Existence is...the Absolute Singularity.

[WendyDarling]

On 8/28/2021 at 9:40 AM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

“prove me wrong” doesn’t cut it.

The one making the claim owns the burden of proof

 

I made assertions(a theory if this word is desired).  As in all science, if you cannot prove my assertions false by whatever creative logic or experiments you can concoct, my assertions/theory remain true until proven false, right?

59 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm still waiting for answers about definitions for "equal" and "like no other". And shall I assume you agree with me about your fallacious reasoning and assumptions wrt your eternal singularity?

Rather than getting hung up on a definition of mine that you clearly do not wish to accept as it is simple stated, let's move on to the prima facie- idea/s.

All arose from an idea/s.  All=Existence

 

If you do not understand my logic, my only request is that upon your first stumbling block, ask one question before we get to the rest of the blocks.

One specific question, please.

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Rather than getting hung up on a definition of mine that you clearly do not wish to accept as it is simple stated, let's move on to the prima facie- idea/s.

Let's not, since I feel like you want to move the goalposts now.

Defining what you mean shouldn't be hard, and your simple statements use definitions I want to be clear on. Were my questions about snowflakes confusing? I'm trying to figure out why you want to define existence the way you do, yet I'm getting a bunch of pushback.

11 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

If you do not understand my logic, my only request is that upon your first stumbling block, ask one question before we get to the rest of the blocks.

I have seen no logic yet. Where was this posted? Do you mean something other than philosophical logic? Mathematical logic isn't really applicable here. Are you using the popular, non-scientific definition of logic that means "this makes sense to me"?

I asked questions before and they were ignored. I showed how your reasoning was fallacious and my comment was ignored. This is not so much a personal "stumbling block" as it is a locked door you're holding the key to.

[zapatos]

25 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

As in all science, if you cannot prove my assertions false by whatever creative logic or experiments you can concoct, my assertions/theory remain true until proven false, right?

No. They remain speculations that we can safely ignore.

You only get to claim "theory" once you provide compelling evidence that your assertions and associated model are correct.

[swansont]

42 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

made assertions(a theory if this word is desired).  As in all science, if you cannot prove my assertions false by whatever creative logic or experiments you can concoct, my assertions/theory remain true until proven false, right?

No, they are merely assertions until you have compelling and rigorous evidence to support them. This means that the evidence does not also support alternate hypotheses. The burden of proof remains with you.

In short, there is no "true until proven false" in science.  

[WendyDarling]

18 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Let's not, since I feel like you want to move the goalposts now.

Defining what you mean shouldn't be hard, and your simple statements use definitions I want to be clear on. Were my questions about snowflakes confusing? I'm trying to figure out why you want to define existence the way you do, yet I'm getting a bunch of pushback.

I have seen no logic yet. Where was this posted? Do you mean something other than philosophical logic? Mathematical logic isn't really applicable here. Are you using the popular, non-scientific definition of logic that means "this makes sense to me"?

I asked questions before and they were ignored. I showed how your reasoning was fallacious and my comment was ignored. This is not so much a personal "stumbling block" as it is a locked door you're holding the key to.

Ok basic logic. Creation(capital C) cannot create itself. Agreed?

18 hours ago, zapatos said:

No. They remain speculations that we can safely ignore.

You only get to claim "theory" once you provide compelling evidence that your assertions and associated model are correct.

I am providing evidence in the form of simple logic. For instance, can you act, before you think? And thinking is not acting.

My opening post works through the basic, beginning logic. If you do not understand that. One question only please in regards to your first stumbling block.

 

Equal=identical

no other=only one

Edited August 31, 2021 by WendyDarling

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Ok basic logic. Creation(capital C) cannot create itself. Agreed?

 

I was afraid this was another back door attempt to introduce religious dogma.

It seems my fears were justified.

Have you not heard of feedback and feedforward systems ?

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

I am providing evidence in the form of simple logic. For instance, can you act, before you think? And thinking is not acting.

 

My opening post works through the basic, beginning logic. If you do not understand that. One question only please in regards to your first stumbling block.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

A problem here is that you are not defining your terminology, and we run into the fallacy of equivocation.

