Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:14 am
My point with the use of the term 'programmed' is find a suitable term to represent what is observed in reality on a empirical basis.
It's not "empirical." It's
metaphorical. You're using the language of planning and computers do explain the activity of something (Nature) which you insist is incapable of these particular activities in any
literal sense.
Nature does not "plan," unless Nature has a mind. Nature does not "program," unless Nature is already intelligent. But you say these things are not so, because that would make Nature some kind of "god" -- a conscious entity that was producing these things.
Yes my use of 'programme' was intended to be metaphorical to represent what is going on that is empirical and can be justified empirically.
I have read of many who used 'programmed' in relation to nature, e.g. in relation to instincts established over millions or billions of years.
However they avoided 'programming' since this action is not determinable in a way.
- P1 All humans has an inherent instinct to strive and to survive against all odds till the inevitable [i.e. mortality].
Do you have any issue in the above?
Absolutely. In addition to the grammar problems, like "has" and "till," it's got two different premise terms mashed into one, "strive and survive." Then it uses a cliche, "against all odds," and ends with a truism so obvious it adds no information at all, "the inevitable". Yes, people stop doing things when they die...so?
As far as grammar is concern, I would request for 'The Principle of Charity' since my mother tongue is not English.
I can change that to;
P1 All humans has an inherent instinct in striving to survive against all odds till the inevitable [i.e. mortality].
"Against all odds" is empirical evident from living things and humans that has survived despite the negative forces against their survival, e.g. the Eskimos, the desert Bedouins, etc. Your counter in this case is not valid since what I stated in the empirical truth.
This point is critical to support why theists are so desperate against all odds and do whatever it takes to avoid the fear of death, thus will war against and kill non-believers under the commands of their God.
It is the same for you and other theists who will defend their faith "oxymoronically" with arguments, since faith is belief without proofs nor justified reason.
'Till the inevitable' is a fact.
If I don't put 'till the inevitable' someone will bring up mortality.
That is to make my P1 truer and more realistic.
There is nothing false about my P1, therefore it stands.
In addition, a basic syllogism has three premises, not four. You've accidentally created a "chain syllogism" in which this first "link" has no clear attachment to the main argument. It doesn't even really belong.
P2-P4 still have the problems I identified above.
Nah, you are too pedantic.
No, I just know basic logic. You really could use a course...even the start of a course would do you a ton of good in learning how to form valid syllogisms.
I have read up on basic logic and justifying an argument.
My approach is not wrong.
Show me where in the world, philosophers insist arguments must absolute in 3-statements syllogism.
The alternative to a conclusion can be the use of a narrative form where one premise follow from one another to the conclusion.
No, "narrative" means "story." And "stories" don't form elements of syllogisms.
Here: this will help.
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/exa ... ogism.html
In particular, read the "rules."
There are narrative arguments.
Why not?
A standard syllogism can be in the from to two stories leading to the conclusion.
What I intended re 'narrative' earlier was, an argument can be the form of more that 3 statements syllogism or even 100+ statements provided one premise follows from another to the conclusion.
It is very common within Philosophy Forums where a more than 3 statements argument is presented. As I stated such a format of argument is valid as long as the premises follow one from the previous premise. I recall some called it the 'narrative format' if not there should be proper name for such an argument.
Are you insisting a more than 2 premises with a conclusion is not valid?
I often read the claim the central portion of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is one whole argument, i.e. with many chapters, sections and sub-sections.
P2 is still a tautology. It says "To survive, one has to avoid dying." True, but totally circularly so.
Because it repeats a single idea as if it were two.
To "survive" means, by definition, "not to die." "To avoid dying" means, by definition, "to survive." Not only that, but the idea that "dead things are things that don't survive" is trivial. We know that. But what information does it add to the idea of "surviving"? None.
I still don't get how can that be an issue?
Because it essentially is like saying, "The red house is red." Tautologies use the same term, or a synonym for it twice, instead of presenting two distinct terms, which is what each premise in a syllogism is supposed to do.
My P2 is definitely not similar The red house is red."
It is more like 'The red house is not green' or not any color other than red.
This is useful to warn someone from using a green paint.
Therefore even if my P2, is a truism, there is no issue because it is still true.
A "truism" isn't just a truth. It's a true statement so simple and obvious that it adds no information.
A truism merely represent the same truth in another perspective.
Truism = a self-evident, obvious truth.
I agree it adds no new facts, but it is not false, so no critical damage to the argument.
I could state, 'To survive, is instinctively driven to fear death'
But I had used a truism to avoid a sudden jump, thus the flow is gradual.
P2 is thus not an issue nor does in make my argument to that stage false.
My revised argument would be;
- P1 DNA wise all humans has an inherent instinct to strive to survive with a will-to-live against all odds till inevitable mortality.
Essentially, it reads, "Human beings fear death."
P2 To ensure one survive with the will-to-live one is instinctually driven to avoid death.
Human beings fear death.
P3 To avoid death, it is instinctual to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
Human beings fear death.
C4 Therefore to survive with the will-to-live, one will instinctually fear death [subliminally or consciously].
Therefore, human beings fear death.
Now you've got an even worse problem. Instead of having three key terms in your "syllogism," and two premises and a conclusion, you've got four premises -- but every one of them is just a rewording of the conclusion. So none of the premises provide any support for it at all now.
- P1 DNA wise all humans has an inherent instinct to strive to survive with a will-to-live against all odds till inevitable mortality.
Essentially, it reads, "Human beings fear death."
Your "human beings fear death" do not represent my argument at all.
As far as my argument is concern it starts with a Major Premise, P1 , i.e. "ALL humans .."
It is evident the following premises 2 and 3 as Minor premises are all subsumed under the major premises.
I don't see you understanding the Principles of Logic in this case.
You have not show me where my Major Premise do not follow through to the conclusion.
Btw, the above merely statement of premises.
The point is each premises and its elements must be supported by justifications with empirical evidences.
For example, there is a need to explain how instincts came above.
"striving against all odds" I have given you examples. To be convincing I will have to provide more evidence.
It is the same with P2 I will have to provide greater details to justify this premise is true.
It is just that there is a limitation in such a forum to support my premises thoroughly.
Nevertheless I welcome whatever counter arguments you can give, but the last one
Essentially, it reads, "Human beings fear death" is intellectually ridiculous.