Brain in a vat

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by James R, Nov 22, 2016.

  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Please quote where I said "Two causes in two environments can never produce the same result..."
    I'll make it easy for you:

    My comment was that such a statement is false.
    It was, in fact, you who said it:
    So, right "out of the gate" we have you knowingly, willfully, and intentionally lying. My my, not a good start laddie.

    I never said two different organisms become the same organism - in fact, my example was specifically on how two different organism in two different areas, subject to similar stimulus, evolve along parallel paths. Do try to keep up

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I would say, try to keep up, but you're falling all over your own face right out the gate.

    Aye, I do - I merely wanted to remove your ability to squirm out of the truth by attempting to redefine the question - thanks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What is your claim in regards to "his reference to his real brain", then. That the consciousness is not aware of its physical brain?

    In other words, you have no argument, and are arguing simply for the sake of hearing yourself talk, as you have answered your own question.

    Don't flatter yourself - you were never even a player

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Clearly. But again, your apology is noted.
    Allowing for its reality is different to allowing for the possibility of its reality. Maybe once you think it through you will stop simply trying to cover your error in communication and dismissing its notice as pedantry. If you don't want to be clear in your language, at least don't blame others for having a different understanding to what you type.
    No. Can you not follow?
    Not at all. It is rather trivial to have a system that generates the same result from two pathways. It is after all how redundancy is built into systems.
    If they do the same things, react in the same way to the exact same stimuli at the same time... they are the same. The only time they would be different is if their experiences and/or reactions, diverge. Bear in mind we are talking about a perfectly simulated brain, exactly duplicating the processes of the envatted brain. In essence you have the same "I" but from two causal systems.
    Of course it would be a simulation. But while it had the same memory, experience, reaction, then it is the same "I". What do you consider the "I" to be? I consider it to be a pattern of activity, and wherever the exact same pattern is found, the same "I" is found.
    Not only about knowledge. Yes, knowledge is the primary reason for the gedanken but it is a scenario that raises other questions and issue. If you don't want to discuss them, get over yourself and simply refrain.
    If you do not wish to engage in the direction I am currently addressing, feel free to vacate. This isn't your personal thread, your personal topic to direct and administer as you see fit. The scenario has been set up and we are free to examine and think through its consequences wherever they may lead.
    There is no confusion, syne, although your efforts at projection are rather dishonest.
    You probably don't even realise that a computer simulation isn't reality, right? :rolleyes.
    Rather depends on your view of what the "I" is, I guess.
    As above.
    To accomplish what, exactly? I doubt you're even grasping what I'm discussing, and you're floundering for things to rail against.
    Only to the path taken (regarding the matter of duality), not to the question of knowledge.
    But since you cleared up your slip in communication a while back, everything since is really just to explore. You, however... well, pity.
    And you can give me one concrete example of a brain being envatted and experiencing a reality such as ours? Don't be pathetic, syne, this is a matter of hypothetical situations.
    Who said the environments (that which we react to and experience) are different? They can't be different if the two things are to react and behave and experience in exactly the same way. If the environment is differen then the experiences and reactions would be different and the two would be distinct from each other. We're talking about the same environment.
    And you can be arrogantly blind to them not violating it all you like, but your claims don't change the facts.

    Listen, syne, if you're not willing to engage and just want to shut everything down as not being in line with what you view the gedanken to be then fine, please don't engage at al. But if you are willing, please at least try to do so with less arrogance, less aggression, and a tad more civility. Can you manage that?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I'm going to hazard a guess that no, he cannot - he is not giving the appearance of seeking actual discussion - rather, he appears interested only in stroking his own ego and furthering his own narrative... and then gets angry (and mashes the report button) because he can't take as good as he wants to give.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Ooh, I was having a discussion about this very thing not so long ago.
    Yeah, okay, it was about the Star Trek transporters, and would we ever venture into one.
    One friend adamantly wouldn't: it's instant death because the "I" is the brain, the brain is destroyed, and whatever is created at the other end is an entirely different person, even if it and everyone else thinks it's the same person.
    The other friend was of the opinion that the "I" is simply, as described by you, a pattern of activity, and wherever it is found so is that same "I".
    Now, of course, the pattern is not static but in continuous change, with each passing moment.
    So it lead to the question of whether the "I" is even a continuous thing or actually discrete (assuming time is discrete) and that the only thing that links one "I" to the next is memory.

