Quote:
Originally Posted by scorcher863
i wouldn't say that the mind is just the brain, but there's tons evidence that supports that the mind is a direct product of the brain's activity. is it still begging the question if i have evidence to support my position?
Quote:
i don't know about the fallacy of decomposition, but there is evidence that supports that the individual modules of the brain work together to create the mind and it's behavior.
Basically, it is knowing that it is possible that the total may be more than the sum of its parts.
Bone up on "begging the question." Durka claims that this fallacy exists in nearly all posts that he disagrees with. Circular reasoning and tautology come up fairly often as nearly the same (but he usually just says "begging the question"). "Begging the question" is a unpolite way of saying that you haven't actually said anything other than making a naked assertion without an argument for the assertion.
Basically, it is just that your premise contains your conclusion. Googling around for a bit should lead you to an understanding of the concept.
You will note that Durka makes informal errors as well. This was one of his last posts here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
I think that we are responsible for what we do.
Thank you for stating your naked assertion.
Quote:
My intuition is that we have a libertarian sense of freedom.
Red herring. "Sense of freedom" has multiple explanations. "Sense of immediate autonomy and self awareness" would explain exacly the same intuition just as well.
Quote:
I don't know how...but that's what it is.
argumentum ad ignorantiam
Quote:
If someone were to prove that determinism is true then I'm a hard determinist
Clearly impossible in terms of epistomology. Not sure of what the error is called, but "setting a high bar" seems apt. "If someone were to prove that spaghetti is our one true god, then I would worship spaghetti." Also, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Quote:
and there's no responsibility, value, choice, etc..
Conflation of "responsibility" with "value" and "choice" and whatever he includes in "etc." Argument from consequence, via mentioning responsibility.
Quote:
I think that the compatibilist/soft determinists positions are incoherent.
I agree unless certain liberties are taken in regards to defining "free" as "immediately autonomous."
Quote:
Since I can't prove the former, I work on the latter.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Can't prove the latter either, so it is just citing personal preference as justification.
NOTE: This doesn't mean that durka is wrong.
NOTE2: Durka got some rhetorical skills.
NOTE3: Durka was not trying to prove free will exists. He was just making a justification for his beliefs. This is very important.