180 Proof

A machine (or automaton).

Scholasticism redux.

The discussion ended with your incorrigibility even before it had started.

And you're not a thinker either and just make shit up to suit your own idiosynchratic anachronisms. Link provided if you wish to do something about th...

"Teleology" has been debunked, or dispensed with, by modern natural sciences for centuries. This is why Descartes believe it was necessary to argue fo...

You/we attribute "purpose" to the process (i.e. anthropomorphism) but it does not exhibit exercising or establishing "purpose" of its own.

What makes this "an intelligent process"?

Go waste someone else's time.

Couldn't wait – made my covid-delayed move to Washington State (across the Columbia River from Portland, OR) a couple of months ago. No more assbackwa...

You got better? Well then smoke 'em if you got 'em ...

And the Walrus sings "Here's another clue for you all ..." :victory: :smirk:

:up: :fire: :roll: Before I could post my own reply ...

The "hard problem" in philosophy simply doesn't exist for cognitive neuroscience. From an old thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/commen...

I very much appreciate your insights.Thanks.

:up:

:ok: :roll: :sweat:

:nerd:

The difference between "theology" and "philosophy of religion" is analoguous to the difference between persecution and emancipation.

0

You've not countered either of my previous posts within which I took issue with your mischaracterizations of argumentation & eliminativism, respective...

And your point is?

I can't understand the quote for you.

Being a mystic does not preclude her also being a schizophrenic or vice versa.

I agree "the good" is not definite, or definitive, enough to function as a coherent object (goal ~ value) in ethics. I am a negative consequentialist ...

:smirk:

:fire: :eyes:

:up:

As usual, another facile distortion. "Eliminativists" argue that folk psychological concepts (e.g. "consciousness", "qualia", "intention", etc) occult...

:up: :up: And the distinction between valid and sound inferences is completely lost on you (or are you just disingenuously obfuscating the distinction...

Yes and no. Tautologies & contradictions are "absolute"; empirical propositions & sound arguments are "circumstantial".

:100:

:fire: :100: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zfQSejaYKLk @"Hillary" you ought to answer this question like your credibility depends on it because it doe...

:up:

Gravity instantiates physical analogues of "omnipotence" (re: nucleogenesis, cosmogenesis), "omnipresence" (re: spacetime) and "omniscience" (e.g. bla...

Arent we all?

:point:

It's "silly" to ask a stone star or cosmos for its "motives" or "intentions". This is what why questions are: requests for subjective information; thu...

Fractal / hologram. :cool: :up: And, no doubt, "contagious" ... :smirk:

:fire:

If you've got to deify a physical entity, there's none greater than that other "g": Gravity.

Exactly. :up:

Go waste someone else's time.

"Simplicity" ended after the first microsecond after the "big bang".

Like the rest of nature, 'human nature' – especially during persistent, elemental eras of raw survival – takes paths of least resistance / effort (i.e...

Yeah – ignoring the Milky Way (with the supermassive blackhole at the galactic center c27k light years away from Sol).

Ignoring just the Sun and (that massive comet-asteroid deflector) Jupiter – yeah Earth is otherwise (thermodynamically & celestial mechanically) "self...

My overall point is that nature CAN be explained without g/G and morality CAN be justified without g/G from which it"s reasonable to imply that g/G is...

Yes. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/565719 https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/438252 Yes. https://thephilosophyforum...