    So on the one hand, as I expertly link it back to the brain in a vat, the two patterns (simulated and real) would be considered distinct, and on the other, while they remain identical they are the same "I", irrespective of what is producing them, or where, or when.
    And on the other hand (I have three??) there was the idea that if the pattern can change and remain the same "I" then in essence there might be no discernible difference between any "I", and that the difference is only dictated by what it is linked to: the memory, processing routines etc.
    But that started getting too new-agey for the time of evening.
    So we opened another bottle of wine and watched some Blackadder.
    Ah, good times.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Yet those two patterns would have identical experiences, thoughts, memories, et al, up until the point of divergence - however, if they are never re-introduced (such as when Commander Riker met William T Riker in the ST: TNG episode Second Chances - they both lived on "knowing" they were "William Thomas Riker".
  9. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    And I agree, except then you said, "In other words, identical =/= exact same thing... that is an interesting viewpoint. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and looks like a duck, one should reasonably assume it is a frog then?"

    Now maybe you don't write sentences like people of normal intelligence or better parse them, but it sure looked like you were making a straw man of my position (by changing "identical results" =/= exact same thing into "identical =/= exact same thing") and then making hay of your own straw man to dishonestly ridicule.

    And you call yourself a Christian?

    Sad that I have to resort to this, but...

    thing - an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
    an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

    Maybe you were equivocating "thing" with "trait" or "property" or "result" instead of "object". That's on you.
    You certainly changed my use of "thing" to yours of "result" here, in order to erect your straw man. And when I tried to correct you, you made another straw man by changing my "identical results" to just "identical".
    Or maybe you just don't know what a sufficient cause is. Look it up. "Sufficient" alone would have been a more than ample clue...if you only knew what it meant.

    Uh, you did say "try to keep up."
    So just a non-sequitur. Got it.

    Well since even a cursory reading of this thread would have done that for ya, we'll just have to chalk that one up to your laziness.
    Or just your complete ignorance of something you could easily Google and read in two minutes time.

    Yeah, we can start that rudimentary if you need.

    Again, go read up on the thought experiment. It stipulates that you cannot be aware of your real, physical brain.

    Wow! You've got a real need to make small, irrelevant victories out of any anything.

    You actually think defining the well-known thought experiment for you is an argument.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That's so precious.
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    You think that's an apology? How precious.

    You keep saying it's different, but you don't seem to elucidate how. The only difference I see is accepting a present reality versus accepting a possible future reality. Is there something you would accept as possible for the future that you would reject if it were reality now? Isn't a rejection of reality just delusion?

    So unabashedly obfuscating, or just trying to score points. M'kay.

    Seems I did follow.

    Maybe you need to look up sufficient cause too. Since a sufficient cause guarantees the result, each such cause guarantees a separate result.
    Now do you really want to claim that a living brain is not sufficient for a mind? Isn't brain death your criteria for no more mind?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So you and your mirror image are the same? You in from of a video camera is the same as you being recorded onto a memory card? Aside from being mirrored in the former, neither "experiences and/or reactions, diverge".

    Give me a concrete example (instead of this arm waving) of one thing equally and wholly controlled by two systems at once.

    So simulation is exactly the same as real? That is just contradictory. Sounds like some solipsist negation of anything truly being real. "It's all illusion, man...far out."

    Again, give me a concrete example of even one pattern equally and wholly controlled by or originating from two systems at once. Even the same wavelength of light from one source would reinforce the peaks and troughs of the same wave as the other.

    I'm just waiting for you to get around to making any of these other arguments you seem to claim allow you to change the gedanken ad hoc.

