Evolution Confusion

[Mega City 5]

Cells outside the brain aren't brain cells.

So what? Your claim wasn't that thought is caused by a certain kind of cell. Your claim was that thought is caused by a certain kind of chemical reaction. If such a chemical reaction occurred outside of a brain cell, then if your supposition is correct, then it would think.

But saying that chemical reactions outside of a brain think is just stupid.

Therefore it's stupid to say that chemical reactions inside of a brain are the cause of thought.

[Geilinor]

Cells outside the brain aren't brain cells.

So what? Your claim wasn't that thought is caused by a certain kind of cell. Your claim was that thought is caused by a certain kind of chemical reaction. If such a chemical reaction occurred outside of a brain cell, then if your supposition is correct, then it would think.

But saying that chemical reactions outside of a brain think is just stupid.

Therefore it's stupid to say that chemical reactions inside of a brain are the cause of thought.

All cells and reactions don't work the same way. You should know that.

[Godular]

Mostly, because of some philosophy major not knowing how to debate in a scientific manner. He kept insisting we debate using syllogisms and premises: Deductive reasoning, that is.

All forms of valid reasoning, inductive or deductive, take the form of syllogisms. If you can't syllogize it, then it's not proof of any kind. Period.

Only thing is, your logic is terrible.

[Italios]

Mega City 5, if you intend to reply to every single post on this thread and try to prove them wrong when they very clearly aren't, why did you bother making this thread?

[Mavorpen]

Mostly, because of some philosophy major not knowing how to debate in a scientific manner. He kept insisting we debate using syllogisms and premises: Deductive reasoning, that is.

All forms of valid reasoning, inductive or deductive, take the form of syllogisms. If you can't syllogize it, then it's not proof of any kind. Period.

That's absolute horseshit. Syllogisms are one of the defining traits that separates deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning.

[Godular]

Cells outside the brain aren't brain cells.

So what? Your claim wasn't that thought is caused by a certain kind of cell. Your claim was that thought is caused by a certain kind of chemical reaction. If such a chemical reaction occurred outside of a brain cell, then if your supposition is correct, then it would think.

But saying that chemical reactions outside of a brain think is just stupid.

Therefore it's stupid to say that chemical reactions inside of a brain are the cause of thought.

See, this. This right here is what we're talking about. You're trying to use your own bombast combined with your own willful ignorance to try and 'argue away' the mountains of evidence and scientific studies that say you're full of shit.

Read the damn links.

[Lost heros]

Thoughts are a product of chemical reactions in the brain and the cells die without a supply of oxygen.

How would you prove that?

And I have a contrary proof.

Let us grant that thoughts are a product of chemical reactions in the brain.
If this were the case, then the cause of thought is a certain kind of chemical reaction.
If this were the case, then chemical reactions outside of the brain would think.
In point of fact, chemical reactions outside of the brain do not think.
Therefore, thoughts are not the product of chemical reactions in the brain.

Do you know how biology works. Like at all?

[Mavorpen]

How would you prove that?

And I have a contrary proof.

Let us grant that thoughts are a product of chemical reactions in the brain.
If this were the case, then the cause of thought is a certain kind of chemical reaction.
If this were the case, then chemical reactions outside of the brain would think.
In point of fact, chemical reactions outside of the brain do not think.
Therefore, thoughts are not the product of chemical reactions in the brain.

Do you know how biology works. Like at all?

I think a more appropriate question is whether he wants to know. And, sadly, I think the answer is a resounding no.

[Mega City 5]

That's absolute horseshit. Syllogisms are one of the defining traits that separates deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning.

Syllogism is contained analytically in the notion "reasoning." To reason means to move from premise to conclusion, to what is known explicitly to what was previously only known implicitly and virtually in the premises.

Give me any example of so called "inductive reasoning" that you want, and I'll show you how it functions syllogistically.

It is true, there is a form of "induction" which does not proceed syllogistically, precisely because it's not a reasoning process. I don't reason to the conclusion "All cats are animals." I gain this piece of knowledge by means of another intellectual activity.

[Mega City 5]

All cells and reactions don't work the same way. You should know that.

Geilinor, I'll let you try again:

Prove to me that thought is reducible to chemical reactions in the brain. Your proof should take the following form:

A is the case.
B is the case.
Therefore, chemical reactions in the brain and thought are identical, or else, thought is produced by chemcial reactions in the brain.

[Mega City 5]

See, this. This right here is what we're talking about. You're trying to use your own bombast combined with your own willful ignorance to try and 'argue away' the mountains of evidence and scientific studies that say you're full of shit.

Read the damn links.

I'm aware that there is a correlation between thought and brain activity. Correlation =/= causation.

[Italios]

That's absolute horseshit. Syllogisms are one of the defining traits that separates deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning.

Syllogism is contained analytically in the notion "reasoning." To reason means to move from premise to conclusion, to what is known explicitly to what was previously only known implicitly and virtually in the premises.

Give me any example of so called "inductive reasoning" that you want, and I'll show you how it functions syllogistically.

It is true, there is a form of "induction" which does not proceed syllogistically, precisely because it's not a reasoning process. I don't reason to the conclusion "All cats are animals." I gain this piece of knowledge by means of another intellectual activity.

And what is this intellectual activity? If by reasoning you mean logic, then I'm pretty sure that everyone else does that. If a cat is a type of animal, then all cats are animals. That's logic.

[Mega City 5]

Mega City 5, if you intend to reply to every single post on this thread and try to prove them wrong when they very clearly aren't, why did you bother making this thread?

If they can't withstand refutation, then it's not true that they "very clearly aren't" wrong.

[Lost heros]

All cells and reactions don't work the same way. You should know that.