 

 

(Yes, you can act before you think. There are reflex actions, which require no thought.)

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

Ok basic logic. Creation(capital C) cannot create itself. Agreed?

That's not "basic logic", that's "this makes sense to me" reasoning, and it's often incorrect. Creation is a process and not a physical thing. You can develop a process, or identify it, but nothing physical is created until a specific process is implemented.

And what do you mean by "capital C"? Is that some special kind of creation? Are you introducing your religion into this discussion?

[iNow]

5 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

I am providing evidence in the form of simple logic

Logic dictates that thinking alone is unequal to evidence (of anything more than a thinking person). Equally, "logic" is not evidence that bananas are yellow or ice cream is cold. 

Evidence in the form of logic. That's freaking hysterical. 

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

For instance, can you act, before you think?

Of course I can. Happens every day. Basic neurobiology.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Of course I can. Happens every day. Basic neurobiology.

Standing still is a great example. The muscles in your feet react to imbalances perceived in the brain with conscious effort but no conscious thought. You act without thinking to maintain a balanced stance.

You don't think about blinking before reacting to a puff of air in your eyes, or ducking your head more if you feel the top of the doorway against your hair.

[WendyDarling]

On 8/31/2021 at 9:55 AM, zapatos said:

Of course I can. Happens every day. Basic neurobiology.

So neurobiology occurs without a brain? Without a functioning brain? 

 

 

23 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Standing still is a great example. The muscles in your feet react to imbalances perceived in the brain with conscious effort but no conscious thought. You act without thinking to maintain a balanced stance.

You don't think about blinking before reacting to a puff of air in your eyes, or ducking your head more if you feel the top of the doorway against your hair.

Sure, stand without a functioning brain, see how long that lasts.

On 8/31/2021 at 9:33 AM, iNow said:

Logic dictates that thinking alone is unequal to evidence (of anything more than a thinking person). Equally, "logic" is not evidence that bananas are yellow or ice cream is cold. 

Evidence in the form of logic. That's freaking hysterical. 

Name one thing that is self-creating, ie created itself.

Edited September 1, 2021 by WendyDarling

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Name one thing that is self-creating, ie created itself.

I already did and you didn't answer.

You also ran away from my comment about religion.

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

So neurobiology occurs without a brain? Without a functioning brain? 

Must you resort to arguing against strawmen? Zapatos obviously suggested nothing of the sort. It's a shame you feel the need to move the goalposts so completely in order to defend your stance. 

[studiot]

43 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

So neurobiology occurs without a brain? Without a functioning brain? 

 

 

Sure, stand without a functioning brain, see how long that lasts.

 

What do you mean by 'occurs'  ?

Are you asking if there are any primitive organisms/lifeforms that have a rudimentary nervous system but no brain ?

I don't know the answer to this, perhaps a biology special;ist can answer it.
But Galvani started investigating this hundreds of years ago.

 

Or are you asking if a more complex organism can be kept alive after its brain has stopped functioning ?

Well 'brain death' is one reason for doctors switching off life support systems on patients whose bodies still have living functionality, including neuro(sub)systems that still function.
 

[WendyDarling]

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

Must you resort to arguing against strawmen? Zapatos obviously suggested nothing of the sort. It's a shame you feel the need to move the goalposts so completely in order to defend your stance. 

He stated something that is factually not true, reflexes do not happen without a functioning brain. I pointed out the fact that functioning brains are needed for any action to occur. In my mind, all your examples refer to a dead frog having electrodes attached to it to make it move without a functioning brain, without a thought behind that functioning brain. You are going to have to give me better examples than that. Perhaps actions, standing, breathing, etc.,are the something coming from nothing completely detached from all reason, all causation. That’s your goalpost just so you understand.

Ideas aren’t needed for intelligence and intelligence isn't needed for a complex system, nor is intelligence needed for interacting complex systems...unthinkable. lol

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

He stated something that is factually not true, reflexes do not happen without a functioning brain.

And you are clearly not a trained diver.

The carbon dioxide reflex will happen despite a functioning brain, as every diver is taught to control.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, WendyDarling said:

So neurobiology occurs without a brain? Without a functioning brain? 

