Very belated response here . . . I think we’d all agree that words can have different meanings depending on the context. When I use the words “true” o...
This is sort of nit-picking, but I consider this sentence to be truth apt. After all, I can envision some evil super genius genetically engineering su...
There are likely an infinite number of sentences (or certainly a very large number) that could contain the word "therefore", so I can't comment on how...
Indeed, yes. I would put it a bit differently, but this is fine. Because context matters. The same word or phrase can have wildly different meanings d...
There’s no need for a clarifying statement as it is obvious by the plain language reading. I’m a plain language person. As an aside, I can’t remember ...
To my way of thinking these are very different things. #2 implies that the speaker is not certain. I.e., there is an implied "But I could be wrong" th...
To the best of my knowledge that's simply not the case - at least with regards to arithmetic. If you have two apples in one hand and two apples in the...
At the risk of picking on a minor point, I think you need a better example of something that needs no explanation. There is nothing "necessary" about ...
Again, no one is disagreeing with this. Of course - but reductio ad absurdum is not part of propositional logic. I'll try one more time. Once you say ...
I've been very reluctant to respond to you given your desire not to continue the conversation, but the thing is - we're on the same side regarding the...
Good catch Tim. I would put it slightly differently - there are missing steps/facts in Corvus' "logic": P is irrelevant to getting ~Q. Of course this ...
I thought I was clear, obviously not. I've bolded the key phrase. As you acknowledged, this is simply not the case - your being a millionaire is clear...
Words have meanings/usages - and your inconsistent statements render your arguments meaningless. Just to give a contrast, I disagree with @"Bob Ross" ...
Sigh. I'm a glutton for punishment. I'll try one more time. Here are two statements from you: The second statement clearly contradicts the first. The ...
A corpse of a dog is a hunk of meat that used to be a dog until it died - it is no longer a dog. A dog fossil is a fossil of an animal that was a dog ...
It's really hard to follow what you're saying since you keep changing your terminology. You have repeatedly stated that you do not see any difference ...
I'm amused by this little side discussion about necrophilia. Let me offer a quick personal observation. My father bequeathed his corpse to medical sci...
NOS conflates person & human being so I was working within that framework. There have been so many posts flying back and forth that it is hard to foll...
Firstly this is not "uncontroversially true" - it is an opinion. Many people disagree with you. And on that note we will have to agree to disagree. I ...
Your replies are becoming even more incoherent. Here's what you said a few days ago: I'll try one more time. What are the characteristics that describ...
You're still going around in circles. How do we identify whether a collection of cells and protoplasm is an animal - let alone a human animal. Why is ...
This is still circular logic. What makes one collection of cells and protoplasm a member of the human species? It is not merely the presence of a part...
You are saying (or at least it appears that way) that a zygote is a human being because it turns into a human being. But unless you can give some defi...
Maybe I'm missing some context and/or not following you, but this seems to be circular reasoning. You seem to be saying that a zygote is a human being...
I don't understand your reply. You say there is no means to determine personhood, yet (if I follow you correctly) you agree that a country's legal sys...
But that's the whole point of this particular line of discussion. The laws have to make that distinction - there needs to be some means to determine w...
I’m coming in late here, so apologies in advance if this has already been discussed somewhere in the preceding 14 pages - but at the risk of adding ye...
OK. So now let's go back to your Possibility two So let's substitute "has five words" for "is false" but otherwise keep your reasoning word for word: ...
I'm not following you. Please humor this bear of little brain and take this one step at a time. You said previously that "This sentence has five words...
I thought I was understanding you, but now I'm confused. Here's what you said earlier: Going back to your 3 possibilities, this is the form of your Po...
I will duplicate your examples only substituting the Pentastring instead of Liar's paradox. Here's what you said (with substitutions): In the expressi...
Perhaps you were in a hurry when you responded, but I wasn't talking about the Liar Statement, I was talking about Tones' counter example "The sentenc...
If I'm following this, you stated that all self referential statements are meaningless. Tones disagrees with that and offers the counter example "This...
This is just to expand on RussellA ’s response. The underlying issue here is that there is no information in the 5 words which lets us know that it is...
Perhaps I'm totally missing the point, but a hole needs boundaries that define where it is - i.e. what/where is the border between the "hole" and the ...
No. There is no specific prior event that causes the atom to decay at that particular point in time. The philosophical concept of causality does not a...
Comments