AJJ

I should say it’s self-defeating. Because if it’s true that we ought not to believe true things, then we ought not to believe that we ought not to bel...

I know it is mate. That’s why I’m calling you obtuse. Try looking the word up. Yes. It’s an argument that fails if it’s true.

Buddy, if you weren’t so bloody obtuse you’d have realised I addressed in my OP the absurdity of claiming that that facts aren’t things we ought to be...

Did I not give an argument? The one you only partially quoted? P1: Facts are true things. P2: We ought to believe true things. C: We ought to believe ...

Number 2. I think it is a tautology. If the conventional sense of fact is “something that is true”, and we ought to believe true things, then it follo...

I’m saying there are things we ought to believe, we ought to believe them because they’re true, and that true things are facts.

You’re not actually understanding what I’m saying, and you’ve done that partial quote thing again where you miss off an important part of my reply. If...

Would you say the above is a fact? And would you say we ought to believe it? Is there anything we ought to believe? If you say no to the last two ques...

If people deem it moral, or at least not immoral, to break a law, then I’d say that undermines the law. It’s surely possible to morally undermine a la...

Graham Oppy, atheist philosopher, gives the term “innocent” for those who have never considered the question of whether God exists, and so can’t prope...

Mate, coincidences are by their nature unlikely. If you’re going to depart from common-sense like this (and if you’re going to now scoff at the notion...

For the same brain phenomena to occur alongside the same experiences all the time by chance would, I’m only guessing, be unlikely.

Yes. Coincidence seems ludicrous given the probabilities involved.

Looking back over my posts I have said in some that it isn’t evidence for your claim. I should have been saying that it’s not necessarily evidence for...

No. It could be evidence for what you say. But it seems to me - in the case of this particular evidence, not for evidence in general, and without know...

No. I’m not talking about excluding possibilities. I believe the mind is immaterial. I do not therefore think the materialist possibility has been exc...

I wasn’t appealing to proof. I was asking for a legitimate justification for your chosen conclusion. The best you’ve given is that the notion of immat...

That could still be interpreted as experiences being based on brain phenomena. So says you. You have qualia, rationality and intentionality to deal wi...

No subject changes. The justification is all I want, then I’m out.

What was the justification you gave for choosing that former interpretation over the latter?

The point is that where there is more than one possible way of interpreting of some evidence, the chosen interpretation should be justified. You have ...

Subject change. The point is still your claim that the evidence in question supports a particular conclusion, that you have proven unable to justify.

We’re not talking about all empirical evidence. The evidence in question can be interpreted in more than one way. Which is the best way could be disco...

You made the subject by claiming the evidence shows brain phenomena and experiences are identical. I suggested the evidence could equally show we expe...

You’re changing the subject. You said the evidence has a particular conclusion where there are other possibilities. You will not justify why your chos...

Then why do you favour that former interpretation over the latter?

You said the evidence shows that brain phenomena and experiences are identical. I suggested it could also show that we experience our brain phenomena....

No it isn’t. Answering the question would be answering the question. This is a subject change. Answer it directly, and if I don’t understand the answe...

You’re dodging the question, is what you’re doing.

We’re talking about brain phenomena and experience. Your point is that the evidence shows they’re identical. I have suggested it could equally show th...

That’s not the point here. You said the evidence shows the two are identical. I’ve given a reason why that isn’t the case. You’ve just supplied anothe...

Feel free.

That a change in one amounts to a change in the other shows either that the two are identical, that we experience our brain phenomena, or it’s complet...

That a change in one amounts to change in the other shows either that they are identical, or that we experience our brain phenomena. You’re willing to...

That brain phenomena correspond to experiences shows either that the two are identical, or that we experience our brain phenomena. You’re willing to a...

That’s not the point here. You said the evidence shows the two are identical. I’ve just given a reason why that isn’t the case.

Because you could conclude instead that we experience our brain states, in which case they would correspond in the same way.

You posted links. You have not given examples of what is contained in those links. You don’t, because you can’t. Evidence of brain states correspondin...

You neither know nor understand the “evidence”. If you did you would give an example of it and argue from that. You don’t, because you can’t.

You post links but refuse to give examples of anything contained in them. The reason is because you can’t.

You neither know nor understand the “evidence” you’re referring to.

“Waah! I just want to post prejudice and links! Waah! I’m not actually interested in arguing.”

Oh, sorry. I didn’t realise that this was a prejudice and links-posting thread.

No argument. Prejudice and links.

It’s very plain now that you do not yourself know or understand what is behind the links you posted. You’re posting them in order to assert your preju...

No links. Refer to what you have learned from those links. Don’t simply hide behind them.

I asked for a response without a simple insistence that what you believe is true. Give examples of this evidence. Refer to it, show why it shows your ...

I’m looking for a response that doesn’t simply insist without argument your position to be the case. I’m aware that when we experience something, some...

Why then are our brain states identical to our experiences? As opposed to it being the case that we experience our brain states?

Perhaps restate the argument I’ve been making, to see if you understand it. Terrapin has simply been insisting without argument that the experience of...