I don't think you will succeed in showing an inconsistency in @"Metaphysician Undercover"'s mathematics that he will recognise. Rather, we have a choi...
Yep. Global scepticism is self-refuting. The philosophical method becomes just keeping an eye on what is being held certain in order to acheive doubt....
"Are there trees?" is closer to a metaphysical question. What is it that you are asking here... well, one interpretation would be that you are asking ...
...that is, you rely on not doubting them, or in other words you treat them as certain. Of course you might bring one or two into doubt; but in order ...
You are getting the idea. Doubt is embedded in certainty. We've been taught, erroneously, that we should doubt everything. It's a truism. But that's n...
OK, Harry. I'm somewhat loath to enter into a conversation with you, on past experience. But once more... I'll agree with you that "objective" can tak...
That you and I speak english, at least to the extent that we use "trees" in a sufficiently similar way for my answer to be applicable. That we will re...
Yep. The notion of consciousness is explained by opposing it to unconsciousness. We see the difference between a conscious and unconscious person. It ...
You wake up, don't you? From zero to conscious. Notice that you can loose consciousness while quarks cannot. I'm not going with this. It relies on a m...
Using "fag" as a pejorative is offensive to the group of people to whom it apples - gay folk. In any case, it is the mods who decide who stays and who...
Hmm. Fair call. Do you enjoy watching other contortionists? https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTTIbNE8VGV-Sg3xyERSPFJqrXkyJve5lhm...
No. It's like you are in denial. The fact that we are having this conversation, over the internet, using English, demonstrates my point. The beliefs w...
Sigh. You and I are both looking at this post. That's sufficient, sans the "underlying thing", for all our purposes outside of philosophy. The funny t...
Sigh. What phenomenal experience do we compare "and" to? What about "why?", or "Hello", or "autocratic"? Indeed, it seems htat most words do not work ...
While there are variations in logic which do not rely on bivalence - being true, or false, with nothing in between - standard bivalent logic has long ...
Comments