In other words, the question is whether a brain manufactures or discovers, not whether it holds.
“What is one laser printer plus one box of cereal?”
Two objects. Several trillion subatomic particles. One answer.
Oh, yes, Libertarian saying something automatically means it’s true, so his bare assertion that math is nonempirical defeats all logic and common sense, which shows that it is.
Particles, brains – what difference does it make? The world changes according to principles, moving from one configuration to another. That’s computation, bubbya.
Res ipsa loquitur.
That’s my point. A logical or mathematical assertion is true or false without regard to the meaning of its terms. And that means it’s abstract.
Everything is abstract, Lib baby. And everything is concrete.
Is the ice cream on top of the pie, or the pie beneath the ice cream? Do I need to explain the story of the Philosopher and the Pie a la Mode again?
And cancer causes cigarette smoking, right?
Nothing speaks for itself. That idiom translates as “if I don’t say anything about this, no one will mention it”.
We might as easily say there are trillions of objects as just one. We can perceive the situation in an infinite number of ways, and they’re all true.
It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about electrons in a metallic sea, or dice rolling across a table, or a Cray supercomputer.
Then you agree with me?
It’s true or false according to the rules by which the symbols making up the assertion are manipulated. Change the rules, and a symbolic statement that was once valid is now invalid.
Don’t you understand what it means to have different programming languages? What do you think those are but different sets of rules for manipulating symbols?
Change the rules? 
When you change the rules, you have a different abstraction. But at last I understand the key to your debating strategy. Losing? Change the topic.
Libertarian said:
It is indeed possible to provide a math without an empirical construct lying under it. However, it is only science to the extent it corresponds to our real world. If we were living under a different metaphysical system in which terms such as “one” and “plus” had no meaning, math would not be a science but rather an elegant game.
TVAA wrote:
cite? Seriously, while the evidence strongly suggests that the niverse follows more or less a mathematical model, it is, a perhaps will always remain, a working model.
to the extent that you have abstracted the concept of “the rock”, no. But the question remains whether it is philosophically acceptable to make that level of abstraction, on an ontological level. My view is, when you really get down to it, before the change, the rock was a collection of atoms, etc all the way down, and afterward, it was a similar collection, both of which could be described as a “rock”.
In retrospect, posting to a thread when I really have no intention of addressing any of the issues at all is not only oddly stupid, it’s also rude to the real participants in the thread. It’s rather the rhetorical equivalent of slapping someone and then running away, isn’t it? To those posters here who actually are addressing the issues or are intending to: I apologize for the “drive-by”.
I will now return to my regularly scheduled flu, and hope that I have a bit more restraint when I’m well.
** Um, no. You have the same abstraction with a different validity.
The properties of the concepts – their meaning – cannot be changed without completely altering the sentences they’re in.
The exact same pattern of dots will result in different outcomes for different rules sets in the Game of Life.
Cite? As I recall, you made it clear right off the bat that clinical psychology was not the field for you. Also, I made no “demands.” I, and others – including a moderator – have asked you to provide evidence that you are a trained psychologist, a claim that you have made. You have tried to pass yourself off as a psychologist several times.
And as you are well aware, I addressed the issue of whether or not you could possibly have any understanding of what cognitive psychology is on the other thread that pits you. Apparently you don’t, since you were unaware that it had anything to do with science. :rolleyes:
The reasons for your pitting on the other thread were numerous. You are correct in that it was not just limited to your confusion about who takes the Hippocratic Oath. People who do have the credentials have explained why your ideas don’t make sense. It’s not that they are just “wrong.” They are meaningless double talk.
Your use of old studies has been anything but the way you described.
These were the most telling comments that you made. They were the last straw:
- You say that you have shown that psychology is not a science.
- You say that you are a cognitive psychologist even though you have no credentials.
- In reality, cognitive psychology is an empirical science.
I don’t know. It seems reasonable to me that if it were even a hobby of yours for one day, you would have picked up that last tidbit of information along the way.
You attempt to provoke people with nonsense apparently for the sport of it.
You post false information apparently to get a reaction.
You insult the mentally ill, apparently for the sport of it. And you know full well that mental illness can make a person very vulnerable to misinformation and humiliation.
You pretend to be something you are not – even after being called on it by Coldfire – who suggested that you make “amateur” your signature. (And I’m reasonably certain he wasn’t referring to the more flattering definition of that word that you gave yourself.)
You post nonsense in the middle of serious discussions.
What’s more, you walk like a duck.
Orbifold, I also had the flu this month. Particularly nasty bout. Hope you recover soon![/hijack]
Libertarian, I don’t want to get involved in the argument between you and TVAA, but I have a question about your OP …
Simply put, I just don’t understand how your conclusion deductively follows from your premises.
I know the purpose of this thread is to Pit TVAA, so I’ll understand if you don’t feel like answering my question here. I am rather curious though.
I would just like to say that I tried to read this whole thread…
but now my head hurts and I need to lie down…
anybody got an aspirin?
Blackknight
Due to recent developments, it is best that I do not debate or witness in the Pit. I will consider opening a thread in Debates to answer your question.
Moderator
Please close this thread. Thank you.
Is there a fact anywhere in this thread? Damned if I can find one.
The second post was spot on. Guy who wrote that must be really smart.