 

 

Sure, stand without a functioning brain, see how long that lasts.

Examples were given where humans react without thought AND without having their brains removed. ALL the examples given from EVERYBODY assumed an intact brain. Only YOU have introduced the assumption that these reactions occur without a brain. 

To use one of my examples, how much thought do you think goes into closing your eyes when a sudden puff of air hits you in the face? 

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

He stated something that is factually not true, reflexes do not happen without a functioning brain.

First, that's not what he stated. Second, even if it WAS, you really need to educate yourself on the basics here if you're going to use them to defend your stance. The factual untruths are with your words, not his. 

Summarized: Reflexes DO happen without the need for a functioning brain. The brain is not needed to create the action, no matter how forcefully or repeatedly you suggest otherwise.  

[WendyDarling]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

First, that's not what he stated. Second, even if it WAS, you really need to educate yourself on the basics here if you're going to use them to defend your stance. The factual untruths are with your words, not his. 

Summarized: Reflexes DO happen without the need for a functioning brain. The brain is not needed to create the action, no matter how forcefully or repeatedly you suggest otherwise.  

Let’s agree to disagree. People stand brainless, thoughtless, without any consciousness at all. You win. Makes perfect sense. Science is wrong however you argue on behalf of science, your prerogative. Science has never been wrong before, right? Time waster for me since it lacks the basic logic that equals existence.

Causation.

Without the idea of an eyelid, an eye, a puff of smoke, without those ideas, non-existence would be the actual rather than its antithesis existence.

Everything is an idea, came from an idea, formed by intelligence, not necessarily any religious intelligence, simply intelligence...an intelligent energy which is one of a kind, eternal, imperfect, limited, etc.

My philosophy is based off of observed reality, not all those never to be proven scientific theories which are pure numeric speculations not based on a limited nature(natural laws), not based on causation(but rather “magic”), not accounting for imperfections in any provable way(chaos is fantasy). 

What is imperfect order? Our 4-D dimension. Imperfect but all is ordered. Not incomprehensible.

[zapatos]

45 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

He stated something that is factually not true, reflexes do not happen without a functioning brain.

Bullshit. I said nothing of the sort. Quit lying.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, WendyDarling said:

He stated something that is factually not true, reflexes do not happen without a functioning brain.

!

Moderator Note

You were the one who brought up functioning brain. Your original claim was “can you act, before you think?” 

This is moving the goalposts; both use of a fallacy and arguing in bad faith, both of which violate the rules

 

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Let’s agree to disagree.

I will do no such thing. There is a correct answer here. It's the one I have shared (even if perhaps you've failed to adequately comprehend it). 

40 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Everything is an idea, came from an idea, formed by intelligence, not necessarily any religious intelligence, simply intelligence...an intelligent energy which is one of a kind, eternal, imperfect, limited, etc.

Let's assume this is true. I'm fairly comfortable accepting it's not, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you're 100% correct. 

The next question is obvious: Then where did that intelligence come from? 

It's turtles all the way down. You haven't answered the question. You've merely displaced it. 

[joigus]

On 8/23/2021 at 6:09 PM, Phi for All said:

Since this is a science discussion forum, perhaps you could start by giving us your definitions of "Absolute" and "Singularity", so everyone is on the same page.

I will have to insist on @Phi for All's point here.

 

I thought I'd said something on this thread. I must have dreamed it. I do remember skimming through your initial post, pondering about saying something, then re-reading it, and then probably telling myself: "say what about what?"

[Area54]

There seems to be an implicit suggestion in several posts that @WendyDarling is arguing in bad faith. Having read all the exchanges carefully it seems to me more a matter of lack of competence on the part of WendyDarling. There is an inability to offer clear definitions, to the extent that they seem to quite lack an understanding of the characteristics of definitions. Equally they appear to have a distorted picture of how science works and what some of its findings actually are. Despite their claim to be using logic their posts are replete with more wooly thinking than I've seen for a long time. It's a pity, because they might actually have something worthy of discussion, if only they could present it in a consistent and coherent way.