    I just said, "Get around to making that argument already." Apparently you're more interested in playing pretend that I'm some tyrant or something. You should at least have the intellectual honesty to clearly present what you're wanting to discuss, instead of changing it, ad hoc, to keep others guessing.

    Then make these supposed arguments about consciousness already. Quit stalling...unless of course it all just a red herring anyway.

    Hey, you're the one who keeps saying that a simulated "I" is exactly the same as a real one.

    Equivocation. Or do you really think that something that relies on a brain can move outside of said brain? Sounds like spiritism.

    Snip lack of argument
    In principle? Sure, BIV. Can you even do that much? You know, detail a concrete scenario where it would be possible.

    Again, you seem to be saying the there's no difference between real and simulated world.

    Intellectual honesty is a necessity for civility. Ball's in your court.

    Aside from Kitt newly joining the discussion, I set aside my strongest argument (the one that saw you vanish until I quit arguing it) to forward the discussion. And I've asked you several times to make whatever consciousness argument you keep alluding to. You just keep wanting to assume things as given that are under dispute. Maybe if you'd detail your non-standard BIV scenario, you wouldn't keep coming off as merely making ad hoc arguments.
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Given it's the closest your arrogance allows, I'll take it.
    With regard a current state of affairs, if one accepts something then they acknowledge it as being the current state, even if just for purposes of argument. If one accepts the possibility of something they acknowledge that it could be the current state - they have not ruled it out but do not necessarily accept it as being the current state.
    I accept that God's existence is a possibility. But I do not accept that God does exist.
    Irrelevant, given explanation above.
    Oh, the irony. Nor can you see that such comments are merely a mirror to your own.
    I know what a sufficient cause is, thanks. Maybe you should look it up, or at least provide explanation that supports your assertion bolded above. Many sufficient causes can lead to the same result, not necessarily separate. It does not preclude two different causes leading to the same result. I have had numerous occasions when the same result was bestowed by a number of causes, each sufficient.
    No, they are not the same, as neither is actually doing any processing. Did you miss that part?
    Once you give me a concrete example of an actual brain in an actual vat. We are talking hypotheticals. If you think it impossible then you argue for it.
    How so? Simply because of the words used? You'll have to do better than that or your simple personal incredulity.
    If you say so.
    As per above.
    There is no change. Is the brain still not connected to the simulation, still not experiencing whatever is in the simulation? Where is the change?
    Why would I get round to make that argument when it seems nothing to do with what I'm discussing?
    Just reread the posts, Syne. I'm not going to recycle them for you.
    I do. And all you're responding with is request for a concrete example, claims of crying foul, and otherwise an unwilling to discuss civilly. Hey ho.
    If you think it's equivocation then you're really not bothering to read what I'm typing, are you, simply here to... what, exactly?
    I have. BIV. Simples, really.
    That's not what I'm saying at all.
    It's been in your court since you joined this thread, I'm afraid. You're just shouting at everyone to return what already lies at your own feet.
    That's right, Syne, you are solely responsible for the Christmas holiday period. I knew you were arrogant but this is a new high even for you.
    It's not non-standard, and it is clear you have little interest in dicsussing it. Ah well, maybe I'll pick it up again with others if they want to pick up on this strand.
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Interesting that you attack my personal beliefs rather than comprehend and attempt to refute the statement I made, and the continued ad hominem attacks are noted (what, did you think I wouldn't catch a not so subtle dig at my intelligence?) - but simply put, there is no straw man there. You are, by appearances, attempting to redefine the meaning of words. If a result is identical, then it is the same as the previous result. You are, by all appearances, attempting to argue that that is untrue.

    Thought that was rather obvious, but go on...

    To the, as you say, "person of average intelligence", the equivocation should be obvious. My apologies if that was somehow confusing to you...

    Further personal attacks notwithstanding - what would you consider "sufficient cause".

    The fact that you failed so spectacularly at parsing that sentence is rather flabbergasting... wait, no it isn't. You are merely attempting to twist what was said into something else, again.

