All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Because
Men die and do not survive fatal wounds proving they are mortal. There is no Evidence that a man is immortal. Therefore all men are mortal.
Then you have to agree with this.
All processes need a conscious agent. Radioactive decay is a process. Therefore radioactive decay needs a conscious agent.
Because
Birds nest and jet engines prove process needs a conscious agent. There is no evidence that process can be produced without a conscious agent. Therefore all processes need a conscious agent.
If you don't agree with this then you can't agree with the first statement.
All dogs are mortal. rex is a dog. Therefore rex is mortal.
Because
dogs die and do not survive fatal wounds proving they are mortal. There is no Evidence that a dog is immortal. Therefore all dogs are mortal.
Then you have to agree with this.
All processes need a conscious agent. Radioactive decay is a process. Therefore radioactive decay needs a conscious agent.
Because
Birds nest and jet engines prove process needs a conscious agent. There is no evidence that process can be produced without a conscious agent. Therefore all processes need a conscious agent.
If you don't agree with this then you can't agree with the first statement.
I hate pseudo-intellectual philosophy definition babbling masquerading as intelligent discourse.
You're literally fucking retarded and you'll never be creative enough to discover why.
Mason James
Conscious agent - any being that is aware of their environment and had the ability to act upon it.
Nathan Thomas
Not an argument
Jason Hill
Neither was your swill.
Aiden Gutierrez
Yes, you should teach your child a evidence based logic and reason method to learn. That is why I teach mine Objective Existence Method (OEM).
Jayden Wood
Not an argument
Jaxon Bennett
Logic error: "Birds nest and jet engines" is not equivalent to "All processes". Press any key to go fuck yourself.
Jaxon Nguyen
What if I told you that there's no evidence that any "conscious agent" whatsoever exists, and all processes - even philosophy, art, science, et cetera - could all be nothing more than the product of electrochemical reactions in the brain that don't involve consciousness or free will in any way; and that consciousness itself is simply an imaginary state produced as a byproduct of electrochemical reactions that creates an illusion of an ego making decisions?
Aaron Perry
You literally think you can prove God by constructing language in some "clever" way. You just lump abstractions into more and more layers of definitions and hopefully the idiots reading this bullshit (including you) will miss the fact that your entire language game is a house of cards.
You just """defined""" conscious agent.
What does it mean to be aware of your surroundings? Prove this is necessary. Give me more definitions for the words that you're going to use in defining the definitions.
You're lazy and you don't want to do legitimate science. So you come here and posit bullshit with buzzwords.
Definition of "buzzword": words said by OP.
Brody Gonzalez
>changing the word man in the series of statements had no impact on the second part >nothing ties man to processes, consciousness, decay. >somehow these statements logically impact each other
fuck even my image doesn't work because you never bothered to connect the two things, you just said here are two statements, you must believe both, because. >b̸̴̛̼͚̤̜͔̬̪̻̞̦͎͎̰ͭ͑ͧ̔̈̊͛͂ͩͮ͒r̮͖̬̰̫̙͚̫͖̳͔̺̜̙͌ͪ͌̐̄ͬͯ̓̆͜͜a̷̠̤̠͎̠̥̱͕̮̦͙͈̯͈̠ͯ̈̍́ͪ͐͌̾̈͋̄̊̎̽͋̽͊̕͟͢͠î̬̪̩͚̣̬̖̓̏̉̂ͫ͐ͯ̾ͬ͂̽̐͜n̶̗̹̠̫͖͈͍̞̬̙̣͇͙̺̹̱ͦ̒ͮͧ̃̀͆ͪ͂͆ḽ̴̹͎̬̠̗͙̮͈̻̣ͪ̏͆̈͋͑͋̀ͭͮ͝͝è̷̸̯͙̻̫̭͌̑̏͛ͯ̾͑̌͡ͅt̷̸̨̢̬̦̝̺̤̣̱͉̘͚̍̂͂̾́ͫ̍ͤͩ̉͑ͪ͗̐̊͂ͦ͠ͅ
So no man has been proven to be immortal. We haven't tested all men does that mean men aren't mortal, only some are?
So no process has been proven to be produced without a conscious agent. We haven't tested all processes does that mean processes don't need a conscious agent, only some do?
Gabriel Bell
YOU ARE A FUCKING BRAINLET
Jayden Butler
What if I told you that consciousness is being aware of your environment and we call it an environment because without our bodies we cannot affect it.
