No it isn't. This is a description of God: a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. That's all you need to qualify. You don't have t...
Not about that though. Not about the fact that we perceive by being in mental states with representative contents. What on earth are you on about? Goo...
Yes, if those premises are true, that follows. Those premises are not equivalent to these, however: 1. Lane believes Kent can't fly 2. Lane believes S...
I don't see an error (though I have not watched the video). If it is true that Tom cares about all objective truths, and also true that Tom does not c...
Like I say, you don't have a case. You just know that Anscombe is supposed to have used the example of a speak your weight machine to refute an argume...
I don't know what you mean. If I am a bot, this isn't a message. It just looks like one. But it won't be. Our faculties are bots if they evolved by bl...
You don't understand the argument, clearly. I am arguing that in order for something - be it a mental state, a picture, some squiggles - to be said to...
Er, I know what begging the question involves. Now, final time, the weighing machine example is shit. Why? Because it's DESIGNED. I am arguing that ou...
Again, you are begging the question throughout by just helping yourself to the idea of a representation, when what it takes for something successfully...
I can perhaps make the point in another way. Imagine I want to convey to you what your cat's weight is (and I do know this). I am, however, thousands ...
Not sure what that means, but I am just pointing out that to be aware of something essentially requires you to be in a mental state with representativ...
No, you are just showing that you don't really know your stuff. You can't perceive something absent a mental state with representative content. They'r...
I just find your viewpoint to be incomprehensible. You're going to ignore reasoned arguments whenever doing so is needed to preserve your viewpoint. S...
You are the one who is begging the question, not me. First, perception goes by way of mental states with representative contents. You say you're willi...
Again with the comprehension skills. I can, it's easy. But I don't see the point, given that you'll rewrite everything I say and say "so you think thi...
Why? You don't know what a proof is. I might as well do a sea shanty and post it up here and offer that as my proof for all the careful rational scrut...
You are really confused. Show me saying that faculties issue imperatives. OUr faculty of reason is the faculty by means of which we gain an awareness ...
Yes, as you would be if your first answer was correct. It is not in dispute that we perceive things by way of mental states with representative conten...
Yes, that's what possessing a faculty of reason involves. Having one gives one some awareness - in your case, scant and very foggy awareness - of reas...
No, because in the scenario described all we have reason to think you have acquired is a true belief. Whether it is justified or not is left open. So,...
Yes, quite. I learn from the sign in the park that someone doesn't want me to walk on the grass. I don't have to know that it is Mr Brown whose attitu...
I think it is fair to say that Russell would agree that just as one should not trust a stupid man's report of what a clever man has said, one should n...
I think you misunderstand my argument. In order to be able to perceive a world one needs to be subject to mental states with representative contents, ...
I am not frustrated. I already explained: arguing with numskulls can be very philosophically fruitful. (Any apparent frustration is an act). No, becau...
I take it you accept that this is indeed an imperative of Reason and thus you accept that premise 1 is true. You are now changing the topic and wonder...
I told you umpteen times I am not religious and that I believe in God. This must puzzle you enormously because you keep asking me the same question ov...
Er, no. There are imperatives of Reason and those are imperatives that have a single existent mind as their source. Just follow the argument. You keep...
Because I am not religious. Why would I be? Presumably you think that if someone reasons to the conclusion God exists, they will then think 'well, I b...
The mind described in 5 will be God. That is, it will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. No point wasting time explaining why that will be ...
You get it do you? This is a playground and the level of philosophical sophistication here is somewhat low. So I expect few will get it. But explainin...
Thank you for your condescension. But it is fine as it is. If one is writing a discussion post one should not make it too long and dense. Thus there w...
Because I'm not religious. I believe in God. I am not religious. Not hard to understand (unless you're creativesoul, in which case I just said I am an...
I presented the argument (which I knew would be a waste of time). You don't know how to argue well. You learnt your skills from Russell Brand - that's...
Er, yes. A justified true belief is still a true belief. So your 'no' was incorrect. And yes, the belief is justified. Relevance? Do weight machines g...
Yes, the one I provided and that you don't understand. Waiter: yes, you can't drink chicken pie. The point is that you ordered chicken pie, not a pint...
And I just told you my answer. Shall I help you understand it? Those moral norms that are imperatives are imperatives of Reason. Those moral norms tha...
it doesn't represent the weight of your cat, for the reasons just given (stop begging the question). You acquire a true belief about your cat's weight...
A value isn't an imperative, so no. All moral norms are imperatives of Reason if one means by a norm 'an imperative' And Reason is God. That's what th...
One thing at a time, to quote you. 4 does not assert that imperatives of reason are imperatives of God. You can see this by learning English and then ...
Comments