3 ms·
Comparing a brain to anything which encompasses a brain, is tautological. In debate ("arguably", as you say), this is the equivalent of "infinity plus 1", which
by anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Comparing a brain to anything which encompasses a brain, is tautological. In debate ("arguably", as you say), this is the equivalent of "infinity plus 1", which is a fallacy. So obviously the GP could not have been referencing anything which contains a brain as an "object".
- layer8 3y agoWhich is why I asked about what qualifies as an "object". The brain itself is a composite, so why does a larger composite not qualify?
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoA larger composite (which contains a brain) can not qualify by the very nature of the proposition put forth. At least in adult debate (where "infinity plus 1" is seen as fallacious). Larger composites that do not contain a brain are fine by me, though I'm not the person you originally responded to.
- BobbyJo 3y ago> A larger composite (which contains a brain) can not qualify by the very nature of the proposition put forth Personally don't see how this follows. "There is no larger circle than this ball bearing!" "What about the wheel it's used in?" "That's tautological!"
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoThe wheel does not need to contain the ball bearing in order to still be a circle, or even a wheel. It just can't be a functional part of a wheel-axle system without it. Just as one can abstract out the brain from the body and talk about the complexity of the body (less the brain). Such a comparison is fine by me. But society and the terrestrial ecosystem don't exist without functioning brains in them. And a genealogical relationship doesn't exist at all as a physical object, just as a conceptualized object (such as a graph). And conceptualized objects, such as graphs, typically aren't that complex (though can probably get there if someone dedicates the computational resources to do so).
- hiatus 3y agoIf we take the argument from first principles I'm not so sure it leads to your destination. Are atoms more or less complex than the things they comprise? And is that complexity not encapsulated by the emergent system that forms from that atomic substrate?
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago[flagged]
- bheadmaster 3y ago[flagged]
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI'm frustrated that people are talking to me as if I want to discuss the complexity of things, when I thought I made it quite clear in multiple comments in this thread that that is not what I'm talking about at all. When you are arguing, or even discussing, with someone it's an asshole behavior to tell them "what you are discussing has no foundation, or is irrelevant to me, so I'm going to discuss this other thing instead." Maybe just politely opt out of the argument at all with an "I disagree". This is the point I've been making. An asshole, or at least childish, way of arguing is to respond to someone who said "this thing is most complex", with "well I disagree, because two of this thing is more complex than just one of that thing". It's like a kid saying "infinity plus one" to one-up the other kid. One can have a philosophical conversation of the salience of various perspectives without telling the other person "your perspective is unimportant compared to mine, because it doesn't meet my personal threshold of salience". Yes, no duh, people do not find the same perspectives salient. If you're talking about policy, then salience can be ranked, if you're talking about personal opinion, then salience can't be ranked. You have this kind of philosophical discussion, politely, by acknowledging the other person's point and indicating that you want to talk about something adjacent. Not by telling the other person they're overlooking your point (and in the very act of saying that demonstrating that you are overlooking their point.
- scrollaway 3y agoWhat is more complex: a screw, or a smartphone? Keep in mind the latter contains the former. So, tautological, unanswerable question yes? (No)
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoA smartphone is more complex than a screw because it contains screws. This is a fine comparison to make because it is the one you, the stater, stated. If you instead stated that a screw is the most complex tool humans make, then anyone who said "two screws! (in a smartphone)" as a counterpoint is not debating in good faith.
- objektif 3y agoWhat us more complex? A cpu or a cpu inside a box? Adding a less complex object layer on top of an already complex object technically increases it's complexity. However, it is a silly argument to make.