flannel jesus

You are literally changing the subject. Be brave. Modus ponens. You're incorrect about it, and I can prove it.

You are finding so many excuses not to investigate the validity of your own argument. Be brave. Don't come up with excuses. Look at it in the face. Yo...

No, you actually can't. You can't do that. That's a fallacy, it's called Denying the Antecedent, and what I'm telling you is much better than "read so...

here's your quote where you present your modus ponens argument. This is not Modus ponens. At all. You have misunderstood modus ponens and transformed ...

you're absolutely right, it is incredibly simple, which is why it's a wonder that you misunderstood it so drastically.

You have drastically misunderstood what modus ponens means. You have literally understood it in the exact wrong way. Feel free to find any source deta...

Once again, you've got it entirely backwards. "You think therefore you exist" implies if you don't exist, you don't think. The logic you've presented ...

yeah, same. Like he thinks "x therefore y" means x has to come before y so that x can cause y, when... that's not what therefore means, and is in this...

He thinks all the necessary thoughts to agree with "I think therefore I am", but stumbles at the last hurdle. I suspect it might be a language issue -...

There's a reason both of us think you've got it backwards here. You aren't being completely rational here. You DO have it backwards.

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. It doesn't bear any obvious relationship to the "I think therefore I am" question.

There's a reason why "I think therefore I am" is a beloved mainstay of philosophical thought, and nobody at all is taking up "I am therefore I think"....

This side-conversation is not helping anyone understanding anything about "I think therefore I am" vs "I am therefore I think". It's a complete distra...

Ah yes, the never ending pool of knowledge about "unknown existence" lmao. What a conversation-ender. We're talking about if you can think without exi...

I cannot roll my eyes hard enough at this non-answer.

If something has to exist before it thinks, then if you know it's thinking, you know it must have existed first. I know I'm thinking. Therefore, I kno...

The assumption "Before thinking takes place, something must exist." is borderline SYNONYMOUS with "I think, therefore I am". The two statements seem l...

Seems like you get perfectly well what reversal I'm talking about. The assumption I'm referring to is "Before thinking takes place, something must exi...

Yeah, that's what everyone else thinks except you. "Cogito ergo sum" works with that assumption, your reversal of it does not. If I'm thinking, I must...

No. Plenty of things presumably exist which don't think.

Right. "Totally different things happening in different places in the world" kinda makes it a bit more tricky. If things didn't fall at 9.8m/s/s every...

Ah, so then let's reword your previous question: "How do they elevate one's perceptual observations with possibility of fallibilities and subjective i...

so what do you mean by "objective knowledge"? You referred to scientific knowledge as if it's "objective knowledge" as distinct from personally gained...

There's a layer of underlying assumptions, but once you accept those assumptions (and they're all pretty reasonable), scientific observations become m...

can you show me an example that you think I wouldn't see a difference in?

I've read a lot of scientific material and I don't see what you say is there

sorry, my question was ambiguosly worded. Im not asking you for what you think their motivations are, I'm asking you what has led you to believe they ...

And why do you think scientists are telling you what you think so frequently? Do you think that's unjust in some way? What specific examples of this u...

When scientists say "we think X", why are you interpreting that into "You think X, because you think what we tell you you think"? Surely you can just ...

I have read the words of a lot of scientists, many many words by many scientists, and this doesn't ring true to me in the least.

Let's add some observations then: Stanford seems to think Sartre self-identified as an existentialist https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialis...

I don't think you need to ask the whole population to verify if there are no existentialists, surely you just need to find one person who says they ar...

Sure, the definition of existentialism is a bit vague. THAT'S potentially part of a good argument for why nobody is an existentialist - nobody can be ...

Because other people than that short list of people could be existentialists. "These people denied they are, therefore nobody is" isn't much of an arg...

I think it would be nice if, at the very least, there was a base layer of normalized words with universal meanings. Unfortunately, I think with the nu...

You asked the question, for people like me to answer, and someone like me answered. Do you have anything more enlightening for me than "nah"?

It doesn't have to be "at any time", it can just be at the start. And presumably a baby could be hooked up to the machine anyway, without any concern ...

Thanks. So it looks like Sartre has actually affirmed his "existentialist" categorization.

I don't think so. If someone made such a machine, that someone could know enough about a brain to manipulate memories too. They can manipulate your en...

Because a few people widely considered to be existentialists denied the label, that means there are no existentialists? I don't think the logic is wor...

Niave realism. The qualia of our experience is not something manufactured in our head, but is just reality-as-it-is.

I don't see it that way

That's how I interpret "I think therefore I am"

is Dr. Popovic himself a reductive materialist, or a materialist at all?

I think you can. I can imagine a society of ai robots, who all are determinists and think their ais are deterministic, who have policies for how they ...

yeah, in other words "I am". You've not figured out a way around the "I am" part of it, and you're stretching quite hard.

Yes, even if the thoughts "aren't yours". In order to perceive thoughts handed to you externally, you first must *exist*.

And even if that's true, you're still "perceiving thoughts" and therefore you still are. So the conclusion "I am" still follows, even if "I think" act...

These seem like concepts of truth to me. Maybe they hadn't developed certain vocabularies about truth that modern philosophy has, but... if they agree...

I don't know that that's the case. Reductive materialists don't necessarily reject emergence (reduction and emergence are two sides of the same coin, ...