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

[Heartland]

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?

J. Andrew Rogers:
> 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.

Also, many people don't follow everything that is being said during this long 
thread where we discuss definitions, assertions and steps that lead to final 
conclusion. It's not my fault. You can't just jump in the middle of discussion and 
expect me to encapsulate the whole argument in each post.

J. Andrew Rogers:
> 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.


Please provide at least one example.

J. Andrew Rogers:
> - 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.


I think I've already done all that (I know, it's not conveniently in one place) but 
it seems like you didn't find the argument sufficient. In the future I can only try 
to expand each step and assertion. I admit that after thinking about this for so 
long some things seem obvious in retrospect that I feel like they don't require 
explanation.

S.