Jacob Miller
It is best if you stay out of your children's up bring for their sake.
Jack Foster
How is a jet engine words? Don't jet engines exist?
Xavier Murphy
Who is this "I", and where did the semiotic content of this text they are vomiting come from?
Michael Hughes
How can god be real when our eyes aren't real?
>OP's argument level
Aaron Brown
Lol, the logical conclusion for the two statements are valid. Ignoring the point by comparing two words is not an argument.
If you can come to a logical conclusion for the first statement then you should be able to come to the logical conclusion of the second statement.
Carter Hernandez
I disagree. Any being that can actively react and decide how to react is evidence that being is aware of its environment.
Carter Howard
I'd say you are a massive faggot and you should kys
Chase Allen
Do you have evidence you are able to gather the particular data your eyes gather without your eyes?
Robert Powell
Yes, but the premise that one leads to the other is false. I don't have to agree about processes and consciousness and decay because I agree about the mortality of man, and nothing in your original full statement compels a person to reason that because X is true for Y, A is true for B. therefore including the statement about men and mortality is a false dichotomy; and only included because of the knowledge that your center argument would fail to stand up on it's own.
Alexander Murphy
If A is true and B is true than C is true. A+B=C You are saying just because it is this way for one it doesn't work this way for another. To say this is illogical.
My argument stands on it's own I am comparing the two because I want people to see the logical inconsistencies people do when it comes to anything that threatens their ideologies.
You say
Carson Rivera
>b̸̴̛̼͚̤̜͔̬̪̻̞̦͎͎̰ͭ͑ͧ̔̈̊͛͂ͩͮ͒r̮͖̬̰̫̙͚̫͖̳͔̺̜̙͌ͪ͌̐̄ͬͯ̓̆͜͜a̷̠̤̠͎̠̥̱͕̮̦͙͈̯͈̠ͯ̈̍́ͪ͐͌̾̈͋̄̊̎̽͋̽͊̕͟͢͠î̬̪̩͚̣̬̖̓̏̉̂ͫ͐ͯ̾ͬ͂̽̐͜n̶̗̹̠̫͖͈͍̞̬̙̣͇͙̺̹̱ͦ̒ͮͧ̃̀͆ͪ͂͆ḽ̴̹͎̬̠̗͙̮͈̻̣ͪ̏͆̈͋͑͋̀ͭͮ͝͝è̷̸̯͙̻̫̭͌̑̏͛ͯ̾͑̌͡ͅt̷̸̨̢̍̂͂̾́ͫ̍ͤͩ̉͑ͪ͗̐̊͂ͦ͠ fucking based
Lincoln Gomez
ignoring the false dichotomy OP tried to display with two unrelated statements, the first being logical, the second using that assumption to logic to hide flaws.
>all processes need a conscious agent this is untrue. the weather cycle (made of three processes of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation) has no conscious agent behind it. this unmakes the rest of the so called 'logic.' >radioactive decay is a process okay, so? >therefore radioactive decay needs a conscious agent already disproved with the first section.
>bird's nests and jet engines prove process needs a conscious agent no, they prove that brid's nests and jet engines need conscious agents, not radioactive decay or the weather cycle; and not even that. it's a statement with no proof. >there is no evidence that process can be produced without a conscious agent there is no evidence that radioactive decay or the weather cycle have a conscious agent, therefore there is no proof that process needs a conscious agent. >therefore all processes need a conscious agent fallacy
>If you don't agree with this then you can't agree with the first statement. false dichotomy
You are asserting the weather process doesn't need a conscious agent because the weather process exist. This is a prime example of circular reasoning. The existence of the weather process doesn't prove the cause of the weather process.
Therefore your whole sperg out is a logical fallacy.
Colton Hill
There a number of flaws with your reasoning. I will only point the obvious logical flaws.
>There is no Evidence that a man is immortal. >Therefore all men are mortal.
There is no evidence that a bird can't fly, therefore all birds can fly. But what about penguins? From an empiricist point of view, you cannot claim that you know a property of all men if you haven't actually observed it, i.e. you can only be certain all men are mortal if you inflict mortal wounds into every men and they all die, which is impossible. From a rationalist point of view, you can only claim all men are mortal, if you can explain the fundamental processes that lead to mortality after a wound, which you don't.
If you cannot really explain why a process needs a conscious agent, and you cannot observe every process in existence, therefore you cannot be certain every process needs a conscious agent to exist.
Zachary Hall
show me the consciousness behind the weather cycle.
