FTFY. But: ...means fake belief is introspectively indiscernible from real belief. Hey look there's a squirrel doesn't change what this means. It's be...
Your defense of premise 2 doesn't erase the conflict. You're stuck again. Try a re-spoon feed: Did you read it this time? Sure. You reach in your pock...
No. But I think "of course we know" appeals to introspection. And you're way too busy trying to ask me stupid questions to bother answering the one I ...
Bartricks... this is trivial. If 'belief' is introspectively indiscernible from belief, and: ...then 'belief' that you're aware is introspectively ind...
Quite the opposite apparently: ...assuming having a 'belief' that you're aware means you aren't aware, we wouldn't even be able to tell, at least thro...
No. Awareness can refer to either a state or an ability; and what I'm asking is specifically about introspection (not generally about faculties). The ...
Slightly wrong in the vision department, but workable. You can have a faculty of vision without seeing anything (hypothetically), and you can also lac...
Already provided. Here's the re-re-spoonfeed of it. So two is the latest count of the number of times I referred to it again. I even rebuilt the link ...
You just worry about this unresolved incoherency for now. This is the latest post there. We're well over a dozen posts into the reply 1 (before we get...
A peahen is an agent. Peahens have sexual preferences that guide the evolution of peacock tails. According to Bartricks's definition, sexual selection...
Apparently so. You're just now grasping that I'm not talking about what you fantasized I was. That is incoherent. It's a tangled mess. There's no such...
But a hallucination is not a belief; it is a fictive percept. A person with Charles Bonnet Syndrome (CBS) for example experiences hallucinations, but ...
This really confuses you? I'm aware that I have thoughts. Whether or not the thoughts are awareness, being aware of thoughts is in and of itself aware...
It's the same essential objection as the one three days ago. Okay, but why is this too tedious for words now? You've spent 10 replies on this: In repl...
Sure there is. Incidentally, you just quoted my description of why it's incoherent, yet failed to address it. The visual analogy is not analogous. Van...
Nope. You made that up. That's incoherent. Introspection employs self observation and implies self awareness. This is so muddled I can't interpret it....
No, which is why I didn't say you were committed to that view. I said you claimed something you didn't mean. And yet, you are distinguishing them. Tha...
Because: ...your claim ipso facto introspectively discerns two things (belief and 'belief') you claim are introspectively indiscernible. Because: ...y...
LOL! And round and round and round we go! Sure I do. Indiscernible means not able to discern. Introspectively is an adjective, meaning by means of int...
Yeah yeah... Plantinga is a total amateur. Ahem... ...and that means, well, what it says it means. So you just said something you didn't mean. Maybe y...
Nope. It has something to do with your allergy to conceding even that which would benefit you, for who knows why. Yes, it did. Exactly as I said last ...
There's the gaslighting that has zero chance of working... ...and the fantasizing, right on cue. Might I suggest an approach that would work a tad bit...
In the quote I underlined. This one: ======vvvv ^^^===== It's right there. It's underlined. Introspectively indiscernible means not able to discern in...
A purer form of True Scotsman fallacy I have never seen. Of course not. By your own admission you cannot even introspectively tell if you know things....
I smell shifting the goalpost here. I also smell black and white fallacy here. You're quite a dramatic little fellow aren't you. Observing one person ...
That would have been who I guessed you meant. Not sure why you're asking me this question. What is the antecedent to "it" there? We were just talking ...
To intentionally use the pun, science has made controlling for all sorts of errors in personal accounts a science. Scientific observations would emplo...
Science does not rely on anecdotes. Yes, I'm seriously claiming I cannot always tell. Okay, but that does not entail that science has to rely on anecd...
In the definitive sense: That doesn't sound very scientific to me. Using your eyes and ears to tell you how reality works is what nearly everyone does...
Having such surgeries is scientifically possible; but since when is bodies wanting to be things scientific? Not always. That sounds anecdotal, not sci...
Let's walk through this. Presumably, sex is a matter of chromosomes (it's not exactly; but that's close enough for government work). So let's call a p...
Your argument. I have mentioned that several times BTW. Okay. So what backs up that claim? Wrong!! See above. My problem is with your argument. Your c...
It's your exact logic! You have a problem with Garmin that you don't have with Bartricks. If you cannot do something as simple as substitute tokens, a...
Not really. it's premise 1: ...that you're trying to argue for. But you're giving a particular argument that alleges to do so. That this argument supp...
Yes. But: ...the destination was not trying to communicate with me; likewise for the Garmin. If you're going to use the argument, it has to be the arg...
Still no answer to my question. Maybe I can get to this through another angle. You see, here you're obsessed about making a point that messages have t...
No no no... you stopped too early. You stopped at your message point and didn't relate it to awareness (remember premise 1?) So let's not stop and han...
But aren't we aware of it? You've spent your entire OP, and a big portion of this thread, trying to argue that an agent must intentionally create a me...
You do realize you're trying to pass off the rehearsal of prejudices as reasoning. Can there be moving without a mover? Can there be burning without a...
You do realize you're fantasizing again. And I've explained numerous times why it works. So if the number of times one explains things is a factor in ...
I don't deny it's designed. The problem is: ...there's no representer (in the sense you mean it). Sure it is, because the scale is not a representer. ...
Comments