Zophie

At face value, no. I would say it needs another element to make it properly analyzable, though. I didn't. It's set by the definitions of every well-de...

Ye'. This is known. I think there is a chance you may be getting ahead of yourself.

I think the arguments of skeptics -- using those systems at least -- give trivial subjections to those systems that resolve to the thesis that not eve...

If a statement seems paradoxical then it's probably just a speech act in which the meaning is contextual, not definitive. Something like that.

You misunderstand. The question is not 'logic?' but 'which logic? (and for what?)'. :)

But you will never find a counter-example since you are attempting to falsify a timeless object. I can't verify the statement because, as I maintain, ...

I'm merely suggesting that the method of deductive proof is generally trivial. In my humble opinion a skeptic may be better served by moving to a rela...

How would you verify the truth or falsity of the statement "I always lie"?

I'm assuming the modern, deductive meaning of proof, and yeah. Ultimately, it provides no new information. It rearranges what is already known. It's a...

Should -- if you presume an argument from commitment is relevant.

If so, does this not just further demonstrate what he said was true? He would be the one to know.

I notice your explanation of there being proof prequires provability, which, like all deduction, involves a signal conversion to new rules that isn't ...

Cool but.. can't you prove anything from a negation? If these philosophers believe the truth is a real thing, aren't they trying to refute a tautology...

This is impossible to answer and I'm not sure what discoveries the mathematicians would have to make about cosmology that we didn't already know.

So what are they? And why do I need to know? More realistically, why do you know that I need to know?

"I always lie" contains no intrinsic true/false value. It's a paradox because people need it to be.

Actually I think for a lot of people the truth is at best unhelpful and at worst unhealthy.

What makes me so important that I should preside over other people's moral judgements?

A value system which recognizes that it is just a value system is at least an honest value system.

Thanks for the information. :)

How is this relevant to what I said? In any case I assume you're not interested in the process-oriented ontology which supposedly fixes the superposit...

If I can give you an example of increasing energy -- a chemical reaction -- or a system in energetic equilibrium -- such as a body at rest -- what wou...

Sorry, nothing like that. I just thought that it was trivial that values are without absolute intrinsic x parameterization in the context of anything....

Exactly, actually.

My definition of system isn't applicable here. I take them to be basic.

You may like to know that everything is circular eventually. For ethics this happens rather quickly since ethics is a discipline in which the object o...

For whom in what time and which place?

Everything does this eventually. Science just tends to be more predictable.

No. No. Pardon?

I understand this is an argument from gradualism but I do believe it can be applied to any definition. In which case don't see the problem with starti...

Q: Why do people think it's necessary to understand the nuances of language and propositions to understand the essence of the mind? A: Propositions ar...

The nothing you're talking about isn't an example of nothing, it's an example of empty space. So let's use that as our token. The base state of the mi...

Demonstrable inference. Imagine nothing. Do not give the nothing a name. That seems to be the base unit of your mental analysis. And whatever it is, i...

Right, but nobody is telepathic. Yet.

By "the rules of formal reasoning are systematically violated by human participants in trials quite regularly" I mean that psychological studies have ...

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for since the rules of formal reasoning are systematically violated by human participants in trials quite regula...

Seek a fairer game. Most are rigged with traps for honest people.

'Rational' is that word which I don't think can ever be satisfactorily defined. You can eliminate every -ism except rationalism because once that's go...

To me rationalization is where a belief-seeking agent selects the conceptual framework which best supports the information. Why pick the arduous and p...

Sorry if I'm barging in but by my understanding relativism draws its metaphysics from pluralism as therefore subsumes it as a dependency because relat...

Hi. I think your definition could use a little tuning. Relativism: Any x subject can, does, or must, have y status relative to z system of y2 qualitie...

All of the members of x unless x somehow varies? You sound almost political, no?

Chalmers. Poststructuralism is at this point, by serious observers, an seriously empty vehicle. Why? It provides no solutions. It only dissolves them....

Which? What?

I'm afraid I don't see what the subject has to do with this. For me your argument-for-god fails there. Edit: Also worth noting iff is bivalent equival...

Heaven and non-heaven are different?

Ohh. Art. That's rather cool. I doubt this. This is not an ideal world for stragglers. Unless you're Switzerland.

Give me the ol' tractor-trodden cut. I want my hair to taste the dirt.

You devil.

Why not both? Moral obligation is about maintaining the fabric of society, for better or worse. In this fabric we can have people who are more committ...