Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

President Bush said:
Show me.
Click to expand...

I do not intend on doing your research for you. If you are interested in the topic, I suggest going to the library, getting books out on the subject, and educating yourself.

In brief, however, we understand many things about the brain. We can induce, for example, certain feelings by direct manipulation of the brain or by through chemical interactions. We understand these interactions. Thus, there is no reason why machines could not have the same interactions. In fact, there is no evidence of anything other then a purely mechanical cause of 'consciousness' and the sense of 'self' at all.
 
President Bush said:
See above. On second thought ... what?
Click to expand...
Possible and impossible are binary, they’re either or, they’re mutually excusive and exhaustive. It absolutely must be one, and it cannot be both. So, to claim that not knowing proves that it may not be possible, which means you’ve proven it impossible, is an argument from ignorance. This is what you tried to do. In a similar fashion, claiming that not knowing proves that it may not be impossible, which means that you’ve proven it is possible, is an argument from negative proof. Which is what I did in my reply to you. Both of these arguments are equal, fallacious, and wrong. So you must remove that not, our not knowing only shows that it may be possible or may be impossible.
 
President Bush said:
Spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, then invent... machinery.
Click to expand...

What? The above quote is a comment you made in reply to the question "what can humans do that machines can't". This is your claim. Back it up.
 
Taffer said:
In brief, however, we understand many things about the brain. We can induce, for example, certain feelings by direct manipulation of the brain or by through chemical interactions. We understand these interactions. Thus, there is no reason why machines could not have the same interactions. In fact, there is no evidence of anything other then a purely mechanical cause of 'consciousness' and the sense of 'self' at all.
Click to expand...
Assertion. You made the claim:

We have scientific reasons to believe that machines are every bit as possible of everything a human can do (including thinking, feeling, etc).
Click to expand...
Show me.
 
President Bush said:
That was cool. I love high-speed internet.

What's the matter, Taffer? Can't you find the bottle-opener?
Click to expand...
Another fallacy, argument from silence, his not responding to you (yet) proves nothing as well.

ETA - Might as well point out the ad hominem too, as I'm pretty sure the bottle-opener comment was meant as an insult.
 
Last edited:
I less than three logic said:
Possible and impossible are binary, they’re either or, they’re mutually excusive and exhaustive. It absolutely must be one, and it cannot be both. So, to claim that not knowing proves that it may not be possible, which means you’ve proven it impossible, is an argument from ignorance. This is what you tried to do. In a similar fashion, claiming that not knowing proves that it may not be impossible, which means that you’ve proven it is possible, is an argument from negative proof. Which is what I did in my reply to you. Both of these arguments are equal, fallacious, and wrong. So you must remove that not, our not knowing only shows that it may be possible or may be impossible.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm not following you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom