4 of 5
4
The Limits of Intelligence and Rationality
Posted: 29 October 2011 02:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14
factfinder - 29 October 2011 12:14 PM

Yours is a circular argument. You attempt to present as “evidence” that which you need to prove.

What do I need to “prove”? And what sort of evidence would you accept as proof in this instance? Give me an example of the sort of thing that if you were to see it, it would convince you.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
StephenLawrence - 29 October 2011 12:56 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 06:14 AM

  Some neurologists question whether the brain is even necessary, especially given the many people who function at very high levels without any discernible brain structure.

You are trying to avoid dealing these facts by introducing an irrelevancy. It is a red herring fallacy. Amputate that illogic.

The fact that some neurologists question whether the brain is even necessary (if it is a fact) is insignificant.

And it isn’t a fact that many people function at high levels without any descernible brain structure.

Stephen

Oh, but it is a fact. Perhaps it is a fact that makes your worldview untenable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 03:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 29 October 2011 02:37 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 12:14 PM

Yours is a circular argument. You attempt to present as “evidence” that which you need to prove.

What do I need to “prove”? And what sort of evidence would you accept as proof in this instance? Give me an example of the sort of thing that if you were to see it, it would convince you.

Try a premise, some supporting statements and a conclusion. You know, just like a real philosopher might do.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 03:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 28 October 2011 12:23 PM
factfinder - 28 October 2011 06:15 AM
dougsmith - 27 October 2011 06:15 AM
factfinder - 27 October 2011 06:04 AM
George - 26 October 2011 06:33 AM
factfinder - 25 October 2011 06:04 PM

Also, you seem to locate both rationality and intelligence exclusively as brain functions but there is a lot of evidence that every cell of the body has intelligence and there are neurons in the spine, etc.

Do you think amputation of your leg would make you less rational?

There would still be millions of cells to do the job.

Funny, your leg is quite a bit bigger than your brain, isn’t it?

See above rely. Repeating your error is not an advisable way to proceed.

[quote’OK, so here’s where we are.

No. That is where YOU are. You are still beating that red herring to death.

(1) Your leg is crucial to your intelligence, but if you amputated it you’d be just as intelligent as before because “there would be millions of cells [left] to do the job”.

(2) Your brain is not crucial to your intelligence because Dr. Lorber said that there was one intelligent person he knew who had “no discernible brain structure”. [Sic.]

But it’s already well established that:

(3) You can severely harm someone’s intelligence by giving them brain damage, or by their having a stroke; and most people Lorber studied were in fact deficient in just that way. People who have completely damaged brains (with little or no living tissue) are typically people with little or no intelligence; in fact, they’re typically dead.

Then, of course, there are those without any measurable brain to damage who manage to live at a high level.

It seems that you are one-trick pony, who, unable to accept that which interferes with your partial and flawed world view, resorts to red herrings as defense against truth.

I think what we have here is a strange idea about responsibility. The leg is responsible for intelligence even though removing it has no effect. The brain is not responsible for intelligence even though removing it removes intelligence, and removing bits of it typically removes bits of intelligence (e.g. the ability to speak or understand words or recognize faces).

I expect this is all a sort of diversion and that the goal is to convince us of the existence of substantial, nonphysical souls that interact with the physical body. Perhaps citation of the theosophist Ledbeater means that there’s a Secret Doctrine to be had, by sitting in an armchair and daydreaming that our souls live on some astral plane with the Lemurians and Atlanteans or whatever the Masters of Ancient Wisdom deign to enlighten us about. I suppose in a manner of thinking that’s an easier way to gain beliefs about the world than by actually doing experimentation ...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 03:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 29 October 2011 02:37 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 12:14 PM

Yours is a circular argument. You attempt to present as “evidence” that which you need to prove.

What do I need to “prove”? And what sort of evidence would you accept as proof in this instance? Give me an example of the sort of thing that if you were to see it, it would convince you.

You need to prove your flawed belief system before using it as “evidence”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 03:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6029
Joined  2006-12-20
factfinder - 29 October 2011 03:25 PM
StephenLawrence - 29 October 2011 12:56 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 06:14 AM

  Some neurologists question whether the brain is even necessary, especially given the many people who function at very high levels without any discernible brain structure.

You are trying to avoid dealing these facts by introducing an irrelevancy. It is a red herring fallacy. Amputate that illogic.

The fact that some neurologists question whether the brain is even necessary (if it is a fact) is insignificant.

And it isn’t a fact that many people function at high levels without any descernible brain structure.

Stephen

Oh, but it is a fact. Perhaps it is a fact that makes your worldview untenable.

Oh no it isn’t. grin

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14
factfinder - 29 October 2011 03:35 PM
dougsmith - 29 October 2011 02:37 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 12:14 PM

Yours is a circular argument. You attempt to present as “evidence” that which you need to prove.

What do I need to “prove”? And what sort of evidence would you accept as proof in this instance? Give me an example of the sort of thing that if you were to see it, it would convince you.

You need to prove your flawed belief system before using it as “evidence”.

Let me remind you of the Forum rules. In particular the rule against trolling. Continued rule violations may lead to banning. Thanks.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 06:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 29 October 2011 04:26 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 03:35 PM
dougsmith - 29 October 2011 02:37 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 12:14 PM

Yours is a circular argument. You attempt to present as “evidence” that which you need to prove.

What do I need to “prove”? And what sort of evidence would you accept as proof in this instance? Give me an example of the sort of thing that if you were to see it, it would convince you.

