Fallacy Boy,
Torri's argument and arguments against AB read like the reductionist approach.
Only to you, presumably because you continue to abuse the term “reductionist”. As I’ve explained to you many times, to be reductionist you need to demonstrate that something has been reduced
from.
Are you too a reductionist because you don’t accept my assertions about leprechauns?
Why not?
Therefore…
Nope. The “therefore" fails because your premise fails.
…with him a reduced, mechanistic and predetermined universe (which renders us as automata ) informs his neuroscience in a way which bolsters his reductionism.
No, it’s not “his” neuroscience it’s just neuroscience, and what informs it is
evidence. If you think it should be informed by something else then, finally, you need to tell us what that might be.
This is so tight that the mechanistic preprogramming would go against environmental updating of the brain, mind, consciousness and an unknown mechanism allowing the same to handle novelty.
You’ve really lost it now. Of course minds deal with novelty – they do it pretty much all the time because that’s the way they process information. If you have some special personal meaning for "novelty" though, then it’s for to you to tell us what it is.
I'm not saying what that mechanism the fact is no one does is but the fact Torri seems to rule it out because it doesn't fit with his brand of reductionism. In other words he does a Dennett. Things effectively ignored, his model of the universe is therefore
preserved.
Stop lying. What torri (and other rationalists) do is to treat the world
as if it is mechanistic, materialistic etc. Why? Because there’s no cogent reason to do otherwise, and nor will there be until and unless someone can come up with a means to validate their claims to the contrary.
Finally his approach demands higher definition of terms such as illusion and free from him.
Of course it doesn’t. Their everyday meanings are fine.
I have given prompt questions for him to firm his definitions up on but am awaiting response.
No you haven’t. You’ve actually introduced terms without telling us what you mean by them, you’ve just ignored his perfectly clear explanations, and you’ve lied about his position. You’ve managed the trifecta of wrongness.
I wonder if Torridon shuns definition…
He doesn’t. Stop lying. They’re your terms – if you mean by them something other than their standard definitions then it’s your job to tell us what those meanings are and why.
…because he would then be unable to appropriate swathes of holistically arrived at definition.
Stop lying. What he actually does is to rely on the definitions verifiable in dictionaries. If you want these terms to mean something else, then it’s your job to tell us what those meanings are and why.