    Ah, yes, it would adequately ascertain what an honest person would consider it to be. Hence my specification that by having you state it, it removes the wiggle room.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Then, again, what are you actually arguing? I've seen you flip-flop worse than a trout out of water. Or, are you simply refusing to take a position so you can continue to be a pedantic contrarian?

    Not at all - rather, it seems prudent to make it obvious to all that you aren't here to debate honestly, but rather to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "NO! NO! NO!" at everybody.

    Interesting that that is how you interpret what has been said. Utterly incorrect, but interesting none the less.

    I think it's pretty clear at this point, Syne, that you have no intent of honest, intellectual debate - you are here simply to get your jollies off telling everyone under the sun they are wrong.
  13. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Ah, yes, that was quite a good episode, if I recall.
    Not sure about the energy requirement for the whole creation of matter, though, but that physics aside it was good stuff.

    The interesting part about whether or not one would be willing to go through the transporter, though, is that one would probably only be apprehensive or refusing the first time.
    Once you have been through the person comes out the other end thinking that it is you, thinking that it has successfully continued on through the process and that no one has been killed.
    The original "you" might have done.
    But because the "you" that emerges is now confident that their same "I" comes out one end as went in the other, they would continue doing it.
    Of course a dualistic version would have the soul from the original jumping into the soul of the new, thus assuring continuity.
    And that's where Second Chances was interesting, because in that scenario, who gets the soul?
    Neither are the original.

    But this is now likely way off topic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    At work we have two systems that each produce independent results of our testing, seemingly always producing the same results (thankfully).
    The results from each alone is sufficient to determine the next course of action, but we want to be sure there are no errors.
    Which one is actually determining the next course of action?
    Oh, what's that?
    Each sufficient cause generating the same result and not separate results?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So, Sarkus, if the simulated brain is actually processing, and capable of producing an "I", you're saying that given that it is exactly mirroring the processing of the envatted brain, both the envatted "I" and the simulated "I" are the same?
    Even though the processing of each is in separate locations?
    I guess it's similar to two televisions showing the same show.
    Even though both sets are processing the same information separately, the show is still the same, right?
    Or does one television somehow produce a different show?
    If the show is the "pattern of activity", then is the Start Trek TNG episode "Second Chances" not the same show irrespective of whether it's on my television, or on Kit's?
    Is this what you're thinking?

    And therefore, if one of those televisions is a simulated television, the immediate causation of the simulated show would be the simulated television, and thus no need for mere correlation but actual causation, even if it is the same show as in the non-simulated world, right?
    Any difference in how the show is perceived by others (in the real world vs simulated world), though, is dependent not upon the show but on those perceiving it.
    The show remains the same, to misquote Led Zeppelin.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    This sounds like a red-herring, since I used "accept the possibility" in both cases:
    I just failed to notice your straw man when you said, "there is a rather gaping difference between "accepting something" and "accepting the possibility of something"". I never said simply accepting something. Maybe you misread it, maybe intellectual dishonesty. Hard to tell.

    I saw no difference because, in the original context, there was none.

    Definition: A necessary condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that must be satisfied in order for S to obtain.

    For example, a necessary condition for getting an A in 341 is that a student hand in a term paper. This means that if a student does not hand in a term paper, then a student will not get an A, or, equivalently, if a student gets an A, then a student hands in a term paper.

    Definition: A sufficient condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that, if satisfied, guarantees that S obtains.

    For example, a sufficient condition for getting an A in 341 is getting an A on every piece of graded work in the course. This means that if a student gets an A on every piece of graded work in the course, then the student gets an A.
    If you can follow that example, it says that getting As throughout two different classes guarantees two different As.
    A necessary cause contributes to the result, so missing one of several necessary causes means the result does not obtain.
    A sufficient cause, alone, guarantees the result, so the fact of the sufficient cause obtains the result for every such cause.
    You're basically saying that a sufficient cause might not guarantee its own result if another sufficient cause has already obtained.

    Now, give me an example of that bolded statement of yours. What were these "numerous occasions"?

    So processing is a behavior that is somehow uniquely immune to, "If they do the same things, react in the same way to the exact same stimuli at the same time... they are the same." Don't the processes "do the same things, react in the same way to the exact same stimuli at the same time"? Sounds like special pleading.

