Liar Boy,
You need to consult the definitions on Wikipedia.
Knock yourself out – tell us what it says that you think contradicts what I’ve told you it says.
You might want to remember though that the last time you tried the “look at Wiki/Rationalwiki” line it blew up badly in your face.
Either way, are you seriously suggesting that to be “reductionist” in the pejorative sense you attempt you don’t have to trouble with demonstrating whatever it is that you think’s been reduced
from?
Seriously?
As always antitheists…
The fallacy of judgmental language. What you’re trying to say here is
atheists.
One of your favourite lies that one.
…here have slipped it seems from the methodology into the philosophy. i.e. when reductionism takes what reductionists think is necessary for an explanation.
Oh dear. There is no “philosophy”: either the explanation works without your (or anyone else’s) additional speculations or it doesn’t. And when the explanation is incomplete, then it’s for you to show that your conjectures fill the gap – a big problem for the “it’s magic innit” of “God”.
And lets face it what kind of explanation of the self can ''a set of neural arrays working in synchrony be''....
It’s a kind of explanation that accords with the evidence, however much your personal incredulity prevents you from seeing it.
…particularly when you are faced with no reason that neural arrays working in synchrony should produce 'self'.
Ah, the reference point error. You haven’t tried that one for a while. Why should there be “a reason”? What makes you think that the fact of self is purposive rather than an outcome that wasn’t intended at the outset?
You seem to have have missed the leaps of faith and assumptions Torridon makes.
There aren’t any – your mistake here comes from your fundamental inability to grasp the underlying logic (see above). Presumably then if you won the lottery this week you’d be asking for the “reason” that Camelot picked you?
Since you bring up Leprechauns and reductionist principles. You are noted for your reluctance ever to analyse what a Leprechaun is. Let me help you here. Small Irish chap in little green suit in the proximity of rainbows. That necessary detail is often missing from your employment of them.
But not as noted as you are noted for failing utterly to grasp that the characteristics I attach to leprechauns and that you attach to “God” are entirely irrelevant to the point – namely that any argument that leads equally to each of them is probably a bad argument.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Have a nice day.
It’d be nicer still if you stopped lying.