Geilinor, I'll let you try again:

Prove to me that thought is reducible to chemical reactions in the brain. Your proof should take the following form:

A is the case.
B is the case.
Therefore, chemical reactions in the brain and thought are identical, or else, thought is produced by chemcial reactions in the brain.

When you interact with stimuli in the outside world or have thoughts, electro-chemical signals can be witnessed.
In any study where a thought was observed there was always an electo-chemical signal.
In studies on rats where certain chemical receptors were blocked (chemical reactions couldn't take place), they responded to stimuli differently.

Where are you confused on basic neurobiology?

[Mega City 5]

And what is this intellectual activity? If by reasoning you mean logic, then I'm pretty sure that everyone else does that. If a cat is a type of animal, then all cats are animals. That's logic.

1. The bolded is, if not a tautology, very close to one.

2. Nobody reasons like that. The moment you realize that a cat is a type of animal, you don't need to reason out that all cats are animals. You already know that.

3. The question is where does the principle "a cat is a type of animal" come from? It doesn't come from reasoning. It comes from another act of the mind (in Aristotelian and Thomistic terminology, either simple intellection or conceptualization (the exterior sign of which is a word), or else, judgment (the exterior sign of which is a proposition)).

[L Ron Cupboard]

All cells and reactions don't work the same way. You should know that.

Geilinor, I'll let you try again:

Prove to me that thought is reducible to chemical reactions in the brain. Your proof should take the following form:

A is the case.
B is the case.
Therefore, chemical reactions in the brain and thought are identical, or else, thought is produced by chemcial reactions in the brain.

There aren't proofs in science, only evidence.

[Gim]

All cells and reactions don't work the same way. You should know that.

Geilinor, I'll let you try again:

Prove to me that thought is reducible to chemical reactions in the brain. Your proof should take the following form:

A is the case.
B is the case.
Therefore, chemical reactions in the brain and thought are identical, or else, thought is produced by chemcial reactions in the brain.

Person makes a thought process when thinking.
Chemical activity in a brain occurs during thought process.
Therefore. a person has chemical activities in his brain when he thinks.

Plain and simple.

[Mavorpen]

That's absolute horseshit. Syllogisms are one of the defining traits that separates deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning.

Syllogism is contained analytically in the notion "reasoning." To reason means to move from premise to conclusion, to what is known explicitly to what was previously only known implicitly and virtually in the premises.

Give me any example of so called "inductive reasoning" that you want, and I'll show you how it functions syllogistically.

It is true, there is a form of "induction" which does not proceed syllogistically, precisely because it's not a reasoning process. I don't reason to the conclusion "All cats are animals." I gain this piece of knowledge by means of another intellectual activity.

Syllogism deals with using a major premise followed by a minor premise to reach conclusions. Induction does not necessitate this because it invokes making observations and drawing conclusions from said observations. The structure required for a syllogism is not needed for inductive reasoning. You could certainly argue it's "quasi-syllogistic" but I don't see why you'd bother doing that.

[Mega City 5]

When you interact with stimuli in the outside world or have thoughts, electro-chemical signals can be witnessed.
In any study where a thought was observed there was always an electo-chemical signal.

Correlation =/= causation

In studies on rats where certain chemical receptors were blocked (chemical reactions couldn't take place), they responded to stimuli differently.

I don't assert that rats are capable of intellectual thought.

[Uxupox]

All cells and reactions don't work the same way. You should know that.

Geilinor, I'll let you try again:

Prove to me that thought is reducible to chemical reactions in the brain. Your proof should take the following form:

A is the case.
B is the case.
Therefore, chemical reactions in the brain and thought are identical, or else, thought is produced by chemcial reactions in the brain.

Well.

[Italios]

Mega City 5, if you intend to reply to every single post on this thread and try to prove them wrong when they very clearly aren't, why did you bother making this thread?

If they can't withstand refutation, then it's not true that they "very clearly aren't" wrong.

You're misreading that. They're withstanding refutation very well. Everything you throw at them is responded to. I've read the last couple of pages and they're holding their ground very well. Their reasoning isn't flawed.

[Mavorpen]

Mega City 5, if you intend to reply to every single post on this thread and try to prove them wrong when they very clearly aren't, why did you bother making this thread?

If they can't withstand refutation, then it's not true that they "very clearly aren't" wrong.

Withstand refutation? You've refuted absolutely nothing. You've asked us to do all the work for you and when we do provide the arguments, you'll disappear and then come back later abandoning said arguments hoping we forgot about them.

[Mega City 5]

Well.

Ok. I actually bothered to click on and read through this link. The major premise is: "All thoughts are accompanied by electrical impulses in the brain." To which I'll ask: "So what?"

[Immoren]

All cells and reactions don't work the same way. You should know that.

Geilinor, I'll let you try again:

Prove to me that thought is reducible to chemical reactions in the brain. Your proof should take the following form:

A is the case.
B is the case.
Therefore, chemical reactions in the brain and thought are identical, or else, thought is produced by chemcial reactions in the brain.

[Italios]

And what is this intellectual activity? If by reasoning you mean logic, then I'm pretty sure that everyone else does that. If a cat is a type of animal, then all cats are animals. That's logic.

1. The bolded is, if not a tautology, very close to one.

2. Nobody reasons like that. The moment you realize that a cat is a type of animal, you don't need to reason out that all cats are animals. You already know that.

3. The question is where does the principle "a cat is a type of animal" come from? It doesn't come from reasoning. It comes from another act of the mind (in Aristotelian and Thomistic terminology, either simple intellection or conceptualization (the exterior sign of which is a word), or else, judgment (the exterior sign of which is a proposition)).

Alright, so is that intellectual activity then? Because you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.