And yet every blue-eyed person leaves knowing they have blue eyes and every brown-eyed person leaves knowing they have brown eyes. So what do you mean...
I’m not sure, but my reasoning does allow all brown and all blue to leave knowing their eye colour, so either it’s sound or it’s a very lucky coincide...
I don’t think that’s a comparable scenario. I think a minimal example requires 3 blue, 3 brown, and 1 green. Each blue reasons: green sees blue, and s...
She doesn’t need to say anything for perfect logicians to be in a synchronised state. At every moment they are in a synchronised state and will apply ...
And if in this scenario I have brown eyes then the Guru wouldn’t say “I see someone with blue eyes”, and yet we are allowed for the sake of argument t...
I’m not stipulating random things, as shown by the fact that if the people on the island were to apply my reasoning then they would all correctly dedu...
In practice, perhaps, but the logic doesn't require that the Guru say anything. The logic only requires that I know that the Guru sees at least one bl...
I see 100 people with blue eyes and (unknown to me) I have brown eyes. The Guru says "I see at least one blue-eyed person". Now I imagine a scenario w...
Every person on the island already knows that the Guru sees at least one person with blue eyes and one person with brown eyes, whether or not she says...
It's the same. Here are unenlightened's exact and complete words: If there was only 1 person w. blue eyes, that person would see no blue eyes and ther...
The first step in the reasoning is "the Guru sees at least one person with brown eyes". She doesn't need to say "I see at least one person with brown ...
That's the red herring; it doesn't. Everyone already knows that she sees at least one brown-eyed person, so her expressing this fact verbally provides...
Why do you think that? Imagine the Guru were to have said "I see at least one blue-eyed person and at least one brown-eyed person". But as I said to f...
The Guru doesn't need to say it. Him saying it is a red herring. As perfect logicians, every blue-eyed person already knows that the Guru sees at leas...
If they're perfect logicians then on the first day that they arrived on the island, even before the Guru speaks: 1. The Guru knows that 100 blue-eyed ...
It isn't. That was an aside, not directed specifically at you but at any attempt to defend the right to own guns on the need to prevent a tyrannical g...
I don't really understand your request. It's a simple statement of fact: given that governments already have a "monopoly of coercion" even without str...
The government has a lot more than guns at their disposable, so this seems to be a moot point unless you think every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be al...
He did specifically refer to weapons and not just deadly tools is general, which would cover most things as we’re quite squishy. I could kill you with...
Whether machine, plant, or human, the involuntary behaviour of any sense receptor is causally influenced by external stimuli according to the laws of ...
Because this is how you defined autonomy: Other than your use of the term "spontaneously", which I didn't take to be literal given that you previously...
Again, it is both the case that head trauma from the fall is the cause of death and the case that I killed him by pushing him off a cliff. If I murder...
Strawman. I didn’t say it was. I said that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, which is true. Deflection. I assume because you recognise t...
Well, they're not mutually exclusive. By analogy, both me typing on the keyboard and the computer are causally responsible for the words appearing on ...
That’s the impasse. I say that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, and so therefore there is more to causation than just the immediate tra...
Then it is still as I said from the start. The phrases "the cat is on the mat" and "I assert that the cat is on the mat" mean different things and hav...
You seem to be confused about what I have been arguing, so I'll spell it out more clearly: There are three independent arguments: Argument 1 There is ...
I don't think it's mutually exclusive. A malapropism, by definition, is a term used to mean something it doesn't normally mean. The "normal meaning" i...
The grammar here is confusing. I am claiming these things: 1. The assertions "the cat is on the mat" and "I assert that the cat is on the mat" mean di...
They are asserting that the cat is on the mat. And they're speaking English. But just as "the cat is on the mat" doesn't mean "I am speaking English",...
And you think that these are mutually exclusive? So? It's still the case that I can boil the water by turning on the stove, turn on the lights by flic...
I’m a little confused. If malapropisms “by their very nature run contrary to the conventions of language” then there are conventions of language. So t...
I didn't say that. I said that there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. All of your examples are examples of cau...
Quoting from here: Assuming that this is an accurate summary, it seems to me that Davidson believes both that words and phrases have conventional mean...
They mean different things and have different truth conditions. (a) is true if and only if the cat is on the mat (b) is true if and only if I assert t...
Comments