Right. My argument is that "all there is is my mind" just as explicitly says so. It is impossible for you to not know everything if all there is is yo...
Then write more clearly. You seriously don't see the hipocrisy? You read my posts and decide the misunderstanding simply must be the result of a lack ...
Perhaps you'd indulge me by putting this into logical form for comparison. 1. The world is such that I know everything. 2. The world is not such that ...
...is not 'just asking'. I've already made it fairly clear. My argument is that the balance between autonomy and civil duties ought be weighed by fact...
This is a public discussion forum. If you don't want the members of it to interpret and respond to your posts then I suggest you stop posting them. If...
You don't seem to know the difference between being mentioned as a courtesy and being 'involved in my discussion' so I'd prefer you leave me out of yo...
If you're suggesting that the difference between the Nazi regime and 1940s England is much the same as the difference between modern Russia and modern...
My question is what could they possibly mean by "other minds", or even the expression "... there are", if all there is is their own mind. If we're to ...
Yes, I think that makes sense. One way or another, in order to retain talk of 'knowledge', or 'truth', or 'wrongness' at all, the way we understand it...
I've obviously not made myself very clear, my apologies. You say we only have five senses and that we get our information from those senses. You say "...
Never even mentioned cause. The argument is over on whom or what imposition is forced, not what it results in. I agree with what it results in - a per...
I was comparing deaths per thousand population with...deaths per thousand population. But I'll bear your excellent advice in mind in future should I e...
You don't seem to be responding to anything I've said. Assume your mind is all that exists. Imagine that world (the one where your mind is all that ex...
It does. 1. I believe that something other than my mind does not exist 2. I am wrong if something other than my mind exists If 1. is the case I cannot...
What? We're either measuring 'harm' or 'death'. I measured 'death' - deaths from bombings etc, vs deaths from profiteering. Same measure. We could mea...
The conclusion "I cannot be wrong" doesn't follow from "I'm not wrong" in my argument either. It follows from the logical consequence of all that exis...
This (and the other) are not examples of the same sort because the neither the assumption that it's raining, nor the assumption that God exists have a...
No. The claim in question was... ...so the only account needed is of deaths from invading forces. And more importantly, @"baker" used the word 'probab...
I'm assuming you're referring now to your previous 1&2? Otherwise I can't make much sense of this. He is assuming 1, when he entertains 1. He entertai...
Nobody who is assuming 1 is true can, yes. Assuming 1 is true, is the same thing as assuming god doesn't exist (the use of 'only'). One cannot coheren...
Because if 1 is true, then nothing else exists other than their mind. It follows from that, that if a thing is not in their mind it doesn't exist. The...
Yes, I agree. I think the notion that one could even consider whether there's an external world or not is nonsense. The very grammar of '... or not' i...
They already have to fight that fight. No entity in existence doesn't. Any entity, to exist, must resist entropic decay. And since matter/energy is ne...
Absolutely. But if there's a part of your mind that you're not consciously aware of then it suffers from exactly the same problem that the external wo...
The death toll would need to be 30 times higher to refute the argument, making this invasion one of the deadliest invasions ever, outpacing the Nazi o...
That argument has already been refuted. One balances the negatives with the positives in any endeavour. If it is a moral problem if an action has pote...
It matters intently because you lost the argument about simply causing people to be. Causing people to be has no moral problem. They'll probably be ha...
The wait time is irrelevant. It could be instantaneous. If I instantaneously make someone a soldier. Did I make a civilian into a soldier, or did I ma...
Yes. I agree with all that. None of that argues against procreation. Creating a person (with necessary conditions) is fine if it's for the greater goo...
Yes. It is. But not imposing them on a person. Imposing them on an embryo. If I force someone to become a soldier, I'm not forcing a soldier to become...
1 specifically states that nothing exists other than my mind. So how can I be wrong about the existence of other things under that assumption? I've al...
Under 1 it is impossible to be wrong about anything. If only your mind exists you would know everything there is to know, including whether only your ...
Way above my level of understanding. I trust the scientists on the matter. If I'm wrong then we merely need to drop 'time' from my list. It doesn't af...
Why would you do that? It's nonsense. Do corporations stop profiteering during war? No. So why would the deaths caused by their doing so stop during w...
Yes, that's true, and harder to predict. But my argument (in the general case) only requires a reasonable dispute as to the benefits. I think even if ...
Right, but being wrong about that entails being wrong about solipsism. I'm arguing that they cannot be wrong about claims assuming "all that exists is...
It was only intended to be rhetorical. The division I'm talking about (which is clear from the rest of my posts) is empirical science in general. I as...
Comments