You need to prove your flawed belief system before using it as “evidence”.

Let me remind you of the Forum rules. In particular the rule against trolling. Continued rule violations may lead to banning. Thanks.

Ah, threats. The last refuge of the person who will not admit his logic errors and who cannot otherwise defend his position.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 29 October 2011 04:26 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 03:35 PM
dougsmith - 29 October 2011 02:37 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 12:14 PM

Yours is a circular argument. You attempt to present as “evidence” that which you need to prove.

What do I need to “prove”? And what sort of evidence would you accept as proof in this instance? Give me an example of the sort of thing that if you were to see it, it would convince you.

You need to prove your flawed belief system before using it as “evidence”.

Let me remind you of the Forum rules. In particular the rule against trolling. Continued rule violations may lead to banning. Thanks.

I should point out that your introduction of threats is yet another example of a logical fallacy-namely, the red herring.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 07:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
StephenLawrence - 29 October 2011 03:38 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 03:25 PM
StephenLawrence - 29 October 2011 12:56 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 06:14 AM

  Some neurologists question whether the brain is even necessary, especially given the many people who function at very high levels without any discernible brain structure.

You are trying to avoid dealing these facts by introducing an irrelevancy. It is a red herring fallacy. Amputate that illogic.

The fact that some neurologists question whether the brain is even necessary (if it is a fact) is insignificant.

And it isn’t a fact that many people function at high levels without any descernible brain structure.

Stephen

Oh, but it is a fact. Perhaps it is a fact that makes your worldview untenable.

Oh no it isn’t. grin

Stephen

Here’s your concept of a debate or an inquiry:

factfinder:This is a proven fact.
Stephen: No, it isn’t’
factfinder:Of course, and here’s the link to prove it.
Stephen: Oh, no, it isn’t
factfinder:The fact that…
Stephen: it isn’t a fact.

Here’s another fact for you - denial is not refutation.

Your concept of an argument being yes. no. yes. no. yes. no. is a bit too juvenile to be given any credibility.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 09:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22

Hold it, guys. Is this a practical joke?

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2011 01:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6029
Joined  2006-12-20
factfinder - 29 October 2011 07:08 PM
StephenLawrence - 29 October 2011 03:38 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 03:25 PM
StephenLawrence - 29 October 2011 12:56 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 06:14 AM

  Some neurologists question whether the brain is even necessary, especially given the many people who function at very high levels without any discernible brain structure.

You are trying to avoid dealing these facts by introducing an irrelevancy. It is a red herring fallacy. Amputate that illogic.

The fact that some neurologists question whether the brain is even necessary (if it is a fact) is insignificant.

And it isn’t a fact that many people function at high levels without any descernible brain structure.

Stephen

Oh, but it is a fact. Perhaps it is a fact that makes your worldview untenable.

Oh no it isn’t. grin

Stephen

Here’s your concept of a debate or an inquiry:

factfinder:This is a proven fact.
Stephen: No, it isn’t’
factfinder:Of course, and here’s the link to prove it.
Stephen: Oh, no, it isn’t
factfinder:The fact that…
Stephen: it isn’t a fact.

Here’s another fact for you - denial is not refutation.

Your concept of an argument being yes. no. yes. no. yes. no. is a bit too juvenile to be given any credibility.

There are no links that have real examples of many people functioning at high levels without any decernable brain structure.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2011 05:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
TromboneAndrew - 29 October 2011 09:28 PM

Hold it, guys. Is this a practical joke?


http://www.fatemag.com/issues/2000s/2008-01article4.html


http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/87/34842/baby-without-brain-celebrates-first-birthday.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2011 05:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
StephenLawrence - 30 October 2011 01:10 AM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 07:08 PM
StephenLawrence - 29 October 2011 03:38 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 03:25 PM
StephenLawrence - 29 October 2011 12:56 PM
factfinder - 29 October 2011 06:14 AM

  Some neurologists question whether the brain is even necessary, especially given the many people who function at very high levels without any discernible brain structure.

You are trying to avoid dealing these facts by introducing an irrelevancy. It is a red herring fallacy. Amputate that illogic.

The fact that some neurologists question whether the brain is even necessary (if it is a fact) is insignificant.

And it isn’t a fact that many people function at high levels without any descernible brain structure.

Stephen

Oh, but it is a fact. Perhaps it is a fact that makes your worldview untenable.

Oh no it isn’t. grin

Stephen


Here’s your concept of a debate or an inquiry:

factfinder:This is a proven fact.
Stephen: No, it isn’t’
factfinder:Of course, and here’s the link to prove it.
Stephen: Oh, no, it isn’t
factfinder:The fact that…
Stephen: it isn’t a fact.

Here’s another fact for you - denial is not refutation.

Your concept of an argument being yes. no. yes. no. yes. no. is a bit too juvenile to be given any credibility.

There are no links that have real examples of many people functioning at high levels without any decernable brain structure.

Stephen


I’m pleased to see that you have changed your yes-no theory of debate and inquiry. Now you need to learn to accept evidence that is contrary to your mindset (and your Atheism).


http://www.fatemag.com/issues/2000s/2008-01article4.html


http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/87/34842/baby-without-brain-celebrates-first-birthday.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2011 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6029
Joined  2006-12-20
factfinder - 30 October 2011 05:17 AM

http://www.fatemag.com/issues/2000s/2008-01article4.html


http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/87/34842/baby-without-brain-celebrates-first-birthday.html

Neither link says anything about many people functioning at high levels without any decernable brain structure.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 5
4