    And I can detail how, in principle, a brain could be placed in a vat and connected to a computer. Mind-controlled prosthetics and VR give us a good idea what that could possibly look like. You've yet to detail, even in principle, how two sufficient causes obtain one and the same result. But since apparently you "have had numerous occasions when the same result was bestowed by a number of causes, each sufficient", I'm sure you'll have no problem detailing one or two of these occasions.

    That, or it's just arm waving.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So, what, now definitions don't matter? The terms used are what makes a statement a contradiction. Equivocating "real" and "simulation" is a fallacy. And so is shifting the burden. What is that, four fallacies now?

    Stipulating a sufficient cause might not obtain if another already has.

    LOL! I clearly gave you an option, e.g."Or", but instead of answering that alternative AT ALL, you just use the one you say doesn't apply as a distraction.

    I can then only assume that you do "think that something that relies on a brain can move outside of said brain". Is that astral projection, spiritism, or something else?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, BIV does not violate the definition of sufficient.

    Then by all means, please respond to my last post to you on that argument. Holiday certainly doesn't keep you from picking up where you left off.
  16. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Do your systems "produce" the same result, or does one "produce" and the other "verify" said result. Isn't the result obtained by the first system? "Being sure" is a third result that has both sufficient results as necessary results for it to obtain.

    Relay and presentation of information does not entail the cause of said information...only the cause of accessing said information.
    This analogy would seem to imply that the mind is caused by a third source, independent of both brain and simulation.
  17. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    I did refute your claim, by the simple fact that you were arguing a straw man.
    I said that "identical results" were not the "exact same thing". I did not say "identical results" were not the "same".
    So you've just erected a new straw man in a vain attempt to justify the original one (e.g. "identical =/= exact same thing").

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You started by equivocating "identical" with "identical result", and now you're only equivocating "same" with "the exact same thing".
    Do the fallacies ever end with you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Your intelligence? Where?
    Oooohhhhh, you inferred my reference to your written communication skills implied something about your intelligence. That's on you, dude. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt (trying to assume you didn't mean to argue a straw man).

    You're the one who took "person of average intelligence" to specifically apply to your own. I never said that, nor addressed you as such.

    So you meant to equivocate?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What personal attacks? As long as you refuse to demonstrate that you know what "sufficient" means, I can only assume you don't know. Otherwise I'd be hopelessly talking over your head.

    Since you already seem to have admitted to equivocating, your argument about convergent evolution was clearly non-sequitur. That, or you really didn't understand that Sarkus was talking about the exact same spatial/temporal thing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I would say it's "pathetic", but coming from me, you'd probably call that an ad hominem.

    And I'm sure you don't consider inferring someone's a liar, without any support, an ad hominem either...just so long as you're the one doing it.

    Quote me flip-flopping, otherwise that's just a blatant lie...apparently to justify your previous, unsupported ad hominem.

    Since when does skepticism require a competing claim? Are we not allowed to be skeptical of the current, best hypothesis just because a competing one doesn't exist? Why would you bother to test a hypothesis unless you are skeptical about it?

    Scientific skepticism is the application of skeptical philosophy, critical thinking skills, and knowledge of science and its methods to empirical claims, while remaining agnostic or neutral to non-empirical claims (except those that directly impact the practice of science). -

    Oh, I think the intelligent readers can see how I address every point presented to me, no matter how fallacious they are at times.
  18. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    So far, there have been no fallacies - but keep dreaming kiddo

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Actually, that's on you - say what you mean, and mean what you say - attempting to use cutesy back-handed insults will still get called out - after all, we mods aren't stupid

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    *chuckles* Thanks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So far, you have managed to talk about knee level... but that's beyond the point

    It was as much a non-sequitur as I am a ring tailed lemur... the fact that you cannot figure out the connection is actually rather entertaining (mainly because I know you have made the connection, and in typical Syne fashion are simply refusing to acknowledge it to further your own narrative).

    If the shoe fits...

