Sorry to have to disillusion you, but it wasn't my behaviour which caused any of this, it was your interpretation of my behaviour which caused this. Y...
Classically, "have" and "habit" are very closely related in Latin terminology. Habits are what a being has, in terms of one's active existence. The ac...
I've read this about five or more times now and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. You're talking about two events with no causal con...
You're changing the subject. What was at issue was the question of whether it is necessary to assume a third thing, relative to the two different stat...
Your thought experiment was introduced to explain how you understand "change". If it demonstrates that "change" is something which cannot obtain in th...
No, these are the conditions of your thought experiment. When 9:31 "disappears", there is absolutely nothing. Can you explain 9:32 coming into existen...
Interpret it as "cause" if you want. But a cause is not necessarily a mechanism, so I'm not necessarily asking for a mechanism. The free will is said ...
I'm not talking about cause, I'm talking about coming into existence. Do you believe that something can come from nothing? How would you make sense of...
Huh, that's odd, I wonder why the entire population is not in jail then. I see your point. You think that some people have X-ray eyes, and this makes ...
It's the same question with different wording, so it has the same answer. My thinking is what makes me learn some things instead of others. Just becau...
There is definitely a third thing involved, according to your description. This is the perspective from which 9:31 and 9:32 disappear and appear. As I...
Yes on my view that could be called a change, because you've referred to a succession. Therefore it is implied by what you say, that there is somethin...
Do you not realize that I can just throw your own argument right back at you to address this issue? Take a look at what you say about "the capacity to...
Sure , but "then" in this context is referring to a temporal succession, so you have still assumed the passing of time. You have only replaced "succes...
The question was "How do you learn anything, MU?". The answer was "The act of thinking is how I learn things". Where's the problem? Sure, I'm thinking...
What did "instantaneously" mean in you thought experiment then? Let's just remove it, because it's redundant according to what you are now asserting. ...
Now you are describing a temporal continuity with the word "instantaneously". With the use of that word, you have referenced the passing of time, and ...
We have laws which are, for a large part obeyed. The ability to communicate is learned isn't it? Haven't you opposed learned with natural? Why do you ...
The universe doesn't exist aside from which number, 9:31 or 9:32? If the universe disappears when 9:31 disappears, then there is nothing. Where does 9...
Now you've assume a universe. That universe is the principle of continuity, the thing that remains the same throughout the change. First it was "the c...
Yes, the clock face changes, we are in agreement there. But that "change", in order that we may call it a change, is dependent on the clock face, as "...
So what? Do I have to point out to you every time that a human being acts morally in order to argue that human beings are moral beings? Your argument ...
Yes of course the numbers on the clock face are part of the clock face, but that's irrelevant because it doesn't alter the fact that the clock face re...
Ok, the "clock face" has changed, but it is still the same clock face. You have just identified a slightly different continuity, "the clock face", rat...
The act of thinking is how I learn things. There is something missing in your logical process Harry. You seem to think that consequences magical cause...
You're wrong here. Human beings are moral beings, so the natural drive to be moral mostly wins over the drive to be immoral. The problem is that you w...
The problem with your perspective is that you are ignoring the natural drive toward being moral. There must be a natural drive toward being moral in o...
Then I don't think we should refer to any activities of living beings as natural, because all these activities are learned. If this is how you define ...
No! Of course not! You have described a different reading, how could that ever be construed as "the same"? Did not you read what I said? The clock is ...
This is not true, western politics is fundamentally structured as a "honor system". This system is based in trust, and assumes that one will act hones...
You use the word "nature", and "natural" in a very odd way, as if it's not natural for a human being to be a moral being. Do you not think that it's n...
I could say "fuck you" to the system, you could say "fuck you" to the system, many completely different types of people, with completely different cha...
Yes it continues to be the same clock no matter what time it says. That's what a change is, the thing continues to be the same thing, but some propert...
That's not true, two distinct states are two distinct states. There is no change unless there is also continuity. Continuity is provided for by the th...
Whenever I feel strongly about a particular act, I will proceed despite the negative consequences. So for instance, if something like moving a heavy o...
This is not at all sufficient. You don't seem to have any understanding of what a change is. You have described two distinct states; the clock says 9:...
I don't know about that. If you are not paying attention in the kitchen when you're cutting things up with those big knives, it could be bad. I think ...
No, that is the change between 9:31 and 9:32. There must be something between these two which is not evident in either one, which qualifies as "the ch...
Of course it's divisible relative to itself. There's sixty seconds in a minute. Therefore it takes sixty seconds for 9:31: to change to 9:32. So we ha...
That all depends on the situation. Sorry to disappoint you, but I would have thought of that before planning the practical joke, and I would already b...
A change is temporally divisible into other changes, just like an object is divisible into other objects. And of course there is a matter of the chang...
Don't you think that a change can be divided into parts, just like an object? Have you ever seen slow motion films of what appears without the slow mo...
I'm not thinking of time in any particular way, I'm trying to understand how you're thinking of time, trying to make sense of it. I understand before ...
I don't see where you pull this notion of "a present change" from. You've described (A) as in the past relative to (B), so I assume that (B) is in the...
Comments