium to you then.

(February 12, 2020 at 8:33 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(February 12, 2020 at 8:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I should think that reading the articles would solve that issue.

Boru

Oh ok well then https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum...ctionarium to you then.

So?

Boru

(February 12, 2020 at 1:22 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: P.S. Do you have the research on dogs you mentioned? In particular showing a change in perspective from reflex to something else?

Yes. We do. Is your fucking google broken, or are you so dishonest that you can't be bothered to look it up yourself. That is even worse than your regular lies.

Foxtrot right off in your flowerpot of ignorance. 

You have no interest in learning. You have an interest in wallowing in ignorance. 

Well you can do that without any assistance from anyone else. So off you go. Do not expect anyone to throw you a lifebelt of reason when you panic in a sea of religious effluent. You have already rejected those.

At a point one has to simply concede. The moron will drown no matter what anyone does.

(February 12, 2020 at 8:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 12, 2020 at 8:33 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Oh ok well then https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum...ctionarium to you then.

So?

Boru

That didn't just immediately make sense after you read the entire wikipedia post? Imagine that.

(February 12, 2020 at 7:07 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in...Background

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioris...imitations

Two misconceptions worth addressing. First, the approach taken by early behaviorists was aimed at improving testability. It isn't the case that they thought mental states, emotions, etc., didn't exist. Rather that they weren't testable and we should focus elsewhere. There's no mention in the links that a kicked dog whimpering was viewed as a reflex. But the behavior does sound very reflexive. Step on a nail and you not only withdraw your limb, you exclaim ouch or some expletives. Your consciousness seems to just sit back and watch it happen. Afterwards you realize what you said and apologize if the context demands it. The dog's reaction is bound to be very reflexive as well, the question you need to answer is whether or not it is accompanied by a conscious experience.

The second thing to clarify is that the cognitive revolution was not about establishing consciousness. You didn't necessarily claim that it did, but between what you wrote and what you cited it gave that impression. The focus of cognitive psychology was initially information processing, regardless of whether that processing occurs consciously or unconsciously (mostly unconscious). Your link primarily mentions Chomsky in the critique of behaviorism, but if you look at his early work, Chomsky was concerned with generative grammar and the rules your brain uses to produce language. You are not conscious of the processes that generate speech, you're only conscious of speaking.

(July 29, 2019 at 2:09 am)Tom Fearnley Wrote: Is God a logical contradiction? Is saying an [all-powerful] immaterial intelligence [God] like saying a square circle or married bachelor? To the best of my knowledge there are no immaterial things, such as energy waves, that exhibit intelligence. I need help with this. Anyone?

Can you give me a list of all immaterial things known to us? Do any of them exhibit intelligence? Are all immaterial things known to us (as in there can't be anymore)?

The problem with the above: Is it possible there could be something immaterial which is intelligent? Maybe, maybe not imo. This could be like asking "is it possible that a bachelor could be married?" No, it's not possible. But then maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks.

No, God does not exist so it can't be anything, contradictory or otherwise.  The notion of God is self-contradictory though.  God is said to be supernatural.  That means it is apart from and above the laws of nature including the Law of Identity.  So here we have a notion of an entity which by its nature transcends nature.  But if it has a nature, i.e., an identity, then how could it transcend the law of identity.  Blank out.  I can't believe I once bought into this nonsense.

(February 13, 2020 at 4:14 pm)Objectivist Wrote: No, God does not exist so it can't be anything, contradictory or otherwise.  The notion of God is self-contradictory though.  God is said to be supernatural.  That means it is apart from and above the laws of nature including the Law of Identity.  So here we have a notion of an entity which by its nature transcends nature.  But if it has a nature, i.e., an identity, then how could it transcend the law of identity.  Blank out.  I can't believe I once bought into this nonsense.

Are you sure you're reasoning through these terms correctly, using them appropriately, and not inadvertently creating a falsidical?

Personally I've never agreed with the notion of the supernatural; I think the term is often used as a synonym for non-existent. Nevertheless, I do view the notion of God being outside of nature as similar to the way a gamer sits outside the virtual environment he is playing, but can nevertheless interact and have an effect on it. To try to understand the human being by filtering him through "digital laws" of the virtual world is bound to be problematic if not contradictory as well.

(February 12, 2020 at 10:26 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(February 12, 2020 at 8:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: So?

Boru

That didn't just immediately make sense after you read the entire wikipedia post? Imagine that.

Well, I was already familiar with the dictionary fallacy. But when someone links to two articles clearly about the topic at hand, their intent is obvious.

Boru

(February 13, 2020 at 7:36 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(February 13, 2020 at 4:14 pm)Objectivist Wrote: No, God does not exist so it can't be anything, contradictory or otherwise.  The notion of God is self-contradictory though.  God is said to be supernatural.  That means it is apart from and above the laws of nature including the Law of Identity.  So here we have a notion of an entity which by its nature transcends nature.  But if it has a nature, i.e., an identity, then how could it transcend the law of identity.  Blank out.  I can't believe I once bought into this nonsense.

Are you sure you're reasoning through these terms correctly, using them appropriately, and not inadvertently creating a falsidical?

Personally I've never agreed with the notion of the supernatural; I think the term is often used as a synonym for non-existent. Nevertheless, I do view the notion of God being outside of nature as similar to the way a gamer sits outside the virtual environment he is playing, but can nevertheless interact and have an effect on it. To try to understand the human being by filtering him through "digital laws" of the virtual world is bound to be problematic if not contradictory as well.

No, I don't think that I am using any terms incorrectly. On my view when one talks of Nature one is speaking of existence, all of it, the sum total.  We call it nature when it is seen as a collection of entities acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities and according to the Law of Causality.  To speak of something outside of Nature would be to speak of an entity that is outside the concept entity, outside of the Law of identity and outside the Law of causality.  It is wracked with contradictions.  I think you're right to say that the supernatural is a synonym for the non-existent since to exist is to be something specific, to possess identity.  And yet "God" is supposed to transcend all that.  If a god existed "outside of Nature"  it would exist outside of existence and it would bo nothing.   

On your view, the world we live in is analogous to a video game.  I think this is a good analogy given what Christianity has to say about the Universe being a creation.  In a video game, the action is dictated by the programmer who creates the virtual world of the game and by the choices of the player, which in this case would be this fictional god.  The characters in the game (us Humans) would be like puppets.  

On my view however, the Universe is not analogous to a computer game.  Reality is an absolute, and everything is what it is and does what it does independent of any ruling consciousness.