    No need to quote - first you charge in like a starved hyena after a scrap of meat, giving the appearance of claiming everyone else is wrong and you alone are right, and now you try to say you haven't even made an argument. It's elementary really...

    You are allowed to be skeptical - what you are doing isn't being skeptical, as you are outright refusing to even acknowledge legitimate (and in some cases, well vetted and cited) arguments at all.

    I guess we'll leave that up to the rest of the readers then, shan't we

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    None the less, it has been rather entertaining watching you meander around aimlessly and bump into things.
  19. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Ho hum...
  20. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    They both produce the results.
    Verification is by a subsequent process that we bolted on once the need for it was discovered.
    The result is obtained by both.
    Of course, but the verification step was an add-on once it was discovered that the concluding action had two sufficient causes.
    On discovering this we changed them from being individually sufficient to both being necessary.
    For safety reasons, as well as economic costs.
    And chickens, on the whole, don't cross roads.
    The remit of the analogy is simply with how a single effect can have multiple sufficient causes.
    Be careful of taking the analogy outside of its remit.
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    The bare assertion that it ain't so without any argument or support is, itself, a fallacy (ipse dixit).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I wrote exactly what I meant, no more no less. You're the one who chose to infer some slight to your intelligence from, "Now maybe you don't write sentences like people of normal intelligence or better parse them..." Maybe you're just that insecure? Maybe you have a persecution complex? I don't know. What I do know is you inferred something that plain wasn't there. Overactive imagination?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Again, so you meant to equivocate, e.g. "the equivocation should be obvious"? Or is all this purely personal commentary just a red herring so you can avoid justifying all your fallacies?

    Convergent evolution was either a non-sequitur, because you had no clue what we were talking about, or it was an intentional equivocation, because you knew Sarkus was talking about two sufficient causes producing the exact same thing (not the same result, as in difference organisms).

    That is the fallacy of poisoning the well (as well as refusing to support your false accusation). Seriously, do you plan to hit every common fallacy?
    Where did I supposedly say I hadn't made an argument? Show me, or this is just a bald-faced lie. There's a big difference between and argument and a claim. An argument is persuasion, a claim is an assertion.

    argument - a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
    claim - an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

    (See how that works? I say something....and then I support it. I know... that's a novel idea to you.)
    Again, seemingly ad infinitum, where? From the guy I put on ignore because he kept insisting our existence alone was proof of something? How do you suppose I acknowledge posts I don't see? And are you saying I have no choice but to acknowledge every post? Didn't you recently weigh in on an issue of consent?

    Yes, I'm sure you love lazily making unsupported personal commentary, while refusing to justify what little on-topic contribution you manage to make. Wave those arms any faster and you just may take flight.
  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    They both produce their own result. Results that you have to record or remember to then compare to arrive at verification. Without two separate results, there can be no subsequent verification. (I've worked in QA). You seem to be equivocating what Sarkus said, e.g. exact same thing, with a same value or something. Values are abstractions. It is trivial that they can be shared by an infinite number of causes.

    It doesn't accomplish that, because every sufficient cause guarantees its own result, per the definition of sufficient. Those results could have the same abstract value, but that doesn't mean the exact same effect obtains...even if spatiotemporally identical (as Sarkus claims). Or do you also claim your two sufficient causes could produce the same result in the exact same time and space?
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The fact that our existence alone makes abiogenisis by whatever means a fact?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yes that certainly puts a hole in your philosophical nonsense......
    And again proof of what I have already accused you of...cop outs.....Ignoring that evidence and research staring you in the face, so that you are able to "infer" what we all know you are inferring.
    If you believe God did it, and God has given us a soul connected to a mind separate from the brain, that's OK with me.....In fact there are millions and millions that hold that belief...Just be man enough to admit that it is simply your belief and is not a scientific answer: Quite simple really and would save the forum and those reading this and the other thread, from going through you much repeated obfuscations and avoiding the real basis issue which I dare confront you with.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Oh the irony of it all!!!!
    Another case of the Pot calling the Kettle black!

Share This Page