NotAristotle

Atoms still do what they do, but what they do is ordered by the activity of the whole organism.

I would not say the atom itself acts differently, but the entire organism acts in a way that it would not act were it dead. The atoms, by extension an...

by "combination of particles" I mean a cell and I do believe cells are alive though not conscious (like plants). And I am not sure if atomic activity ...

I am trying to comprehend not just the probability of the event, an event that as you say is quite unlikely, in addition, I am trying to understand ho...

And even if we did have all empirical facts and could reproduce life in a lab, it would still be a weird thing for life to arise there, in my opinion,...

When I consider abiogenesis as a "natural" explanation of where life comes from, it seems to me that for some combination of particles to be the recip...

I'd like to respond to a few comments you stated and also ask the following question: What will we take to be a sufficient and adequate explanation of...

Seems contradictory to me to say that the same Nature is both orderly and disorderly. Question: Does naturalism explain the phenomena it purports to? ...

I would not say that what you have said implies nature's negation. On the other hand, I find what you have said to be coherent, even though I disagree...

I see, so nature has two parts then: a lawful part and a non-lawful part, and it is the lawful part that orders and arranges the non-lawful part. And ...

A part of nature indeed - however, if these laws are just nature or a part of nature, it is difficult to see how they could order nature. See what I m...

I think consciousness is constituted by physical processes, but then I also think the explanatory gap is reputable. I do not see why these two views a...

I am confused when you use the term "embedded" in this context. Is the law you refer to a part of nature or is it outside of nature? If it is a part o...

What about questions like: What is my purpose? Where do I ultimately come from? Why do bad things sometimes happen? What is justice, or love for that ...

interesting point. Why exactly not walk into a wall - what is the reason not to? This question sounds sillier than I mean it. I guess my point is, doe...

I think you are conflating the validity of formal logic with the validity of the cogito in particular. One can maintain that cogito is valid. Proving ...

Maybe there is a distinction to be made between the capacity to doubt and the capacity to be certain. So I can doubt "I think therefore I am" and yet ...

I think I have some idea of what Corvus and Beverley are objecting to in the statement "I think, therefore I am." They are objecting to the "I," which...

1. I think. 2. If I think, then I exist. 3. Therefore I exist. This is my understanding of the cogito in argumentative form. Do you object to premise ...

what if it really is raining. Is the proposition still invalid?

Consider the proposition "it is raining." Will you regard that proposition as valid or invalid?

is p valid or invalid?

No. An argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows, as a matter of deduction, from the premises. If p then q is not an argument.

"If P then Q" is just a conditional operator, there is nothing not valid about it. I have never heard anyone claim that "if p then q" is not valid. Wi...

If A implies B then the falsity of B implies the falsity of A by modus tollens. Whereas the proposition "I do not think therefore I do not exist" must...

Corvus, is the correct interpretation here that: "I don't think...or it is false that I think therefore I do not exist." (1). Or is the correct interp...

And since I really do think the argument is valid, I would ask you again whether the conclusion from my argument sounds right to you?

Any 1 line argument is invalid because it is not an argument! Even "If P Then Q" is invalid according to the program you referenced.

But Banno, of course that argument is invalid. That argument is only 1 step. My argument is three steps. I should be quite surprised to find that the ...

Hmm, I am surprised to see that the argument is invalid and would very much like to know why it is invalid. It seemed to me to be quite a good formal ...

Very well Banno, I shall look to see if Socrates is around. He is usually most amenable to having a discussion.

Banno, where are you going? I am quite sure we were just now on the verge of a breakthrough. Are we to turn away from the discussion at this critical ...

Still, I would like your opinion on the conclusion, is it acceptable or not?

Would you endorse the above conclusion, or reject it? I mean just the last line, does it seem agreeable to you?

Splendid! Now consider this argument: If not (if I think, then I exist), then (if I don't exist, then possibly I think). Not (If I think, then I exist...

I do not know what your emoji means.

I just mean formally speaking, let's not worry about what our premises are for now.

It's a secret. So what do you say, does that argument look agreeable?

Here is a more formal statement of an argument: (1) if not (p then q), then (if not-q then possibly p). (2) not-(p then q). (3) Therefore, If not-q th...

(1) If I think, then I exist. (2) I think. (3) Therefore, I exist. Premise one is not explicitly stated in the cogito argument (at least I don't think...

I am reminded of the debate between scientific realism and anti-realism. This is a debate that may have implications for both naturalists and supernat...

Nevertheless, couldn't one maintain that God is "in" the world in a non-spatial sense in addition to having a causal or sustenance role? I do not see ...

I am less concerned whether someone else' argument is fallacious or ill-reasoned, of greater concern to me is that someone (including myself) can unde...

Unless they do not accept the law of noncontradiction

I think it is important to understand the "other side " of an argument. If someone can't do that , that's a sign they do not have understanding of the...

Wayfarer, looks like your answer to Bob Ross regarding the phenomena that are not accounted for on a naturalistic account is just this: everything. I ...

If reason functions as a social product (I think Habermas says something like that (perhaps Fichte to some extent too)) then it may be that reason can...

You might be interested to read Shamik Dasgupta, especially what he has to say on "Absolute Velocity" -- http://shamik.net/papers/dasgupta%20symmetry%...

Time aside, would it not be the case that God as pure actuality is "in" the universe in only a "potential" way prior to creation, and in a "non-potent...

Hi, I would begin by questioning the soundness of accepting a principle such as the principle of parsimony. Why would a simpler theory be prima facie ...