A Philosophical Thought Experiment

[Bushido216]

I love theories that start out at rock bottom and then proceed to dig.

Welcome to CF, Unreal.

 

[RETS]

I love theories that start out at rock bottom and then proceed to dig.

Welcome to CF, Unreal.

Original post?


And by the way-- Great avatar! That movie was awesome, and Jet Li is amazing.

 

[Bushido216]

My post was re: post #16 in this thread.

 

[RETS]

Ah. Yeah, that was a pretty neat one.

 

[Brady111]

No, that is not even close to my position. I'm not quite certain how you read that into what I had written.

Well, I got that from what you wrote. You previously said that because something wasn't known for certain (and nothing in science is) and because there was an opposing view (in science there can always be an opposing view, since nothing can be certain), some how that dismissed (or at least undermined) the extremely well supported theory of the BB.

I don't see why we should have to do this.

Sorry, just following your lead.

In any case, I was simply presenting a philosophical objection to the idea that the question you had mentioned must be introduced, because time may carry different implications than what you think.

Here you make my point again. You dismissed what I said, not based on the presentation of an inductive or deductive argument, but based on the possibility of an opposing view.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Here you make my point again. You dismissed what I said, not based on the presentation of an inductive or deductive argument, but based on the possibility of an opposing view.

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes pointing out the possibility of an opposing view is a legitimate way to challenge an argument that seems to rest on the assumption that only one view really matters. Not every challenge to an argument must itself involve an "inductive or deductive argument".

Of course, I may have misunderstood your argument to involve such as assumption when it doesn't.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Brady111]

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes pointing out the possibility of an opposing view is a legitimate way to challenge an argument that seems to rest on the assumption that only one view really matters.

The flat earth theory is an opposing view to the round earth theory. Geocentrism is an opposing view to heliocentrism. The spontaneous generation of rats from corn meal is an opposing view to both evolution and theistic special creation. So, what's your point?

Not every challenge to an argument must itself involve an "inductive or deductive argument".

Well, actually, what we mean by "challenge" is either a strong and cogent inductive argument or a valid and sound deductive argument. without one of these there is no challenge, just the expression of mere opinion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The flat earth theory is an opposing view to the round earth theory. Geocentrism is an opposing view to heliocentrism. The spontaneous generation of rats from corn meal is an opposing view to both evolution and theistic special creation. So, what's your point?

I've already made my point in previous posts. If you have specific questions about what I have actually written, please ask.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Brady111]

I've already made my point in previous posts. If you have specific questions about what I have actually written, please ask.

I have no more questions. Your position is now clear to me and I think to everyone else reading these posts.

We're done here.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I have no more questions. Your position is now clear to me and I think to everyone else reading these posts.

We're done here.

Personally I think it's clear to everyone but you. You were the one who tried to imply that the theory that time began with the Big Bang was fact. Mark then demonstrated that this is not the case, at which point you threw his argument back at him as if that had anything to do with what he was saying.

At least, that's what I read.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Personally I think it's clear to everyone but you. You were the one who tried to imply that the theory that time began with the Big Bang was fact. Mark then demonstrated that this is not the case, at which point you threw his argument back at him as if that had anything to do with what he was saying.

At least, that's what I read.

You, at least, have read correctly.

But let's move on.

Your thoughts are carried on the electrical impulses called 'synapses' in between the billions of neurons bundled in your brain. I thought this actually was pretty obvious... when I studied it in high school

Your knowledge of the brain is accurate as far as biology goes, but what does it mean to say that thoughts are carried through synapses by electrical impulses? Are thoughts electrons? Are thoughts synapses? If thoughts are carried, what is it that is being carried? What are thoughts?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[UnReAL13]

You, at least, have read correctly.

But let's move on.



Your knowledge of the brain is accurate as far as biology goes, but what does it mean to say that thoughts are carried through synapses by electrical impulses? Are thoughts electrons? Are thoughts synapses? If thoughts are carried, what is it that is being carried? What are thoughts?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yeah sure, electrons when you break it down to the quantum level. But this is the point where Agnosticism takes over. At least until research at Fermilab or CERN reveals anything beyond what we've been able to observe thus far, which seems like an inevitability anyway. So then a skeptic of scientific research would question the components of that level of observation, and so on and so forth.