[extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.)

[J. Andrew Rogers]

On May 5, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Heartland wrote:
> But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail  
> of an idea to
> have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to  
> taking a principle
> and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion?


The problem is that you do not make sense, and there is no clear  
logic to your conclusion.  Many people have observed this so maybe,  
just maybe, it is not them and it really is you.  At the very least  
you are not constructing a coherent argument, so let me help you  
out.  In your arguments, you will do things such as stating that you  
"agree" with another poster on some point, and then proceed with some  
explanation that seems to logically contradict the very thing you  
just said you agreed with.  And you've done it repeatedly.  You also  
are repeatedly apparently failing to grok points of fundamental  
theory, and argue against them by couching your arguments in  
definition-free hand-waving that does not mean anything to anyone.


What you are doing is not working, and for the obvious (to everyone  
else) reasons I've stated above among others.  To get to the bottom  
of this and save us all a lot of time, you basically need to a  
RIGOROUS and STRICT construction of your argument:


- Define, in as strict terms as possible, the basic concepts you are  
using (e.g. "brain","mind","die",etc) because without agreement on  
definitions, your logic is meaningless.  Any basic concept that you  
do not define cannot be used in your argument, because there will be  
no established agreement on reasoning.  Do not assume everyone is  
using the same definitions by default.

- Specify, in as strict terms as possible, the assumptions that must  
be valid for your reasoning to be correct.  Every conclusion is  
dependent on a range of assumed constraints for validity, and the  
applicability of the argument to a specific case can be determined by  
the particular set of assumptions used.  Even mathematics assumes  
certain axioms when proving theorems.

- Show, in as strict terms as possible, how your conclusion can be  
derived logically step-by-step from the definitions and assumptions  
previously agreed upon.  Don't assert it, prove it.



If you do all this, in proper order, by the time the process is  
complete there is a very good probability that most people will be  
able to agree with your reasoning, or a very excellently specified  
flaw will be isolated that invalidates the argument.  You will be  
challenged at each step, but that is the way strong arguments are  
constructed and how agreement on the terms of discussion are set.   
One way or another, this will all be settled in a sequence of narrow  
assertions that are much easier to evaluate than the big ball of wax.


So start defining all the terms of your argument that are to be  
used.  After everyone agrees on the definitions, we can move on to  
constraints and assumptions.  After all this is done, the logic and  
reasoning will almost write themselves.  I think you will find the  
audience here very open to arguments carefully constructed in this  
fashion.


Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers