Michael

The bottom line shows modus ponens. It doesn't matter what A and B mean: /uploads/files/c9/cyff11v2g92rl987.png Now replace B with ¬A. Only one line h...

No, but the reality is that easy access to guns seems to lead to an increase in gun deaths, school shootings, etc. So you have to ask; is it worth it?...

So you think frequent mass shootings at schools is a price worth paying because it's theoretically possible that society will collapse or that the gov...

I’ve seen what happens in the USA. It happened in Scotland in 1996, and it was that that brought in gun control here. We haven’t had a school shooting...

And I’d much prefer it if they don’t have access to guns, even if that means I don’t have access to guns either. I’m happy with the UK law on gun owne...

https://x.com/Ronxyz00/status/1965872119604289791

Shooting at another school as well: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/10/us/at-least-2-students-shot-denver-area-high-school As an outsider to American ...

These are not mutually exclusive. See scientific instrumentalism, which argues against scientific realism, claiming that scientific theories are neith...

The wording here seems susceptible to equivocation. Consider this argument: P1. Only John's mind exists P2. John believes that something other than hi...

I know that I've come across this way too and I don't mean to be.

It's not. Everyone knows that Arguments A and B are valid, because they are and everyone is a perfect logician. I see 99 blue and 100 brown. If I have...

They could subtract 95, but that would be arbitrary and so they wouldn't do it. Perfect logicians would stick to the non-arbitrary n.

Again, subtracting an arbitrary number from n is arbitrary, and so perfect logicians wouldn't do it. But n isn't arbitrary.

Then we move on: 1. If I have blue eyes then every person with blue eyes knows exactly what I know 2. If I have brown eyes then every person with brow...

Yes, that's the first step: arguments A and B are valid. The next step is: premises A2 and B2 are not arbitrary. And the next step is: I know that eit...

Yes, but adding or subtracting some arbitrary number to or from n is arbitrary, whereas n isn't arbitrary.

It is. The premises aren't arbitrary. n is the number of people seen with X eyes. Adding or subtracting some arbitrary number to or from n would be ar...

I'm not assuming anything about anyone. I am simply saying that Argument A is valid.

I'm not saying that they are. I'm simply saying that the argument is valid.

It's a premise in the argument.

You're getting ahead of yourself. I'm not yet talking about what the people on the island see or know. I am simply saying that Argument A is valid. I'...

As shown above, the argument is valid when there are 100 people with brown eyes and 100 people with blue eyes but invalid when there is 1 person with ...

It's not my conclusion. It's one of my premises. And it's a premise that I demonstrated to be true here.

No it doesn't. If you can't accept that Argument A is valid then we can't continue.

That doesn't follow. This is valid, regardless of whether or not a comparable argument is valid for some other number: A1. There are 100 people with b...

Your insistence that if my reasoning works for 100 then it must work for 1, and so that if it doesn't work for 1 then it doesn't work for 100, is fals...

Not everything our body does is voluntary. Just as “one’s heartbeat” refers to a particular thing in the body, not the body as a whole, so too does “o...

I am saying both of these: 1. If I do not see anyone with blue eyes then I cannot deduce that I have blue eyes unless someone says "there is at least ...

It doesn't need to say that. 1. If I know that there is at least one blue and if I do not see a blue then I am blue and will leave tonight The practic...

(1) doesn't say "nobody has told me anything".

Which isn't relevant to what I am saying. Given this argument: 1. There are 100 blue 2. Therefore, every blue sees 99 blue 3. Every blue commits to th...

For the exact same reason that they would commit to it after hearing someone say "I see blue" or write "there is at least one blue". None of them need...

Which is irrelevant. Again, this is a valid argument: 1. There are 100 blue 2. Therefore, every blue sees 99 blue 3. Every blue commits to the rule: i...

Because they have committed to the rule: if the 99 blue I see don't leave on the 99th day then I am blue and will leave on the 100th day, else I am no...

No, that's false. Although both statements are true, neither depends on the other. This is a standalone, deductive argument: 1. There are 100 blue 2. ...

No, nobody is going to leave on day 98 because nobody sees only 97 blue.

Yes. If there are 99 blue then every blue will commit to the rule: 1. If the 98 blue I see don't leave on the 98th day then I am blue and will leave o...

Your question was: "If your reasoning works, then it must be true that 99 leave on the 99th day. Right?" And the answer is "no", because if I have blu...

No, I'll conclude that I don't have blue eyes. No. My reasoning is: if the 99 blue leave on the 99th day then I am not blue, else I am blue and will l...

Let's assume that the Guru says "I see blue" or "I see brown". Despite all the counterfactuals, every person on the island knows for a fact that nobod...

That's not my premise.

Then go through all the numbers and for each number imagine the participants asking themselves "is there some X and Y such that #X does not know that ...

I explain it in the first part of the post above: "is there some X and Y such that #X does not know that #Y knows that #1 sees blue?" I don't know wha...

Okay, well I think the answer is that there isn't a difference. Seeing 99 blue does exactly what seeing a piece of paper with the words "there is at l...

I don't know what it would mean for (1) to be true but for "everyone knows that (1) is true" to be false, much like I don't know what it would mean fo...

Perhaps, but organic matter is still a collection of material components. So if we have a reason to believe that organic matter can be conscious then ...

I did and I don't see that it clearly answers my question. So I'll ask again; given these: 1. As of right now everyone has come to know that everyone ...

Okay, but you said: "there’s no reason to believe that any collection of material components has ever been conscious". So are you saying that there's ...

So given these: 1. As of right now everyone has come to know that everyone knows that #101 sees blue 2. If (1) is true and if ... Are you saying that ...

I’m not. I’m explicitly saying that I don’t think it needs to be recursive.