Dunning and Kruger. Stop playing "I'm teacher". You're not. You don't know what you're talking about, okay. You didn't know that you can turn any indu...
Stop misusing ugly phrases. Yeah, thanks, I know what it is. It really does. You could turn it into a deductively valid argument if you knew how. (Oh,...
You really do. But as I say at points like this, Dunning and Kruger. Dunning. And. Kruger. Ah, someone who's done all their learning on the internet. ...
Like I say, you're beyond my help. Here's what you need to do. Present an argument -a deductively valid argument - that has 'therefore my mind is my b...
No, it is stupid. And yes, it doesn't follow. Why the hell are you talking about knives and bananas? That's not the same argument at all. Not even rem...
Not sure I am up to the job. This argument: 1. Brain event causes mental event 2. Therefore brain event is mental event is stupid, yes? The conclusion...
No, I'm saying that they're exactly the same argument. Which they are. X causes Y, therefore X is Y. It's stupid. But like I say, if you think they're...
That sounds like quite a bad analysis. It doesn't sound up to much as it is. The best analysis was given in the OP of this thread, in my humble opinio...
Alcohol causes mind to feel happy, therefore mind is alcohol. That's stupid, yes? That's the same argument. 1. Alcohol causes mind event 2 Therefore a...
I asked 'why invite them?'. They can join if they want. Nothing stops them. But why should they be given special treatment? They are free to decide fo...
How am I dishonest? And yes, obviously 'Dunning and Kruger'. No, only if a sensible object is understood to be an extended object. So if materialism r...
Yes, I know they can. That's why I said what I said! However, Julia Roberts can't come to my birthday party because I haven't invited her and she does...
Yes, but what it takes to be autonomous is what's at issue. My argument appears to demonstrate that it requires aseity and thus that one cannot 'becom...
Anyone can call themselves a philosopher. Anyone can call themselves a scientist. But to be a professional philosopher requires having an academic pos...
How is he a 'professional'? Does he have an academic post? I don't think so. Does he have any peer review publications in respectable philosophy venue...
No, I'm very serious which is why I am insisting that you dispute a premise and that you do so without begging any questions. I don't think you unders...
The representations of our reason is what evidence consists of. So, what evidence do I have that this argument is valid: 1. If P, then Q 2. P 3. There...
I'm not forgetting anything. You can't escape having a burden of proof just by being the first to say something. The reason of virtually everyone repr...
You don't seem to understand the point: if we exist with aseity, then there was never a time when all the facts of the past were ones for which we wer...
Right, here's what I'm saying: free will requires this vital ingredient - aseity. What you're saying is that free will requires having some control ov...
Premise 1 is false if the aseity argument goes through. So you're begging the question. Until or unless you provide independent grounds for thinking a...
But you said this So I assumed that you took your scepticism about 7 to bear on the credibility of the preceding argument. Which it doesn't. There are...
I do not follow you on this at all. If someone comes into existence, it really doesn't matter at all whether they came into existence gradually or all...
I am not sure I follow. By 6 it has been established that aseity is necessary for moral responsibility/free will. But 6 doesn't tell us anything about...
As the aseity argument is my argument, I certainly think it is sound. As I said in the moral responsibility thread, it is not clear to me on what grou...
How does that challenge my premise? If they don't have sensible qualities, then they're not sensible objects, duh. Well, you need to be above a certai...
I explained in the OP. You're making that stupid argument. Alcohol causes brain event, which causes mental event. Therefore mind is brain. It just so ...
Quite. Here's how contemporary philosophers of mind generate the problem: "Let's assume that there are extended things - so, let's assume there exists...
It's not nitpicking. You confused a mental state with a mind. That's a huge mistake. It's a category error. You should be ashamed of yourself. The fir...
so you're denying 5. 5 says "If I am not morally responsible for my initial character and not morally responsible for my environment and the laws of n...
You clearly do not understand how arguing works or what the terms you're employing mean. First, a premise can't be logically valid or invalid. Validit...
Right, so you need to deny a premise! I think you don't really understand what a deductively valid argument is. A deductively valid argument - such as...
No, the confusion is that you either don't understand that the argument I made was valid, or you don't understand that this means you need to challeng...
You haven't answered my question. Is this argument invalid: 1. If a, then b 2. if b, then c 3. therefore, if a then c 4. d 5. If c and d, then e 6. Th...
You're just confused. Yes, I use that argument. The argument you need to challenge is the one I gave in support of 1. This one: 1. If a, then b 2. if ...
Er, no. Now you're just being bad at logic. The conclusion of my argument is that if we are morally responsible, we exist with aseity. That follows fr...
I can simplify my argument like this: 1. If a, then b. (If I have come into being, then my initial character is the product of external events) 2. If ...
I am doing - if I exist with aseity then I am not the product of anything, am I? Nothing created me. That's the point. If I exist with aseity then I h...
Comments