Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:33 pm
You are diverting the subject by pointing to outside theories. A line within a line observes that a thing can be different and the same at the same time in different respects.
I am not "diverting" - you are.
If there is a "line within a line" there is a relation/mapping between the elements (points) of the "outside" line and the "inside" line. That is embedding.
Holistically speaking we can speak about the structures of "inside" and "outside" and the relations between "inside" and "outside" as a whole.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:25 pm
The beginning of any cause and effect chain necessitates nothing behind it thus acausal.
I've already pointed out to you the fallacy in your reasoning. You don't seem to learn.
The entire causal chain must have a beginning that is not itself causal; that much is true. But all it "necessitates" is that whatever started the chain must be eternal. It does not mean that the causal chain's origin is "acausal" in the sense of being genuinely "uncaused."
So your dichotomy is false, and you are not able to conclude from it what you wish to conclude.
2. The observer...
This "point" was just goofy. I'm going to ignore it, because I can't think of any sensible way to respond to such a confused line of pseudo-reasoning.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:33 pm
You are diverting the subject by pointing to outside theories. A line within a line observes that a thing can be different and the same at the same time in different respects.
I am not "diverting" - you are.
If there is a "line within a line" there is a relation/mapping between the elements (points) of the "outside" line and the "inside" line. That is embedding.
Holistically speaking we can speak about the structures of "inside" and "outside" and the relations between "inside" and "outside" as a whole.
A line within a line observes the whole line as composed of multiple lines with each of the multiple lines composed of further lines. The inside of one line is the outside of another. Inner and outer are only starting points from which measurement occur. The same thing repeats itself through differences with these differences being similar under another respect.
This is proof that a thing can be both the same and different, which you are ignoring.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:25 pm
The beginning of any cause and effect chain necessitates nothing behind it thus acausal.
I've already pointed out to you the fallacy in your reasoning. You don't seem to learn.
The entire causal chain must have a beginning that is not itself causal; that much is true. But all it "necessitates" is that whatever started the chain must be eternal. It does not mean that the causal chain's origin is "acausal" in the sense of being genuinely "uncaused."
So your dichotomy is false, and you are not able to conclude from it what you wish to conclude.
2. The observer...
This "point" was just goofy. I'm going to ignore it, because I can't think of any sensible way to respond to such a confused line of pseudo-reasoning.
False you barely proved any fallacy...you just threw on a label. Dually even if a fallacy occured it does not negate the argument's truth value due to the fallacy fallacy which states an argument can be fallacious and still have a truth value.
What you fail to see is that any observation of a beginning of a cause and effect chain has no prior causes behind it. If there are causes behind it, then it is not the beginning of the chain.
Reducing things to whatever caused the chain as eternal is to point to eternity as uncaused thus acausal. Your logic fails.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I really don't have to, if you know what the fallacy is. If you don't...well, there are plenty of websites that can acquaint you with the false dichotomy fallacy. And if you can't recognize it in your own argument, I can't help you.
What you fail to see is that any observation of a beginning of a cause and effect chain has no prior causes behind it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:58 pm
3. Do you know what epiphenomenon are?
Of course.
Then define them.
"Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events. Behavior is caused by muscles that contract upon receiving neural impulses, and neural impulses are generated by input from other neurons or from sense organs. On the epiphenomenalist view, mental events play no causal role in this process." (Stanford)
I really don't have to, if you know what the fallacy is. If you don't...well, there are plenty of websites that can acquaint you with the false dichotomy fallacy. And if you can't recognize it in your own argument, I can't help you.
What you fail to see is that any observation of a beginning of a cause and effect chain has no prior causes behind it.
Heh. No, I don't "fail to see."
But somebody does.
1. And where is this false dichotomy? And do you realize even if the fallacy occured it has no relationship to the truth value due to the fallacy fallacy?
2. If all is caused then what lies behind the first cause?
3. Do you even know what you are stating or do you just spew word salads?
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:46 pm
Of course.
Then define them.
"Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events. Behavior is caused by muscles that contract upon receiving neural impulses, and neural impulses are generated by input from other neurons or from sense organs. On the epiphenomenalist view, mental events play no causal role in this process." (Stanford)
I guess your Google is broken.
This is a contradiction given a mental event is inseperable from the physical as the physical event in the brain is inseperable from the thought. The role of one mental event resulting in another mental event is the mental event resulting in physical events in the brain thus physical changes. This is considering all thoughts are grounded in physical changes of the brain. There is no true epiphenomenon.
The neural impulses are connected to thought given observing an event either empirically or abstractly results changes in the neural impulses. Observing a relaxing event (either empirically or abstractly) causes breathing to slow, observing a stressful event (either empirically or abstractly) causes breathing to speed up.
The neural impulses which result in thought results in the conception and formulation of free will thus an epiphenomenon results in free will given this conception is free from any physical influence other than the impulses. These impulses result from a causal chain thus resulting in free will as caused.
No, I don't "fail to see."