(October 2, 2016 at 9:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There go those goalposts. Were discussing the isolation of a computational function. I do not -need- to dive down to the qm level to do that. I don;t even need a microscope. I can do it with a string of christmas lights, some copper wire, a soldering iron..and a car battery.......and no, I'm not even kidding.So what you're saying is that what is true in one context does NOT need to be derived from the context on which it supervenes? That's a fantastic idea, I wish I had thought of it! Oh, wait. . .
Quote:Which is how you rationalize a standard logical fallacy. There's nothing more that needs be or can be said about this.You keep throwing keywords without actually being able to explain anything. Your fallacy fallacy is due noted.
Quote:I have no interest in trolling myself, or indulging you in trolling me. We've already had this discussion...you know that the science exists...you object to it. You -know- that it isn't an arbitrary philosophical position. You need it to be, to continue arguing, is all.I've never said science doesn't exist. I'm saying it doesn't study what you say it studies, and can't.