2 of 2
2
Something to think about before you go to bed
Posted: 06 October 2015 03:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
Lausten - 06 October 2015 09:21 AM
Advocatus - 06 October 2015 07:25 AM

You were doing good up until premise 6.  How does it follow that because you are a collection of chemicals, you are not also an actual being?  It’s like saying that an automobile shouldn’t run because each of its individual parts, by itself, wouldn’t run.

I think there is a better fallacy for this, but this is the one that use. It’s a common internet argument to take facts about a whole and try to apply them to the parts, or vice versa, which is the fallacy of composition. For lack of a better name, I call it the “it’s just” fallacy. As in, “it’s just metal and rubber with some liquids in it, how can it fly?”

Agree.

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2015 10:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
LoisL - 06 October 2015 03:55 PM
Lausten - 06 October 2015 09:21 AM

I think there is a better fallacy for this, but this is the one that use. It’s a common internet argument to take facts about a whole and try to apply them to the parts, or vice versa, which is the fallacy of composition. For lack of a better name, I call it the “it’s just” fallacy. As in, “it’s just metal and rubber with some liquids in it, how can it fly?”

Agree.

Really? So you do realise that if you look at the whole, you can assign attributes to it that you cannot assign to its parts?

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 October 2015 01:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7816
Joined  2009-02-26
GdB - 06 October 2015 10:31 PM
LoisL - 06 October 2015 03:55 PM
Lausten - 06 October 2015 09:21 AM

I think there is a better fallacy for this, but this is the one that use. It’s a common internet argument to take facts about a whole and try to apply them to the parts, or vice versa, which is the fallacy of composition. For lack of a better name, I call it the “it’s just” fallacy. As in, “it’s just metal and rubber with some liquids in it, how can it fly?”

Agree.

Really? So you do realise that if you look at the whole, you can assign attributes to it that you cannot assign to its parts?

True, but one can also assign attributes to the parts other than was originally intended.
A wheel can be used for a vehicle, but can also be used to build a pyramid (as the Egyptians did).

Before I go to sleep I recount what I have learned that day and how it relates to scientific functions. Some of my best work is done on my back….smile

Carl Sagan did a lot of his thinking in the shower and used soap to write equations on the shower walls.

[ Edited: 07 October 2015 01:52 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 October 2015 04:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
GdB - 06 October 2015 10:31 PM
LoisL - 06 October 2015 03:55 PM
Lausten - 06 October 2015 09:21 AM

I think there is a better fallacy for this, but this is the one that use. It’s a common internet argument to take facts about a whole and try to apply them to the parts, or vice versa, which is the fallacy of composition. For lack of a better name, I call it the “it’s just” fallacy. As in, “it’s just metal and rubber with some liquids in it, how can it fly?”

Agree.

Really? So you do realise that if you look at the whole, you can assign attributes to it that you cannot assign to its parts?

I said that. In the example, the airplane has attributes that the wheels and wires and hoses do not.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 October 2015 05:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
Lausten - 07 October 2015 04:19 AM

I said that. In the example, the airplane has attributes that the wheels and wires and hoses do not.

I know. The question was very specific for Lois.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 October 2015 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
GdB - 07 October 2015 05:02 AM
Lausten - 07 October 2015 04:19 AM

I said that. In the example, the airplane has attributes that the wheels and wires and hoses do not.

I know. The question was very specific for Lois.

Okay, just clarifying

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2015 10:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
Write4U - 07 October 2015 01:47 AM
GdB - 06 October 2015 10:31 PM
LoisL - 06 October 2015 03:55 PM
Lausten - 06 October 2015 09:21 AM

I think there is a better fallacy for this, but this is the one that use. It’s a common internet argument to take facts about a whole and try to apply them to the parts, or vice versa, which is the fallacy of composition. For lack of a better name, I call it the “it’s just” fallacy. As in, “it’s just metal and rubber with some liquids in it, how can it fly?”

Agree.

Really? So you do realise that if you look at the whole, you can assign attributes to it that you cannot assign to its parts?

True, but one can also assign attributes to the parts other than was originally intended.
A wheel can be used for a vehicle, but can also be used to build a pyramid (as the Egyptians did).

Before I go to sleep I recount what I have learned that day and how it relates to scientific functions. Some of my best work is done on my back….smile

Carl Sagan did a lot of his thinking in the shower and used soap to write equations on the shower walls.


Without the wheel there would be no architecture or transportatoon as we know it. (Though I expect someone would have come up with it sooner or later.)

No one in the new world came up with it, and as this article points out, hardly anyone in the old world did, either.

The Incans made wheels for toys and ritual objects but never used them for anything practical. Would that count as an invention of the wheel?

straightdope.com/columns/read/223/why-did-the-peoples-of-the-new-world-fail-to-invent-the-wheel

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2015 11:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7816
Joined  2009-02-26

The wheel is indeed a great sibject for bed-time contemplation.  I dug this up.

The oldest wheel found in archeological excavations was discovered in what was Mesopotamia and is believed to be over fifty-five hundred years old.

  http://inventors.about.com/od/wstartinventions/a/wheel.htm

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2015 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1337
Joined  2005-01-14
LoisL - 03 October 2015 11:01 AM

Personally, I think it is because you think you are real and that deep down you think  you exist as a real entity and that awareness is so strong that you can’t act consistently with materialist beliefs.

You think you are a real being. Now it is obvious that the “material you” cannot be consistent yet there you are, a consistent stream of being (ok you can sleep etc. but when you wake up you are still you).

That is why you apply personal pronouns and identity to yourself.

You falsify the materialist world view by acting the way that you do.

It’s kind of obvious that whoever wrote this doesn’t really grasp what the “materialistic worldview” is.  For that reason I’d be tempted to just shrug if off, but it strikes me that you could turn it around.

1.  You believe that all human beings were created by God.

2.  The Bible actually gives no reason for Him to do this.  Apparently he just looked around at the empty universe and did it because there was nothing else to do.  The Bible says that the only purpose for our existence is to serve God and praise Him.

3.  In the Bible, God doesn’t seem to intervene much in human affairs, but when He does, He does so capriciously.  He might send plagues to Egypt in order to force the Pharoah to free the Israelites, but then He is just as likely to send a plague to the Israelites if they disobey the slightest commandment, or for any reason really.  The same pattern seems to hold true today.  He might perform a “miracle” here and there to save someone undergoing surgery, but then the next day do nothing whatsoever to prevent a mad gunman from shooting up a school.

4.  Therefore it is pretty obvious that God doesn’t really care much about human lives.  They’re just something for him to watch when he gets bored.

5.  And even when you die, what do look forward to besides an eternity of simply praising God and… well that’s about it really.

6.  Therefore nothing that you ever do in your life will ever make a thimble full of difference in the long run.

7.  So why do you get up in the morning?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2015 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7816
Joined  2009-02-26

One thing I learned is that things always move (make choices) in the “direction of greater satisfaction”

This concept had to create “heaven” as the ultimate “place of greatest satisfaction”.

[ Edited: 09 October 2015 01:38 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2