Depends on how you define it. If you define existence as, "What is" then existence is the base upon which predicates are made. If you say, "My identit...
"But they're job creators!" At the end of the day I've found that its simply people being convinced that a billionaire's self interest is somehow thei...
I've viewed reality as, "That which does not contradict your identity of the world." So, if I viewed an apple as healthy, ate it and got sick, that's ...
Its a paradox because commits the mistake of, "We know everything, yet we do not do not know everything". What you're doing is taking the observer out...
I answer this hear if you're interested in something serious and not surface level. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-indu...
We need balanced identity politics. Identities are useful in so long as they don't make us forget that we're all part of the same identity: the human ...
Ok, that's fair. I don't want to divert from the intent of the thought experiment. If it is your parallel for procreation, then we also don't know wha...
Ok, I think I understand what you're saying here. You view positive and negative as "shift changes". So if someone were unhappy, it is not a moral imp...
So existential is considering both the positive and negative as the moral points, while shopenhauer1 is only considering the negative as the moral obl...
Not at all. I took a look over the thread and decided that I did not have the full context of the conversation between you two. It did not seem right ...
Did you read the paper or just a summary Darkneos? I understand your opinion, you just haven't proved your opinion. Which is fine. If you're not inter...
Oh, I don't mean like a human. If that test isn't satisfactory to you, the test is just to see if an animal can separate X from Y. Food vs not food wo...
I've never encountered a bot with your level of sophistication. Its plausible, but that doesn't outweigh the possibility you're a person. Same with th...
Yes, because you answered my question. To answer my question you would have had to read. If you read, then you're able to part existence out. Can you ...
Its not an assumption, its a proof if anyone can grasp the concept. If you can't discretely experience, then you can't differentiate between the lette...
Thanks Bob! I appreciate it, I just felt like both of us were getting nowhere with each other at that point. Have a great day as well, I look forward ...
Let me repost this section. That's the claim. If you believe its incorrect, why? This is fair as I paired this down a bit. The difference between each...
Yes, we may be at an impasse at this point simply due to differences in definitions. If we can't agree on those, there's really nothing we can debate ...
Intuition is a summary of a book, while knowledge is the book itself. I can give you an overall idea of what the book is about, but unless you careful...
If you have a genuine interest in this question, check my post here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-yo...
Inductions derive from the distinctive property sets we create. The set of inductions I can form when considering only A and B are potentially differe...
As am I. But a knowledge set is the distinctive properties you are using at its base, not the inductions. The inductions rely on the base. You can com...
Alright, I think we have some focus again! Let me get right to your points. And I've informed you that not only do we not have to compare the inductio...
Ok, at this point I can see nothing new is being said, and I think I understand your points. We're going round and round at this point, so I'm going t...
No, I am not. You keep inserting these words in my claims, and I'm not doing that. To be clear, we're talking about hierarchy sets, H1, and H2. We are...
Fantastic Bob! I feel we're back to discussing the situation properly now and can continue. I am not saying that, but this is close. I am not saying t...
Oh, I think this was lost in communication then. I did not intend to say this. I noted in the circumstance where you take in A/B and X/Y then you shou...
Happy Saturday Bob! After looking over your last few responses, you keep saying things that show you don't understand the paper. Its been quite a whil...
I don't find this to be a very good experiment. Broadly defining people as "conservative" and then zeroing in on that as the only possible cause seems...
The theory is a foundation. Does it work consistently and logically for what it does? Yes. The fact that its a screwdriver and not a hammer isn't real...
I would argue one of the fundamentals of proper philosophical discussion is clear and unambiguous definitions. Clear definitions lead to clear argumen...
Yes, that's right. Ok, I think I see your issue now. Your issue is not with the hierarchy. Your issue is you are attributing what people decide as dis...
This only occurs if we do not then try to apply those beliefs to reality. Philosophy does indeed end up pointless if we make up a bunch of definitions...
Well, no, there's a clear criteria. You go for what is most cogent in the property situation you have. Taken another way Bob, if you know the probabil...
Yes, this is correct. I'm not quite sure what you mean by extending it to applicable knowledge, but I'll state what I see. We know that definitions ar...
Great! This absolutely had to be understood before I addressed your questions. Now let me get to them! If I miss any of your questions or points in th...
Sorry, I meant air and no air situation first without the X/Y's. Missed it on the phone, but I have access to a computer again. I wanted you to walk t...
Not a problem Bob! My smiley face did not go through on that statement. My internet is down so I'm having to type these on the phone for now. Again, I...
A good question! Before I answer, I want to make sure you've read the theory first. To do so, use the terms for knowledge and inductions in the paper ...
No, you cant in the instance I noted. You usually do fair readings, but this time you're not. I've told you how the theory works, you don't get to say...
Correct! This is what I've been trying to get across all along, so I'm happy to see this is cleared up. Also correct! quote="Bob Ross;817572"]The impl...
Your point has been that the hierarchy does not hold and that there are certain instances in which a lower level of the hierarchy is more cogent to ho...
I hope your Saturday is going well Bob! I think I've been able to pare down our discussion in a more intelligible way this time. Read everything once ...
True. But if you're going to later include, "I believe property X is a property that indicates it has air," then you've made it an essential property ...
Here is where you also have to clarify. Does the design of X or Y have anything to do with the probability? For example, if the ration of X airs to Y ...
Ok, I think we've narrowed down the point of contention. I think we're seeing two different contexts here. When you say, "The odds of any box being wi...
Hi Bob, I think a little too much is being thrown around by both of us, so I'm going to narrow the scope to your exact example. 1. Probability is 51% ...
Comments