Ok last one, it's 2 am here. Then we should be in agreement! I was arguing against this position which you deny supporting, what's the issue? But I al...
Ah, that makes more sense. That's certainly more agreeable. The way you defended her trustworthiness made it seem like you believe she never lies. Wel...
Really? What does she look like? Now, for the rest? What happens when appearances contradict, like by having "The rape victim deserved it" come out as...
False. I said that normally it'd be stupid but your definitions make it important. No. I think your formulation makes it so that there is no reason to...
Well the point is, it doesn't appear to me that minds must all be in present, future or past. Because the existence of minds as you describe them appe...
Reply to the rest of the comment you coward. You're right, I can't. Now why do I have the burden of proof? What's your standard by which you determine...
No it isn't. I'm not definitively saying that a mind can exist outside of time. You're the one that's definitively saying it can't. The one pushing a ...
No no no. Sure if a mind were to exist and were to be subject to time, it would have to be either past, present, or future. But what is the proof that...
This was not the original formulation. If your intent was to say this, what you actually said was way off the mark. So, where's your proof that if tim...
The statement to prove: "If time existed, God would be subject to it" A premise in the proof: Shortened to: "If time exists, God would be subject to i...
Why the reluctance to address this? It’s the third time I repeat it now: No, to be reason doesn’t make you omnipotent. As there are still things you c...
That’s not what I asked for. I was asking for the “other direction”. You claim we can either go from morality to God or God to morality I’m asking for...
Or both: And Once again, the options you presented are simply the easiest to refute, not all options. Explain. You frequently talk about how you don’t...
But he didn’t say brains have certain components therefore minds have them too, did he? He said: Everything that thinks has X component, we know that ...
I am not giving evidence. I am showing this: Is false. That’s just the argument you find easiest to dismantle and so you put it in the mouth of your i...
Not necessarily. An alternative is that minds are certain configurations of matter (brains). In that case the statement: Remains true without needing ...
Don't engage it. Among other ridiculous claims, it believes that life on Earth is hell where the wicked are sentenced for punishment and that whatever...
If you classify acts where there is no malicious intent, but there is knowledge that the act will harm as “negligent”. And negligence is not ok. By th...
Is this a no? Because you just don't like being straightforward. If you knew your child would invent painkillers would it be wrong to have them? Well ...
Ok. But does Z get to cause X to alleviate Y if Y>X? That's what I'm asking (for the third time). That's what it means by definition... You ever heard...
When would you say someone intends to do harm? If they know their actions will result in harm, does that automatically mean they intend to do harm? If...
Ok then, how would you explain anger to an alien? How are you going to communicate the "essence" of anger? And again, this is begging the question. Yo...
False. If you don't have children the people who would benefit from your children being around would be harmed. So in both cases suffering takes place...
Yes. That's how we've defined the word. At first "physical" meant things with a mass like rocks and water. Then it expanded to things with no mass lik...
They can affect physical stuff. Also that knowledge of how they work falls under the field "physics". They're not just that. Mental constructs can't p...
You don't think so because you begin by assuming that the experience is different from the explanation since it's non-physical, aka, you beg the quest...
There are plenty of physical things that don't weigh anything. Like an electric field. We say sounds are physical even though they're no more than pat...
That's one interpretation. One which presumes physicalism is false. The neuroscience doesn't attempt to explain what the experience is. It explains wh...
"You can harm people when it alleviates more harm" is a perfect example of crass utilitarianism.... But no, crass utilitarianism is bad because....rea...
No. The experience is what the brain is doing. The referent of "experience" is the neuronal activity. Saying that there is an "experience" that is cre...
I don't. There was clearly a physical change that led to mary's new experience wasn't there? Why can't her reaction simply be attributed to that? If y...
In other words you're saying: "If you use logic you're going to find every answer that will ever be relevant to you". So who cares if there is a "deep...
But, when you do this: That would be ameliorating greater harm with lesser harm clearly, so is this wrong or not? Also, importantly, is this "greater ...
Right. So: It doesn't matter when you say life starts there is always a point before that when the genetic modification could have been done. This is ...
Not a very good standard considering this is also the case in the utopia and you find it ok to impose life there. These are both true in a utopia and ...
You claim that the happiness of the person in the position doesn't have much to do with the justice or injustice of imposing that position. So, what's...
Let's say life starts, idk, 8 weeks after conception such that abortion after that point is wrong. Now, say the genetic modification was done on week ...
Oh wow, not like I pointed that out specifically: It certainly comes off that way when you cannot comprehend a simple argument so I have to repeat mys...
That's what they all say at first, until they see said implications. Oh, so now it's not about unconsented impositions. Now only unconsented impositio...
Comments