You banked your critique too much on the "zombie parasite" analogy which is merely a very crude clue to something more complex deeper.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:50 pmHow can it be a straw man? Your argument is from analogy, exactly as I described. It is, also as fairly described, a tenuous analogy that compares a biological lifeform which follows one precise set of behaviours to a wide and diverse range of human beliefs and behaviours, which guarantees that it is weak even for that form of argument. These are simple enough facts, you should be able to get them. Matters of self evident observation cannot be unsubstantiated accusation. Philosophically you have done nothing here but present an argument with faulty structure and insist it is good because you prefer to think of it that way. You didn't even learn anything from your mistakes which effectively guarantees a repeat performance.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:40 amPhilosophically at least I have done my part, i.e. stirred you to ask more questions.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:16 amWhat I wrote about your argument remains entirely true. It is a weak argument from a tenuous analogy between a lifeform that has two species as part of its lifecycle and requires the murder of one host to breed, with a belief system that does not share those among many other properties. It is therefore garbage.
I'm sorry for you if you think that the purpose of philosophy is for other people to accept garbage arguments from you and just agree with them. Arguments from analogy can be perfectly useful. Yours cannot because it is a badly overworked analogy. You plagiarised Dan Dennett's party trick and passed it off both as your own product and as serious argument. It is neither.
But unfortunately your views above are merely a straw man and unsubstantiated accusations.
This has been a bit of a waste of my time, but that's my fault as I was well aware of your capabilities before joining in. The next time you want to know why I can't be arsed to discuss you our obsession with islam, the additional effort that would require, and the obvious lack of payoff for it is the reason.
The analogy is merely something crude to lead one towards the neural perspectives.
At present, most people think the real ultimate cause of Islamic terrorism is due to the foreign policy of USA. I am pointing the root cause is in the brain/mind of theists.
The real zombie parasites in the ants' brain activated and triggered compelled [subliminally] to act 'irrationally' to their fatality.
So the question from our analogy clue is what is going on in the theists' brain that compelled [subliminally] theists to cling to the irrational belief in the idea of God that lead to theistic-based evil and violent acts.
Note, the brain on average has 100 billions neurons where each has up to 10,000 synapses [biological connectors]. Just image the number of possible complex permutations and combinations within the brain. We need to track the effects of theists to the specific set of neurons and their connectivity.
The final answers is to find the specific connections and sets of neurons and synapses that are involved in compelling theists into an irrational beliefs.
This is why I bring in the
Human Genome Project - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project
The Human Connectome Project - http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
There are at on of more elements and variable involved.
At present our knowledge is limited but I believe we are moving in the right direction.
When we have made significant advances in the The Human Connectome Project, we will be able to track more precisely why humans are theists and this can be tested, repeated and verified objectively. From the subtlest details, corrective actions [foolproof] can be taken.
The above are clues for further discussions.
I did not force you to respond to waste your time.
Your attitude and approach is too abrasive, I do not wish to discuss further with you on the above.