No, there's me with my initial character. If that has been created by factors external to me - which it will have been if I don't exist with aseity - ...
Right, good - so this argument establishes not that we exist with aseity, but that aseity is required for us to be morally responsible for our initial...
No premise of any argument I have made asserts that we can violate the laws of nature. So I do not know what you're talking about. We don't need to vi...
No it isn't. Obviously. What did I just say? I just said that 'even if' two objects of different kinds are incapable of causal interaction, that does ...
No, it's the other way around. It is ignorant scientists thinking that they're doing philosophy and then others in the public reading their ignorant w...
Philosophers demonstrated there's no such thing as materiality thousands of years ago. Scientists aren't investigating the matter at all. Saying 'ther...
I do not know what you mean. I have explained why the question is misguided in this context. Those who ask it demonstrate by their asking of it that t...
Yes, of course - if the mind is immaterial and the body material, then we have abundant evidence that objects of different kinds can and do causally i...
no, I have no idea what your position is. If you are denying there are minds then there's really nothing I can do for you as you're not responsive to ...
But you think they're unsound, though. And yet your only basis for doing so is that they lead to a conclusion that you judge to involve a fantasy of a...
But you think you don't have any mental states, right? Or rather, you've typed that (you can't think it, for thoughts are mental states. So if you're ...
Ah, I see. So because you already know how things are with reality and my arguments contradict your understanding, my arguments must be faulty. It see...
Well, no, because consciousness is not an object at all, but a state. It's typical of your sloppiness that you treat consciousness and minds as equiva...
That makes no sense to me. Yes, of course one is subject to the laws of nature, and of course they are not laws for which one is morally responsible. ...
My argument was valid, so you need to dispute a premise. Are you denying that the argument was valid? The argument was valid and it gives us the concl...
No. I do not know what you're talking about. You're parachuting this word 'abstract' in - what do you mean? I can imagine an olive. Can I imagine an '...
Er, yes. Olives aren't abstract objects. It is part of the definition of an abstract object that it does not have effects. So, if the Linux thingy has...
No, I have literally no idea how to do that. I can imagine thinking without there being any sensible objects. And my reason tells me that if I am thin...
Does it have effects? If it does, it's not an abstract object. It's not an object at all, but a system. But anyway, I am unclear what your point is. I...
Again, this argument is clearly unsound in a way that it would not be if 'mind' were used instead. Premise 1 is obviously false. Yes. First, the quest...
Premise 2 in that argument is clearly false. It is true when you substitute 'our minds' for Linux kernal. But anyway, it is not clear to me what your ...
The reason these arguments do not apply, is that the question at issue is what kind of an object the mind is, not whether it is an object or not. As I...
But then you would not be addressing my argument. Strictly speaking, premise 1 is false if sensible objects are understood subjectively. That is, if a...
My arguments have the premises they have. Are you disputing one? Which one and why? Note too that minds and mental events are not at all the same. A m...
Doesn't address what I said. Those questions make sense when asked of light particles. Note, that doesn't mean that a sensible object has all the sens...
As it stands, the question you ask is ambiguous. For instance, are you asking for the meaning of the word 'existence'? Presumably not. I take it you a...
But the conclusion does follow from those premises. So I am just wondering which premise you are disputing. Here is the argument: A) If we have come i...
Again, silly and ignorant. Moral responsibility presupposes free will. They're two sides of the same coin such that they're pretty much used interchan...
No, because if I did have power over a past event, then I can be in principle morally responsible for that event. And thus the fact that at present I ...
Say you did - per impossible - create yourself. Well, now you are responsible for your own existence (as even you would surely admit). Why, though? We...
Your point is a silly one. All you're doing is pointing out that those who deny free will are hypocrites if they ever blame or in some other way adopt...
That's question begging again: even if determinism is true, there's a perfectly intelligible sense in which we could have done otherwise than we did. ...
That argument is unsound. Premise 1 is false. If we exist with aseity then we did have power over facts of the past, for there was never a time when w...
I don't see that it is circular. For I am not assuming that we exist with aseity, but concluding that we do. The first premise says this: 1. If we hav...
Yes, but here is the demonstration: 1. If we have free will, we exist with aseity 2. We have free will 3. Therefore we exist with aseity My case for 1...
I am a believer in free will and moral responsibility. I am not confident about whether compatibilism or incompatibilism is the correct view about the...
Yes, that's how things appear to you and others, such as Dummo, Haventaclue, and Sourdunce. But that's the Dunning and Kruger effect. You have no expe...
If the only way you can find to challenge my argument is to challenge the idea that anyone has any moral rights at all, then all you've done is acknow...
Same applies. Parents - procreators - create the society in which the rest of us have to live. So they should pay for it all for everyone. It's only f...
You're well named. First, I have made a case for the justice of taxing parents. You are not addressing that case. Second, you are arguing that rights ...
The hermit has rights. It is wrong to kill him, yes? He is entitled to defend himself against your deadly attack. So he has a right to life. Yet there...
Comments